4.1 Article

Prevalence of caseous lymphadenitis and usage of caseous lymphadenitis vaccines in sheep flocks

Journal

AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL
Volume 81, Issue 1-2, Pages 91-95

Publisher

AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY ASSN
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb11443.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To estimate the prevalence of caseous lymphadenitis (CLA), determine the current usage of vaccines against CLA and to measure the effectiveness of these vaccines on sheep farms. Design and population A survey was undertaken on 223 sheep flocks in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. Method The prevalence of CLA was measured by conventional inspection techniques at abattoirs in lines of sheep that could be traced back to a farm. Managers of the flocks were sent a questionnaire about their vaccine practices, management practices and knowledge of CLA. Results The average prevalence of CLA in adult sheep in these flocks was 26% and varied from 20% in Western Australia to 29% in New South Wales. About 43% of sheep producers used CLA vaccines; only 12% used them as recommended. Awareness of CLA was highest in Western Australia. More producers would use CLA vaccine if they knew the prevalence of CLA in their flock and producers obtained most information about CLA from vaccine resellers. Conclusions Only 10 to 15% of producers are currently achieving effective CLA control through the use of recommended CLA vaccination programs. In Western Australian flocks more than 25% of effectively vaccinated ewes will be sent to abattoirs in the 2 to 3 years after this study. However, large decreases in the prevalence of CLA can be achieved by about 70% of producers by either making adjustments to their vaccination programs or buying a vaccine with a CLA component. Two or three key facts on effective CLA vaccination could be made available at the point of sale of vaccines and from abattoirs that reported the prevalence of CLA to farmers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available