Knowledge, awareness, and perceived risks of zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in South Garo Hills District of Meghalaya

Introduction

According to the South Garo Hills District Administration (SGHDA, 2025), the South Garo Hills district is located in the southern region of Meghalaya and was officially established on June 18, 1992. Geographically, it lies between latitudes 25˚10'N and 25˚35'N, and longitudes 90˚15'E and 91˚00'E. The district shares its borders with East Garo Hills to the north, West Khasi Hills to the east, West Garo Hills to the west, and the international boundary with Bangladesh to the south. Covering an area of 1,887 square kilometers, the district features a predominantly hilly and challenging terrain. Baghmara, the district headquarters, is the only urban centre in the region. As per the 20th Livestock Census (2019), the district recorded a livestock population comprising 74,686 cattle, 34,160 goats, and 53,753 pigs. A zoonosis is an infectious disease that has jumped from a non-human animal to humans. Zoonotic pathogens may be bacterial, viral or parasitic, or may involve unconventional agents and can spread to humans through direct contact or through food, water or the environment, WHO (2020) [30] . They signify a major public health problem around the world due to our close relationship with animals in agriculture, as companions and in the natural environment. Zoonoses can also cause disturbances in the production and trade of animal products for food and other uses WHO (2020) [30] . Emerging and reemerging zoonotic diseases having a potentially dangerous impact on human health have brought worldwide attention to them Woolhouse M.E.J. et al (2005) [26] . In a study by the C.D.C., 60% of all existing infectious diseases are zoonotic and at least 70% of emerging infectious diseases originate in animals, National Today (2022) [13] . Due to climatic changes, the incidence of emerging and reemerging diseases has increased to a greater degree sing B.B. et al (2011). Zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis, rabies, leptospirosis Solanki et al., (2023) [23] , bovine TB, cysticercosis, hydatidosis, toxoplasmosis and taeniasis need attention of veterinary public health service WHO (2002) [27] . Animal disease such as rabies, anthrax, brucellosis, bovine TB, cysticercosis, and hydatidosis has an important zoonotic potential WHO (2006) [28] Diseases can also be transmitted to humans through contamination during production, processing, and handling of animal products. Other risk factors contributory to zoonotic outbreaks are physical contacts with infected animals, slaughtering of infected animals, improper animal waste disposal, and infective materials of diseases animals. Lack of awareness among livestock farmers is one of the most important causes of zoonotic diseases and it is also an important obstacle in controlling zoonotic diseases, K. Rajkumar et al (2016) [7] . Zoonotic diseases significantly impact the livelihoods of livestock holders by compromising animal health and www.extensionjournal.com reducing both the quantity and quality of animal products. This leads to significant economic losses, further weakening the economy and diminishing the livestock product market due to reduced consumer confidence Wastling, J.M et al (1999) [25] and McDermott, J.J (2022) [11] . In India, the WHO implemented an extensive rabies control programme, which led to a significant reduction in rabies cases. This decline not only improved public health but also contributed to a reduction in associated economic losses. Similar programmes should also be implemented for other zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, and leptospirosis, which are of significant public health and economic importance. Therefore, it is essential to understand existing animal husbandry practices, public knowledge and awareness of zoonotic diseases, as well as the socioeconomic conditions of the community, in order to effectively design and implement disease awareness and control programmes. Hence, this study was undertaken among livestock farmers of the South Garo Hills district of Meghalaya to assess the degree of knowledge, awareness and perceived risks related to zoonotic diseases

Materials and Methods

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required for this survey-based study; however, informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Sampling area and size According to South Garo Hills District Village Information Directory of Meghalaya (2025), the South Garo Hills district of Meghalaya comprises a total of 804 villages. For the purpose of this study, a multi-stage random sampling technique was employed. In the first stage, 10 villages were randomly selected from the total. In the second stage, a total of 250 livestock farmers were randomly selected from these 10 villages. Each selected farmer was then personally interviewed using a structured questionnaire designed to gather relevant data for the study.

Data collection

Data were collected through personal interviews using a well-structured questionnaire that included both open-ended and close-ended questions. The questionnaire focused on various aspects related to zoonotic diseases, including respondents' awareness, knowledge, perceived risks, animal waste disposal practices, and personal hygiene. A total of 40 specific questions were framed to assess the source and transmission of zoonotic infections among livestock farmers and to evaluate their knowledge and awareness regarding zoonotic diseases. In addition to disease-specific information, data on several independent variables such as education level, income, age, animal waste disposal methods, and herd size were collected using a structured schedule and appropriate measurement scales. This comprehensive data collection approach ensured a holistic understanding of the factors influencing farmers' awareness and practices related to zoonotic diseases.

Statistical analysis

The data collected through the structured questionnaire were subjected to statistical analysis using the Chi-square (χ²) test. This non-parametric test was employed to examine the association between categorical variables. Specifically, the Chi-square test was used to assess the relationship between Age, education level, Income among livestock farmers. Also to analyse the association between the perceived risk of zoonotic diseases such as Rabies and Brucellosis and knowledge about animal husbandry practices. The results of these analyses provided insights into the factors influencing farmers' awareness and risk perception related to zoonotic diseases. Statistical significance was determined at appropriate levels (typically p < 0.05), and the findings were interpreted accordingly.

Results

Age, Education and Socioeconomic status of the livestock farmers:

Base on the present survey conducted at South Garo Hills the respondents were categorised into four age groups i.e. up to 25 years, 26 to 40 years, 41 to 60 years above 60 years. It has been found that majority of the respondent (50%) are belonging to the age group of 41-60 years (Table-1). Many of them are women since in this area majority of them are rearing pig and poultry as backyard farming and it is managed by women staying in home. From the survey it has been found that majority of the respondents involved in livestock rearing are having Secondary education (Figure -1). Moreover, majority of the respondent are able to read and write in their mother tongue Garo language. The present study reveals that most of the respondents are small-scale farmers and their monthly income was less than Rs. 10,000 (78%) which makes living more laborious (Table -2). From the present study analysis, it is found that there is significant negative correlation between Age of respondent with year of education (-0.57) and monthly income (-0.26) since most of the aged persons are less educated and having less monthly income. There is a significant positive correlation between education of the respondents and their monthly income (0.37) (Table -3) K.

Rajkumar (2016) [7] . www.extensionjournal.com

Knowledge about animal husbandry practices, awareness and risk factors associated with zoonotic diseases

From the survey it is found that majority (74%) of the respondents had low level of knowledge followed by medium level of knowledge 23.6%. whereas only 2.4% of the respondent had high level of knowledge about basic animal husbandry practices such as cleaning of shed, balanced feeding, timely vaccination, deworming, hygienic milking and heat stress management Table 4. As far as knowledge and awareness of zoonotic diseases are concerned, only 10% of respondents were aware that certain diseases can be transmitted from infected animals to humans. Awareness of specific diseases was also low: only 30% of respondents were familiar with rabies, while just 6% had any knowledge of brucellosis. Furthermore, only 3.6-4% of respondents were aware of the zoonotic importance of tuberculosis, 2% knew about anthrax, and 12% had some awareness of avian influenza. Preventive practices were similarly limited. Only 20% of respondents reported engaging in deworming and vaccination of livestock, and just 6% had vaccinated their animals against rabies (Table 6). From the survey it is found that under backyard farming, majority (60%) of the respondents clean their animal shed on daily basis and 6% on twice a day basis. Furthermore, only 20% respondents clean their animal shed once at two days interval while only 14% of respondents cleaning their animal shed on weekly basis, indicating their traditional way of maintaining the animals. This also specify the chances of getting infection from many diseases from the animals by the livestock farmer (Figure 2). Among the respondents 20.8% (n=52) have contracted zoonotic diseases, out of which 37.730.77% stated respiratory infection, 34.62% digestive disturbances, 17.31% had dermatological problem and 17.31% reported indiscrete symptoms such as weakness, fever, headache and body pain, etc (Table 7). From this study it is also found that about 25% of the respondents' farm had an incidence of abortion. Among them, 24%, 32% and 44% of them noted abortions at 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimester of gestation, respectively (Figure 3).

Discussion

The interface between humans, animals, and the surrounding environment is particularly close in many developing and developed countries. In these settings, animals serve multiple roles, including companionship, draught power, transportation, and sources of clothing, fuel, and essential nutrition through the provision of milk, meat, and eggs. However, in the absence of adequate animal care, veterinary infrastructure, and public awareness, this close interconnection can pose significant public health risks. Such risks include the transmission of zoonotic diseases and foodborne illnesses, which may lead to substantial economic consequences and strain on healthcare systems, WHO (2010) [31] Assessing community socioeconomic status, educational background, and perceptions regarding various zoonotic diseases and their associated risks is a critical step in the development and implementation of effective disease prevention and control strategies. A knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) based study in Thailand found that knowledge and attitudes varied across socioeconomic and demographic groups. People with lower income and less education had poorer knowledge and were less willing to pay for vaccines underscoring the importance of public education tailored to socioeconomic status realities. This study is in conjunction with the work of others, Premashthira, S. et al (2021) [15] . Currently, there is a lack of documented evidence regarding the level of awareness about zoonotic diseases among rural communities in the South Garo Hills district of Meghalaya. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the awareness of zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in the region.

Age, Education and Socioeconomic status of the livestock farmers

The demographic analysis of the respondents reveals that a significant proportion (50%) fall within the age group of 41-60 years (Table 1). This indicates that middle-aged individuals are predominantly engaged in livestock farming activities in the study area. A notable finding is that a majority of these individuals are women, which can be attributed to the traditional practice in the region where backyard pig and poultry farming is commonly managed by women who stay at home. This aligns with the broader trend observed in rural agrarian societies, where women play a vital role in household-based livestock management. This study is in conjunction with the work of others, Kristjanson, P. et al (2014) [8] .

In terms of educational background, most of the farmers involved in livestock rearing have attained a secondary level of education (Figure 1). Furthermore, the majority are literate in their native Garo language, which enables them to access and comprehend local resources and information pertinent to farming practices. However, the overall education level remains limited, potentially restricting their access to modern farming techniques and market opportunities This study is in conjunction with the work of others, Singh, R. K. et al (2020) [19] .

The economic analysis of the respondents highlights that the majority (78%) are small-scale farmers with a monthly income of than Rs. 10,000 (Table 2). This indicates a relatively low economic status, which could contribute to the challenges they face in sustaining and expanding their farming operations. The low-income levels also reflect the subsistence nature of livestock rearing in the area, where returns are often marginal. This indicates a relatively low economic status, which could contribute to challenges in sustaining and expanding farming operations. The lowincome levels also reflect the subsistence nature of livestock rearing in rural India were also reported by other workers, NSSO (2014) & Birthal, P. S. et al (2012) [2] . Statistical analysis reveals a significant negative correlation between the age of respondents and their years of education (-0.57), as well as with their monthly income (-0.26). This suggests that older farmers tend to have lower educational attainment and income levels, which may be due to limited educational opportunities in earlier decades and declining economic productivity with age. Conversely, a positive correlation is observed between the education level of respondents and their monthly income (0.37) (Table 3). This underscores the role of education in enhancing economic outcomes, possibly by improving farm management skills, adoption of improved technologies, and better market engagement.

Overall, the findings suggest that age, gender roles, education, and income are interlinked factors that significantly influence the livelihoods of livestock farmers in the region. Empowering farmers, especially women, through education and targeted skill development programs could potentially improve productivity and economic resilience in rural farming communities. Similar findings are reported by other workers, Kristjanson, P. (2014) [9] .

Knowledge about animal husbandry practices, awareness and risk factors associated with zoonotic diseases

The findings of this study reveal a concerning lack of knowledge and awareness regarding basic animal husbandry practices and zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers. A significant proportion of respondents (74%) demonstrated low levels of knowledge, while only 2.4% were classified as having high levels of understanding. This is alarming given the fundamental role that husbandry practices-such as regular cleaning of animal sheds, balanced feeding, timely www.extensionjournal.com vaccination, deworming, hygienic milking, and heat stress management-play in maintaining animal health and preventing the spread of diseases Kumar, S. et al (2020) [10] & Singh, R. et al (2018) [20] . The observed strong positive correlation between general animal husbandry knowledge and awareness of specific diseases like rabies and brucellosis further supports the notion that informed livestock owners are better equipped to prevent and manage animal health issues. Rabies and brucellosis are not only significant livestock diseases but also critical zoonoses with substantial public health implications WHO (2020) [30] & FAO (2019) [4] . Lack of awareness can delay disease detection and control, increasing the risk of transmission to humans, especially in backyard farming systems where close contact with animals is common. This study also underscores the poor awareness of zoonotic diseases. Only 10% of knew that diseases could be transmitted from animals to humans, and awareness of specific zoonoses was very low: rabies (30%), brucellosis (6%), tuberculosis (3.6-4%), anthrax (2%), and avian influenza (12%). These figures are consistent with previous research in similar rural or semi-urban settings in India and other developing countries, where poor veterinary outreach and lack of public health education often result in minimal zoonotic disease literacy among farmers, Grace, D. et al (2017) [6] & Pathak, H. et al (2021) [14] . Preventive practices also appear to be grossly inadequate. Despite the risk, only 20% of respondents reported engaging in regular deworming and vaccination, and merely 6% had vaccinated their animals against rabies. These findings suggest a high vulnerability to both endemic and emerging zoonotic diseases in the region. According to the other workers, WOAH (2021) [32] , increasing vaccination coverage and regular deworming are essential strategies for managing animal health and minimizing zoonotic spillover. Animal housing and hygiene practices were somewhat better, with 60% of respondents cleaning their sheds daily and 6% twice daily. However, 34% of respondents cleaned their sheds only once every two days or weekly. This variation in hygiene practices, especially among those with less frequent cleaning, could contribute to disease propagation within herds and increase environmental contamination. Studies have shown that poor hygiene in livestock housing is a critical risk factor for gastrointestinal, respiratory, and dermatological infections in both animals and humans, Rahman, M. T. (2019) [17] . Notably, 20.8% of the respondents had experienced zoonotic infections themselves, reporting symptoms such as respiratory infections (30.77%), digestive disturbances (34.62%), dermatological issues (17.31%), and general symptoms such as fever and body aches (17.31%). These figures point toward underdiagnosed and possibly underreported zoonotic disease burdens in the community. Similar patterns have been reported in other studies that emphasize the occupational health risks faced by livestock handlers, Swai, E. S., (2012) [24] . Another alarming finding is the 25% incidence of abortion reported in respondent farms, with a majority (44%) occurring in the third trimester. Abortions in livestock, especially in the later stages of gestation, are often associated with infections such as brucellosis, leptospirosis, or listeriosis-all of which have zoonotic potential Radostits, O. M. (2007) [16] . Given the low awareness and limited preventive measures among respondents, this may indicate the silent circulation of these pathogens in the community

Conclusion

This study highlights a critical gap in knowledge, awareness, and practices related to zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in the South Garo Hills district of Meghalaya. The close human-animal-environment interface, while vital for rural livelihoods, also presents significant public health risks in the absence of adequate veterinary infrastructure, education, and disease prevention measures. Demographic analysis reveals that middle-aged women primarily manage livestock, reflecting traditional gender roles in rural farming systems. However, limited formal education and low-income levels constrain their ability to adopt modern husbandry practices. A statistically significant relationship between higher education and increased income further underscores the potential of education to improve economic and health outcomes. Alarmingly, only a small fraction of respondents demonstrated a high level of knowledge regarding animal husbandry or zoonotic diseases. Preventive practices such as vaccination and deworming were also grossly inadequate, despite known benefits. The low awareness of critical zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis, anthrax, and avian influenza poses a serious risk not only to animal health but also to human health, especially given the close contact in backyard farming systems. The reported incidence of zoonotic infections and livestock abortions suggests underdiagnosed and possibly endemic circulation of infectious agents within the region. This situation highlights an urgent need for targeted educational campaigns and veterinary public health interventions to raise awareness, improve animal husbandry practices, and promote early detection and prevention of zoonotic diseases.

Strengthening the capacity of local veterinary services and integrating zoonotic disease awareness into community health programs will be essential for protecting both animal and human health in the region.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors express their sincere gratitude to the Directorate of Extension Education, Central Agricultural University (CAU), Imphal, Manipur, and Director ICAR-ATARI Zone VII, Umiam, for their precious support and guidance in conducting this study. The authors also acknowledge the cooperation and participation of the farmers of South Garo Hills, whose contribution in providing data was critical to the success of this research.

References

1. Asokan GV, Vanitha A, Prathap T. One health national www.extensionjournal.com programme across species on zoonoses: A call to the developing world. Infect Ecol Epidemiol. 2011;1:8293.
2. Birthal PS, Taneja VK. Livestock sector in India: Opportunities and challenges for smallholders. In: PPLPI Working Paper. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI); 2012.
3. DCMESE. Brief industrial profile of South Garo Hills District. 1992 https://dcmsme.gov.in/dips/South%20Garo%20Hillsassam.pdf
4. FAO. Brucellosis in humans and animals. Food and Agriculture Organization; 2019.
5. Government of Meghalaya. 2025. https://southgarohills.gov.in/
6. Grace D, Mutua F, Ochungo P, et al. Mapping of poverty and likely zoonoses hotspots. Zoonoses Project 4 Report to DFID, ILRI; 2017.
7. Rajkumar K, Bhattacharya A, David S, Hari Balaji S, Hariharan R, Jayakumar M, et al. Socio-demographic study on extent of knowledge, awareness, attitude, and risks of zoonotic diseases among livestock owners in Puducherry region. 2016. www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.9/September-2016/17
8. Kristjanson P, Waters-Bayer A, Johnson N, Tipilda A, Njuki J, Baltenweck I, et al. Livestock and women's livelihoods: A review of the recent evidence. In: Quisumbing AR, Meinzen-Dick R, Raney TL, Croppenstedt A, Behrman JA, Peterman A, editors. Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap. Springer; 2014. p. 209-233.
9. Kristjanson P, Waters-Bayer A, Johnson N, Tipilda A, Njuki J, Baltenweck I, et al. Livestock and women's livelihoods: A review of the recent evidence. Gender Technol Dev. 2014;18(3):338-365.
10. Kumar S, Singh DV, Lal R. Knowledge level of dairy farmers about improved animal husbandry practices. Indian J Anim Sci. 2020;90(3):342-346.
11. McDermott JJ, Arimi SM. Brucellosis in Sub Saharan Africa: Epidemiology, control and impact. Vet Microbiol. 2002;90:111-134.
12. Pathak H, Bhatta R, Pandey RK. Zoonotic disease awareness among farmers in rural India. J Public Health Epidemiol. 2021;13(1):12-18.
13. Premashthira S, Phumee A, Chompoosri J, Apiwathnasorn C. Knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding rabies and dog management among dog owners in Thailand. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:715213.
14. Radostits OM, Gay CC, Hinchcliff KW, Constable PD. Veterinary Medicine: A Textbook of the Diseases of Cattle, Horses, Sheep, Pigs and Goats. 10th ed. Saunders Elsevier; 2007.
15. Rahman MT, Faruque MR, Ahmed S. Hygienic practices of smallholder livestock farmers and its impact on animal health. Vet World. 2019;12(5):700705.
16. Singh BB, Sharma R, Gill JPS, Aulakh RS, Banga HS. Climate change, zoonoses and India. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz. 2011;30:779-788.
17. Singh RK, Saikia J, Boro D. Socio-economic status and training needs of tribal livestock farmers in North East India. Indian J Ext Educ. 2020;56(2):12-17.
18. Singh R, Kaur P, Sharma R. Awareness among farmers regarding zoonotic diseases. J Anim Res. 2018;8(4):689-695.
19. South Garo Hills District Village Information Directory of Meghalaya. 2025. Based on Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2015. https://censusindia.gov.in/
20. Solanki K, Desai A, Dalvi M, Jani H. Review on important diseases of dogs: At glance. Int J Vet Sci Anim Husbandry. 2023;8(2):01-07. DOI:10.22271/veterinary.2023.v8.i2a.480.
21. Swai ES, Schoonman L. Human brucellosis: seroprevalence and risk factors related to high-risk occupational groups in Tanga Municipality, Tanzania. Zoonoses Public Health. 2012;59(3):181-188.
22. Wastling JM, Akanmori BD, Williams DJL. Zoonoses in West Africa: Impact and control. Parasitol Today. 1999;15:309-311.
23. Woolhouse MEJ, Sequeria S. Host range and emerging and re-emerging pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:1842-1847.
24. World Health Organisation. Future trends in Veterinary Public Health Technical Report Series, 907. Report of a WHO Study Group, Geneva. 2002. p.1-7.
25. World Health Organisation. The control of neglected zoonotic diseases: A route to poverty alleviation. Geneva: WHO/DFID-AHP Meeting with FAO and OIE; 2006.
26. World Health Organisation. Rabies: Epidemiology and Burden of Disease. 2020.
27. World Health Organisation. Managing zoonotic public health risks at the human-animal-ecosystem interface. Strong inter-sectoral partnerships in health. Food Saf Zoonoses. 2010. http://www.who.int/foodsafety
28. World Organisation for Animal Health. Vaccination strategies and policies in animal health. 2021.