Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is caused by a virus of the genus Aphthorvirus of the family Picornaviridae. There is great scientific need for determining the transmission dynamics of FMD virus (FMDV) by drawing more attention to the livestock-wildlife interface areas. A variety of literature suggests that buffalo could serve as reservoir of FMDV in wildlife and cattle. However, many FMDV research studies conducted on experimentally infected cattle as carriers and groups of animal highly susceptible to FMDV (i.e. bovine calves) have shown lower chances of transmission of the virus between carriers and the susceptible groups. These findings underscore the importance of continued research on the role played by carrier animals on FMDV transmission dynamics under natural conditions. The aim of this research study was to determine FMDV infection status among buffalo and cattle herds in selected livestock-wildlife interface areas. The sampled areas included Mikumi, Mkomazi and Ruaha national parks, where a total of 330 buffalo and bovine sera samples were collected. Laboratory analysis of the samples was done through the NSP ELISA technique using the PrioCHECK® FMDV NS Kit for detection of antibodies directed against 3ABC non-structural proteins and confirming natural infections. Results showed that 76.3% of tested sera samples were positive for FMDV. However, serotyping of NSP ELISA seroreactors with LPBE is yet to be done. This information is important for further epidemiological studies towards developing effective FMD control strategies.

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is caused by a virus of the genus Aphthorvirus of the family Picornaviridae. There is great scientific need for determining the transmission dynamics of FMD virus (FMDV) by drawing more attention to the livestock-wildlife interface areas. A variety of literature suggests that buffalo could serve as reservoir of FMDV in wildlife and cattle. However, many FMDV research studies conducted on experimentally infected cattle as carriers and groups of animal highly susceptible to FMDV (i.e. bovine calves) have shown lower chances of transmission of the virus between carriers and the susceptible groups. These findings underscore the importance of continued research on the role played by carrier animals on FMDV transmission dynamics under natural conditions. The aim of this research study was to determine FMDV infection status among buffalo and cattle herds in selected livestock-wildlife interface areas. The sampled areas included Mikumi, Mkomazi and Ruaha national parks, where a total of 330 buffalo and bovine sera samples were collected. Laboratory analysis of the samples was done through the NSP ELISA technique using the PrioCHECK® FMDV NS Kit for detection of antibodies directed against 3ABC non-structural proteins and confirming natural infections. Results showed that 76.3% of tested sera samples were positive for FMDV. However, serotyping of NSP ELISA seroreactors with LPBE is yet to be done. This information is important for further epidemiological studies towards developing effective FMD control strategies.

This article outlines a pathway to develop the business case for One Health. It describes the origin and development of One Health and then identifies five potential areas where One Health can add value and reduce costs. These are: (1) sharing health resources between the medical and veterinary sectors; (2) controlling zoonoses in animal reservoirs; (3) early detection and response to emerging diseases; (4) prevention of pandemics; and (5) generating insights and adding value to health research and development. Examples are given for each category along with preliminary estimates of the potential savings from adopting the One Health approach. The literature reviewed suggests that one dollar invested in One Health can generate five dollars worth of benefits and a global investment of US$25 billion over 10 years could generate benefits worth at least US$125 billion. Conservation implications: the time has come to make the bigger case for massive investment in One Health in order to transform the management of neglected and emerging zoonoses and to save the lives of millions of people and hundreds of millions of animals whose production supports and nourishes billions of impoverished people per annum.

This article outlines a pathway to develop the business case for One Health. It describes the origin and development of One Health and then identifies five potential areas where One Health can add value and reduce costs. These are: (1) sharing health resources between the medical and veterinary sectors; (2) controlling zoonoses in animal reservoirs; (3) early detection and response to emerging diseases; (4) prevention of pandemics; and (5) generating insights and adding value to health research and development. Examples are given for each category along with preliminary estimates of the potential savings from adopting the One Health approach. The literature reviewed suggests that one dollar invested in One Health can generate five dollars worth of benefits and a global investment of US$25 billion over 10 years could generate benefits worth at least US$125 billion. Conservation implications: the time has come to make the bigger case for massive investment in One Health in order to transform the management of neglected and emerging zoonoses and to save the lives of millions of people and hundreds of millions of animals whose production supports and nourishes billions of impoverished people per annum.

Delia Grace, 'The business case for One Health', Onderstepoort J Vet Res, vol. 81(2), AOSIS, 2014 | This article outlines a pathway to develop the business case for One Health. It describes the origin and development of One Health and then identifies five potential areas where One Health can add value and reduce costs. These are: (1) sharing health resources between the medical and veterinary sectors; (2) controlling zoonoses in animal reservoirs; (3) early detection and response to emerging diseases; (4) prevention of pandemics; and (5) generating insights and adding value to health research and development. Examples are given for each category along with preliminary estimates of the potential savings from adopting the One Health approach. The literature reviewed suggests that one dollar invested in One Health can generate five dollars worth of benefits and a global investment of US$25 billion over 10 years could generate benefits worth at least US$125 billion. Conservation implications: the time has come to make the bigger case for massive investment in One Health in order to transform the management of neglected and emerging zoonoses and to save the lives of millions of people and hundreds of millions of animals whose production supports and nourishes billions of impoverished people per annum

This article outlines a pathway to develop the business case for One Health. It describes the origin and development of One Health and then identifies five potential areas where One Health can add value and reduce costs. These are: (1) sharing health resources between the medical and veterinary sectors; (2) controlling zoonoses in animal reservoirs; (3) early detection and response to emerging diseases; (4) prevention of pandemics; and (5) generating insights and adding value to health research and development. Examples are given for each category along with preliminary estimates of the potential savings from adopting the One Health approach. The literature reviewed suggests that one dollar invested in One Health can generate five dollars worth of benefits and a global investment of US$25 billion over 10 years could generate benefits worth at least US$125 billion. Conservation implications: the time has come to make the bigger case for massive investment in One Health in order to transform the management of neglected and emerging zoonoses and to save the lives of millions of people and hundreds of millions of animals whose production supports and nourishes billions of impoverished people per annum.

The practice of One Health approaches in human and animal health programmes is influenced by type and scope of bridges for and barriers to partnerships. It was thus essential to evaluate the nature and scope of collaborative arrangements among human, animal and wildlife health experts in dealing with health challenges which demand intersectoral partnership. The nature of collaborative arrangement was assessed, and the respective bridges and barriers over a period of 12 months (July 2011 - June 2012) were identified. The specific objectives were to: (1) determine the proportions of health experts who had collaborated with other experts of disciplines different from theirs, (2) rank the general bridges for and barriers to collaboration according to the views of the health experts, and (3) find the actual bridges for and barriers to collaboration among the health experts interviewed. It was found that 27.0% of animal health officers interviewed had collaborated with medical officers while 12.4% of medical officers interviewed had collaborated with animal health experts. Only 6.7% of the wildlife officers had collaborated with animal health experts. The main bridges for collaboration were instruction by upper level leaders, zoonotic diseases of serious impact and availability of funding. The main barriers to collaboration were lack of knowledge about animal or human health issues, lack of networks for collaboration and lack of plans to collaborate. This situation calls for the need to curb barriers in order to enhance intersectoral collaboration for more effective management of risks attributable to infectious diseases of humans and animals.

The practice of one health approaches in human and animal health programmes is influenced by type and scope of bridges and barriers for partnerships. It was thus essential to evaluate the nature and scope of collaborative arrangements among human, animal, and wildlife health experts in dealing with health challenges which demand inter-sectoral partnership. The nature of collaborative arrangement was assessed, and the respective bridges and barriers over a period of 12 months (July 20011 to June 2012) were identified. The specific objectives were to: (1) determine the proportion of health experts who had collaborated with other experts of disciplines different from theirs, (2) rank the general bridges for and barriers against collaboration according to the views of the health experts, and (3) find the actual bridges for and barriers against collaboration among the health experts interviewed. It was found that 27.0% of animal health officers interviewed had collaborated with medical officers while 12.4% of the medical officers interviewed had collaborated with animal health experts. Only 6.7% of the wildlife officers had collaborated with animal health experts. The main bridges for collaboration were instruction by upper level leaders, zoonotic diseases of serious impacts, and availability of funding. The main barriers for collaboration were lack of knowledge about animal/human health issues, lack of networks for collaboration, and lack of plans to collaborate. This thus calls for the need to curb barriers in order to enhance inter-sectoral collaboration for more effective management of risks attributable to infectious diseases of humans and animals.