Brucellosis - a reply

Authors: O'Hara PJ
Publication: New Zealand Veterinary Journal, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 197-198, Nov 1986
Publisher: Taylor and Francis

Animal type: Cattle, Livestock, Production animal, Ruminant
Subject Terms: Abortion/stillbirth, Bacterial, Biosecurity, Disease/defect, Infectious disease, Disease control/eradication, Epidemiology, Notifiable organisms/exotic disease, Reproduction, Reproduction - female, Zoonosis, Public health
Article class: Correspondence

---

Abstract: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Mr Wallace`s letter concerning the possible risks of disastrous results consequent upon too early withdrawal of vaccination with Brucella abortus Strain 19. He is certainly not alone in expressing this concern. However I feel I must question the conclusions that he has drawn from the particular example he has cited. It has not been possible to examine our records of the herd in question as the identity of the herd is unknown to me. Therefore my interpretation is based on the facts presented by Mr Wallace. The facts can be summarised as follows. An episode of abortions totalling 22 occurred in the autumn of 1985 in a herd presumed to previously be free of brucellosis on the basis of a negative bulk milk ring test in February 1985. The immediate cause of the abortion storm was not identified. Results of tests for brucellosis were negative. Routine Brucella bulk milk ring tests carried out at intervals of 5, 6 and 9 months after the abortion storm were negative but tests at 10 and 11 months were positive and 13 serologically positive cows were subsequently found. Mr Wallace invites us to accept the hypothesis that the abortion storm was due to brucellosis that for unexplained reasons was not identified until 10 months later. There is an inference that laboratory diagnosis is less than perfect. Further…

---