Lumpy skin disease in cattle and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis): economic impacts and control strategies in a changing global landscape

Introduction

Lumpy skin disease (LSD) is a viral disease of major economic importance affecting cattle and, to a lesser extent, water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). It is characterized by the development of firm, well-circumscribed cutaneous nodules that may extend to mucosal surfaces of the respiratory and urogenital tracts and, in severe cases, to internal organs. Secondary bacterial infections frequently complicate the condition, prolonging recovery and increasing production losses. The causative agent, lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV), belongs to the family Poxviridae and genus Capripoxvirus (Quinn et al., 2016) [1] . Originally restricted to Africa, LSD has expanded rapidly over the past decade to the Middle East, Asia and Eastern Europe, and is now recognized as a transboundary animal disease of global significance (Azeem et al., 2022; Jyoti et al., 2022; Moudgil et al., 2024) [2,3,4] . Recent widespread outbreaks in India have severely impacted dairy, meat and leather sectors, particularly affecting smallholder production systems and rural livelihoods (Mulatu et al., 2018; Moudgil et al., 2024) [5,4] . This rapid geographical expansion highlights the increasing importance of LSD in the context of global livestock health and trade. Transmission of LSDV occurs predominantly through mechanical means via hematophagous arthropod vectors such as biting flies, mosquitoes and ticks (Lubinga et al., 2014; Tuppurainen et al., 2011) [6] . The clinical presentation varies from mild to severe and typically includes fever, lacrimation, nasal discharge, hypersalivation and characteristic nodular lesions distributed over the neck, back, limbs, perineum and genital regions. In advanced cases, systemic involvement may occur due to dissemination of lesions to internal organs. Affected animals often exhibit lameness, reduced feed intake, emaciation and a marked decline in milk production. Enlargement of superficial lymph nodes and brisket edema are common, and respiratory complications such as pneumonia may develop. The epidemiology of LSD is influenced by host immunity, vector abundance and environmental conditions. Morbidity and mortality rates vary widely, with higher susceptibility observed in exotic and crossbred cattle, particularly Holstein Friesian, compared to indigenous zebu breeds (Gari et al., 2010; Babiuk et al., 2008) [8,7] . Although cattle are the primary hosts, increasing evidence suggests that water buffalo may also be susceptible, potentially playing a role in disease persistence in mixed farming systems. LSD leads to substantial economic losses due to decreased milk yield, reduced growth and meat quality, infertility, abortion and permanent damage to hides affecting leather production. Diagnosis is based on clinical observations and confirmed through laboratory techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), virus isolation and histopathology. In the absence of specific antiviral treatment, control strategies rely mainly on mass vaccination, supported by vector control, movement restrictions and strict biosecurity measures. This review aims to provide a comprehensive yet concise overview of LSD in cattle and buffalo, focusing on its epidemiology, economic impact on milk, meat and leather production and current control strategies. It also highlights recent global trends and identifies key research gaps to support improved disease management and sustainable livestock production systems.

Etiology

Lumpy skin disease is caused by lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV), a member of the genus Capripoxvirus within the family Poxviridae, which also includes sheeppox virus (SPPV) and goatpox virus (GTPV). These viruses are genetically and antigenically closely related, although LSDV is the specific etiological agent affecting cattle and, to a lesser extent, water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) (Quinn et al., 2016) [1] . LSDV is a large, enveloped, double-stranded DNA virus with a brick-shaped morphology measuring approximately 230-260 nm. Its genome (~150 kbp) encodes proteins involved in viral replication, virulence and immune evasion (Babiuk et al., 2008) [7] . Replication occurs entirely in the cytoplasm of infected cells, leading to the formation of cytoplasmic inclusion bodies and release of virions through cell lysis or budding (Tulman et al., 2001) [9] . The virus demonstrates notable environmental stability, particularly in skin nodules, scabs and crusts, where it may remain viable for extended periods. It resists desiccation but is inactivated by common disinfectants, heat and extreme pH (OIE, 2021). Although cattle are the primary hosts, water buffalo may also be infected, generally showing mild or subclinical disease. Their epidemiological role remains unclear.

Antigenic similarity among Capripoxviruses enables cross-protection, forming the basis for heterologous vaccination strategies. Despite genetic stability, recent reports of recombinant strains raise concerns regarding virulence and vaccine efficacy.

Epidemiology

Lumpy skin disease is a transboundary viral disease with expanding global distribution and significant impact on livestock production (Moudgil et al., 2024) [4] . Initially confined to sub-Saharan Africa, it has spread since the early 21st century to the Middle East, southeastern Europe and Asia, indicating a major epidemiological shift (Beard, 2016; Tuppurainen et al., 2015). Recent outbreaks have been reported across South and East Asia, including India, Bangladesh, China and Nepal. In India, the disease has become a major livestock health concern, causing substantial economic losses (Kumar et al., 2021). The epidemiology of LSD is strongly influenced by arthropod vectors, with higher incidence during warm and humid conditions. Mechanical transmission by mosquitoes, biting flies (Stomoxys spp.) and ticks plays a central role in disease spread (Chihota et al., 2001; Lubinga et al., 2013; Tuppurainen et al., 2011) [10,6] . Wind-assisted dispersal of infected vectors may contribute to long-distance transmission. Animal movement is another key driver, as transport of infected or subclinical animals facilitates rapid geographical spread. Indirect transmission through contaminated fomites may occur but is considered secondary. Host factors such as breed, immunity and management influence disease severity. Exotic and crossbred cattle (e.g., Holstein Friesian) are more susceptible than indigenous zebu breeds (Gari et al., 2010; Babiuk et al., 2008) [8,7] . Morbidity ranges from 5-45%, while mortality is generally low but may increase in naïve populations (Tuppurainen et al., 2017) [11] . The role of water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) remains unclear. Although infections are often mild or subclinical, buffalo may contribute to virus persistence in mixed farming systems. Environmental and climatic factors, particularly temperature and humidity, significantly influence vector dynamics and disease spread. Consequently, LSD is now regarded as an emerging global disease requiring coordinated surveillance and integrated control strategies.

Transmission

Transmission of lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) occurs predominantly through mechanical means, with hematophagous arthropods acting as the primary vectors. Direct contact between infected and susceptible animals plays a limited role, as the virus is mainly trans-ferred by blood-feeding insects during interrupted feeding (Chihota et al., 2001) [12,6] . These vectors function mainly as me chanical carriers, with short-term virus persistence. Among them, stable flies (Stomoxys spp.) are particularly efficient due to their frequent feeding behavior (Tuppurainen et al., 2017) [11] . Ticks may contribute through mechanical and possible biological transmission, as LSDV can persist within ticks and may be transmitted transstadially or transovarially; however, their epidemiological significance remains unclear (Tuppurainen et al., 2013) [13] . Indirect transmission via contaminated fomites such as equipment, vehicles, feed, water troughs and personnel may occur, especially under poor biosecurity conditions. The virus is also present in secretions including saliva, nasal discharge, milk and semen, although these routes are of minor importance; the presence in semen raises concerns for artificial insemination (Irons et al., 2005) [14] .

LSDV shows high environmental stability and can persist in skin nodules, scabs and crusts, serving as a source of infection for vectors and facilitating indirect spread under favorable conditions. Although cattle are the primary hosts, water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) may also become infected. While disease expression is usually mild, their role in virus maintenance in mixed production systems cannot be excluded.

Overall, LSD transmission is multifactorial, involving interactions among vectors, hosts and environmental factors, necessitating integrated control strategies including vector control, movement restriction and biosecurity measures.

Pathogenesis

The pathogenesis of lumpy skin disease involves complex interactions between lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) and the host immune system, resulting in both systemic and cutaneous manifestations. Infection typically occurs via arthropod vectors, followed by local viral replication at the inoculation site and spread to regional lymph nodes, leading to primary viremia (Babiuk et al., 2008) [7] . During secondary viremia, the virus disseminates to the skin, mucous membranes, lungs and gastrointestinal tract. LSDV shows tropism for endothelial cells, macrophages and fibroblasts, resulting in vasculitis, thrombosis and tissue necrosis. These pathological changes lead to the formation of characteristic firm nodular skin lesions, which may ulcerate and become complicated by secondary bacterial infections. Lymphadenopathy is a consistent feature, while vascular damage contributes to edema, particularly in the limbs and brisket. Host immune responses, including innate and adaptive mechanisms, are critical for viral clearance. Inadequate immunity or immunosuppression may result in severe disease and prolonged viremia. In water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), infections are generally mild or subclinical, suggesting differences in host susceptibility or immune response, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.

Clinical signs

Clinical manifestations of LSD vary widely depending on viral virulence, host immunity, breed and environmental conditions. Following an incubation period of 4-14 days, affected animals initially show fever (40-41 °C), depression, anorexia and a marked decline in milk production (OIE, 2021). Lacrimation, nasal discharge and hypersalivation are also common. Enlargement of superficial lymph nodes, particularly prescapular and prefemoral nodes, is an early and consistent finding (Babiuk et al., 2008) [7] . The most characteristic feature is the development of multiple firm, well-circumscribed nodules (0.5-5 cm) distributed over the neck, back, limbs, perineum and genital regions. In severe cases, lesions may become generalized. As the disease progresses, nodules may undergo necrosis, forming scabs that slough off, leaving deep ulcers. Secondary bacterial infections are common and delay healing (Gari et al., 2010) [8] . Mucosal involvement may lead to respiratory complications, including pneumonia, while ocular lesions such as conjunctivitis and keratitis may also occur. Lameness is frequently observed due to limb lesions and inflammation of joints and tendons. Edema of the limbs and brisket is common due to vascular and lymphatic damage. Reproductive disorders, including infertility in males and abortion in females, have also been reported (Irons et al., 2005) [14] . Disease severity ranges from mild or subclinical to severe generalized infection with occasional mortality. Exotic and crossbred cattle are generally more severely affected than indigenous breeds (Gari et al., 2010) [8] . In water buffalo, clinical signs are usually milder and often subclinical, which may lead to underdiagnosis.

Diagnosis

Accurate diagnosis of LSD is essential for effective control and prevention. While clinical signs provide a strong presumptive diagnosis, laboratory confirmation is required due to similarities with other dermatological diseases (OIE, 2021). Differential diagnoses include pseudo-lumpy skin disease, dermatophilosis, insect bite hypersensitivity and cutaneous tuberculosis (Babiuk et al., 2008) [7] . Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for detection of LSDV, offering high sensitivity and specificity. It can detect viral DNA from skin nodules, scabs, blood, lymph nodes and secretions. Real-time PCR further improves diagnostic accuracy and is widely used in surveillance (Alexander et al., 2019; Tuppurainen et al., 2017; Heine et al., 1999) [15,11,16] . Virus isolation in cell culture provides confirmatory evidence but is time-consuming and requires specialized facilities. Serological tests such as ELISA and virus neutralization tests are useful for assessing herd immunity but have limited value in early infection due to delayed antibody response and cross-reactivity (OIE, 2021). Histopathology supports diagnosis by revealing epidermal hyperplasia, intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies, vasculitis and necrosis. In buffalo, diagnosis may be more challenging due to mild or subclinical presentation, making laboratory confirmation particularly important.

Treatment

No specific antiviral treatment is available for LSD, and management is primarily supportive. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used to control fever and inflammation, while broad-spectrum antibiotics help prevent secondary bacterial infections (Babiuk et al., 2008) [7] . Supportive care may include fluid therapy, electrolyte supplementation and nutritional support to improve recovery. Topical antiseptics and proper wound management are recommended to promote healing and reduce hide damage. Vector control using insecticides and repellents plays an important supportive role during outbreaks by reducing transmission. Isolation of infected animals is also essential. In water buffalo, treatment approaches are similar, although clinical intervention is often minimal due to milder disease. Overall, supportive management reduces morbidity and economic losses, but vaccination remains the most effective control measure.

Preventive measures

Prevention of LSD relies on integrated strategies combining vaccination, vector control, movement restriction and biosecurity. Vaccination is the cornerstone of control programs. Both homologous (LSDV-based) and heterologous (sheeppox/goatpox-based) vaccines provide effective protection due to antigenic similarity among Capripoxviruses. Annual vaccination is recommended in endemic areas, while emergency vaccination is used during outbreaks (Tuppurainen et al., 2017) [11] . Vector control is essential and includes the use of insecticides, repellents and environmental management to reduce breeding sites. Proper manure disposal and elimination of stagnant water significantly reduce vector populations. Movement restrictions and quarantine are critical to prevent disease spread. Newly introduced animals should be isolated and monitored before herd integration. Strict biosecurity practices, including disinfection of equipment and personnel hygiene, are essential to limit transmission. Surveillance and early detection enable rapid response and containment. In mixed farming systems, control measures should include both cattle and water buffalo, as buffalo may contribute to virus circulation despite mild clinical signs.

Socio-economic impact

Lumpy skin disease has significant socio-economic consequences, particularly in livestock-dependent regions (Banata et al., 2024) [17] . It affects milk production, meat yield, hide quality, reproduction and draught power, resulting in substantial economic losses. Mortality is generally low (1-5%), but morbidity may exceed 50%, making production losses the primary burden (Mat et al., 2021; Gumbe, 2018) [19, 18] .

Animal health

Losses are mainly associated with morbidity, leading to emaciation, reduced draught power, infertility and abortions (Tuppurainen et al., 2011; Zewdie, 2021) [6,20] .

Milk production

Milk yield declines significantly due to fever, anorexia and mastitis. In India, economic losses exceed USD 2.4 billion, largely driven by reduced milk production (Mulatu et al., 2018; Jyoti et al., 2022) [5,3] .

Meat production

Weight loss and poor body condition reduce carcass yield and quality, leading to economic losses in both subsistence and commercial systems (Mat et al., 2021) [19] .

Leather production

Skin lesions result in permanent hide damage, reducing leather quality and market value (Babiuk et al., 2008) [7] .

Wider economic consequences

Indirect losses include reduced draught power, increased labor costs and treatment expenses. In India, total losses exceed USD 2.4 billion (Sharma and Kumar, 2025; Moudgil et al., 2024) [4] .

Integrated control strategies

Effective control requires a combination of vaccination, vector control, movement restriction and biosecurity measures.

Therapeutic management

Supportive treatment with antibiotics, NSAIDs and nutritional supplementation reduces morbidity and improves recovery but does not eliminate infection (Abutarbush, 2017) [21] .

Movement restrictions

Isolation and quarantine of infected animals are essential to limit disease spread (Tuppurainen et al., 2013; Abutarbush, 2017) [13,21] .

Vector control measures

Mechanical transmission by biting flies and ticks is the primary route of LSDV spread; therefore, integrated vector control using insecticides, repellents and environmental management is essential, as windassisted dispersal may further facilitate transmission (EFSA, 2015; Sprygin et al., 2019) [22,23] .

Biosecurity and outbreak management

Effective biosecurity measures are essential for controlling LSD outbreaks and limiting virus transmission. Key practices include strict quarantine of affected herds, selective depopulation of infected and exposed animals where necessary, safe carcass disposal, and thorough cleaning and disinfection of contaminated premises. When combined with vector control strategies, these measures play a critical role in interrupting virus circulation during outbreaks (Sprygin et al., 2019; EFSA, 2015) [23,22] .

Immunoprophylaxis

Vaccination remains the most effective strategy for the prevention and control of LSD. Homologous live attenuated vaccines, particularly those based on the Neethling strain, provide strong and long-lasting immunity. In regions where LSD-specific vaccines are not available, heterologous vaccines derived from sheeppox or goatpox viruses offer cross-protection due to antigenic similarity among Capripoxvirus (Brenner et al., 2009; Tuppurainen et al., 2015; Coakley and Capstick, 1961) [24,25] . Effective immunization programs require mass vaccination with high herd coverage. Calves should be vaccinated at 3-4 months of age, followed by annual vaccination of breeding animals to maintain protective immunity (Tuppurainen et al., 2017; Carn et al., 1994) [11,26] . . Genomic surveillance using whole-genome sequencing is crucial for monitoring viral evolution, detecting recombination events, and distinguishing vaccine strains from field isolates (Babiuk et al., 2008; Sudhakar et al., 2020; Moudgil et al., 2024) [7,27,4] . Standardized economic models are needed to accurately quantify both direct and indirect losses associated with LSD. For example, outbreaks in India affecting millions of cattle have resulted in losses exceeding USD 60 million (Sharma and Kumar, 2025; Jyoti et al., 2022) [3] . Integrated disease management strategies should combine vaccination, vector control, movement restrictions, and farmer awareness programs to ensure effective and sustainable control (Kayesh et al., 2020; Gupta et al., 2020) [29,28] . Region-specific control strategies must account for variations in vector ecology, climatic conditions, and livestock management practices (Moudgil et al., 2024) [4] . Strengthening veterinary infrastructure, surveillance systems, and rapid reporting mechanisms is essential for early detection and response to outbreaks (Smaraki et al., 2024) [30] . Adopting a One Health approach that integrates animal health, vector ecology, and socio-economic factors will further enhance long-term disease management (Tuppurainen et al., 2011; Azeem et al., 2022) [6,2] .

Conclusion

Lumpy skin disease has emerged as a significant transboundary viral disease with substantial implications for global livestock production. Its rapid spread beyond Africa into the Middle East, Europe, and Asia highlights its growing importance as a major animal health concern. The disease imposes considerable economic losses through reduced milk production, decreased meat quality, and damage to hides, thereby affecting the sustainability of livestock industries. The epidemiology of LSD is complex, driven primarily by arthropod vectors and influenced by environmental and management factors, which complicates control efforts. Although advances have been made in understanding its virology, transmission dynamics, and clinical presentation, important gaps remain in knowledge related to host-virus interactions, vector competence, and long-term immunity. While cattle are the primary hosts, emerging evidence suggests that water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) may contribute to disease epidemiology, particularly in mixed production systems. However, their precise role in virus maintenance and transmission requires further investigation. Vaccination remains the cornerstone of LSD control, supported by vector management, movement restrictions, and improved biosecurity measures. Nevertheless, challenges such as vaccine coverage, field implementation, and the emergence of new viral strains necessitate continuous monitoring and refinement of control strategies. In the context of climate variability, increasing livestock movement, and intensification of animal production systems, the risk of further disease spread remains high. Therefore, coordinated efforts involving surveillance, research, policy development, and farmer awareness are essential. In conclusion, LSD represents a persistent and evolving threat to livestock health and productivity. Strengthening integrated control strategies, advancing research-particularly on buffalo involvement -and enhancing international collaboration will be critical for reducing the economic burden of the disease and ensuring sustainable livestock production in the future.

References

1. Wiley-Blackwell, UK; 2016.
2. Azeem S, Sharma B, Shabir S, Akbar H, Venter E. Expansion of lumpy skin disease in Asia. Vet. J. 2022;279:105785.
3. Moudgil G, Chadha J, Khullar L, Chhibber S, Harjai K. Global expansion of lumpy skin disease. Microb. Pathog. 2024;186:106485.
4. Mulatu E, Feyisa A. Review of lumpy skin disease. J. Vet. Sci. Technol. 2018;9:535.
5. Tuppurainen ESM, Stoltsz WH, Troskie M, Wallace DB, Oura CAL, Mellor PS, Venter EH. Role of ticks in lumpy skin disease virus transmission. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2011;58:93-104.
6. Babiuk S, Bowden TR, Parkyn G, Dalman B, Manning L, Neufeld J, Boyle DB. Quantification of lumpy skin disease virus following experimental infection. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2008;55:299-307.
7. Gari G, Waret-Szkuta A, Grosbois V, Jacquiet P, Roger F. Risk factors associated with observed clinical lumpy skin disease. Epidemiol. Infect. 2010;138:1657-1666.
8. Tulman ER, Afonso CL, Lu Z, Zsak L, Kutish GF, Rock DL. Genome of lumpy skin disease virus. J. Virol. 2001;75:71227130.
9. Lubinga JC, Tuppurainen ESM, Stoltsz WH, Ebersohn K, Coetzer JAW, Venter EH. Detection of virus in tick saliva. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2013;61:129-138.
10. Tuppurainen E, Alexandrov T, Beltran-Alcrudo D. Lumpy Skin Disease: A Manual for Veterinarians. FAO, Rome; 2017.
11. Lubinga JC, Tuppurainen ESM, Mahlare R, Coetzer JAW, Stoltsz WH, Venter EH. Transmission of lumpy skin disease virus by ticks. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2015;62:174-182.
12. Irons PC, Tuppurainen ESM, Venter EH. Excretion of lumpy skin disease virus in bull semen. Theriogenology. 2005;63:1290-1297.
13. Alexander S, Olga B, Svetlana K, Valeriy Z, Yana P, Pavel P, Aleksandr K. A real-time PCR assay for universal detection of lumpy skin disease virus DNA. BMC Res. Notes. 2019;12:371.
14. Heine HG, Stevens MP, Foord AJ, Boyle DB. Capripoxvirus PCR and ELISA detection. J. Immunol. Methods. 1999;227:187-196.
15. Banata M, Geinoro T. Epidemiology of lumpy skin disease in Ethiopia and its economic impact. Epidemiology. 2024;7:1-5.
16. Gumbe AF. Review on lumpy skin disease and economic impacts. J. Dairy Vet. Anim. Res. 2018;7:39-46.
17. Abutarbush SM. Lumpy skin disease (knopvelsiekte, pseudo-urticaria, neethling virus disease, exanthema nodularis bovis). In: Emerging and Re-Emerging Infectious Diseases of Livestock. Springer, Cham, Switzerland; 2017:309-326.
18. Sprygin A, Pestova Y, Wallace DB, Tuppurainen E, Kononov AV. Transmission of lumpy skin disease virus. Virus Res. 2019;269:197637.
19. Brenner J, Bellaiche M, Gross E, Elad D, Oved Z, Haimovitz M. Appearance of skin lesions in cattle following vaccination against lumpy skin disease. Vaccine. 2009;27:1500-1503.
20. Coakley W, Capstick PB. Protection of cattle against lumpy skin disease. Res. Vet. Sci. 1961;2:369-371.
21. Carn VM, Kitching RP, Hammond JM, Chand P. Use of recombinant antigen ELISA for detection of Capripoxvirus antibodies. J. Virol. Methods. 1994;49:285-294.
22. Sudhakar SB, Mishra N, Kalaiyarasu S, Jhade SK, Hemadri D, Sood R, Singh VP. Lumpy skin disease outbreaks in India. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2020;67:2408-2422.
23. Gupta T, Patial V, Bali D, Angaria S, Sharma M, Chahota R. Lumpy skin disease emergence in India. Vet. Res. Commun. 2020;44:111-118.
24. Kayesh MEH, Hussan MT, Hashem MA, Eliyas M, Anower AM. Lumpy skin disease in Bangladesh. Hosts Viruses. 2020;7:97102.
25. Smaraki N, Jogi HR, Kamothi DJ, Savsani HH. Emergence of lumpy skin disease virus in India. Arch. Microbiol. 2024;206:210.
26. Abdulqa HY, Rahman HS, Dyary HO, Othman HH. Lumpy skin disease. Reprod. Immunol. Open Access. 2016;1:25.
27. Abera Z, Degefu H, Gari G, Ayana Z. Review on epidemiology and economic importance of lumpy skin disease. Int. J. Basic Appl. Virol. 2015;4:1-8.
28. Abutarbush SM, Ababneh MM, Al Zoubi IG, Al Sheyab OM, Al Zoubi MG, Alekish MO, Al Gharabat RJ. Lumpy skin disease in Jordan: disease emergence, clinical signs, complications and preliminary-associated economic losses. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2015;62:549-554.
29. Ali AA, Esmat M, Attia H, Selim A, Abdel-Hamid YM. Clinical and pathological studies of lumpy skin disease in Egypt. Vet. Rec. 1990;127:549-550.
30. Ali H, Ali AA, Atta MS, Cepica A. Common, emerging, vector-borne and infrequent abortogenic virus infections of cattle. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2012;59:11-25.
31. Al-Salihi K. Lumpy skin disease: review. Mirror Res. Vet. Sci. Anim. 2014;3:6-23.
32. Annandale CH, Holm DE, Ebersohn K, Venter EH. Seminal transmission of lumpy skin disease virus. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2014;61:443-448.
33. Bedeković T, Šimić I, Krešić N, Lojkić I. Detection of lumpy skin disease virus after vaccination. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018;65:491-496.
34. Biswas S, Noyce RS, Babiuk LA, Lung O, Bulach DM, Bowden TR. Capripoxvirus genome sequencing. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2019;67:80-97. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com 26648458, 2026, 8(10), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.33545/2664844X.2026.v8.i10d.2030 by International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science on [09/10/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.agriculturaljournals.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
35. Calistri P, De Clercq K, Gubbins S, Klement E, Stegeman A, Broglia A. Lumpy skin disease epidemiological report IV: data collection and analysis. EFSA J. 2020;18:e06010.
36. Carn VM, Kitching RP. Transmission of lumpy skin disease virus. Epidemiol. Infect. 1995;114:219-226.
37. Constable PD, Hinchcliff KW, Done SH, Grünberg W. Veterinary Medicine, 11th ed. Elsevier, USA. 2017.
38. Davies FG. Lumpy skin disease of cattle: a growing problem. World Anim. Rev. 1991;68:37-42.
39. Fayez AS, Ahmed HO, Ali A. Incidence of lumpy skin disease among Egyptian cattle. Vet. World. 2011;4:162-167.
40. Gari G, Bonnet P, Roger F, Waret-Szkuta A. Epidemiological aspects and financial impact of lumpy skin disease in Ethiopia. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011;102:274-283.
41. Hailu B, Tolosa T, Gari G, Teklue T, Beyene B. Prevalence of lumpy skin disease in Ethiopia. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014;115:64-68.
42. Hidayatik N, Khairullah AR, Yuliani MGA, Hestianah EP, Novianti AN, Damayanti AN, Kurniasih DAA. Lumpy skin disease: a global threat. Open Vet. J. 2025;15:541-547.
43. Kasem S, Saleh M, Qasim I, Hashim O, Alkarar A, Abu-Obeida A, Abdelatif M. Outbreak investigation and molecular diagnosis of lumpy skin disease in Saudi Arabia. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018;65:e494-e500.
44. Khan YR, Ali A, Hussain K, Ijaz M, Rabbani AH, Khan RL, Sajid HA. Surveillance of lumpy skin disease in Asia. Microb. Pathog. 2021;158:105050.
45. King AM, Lefkowitz E, Adams MJ, Carstens EB, editors. Virus Taxonomy, Ninth report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Elsevier, USA; 2011.
46. Kondela AJ, Nyange JFC, Mbise AN. Lumpy skin disease epidemic in Kilimanjaro region. Bull. Anim. Health Prod. Afr. 1984;32:1-5.
47. Lamien CE, Lelenta M, Goger W, Silber R, Tuppurainen E, Matijevic M, Diallo A. Real-time PCR detection of Capripoxviruses. J. Virol. Methods. 2011;171:134-140.
48. Lubinga JC, Tuppurainen ESM, Coetzer JAW, Stoltsz WH, Venter EH. Transovarial transmission of virus in ticks. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2014;62:67-75.
49. Magori-Cohen R, Louzoun Y, Herziger Y, Oron E, Arazi A, Tuppurainen E, Klement E. Mathematical modelling of LSD transmission. Vet. Res. 2012;43:1.
50. Miranda MA, Stegeman JA, Bicout D, Botner A, Butterworth A, Calistri P, Winckler C. Urgent EFSA advice on lumpy skin equine disease. EFSA J. 2016;14:4573. 61. Molla W, de Jong MC, Gari G, Frankena K. Economic impact and vaccination cost-effectiveness. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017;147:100-107.
51. Orlova ES, Shcherbakov AV, Diev VI, Zakharov VM. Differentiation of Capripoxvirus species. Mol. Biol. 2006;40:139-145.
52. Padilla LR, Dutton CJ, Bauman J, Duncan M. XY male pseudohermaphroditism in Arabian oryx. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2005;36:498-503.
53. Peck D, Bruce M. Economic efficiency of disease control policies. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2017;36:291-302.
54. Rouby S, Aboulsoud E. Intrauterine transmission of lumpy skin disease virus. Vet. J. 2016;209:193-195.
55. Sharma P, Kumar D. Global expansion and economic consequences of lumpy skin disease. Vet. Res. Commun. 2026;50:124.
56. Tulman ER, Afonso CL, Lu Z, Zsak L, Sur JH, Sandybaev NT, Rock DL. Genomes of sheeppox and goatpox viruses. J. Virol. 2002;76:6054-6061.
57. Tuppurainen ESM, Oura CAL. Lumpy skin disease as an emerging threat. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2012;59:40-48.
58. Tuppurainen ESM, Venter EH, Coetzer JAW. Detection of lumpy skin disease virus in cattle. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2005;72:153-164.
59. Tuppurainen ESM, Venter EH, Coetzer JAW, Bell-Sakyi L. Propagation of lumpy skin disease virus in tick cells. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6:134-140.
60. Union A. AU-IBAR Annual Report on Animal Health. African Union, Nairobi; 2014.
61. Weiss KE. Lumpy skin disease virus. In: Cytomegaloviruses and Related Viruses. Springer, Berlin; 1968:111-131.
62. Yeruham I, Nir O, Braverman Y, Davidson M, Grinstein H, Haymovitch M, Zamir O. Spread of lumpy skin disease in Israeli dairy herds. Vet. Rec. 1995;137:91.
63. Zeynalova S, Asadov K, Guliyev F, Vatani M, Aliyev V. Epizootology and molecular diagnosis of lumpy skin disease. Front. Microbiol. 2016;7:1022. How to cite this article: Kantale RA, Sharma S, Bind A, Mote AB, Ayoub H, Singh V, et al. Lumpy skin disease in cattle and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis): economic impacts and control strategies in a changing global landscape. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science. 2026;8(10):275-282. doi: http s://www.doi.org/10.33545/2664844X.2026.v8.i10d.2030