The epizootiological importance of foot-and-mouth disease carriers
- 89 Downloads
Susceptible and immunized cattle were exposed to FMDV in varying amounts, and by different routes, and a high percentage of cattle became carriers after pharyngeal or nasal exposure.
The percentage of virus “takes” was not altered appreciably by the immune status of the cattle; however, as could be expected, the susceptible cattle more often became clinically ill.
If only minimal amounts of virus were inoculated, carriers were sometimes produced without overt disease. In immune cattle, this direct establishment of asymptomatic carriers appeared to be the rule.
In immunized cattle, the number of virus “takes” was somewhat reduced when low doses of virus were inoculated by the pharyngeal or nasal route.
If the virus was able to establish itself in the pharynx of immunized cattle, active virus multiplication took place in spite of preinfection serum antibody and the absence of clinical signs.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Beard, C. W., andB. C. Easterday: The influence of the route of administration of Newcastle disease virus on host response. I. Serological and virus isolation studies. J. infect. Dis.12 (1), 55–70 (1967).Google Scholar
- 4.Brown, F., andB. Cartwright: Purification of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease by fluorocarbon treatment and its dissociation from neutralizing antibody. J. Immunol.85, 309–313 (1960).Google Scholar
- 5.Burrows, R.: Studies on the carrier state of cattle exposed to foot-andmouth disease virus. J. Hyg. (Lond.)64, 81–90 (1966).Google Scholar
- 6.Cottral, G. E., R. E. Patty, P. Gailiunas, andF. W. Scott: Relationship of foot-and-mouth disease virus plaque size on cell cultures to infectivity for cattle by intramuscular inoculation. Arch. ges. Virusforsch.18, 276–293 (1966).Google Scholar
- 7.Cunha, R. G., J. R. Bapitista, Jr.,U. M. Serrao, andI. Torturella: El uso de los ratones lactantes en la evaluacion de los anticuerpos contra el virus de la fiebre aftosa su significacion immunologica. Gac. vet. (B.Aires)19, 243–267 (1957).Google Scholar
- 9.Doll, E. R., W. T. McCollum, andElizabeth M. Wallace: Immunization of chicks hatched from hens immunized against Newcastle disease. Vet. Med.65, 365–369 (1950).Google Scholar
- 10.Gailiunas, P.: Detection of minimal quantities of foot-and-mouth disease virus with bovine kidney tissue culture. Appl. Microbiol.13, 872–875 (1965).Google Scholar
- 11.Graves, J. H., P. D. McKercher, H. E. Farris, Jr., andK. M. Cowan: Early response of cattle and swine to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease vaccine. Res. Vet. Sci. (in press).Google Scholar
- 12.Hulse, E. C., andJ. T. Edwards: Foot-and-mouth disease in hibernating hedgehogs. J. comp. Path.50, Part 4 (1937).Google Scholar
- 13.Korn, G.: Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum Virusnachweis im Inkubationsstadium der Maulund Klauenseuche und zu ihrer Pathogenese. Arch. exp. Vet.-Med.11, 637–649 (1957).Google Scholar
- 14.Sabin, A. nB.: Present position of immunization against poliomyelitis with live virus vaccines. Brit. med. J.5123, 663–680 (1959).Google Scholar
- 15.Sutmoller, P., P. Auge de Mello, M. N. Honigman, andK. E. Federer: Infectivity for cattle and pigs of three strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus isolated from carrier cattle. Amer. J. vet. Res.28, 112, 101–105 (1967).Google Scholar