Neospora caninum is a cyst-forming coccidian protozoan with a broad host range and is maintained through a complex facultative heteroxenous life cycle involving definitive canid hosts and various warm-blooded intermediate hosts. In cattle, it is a major cause of infectious abortion, leading to significant losses in productivity and profitability worldwide. This study surveyed 48 commercial dairy farmers across seven milk-producing regions in South Africa to assess knowledge, attitudes, perceptions and practices regarding bovine neosporosis. Most respondents were commercial farmers (98%), managed mixed-breed cattle (48%), operated farms larger than 500 hectares (48%) and had cattle averaging 3–5 years in age (77%). Only 21% of farmers were aware of neosporosis. Despite limited knowledge, 77% demonstrated good disease management practices, and 52% had positive attitudes towards control efforts. Three variables were significantly associated with the odds of positive practice and positive attitude scores. Farms with herds over 500 animals were 41.7 times more likely (95% confidence interval: 1.5–5237.3) to exhibit good practices. Farms that used total mixed ration were associated with better practices, while the presence of wildlife was associated with poorer attitudes. Additionally, farms that reported the presence of wildlife were less likely to have a positive attitude score. No specific factors were found to be associated with increased disease knowledge.
Contribution
This study highlights the critical knowledge gap and the need for greater awareness and targeted biosecurity measures for bovine neosporosis. It also identified neosporosis as a neglected abortifacient in dairy cattle in South Africa.
KAPsbovine neosporosisdairy productionSouth AfricaabortionsFunding information This research was funded by the University of Pretoria and the National Research Foundation of South Africa through the Thuthuka Grant (No. 129862/TTK200407511506).Introduction
Neospora caninum is a cyst-forming coccidian protozoan with a broad host range, but a preference for cattle and dogs (Almería & López-Gatius 2013; Dubey et al. 2017). It is maintained through a complex facultative heteroxenous life cycle involving definitive canid hosts and warm-blooded intermediate hosts (Dubey, Schares & Ortega-Mora 2007). Reproductive losses, including abortions and stillbirths, particularly in dairy cattle, have been reported globally and have led to substantial economic losses (Haddad, Dohoo & VanLeewen 2005; Reichel et al. 2013). Cattle can acquire infection both horizontally, through ingestion of sporulated oocysts in contaminated feed, and vertically, through transplacental transmission of tachyzoites (Dubey & Schares 2011).
Dairy farming is the fourth-largest agricultural sector in South Africa, playing a crucial role in food security. In 2023, because of increased production, the country became a net exporter of dairy products (Milk Producers’ Organisation 2023). Common causes of abortion in dairy herds in South Africa include brucellosis, coxiellosis, Rift Valley fever, chlamydiosis, bovine viral diarrhoea virus and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis. However, there is limited information on N. caninum infection in dairy cattle in South Africa. A few studies have reported N. caninum infection in cattle in South Africa with one study in dairy cattle from milk-producing provinces reporting a seroprevalence of 2.3% (Tagwireyi et al. 2024). Another study in beef cattle in Gauteng found a seroprevalence of 9% (Njiro et al. 2011), and a third study in communally grazed cattle near the Kruger National Park reported a seroprevalence of 1.6% (Adesiyun et al. 2020). Although the parasite is one of the most commonly diagnosed abortifacients worldwide (Mee 2023), it has largely been neglected or gone unrecognised in South Africa.
Obtaining information on the knowledge, attitude and practices (KAPs) of farmers on specific diseases is important for the effective planning, implementation and assessment of strategies aimed at preventing infection and controlling disease (Bayantassova et al. 2023). It helps in the identification of knowledge gaps that may hinder animal health programmes. Few studies have been published on the KAPs of farmers regarding animal health issues in cattle in South Africa (Ngoshe et al. 2022; Olaogun et al. 2023; Tempia et al. 2019). However, to the authors’ knowledge, no studies have been published specifically addressing the KAPs regarding bovine neosporosis in South Africa. There are, however, two studies on the KAPs related to N. caninum from elsewhere in Africa: one in dairy herds in Egypt (Gaber et al. 2021) and another in cattle and small stock in Namibia (Samkange et al. 2023). Both studies indicated a lack of knowledge among farmers regarding N. caninum infection. This study, which is the first of its kind in South Africa, aimed to assess the KAPs of dairy cattle farmers regarding bovine neosporosis and to have a better understanding of the measures and strategies in place to prevent the introduction and spread of the disease.
Research methods and designStudy area
The study was conducted across seven of South Africa’s nine provinces (Figure 1). Dairy farmers were selected from the country’s main milk-producing provinces, which together account for over 85.4% of the nation’s total milk production (Milk Producers’ Organisation 2023). South Africa spans from 22°S to 35°S and from 17°E to 33°E, with a generally temperate climate (World Bank Group 2021). The study area is divided into three regions: Southern Coastal, which includes the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal; Central and Highveld, which includes Free State, Mpumalanga and Gauteng; and Northern Arid, which includes the North West.
Map of South Africa highlighting three regions, with the locations of interviewed farmers marked by coloured stars: red for the southern and coastal region, blue for the central and Highveld region, and yellow for the northern and arid region.
Sample size determination and farmer selection
This study was conducted alongside a seroprevalence study of N. caninum (Tagwireyi et al. 2024), which determined that 1401 animals from 48 farms across seven provinces were to be sampled. The KAP survey was designed to estimate the prevalence of positive KAP scores, with a 50% positive rate and 15% precision at a 95% confidence level (CI) (Thrusfield & Robert 2018). The study was conducted between February 2022 and September 2023 using a closed-ended, paper-based questionnaire administered through face-to-face interviews as part of a seroprevalence study purposively designed to represent major milk-producing regions in South Africa. Questionnaire development involved a comprehensive lecture review on neosporosis, identification of key areas for investigation, which were formulated into questions and reviewed by three subject-matter specialists. The draft questionnaire was pretested among colleagues, and revisions were made based on the feedback received. Data on farm demographics, farmers’ knowledge of bovine neosporosis and herd management, including biosecurity, reproductive health, production parameters and the role of potential hosts of N. caninum, were collected. Informed consent was obtained and confidentiality maintained. Each interview took about 40 min.
Statistical analyses
The questionnaire data were entered into Microsoft Excel® (Microsoft Corporation, United States [US]) and analysed using Stata® 18 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, US). Descriptive statistics were used to present the data, which were grouped into knowledge, practice and attitude categories. Each response was scored as follows: +1 for correct, 0 for unsure and −1 for incorrect. Total scores greater than 0 indicated a positive outcome in each category. Associations between potential predictors and positive knowledge, practice and attitude scores were assessed using a two-tailed Fisher’s exact test. Independent variables with p < 0.25 were considered for multivariable analysis. Owing to the low number of observations and occurrence of zero counts in some categories, exact logistic regression was used. Region was included in each model as part of the survey design. A forward stepwise variable selection approach was used, and variables were retained in the model if they were significant at p < 0.05.
Ethical considerations
This study received ethical approval from the Faculty of Veterinary Science Research Ethics Committee and the University of Pretoria Animal Ethics Committee (REC085-20).
ResultsCharacteristics of sampled farmers and farms
A total of 48 farms were sampled. All interviewed farmers were male and operated family-run farms, with all farms located on privately owned land. Of the 48 farms, 47 were commercial farms and one was subsistence. Only three farmers had farms less than 10 hectares, while five farmers had farms between 10 hectares and 100 hectares, 17 farmers had farms between 101 hectares and 500 hectares, and 23 farmers had farms larger than 500 hectares. The number of dairy cattle on farms ranged from 12 to 11 000. Most of the farms (n = 32/48) were located at least 10 km away from towns and farmed predominantly mixed-breed cattle (Table 1). Most of the farms (79.1%) used computerised records, while 14.6% used handwritten records and only 6.3% had no records.
Characteristics of sampled farms and demographics of sampled farmers.
Variable category
Response
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Location
Southern and coastal
28
58
Central and Highveld
15
31
Northern and arid
5
10
Size
< 100 hectares
8
17
101–500 hectares
17
35
> 500 hectares
23
48
Number of cattle
< 100
8
17
101–1000
17
35
> 1000
23
48
Average age of cattle
< 3 years
8
17
3–5 years
37
77
> 5 years
3
6
Breed of cattle
Holstein Friesland
16
33
Jersey
5
10
Holstein–Jersey cross
4
8
Mixed
23
47
Production system
Commercial
47
97
Non-commercial
1
2
Proximity to town
< 5 km
4
8
5–10 km
12
25
> 10 km
32
66
Animal records
No recording
3
6
Handwritten
7
15
Computer software
38
79
Water source
Natural source
12
25
Artificial source
24
50
Both
12
25
Knowledge
Generally, most farmers lacked knowledge about neosporosis (n = 46/48) (Table 2), with only 20.8% (n = 10/48) having a positive knowledge score regarding the disease. This suggests that most farmers were unaware of the specific practices needed to prevent infection in their animals.
Knowledge of South African commercial dairy farmers (n = 48) regarding neosporosis-related risk factors.
Knowledge
Response
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Knowledge of neosporosis
Yes
2
4.2
No
46
95.8
Knowledge of the causes of abortions
Yes
11
22.9
No
37
77.1
Practices
A significant proportion of farmers, 77% (n = 37/48), exhibited a positive score for practices related to disease prevention. Notably, most farmers did not test replacement animals for any other diseases except for the mandatory brucellosis and tuberculosis tests, with 85.4% (n = 41/48) reporting that they did not test their replacement animals (Table 3). Furthermore, 89.6% (n = 43/48) of farmers reported having dogs on their properties, whether owned or stray.
Practices of South African commercial dairy farmers (n = 48) towards neosporosis-related risk factors.
Practices
Response
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Segregation of cattle by age
Yes
5
10
No
43
89
Hygiene and sanitary conditions
Excellent
14
29
Good
33
68
Poor
1
2
Cattle fed total mixed ration
Yes
15
31
No
33
69
Testing of replacement animals
Yes
7
15
No
41
85
Cattle kraaled or housed at night
Yes
28
58
No
20
42
Closed herd
Yes
34
71
No
14
29
Quarantine of replacement animals
Yes
9
19
No
39
81
Biosecurity of cattle husbandry practices
High
6
13
Moderate
35
73
Low
7
15
Presence of dogs on farms
Yes
43
90
No
5
10
Dogs’ access to afterbirth or aborted foetuses
Yes
27
56
No
21
44
Dogs’ access to cattle feed (pasture)
Yes
28
58
No
20
42
Disposal of afterbirth or aborted foetus or dead animals
Yes
24
50
No
24
50
Rodent control
Yes
46
96
No
2
4
Attitudes
Twenty-five participants (52.1%) had a positive attitude score regarding neosporosis-related risk factors. Many of the farmers demonstrated appropriate attitudes towards the key aspects of disease control, including maintaining good hygiene and sanitary conditions for cattle housing (n = 47/48), implementing correct biosecurity and husbandry measures to prevent and control the spread of neosporosis (n = 41/48), and maintaining accurate farm records (n = 45/48) (Table 4).
Attitudes of South African commercial dairy farmers (n = 48) towards neosporosis-related risk factors.
Attitudes
Response
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Appropriate attitude towards hygiene and sanitary conditions of cattle housing
Yes
47
98
No
1
2
Correct implementation of measures to prevent introduction of neosporosis through maintaining a closed herd
Yes
34
71
No
14
29
Correct implementation of measures to prevent introduction of disease through testing
Yes
7
15
No
41
85
Correct implementation of measures to prevent introduction of disease through quarantine
Yes
9
19
No
39
81
Correct attitude towards biosecurity and husbandry measures to control the spread of neosporosis
Yes
41
85
No
7
15
Appropriate attitudes towards investigation of causes of reproductive failure
Yes
11
23
No
37
77
Correct attitude towards farm record keeping
Yes
45
94
No
3
6
Perceptions and observations
Few farmers perceived that their cattle did not have an abortion problem (n = 6/48). The most common health issues on dairy farms in South Africa were mastitis (n = 17/48) and lameness (n = 10/48), while the leading reasons for culling animals were related to fertility issues (n = 33/48) and udder issues (n = 27/48) (Table 5). From the interviews, it was observed that most farmers were less concerned about animal health issues, but more worried about the increased cost of milk production. Key challenges cited by farmers as the major constraints facing the industry included electricity cuts, increasing feed costs, drought and labour shortages.
Perceptions of South African commercial dairy farmers (n = 48) towards neosporosis-related health issues and other animal health issues.
Perceptions
Response
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Abortions were an issue
Yes
42
88
No
6
13
Ranking of the most important reasons for culling
Fertility issues
33
69
Udder disorders
9
19
Feet disorders
2
4
Metabolic diseases
1
2
Respiratory diseases
1
2
Geriatric
1
2
Poor milk production
1
2
Ranking of the second most important reasons for culling
Udder disorders
27
56
Feet disorders
9
19
Fertility issues
9
19
Metabolic diseases
1
2
Poor milk production
1
2
Not sure
1
2
Main health problems in herds
Mastitis
17
35
Lameness
8
17
Neonatal diarrhoea
7
15
Parasitic disease
7
15
Bovine respiratory disease
5
10
Reproductive diseases
3
6
Metabolic disease
1
2
Second most important health problems in herds
Lameness
10
21
Parasitic disease
8
17
Mastitis
7
15
Neonatal diarrhoea
6
13
Reproductive diseases
6
13
Metabolic disease
5
10
Bovine respiratory disease
4
8
Traumatic reticuloperitonitis
2
4
Ranking of the important causes of reproductive loss
Not sure
37
77
Brucellosis
2
4
Mycotoxicosis
2
4
Chlamydiosis
2
4
Multiple causes
2
4
Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis
1
2
Bovine ephemeral fever
1
2
Plant toxicosis
1
2
Predictors of positive epidemiological knowledge, practices and attitudes
There was no significant association between the various variables and the positive epidemiological score (Table 6), suggesting that none of these variables are predictors of commercial dairy farmers’ positive epidemiological knowledge of bovine neosporosis. However, significant association (p < 0.05) was found between some predictors and the positive practice and positive attitude scores. The type of feed (p = 0.009), disposal of afterbirth (p = 0.000) and management of animal records (p = 0.007) were associated with positive practice score (Table 6), while the level of hygiene (p = 0.004), biosecurity (p = 0.029), presence of wildlife (p = 0.022), presence of dogs (p = 0.038) and management of animal records were associated with positive attitude score (Table 7).
Factors associated with positive practice scores regarding neosporosis among commercial dairy farmers in South Africa: results of exact multivariable logistic regression model.
Variable and level
Odds ratio (OR)
95% CI OR
p-value
Region
Southern and coastal
1†
-
-
Central and Highveld
3.7
0.3–262.8
0.600
Northern and arid
8.9
0.6–inf
0.056
Number of cattle
< 100
1†
-
-
101–500
10.4
0.5–874.9
0.109
> 500
41.7
1.4–5237.3
0.015
Total mixed ration
No
1†
-
-
Yes
9.3
1.2–inf
0.027
CI OR, confidence interval odds ratio.
, Reference level.
Factors associated with positive attitude score regarding neosporosis among commercial dairy farmers in South Africa: results of exact multivariable logistic regression model.
Variable and level
Odds ratio (OR)
95% CI OR
p-value
Region
Southern and coastal
1†
-
-
Central and Highveld
1.4
0.3–6.6
0.740
Northern and arid
1.5
0.1–22.5
1.000
Presence of wildlife
No
1†
-
-
Yes
0.1
0.002–0.960
0.027
CI OR, confidence interval odds ratio.
, Reference level.
Factors associated with positive scores
Twenty-four variables, with p < 0.25 in the univariate analysis, were considered for the multivariable analysis. The final multivariable logistic regression model (Table 6 and Table 7) identified three variables significantly associated with the odds of positive practice and positive attitude scores. Farms with herds larger than 500 animals were 41.7 times more likely (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5–5237.3) to have a positive practice score. Farms that used a total mixed ration were more likely to report a positive practice score. Additionally, farms that reported the presence of wildlife were less likely to have a positive attitude score. None of the factors assessed were found to be associated with a positive knowledge score.
Discussion
Only a small proportion of dairy farmers (20.8%) had prior knowledge of neosporosis, suggesting limited awareness of the disease and that it is not considered as a significant health or economic problem. This may be partly because neosporosis is not listed as a disease of concern by the Standard Dairy Agency in South Africa, which bases its animal health guidelines on the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) Terrestrial Animal Health Code (World Organisation for Animal Health 2024). This lack of knowledge among farmers could hinder efforts to control and prevent the infection at the farm level. This issue may be exacerbated by the fact that most farmers (77.1%) said they did not follow up on the causes of abortions, even though abortion is the main clinical sign of bovine neosporosis (Almería & López-Gatius 2013).
Although most dairy farmers (95.8%) had no knowledge of the disease, the majority (77%) had a positive practice score. This suggests that farmers were implementing measures for the prevention and control of bovine neosporosis, albeit unintentionally, as some of these biosecurity measures are universal and form part of the holistic approach to control infectious diseases in animals (Maunsell & Donovan 2008). Specific biosecurity measures most relevant to neosporosis include testing and quarantining replacement animals to curb vertical transmission, which accounts for 90% of cases (Sanderson 2009). The study revealed that some farmers focused on reducing vertical transmission by testing replacement animals (14.6%) or quarantining them (18.8%). Fewer farmers took steps to reduce horizontal transmission by preventing dogs from being on the farm (10.4%). However, on farms that had dogs, many (43.8%) prevented dogs from accessing afterbirths and aborted foetuses or to feed (41.7%), both measures aimed at reducing horizontal transmission.
Most of the farmers (52.1%) had a positive attitude score regarding the correct implementation of biosecurity, biocontainment and disease risk management practices for bovine neosporosis, generally answering favourably to most of these related questions. Such positive attitudes may reflect that these farms were commercially operated on privately owned land with sufficient resources to support disease prevention, consistent with findings that farmers with privately owned land implement more biosecurity measures (Msimang et al. 2022).
The study found that 12.5% of farmers reported having no abortion problems. This could be because of the fact that 14.6% used handwritten logbooks and 6.3% kept no records, resulting in inaccurate records and reliance on memory. This may have influenced the perception that they did not have abortion issues. In contrast, farmers who used computer software (79.1%) for record keeping generally had more accurate records. Traditional manual record keeping is often erroneous, cumbersome and time-consuming, whereas computerised systems offer more advantages for dairy herd management (Rajkumar, Xavier & Anil 2008; Sánchez et al. 2020). Farmers reported the most common animal health issues as mastitis (35.4%), lameness (16.7%), neonatal diarrhoea (14.6%) and parasitic disease (14.6%). These findings align with other studies that also rank mastitis, lameness and reproductive issues as the top health concerns in dairy cattle (Wells, Ott & Seitzinger 1998). Farmers reported that the most important reasons for culling animals were fertility issues (68.8%), udder disorders (18.8%) and feet disorders (4.2%). These findings are consistent with other research that identifies claw disorders, udder disorders and fertility problems as some of the most common reasons for culling cattle (Kulkarni et al. 2023; Rilanto et al. 2020).
Three variables were significantly associated with positive practice and attitude scores. Farms with herds larger than 500 animals and those using a total mixed ration were more likely to report positive practice scores. Larger farms are typically better structured and equipped to implement good biosecurity and management practices, which may translate to higher practice scores. This aligns with studies in South Africa and Egypt that reported lower N. caninum seroprevalence on larger farms, attributed to better biosecurity, husbandry and management practices (Gaber et al. 2021; Tagwireyi et al. 2024). These more commercial, intensive farms routinely use total mixed rations, which are accompanied by stringent biosecurity measures that reduce the risk of feed contamination with dog faeces containing N. caninum oocysts. In contrast, farms that reported the presence of wildlife were less likely to have a positive attitude score. Wildlife on or near dairy farms is a documented risk factor for N. caninum infection, and other studies have shown that wildlife can serve as reservoirs of infection and may be perceived as greater risk, complicating disease management and negatively influencing farmers’ attitudes (Hanisch-Kirkbride, Riley & Gore 2013; Minicucci et al. 2025; Samkange et al. 2023).
A limitation of the study was the small sample size, which could have skewed the results and limited their representativeness. Commercial dairy farmers, those affiliated to farmers’ organisations and veterinarians were overrepresented, while small-scale farmers, with limited access to veterinary services, were largely excluded. These farmers are much more likely to have poorer biosecurity, weaker husbandry practices and potentially greater problems with neosporosis. Another limitation was the limited geographical coverage as only farmers from seven of the nine milk-producing provinces were surveyed.
Conclusion
This study found that commercial dairy farmers in South Africa had limited knowledge of neosporosis. While most demonstrated the right attitudes and implemented appropriate practices related to disease prevention, these efforts were generally aimed at other diseases or focused on broad biosecurity measures. There is a need to raise awareness and to promote the testing of animals for N. caninum, particularly in cases of abortion and the management of dogs on farms. These measures should be integrated into a broader strategy for effective disease prevention and control programmes. This KAP study has provided valuable insights that can help address existing knowledge gaps and improve disease management of dairy farms in the country.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their gratitude to the Milk Producers Organisation, Tygerberg Animal Hospital, Humansdorp Vet Clinic, Howick Veterinary Clinic, Underberg Veterinary Surgery and Professor Inge-Marie Petzer for their support in facilitating data collection.
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Whatmore M. Tagwireyi’s doctoral thesis titled ‘Aspects of the epidemiology of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle and goats in South Africa’, submitted to the Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria in 2026. The thesis was supervised by Luis Neves, Gema Alvarez-Garcia, Darshana Morar-Leather and Peter Thompson. The thesis was reworked, revised, and adapted into a journal article for publication. The original thesis is available at: https://repository.up.ac.za/home. This article is based on data derived from a larger study. Several related articles focusing on the seroprevalence in dairy animals have been published in other journals; seroprevalence and associated risk factors for Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle in South Africa (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-024-08309-8) and seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy goats from northern South Africa: A preliminary study (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2025.10121). The present article addresses a distinct research question, focusing on the KAPs in commercial dairy cattle farmers in South Africa.
Competing interests
The authors reported that they received funding from the University of Pretoria and the National Research Foundation of South Africa through the Thuthuka Grant, which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The authors have fully disclosed those interests and have implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
CRediT authorship contribution
Whatmore M. Tagwireyi: Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Darshana Morar-Leather: Investigation, Software, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Peter Thompson: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Luis Neves: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Visualisation, Writing – review & editing. Gema Alvarez-Garcia: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Data availability
The datasets generated during the study are available from the corresponding author, Whatmore M. Tagwireyi, on request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
ReferencesAdesiyun, A.A., Knobel, D.L., Thompson, P.N., Wentzel, J., Kolo, F.B., Kolo, A.O. et al., 2020, ‘Sero-epidemiological study of selected zoonotic and abortifacient pathogens in cattle at a wildlife-livestock interface in South Africa’, Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases20(4), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2019.2519Almería, S. & López-Gatius, F., 2013, ‘Bovine neosporosis: Clinical and practical aspects’, Research in Veterinary Science95(2), 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.04.008Bayantassova, S., Kushaliyev, K., Zhubantayev, I., Zhanabayev, A., Kenzhegaliyev, Z., Ussenbayev, A. et al., 2023, ‘Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of smallholder farmers on foot-and-mouth disease in Cattle in West Kazakhstan’, Veterinary Medicine and Science9(3), 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1097Dubey, J. & Schares, G., 2011, ‘Neosporosis in animals – The last five years’, Veterinary parasitology180(1–2), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.05.031Dubey, J., Schares, G. & Ortega-Mora, L., 2007, ‘Epidemiology and control of neosporosis and Neospora caninum’, Clinical Microbiology Reviews20(2), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.00031-06Dubey, J.P., Hemphill, A., Calero-Bernal, R. & Schares, G., 2017, Neosporosis in animals, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Gaber, A., Hegazy, Y., Oreiby, A. & Al-Gaabary, M., 2021, ‘Neosporosis: A neglected abortifacient disease in Egypt, seroprevalence and farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices’, Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society72(3), 3109–3116. https://doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.28500Haddad, J.P.A., Dohoo, I.R. & VanLeewen, J.A., 2005, ‘A review of Neospora caninum in dairy and beef cattle – A Canadian perspective’, The Canadian Veterinary Journal46(3), 230, viewed n.d., from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15884645.Hanisch-Kirkbride, S.L., Riley, S.J. & Gore, M.L., 2013, ‘Wildlife disease and risk perception’, Journal of Wildlife Diseases49(4), 841–849. https://doi.org/10.7589/2013-02-031Kulkarni, P., Mourits, M., Slob, J., Veldhuis, A., Nielen, M., Hogeveen, H. et al., 2023, ‘Dutch dairy farmers’ perspectives on culling reasons and strategies’, Preventive Veterinary Medicine218, 105997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.105997Maunsell, F. & Donovan, G.A., 2008, ‘Biosecurity and risk management for dairy replacements’, Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice24(1), 155–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.007Mee, J.F., 2023, ‘Invited review: Bovine abortion – Incidence, risk factors and causes’, Reproduction in Domestic Animals58, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.14366Milk Producers’ Organization, 2023, Lacto data, Report 2023, viewed 23 September 2023, from https://www.mpo.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Lacto-Data-June-2023.pdf.Minicucci, L.A., Carstensen, M., Cornicelli, L., Elmore, S.A., Dubey, J.P., Wolf, P. et al., 2025, ‘Risk perception and transmission potential of Neospora caninum at the wildlife and livestock interface in Minnesota’, Frontiers in Veterinary Science12, 1552390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1552390Msimang, V., Rostal, M.K., Cordel, C., Machalaba, C., Tempia, S., Bagge, W. et al., 2022, ‘Factors affecting the use of biosecurity measures for the protection of ruminant livestock and farm workers against infectious diseases in central South Africa’, Transboundary and Emerging Diseases69(5), e1899–e1912. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14525Ngoshe, Y.B., Etter, E., Gomez-Vazquez, J.P. & Thompson, P.N., 2022, ‘Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of communal livestock farmers regarding animal health and zoonoses in far northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health20(1), 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010511Njiro, S., Kidanemariam, A., Tsotetsi, A., Mnisi, M., Lubisi, B., Potts, A. et al., 2011, ‘A study of some infectious causes of reproductive disorders in cattle owned by resource-poor farmers in Gauteng Province, South Africa’, Journal of the South African Veterinary Association82(4), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v82i4.76Olaogun, S.C., Fosgate, G.T., Byaruhanga, C. & Marufu, M.C., 2023, ‘The knowledge, attitudes, and practices of smallholder cattle farmers concerning the epidemiology of bovine fasciolosis in the North West Province, South Africa’, Tropical Animal Health and Production55(2), 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03478-7Rajkumar, C., Xavier, F. & Anil, L., 2008, ‘Efficiency of computerized recording system’, Indian Journal of Animal Research42(3), 213–215, viewed n.d., from https://indianjournals.com/article/ijar1-42-3-011.Reichel, M.P., Ayanegui-Alcérreca, M.A., Gondim, L.F. & Ellis, J.T., 2013, ‘What is the global economic impact of Neospora caninum in cattle – The billion dollar question’, International Journal for Parasitology43(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2012.10.022Rilanto, T., Reimus, K., Orro, T., Emanuelson, U., Viltrop, A. & Mõtus, K., 2020, ‘Culling reasons and risk factors in Estonian dairy cows’, BMC Veterinary Research16, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02384-6Samkange, A., Chitanga, S., Neves, L. & Matjila, T., 2023, ‘Evaluation of knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding neosporosis and toxoplasmosis among farmers and animal health practitioners in Namibia’, Tropical Animal Health and Production55(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-022-03441-ySánchez, Z., Galina, C.S., Vargas, B., Romero, J.J. & Estrada, S., 2020, ‘The use of computer records: A tool to increase productivity in dairy herds’, Animals10(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010111Sanderson, M., 2009, ‘Biosecurity for cow-calf enterprises’, in E.David, D.Anderson, M.Rings (eds.), Food Animal Practice, 5th edn., pp. 594–5999, ScienceDirect, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-141603591-6.10113-7Tagwireyi, W.M., Thompson, P.N., Garcia, G.A., Morar-Leather, D. & Neves, L., 2024, ‘Seroprevalence and associated risk factors for Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle in South Africa’, Parasitology Research123(8), 298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-024-08309-8Tempia, S., Mayet, N., Gerstenberg, C. & Cloete, A., 2019, ‘Brucellosis knowledge, attitudes and practices of a South African communal cattle keeper group’, Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research86(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v86i1.1671Thrusfield, M.V. & RobertC., 2018, Veterinary Epidemiology, 4th edn., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.Wells, S.J., Ott, S.L. & Seitzinger, A.H., 1998, ‘Key health issues for dairy cattle—new and old’, Journal of dairy Science81(11), 3029–3035. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(98)75867-9World Bank Group, 2021, Climate change knowledge portal, World Bank Group, viewed 13 September 2023, from https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/.World Organisation for Animal Health, 2024, Terrestrial animal health code, World Organisation for Animal Health, viewed 11 November 2024, from https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/.
How to cite this article: Tagwireyi, W.M., Morar-Leather, D., Thompson, P., Neves, L. & Alvarez-Garcia, G., 2026, ‘Knowledge, attitudes, perceptions and practices of selected commercial dairy cattle farmers regarding neosporosis in South Africa’, Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 93(1), a2256. https://doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v93i1.2256