MAMMITIS VACCINE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4877, 14 September 1925, Page 1

MAMMITIS VACCINE.

DEPARTMENTAL EXPERIMENTS. NOT PROVED CONCLUSIVE. The Newstead branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union made niquiries from the Agricultural Department regarding the cures- on the market for mammitis, and at itsi meeting last week the reply was received and discussed. The director stated that the proprietors of one cure had expressly stated that they did not claim that their vaccine would act as a cure, but that they did claim that it would act as a preventive. The letter went off to state the results; of experiments carried out by the department ’at the Wallaceville 'laboratory. FIRST EXPERIMENT. “In the first experiment three cows were used, two of them being vaccinated with the mammitis vaccine, and one not vaccinated and used as a control. Of the two vaccinated cows one was afterwards directly inoculated with a small quantity of a pure culture .of the organism of contagious mammitis; the other with a small quantity of milk taken from a cow suffering from the disease, the nonvaccinated control cow being also infected with the same dose and the same form of infective material into different quarters of the udder. The result was that all three contracted contagious mammitis. Later, one vacciiiated cow and the non-vaccinated control cow had completely recovered while the other vaccinated cow still showed the organisms of contagious mammitis in her milk. A SECOND TEST. ; “A second experiment was conducted on five cows, four being" treated with the vaccine and one being left unvaccinated as a control. All r five Were later inoculated ‘ with a small quantity of milk containing the germs of contagious mammitis. All of them contracted the disease as a- resttlt of this artificial inoculation, but since three of the four vaccinated cows and the unvaccinated control cow have recovered, while one of the vaccinated cows still shows symptoms of the disease. “Further experiments are now in progress, and the results of these will be made known in due course after they reach combletion. NO' APPARENT DIFFERENCE. It may interest your members to know that in connection with another vaccine some experimental work has also been carried out. The following are the results bf this experimental work :— "Three cows were inoculated with the vaccine and given sufficient time for the preparation to exercise what protective effects it might have. In addition, two control cows were used which were not given any inoculation with the vaccine. Al.l five cows were artificially infected with the disease, and all five of them contracted it. It is worthy of note that the two control cows which had not been treated with the vaccine did not, as a result of this artificial infection, contract a more ’ acute attack than" those that were vaccinated. In due course the most noticeable symptoms passed 'off, but here again' there ivas no appaTr ent difference between the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated cows at the time that this took place.” NEED FOR CAUTION. In the subsequent discussion the members stated that in no instances had the use of this vaccine proved satisfactory, . either as a cure or a preventive, and the effects of the vaccine on the cows had not proved conclusive. If was felt that these vaccines should be used with great caution, and it was decided to await the results of further experiments as promised by the Director of Agriculture.