Page 17 - Read Online

Husein et al. One Health Implement Res 2023;3:16-29 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ohir.2022.32 Page 22

Table 3. Number and percentage of dogs that were interested and subsequently consumed and considered vaccinated per bait type
Intestine Egg Fishmeal
Factor
% n % n % n
Offered 100 327 100 317 100 348
Interested 96.9 317 81.1 257 59.5 207
Consumed (if interested) 99.7 316 98.8 254 99.5 204
Vaccinated (if consumed) 82.6 256 95.2 239 69.6 135
Vaccinated (if offered) 78.3 256 75.4 239 38.8 135

Details on bait handling by the dogs are summarized in Table 6. The intestine bait was significantly more
often completely consumed than the other two bait types. The handling time of the intestine bait was
significantly shorter than for the other two baits. The sachet inside the intestine bait was significantly more
often swallowed than for the egg - and fish meal baits. However, the sachet in the egg bait (95.9%) was
significantly more often perforated than the sachet inside the intestine bait (84.9%) and fish meal bait
(71.1%). The bait handling time was not influenced by the fact that other dogs were present when the bait
was offered.

During the bait acceptance study, 10 contacts with the vaccine baits by the dog owners or caretakers were
observed. None of these contacts led to direct contact with the contents of the sachet, as indicated by the
absence of visible blue staining. Also, no biting incident was reported from a dog in the study areas to the
Public Health authorities during 3 days following the study. A total of 375 households were visited during
the second and third day afternoon following a visit in the morning where the dog had been offered a bait;
125 in Karangasem and 250 in Buleleng. A total of 23 contacts between blue-tongued dogs and a household
member were reported. All contacts concerned licking incidents; 11 - hands only, 8 - hands and feet, 3 feet
only, 1 - hand and cheek. Hence, in 6.1% of the household surveyed, someone had direct contact with a dog
that recently consumed a vaccine bait.

A detailed comparison of the opinions of field officers regarding the advantages and disadvantages of ORV
and CVR is provided in Table 7. In general, more than two-thirds of respondents (17 of 24) preferred the
oral vaccination method to the parenteral using nets to capture free-roaming dogs, 3 people preferred the
netting method, and the remaining did not prefer one method over the other. The reasons for choosing the
oral vaccination method include that it is easier to do, more humane as it does not stress dogs, is more
efficient because it requires less manpower, can reach dogs that are difficult to handle, and is more fun.
Some people prefer to vaccinate dogs using nets because they believe that once a dog has been captured, it
can be vaccinated with certainty, the method is quicker to administer, and they are accustomed to using it.
In addition, 16 people (67%) estimated the oral method could reach and vaccinate more dogs, while 25%
thought netting vaccination was superior in this regard. Considering animal welfare, 17 people (71%)
judged the oral method as better, 4 people (17%) rated vaccination using nets as better, and the rest assessed
both methods equally.

DISCUSSION
Selecting a bait that is well accepted by the local dog population and allows the release of the vaccine in the
oral cavity is essential for the effective ORV of dogs. Therefore, comparative bait acceptance studies have
been carried out in many countries [18,25,28-32] . Due to dissimilarities in study design, it is not easy to directly
compare the results obtained among these studies. To reduce this, similar study protocols as have been
applied elsewhere were used in the present study with a small difference in bait - and sachet types used [20-21] .