Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T23:15:37.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in newborn calves. Influence of age, colostral antibodies and adjuvants*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

A. M. Sadir ,
A. A. Schudel ,
O. Laporte ,
M. Braun  and
R. A. Margni
A. M. Sadir
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias Veterinarias, Institute Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Castelar
A. A. Schudel
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias Veterinarias, Institute Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Castelar
O. Laporte
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias Veterinarias, Institute Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Castelar
M. Braun
Affiliation:
Cátedra de Inmunologia, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
R. A. Margni
Affiliation:
Cátedra de Inmunología, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Oil-emulsified (OE) and aqueous (Aq) vaccines were prepared with the same batch of inactivated A24 8345 foot and mouth disease virus (FMDV). Calves born to vaccinated dams did not respond to the Aq vaccine 30 or 90 days post partum. When the OE vaccine was used on a similar group of calves, no responses were elicited up to 21 days post partum. However, calves 30 or more days old responded like adult cattle to the OE vaccine. When the OE vaccine was used in colostral antibody-free calves 3–30 days old, all animals showed good antibody responses but, in calves vaccinated 3 or 7 days post partum, antibodies were detectable only after a considerable period of time. Our results show that both passively acquired colostral antibodies and age are important in the response of very young calves to FMDV oil vaccines. From a practical point of view, in endemic areas where adult cattle are periodically vaccinated, vaccination of calves between 30 and 60 days post partum with OE vaccines would lead to high levels of herd protection.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 100 , Issue 1 , February 1988 , pp. 135 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

REFERENCES

Bahnemann, H. B. (1975). Binary ethyleneimine as an inactivant for foot-and-mouth disease virus and its application for vaccine production. Archives of Virology 47, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooksby, J. B. (1974). Inmunizacidn del animal joven contra la fiebre aftosa. Boletin del Centro Panamericano de Fiebre Aftosa 13–14, 1–5.Google Scholar
Borca, M. V., Fernández, F. M., Sadir, A. M., Braun, M. & Schudel, A. A. (1986). Immune response to foot-and-mouth diease virus in a murine experimental model: effective thymusindependent primary and secondary reaction. Imnmnology 59, 261–267.Google Scholar
Brun, A., Chappuis, G., Favre, H., Roulet, C. & Terre, J. (1977). Utilisation chez les jeunes bovins du vaccin antiaphteux en adjuvant huileux. Developments in Biological Standardization 35, 117–122.Google Scholar
COSALFA (1981). Comisión Sudamericana para la Lucha Contra la Fiebre Aftosa (1981). Política y Estrategias del Combate de la Fiebre Aftosa en Sudamérica para la década 1981–1990. Ríb de Janeiro, Brasil: Centro Panamericano de Fiebre Aftosa.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, H. F. & Graves, J. H. (1970). Immunologic response of lambs to emulsified foot-andmouth disease vaccine. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 27, 193–197.Google Scholar
Fernandez, F. M., Borca, M. V., Fondevila, N., Mayo, J. & Schudel, A. A. (1986). Footand-mouth disease virus (FMDV) experimental infection: susceptibility and immune response of adult mice. Veterinary Microbiology 12, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fossum, C. (1985). Bovine lymphoid cells and monocytes. Identification and function. Thesis, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Francis, M. J. & Black, L. (1986). Response of young pigs to foot-and-mouth disease oil emulsion vaccination in the presence and absence of maternally derived neutralizing antibodies. Research in Veterinary Science 41, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, H. J. (1963). Transfer of neutralizing antibody by colostrum to calves born of vaccinated dams. Journal of Immunology 91, 251–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husband, A. J. & Lascelles, A. K. (1975). Antibody responses to neonatal immunization in calves. Research in Veterinary Science 18, 201–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
INTA & PIADC (1977). Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria – Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Foot-and-mouth disease: a vaccine study. Development in Biological Standardization 35, 123–133.Google Scholar
McVicar, J. & Sutmoller, P. (1970). Foot-and-mouth disease: the agar gel diffusion precipitin test for antibody to virus-infection-associated (VIA) antigen as a tool for epizootiologic surveys. American Journal of Epidemiology 92, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, D. O.& Mckercher, P. D. (1979). Immune response of neonatal swine to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease virus vaccine with oil adjuvant. I. Influence of colostral antibody. Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the United States Health Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Nicholls, M. J., Black, L., Rweyemamu, M. M., Genovese, J., Ferrari, R., Hammant, C. A., Da Silva, E. & Umeiiara, O. (1984). The effect of maternally derived antibodies on the response of calves to vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. Journal of Hygiene 92, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholls, M. J., Black, L., Rweyemamu, M. M. & Gradwell, D. V. (1985). Effect of age on response of cattle to vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. British Veterinary Journal 141, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osebold, J. W. (1982). Mechanism of action by immunologic adjuvants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 181, 983–987.Google ScholarPubMed
Rivenson, S., Sadir, A. M., Gagoino, O. P., Marcovecchio, F. E., Zabal, O. & Laporte, O. (1982). Estudio comparativo en bovinos de dos vacunas antiaftosas: oleosa e hidrdxido saponinada. Revista de Medicina Veterinaria 63, 364–370.Google Scholar
Roth, J. A. (1982).Effect of glucocorticoids on the bovine immune system. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 180, 894–901.Google ScholarPubMed
Sadir, A. M., Schudel, A. A., Marcovecciiio, F. E. & Maroni, R. A. (1984). Inmunizacidn de vacas preñadas con vacuna antiaftosa oleosa. Inmunidad pasiva. Ada Physiologica Pharmacologica Latinoamericana 36, 141–142.Google Scholar
Smith, A. N. & Inoram, D. G. (1965). Immunological responses of young animals. II. Antibody production in calves. Canadian Veterinary Journal 6, 226–232.Google Scholar