Page 16 - Read Online

Page 21 Husein et al. One Health Implement Res 2023;3:16-29 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ohir.2022.32

Table 2. Parameters used during bait acceptance study in Bali, Indonesia
Parameter Test Assessment
Bait handling Interest Observation Direct contact (nose, mouth) with bait
Consumption Observation Bait was (partially/fully) consumed
Handling Observation Time (sec.) between offering the bait and the end of bait handling
time
Sachet Perforation Observation If the sachet has been perforated or not
handling
Discarded Observation If the sachet has been discarded or not
Oral vaccination success Observation Based on bait handling, it will be assessed if the liquid inside the sachet has been released within
the oral cavity

different teams was included. Additional variables on when and where the dog was offered a bait were also
included in the statistical analysis - level of confinement, if the dog was alone or together with other dogs,
ownership status, size, gender, and age. Variables with P ≤ 0.20 were included in the final MLR model.
Statistical analyses were carried out using GraphPad Prism v9.0 (GraphPad Prism Software Inc., San Diego,
USA).

RESULTS
Of the 1,000 targeted dogs, 500 in each district, 6% were identified as restricted dogs, and the other 94%
were free-roaming dogs. 70% of target dogs were owned, 27% were ownerless, and the rest were with
unknown ownership status. 69% of target dogs were male, and 30% of dogs were female. 84% of target dogs
were adults, 15% were juveniles, and the rest were puppies.

The earliest and latest time point a dog was offered a bait was 06:30 and 17:07. Most dogs were approached
during the early morning (06:00-09:59). Of the 1,000 dogs approached, 781 (78.1%) showed interest in the
bait offered, 211 (21.1%) dogs ignored it, and from 8 (0.8%) dogs no information was available. Almost all
dogs that showed interest in bait subsequently consumed it.

However, there was a significant difference among the different bait types offered [Table 3]. Dogs showed
the highest interest in the intestine bait (96.9%), followed by the egg bait (81.1%), and only 59.5% of the dogs
were interested in the fish meal bait. In case the animals consumed the bait, the egg bait was more efficient
in releasing the vaccine in the oral cavity than the intestine bait: 95.2% and 82.6%, respectively. Also, here
the fish meal bait performed poorly (69.6%).

Dogs offered a fish meal bait were significantly less often considered vaccinated than the other two bait
types. The only other variable showing a significant effect was the team involved [Table 4].

For the MLR analysis, the following variables included bait type, team, social status, size, and age of the dog,
as the estimated p-value in the univariate analysis was < 0.20. Ten dogs were removed from the data set as
no data were available on sex. The estimated Odds Ratios of the MLR model are shown in Table 5. Several
teams were more likely to successfully vaccinate dogs approached than the reference team I. Fish meal bait
was also significantly less suitable than the other two baits. The vaccination success was higher for smaller-
sized dogs, but the likelihood that female dogs were more often successfully vaccinated was not significant.
Finally, there was also no significant effect on the outcome of the vaccination attempt if the dog was alone
or with other dogs when the bait was offered.