Participatory Epidemiology of Small Ruminants Ectoparasite Infestations with Prevalence Study on Tick Infestations at Two Selected Districts of Shabelle Zone in Somali Regional of Ethiopia

Participatory Epidemiology of Small Ruminants Ectoparasite Infestations with Prevalence Study on Tick Infestations at Two Selected Districts of Shabelle Zone in Somali Regional of Ethiopia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Participatory Epidemiology of Small Ruminants Ectoparasite Infestations with Prevalence Study on Tick Infestations at Two Selected Districts of Shabelle Zone in Somali Regional of Ethiopia Ahmed Abdi Mohomed, Yehualashet Bayu, Sisay Alemu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8864623/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Ectoparasite infestations pose significant health challenges to animals and contribute to substantial economic losses in livestock production. A cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2021 to July 2022 in selected districts of the Shabelle Zone, Somali Region, Ethiopia. The objectives were to identify and prioritize major ectoparasites of small ruminants, estimate the prevalence of tick infestations, assess associated risk factors, and determine the tick species involved. Participatory epidemiological methods including simple ranking, pairwise ranking, and seasonal calendars were used to prioritize common small ruminant ectoparasite infestations. Community participants ranked tick infestation as the most important ectoparasite problem, followed by lice, mange mites, fleas, and sheep keds. Using simple random sampling, a total of 495 small ruminants (265 sheep and 230 goats) were examined across two districts (Danan and Gode). Of these, 396 animals (200 sheep and 196 goats) were found infested, from which 885 adult ticks were collected and identified to species level under a stereomicroscope using standard morphological keys. The overall prevalence of tick infestation was 80.0% (396/495). Prevalence was higher in sheep (84.3%) than in goats (77.2%). By district, prevalence reached 77.1% in Danan and 85.6% in Gode. Seven tick species belonging to four genera were identified. The most abundant species was Rhipicephalus evertsi evertsi (34.0%), followed by Hyalomma rufipes (17.4%), Hyalomma truncatum (16.2%), Amblyomma variegatum (12.1%), Rhipicephalus pulchellus (9.5%), Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus (8.4%), and Amblyomma gemma (2.5%). Among potential risk factors, only age group, herd size, and body condition score showed a statistically significant association with tick infestation (P 0.05). Prevalence was markedly higher in adults (46.3%) and older animals (29.9%) compared with young ones (3.8%); in moderate (53.1%) and large herds (23.2%) compared with small herds (3.6%); and in animals with poor (63.8%) or medium body condition (15.2%) compared with those in good condition (1.0%). Due to the high prevalence and economic impact of tick infestations on small ruminants in the study areas; urgent prevention and control strategies considering risk factors, ectoparasite mapping, community awareness, and targeted veterinary services for pastoral communities are strongly recommended. Ectoparasites Participatory Epidemiology Prevalence Risk factors Tick infestation Small Ruminants Somali Region Ethiopia Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the study and justifications Small ruminants are an essential component of livestock keeping in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and primarily kept for immediate income sources, milk, meat, wool, manure, and risk management (ESGPIP, 2010). Additionally, small ruminants serve a variety of social and cultural roles that are unique to diverse societies, socioeconomic systems, agro-ecologies, and locations in tropical and subtropical Africa. Sheep and goats are among the most economically significant livestock population in Ethiopia (Legese and Fadiga, 2014). Ethiopia is one of the largest small ruminant populations in Africa with approximately 30 million in sheep and 33 million in goats (CSA, 2019). However, the economic profits from these animals remain irrelevant when they are compared to their enormous livestock population (Zemene and Addis, 2012). In Ethiopia, small ruminants comprise approximately 30% of the total livestock population of the country and are among important contributors to food production in Ethiopia, providing 35% of meat consumption and 14% of milk consumption (Sheferaw et al ., 2010). However, small ruminant production in Ethiopia is constrained by compound effects of the livestock diseases including; infectious, noninfectious and ectoparasite infestations, poor feeding, and husbandry management systems (Tefera, 2004). Ectoparasites such as mange mites, lice, sheep keds, flea and ticks are extensively distributed in all agro- ecological locations in Ethiopia (Kumsa et al ., 2012). Ectoparasite is one of the most dangerous cause of animal health problems with higher economic losses of livestock production in Ethiopia (ESGPIP, 2010). The severity of ectoparasites usually depends on the size of inhibiting population, on the manner on which the parasite ekes out its existence and the state of nutritional status of infested host animals. Ectoparasite inflict may be mechanical, but the situation is also complicated by host reaction to the presence of the particular parasite, their secretion and excretion (Tefera, 2004). Ectoparasites are responsible for transmission of protozoan, bacterial, viral and rickettsial diseases (Radostits et al ., 2007). They are related with severe anemia (blood feeding habit). Infested animals scratch, rub and bite the affected areas and this end up with skin damage in most of the livestock population (Radostits et al ., 2007). Moreover, ectoparasites are known to transmit zoonotic disease from animals to human (Yacob et al. , 2008b). As mentioned above, the impact of ectoparasites is associated with loss in production, morbidity and mortality of livestock in different parts of Ethiopia through reducing production and reproduction down grading and rejection of skins (Ayele et al ., 2003; Yacob et al., 2008a). It was reported that 35% of sheep and 56% of goat skin condemnations in Ethiopia are endorsed to ectoparasites (Kassa, 2006). Over the past few decades, there are signs that the quality of skin and hide has decreased, including an increase in reject grades, the onset of skin disorders like "ekek," which is mostly caused on by infestations of lice, ticks, and mange, as well as numerous other contagious skin diseases (Kassa, 2006). Several ante-mortem and post-mortem factors, such as poor animal husbandry, disease, transportation, storage, and general handling, contribute to reduced hides and skins qualities (Abdi, 2000). According to Yacob et al ., (2008a), Abebayehu et al., ( 2011) and Tewodros et al., ( 2012), the magnitude of mange mite in different part of the country ranges from 0.0% to 65.9% in sheep and 0.98 to 31.80% in goats; the magnitude flea infestation also ranges from 8.57% to 37.7% in sheep and 0.66% to 30.6% in goats. In additions, Total prevalence of louse infestation was reported ranging from 1.3% to 57% in sheep and 6.1% to 30.4% in goats ( Enquebaher and Etsay, 2010; Asmare et al., 2012). According to Abebayehu et al., (2011) and Asmare et al., (2012), the prevalence of sheep keds also ranges from 3% to 32.57% Ticks are one of the most serious ectoparasites in Ethiopia causing extreme economic losses in livestock production. Their effects are numerous including reduced growth, milk and meat production, damaged hides and skins, transmission of tick-borne diseases of several types and predispose animals to secondary infections from other parasites such as screw worm flies and infection by pathogens such as Dermatophilus congolensis, the causative agent of streptothricosis (ESGPIP, 2010 and Kumsa et al ., 2012). Several studies reports from different areas of Ethiopia indicated that overall prevalence of tick infestations were 23.8% in sheep and 10% in goats from Sidama zone (Teshome, 2002); 31.78% in sheep and 18.63% in goats from Wolayta Sodo (Yacob et al., 2008a); 16% in sheep and 29.7% in goats from Tigray region (Mulugeta et al., 2010); 57.6% in goats from three agro-ecological zones of southern rangeland of Ethiopia (Asnake et al., 2013); 1.6% in sheep and 2.1 in goats from Benishagul Gumuz (Abraham et al ., 2018), and 1.23 in sheep and 0% in goats from western Tigray (Berhe Leul et al., 2020). The overall prevalence of ticks‟ infestation ranges from 0% to 87.5% in both sheep and goats. According to study conducted by Fufa et al., (2009), the highest prevalence of tick infestation was 87.5% in sheep and 86% in goats from West Harragae. In all these studies, it was observed that four genera namely; Amblyomma, Hyaloma, Boophilus and Rhipiciphalus were known to infest sheep and goats in different agro ecological regions of Ethiopia. More than, 850 species of ticks exist in the world from this 60 different species of ticks are found in Africa. In Ethiopia, there are 47 species of ticks found on livestock and most of them have importance as vector and disease causing agents and also have damaging effect on skin and hide production (Kassa, 2006). According to Jafer et al., ( 2017) the highest tick species prevalent in Dire Dawa were Rhipicephalus pulchellus (34.1%), followed by Amblyomma variegatum (24.5%), Rhipicephalus evertsievertsi (22.1%), Hyalomma truncatum (15.6%), Hyalomma marginatum rufipes (12.2%) and Amblyomma gemma (10.9), Hyalomma dromedari (4.2%) and Boophilus decoloratus . While, the highest tick species identified from three districts of Fafan zone in Somali region, Ethiopia were Rhipicephalus evertsi evertsi (34.9%), followed by Hyalomma truncatum (29.7%), Rhipicephals pulchellus (21.6%), Amblyomma variegatum (21.4%), Hyalomma rufipes (16.7%), Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus (11.2%) and Amblyomma gemma (2.1%) (Kedir and Petros, 2015). The prevalence of tick infestation in different parts of Ethiopia had been shown to correlate with age, sex, animal species, poor management, climatic factors, feed scarcity and inadequate veterinary services (Solomon et al., 2003). As studies indicated that the occurrence of tick infestation was affected by species of animals. Abebe et al., (2011) reported that the prevalence of tick infestation was higher in goats (58.8%) than sheep (40%) in selected districts of Tigray region, Ethiopia. Whereas Fufa et al ., (2009) reported sheep are more prone to be affected by tick than goats from Western Harargie, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Mostly, there is differences in tick infestations based on age differences, adult small ruminants are highly infected than younger ones (Rasmi et al., 2007; Kader and Petros, 2010). Studies conducted by different researchers in various areas of Ethiopia shows poor body condition animals are highly susceptible to tick infestation than moderate and good body conditioned animals (Tefera et al., 2004; Yacob et al., 2008a; Tewodros et al., 2012). In addition, Madeira et al ., (2000) indicated that tick infestation prevalence was significantly higher in larger herds than small sized herds/flocks. In general, there is a shortage of knowledge on animal diseases that is validated, organized, and prioritized scientifically. Experience suggests that investigations on animal health data have already been conducted. However, Understanding the types and severity of frequent and/or major health issues is crucial for livestock owners. Participatory epidemiology (PE) methods are quite beneficial in remote pastoral areas. Additional epidemiological studies on animal diseases are being carried out by researchers and veterinarians with the aid of PE, which appears to be essential. PE appeared to play a critical role in assisting veterinarians and researchers when conducting additional epidemiological studies on diseases and gaining a better understanding of diseases from a local perspective in order to reconnect with livestock owners for the better management of herd health strategies and intervention options. Informal interviews (semi-structured interviews, time line); visualization methods (participatory mapping, seasonal calendars, proportional pilling) and ranking/scoring (simple ranking, matrix scoring) are all examples of PE approaches (Radiostatis et al ., 2010). Seasonal migrations play a major role in the transmission of several endemic and epidemic livestock diseases over the vast lowlands. According to some studies, animal diseases were responsible for a significant portion of losing animals in the lowlands (Coppock, 2017). As a consequence, the animal disease including ectoparasite infestations reduce both direct and indirect household food consumption. This circumstance needs the rapid identification of livestock diseases, as well as the development of effective management and preventative measures. This general scenario applies to livestock owners in Somali Region where there is lack of organized and prioritized livestock diseases in the region. In addition, bibliographic animal health data on the geographical distribution and priorities of small ruminant ectoparasite species infesting on shoats based on their impact to livestock production in the Somali Region is entirely inadequate which required for further studies. Similarly, to the huge economic loss caused by ticks, some of the pastoralist owners neglected ticks as animal health problem; most of them have little perceptions in diseases transmitted to domestic animals by ticks. Even though different studies were done on prevalence of ticks on camels, cattle and other domestic animals in the Eastern part of the Ethiopia, nevertheless, little attention was given to that of small ruminants’ tick infestations especially in these study areas; therefore, this study prompted to generate data on small ruminants ectoparasite infestations with prevalence on small ruminant tick ( Ixodid ticks ) infestations. 1.2. General objective To identify and prioritize significant small ruminant ectoparasites and estimate prevalence of tick infestations at study districts both using participatory epidemiology tools and conventional laboratory diagnosis. 1.2.1. Specific objectives To estimate the prevalence of small ruminant tick infestations at the study districts using laboratory diagnosis. To identify the species of ticks infesting small ruminants at the selected study districts. To estimate the potential associated risk factors of small ruminant tick infestation. To assess the burden of tick genera/species on small ruminants. 2. METERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Descriptions of Study Area Somali region is one of the main pastoral regions of Ethiopia and the socio-economy of the region is vastly dependent on livestock production. It is one of largest regions of Ethiopia. The region comprises of 11 administrative zones namely: Fafan, Jarar, Afder, Shabelle, Korahey, Doollo, Nogob, Erer, Sitti, Dawa and Liban, 6 regional city administrations and 93 districts. This study was conducted at two purposively selected districts of Shabelle zone, namely Gode and Danan districts of Somali Regional State (SRS). Shabelle zone is one of the eleven ( 11 ) administrative zones of the SRS (Fig. 1 ). It is located 1,160km east from Addis Ababa. The zone is situated in the southeastern part of SRS and bordered in the south- eastern with Republic of Somalia, in the West Nogob zone of SRS and in the south with Afder zone. It has ten ( 10 ) districts namely Gode, Danan, Elele, Ber’ano, Adadle, Abaqarow, Kalafo, Mustahil, Fer-fer and East Imay districts. The temperature of these areas is generally high all the year round with mean minimum and maximum values being around 25 0 C and 37 0 C, respectively. The mean annual rainfall is 530 mm. Gode district is bordered on the south by Afder zone, on the north by Elwayne district of Nogob zone, on the northeast by Korahei zone, and on the southeastern by the Provisional Administrative Line with Somalia. The latitude and longitude of Gode district is 6°00'0.00" N 43°44'59.99" E respectively. The estimated total small ruminants’ populations in Gode were approximately, 421,150 (230,300 Goats and 190,850 Sheep) (LLRP, 2021). Similarly, Danan district is found in Shabelle Zone of the Somali Region and it is located the main road between Gode and Kebridahar the nearest towns with electricity. Danan district is bordered on south Gode, on northern Kebridahar, on eastern some of district Korahei zone, on the western Nogob zone district. Its latitude and longitude is 6°29'59.99" N 43°29'59.99" E respectively. The estimated total small ruminants’ populations in Danan districts were approximately, 553,168 (278,207 Goats and 274,967 Sheep) (LLRP, 2021). 2.2. Source Populations Indigenous sheep (Somali black headed/Ogaden black headed) and goats (long eared) of different sex and age groups, body conditions, and herd size kept under extensive management system were used for this study from two districts in Shabelle zone pastoral areas namely: Gode and Danan districts. 2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria All targeted small ruminants’ populations which were kept under pastoral production system in different categories in terms of species, sex, age, herd size, body conditions scores were included in the study. Small ruminants that had been recently subjected to acaricide treatments were excluded from the study. 2.4. Study Variables The independent variables included in this study were species, sex, age, body condition score and herd size. The animals’ ages were estimated by information collected from their owners and by examining the dentition patterns of the animals. The small ruminants were categorized in to young ( 4 years old) (Gatenby, 2002). The body condition score was classified into poor, medium, and good body condition score according to Molla et al. , (2017). Herd size was classified as larger herd size (80–100), medium herd size (30–80) and smaller herd size (< 30) (Kedir and Petros 2015). Whereas, the dependent variables were classified as infested and non-infested based on the result of the examined targeted individual small ruminant animal accordingly. 2.5. Sample Size Determination The desired sample size for this study was calculated using 95% confidence interval at 5% absolute precision. The sample size was determined by assuming the expected prevalence of 81.7% in sheep and 77.8% in goats based on previous study conducted by Kedir and Petros (2015). Hence, the prevalence of each was calculated in order to get the maximum sample size required to determine the prevalence in simple random sampling (Thrusfiled, 2005): Where; N= required sample size , P exp =expected prevalence d= required precision So, minimum sample size for Goats, n = ~ 230, When Prevalence = 81.7%. Minimum sample size for Sheep, n = ~ 265, When Prevalence = 77.8% Therefore, a total of 495 small ruminants (230 goats and 265 sheep) were examined in this study. 2.6. Study Design A descriptive and analytical cross sectional study design was conducted from June 2021 up to July 2022 to identify and prioritize significant small ruminant ectoparasites, estimating the prevalence of tick infestations, potential risk factors, identifying tick species and assessing the burden of tick genera/species on small ruminants at two selected study districts in Shabelle zone, Somali Region using both participatory epidemiology methods and conventional laboratory diagnosis respectively. 2.7. Sampling Procedure 2.7.1. Participatory epidemiology tools When performing the participatory epidemiology tools only eight ( 8 ) independent groups were used in which each group was include 6–13 respondents (Catley, 2005; Catley et al. , 2006). Since the study conducted in two districts, each district had four independent groups. The respondents in each group included the owners whose animals were under study. In all participatory Disease Surveillance (PDS) activities, the appraisal team consisted of three persons such as one team leader (researcher), one community mobilizer, and one record keeper. In consultation with the key informants, the most convenient time and location for the meeting were chosen. The meeting started with the moderator introducing the members of the appraisal team, followed by an invitation for all attendees to introduce themselves. Following a brief explanation of the meeting's purpose, the interview process is frequently initiated with easy and general questions guided by a checklist to maintain the flow of ideas. During the interview process, the potential for flexibility was maintained throughout the process to gather the essential information. Individuals with extensive sheep and goat herding expertise as well as with deep indigenous knowledge of small ruminant diseases and health care were asked to take part in the conversation and share their knowledge with the study team. To avoid the over dominance of a few key informants, all participants were allowed to provide their opinions on the interview topics in most circumstances. We employed analytical methods such as simple and pair wise rankings, seasonal calendars. When the solution to the question required with comparison and semi-quantitative data records. While to use these analytical techniques, a full explanation of the subjects was given, and the informants were split into small groups to avoid individual domination, personal bias, and to increase the statistical efficiency of the data gathered. The entire interview was recorded. The interview procedure took little more than two hours. Every PDS procedure included separate assessments and prioritization for small ruminant ectoparasites after generating a comprehensive list of small ruminant ectoparasites, the pair-wise ranking approach was used to rank them in order of health problems. The impact of small ruminant ectoparasites was connected to its morbidity, death, production losses, and economic importance in the population. Each sub- group was given 100 stone beads to stack in accordance to the severity of each condition. Probing questions were utilized throughout the interview to validate and gain more information on the themes, as well as to improve the quality of the data collected. It was also necessary to ask probing inquiries to ensure that the data was internally consistent. Simple ranking this involved introduction of the team to the pastoralists followed by careful questioning on the type of livestock kept and management challenges experienced. The pastoralists where then asked to list the most frequent small ruminant ectoparasite diseases encountered in the last year giving specific symptoms. The informants provided the local names and described the clinical signs associated with each disease mentioned. The interpreter assisted in identification of corresponding English disease names. They discussed among themselves until they agreed on a particular response, ensuring that they concurred before the response was recorded. Pastoralist groups in the research districts and kebeles where their animals have been sampled were consulted and requested to identify the five most common and deadly ectoparasite diseases infesting small ruminants in the study sites. The disease’s names were stated in their native language (Somali) to aid further comprehension. After much argument and discussion, they came up with a list of the five most severe ectoparasite that affect small ruminants in that area. Pair wise ranking : During the participatory epidemiology approach, Semi-structured interviews (SSI) was used to gain an understanding of the local perception of small ruminant ectoparasite diseases. The groups of informants were identified by key informant to prioritize and rank the most important small ruminant ectoparasite diseases. Pair- wise ranking of at least four small ruminant ectoparasite infestations including: Tick infestation ( Shillin ), Mange Mite ( Cadho ), Lice infestation/Pediculosis ( Injir ), flea infestations ( Tagfi ) and sheep keds ( Qaranqir ) were conducted. Group sizes varied from 6 to 13 individuals. The level of an agreement across the groups was determined by the method of Siegel and castellan (1994). In pair-wise ranking, each disease on the list was compared to all other diseases one by one to discover which infestation was the most impactful in terms of production, health and economic loss to the pastoralist group. This technique is quite beneficial for distinguishing between illnesses that are difficult to rate using a single simple ranking system. Except for the same disease, which is incomparable, the participants chose one of the two compared diseases by rating them in a different ways. Seasonal Calendars Seasonal calendar was utilized in conjunction with four seasons of Somali region to explain and identify the seasonal occurrences of the five most significant small ruminants’ ectoparasites selected by ranking. The season's local names of the study area involved long rain ( Gu’ ), cold dry( Xagaa ), short rain ( Dayr ); and long dry ( Jilaal ) were represented by local material on the X-axis and numbers representing diseases and causes placed along the Y-axis. This type of seasonal calendar was used with 4 groups of informants from each district. These were written on the flipchart and communicated to the informant group when they have been seated in a pleasant environment. The respondents were then being asked to explain the meaning of each sign to see if they comprehend what it means for each symbol. The respondents were given 30 stones and asked to match the relative prevalence of each ailment to the season in which it occurs. To make the procedure more repeatable, the seasons, diseases, and number of stones were maintained constant throughout all informant groups. 2.7.2. Sampling procedure for tick prevalence Indigenous sheep (Somali black headed) and goats of different sex and age groups, body conditions, and herd size kept under extensive management system were used for this study. Gode comprises fourteen Peasant Associations (PAs), whereas Danan comprises sixteen PAs. Purposively, eight PAs (four PAs from each district) were randomly selected from two selected districts based on small ruminant population and easy accessibilities. From the eight selected PAs, sixty-four shoat herds were selected randomly as a primary unit; then 32 shoat of herds were randomly selected as a secondary unit and 8 shoat herds were randomly selected from each PAs as third unit in this study (see figure.2). However, the target individual shoat was sampled using simple random sampling method based on the shoat populations present in herds and the proportional sample allocation for each respective peasant association was calculated at selected study districts after acquiring the source papulation of small ruminants at the targeted PAs accordingly (see Table 1 ) from livestock papulation census survey conducted by Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) (2021) entirely in Somali regional state, Ethiopia. . Table 1 Proportional sample allocations from the selected Peasant Associations (PAs) in the study districts. Districts PAs Goat Population (S n ) N n Total Sheep Population (S n ) n n Total Sub-total Gode Gode 06 7,500 11 78 5,600 13 89 167 Badilacad 12,000 18 8,500 21 Kunka 15,000 23 11,000 25 Hadhawe 17,000 26 13,000 30 Danan Shiniile 30,000 45 152 33,000 76 176 328 Danbarwayne 23,000 35 15,500 36 Kali/Kora 22,000 33 17,000 39 Burqoyar 26,000 39 11,000 25 Grand Total 152,500 230 114,600 265 495 Source (Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) 2021. 2.8. Tick Sample Collection and Identification Methods The selected individual sheep and goat animal were examined from head to tail including legs for the presence of ticks on the body of the animal. However, during tick sample collection, the entire body of the examined individual sheep and goat were sub-divided into three predefined regions including: head-neck region, abdomen-thorax region and perineum–tail. Then, selected small ruminant was considered to be positive for a given tick infestation when at least one tick was collected from them. The adult engorged visible female and male ticks were sampled from only one targeted predefined above body regions manually using thumb forceps to grasp ticks which were found on the body of the infested shoats. During tick collection, care was taken to ensure that the mouth parts of tick not to leave behind during traction with hand or thumb forceps. Each collected tick sample was placed and preserved in separate universal bottles containing 70% ethanol which were correctly pre labeled with date, zone, woreda, animal species, sex, age group, herd-size and body condition scores. Then, it was tightly closed and transported to Jigjiga Regional Veterinary Diagnostic and Investigation Center for further tick examination and identification. The collected ticks from each bottle was placed onto petri-dishes and examined under light stereomicroscope to identify and differentiate at the tick genera and species level with main identification features which include color, size and shape of mouth parts, scutum, anal groove, festoon, punctuation and legs of the ticks in accordance with Walker et al ., (2003) and Onkello-onen et al ., (2006). 2.9. Ethical issues Before any effort to gather data, small ruminant owners participating in the study were briefed about the goal of the study and the reasons why the research must be done. During the data gathering procedure, the researcher kept the small ruminant herders and their animals which participated voluntarily to secure their rights and welfare. The study was carried out as planned after gaining their oral permission. The privacy and confidentiality of the participants were preserved during the participatory assessment research, and all respondents were informed to sign consent forms accordingly. 2.10. Data Management and Analysis The raw data obtained through Participatory Epidemiology (PE) tools were precisely recorded and stored into Microsoft excel sheets. Then after, transferred to statistical package for social sciences software version 24.0 (SPSS V.24.0). A descriptive statistics including frequency and percentages were used to determine prioritization of small ruminant ectoparasite infestations. The PE data were summarized using median scores, minimum and maximum scores at 95% confidence intervals. Agreement among the scores of informant groups were assessed using Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) (Siegel and castellan, 1998). Meanwhile, the tick specimen data collected and conventional laboratory diagnostic results conducted were stored and coded in Epi Data Version 3.1. Then, transferred to STATA software Version 14. Chi-square test was applied to compare the infestation rate with regard to explanatory variables. In addition, binary logistic regression test was applied to determine prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation rates with regard to the hypothesized associated risk factors. Finally, multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to estimate the adjusted odd ratio of associated risk factors on small ruminants’ tick infestation at the selected study areas. In all the analyses, the confidence interval was set at 95% and P value (≤ 0.05) was considered as indicator for significance association. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Participatory Epidemiological Surveys Major important small ruminants’ ectoparasite diseases based on the knowledge and scope of the informants were assessed through PDS discussion. The types of small ruminants ectoparasite diseases occurring in the study area were listed as declared by the informants with the clinical definitions and local name ( Vernacular name ) of the diseases. Vernacular name of some diseases slightly vary from one district to another and all the different names were recorded for cross-checking purpose. The corresponding scientific name of these diseases were also given based on the clinical manifestations declared by the key-informants. All the listed ectoparasites were reported across these districts and this can be due to their closely related geographical location which lies in the same zone (Shabelle zone). The five most prioritized diseases of small ruminants’ ectoparasites in both districts (Gode and Denan) based on their common occurrences were; tick infestations, lice infestations, manage mites, flea infestations, and sheep keds infestations respectively (See below Table 2 ). Table 2 Ranking significant small ruminant ectoparasite diseases based on their frequent occurrences using simple ranking. Vernacular names *Common name Na Median Score Rank Shilin Tick 8 35( 33 – 38 ) 1st Injir Lice 8 25( 22 – 28 ) 2nd Cadho Mange mite 8 22( 19 – 27 ) 3rd Tagfi Flea 8 15( 11 – 17 ) 4th Qarinqil Sheep keds 8 2.5(0–5) 5th Following a simple ranking, informants performed pair-wise rankings of the five most common small ruminant ectoparasite infestations based on loss of production, impact on small ruminant owners' livelihood, occurrences in morbidity, and mortality rates. In pair-wise ranking method, some of the diseases which were difficult to reach an agreement were further compared individually and some diseases prioritized at the top in simple ranking were considered to rank last than the other after a long debate and convenient judgment of the group members. Accordingly, informants listed tick ( Shilin ), lice ( Injir ), mange mite ( Cadho ), flea ( Tagfi ), and sheep keds ( Qarinqil ) as the most important small ruminant ectoparasite infestations in the research area in order of priority in the selected districts. Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) used to know agreements among the informant groups according to small ruminant ectoparasite infestations showed a strong good agreement (W = 0.947; P < 0.001) (See below Table 3 ). Table 3 Pair-wise ranking of most five significant small ruminants' ectoparasite infestations at study districts. Small ruminant Ecto-parasite infestations N a Median Score Rank Tick 8 5 1st Lice 8 4 2nd Mange mite 8 3 3rd Flea 8 2 4th Sheep keds 8 1 5th W 0.947 P 0.001* In addition, the results of the four seasonal occurrences among the five common Ectoparasite infestations of small ruminants selected by pastoralists were summarized in the below table (4). Agreement between informant groups were quantified using the Kendal coefficient of concordance and were categorized according to critical values of W as weak, moderate and good. If W-values were less than 0.26 (p > 0.05) it was considered as weak agreement and moderate, if W-value was between 0.26 and 0.38 (p < 0.05) but, if W-values were greater than 0.38 (p < 0.01 to < 0.001) the agreement between the informants was supposed to be strong. This was done by assuming ranking of four seasons. Strong agreement was observed among the 8 independent informant groups concerning seasonal patterns of the five common Ectoparasite infestations in small ruminants. Ectoparasites such as ticks and lice, its seasonal pattern infestations were linked to the dry season and rainy seasons of the year, including; Jilaal (winter) (December-February) and Deyr (autumn/heavy rainy) (September-November) While, mange mite and flea infestation were mostly linked to the rainy seasons such as Gu’ (spring) and Deyr (Autumn) seasons. Sheep keds was common throughout both the dry ( Jilaal ), ( Xagaa )and rainy ( Gu’ ) seasons (See below Table 4 and Fig. 3 ). Table 4 Seasonal occurrences of the five top ranking small ruminant ectoparasite infestations in selected districts of Shabelle zone by informant groups. Small ruminant ectoparasite infestations SEASONAL CALENDAR ( local Somali seasons ) Gu’ (Spring) (March-May) Xagaa (Summer) (June-August) Deyr (Autumn) (September-November) Jilaal (Winter) (December-February) Shilin (lick) (W = 1.0) (P = 0.001*) 5( 4 – 5 ) ….. # 1.5( 1 – 2 ) ..# 10( 7 – 11 ) ………. # 13.5( 12 – 16 ) ………… .# Injir (lice) (W = 0.938) (P = 0.001*) 3.5( 3 – 5 ) … .# 3( 1 – 4 ) … # 10( 7 – 12 ) ………. # 14( 12 – 16 ) ………….. # Cadho (mange) (W = 0.929) (P = 0.001*) 14.5( 12 – 17 ) ………… .# 3( 1 – 6 ) … # 10( 7 – 12 ) ………. # 2.5( 1 – 5 ) … # Tagfi (Flea) (W = 0.913) (P = 0.001*) 11( 10 – 13 ) ……….. # 1(1`-3) .# 14( 12 – 15 ) …………… # 4( 2 – 5 ) …. # Qarinqil (Sheepkeds) (W = 0.923) (P = 0.001*) 11( 10 – 15 ) ……….. # 6( 5 – 7 ) …… # 1(0–3) .# 12( 10 – 13 ) ………… # Key N = 8; W= Kendall’s coefficient of concordance; the higher the value, the higher the level of agreement between the informant groups. (nsp > 0.05 (non-significant); **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001(highly significant); # the black dotes represent the number of stones (median scores). The values in the parenthesis are minimum and maximum limits. 3.2. Prevalence of Tick infestation Of the total 495 examined small ruminants, 396 were infested by one or more of tick species. The overall prevalence of tick infestations in both species in the study area was 80%. Thus, the corresponding percentage of tick infestation in goat and sheep was 77.2%, and 84.3% respectively. The overall prevalence of small ruminants’ tick infestation in selected districts namely; Danan and Gode were 77.1% and 85.6%, respectively (See below Table 5 ). Table 5 Overall prevalence of tick infestation in small ruminants in the study districts. Study districts No Examined No_Sheep Sampled No_Goat Sampled Total Shoats Infested No_ infested Sheep [%] No_ infested Goat [%] Overall prevalence (%) Danan 328 176 152 253 125 [52.9] 128 [50.4] (77.1) Gode 167 89 78 143 75 [31.4] 68 [26.8] (85.6) Total 495 265 230 396 200 [84.3] 196 [77.2] (80.0) Overall 495 examined small ruminants, a total of 885 ticks were collected from infested 200 sheep and 196 goats. Upon identification, the ticks were classified into four genera ( Rhipicephalus, Hyalomma, Amblyomma and Boophilis) and seven species ( Rhipicephalus evertsi evertsi, Rhipicephalus pulchellus, Hyalomma rufipes, Hyalomma truncatum, Amblyomma variegatum, Amblyomma gemma and Rhipi. (B. decoloratus) . Rhipicephalus (43.5%) was the most abundantly identified tick genera followed by Hyalomma (33.6%), Amblyomma(14.6%); whereas Boophilus(8.36%) was the least prevalent tick genus in the study area (Table 6 ). Moreover, R. evertsi evertsi (34%) was the most abundantly encountered species with highest prevalent followed by H. rufipes (17.4%), H. truncatum (16.2%), A. variegatum , (12.1%), R. pulchellus (9.5%) B. decoloratus (8.4%) and A. gemma (2.5%) (See below Table 6 ). Table 6 Overall prevalence of total tick burden at genera and species levels. Genus of ticks Total No. of tick Tick Species Frequency Prevalence(%) Rhipicephalus 385 R. evertsi evertsi 301 34% R. pulchellus 84 9.5% Boophilis 74 B. decoloratus 74 8.4% A. variegatum 107 12.1`% Amblyomma 129 A. gemma 22 2.5% H. truncatum 143 16.2% Hyalomma 297 H. rufipes 154 17.4% Total 885 885 Binary logistic regression of risk factors for small ruminants’ tick infestations were analyzed. The difference in the prevalence of tick infestation between age groups, herd size and body condition of animals were statistically significant (P 4 years) (29.9%) than younger (< 2 years) (3.8%). Higher prevalence of tick was recorded in medium (30–80) (53.1%) and larger (80–100) (23.2%) than smaller herd size (< 30) (3.6%). In body condition score higher prevalence was detected in poor (63.8%) and medium body condition (15.2%) than good body condition (1%) of the study animals. Moreover, the occurrence of tick was detected higher in Danan (51.1%) than Gode (28.9%) showing statistically insignificant within study districts. Higher prevalence of tick was also recorded in female (50.1%) than in male (29.9%). However, the prevalence of tick found to be statistically insignificant within sex of species. Similarly, the prevalence of tick found to be statistically insignificant within species even though higher prevalence was detected in sheep (40.4%) than in goat (39.6%) (P > 0.05) (see below Table 7 ). Table 7 Binary logistic regression of risk factors for small ruminants’ tick infestations at the study areas. Study Variables Categories No_ Examined No_ Infested (%) Crude OR (95%, CI) P- value Danan 328 253(51.1) 1* Study areas Gode 167 143(28.9) 1.77 (1.07–2.92) 0.027 Sheep 265 200(40.4) 1* Species Goat 230 196(39.6) 0.69 (0.44–1.08) 0.107 Young ( 4 years). 157 148(29.9) 41.5 (17.62–97.9) Sex Female 294 248(50.1) 1* Male 201 148(29.9) 0.58 (0.33–0.80) 0.005 Small (< 30). 76 18(3.6) 1* Herd size Medium (30–80) 296 263(53.1) 25.7 (13.5–48.7) 0.001* Larger (80–100) 123 115(23.2) 46.3 (19.0-112) Poor 323 316(63.8) 1* BCs Moderate 138 75(15.2) 0.26 (0.012–0.060) 0.001* Good 34 5(1.0) 0.06 (0.001–0.013) *Highly significant at 95% level of significance 1* Reference category, BCS = Body condition Score, OR = Odd Ratio, Several potential risk factors such as age group, herd size and body condition score, study area and sex were selected from the binary logistic regions analysis for multivariable logistic regression analysis based on their p-value (≤ 0.05) in order to identify their potential risk factors. In multivariable logistic regression analysis of selected risk factors determined by age group, herd size and body condition score were the only marginally explanatory variables that were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with the occurrence of tick infestations on small ruminants. Accordingly, adults (OR = 5.82, 95% CI: 2.4–13.9%) and older groups (OR = 9.66, 95% CI: 3.08%-30.4%) were more likely to be at higher risk for getting tick infestation than young shoats. Likewise; the larger herd size (OR = 15.42, 95% CI: 4.85%-48.96%) and medium herd size (OR = 11.36, 95% CI: 4.92%-26.2%) were more likely at higher risk to be infested by tick species than smaller herd size. Furthermore, the good body condition score shoats (OR = 0.007, 95% CI: 0.002%-0.027%) and moderate body condition (OR = 0.082, 95% CI: 0.033%-0.209%) were less likely to be at risk of acquiring tick infestations than poor body condition small ruminants (See below Table 8 ). However, based on statistical analysis, the occurrence of tick infestation in the current study area was not affected by sex of the animals and the areas where the study animals sampled (p > 0.05) (See below table.8) Table 8 Multivariable logistic regression of risk factors in relation to small ruminants’ tick infestations. Study Variables Categories Number Examined No_ Infested (%) AOR (95%, CI) P- value Young (< 2 years) 67 19(3.8) 1* Age Adult(2–4 years) 271 229(46.3) 5.82 (2.4–13.9) 0.001* Older (≥ 4 years). 157 148(29.9) 9.66 (3.08–30.4) Small (< 30). 76 18(3.6) 1* Herd size Medium (30–80) 296 263(53.1) 11.36 (4.92–26.2) 0.001* Larger (80–100) 123 115(23.2) 15.42 (4.85–48.96) Poor 323 316(63.8) 1* BCS Moderate 138 75(15.2) 0.082 (0.033–0.209) 0.001* Good 34 5(1.0) 0.007 (0.002–0.027) *Highly significant at 95% level of significance 1* =Reference category, AOR= Adjusted Odd Ratio, BCS=Body Condition Score, CI= confidence Intervals. 4. DISCUSSIONS The current participatory epidemiological study has enlightened the presence of major ectoparasite disease problems in small ruminants in the study areas. The conducted PE methods such as simple ranking, pair-wise ranking, and seasonal calendar has complemented and supported for prioritization of ectoparasites in small ruminants. The overall ranking of five important small ruminants’ ectoparasite infestations from these study districts showed that tick infestations, lice infestations, manage mites, flea infestations, and sheep keds infestations were the most prioritized and ranked constraints by pastoralists in the study districts. This participatory epidemiological study showed that ectoparasites were serious health problem in the livelihoods of the pastoralists in selected districts of Shabelle zone. More frequently observed in the present study was the tick infestation (locally known as “ Shilin ”) which ranked first small ruminant ectoparasite in the study area. This finding agreed with the former reports of Jones et al. , (2020), in which small ruminants’ tick infestation was listed to be one of the most common five ectoparasite infestations by survey conducted from Afar pastoralists using participatory rural appraisal methods in Afar region, Ethiopia. In this current study, tick infestation was reported to occur commonly during the dry/warm periods ( Jilaal/ winter) (December-February) and heavy rainy/wet periods ( Gu’a/ Spring) (March-April) by the informant groups. This is in line with the reports of Bhaskaran e t al ., (2004) who demonstrated higher occurrence of tick infestations on small ruminants during long dry/warm period followed by heavy rainy periods/wet seasons. This was mostly due to an increase in the number of nymph formation. This finding is line with with reports conducted by FAO, (2005) indicated that ticks are mostly active during the warm seasons and active milder in wet seasons of heavy rainy periods. Higher prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation in the study area was observed. The overall prevalence of tick infestations in both species in the study area was 80%. This finding was relatively similar with 79% prevalence of tick infestation in Fafan zone, Somali region which was reported by Kedir and Petros, (2015). The present finding was higher than the study conducted by Mesfin Mathewos et al ., (2021) who reported 68.75% over all prevalence in Boloso Sore Districts of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. The present finding was lower when compared with the study conducted by Fufa et al. , (2009) who reported the overall prevalence of 87.5% in Miesso district, West Harergie, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. The difference in the prevalence might be due to the geographical difference, small ruminants breed type difference, seasons of the study period and veterinary service extensions. Animal species level prevalence of tick infestation found to be 84.3% in sheep and 77.2% in goats. This difference in the prevalence of tick in sheep and goat was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). This finding is closely agreed with the study conducted by Kedir and Petros, (2015) with prevalence of 81.7% in sheep and 77% in goats from three districts of Fafan zone in Somali region. Fufa et al ., (2009) also reported higher prevalence of tick was detected in sheep than goats. In contrast, the prevalence of tick infestation was higher in goat than sheep in Northwest and Southern Ethiopia (Seyum et al ., 2015; Mesfin Mathewos et al ., 2021). The difference in the prevalence of tick infestation in the current study may have been due to differences in the feeding behavior of sheep and goats where goats usually browse and have pronounced grooming behavior which could reduce the chance of infection and help to detach more ticks from their body. The present study revealed that sheep and goats in the study area were highly infested with different genera of ticks namely, Rhipicephalus Hyalomma, Boophilus , and Amblyomma. Among the tick species identified, R. evertsi evertsi (34%) was the most abundantly encountered species with high burden followed by H. rufipes (17.4%), H. truncatum (16.2%), A. variegatum , (12.1%), R. pulchellus (9.5%) B. decoloratus (8.4%), and A. gemma (2.5%) was the minor species observed on both goats and sheep. This finding was in agreement with the study conducted by Kedir and Petros, (2015) who reported R. evertsi evertsi (34.9%), H.truncatum (29.7%), R. pulchellus (21.6%), A.variegatum (21.4%), H. rufipes (16.7%), Rhip. (Boophilus) decoloratus (11.2%) and A. gemma (2.1%) from three districts of Fafan zone in Somali region. However, Mesfin Mathewos et al. , (2021) reported that A. variegatum ( 44.97%) was found to be the most abundant tick species followed by Rhip. (Boophilus) decoloratus ( 30.79%), R. pulchellus ( 20.47%) and H. truncatum ( 3.77%). Different studies indicated the range and number of tick species infesting small ruminants varies by regions in Ethiopia. The present study estimated that tick infestation prevalence was significantly higher in adult (46.3%) than older (29.9%) and younger (3.8%) with statistical significant variation (p 4 years), (OR = 9.66, 95%, CI: 3.08–30.4) and adult (2–4 years) (OR = 5.82, 95%, CI: 2.4–13.9) were more likely to be at higher risk infesting tick species than younger age groups (< 2 years). This finding was in line with the study conducted by Mesfin Mathewos et al. , (2021), Jafar et al ., (2017) and Tewodros et al ., (2012) in different parts of the country(Ethiopia). This might be due to young animals have a minimum rate of exposure to tick since the number of ticks is less around animal house as compared to animals’ grazing areas. The body condition score was significantly (P < 0.001) associated with the occurrence of tick infestations on small ruminants. Lower prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation was recorded in good (1%) and moderate body condition scores (15.2%) than the poor body condition scored small ruminants (63.8%). The good body condition scores in small ruminants (OR = 0.007, 95% CI: 0.002%-0.027%) and moderate Body condition (OR = 0.082, 95% CI: 0.033%-0.209%) were less likely to be at risk of acquiring tick infestations than poor body condition small ruminants. This finding is in agreement with the findings of Mesfin Mathewos et al ., (2021), Tewodros et al. , (2012) in different parts of Ethiopia and also Rasmi et al. , (2007) from Iran and Madeira et al ., (2000) from Sao Paulo, Brazil. This was inconsistent with the study result reported by Jafar et al. , (2017) in Dire Dawa, eastern Ethiopia, and by Seid (2004) in Mizzen Teferi Bench Maji Zone, SNNPRS. The difference in the prevalence of tick infestation among different body condition score might be due to the fact that animals in poor body condition have low immunity against tick and lack the body ability to develop resistance mechanism, whereas animals in good body condition have well developed immunity and are able to overcome tick infestation effectively (Manan et al ., 2007). Furthermore, tick infestation may result in poor body health and condition since ticks consume a huge quantity of blood and fluid. Also, higher prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation was recorded in larger (23.2%) and medium herd sizes (53.1%) sheep and goats than in the smaller herd size (3.6%). The herd/flock size had significant effect on the prevalence of tick infestation (P < 0.05). The larger herd size (OR = 15.42, 95% CI: 4.85%-48.96%) and medium herd size (OR = 11.36, 95% CI: 4.92%-26.2%) were more likely to be at higher risk acquiring tick species than smaller herd size. This finding is in agreement with the findings of Rasmi et al. , (2007) from Iran and Madeira et al ., (2000) from Sao Paulo, Brazil. In large flocks there is crowding of the animals, which increases the chance of contact between animals and results in the transmission of ectoparasites between infested and susceptible animals. 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ectoparasite is one the most serious cause of animal health problems of livestock production in Shebelle zone, Somali region, Ethiopia. The finding of the present participatory epidemiological study revealed that the existence of tick infestations was one of the most prioritized significant small ruminant ectoparasite in the study area followed by lice, mange mite, flea and sheep keds. The occurrence of tick infestation was highly prevalent during the dry period and followed by rainy seasons. The present finding also showed that a small ruminant tick infestation was highly prevalent in the study area. In this study, seven species of ticks which grouped under four genera were identified. R. evertsi evertsi was the most abundantly encountered species followed by H. rufipes , H. truncatum , A. variegatum, R. pulchellus R. (Boophilus) decoloratus and A. gemma. and The prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation in the study area was significantly affected by age and body condition score of the animals as well as the number of animals kept in the herd/flock. The information displayed in this participatory epidemiological study which was assessed from the existing knowledge of pastoral community accompanied with the prevalence study has given valid and well organized information scientifically that can be used to design better animal health projects, delivery systems and more successful surveillance and control and prevention strategies for ectoparasites including tick infestation in small ruminants. Therefore, based on the above conclusion, the following recommendations were suggested: Attention should be given to the control and prevention of ticks especially considering the potential risk factors such as age, body condition and herd/flock size. Appropriate prophylactics and control measures of tick infestation should be designed by veterinary health service providers. An appropriate ectoparasite disease calendar mapping should be performed since seasonal ectoparasite occurrence is important for proper timing of intervention. Pastoral community awareness creations should be implemented on regular basis to livestock owners on the impacts of ticks and tick-borne diseases. Declarations Ethical approval was obtained from Haramaya University, Ethiopia and all human participants were given a written informed consent form accordingly. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge all participants and pastoral community across the two selected districts that participated in this study and provided access to their facilities for research purposes. Their willingness to collaborate was essential to the success of this investigation. Special thanks are extended to all stakeholders particularly; Jigjiga Regional Veterinary Laboratory Center under Somali Regional State, Pastoral Development Bureau. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualization. Material preparation and data collection, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Data Curation, Software, Data analysis, Supervision, Writing-Original Draft were performed by [Ahmed Abdi Mohomed]. Review & Editing, Visualization, Project administration, Resources, Writing - Review & Supervision were performed by [Yehualashet Bayu and Sisay Alemu]. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. FUNDING No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. COMPETING INTERESTS All authors declare no competing interests. AVAILABILITY OF DATA Data will be made available on request. CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION Not applicable. References Abadi Y. (2000) Current problem of leather industry. In: Merkel RC, Abebe G, Goetsch AL, editors Proceedings of the conference held at Debub University, Awassa, Ethiopia. On the opportunities and challenges enhancing goat production in East Africa, Debub University, Awassa, Ethiopia, pp: 139–143. 8. Abebayehu T, Endris F, Berhan M, Rahmeto A, Solomon M. Study on the prevalence of ectoparasite infestation of ruminants in and around Kombolcha and damage to fresh goat pelts and wet blue (pickled) skin at Kombolcha Tannery, Northeastern Ethiopia. Ethiop Veterinary J. 2011;15:87–101. Abebe R, Tatek M, Megersa B, Sheferew D. Prevalence of small ruminants ectoparasites and associated risk factors in selected districts of Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Global Vet. 2011;7(5):433–7. Asnake F, Tolossa YH, Hagos A. Ectoparasites of small ruminants in three agro-ecological districts of Southern Ethiopia. Afr J Basic Appl Sci. 2013;5(1):47–54. Ayele SW, Assegid MA, Jabbar MM, Belachew H. (2003) Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: a review of structure, performance and developing initiatives. Working Paper No. 52. Addis Ababa: International Livestock Research Institute. Bhaskaran R, Latha, Aiyasami SS, Pattabiraman G, Sivaraman T, Rajavelu G. Seasonal activity of ticks on small ruminants in Tamil Nadu State, India. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2004;36:123–33. 10.1023/B:TROP.0000012108.42526.11 . Central Statistical Agency. Volume II Statistical Bulletin. Vol. 585. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Central Statistical Authority; Agricultural sample survey. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics; 2019. Catley A. Participatory epidemiology: a guide for trainers. Nairobi: African Union/InterAfrican Bureau for Animal Resources; 2005. Catley A. Use of participatory epidemiology to compare the clinical veterinary knowledge of pastoralists and veterinarians in East Africa. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2006;38(3):171–84. Coppock DL, Fernández-Giménez M, Hiernaux P, Huber-Sannwald E, Schloeder C, Valdivia C, Arredondo JT, Jacobs M, Turin C, Turner M. (2017) 'Rangeland systems in developing nations: conceptual advances and societal implications', in Rangeland systems , pp. 569–642. Enquebaher K, Kebede E. (2010) 'Epidemiological study on mange mite, lice and sheep keds of small ruminants in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia'. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20123013371 ESGPIP (Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program). Control of external parasites of sheep and goats. Ethiop Soc Anim Prod (ESAP) Tech Bull. 2010;41:2–11. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). (2005). FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture World Food Program ( http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/J3958e00 ). Fufa A, Jonsen T, Alemayehu R. Status of tick infestation in small ruminants of West Hararge District, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2009;41:459–62. Gatenby MR. (2002) Sheep . Revised edition. The Tropical Agriculturalist . Wageningen: CTA and Macmillan, pp. 128–135. Jafer A, Wendemagegn D, Tsehay A, Silesh S, Abebe H. Prevalence of tick infestation on small ruminants in and around Dire Dawa, eastern Ethiopia. Int J Res - Granthaalayah. 2017;5(5). 10.29121/granthaalayah.v5.i5.2017.1864 . Jones BA, Muhammed A, Ali ET, Homewood KM, Pfeiffer DU. Pastoralist knowledge of sheep and goat disease and implications for peste des petits ruminants virus control in the Afar Region of Ethiopia. Prev Vet Med. 2020;174:104808. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104808 . Kassa B. (2006) 'Cockle, mange and pox: major threats to the leather industry in Ethiopia', in Ethiopian leather industry: perseverance towards value addition. Proceedings of the National Workshop, Addis Ababa, pp. 71–92. Kedir M, Admasu P. Prevalence of ixodid ticks in small ruminants in selected districts of Fafen Zone, Eastern Ethiopia. Eur J Appl Sci. 2015;7(2):50–5. 10.5829/idosi.ejas.2015.7.2.9471 . Kumsa B, Beyecha K, Geloye M. Ectoparasites of sheep in three agro-ecological zones in central Oromia, Ethiopia. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2012;79(1):1–7. Legese G, Fadiga M. Small Ruminant Value Chain Development in Ethiopia: Situation Analysis and Trends. ICARDA/ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas/International Livestock Research Institute; 2014. Leul B, Berihun A, Etsay K. (2020) 'Epidemiological distribution of major ectoparasites species of small ruminant in the case of chemical control campaign in Welkait district, Tigray region, Ethiopia', Journal of Tropical Medicine , 2020, p. 4175842. Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP). Report on human socio demography and livestock populations of LLRP targeted districts in Somali. Regional State of Ethiopia; 2021. Madeira NG, Amarante AFT, Padvani CR. Diversity of ectoparasites in sheep flocks in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2000;32:225–32. Manan A, Khan Z, Ahmad B. (2007) 'Prevalence and identification of ixodid ticks genera in frontier region peshawar'. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:32178645 Mathewos M, Welamu WH, Fesseha H, Aliye S, Endale H. Study on prevalence of hard ticks and their associated risk factors in small ruminants of Boloso Sore Districts of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Veterinary Medicine: Res Rep. 2021;12:293–301. Molla B, Haile H, Alemu S. Prevalence and risk factors associated to skin diseases in small ruminants in Gamo Gofa zone, south-Western Ethiopia. J Veterinary Med Anim Health. 2017;9:228–34. Mulugeta Y, Yacob HT, Ashenafi H. Ectoparasites of small ruminants in three selected agro-ecological sites of Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2010;42:1219–24. Onkello-Onen J, Hassan S, Essuman S. Taxonomy of African ticks: an identification manual. Nairobi: International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology; 2006. pp. 1–124. Radostits MO, Gay CC, Hinchcliff KW, Constable PD. (2007) Veterinary medicine: a textbook of the diseases of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs and goats. 10th edition. London: Saunders Elsevier. Rasmi GR, Glinsharifodini M, Sarvi S. Prevalence of ixodid ticks on cattle in Mazandaran province, Iran. Global Vet. 2007;68:12–5. Seigel S, Castellan NJ. (1998) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Seyoum Z, Tadesse T, Addisu A. (2015) 'Ectoparasites prevalence in small ruminants in and around Sekela, Amhara Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia', Journal of Veterinary Medicine , 2015, p. 216085. Sheferaw D, Degefu H, Banteyirgu D. Epidemiological study of small ruminant mange mites in three agro-ecological zones of Wolayta, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiop Veterinary J. 2010;14:31–8. Solomon A, Workalemahu A, Hurrisa B, Jabbar MA, Ahmed MM. (2003) Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: a review of structure, performance and development initiatives. Socio-economic and Policy Research Working Paper 52. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute. Tefera S. (2004) 'Investigation in ectoparasites of small ruminants in selected sites of Amhara Regional state and their impact on tanning industry'. MSc thesis. Addis Ababa University. Teshome W. (2002) 'Study on small ruminant skin disease in the Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia'. DVM thesis. Addis Ababa University. Tewodros F, Fasil W, Mersha C, Malede B. Prevalence of ectoparasites on small ruminants in and around Gondar town. American-Eurasian J Sci Res. 2012;7:106–11. Thrusfield M. Veterinary epidemiology. 3rd ed. London: Blackwell publishing; 2005. Walker A, Bouattour A, Camicas J, Estrada-Pena A, Horak I, Latif A, Pegram R, Preston P. (2003) Ticks of Domestic Animals in Africa: A Guide to Identification of Species. Bioscience Reports, Edinburgh. http://www.alanrwalker.com/index/cms-filesystem-action/tickguide-africaweb-08.pdf . Accessed 10 November 2011. Yacob HT, Nesanet B, Dinka A. Prevalence of major skin diseases in cattle, sheep and goats at Adama Veterinary Clinic, Oromia regional state. Ethiopia Rev Med Vet. 2008a;159:455–61. Yacob HT, Yalew TA, Dinka AA. Ectoparasite prevalence’s in sheep and goats in and around Wolita Soddo, Southern Ethiopia. Rev Med Vet. 2008b;159:450–4. Zemene Z, Addis M. Assessment of major factors that cause skin defects at Bahir Dar tannery, Ethiopia. Adv Biol Res. 2012;6:177–81. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8864623","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":591791217,"identity":"8d625fb9-b3d9-41be-8c48-f4f207277fd9","order_by":0,"name":"Ahmed Abdi Mohomed","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jigjiga University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ahmed","middleName":"Abdi","lastName":"Mohomed","suffix":""},{"id":591791218,"identity":"1b62ebe3-b758-492d-926f-d47a2bb0fac8","order_by":1,"name":"Yehualashet Bayu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Haramaya University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yehualashet","middleName":"","lastName":"Bayu","suffix":""},{"id":591791219,"identity":"f6417278-9415-4bd2-9802-2703723f78b0","order_by":2,"name":"Sisay Alemu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Haramaya University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sisay","middleName":"","lastName":"Alemu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-12 17:24:36","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8864623/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8864623/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102853545,"identity":"324ce05d-b921-47a0-a94a-de173cf27a44","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 14:42:23","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":319999,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of the study area\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8864623/v1/ba12935871ca47b3ecaf6294.png"},{"id":102853553,"identity":"e342ef56-2ee0-41aa-8737-fc800253cb2b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 14:42:29","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":83357,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal shoat herds selected at study districts.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8864623/v1/7b38d8d5edecaef044d2f76b.png"},{"id":102853596,"identity":"f108c1ea-1448-479b-82aa-f61274dce931","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 14:42:41","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":98262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSeasonal prevalence of small ruminant ectoparasites in Danan and Gode districts\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8864623/v1/c18729d18f40b0e0b9aa316c.png"},{"id":104874223,"identity":"99ba0484-7fca-410b-b44f-7322cd50d5da","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 08:29:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1910598,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8864623/v1/30efe086-335c-499b-9a39-e158668dbea5.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Participatory Epidemiology of Small Ruminants Ectoparasite Infestations with Prevalence Study on Tick Infestations at Two Selected Districts of Shabelle Zone in Somali Regional of Ethiopia","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.1. Background of the study and justifications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSmall ruminants are an essential component of livestock keeping in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and primarily kept for immediate income sources, milk, meat, wool, manure, and risk management (ESGPIP, 2010). Additionally, small ruminants serve a variety of social and cultural roles that are unique to diverse societies, socioeconomic systems, agro-ecologies, and locations in tropical and subtropical Africa. Sheep and goats are among the most economically significant livestock population in Ethiopia (Legese and Fadiga, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthiopia is one of the largest small ruminant populations in Africa with approximately 30 million in sheep and 33 million in goats (CSA, 2019). \u0026nbsp; However, the economic profits from these animals remain irrelevant when they are compared to their enormous livestock population (Zemene and Addis, 2012). In Ethiopia, small ruminants comprise approximately 30% of the total livestock population of the country and are among important contributors to food production in Ethiopia, providing 35% of meat consumption and 14% of milk consumption (Sheferaw \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2010). However, small ruminant production in Ethiopia is constrained by compound effects of the livestock diseases including; infectious, noninfectious and ectoparasite infestations, poor feeding, and husbandry management systems (Tefera, 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEctoparasites such as mange mites, lice, sheep keds, flea and ticks are extensively distributed in all agro- ecological locations in Ethiopia (Kumsa \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2012). \u0026nbsp; Ectoparasite is one of the most dangerous cause of animal health problems with higher economic losses of livestock production in Ethiopia (ESGPIP, 2010). \u0026nbsp;The severity of ectoparasites usually depends on the size of inhibiting population, on the manner on which the parasite ekes out its existence and the state of nutritional status of infested host animals. \u0026nbsp;Ectoparasite inflict may be mechanical, but the situation is also complicated by host reaction to the presence of the particular parasite, their secretion and excretion (Tefera, 2004). \u0026nbsp;Ectoparasites are responsible for transmission of protozoan, bacterial, viral and rickettsial diseases (Radostits \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2007).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThey are related with severe anemia (blood feeding habit). Infested animals scratch, rub and bite the affected areas and this end up with skin damage in most of the livestock population (Radostits \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2007). Moreover, ectoparasites are known to transmit zoonotic disease from animals to human (Yacob \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2008b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs mentioned above, the impact of ectoparasites is associated with loss in production, morbidity and mortality of livestock in different parts of Ethiopia through reducing production and reproduction down grading and rejection of skins (Ayele \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2003; Yacob \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2008a). It was reported that 35% of sheep and 56% of goat skin condemnations in Ethiopia are endorsed to ectoparasites (Kassa, 2006).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver the past few decades, there are signs that the quality of skin and hide has decreased, including an increase in reject grades, the onset of skin disorders like \u0026quot;ekek,\u0026quot; which is mostly caused on by infestations of lice, ticks, and mange, as well as numerous other contagious skin diseases (Kassa, 2006). Several ante-mortem and post-mortem factors, such as poor animal husbandry, disease, transportation, storage, and general handling, contribute to reduced hides and skins qualities\u0026nbsp;(Abdi, 2000).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Yacob \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2008a), Abebayehu \u003cem\u003eet al., (\u003c/em\u003e2011) and Tewodros \u003cem\u003eet al., (\u003c/em\u003e2012), the magnitude of mange mite in different part of the country ranges from 0.0% to 65.9% in sheep and 0.98 to 31.80% in goats; the magnitude flea infestation also ranges from 8.57% to 37.7% in sheep and 0.66% to 30.6% in goats. \u0026nbsp;In additions, Total prevalence of louse infestation was reported ranging from 1.3% to 57% in sheep and 6.1% to 30.4% in goats ( Enquebaher and Etsay, 2010; Asmare \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2012). According to Abebayehu \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e (2011) and Asmare \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2012), the prevalence of sheep keds also ranges from 3% to 32.57%\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTicks are one of the most serious ectoparasites in Ethiopia causing extreme economic losses in livestock production. Their effects are numerous including reduced growth, milk and meat production, damaged hides and skins, transmission of tick-borne diseases of several types and predispose animals to secondary infections from other parasites such as screw worm flies and infection by pathogens such as \u003cem\u003eDermatophilus congolensis,\u003c/em\u003e the causative agent of streptothricosis (ESGPIP, 2010 and Kumsa \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral studies reports from different areas of Ethiopia indicated that overall prevalence of tick infestations were 23.8% in sheep and 10% in goats from Sidama zone (Teshome, 2002); 31.78% in sheep and 18.63% in goats from Wolayta Sodo (Yacob \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2008a); 16% in sheep and 29.7% in goats from Tigray region (Mulugeta \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2010); 57.6% in goats from three agro-ecological zones of southern rangeland of Ethiopia (Asnake \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2013); 1.6% in sheep and 2.1 in goats from Benishagul Gumuz (Abraham \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018), and 1.23 in sheep and 0% in goats from western Tigray (Berhe Leul \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020). The overall prevalence of ticks‟ infestation ranges from 0% to 87.5% in both sheep and goats. According to study conducted by Fufa \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e (2009), the highest prevalence of tick infestation was 87.5% in sheep and 86% in goats from West Harragae. In all these studies, it was observed that four \u003cem\u003egenera\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003enamely; \u003cem\u003eAmblyomma, Hyaloma, Boophilus and Rhipiciphalus\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewere known to infest sheep and goats in different agro ecological regions of Ethiopia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMore than, 850 species of ticks exist in the world from this 60 different species of ticks are found in Africa. \u0026nbsp;In Ethiopia, there are 47 species of ticks found on livestock and most of them have importance as vector and disease causing agents and also have damaging effect on skin and hide production (Kassa, 2006). According to Jafer \u003cem\u003eet al., (\u003c/em\u003e2017) the highest tick species prevalent in Dire Dawa were \u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus pulchellus\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(34.1%), followed by \u003cem\u003eAmblyomma variegatum\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(24.5%), \u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus evertsievertsi\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(22.1%), \u003cem\u003eHyalomma truncatum\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(15.6%), \u003cem\u003eHyalomma marginatum rufipes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(12.2%) and \u003cem\u003eAmblyomma gemma\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(10.9), \u003cem\u003eHyalomma dromedari\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(4.2%) and \u003cem\u003eBoophilus decoloratus\u003c/em\u003e. While, the highest tick species identified from three districts of Fafan zone in Somali region, Ethiopia were \u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus evertsi evertsi\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(34.9%), followed by \u003cem\u003eHyalomma truncatum\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(29.7%), \u003cem\u003eRhipicephals pulchellus\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(21.6%), \u003cem\u003eAmblyomma variegatum\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(21.4%), \u003cem\u003eHyalomma rufipes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(16.7%), \u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(11.2%) and \u003cem\u003eAmblyomma gemma\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2.1%) (Kedir and Petros, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe prevalence of tick infestation in different parts of Ethiopia had been shown to correlate with age, sex, animal species, poor management, climatic factors, feed scarcity and inadequate veterinary services (Solomon \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2003). \u0026nbsp;As studies indicated that the occurrence of tick infestation was affected by species of animals. Abebe \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2011) reported that the prevalence of tick infestation was higher in goats (58.8%) than sheep (40%) in selected districts of Tigray region, Ethiopia. \u0026nbsp;Whereas Fufa \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2009) reported sheep are more prone to be affected by tick than goats from Western Harargie, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. \u0026nbsp;Mostly, there is differences in tick infestations based on age differences, adult small ruminants are highly infected than younger ones (Rasmi \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2007; Kader and Petros, 2010). Studies conducted by different researchers in various areas of Ethiopia shows poor body condition animals are highly susceptible to tick infestation than moderate and good body conditioned animals (Tefera \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2004; Yacob \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2008a; Tewodros \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2012). In addition, Madeira \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2000) indicated that tick infestation prevalence was significantly higher in larger herds than small sized herds/flocks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn general, there is a shortage of knowledge on animal diseases that is validated, organized, and prioritized scientifically. Experience suggests that investigations on animal health data have already been conducted. However, Understanding the types and severity of frequent and/or major health issues is crucial for livestock owners. Participatory epidemiology (PE) methods are quite beneficial in remote pastoral areas. Additional epidemiological studies on animal diseases are being carried out by researchers and veterinarians with the aid of PE, which appears to be essential. PE appeared to play a critical role in assisting veterinarians and researchers when conducting additional epidemiological studies on diseases and gaining a better understanding of diseases from a local perspective in order to reconnect with livestock owners for the better management of herd health strategies and intervention options. Informal interviews (semi-structured interviews, time line); visualization methods (participatory mapping, seasonal calendars, proportional pilling) and ranking/scoring (simple ranking, matrix scoring) are all examples of PE approaches (Radiostatis \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeasonal migrations play a major role in the transmission of several endemic and epidemic livestock diseases over the vast lowlands. According to some studies, animal diseases were responsible for a significant portion of losing animals in the lowlands (Coppock, 2017). As a consequence, the animal disease including ectoparasite infestations reduce both direct and indirect household food consumption. This circumstance needs the rapid identification of livestock diseases, as well as the development of effective management and preventative measures. This general scenario applies to livestock owners in Somali Region where there is lack of organized and prioritized livestock diseases in the region.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, bibliographic animal health data on the geographical distribution and priorities of small ruminant ectoparasite species infesting on shoats based on their impact to livestock production in the Somali Region is entirely inadequate which required for further studies. Similarly, to the huge economic loss caused by ticks, some of the pastoralist owners neglected ticks as animal health problem; most of them have little perceptions in diseases transmitted to domestic animals by ticks. Even though different studies were done on prevalence of ticks on camels, cattle and other domestic animals in the Eastern part of the Ethiopia, nevertheless, little attention was given to that of small ruminants\u0026rsquo; tick infestations especially in these study areas; therefore, this study prompted to generate data on small ruminants ectoparasite infestations with prevalence on small ruminant tick (\u003cem\u003eIxodid ticks\u003c/em\u003e) infestations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;General objective\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo identify and prioritize significant small ruminant ectoparasites and estimate prevalence of tick infestations at study districts both using participatory epidemiology tools and conventional laboratory diagnosis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2.1. \u0026nbsp; Specific objectives\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo estimate the prevalence of small ruminant tick infestations at the study districts using laboratory diagnosis.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo identify the species of ticks infesting small ruminants at the selected study districts.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo estimate the potential associated risk factors of small ruminant tick infestation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo assess the burden of tick genera/species on small ruminants.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"2. METERIALS AND METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Descriptions of Study Area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSomali region is one of the main pastoral regions of Ethiopia and the socio-economy of the region is vastly dependent on livestock production. It is one of largest regions of Ethiopia. The region comprises of 11 administrative zones namely: Fafan, Jarar, Afder, Shabelle, Korahey, Doollo, Nogob, Erer, Sitti, Dawa and Liban, 6 regional city administrations and 93 districts. This study was conducted at two purposively selected districts of Shabelle zone, namely Gode and Danan districts of Somali Regional State (SRS).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShabelle zone is one of the eleven (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e) administrative zones of the SRS (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). It is located 1,160km east from Addis Ababa. The zone is situated in the southeastern part of SRS and bordered in the south- eastern with Republic of Somalia, in the West Nogob zone of SRS and in the south with Afder zone. It has ten (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e) districts namely Gode, Danan, Elele, Ber\u0026rsquo;ano, Adadle, Abaqarow, Kalafo, Mustahil, Fer-fer and East Imay districts. The temperature of these areas is generally high all the year round with mean minimum and maximum values being around 25\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003eC and 37\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003eC, respectively. The mean annual rainfall is 530 mm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGode district is bordered on the south by Afder zone, on the north by Elwayne district of Nogob zone, on the northeast by Korahei zone, and on the southeastern by the Provisional Administrative Line with Somalia. The latitude and longitude of Gode district is 6\u0026deg;00'0.00\" N 43\u0026deg;44'59.99\" E respectively. The estimated total small ruminants\u0026rsquo; populations in Gode were approximately, 421,150 (230,300 Goats and 190,850 Sheep) (LLRP, 2021). Similarly, Danan district is found in Shabelle Zone of the Somali Region and it is located the main road between Gode and Kebridahar the nearest towns with electricity. Danan district is bordered on south Gode, on northern Kebridahar, on eastern some of district Korahei zone, on the western Nogob zone district. Its latitude and longitude is 6\u0026deg;29'59.99\" N 43\u0026deg;29'59.99\" E respectively. The estimated total small ruminants\u0026rsquo; populations in Danan districts were approximately, 553,168 (278,207 Goats and 274,967 Sheep) (LLRP, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Source Populations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndigenous sheep (Somali black headed/Ogaden black headed) and goats (long eared) of different sex and age groups, body conditions, and herd size kept under extensive management system were used\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efor this study from two districts in Shabelle zone pastoral areas namely: Gode and Danan districts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll targeted small ruminants\u0026rsquo; populations which were kept under pastoral production system in different categories in terms of species, sex, age, herd size, body conditions scores were included in the study. Small ruminants that had been recently subjected to \u003cem\u003eacaricide\u003c/em\u003e treatments were excluded from the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Study Variables\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe independent variables included in this study were species, sex, age, body condition score and herd size. The animals\u0026rsquo; ages were estimated by information collected from their owners and by examining the dentition patterns of the animals. The small ruminants were categorized in to young (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2 year), adult (2 to 4 years), and old (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4 years old) (Gatenby, 2002). The body condition score was classified into poor, medium, and good body condition score according to Molla \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2017). Herd size was classified as larger herd size (80\u0026ndash;100), medium herd size (30\u0026ndash;80) and smaller herd size (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30) (Kedir and Petros 2015). Whereas, the dependent variables were classified as infested and non-infested based on the result of the examined targeted individual small ruminant animal accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Sample Size Determination\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe desired sample size for this study was calculated using 95% confidence interval at 5% absolute precision. The sample size was determined by assuming the expected prevalence of 81.7% in sheep and 77.8% in goats based on previous study conducted by Kedir and Petros (2015). Hence, the prevalence of each was calculated in order to get the maximum sample size required to determine the prevalence in simple random sampling (Thrusfiled, 2005):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\" width=\"261\" height=\"88\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhere; N= required sample size\u003csup\u003e,\u003c/sup\u003e P\u003csub\u003eexp\u003c/sub\u003e=expected prevalence d= required precision\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSo, minimum sample size for Goats, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;230, When Prevalence\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;81.7%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinimum sample size for Sheep, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;265, When Prevalence\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;77.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, a total of \u003cb\u003e495\u003c/b\u003e small ruminants (230 goats and 265 sheep) were examined in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6. Study Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e A descriptive and analytical cross sectional study design was conducted from June 2021 up to July 2022 to identify and prioritize significant small ruminant ectoparasites, estimating the prevalence of tick infestations, potential risk factors, identifying tick species and assessing the burden of tick genera/species on small ruminants at two selected study districts in Shabelle zone, Somali Region using both participatory epidemiology methods and conventional laboratory diagnosis respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7. Sampling Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7.1. Participatory epidemiology tools\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen performing the participatory epidemiology tools only eight (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e) independent groups were used in which each group was include 6\u0026ndash;13 respondents (Catley, 2005; Catley \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006). Since the study conducted in two districts, each district had four independent groups. The respondents in each group included the owners whose animals were under study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn all participatory Disease Surveillance (PDS) activities, the appraisal team consisted of three persons such as one team leader (researcher), one community mobilizer, and one record keeper. In consultation with the key informants, the most convenient time and location for the meeting were chosen. The meeting started with the moderator introducing the members of the appraisal team, followed by an invitation for all attendees to introduce themselves. Following a brief explanation of the meeting's purpose, the interview process is frequently initiated with easy and general questions guided by a checklist to maintain the flow of ideas. During the interview process, the potential for flexibility was maintained throughout the process to gather the essential information. Individuals with extensive sheep and goat herding expertise as well as with deep indigenous knowledge of small ruminant diseases and health care were asked to take part in the conversation and share their knowledge with the study team.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e To avoid the over dominance of a few key informants, all participants were allowed to provide their opinions on the interview topics in most circumstances. We employed analytical methods such as simple and pair wise rankings, seasonal calendars. When the solution to the question required with comparison and semi-quantitative data records. While to use these analytical techniques, a full explanation of the subjects was given, and the informants were split into small groups to avoid individual domination, personal bias, and to increase the statistical efficiency of the data gathered.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe entire interview was recorded. The interview procedure took little more than two hours. Every PDS procedure included separate assessments and prioritization for small ruminant ectoparasites after generating a comprehensive list of small ruminant ectoparasites, the pair-wise ranking approach was used to rank them in order of health problems. The impact of small ruminant ectoparasites was connected to its morbidity, death, production losses, and economic importance in the population. Each sub- group was given 100 stone beads to stack in accordance to the severity of each condition. Probing questions were utilized throughout the interview to validate and gain more information on the themes, as well as to improve the quality of the data collected. It was also necessary to ask probing inquiries to ensure that the data was internally consistent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSimple ranking\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003ethis involved introduction of the team to the pastoralists followed by careful questioning on the type of livestock kept and management challenges experienced. The pastoralists where then asked to list the most frequent small ruminant ectoparasite diseases encountered in the last year giving specific symptoms. The informants provided the local names and described the clinical signs associated with each disease mentioned. The interpreter assisted in identification of corresponding English disease names. They discussed among themselves until they agreed on a particular response, ensuring that they concurred before the response was recorded. Pastoralist groups in the research districts and kebeles where their animals have been sampled were consulted and requested to identify the five most common and deadly ectoparasite diseases infesting small ruminants in the study sites. The disease\u0026rsquo;s names were stated in their native language (Somali) to aid further comprehension. After much argument and discussion, they came up with a list of the five most severe ectoparasite that affect small ruminants in that area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePair wise ranking\u003c/b\u003e: During the participatory epidemiology approach, Semi-structured interviews (SSI) was used to gain an understanding of the local perception of small ruminant ectoparasite diseases. The groups of informants were identified by key informant to prioritize and rank the most important small ruminant ectoparasite diseases. Pair- wise ranking of at least four small ruminant ectoparasite infestations including: Tick infestation (\u003cem\u003eShillin\u003c/em\u003e), Mange Mite (\u003cem\u003eCadho\u003c/em\u003e), Lice infestation/Pediculosis (\u003cem\u003eInjir\u003c/em\u003e), flea infestations (\u003cem\u003eTagfi\u003c/em\u003e) and sheep keds (\u003cem\u003eQaranqir\u003c/em\u003e) were conducted. Group sizes varied from 6 to 13 individuals. The level of an agreement across the groups was determined by the method of Siegel and castellan (1994). In pair-wise ranking, each disease on the list was compared to all other diseases one by one to discover which infestation was the most impactful in terms of production, health and economic loss to the pastoralist group. This technique is quite beneficial for distinguishing between illnesses that are difficult to rate using a single simple ranking system. Except for the same disease, which is incomparable, the participants chose one of the two compared diseases by rating them in a different ways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSeasonal Calendars\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeasonal calendar was utilized in conjunction with four seasons of Somali region to explain and identify the seasonal occurrences of the five most significant small ruminants\u0026rsquo; ectoparasites selected by ranking. The season's local names of the study area involved long rain (\u003cem\u003eGu\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e), cold dry(\u003cem\u003eXagaa\u003c/em\u003e), short rain (\u003cem\u003eDayr\u003c/em\u003e); and long dry (\u003cem\u003eJilaal\u003c/em\u003e) were represented by local material on the X-axis and numbers representing diseases and causes placed along the Y-axis. This type of seasonal calendar was used with 4 groups of informants from each district. These were written on the flipchart and communicated to the informant group when they have been seated in a pleasant environment. The respondents were then being asked to explain the meaning of each sign to see if they comprehend what it means for each symbol. The respondents were given 30 stones and asked to match the relative prevalence of each ailment to the season in which it occurs. To make the procedure more repeatable, the seasons, diseases, and number of stones were maintained constant throughout all informant groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7.2. Sampling procedure for tick prevalence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndigenous sheep (Somali black headed) and goats of different sex and age groups, body conditions, and herd size kept under extensive management system were used for this study. Gode comprises fourteen Peasant Associations (PAs), whereas Danan comprises sixteen PAs. Purposively, eight PAs (four PAs from each district) were randomly selected from two selected districts based on small ruminant population and easy accessibilities. From the eight selected PAs, sixty-four shoat herds were selected randomly as a primary unit; then 32 shoat of herds were randomly selected as a secondary unit and 8 shoat herds were randomly selected from each PAs as third unit in this study (see figure.2). However, the target individual shoat was sampled using simple random sampling method based on the shoat populations present in herds and the proportional sample allocation for each respective peasant association was calculated at selected study districts after acquiring the source papulation of small ruminants at the targeted PAs accordingly (see Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) from livestock papulation census survey conducted by Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) (2021) entirely in Somali regional state, Ethiopia. .\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProportional sample allocations from the selected Peasant Associations (PAs) in the study districts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistricts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePAs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGoat Population\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(S\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003csub\u003eTotal\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep Population\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(S\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003csub\u003eTotal\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSub-total\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGode 06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7,500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e167\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBadilacad\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8,500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKunka\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHadhawe\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDanan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShiniile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e152\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e176\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e328\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDanbarwayne\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15,500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKali/Kora\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBurqoyar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand Total\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e152,500\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e230\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e114,600\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e265\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e495\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Lowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP) 2021.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.8. Tick Sample Collection and Identification Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe selected individual sheep and goat animal were examined from head to tail including legs for the presence of ticks on the body of the animal. However, during tick sample collection, the entire body of the examined individual sheep and goat were sub-divided into three predefined regions including: head-neck region, abdomen-thorax region and perineum\u0026ndash;tail. Then, selected small ruminant was considered to be positive for a given tick infestation when at least one tick was collected from them. The adult engorged visible female and male ticks were sampled from only one targeted predefined above body regions manually using thumb forceps to grasp ticks which were found on the body of the infested shoats. During tick collection, care was taken to ensure that the mouth parts of tick not to leave behind during traction with hand or thumb forceps. Each collected tick sample was placed and preserved in separate universal bottles containing 70% ethanol which were correctly pre labeled with date, zone, woreda, animal species, sex, age group, herd-size and body condition scores. Then, it was tightly closed and transported to Jigjiga Regional Veterinary Diagnostic and Investigation Center for further tick examination and identification. The collected ticks from each bottle was placed onto petri-dishes and examined under light stereomicroscope to identify and differentiate at the tick genera and species level with main identification features which include color, size and shape of mouth parts, scutum, anal groove, festoon, punctuation and legs of the ticks in accordance with Walker \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2003) and Onkello-onen \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.9. Ethical issues\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Before any effort to gather data, small ruminant owners participating in the study were briefed about the goal of the study and the reasons why the research must be done. During the data gathering procedure, the researcher kept the small ruminant herders and their animals which participated voluntarily to secure their rights and welfare. The study was carried out as planned after gaining their oral permission. The privacy and confidentiality of the participants were preserved during the participatory assessment research, and all respondents were informed to sign consent forms accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.10. Data Management and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe raw data obtained through Participatory Epidemiology (PE) tools were precisely recorded and stored into Microsoft excel sheets. Then after, transferred to statistical package for social sciences software version 24.0 (SPSS V.24.0). A descriptive statistics including frequency and percentages were used to determine prioritization of small ruminant ectoparasite infestations. The PE data were summarized using median scores, minimum and maximum scores at 95% confidence intervals. Agreement among the scores of informant groups were assessed using Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) (Siegel and castellan, 1998).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, the tick specimen data collected and conventional laboratory diagnostic results conducted were stored and coded in Epi Data Version 3.1. Then, transferred to STATA software Version 14. Chi-square test was applied to compare the infestation rate with regard to explanatory variables. In addition, binary logistic regression test was applied to determine prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation rates with regard to the hypothesized associated risk factors. Finally, multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to estimate the adjusted odd ratio of associated risk factors on small ruminants\u0026rsquo; tick infestation at the selected study areas. In all the analyses, the confidence interval was set at 95% and P value (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05) was considered as indicator for significance association.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Participatory Epidemiological Surveys\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajor important small ruminants\u0026rsquo; ectoparasite diseases based on the knowledge and scope of the informants were assessed through PDS discussion. The types of small ruminants ectoparasite diseases occurring in the study area were listed as declared by the informants with the clinical definitions and local name (\u003cem\u003eVernacular name\u003c/em\u003e) of the diseases. Vernacular name of some diseases slightly vary from one district to another and all the different names were recorded for cross-checking purpose. The corresponding scientific name of these diseases were also given based on the clinical manifestations declared by the key-informants. All the listed ectoparasites were reported across these districts and this can be due to their closely related geographical location which lies in the same zone (Shabelle zone). The five most prioritized diseases of small ruminants\u0026rsquo; ectoparasites in both districts (Gode and Denan) based on their common occurrences were; tick infestations, lice infestations, manage mites, flea infestations, and sheep keds infestations respectively (See below Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRanking significant small ruminant ectoparasite diseases based on their frequent occurrences using simple ranking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVernacular names\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*Common name\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian Score\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRank\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShilin\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTick\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR34 CR35 CR36 CR37\" citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1st\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInjir\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR23 CR24 CR25 CR26 CR27\" citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2nd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCadho\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMange mite\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR20 CR21 CR22 CR23 CR24 CR25 CR26\" citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3rd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTagfi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR12 CR13 CR14 CR15 CR16\" citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQarinqil\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep keds\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5(0\u0026ndash;5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing a simple ranking, informants performed pair-wise rankings of the five most common small ruminant ectoparasite infestations based on loss of production, impact on small ruminant owners' livelihood, occurrences in morbidity, and mortality rates. In pair-wise ranking method, some of the diseases which were difficult to reach an agreement were further compared individually and some diseases prioritized at the top in simple ranking were considered to rank last than the other after a long debate and convenient judgment of the group members. Accordingly, informants listed tick (\u003cem\u003eShilin\u003c/em\u003e), lice (\u003cem\u003eInjir\u003c/em\u003e), mange mite (\u003cem\u003eCadho\u003c/em\u003e), flea (\u003cem\u003eTagfi\u003c/em\u003e), and sheep keds (\u003cem\u003eQarinqil\u003c/em\u003e) as the most important small ruminant ectoparasite infestations in the research area in order of priority in the selected districts. Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) used to know agreements among the informant groups according to small ruminant ectoparasite infestations showed a strong good agreement (W\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.947; P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) (See below Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePair-wise ranking of most five significant small ruminants' ectoparasite infestations at study districts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmall ruminant\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcto-parasite infestations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian Score\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRank\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTick\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1st\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2nd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMange mite\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3rd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep keds\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.947\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, the results of the four seasonal occurrences among the five common Ectoparasite infestations of small ruminants selected by pastoralists were summarized in the below table (4). Agreement between informant groups were quantified using the Kendal coefficient of concordance and were categorized according to critical values of W as weak, moderate and good. If W-values were less than 0.26 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) it was considered as weak agreement and moderate, if W-value was between 0.26 and 0.38 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) but, if W-values were greater than 0.38 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01 to \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) the agreement between the informants was supposed to be strong. This was done by assuming ranking of four seasons.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrong agreement was observed among the 8 independent informant groups concerning seasonal patterns of the five common Ectoparasite infestations in small ruminants. Ectoparasites such as ticks and lice, its seasonal pattern infestations were linked to the dry season and rainy seasons of the year, including; \u003cem\u003eJilaal\u003c/em\u003e (winter) (December-February) and \u003cem\u003eDeyr\u003c/em\u003e (autumn/heavy rainy) (September-November) While, mange mite and flea infestation were mostly linked to the rainy seasons such as \u003cem\u003eGu\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e(spring) and \u003cem\u003eDeyr\u003c/em\u003e (Autumn) seasons. Sheep keds was common throughout both the dry (\u003cem\u003eJilaal\u003c/em\u003e), (\u003cem\u003eXagaa\u003c/em\u003e)and rainy (\u003cem\u003eGu\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e) seasons (See below Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeasonal occurrences of the five top ranking small ruminant ectoparasite infestations in selected districts of Shabelle zone by informant groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmall\u0026nbsp;ruminant ectoparasite infestations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSEASONAL CALENDAR\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003elocal Somali seasons\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGu\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Spring)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(March-May)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eXagaa\u003c/em\u003e (Summer)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(June-August)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeyr\u003c/em\u003e (Autumn)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(September-November)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJilaal\u003c/em\u003e (Winter)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(December-February)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShilin\u003c/em\u003e (lick)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(W\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001*)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;..\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e..#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8 CR9 CR10\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;.\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.5(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13 CR14 CR15\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e.#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInjir\u003c/em\u003e (lice)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(W\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.938)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001*)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.5(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR4\" citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e.#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8 CR9 CR10 CR11\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;.\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13 CR14 CR15\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;..\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCadho\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(mange)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(W\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.929)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001*)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.5(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13 CR14 CR15 CR16\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e.#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3 CR4 CR5\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8 CR9 CR10 CR11\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;.\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3 CR4\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTagfi\u003c/em\u003e (Flea)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(W\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.913)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001*)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11 CR12\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;..\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1(1`-3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e.#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13 CR14\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR3 CR4\" citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;.\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQarinqil\u003c/em\u003e (Sheepkeds)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(W\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.923)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001*)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11 CR12 CR13 CR14\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;..\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR6\" citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1(0\u0026ndash;3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e.#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11 CR12\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u003c/b\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eKey\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8; W= Kendall\u0026rsquo;s coefficient of concordance; the higher the value, the higher the level of agreement between the informant groups. (nsp\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 (non-significant); **p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01; ***p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001(highly significant); \u003cb\u003e#\u003c/b\u003e the black dotes represent the number of stones (median scores). The values in the parenthesis are minimum and maximum limits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Prevalence of Tick infestation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the total 495 examined small ruminants, 396 were infested by one or more of tick species. The overall prevalence of tick infestations in both species in the study area was 80%. Thus, the corresponding percentage of tick infestation in goat and sheep was 77.2%, and 84.3% respectively. The overall prevalence of small ruminants\u0026rsquo; tick infestation in selected districts namely; Danan and Gode were 77.1% and 85.6%, respectively (See below Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall prevalence of tick infestation in small ruminants in the study districts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy districts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Examined\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo_Sheep Sampled\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo_Goat Sampled\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Shoats Infested\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo_ infested Sheep [%]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo_ infested Goat [%]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall prevalence (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDanan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e328\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e176\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e152\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e253\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e125 [52.9]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e128 [50.4]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(77.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e167\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75 [31.4]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68 [26.8]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(85.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e495\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e265\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e230\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e396\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e200 [84.3]\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e196 [77.2]\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(80.0)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall 495 examined small ruminants, a total of 885 ticks were collected from infested 200 sheep and 196 goats. Upon identification, the ticks were classified into four genera (\u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus, Hyalomma, Amblyomma and Boophilis)\u003c/em\u003e and seven species (\u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus evertsi evertsi, Rhipicephalus pulchellus, Hyalomma rufipes, Hyalomma truncatum, Amblyomma variegatum, Amblyomma gemma and Rhipi. (B. decoloratus)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRhipicephalus (43.5%) was the most abundantly identified tick genera followed by Hyalomma (33.6%), Amblyomma(14.6%); whereas Boophilus(8.36%) was the least prevalent tick \u003cem\u003egenus\u003c/em\u003e in the study area (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, \u003cem\u003eR. evertsi evertsi\u003c/em\u003e (34%) was the most abundantly encountered species with highest prevalent followed by \u003cem\u003eH. rufipes\u003c/em\u003e (17.4%), \u003cem\u003eH. truncatum\u003c/em\u003e (16.2%), \u003cem\u003eA. variegatum\u003c/em\u003e, (12.1%), \u003cem\u003eR. pulchellus\u003c/em\u003e (9.5%) \u003cem\u003eB. decoloratus\u003c/em\u003e (8.4%) and A. \u003cem\u003egemma\u003c/em\u003e (2.5%) (See below Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall prevalence of total tick burden at genera and species levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGenus of ticks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal No. of tick\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTick Species\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevalence(%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e385\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR. evertsi evertsi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e301\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR. pulchellus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoophilis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB. decoloratus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA. variegatum\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.1`%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmblyomma\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e129\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA. gemma\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH. truncatum\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyalomma\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e297\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH. rufipes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e154\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e885\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e885\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBinary logistic regression of risk factors for small ruminants\u0026rsquo; tick infestations were analyzed. The difference in the prevalence of tick infestation between age groups, herd size and body condition of animals were statistically significant (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The laboratory results indicated that the prevalence was higher in adult (2\u0026ndash;4 years) 46.3% and older (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4 years) (29.9%) than younger (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2 years) (3.8%). Higher prevalence of tick was recorded in medium (30\u0026ndash;80) (53.1%) and larger (80\u0026ndash;100) (23.2%) than smaller herd size (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30) (3.6%). In body condition score higher prevalence was detected in poor (63.8%) and medium body condition\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(15.2%) than good body condition (1%) of the study animals. Moreover, the occurrence of tick was detected higher in Danan (51.1%) than Gode (28.9%) showing statistically insignificant within study districts. Higher prevalence of tick was also recorded in female (50.1%) than in male (29.9%). However, the prevalence of tick found to be statistically insignificant within sex of species. Similarly, the prevalence of tick found to be statistically insignificant within species even though higher prevalence was detected in sheep (40.4%) than in goat (39.6%) (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (see below Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBinary logistic regression of risk factors for small ruminants\u0026rsquo; tick infestations at the study areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo_ Examined\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo_ Infested (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrude OR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(95%, CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP- value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDanan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e328\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e253(51.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy areas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e167\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e143(28.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1.07\u0026ndash;2.92)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e200(40.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGoat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e230\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e196(39.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.44\u0026ndash;1.08)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYoung (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2 years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19(3.8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdult(2\u0026ndash;4 years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e271\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e229(46.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(7.37\u0026ndash;25.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOlder (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4 years).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e157\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e148(29.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(17.62\u0026ndash;97.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e294\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e248(50.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e201\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e148(29.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.33\u0026ndash;0.80)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmall (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18(3.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHerd size\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium (30\u0026ndash;80)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e296\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e263(53.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(13.5\u0026ndash;48.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLarger (80\u0026ndash;100)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e115(23.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(19.0-112)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e323\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e316(63.8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBCs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e138\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75(15.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.012\u0026ndash;0.060)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5(1.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.001\u0026ndash;0.013)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e*Highly significant at 95% level of significance 1* Reference category, BCS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Body condition Score, OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Odd Ratio,\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral potential risk factors such as age group, herd size and body condition score, study area and sex were selected from the binary logistic regions analysis for multivariable logistic regression analysis based on their p-value (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in order to identify their potential risk factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn multivariable logistic regression analysis of selected risk factors determined by age group, herd size and body condition score were the only marginally explanatory variables that were significantly associated (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) with the occurrence of tick infestations on small ruminants. Accordingly, adults (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.82, 95% CI: 2.4\u0026ndash;13.9%) and older groups (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.66, 95% CI: 3.08%-30.4%) were more likely to be at higher risk for getting tick infestation than young shoats. Likewise; the larger herd size (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.42, 95% CI: 4.85%-48.96%) and medium herd size (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.36, 95% CI: 4.92%-26.2%) were more likely at higher risk to be infested by tick species than smaller herd size. Furthermore, the good body condition score shoats (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.007, 95% CI: 0.002%-0.027%) and moderate body condition (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.082, 95% CI: 0.033%-0.209%) were less likely to be at risk of acquiring tick infestations than poor body condition small ruminants (See below Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). However, based on statistical analysis, the occurrence of tick infestation in the current study area was not affected by sex of the animals and the areas where the study animals sampled (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (See below table.8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultivariable logistic regression of risk factors in relation to small ruminants\u0026rsquo; tick infestations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber Examined\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo_ Infested (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAOR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(95%, CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP- value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYoung (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2 years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19(3.8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdult(2\u0026ndash;4 years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e271\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e229(46.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2.4\u0026ndash;13.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOlder (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;4 years).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e157\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e148(29.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3.08\u0026ndash;30.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmall (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18(3.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHerd size\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium (30\u0026ndash;80)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e296\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e263(53.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(4.92\u0026ndash;26.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLarger (80\u0026ndash;100)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e115(23.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(4.85\u0026ndash;48.96)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e323\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e316(63.8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBCS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e138\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75(15.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.033\u0026ndash;0.209)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5(1.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.002\u0026ndash;0.027)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e*Highly significant at 95% level of significance 1* =Reference category, AOR= Adjusted Odd Ratio, BCS=Body Condition Score, CI= confidence Intervals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. DISCUSSIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003e The current participatory epidemiological study has enlightened the presence of major ectoparasite disease problems in small ruminants in the study areas. The conducted PE methods such as simple ranking, pair-wise ranking, and seasonal calendar has complemented and supported for prioritization of ectoparasites in small ruminants. The overall ranking of five important small ruminants\u0026rsquo; ectoparasite infestations from these study districts showed that tick infestations, lice infestations, manage mites, flea infestations, and sheep keds infestations were the most prioritized and ranked constraints by pastoralists in the study districts. This participatory epidemiological study showed that ectoparasites were serious health problem in the livelihoods of the pastoralists in selected districts of Shabelle zone. More frequently observed in the present study was the tick infestation (locally known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eShilin\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;) which ranked first small ruminant ectoparasite in the study area. This finding agreed with the former reports of Jones \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2020), in which small ruminants\u0026rsquo; tick infestation was listed to be one of the most common five ectoparasite infestations by survey conducted from Afar pastoralists using participatory rural appraisal methods in Afar region, Ethiopia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this current study, tick infestation was reported to occur commonly during the dry/warm periods (\u003cem\u003eJilaal/\u003c/em\u003ewinter) (December-February) and heavy rainy/wet periods (\u003cem\u003eGu\u0026rsquo;a/\u003c/em\u003eSpring) (March-April) by the informant groups. This is in line with the reports of Bhaskaran e\u003cem\u003et al\u003c/em\u003e., (2004) who demonstrated higher occurrence of tick infestations on small ruminants during long dry/warm period followed by heavy rainy periods/wet seasons. This was mostly due to an increase in the number of nymph formation. This finding is line with with reports conducted by FAO, (2005) indicated that ticks are mostly active during the warm seasons and active milder in wet seasons of heavy rainy periods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation in the study area was observed. The overall prevalence of tick infestations in both species in the study area was 80%. This finding was relatively similar with 79% prevalence of tick infestation in Fafan zone, Somali region which was reported by Kedir and Petros, (2015). The present finding was higher than the study conducted by Mesfin Mathewos \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2021) who reported 68.75% over all prevalence in Boloso Sore Districts of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. The present finding was lower when compared with the study conducted by Fufa \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2009) who reported the overall prevalence of 87.5% in Miesso district, West Harergie, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. The difference in the prevalence might be due to the geographical difference, small ruminants breed type difference, seasons of the study period and veterinary service extensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal species level prevalence of tick infestation found to be 84.3% in sheep and 77.2% in goats. This difference in the prevalence of tick in sheep and goat was not statistically significant (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). This finding is closely agreed with the study conducted by Kedir and Petros, (2015) with prevalence of 81.7% in sheep and 77% in goats from three districts of Fafan zone in Somali region. Fufa \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2009) also reported higher prevalence of tick was detected in sheep than goats. In contrast, the prevalence of tick infestation was higher in goat than sheep in Northwest and Southern Ethiopia (Seyum \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2015; Mesfin Mathewos \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2021). The difference in the prevalence of tick infestation in the current study may have been due to differences in the feeding behavior of sheep and goats where goats usually browse and have pronounced grooming behavior which could reduce the chance of infection and help to detach more ticks from their body.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study revealed that sheep and goats in the study area were highly infested with different genera of ticks namely, \u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus Hyalomma, Boophilus\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eAmblyomma.\u003c/em\u003e Among the tick species identified, \u003cem\u003eR. evertsi evertsi\u003c/em\u003e (34%) was the most abundantly encountered species with high burden followed by \u003cem\u003eH. rufipes\u003c/em\u003e (17.4%), \u003cem\u003eH. truncatum\u003c/em\u003e (16.2%), \u003cem\u003eA. variegatum\u003c/em\u003e, (12.1%), \u003cem\u003eR. pulchellus\u003c/em\u003e (9.5%) \u003cem\u003eB. decoloratus\u003c/em\u003e(8.4%), and \u003cem\u003eA. gemma\u003c/em\u003e (2.5%) was the minor species observed on both goats and sheep. This finding was in agreement with the study conducted by Kedir and Petros, (2015) who reported \u003cem\u003eR. evertsi evertsi (34.9%), H.truncatum (29.7%), R. pulchellus (21.6%), A.variegatum (21.4%), H. rufipes (16.7%), Rhip. (Boophilus) decoloratus (11.2%) and A. gemma (2.1%)\u003c/em\u003e from three districts of Fafan zone in Somali region. However, Mesfin Mathewos \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2021) reported that A. \u003cem\u003evariegatum (\u003c/em\u003e44.97%) was found to be the most abundant tick species followed by \u003cem\u003eRhip. (Boophilus) decoloratus (\u003c/em\u003e30.79%), \u003cem\u003eR. pulchellus (\u003c/em\u003e20.47%) and \u003cem\u003eH. truncatum (\u003c/em\u003e3.77%). Different studies indicated the range and number of tick species infesting small ruminants varies by regions in Ethiopia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study estimated that tick infestation prevalence was significantly higher in adult (46.3%) than older (29.9%) and younger (3.8%) with statistical significant variation (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The current study revealed that older age (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4 years), (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.66, 95%, CI: 3.08\u0026ndash;30.4) and adult (2\u0026ndash;4 years) (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.82, 95%, CI: 2.4\u0026ndash;13.9) were more likely to be at higher risk infesting tick species than younger age groups (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2 years). This finding was in line with the study conducted by Mesfin Mathewos \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2021), Jafar \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2017) and Tewodros \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2012) in different parts of the country(Ethiopia). This might be due to young animals have a minimum rate of exposure to tick since the number of ticks is less around animal house as compared to animals\u0026rsquo; grazing areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe body condition score was significantly (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) associated with the occurrence of tick infestations on small ruminants. Lower prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation was recorded in good (1%) and moderate body condition scores (15.2%) than the poor body condition scored small ruminants (63.8%). The good body condition scores in small ruminants (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.007, 95% CI: 0.002%-0.027%) and moderate Body condition (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.082, 95% CI: 0.033%-0.209%) were less likely to be at risk of acquiring tick infestations than poor body condition small ruminants. This finding is in agreement with the findings of Mesfin Mathewos \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2021), Tewodros \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2012) in different parts of Ethiopia and also Rasmi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2007) from Iran and Madeira \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2000) from Sao Paulo, Brazil. This was inconsistent with the study result reported by Jafar \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2017) in Dire Dawa, eastern Ethiopia, and by Seid (2004) in Mizzen Teferi Bench Maji Zone, SNNPRS. The difference in the prevalence of tick infestation among different body condition score might be due to the fact that animals in poor body condition have low immunity against tick and lack the body ability to develop resistance mechanism, whereas animals in good body condition have well developed immunity and are able to overcome tick infestation effectively (Manan \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2007). Furthermore, tick infestation may result in poor body health and condition since ticks consume a huge quantity of blood and fluid.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlso, higher prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation was recorded in larger (23.2%) and medium herd sizes (53.1%) sheep and goats than in the smaller herd size (3.6%). The herd/flock size had significant effect on the prevalence of tick infestation (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The larger herd size (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.42, 95% CI: 4.85%-48.96%) and medium herd size (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.36, 95% CI: 4.92%-26.2%) were more likely to be at higher risk acquiring tick species than smaller herd size. This finding is in agreement with the findings of Rasmi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, (2007) from Iran and Madeira \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., (2000) from Sao Paulo, Brazil. In large flocks there is crowding of the animals, which increases the chance of contact between animals and results in the transmission of ectoparasites between infested and susceptible animals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eEctoparasite is one the most serious cause of animal health problems of livestock production in Shebelle zone, Somali region, Ethiopia. The finding of the present participatory epidemiological study revealed that the existence of tick infestations was one of the most prioritized significant small ruminant ectoparasite in the study area followed by lice, mange mite, flea and sheep keds. The occurrence of tick infestation was highly prevalent during the dry period and followed by rainy seasons. The present finding also showed that a small ruminant tick infestation was highly prevalent in the study area. In this study, seven species of ticks which grouped under four genera were identified. \u003cem\u003eR. evertsi evertsi\u003c/em\u003e was the most abundantly encountered species followed by \u003cem\u003eH. rufipes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eH. truncatum\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eA. variegatum, R. pulchellus R. (Boophilus) decoloratus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eA. gemma.\u003c/em\u003e and The prevalence of small ruminant tick infestation in the study area was significantly affected by age and body condition score of the animals as well as the number of animals kept in the herd/flock. The information displayed in this participatory epidemiological study which was assessed from the existing knowledge of pastoral community accompanied with the prevalence study has given valid and well organized information scientifically that can be used to design better animal health projects, delivery systems and more successful surveillance and control and prevention strategies for ectoparasites including tick infestation in small ruminants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, based on the above conclusion, the following recommendations were suggested:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttention should be given to the control and prevention of ticks especially considering the potential risk factors such as age, body condition and herd/flock size.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAppropriate prophylactics and control measures of tick infestation should be designed by veterinary health service providers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn appropriate ectoparasite disease calendar mapping should be performed since seasonal ectoparasite occurrence is important for proper timing of intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePastoral community awareness creations should be implemented on regular basis to livestock owners on the impacts of ticks and tick-borne diseases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was obtained from Haramaya University, Ethiopia and all human participants were given a written informed consent form accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eACKNOWLEDGMENTS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge all participants and pastoral community across the two selected districts that participated in this study and provided access to their facilities for research purposes. Their willingness to collaborate was essential to the success of this investigation. Special thanks are extended to all stakeholders particularly; Jigjiga Regional Veterinary Laboratory Center under Somali Regional State, Pastoral Development Bureau.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization. Material preparation and data collection, \u0026nbsp;Methodology, Validation, \u0026nbsp; Investigation, Data Curation, Software, Data analysis, Supervision, Writing-Original Draft were performed by [Ahmed Abdi Mohomed]. Review \u0026amp; Editing, Visualization, Project administration, Resources, Writing - Review \u0026amp; \u0026nbsp;Supervision were performed by [Yehualashet Bayu and Sisay Alemu]. \u0026nbsp;All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUNDING\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCOMPETING INTERESTS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;All authors declare no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAVAILABILITY OF DATA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData will be made available on request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCONSENT FOR PUBLICATION\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbadi Y. (2000) Current problem of leather industry. In: Merkel RC, Abebe G, Goetsch AL, editors Proceedings of the conference held at Debub University, Awassa, Ethiopia. On the opportunities and challenges enhancing goat production in East Africa, Debub University, Awassa, Ethiopia, pp: 139\u0026ndash;143. 8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbebayehu T, Endris F, Berhan M, Rahmeto A, Solomon M. Study on the prevalence of ectoparasite infestation of ruminants in and around Kombolcha and damage to fresh goat pelts and wet blue (pickled) skin at Kombolcha Tannery, Northeastern Ethiopia. Ethiop Veterinary J. 2011;15:87\u0026ndash;101.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbebe R, Tatek M, Megersa B, Sheferew D. Prevalence of small ruminants ectoparasites and associated risk factors in selected districts of Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Global Vet. 2011;7(5):433\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsnake F, Tolossa YH, Hagos A. Ectoparasites of small ruminants in three agro-ecological districts of Southern Ethiopia. Afr J Basic Appl Sci. 2013;5(1):47\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAyele SW, Assegid MA, Jabbar MM, Belachew H. (2003) Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: a review of structure, performance and developing initiatives. Working Paper No. 52. Addis Ababa: International Livestock Research Institute.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhaskaran R, Latha, Aiyasami SS, Pattabiraman G, Sivaraman T, Rajavelu G. Seasonal activity of ticks on small ruminants in Tamil Nadu State, India. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2004;36:123\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1023/B:TROP.0000012108.42526.11\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/B:TROP.0000012108.42526.11\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCentral Statistical Agency. Volume II Statistical Bulletin. Vol. 585. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Central Statistical Authority; Agricultural sample survey. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCatley A. Participatory epidemiology: a guide for trainers. Nairobi: African Union/InterAfrican Bureau for Animal Resources; 2005.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCatley A. Use of participatory epidemiology to compare the clinical veterinary knowledge of pastoralists and veterinarians in East Africa. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2006;38(3):171\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoppock DL, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Gim\u0026eacute;nez M, Hiernaux P, Huber-Sannwald E, Schloeder C, Valdivia C, Arredondo JT, Jacobs M, Turin C, Turner M. (2017) 'Rangeland systems in developing nations: conceptual advances and societal implications', in \u003cem\u003eRangeland systems\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 569\u0026ndash;642.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnquebaher K, Kebede E. (2010) 'Epidemiological study on mange mite, lice and sheep keds of small ruminants in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia'. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20123013371\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20123013371\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eESGPIP (Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program). Control of external parasites of sheep and goats. Ethiop Soc Anim Prod (ESAP) Tech Bull. 2010;41:2\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). (2005). FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture World Food Program (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/docrep/007/J3958e00\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/J3958e00\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFufa A, Jonsen T, Alemayehu R. Status of tick infestation in small ruminants of West Hararge District, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2009;41:459\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGatenby MR. (2002) \u003cem\u003eSheep\u003c/em\u003e. Revised edition. \u003cem\u003eThe Tropical Agriculturalist\u003c/em\u003e. Wageningen: CTA and Macmillan, pp. 128\u0026ndash;135.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJafer A, Wendemagegn D, Tsehay A, Silesh S, Abebe H. Prevalence of tick infestation on small ruminants in and around Dire Dawa, eastern Ethiopia. Int J Res - Granthaalayah. 2017;5(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.29121/granthaalayah.v5.i5.2017.1864\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29121/granthaalayah.v5.i5.2017.1864\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones BA, Muhammed A, Ali ET, Homewood KM, Pfeiffer DU. Pastoralist knowledge of sheep and goat disease and implications for peste des petits ruminants virus control in the Afar Region of Ethiopia. Prev Vet Med. 2020;174:104808. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104808\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104808\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKassa B. (2006) 'Cockle, mange and pox: major threats to the leather industry in Ethiopia', in Ethiopian leather industry: perseverance towards value addition. Proceedings of the National Workshop, Addis Ababa, pp. 71\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKedir M, Admasu P. Prevalence of ixodid ticks in small ruminants in selected districts of Fafen Zone, Eastern Ethiopia. Eur J Appl Sci. 2015;7(2):50\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5829/idosi.ejas.2015.7.2.9471\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5829/idosi.ejas.2015.7.2.9471\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumsa B, Beyecha K, Geloye M. Ectoparasites of sheep in three agro-ecological zones in central Oromia, Ethiopia. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2012;79(1):1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLegese G, Fadiga M. Small Ruminant Value Chain Development in Ethiopia: Situation Analysis and Trends. ICARDA/ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas/International Livestock Research Institute; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeul B, Berihun A, Etsay K. (2020) 'Epidemiological distribution of major ectoparasites species of small ruminant in the case of chemical control campaign in Welkait district, Tigray region, Ethiopia', \u003cem\u003eJournal of Tropical Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, 2020, p. 4175842.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLowland Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP). Report on human socio demography and livestock populations of LLRP targeted districts in Somali. Regional State of Ethiopia; 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMadeira NG, Amarante AFT, Padvani CR. Diversity of ectoparasites in sheep flocks in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2000;32:225\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManan A, Khan Z, Ahmad B. (2007) 'Prevalence and identification of ixodid ticks genera in frontier region peshawar'. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:32178645\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:32178645\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMathewos M, Welamu WH, Fesseha H, Aliye S, Endale H. Study on prevalence of hard ticks and their associated risk factors in small ruminants of Boloso Sore Districts of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Veterinary Medicine: Res Rep. 2021;12:293\u0026ndash;301.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMolla B, Haile H, Alemu S. Prevalence and risk factors associated to skin diseases in small ruminants in Gamo Gofa zone, south-Western Ethiopia. J Veterinary Med Anim Health. 2017;9:228\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMulugeta Y, Yacob HT, Ashenafi H. Ectoparasites of small ruminants in three selected agro-ecological sites of Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2010;42:1219\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOnkello-Onen J, Hassan S, Essuman S. Taxonomy of African ticks: an identification manual. Nairobi: International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology; 2006. pp. 1\u0026ndash;124.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRadostits MO, Gay CC, Hinchcliff KW, Constable PD. (2007) Veterinary medicine: a textbook of the diseases of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs and goats. 10th edition. London: Saunders Elsevier.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRasmi GR, Glinsharifodini M, Sarvi S. Prevalence of ixodid ticks on cattle in Mazandaran province, Iran. Global Vet. 2007;68:12\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeigel S, Castellan NJ. (1998) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeyoum Z, Tadesse T, Addisu A. (2015) 'Ectoparasites prevalence in small ruminants in and around Sekela, Amhara Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia', \u003cem\u003eJournal of Veterinary Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, 2015, p. 216085.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheferaw D, Degefu H, Banteyirgu D. Epidemiological study of small ruminant mange mites in three agro-ecological zones of Wolayta, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiop Veterinary J. 2010;14:31\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSolomon A, Workalemahu A, Hurrisa B, Jabbar MA, Ahmed MM. (2003) Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: a review of structure, performance and development initiatives. Socio-economic and Policy Research Working Paper 52. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTefera S. (2004) 'Investigation in ectoparasites of small ruminants in selected sites of Amhara Regional state and their impact on tanning industry'. MSc thesis. Addis Ababa University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeshome W. (2002) 'Study on small ruminant skin disease in the Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia'. DVM thesis. Addis Ababa University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTewodros F, Fasil W, Mersha C, Malede B. Prevalence of ectoparasites on small ruminants in and around Gondar town. American-Eurasian J Sci Res. 2012;7:106\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThrusfield M. Veterinary epidemiology. 3rd ed. London: Blackwell publishing; 2005.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalker A, Bouattour A, Camicas J, Estrada-Pena A, Horak I, Latif A, Pegram R, Preston P. (2003) Ticks of Domestic Animals in Africa: A Guide to Identification of Species. Bioscience Reports, Edinburgh.\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.alanrwalker.com/index/cms-filesystem-action/tickguide-africaweb-08.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.alanrwalker.com/index/cms-filesystem-action/tickguide-africaweb-08.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 10 November 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYacob HT, Nesanet B, Dinka A. Prevalence of major skin diseases in cattle, sheep and goats at Adama Veterinary Clinic, Oromia regional state. Ethiopia Rev Med Vet. 2008a;159:455\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYacob HT, Yalew TA, Dinka AA. Ectoparasite prevalence\u0026rsquo;s in sheep and goats in and around Wolita Soddo, Southern Ethiopia. Rev Med Vet. 2008b;159:450\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZemene Z, Addis M. Assessment of major factors that cause skin defects at Bahir Dar tannery, Ethiopia. Adv Biol Res. 2012;6:177\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Ectoparasites, Participatory Epidemiology, Prevalence, Risk factors, Tick infestation, Small Ruminants, Somali Region, Ethiopia","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8864623/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8864623/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eEctoparasite infestations pose significant health challenges to animals and contribute to substantial economic losses in livestock production. A cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2021 to July 2022 in selected districts of the Shabelle Zone, Somali Region, Ethiopia. The objectives were to identify and prioritize major ectoparasites of small ruminants, estimate the prevalence of tick infestations, assess associated risk factors, and determine the tick species involved. Participatory epidemiological methods including simple ranking, pairwise ranking, and seasonal calendars were used to prioritize common small ruminant ectoparasite infestations. Community participants ranked tick infestation as the most important ectoparasite problem, followed by lice, mange mites, fleas, and sheep keds. Using simple random sampling, a total of 495 small ruminants (265 sheep and 230 goats) were examined across two districts (Danan and Gode). Of these, 396 animals (200 sheep and 196 goats) were found infested, from which 885 adult ticks were collected and identified to species level under a stereomicroscope using standard morphological keys. The overall prevalence of tick infestation was 80.0% (396/495). Prevalence was higher in sheep (84.3%) than in goats (77.2%). By district, prevalence reached 77.1% in Danan and 85.6% in Gode. Seven tick species belonging to four genera were identified. The most abundant species was \u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus evertsi evertsi\u003c/em\u003e (34.0%), followed by \u003cem\u003eHyalomma rufipes\u003c/em\u003e (17.4%), \u003cem\u003eHyalomma truncatum\u003c/em\u003e (16.2%), \u003cem\u003eAmblyomma variegatum\u003c/em\u003e (12.1%), \u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus pulchellus\u003c/em\u003e (9.5%), \u003cem\u003eRhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus\u003c/em\u003e (8.4%), and \u003cem\u003eAmblyomma gemma\u003c/em\u003e (2.5%). Among potential risk factors, only age group, herd size, and body condition score showed a statistically significant association with tick infestation (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). No significant differences were observed by animal species, sex, or study districts (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Prevalence was markedly higher in adults (46.3%) and older animals (29.9%) compared with young ones (3.8%); in moderate (53.1%) and large herds (23.2%) compared with small herds (3.6%); and in animals with poor (63.8%) or medium body condition (15.2%) compared with those in good condition (1.0%). Due to the high prevalence and economic impact of tick infestations on small ruminants in the study areas; urgent prevention and control strategies considering risk factors, ectoparasite mapping, community awareness, and targeted veterinary services for pastoral communities are strongly recommended.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Participatory Epidemiology of Small Ruminants Ectoparasite Infestations with Prevalence Study on Tick Infestations at Two Selected Districts of Shabelle Zone in Somali Regional of Ethiopia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-17 14:40:26","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8864623/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"45838b9b-fb33-42e1-b290-46aab254ada2","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 17th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-18T08:27:30+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-17 14:40:26","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8864623","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8864623","identity":"rs-8864623","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}