Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Vet. Sci.
Sec. Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1440599

Effectiveness of brucellosis control using the RB51 vaccine in adult beef cows

Provisionally accepted
Carlos A. Fernandes Carlos A. Fernandes 1,2*Gustavo H. Pereira Gustavo H. Pereira 2*Jessica R. Pereira Jessica R. Pereira 2*Daniele C. Alves Daniele C. Alves 2*Lucas S. Dias Lucas S. Dias 2*Joao H. Viana Joao H. Viana 3João Drumond João Drumond 4*
  • 1 University of José do Rosário Vellano, Alfenas, Brazil
  • 2 Independent researcher, Alfenas, Brazil
  • 3 Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brasília, Brazil
  • 4 MSD (Brazil), São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of brucellosis control and reproductive performance using one or two doses of RB51 strain vaccine. This experiment was conducted at two commercial beef farms (A, n=477; and B, n=673), which were selected due to their records of endemic brucellosis and a prevalence of 6 to 8% of seropositive cows. An initial serology screening (Day 0) was carried out in all cows using the Rose Bengal test (RB), and presumptive positive results were re-evaluated using a slow agglutination test with 2mercaptoethanol (2-ME). Seropositive cows (64, 5.6%) were culled. Non-reactive cows were then randomly assigned into three experimental groups: G1, a single vaccination with RB51; G2, two doses of RB51 given 6 months apart; and G3 (control group), no vaccination.Serological tests were carried out on Days 90, 180, 270, and 360. In each evaluation, seropositive cows were removed. The variables related to occurrence of new infections and abortion, as well as those related to subsequent reproductive performance, were analyzed using the SAS software. Seropositive cows were still detected in both vaccinated and control groups at 90 days. However, no new infections were detected in G1 at 180 days or in G1 and G2 at 270 and 360 days, whereas new seropositive cows were diagnosed in all exams in G3 (control). Therefore, the cumulative number of new infections was lower in vaccinated than in control cows (0.2% and 0.0%, vs. 3.2% for groups G1, G2, and G3 respectively; P=0.0002).In farm A the number of days open was greater in the control than in vaccinated groups (P<0.05), and in farm B the pregnancy rate was lower in the control than in the group vaccinated once (P<0.05). In summary, vaccination with RB51 in beef cows reduces the occurrence of new cases of brucellosis and improves the reproductive performance. There is no indication that a second immunization, six months after the first, enhances protection or reproductive efficiency.

    Keywords: Brucella abortus, eradication, Cattle, Rough strain, zoonosis

    Received: 30 May 2024; Accepted: 11 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Fernandes, Pereira, Pereira, Alves, Dias, Viana and Drumond. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Carlos A. Fernandes, University of José do Rosário Vellano, Alfenas, Brazil
    Gustavo H. Pereira, Independent researcher, Alfenas, Brazil
    Jessica R. Pereira, Independent researcher, Alfenas, Brazil
    Daniele C. Alves, Independent researcher, Alfenas, Brazil
    Lucas S. Dias, Independent researcher, Alfenas, Brazil
    João Drumond, MSD (Brazil), São Paulo, 04583-110, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.