Further practitioner comment on Brucella ovis

Authors: Hughes PL
Publication: New Zealand Veterinary Journal, Volume 30, Issue 12, pp 201-203, Dec 1982
Publisher: Taylor and Francis

Animal type: Livestock, Production animal, Ruminant, Sheep
Subject Terms: Bacterial, Biosecurity, Disease/defect, Infectious disease, Clinical pathology, Diagnostic procedures, Disease control/eradication, Epidemiology, Notifiable organisms/exotic disease, Reproduction, Reproduction - male, Zoonosis, Public health
Article class: Correspondence

---

Abstract: Further to the recent correspondence on Brucella ovis I would like to record some observations from my experiences with eradication schemes involving commercial ram flocks. In November 1981 I received an erroneous C.F.T. result (Worthington, pers. comm.). This was immediately apparent because in a flock of 76 rams that had only one C.F.T. positive ram in the previous bleed (two months prior) there were 25 C.F.T. + ve, 9 sus, and 14 A.C. returned. A re-bleed of these 25 positive rams one month later gave 1 + ve, 4 sus, 2 A.C. and 16 -ve. Any C.F.T. that returns a high percentage of A.C.’s must be interpreted very cautiously…

---