Individual Variation of Transient Milk Production Loss After Vaccination in Sahiwal Cows (Bos Indicus)

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2467219/v1

Download PDF

Article

Individual Variation of Transient Milk Production Loss After Vaccination in Sahiwal Cows (Bos Indicus)

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2467219/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The vaccination of productive animals has been identified as a critical intervention area. The extent of milk production loss following foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), hemorrhagic septicemia and black quarter (HS + BQ), Theileriosis, and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) vaccination needs analysis. So, the present study collected milk production data during different vaccination. A significant (p < 0.01; p < 0.05) decrease in fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield/animal/day in different parities and stages of lactation after vaccination as compared to pre-vaccination. Among the vaccinated animals, 67.5 to 85.3 percentage animals showed a decline, whereas 14.7 to 32.5 percentage animals indicated no influence on milk production after vaccination. In the case of affected cows, 33–38% of animals showed a decline up to 10%; 20–25% of animals showed a 10–20% decline; 15–24% of animals showed a 20–30% decline; 9–10% of animals showed a 30–40% decline, and 9–15% of animals showed more than 40% decline in average daily milk yield/animal/day after FMD, HS + BQ, Theileriosis, and IBR vaccination. It can conclude that the Bos indicus showed various percentages of milk production declines, and some animals showed no decrease after vaccination.

Biological sciences/Biological techniques

Health sciences/Diseases

FMD

IBR

HS&BQ

Milk Production

Sahiwal cow

Theileriosis

vaccination.

The significant stakeholders in dairying in India are landless and marginal farmers. To meet the daily requirements of animal protein, the current scenario of a consumerist society necessitates the use of a modern scientific package of practices to improve productivity. Adopting modern scientific innovations aids farmers in making their ventures more profitable in terms of monetary gains. Dairying in India is technology-driven, which can be witnessed from the milk productivity values from 20.8 million tonnes (1970) to 209.96 million tonnes in 2021. The annual growth rate of 5.89% in the previous five years further paved the path to achieving per capita availability of milk of around 427 gram per day in 2020-21 (Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics-2021-22; http://www.dahd.nic.in/about-us/divisions/statistics). Due to the context, the production efficiency of the individual animal needs improvement. Thus, efficient and effective disease prevention and control policies are crucial.

The main objective of veterinary vaccinations are to enhance the welfare and health of farm animals, economically boost livestock output, and prevents the spread of diseases from domestic and wild animals to humans. In India, vaccinating dairy animals for bacterial and viral infections is still an innovation of socio-economic significance. The acceptance and penetration of the invention are still uncertain (Rathod et al., 2016). The knowledge and skill gap between scientists and farmers are so significant that extension workers struggle to close it. India has a flagship initiative in September 2019 called the National Animal Disease Control Program (NADCP) to combat FMD and Brucellosis by immunizing all cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and pigs for FMD and all female cattle calves between the ages of 4 and 8 months for brucellosis (2019-20 to 2023-24). The dogma of vaccinating dairy animals among farmers in India is due to the possibility of decreased production performance, fertility, hyperthermia, and stress in animals after vaccination (Roth, 1999). The adoption rate for vaccination in India remains low despite significant financial investments and mass vaccination campaigns due to inadequate research and extension efforts and poor connections with farmers (Rathod et al., 2016). The great majority of available data supports the safety of vaccinations. Animal protection is not the only benefit of vaccinations. They protect others who are close to them, especially those who cannot receive vaccinations. Only 61.4% of farmers believed that immunization of animals was profitable at the field level, while 32.8% needed clarification. This field study also revealed that farmers only vaccinated their cattle under government programs like the FMD-Control programme, and the Brucellosis-Control programme when a veterinarian or para-veterinarian visited their villages (Rathod et al., 2016). The primary issues that dairy farmers endure when practicing vaccination for dairy animals in the field are a lack of knowledge of the benefits, reduced milk production, infertility, swelling at the site, fever, vaccination failure, a lack of veterinarians or skilled staff, and a lack of infrastructure to store vaccines. Several studies have reported a marked decline in milk production (Giovannini et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2001; Musser et al., 1996; Krishnaswamy et al., 2021; Scoot et al., 2001; Bosch et al., 1997; Schulze et al., 2016; Giovannini et al., 2004; Bergeron et al., 2008; Morgemstem et al., 2020), stress, fever (Martinod, 1996; Gethmann et al., 2009), and compromised reproduction (Hansen et al., 2004) for a temporary period after vaccination among the lactating cows that are vaccinated (Bergeron et al., 2008; Morgemstem et al., 2020), but references are lacking in the Indian context (Krishnaswamy et al., 2021). Other after-effects of vaccination, such as 56-day return-to-service patterns (Santman-Berends et al., 2010), pregnancy loss (Baljer and Mayr, 1971), and abortions (Lorenz and Straub, 1973), were also reported. Animal variations are observed after vaccination regarding production and reproduction loss, but scientific evidence about these variations is lacking. The magnitude and individual assessment of the effect of vaccination stress on milk output in farm animals remain unknown. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate the impact of different vaccinations on the milk production of Sahiwal cows reared in loose housing systems under tropical climatic conditions.

2.1. Location of the study

The current study was carried out at the ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute (ICAR-NDRI), Karnal, Haryana, India, in the Livestock Research Centre (LRC), in a geographic orientation with an elevation (attitude) of 250 meters above the mean sea level, latitude 29°43" north, and longitude 77°20" east. It has a subtropical climate, with annual minimum and maximum temperatures ranging from 4 to 45°C. Most rainfall occurs in July and August, with a yearly average of 70 cm. However, during the hot-humid season (July to September), the relative humidity varies from 41 to 85 percent and the vapor pressure from 7.0 to 25 mmHg.

2.2. Ethics declarations

The protocols for the Vaccination of animals and collection of production parameters were approved by the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC), ICAR-NDRI, Karnal prior to the beginning of the experiment. All our methods were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. In addition, the study was carried out in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines (https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines).

2.3. Management practices

The housing management system for Sahiwal cows was loose. The paddock was spacious and open, with brick paving. For milking, a semi-automatic herringbone milking parlour system was used. All experimental animals were fed seasonal green fodders such as Berseem (Trifolium alexandrium), Maize (Zea mays), and Jowar (Sorghum). Dry fodder, such as wheat straw, was provided during the autumn when green fodder was scarce. The concentrate mixture of 70% TDN and 20% CP was fed as per the milk yield. The concentrate was provided according to their maintenance and production performance. The concentrate was fed at the rate of 1 kg for every 2.5 kg milk yield, for an average of 4% fat.

2.4. Experimental design

Milk production data from Sahiwal cows were collected during vaccination for three years (2018–2020). The day of vaccination was considered day zero and the previous 15 days; after 15 days, milk production data was collected. The above data was collected for FMD, HS&BQ, Theileriosis, and IBR vaccination. Raksha-Ovac Trivalent (FMD Oil Adjuvant vaccine) contains tissue culture virus strains, O, A, Asia-1, and inactivated with Aziridine compound from Indian Immunologicals Ltd. was used for vaccination against FMD. The Raksha-HS + BQ vaccine from Indian Immunologicals Ltd. contains formalin-inactivated cultures of Pasteurella multocida and Clostridium chauvoei adjuvanted with aluminium hydroxide gel used in vaccination for HS + BQ. Rakshavac-T from Indian Immunologicals Ltd. is used for vaccination against Theileriosis. IBR marker vaccines from Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc. were used for vaccination against IBR. The parity of the Sahiwal cows in milk during vaccination was divided based on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th or above parities (Rae et al., 1993). The stage of lactation of the Sahiwalcows in milk during vaccination was divided based on early-stage lactation (1–100 days), mid-stage lactation (101–200 days), and late-stage lactation (> 201 days) (Vijayakumar et al., 2017). The experiment has been presented flow diagrammatically below in Fig. 1, and the date of vaccination and Sahiwal cows in milk during vaccination are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Date of vaccination and Sahiwal cows were in milk during vaccination
Name of the vaccine	Date of vaccination	Number (n) of Sahiwal cows in milk during vaccination	Total Sahiwal cows in milk during vaccination
FMD	4/3/2018 (1st ) 7/10/2018 (2nd ) 10/4/2019 (1st ) 26/10/2019 (2nd ) 31/3/2020 (1st ) 21/10/2020 (2nd )	65 74 45 63 76 47	370
HS + BQ	3/5/2018 25/7/2019 19/5/2020	65 67 73	205
THEILERIOSIS	1/7/2019 24/8/2020	71 67	138
IBR	27/8/2019	62	62

2.2 Statistical analysis

The previous three years of data on milk production before and after vaccination were collected and analyzed by paired sample t-test using SPSS 22.0 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA).

3.1 Effect of FMD vaccination on milk production of Sahiwal cows

The results of the effect of FMD vaccination on fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield per animal per day during vaccination in various parities and stages of lactation of Sahiwal cows have been given in Figs. 2–5. The present study shows a significant decline (p < 0.01) in fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield/animal/day in different parities and stages of lactation after vaccination. Fortnightly total milk yield/animal decreased to, i.e., 12.1, 4.89, 8.34, and 10.13 kg in the first and second, third, fourth, and fifth and above parities, respectively (Fig. 2). Sahiwal cows showed a decline of 8.32, 9.09 and 8.06 kg in fortnightly total milk yield/animal in the early, mid and late stage of lactation after vaccination, respectively (Fig. 3). The study depicted that after FMD vaccination, there was a significant decline (p < 0.01) (p < 0.05) in average milk yield/animal/day of 0.79, 0.80, 0.33, 0.56 and 0.65 kg/day in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth and above parities, respectively (Fig. 4). There was also a significant decrease(p < 0.01) in average milk yield/animal/day in different stages of lactation, i.e., 0.55, 0.60, and 0.54 kg in the early, mid, and late stages of lactation, respectively (Fig. 5). In FMD-vaccinated cows, the difference in average milk yield between pre-vaccination and post-vaccination was plotted in a scatter plot (Fig. 6) to understand the effect of vaccination on individual Sahiwal cows. The milk yield data below the "0" line showed a decline in milk yield, and the data above the "0" line displayed no effect on the milk production of the Sahiwal cows after FMD vaccination. Interestingly, it has been observed that out of 368 Sahiwal cows in milk during vaccination, 248 (67.39%) Sahiwal cows showed a decline in milk yield and 120 (32.61%) Sahiwal cows showed no effect of vaccination on milk production. Out of the affected Sahiwal cows, 38.58% of animals showed a decline up to 10%, 25% of animals 10–20%, 15.21% of animals showed a 20–30%, 9.23% of animals showed a 30–40% and 11.95% of animals showed more than 40% decline in average daily milk yield/animal

3.2 Effect of HS + BQ vaccination on milk production of Sahiwal cows

The results of the effect of HS + BQ vaccination on fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield per animal per day during vaccination in various parities and stages of lactation of Sahiwal cows have been given in Figs. 7–10. The present study shows a significant decline (p < 0.01) (p < 0.05) in fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield/animal/day in different parities and stages of lactation after vaccination. Fortnightly total milk yield/animal decreased to, i.e., 7.2, 12.47, 15.76, 13.21, and 10.85 kg in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth and above parity, respectively (Fig. 7.). Sahiwal cows showed an decline of 9.93, 11.09 and 20.83 kg in fortnightly total milk yield/animal in the early, mid and late stage of lactation after HS + BQ vaccination, respectively (Fig. 8). The study depicted that after HS + BQ vaccination, there was a significant decline in average milk yield/animal/day of 0.92, 0.79, 1.07, 0.88 and 0.72 kg in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth and above parities, respectively (Fig. 9). There was also a significant decrease (p < 0.01) in average milk yield/animal/day in different stages of lactation, i.e., 0.66, 0.73, and 1.36 kg in the early, mid and late stage of lactation, respectively (Fig. 10). In the case of HS + BQ vaccination, the difference in average milk yield per animal per day of pre-vaccination and post-vaccination data was plotted in a scatter plot (Fig. 11) to understand the effect of vaccination on individual Sahiwal cows. The milk yield data below the "0" line showed a decline in milk yield, and above the "0" line displayed no effect on the milk production of the Sahiwal cows after HS + BQ vaccination. Interestingly, out of 204 Sahiwal cows in milk during vaccination, 151 (74.2%) showed a decline in milk yield and 53 (24.98%) showed no effect of vaccination on milk production. Out of affected Sahiwal cows, 37.75% of animals showed a decline up to 10%, 20.10% of animals showed a 10–20%, 15.20% of animals showed a 20–30%, 9.80% of animals showed a 30–40% and 17.15% of animals showed more than 40% in average daily milk yield/animal

3.3 Effect of theileriosis vaccination on milk production of Sahiwal cows

The results of the effect of theileriosis vaccination on fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield per animal per day during vaccination in various parities and stages of lactation of Sahiwal cows have been given in Figs. 12–15. The present study shows a significant decline (p < 0.05) in fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield/animal/day in different parities and stages of lactation after vaccination. Fortnightly total milk yield per animal decreased to, i.e., 5.43, 9.56, 7.62, 7.13, and 8.61 kg in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth and above parities, respectively (Fig. 12). Sahiwal cows showed a decline of 7.40, 8.09 and 10.09 kg in fortnightly total milk yield/animal in the early, mid and late stage of lactation after vaccination, respectively (Fig. 13). The study depicted that after theileriosis vaccination, there was a significant decline (p < 0.05) in average milk yield/animal/day of 0.37, 0.65, 0.76, 0.48, and 0.57 kg in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth and above parities, respectively (Fig. 14). There was also a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in average milk yield/animal/day in different stages of lactation, i.e., 0.55, 0.60 and 0.54 kg in the early, mid and late stage of lactation, respectively (Fig. 15). In the case of theileriosis vaccination, the difference in average milk yield per animal per day between pre-vaccination and post-vaccination was plotted in a scatter plot (Fig. 16) to understand the effect of vaccination on individual Sahiwal cows. The milk yield data below the "0" line showed a decline in daily milk yield, and above the "0" line displayed no effect on the daily milk production of the Sahiwal cows after the theileriosis vaccination. Interestingly, it has been observed that out of 136 Sahiwal cows milking during vaccination, 93 (68.62%) showed a decline in milk yield and 43 (31.38%) did not show any effect of vaccination on milk production. Out of affected Sahiwal cows, 33.08% of animals showed a decline up to 10%, 22.79% of animals showed a 10–20% decline, 16.92% of animals showed a 20–30% decline, 9.56% of animals showed a 30–40% decline, and 17.65% of animals showed a more than 40% decline in average daily milk yield/animal

3.4. Effect of Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR) Vaccination on milk production of Sahiwal cows

The results of the effect of IBR vaccination on fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield per animal per day during vaccination in various parities and stages of lactation of Sahiwal cows have been given in Figs. 17–20. The present study shows a significant decline (p < 0.01) (p < 0.05) in fortnightly total milk yield in the third, fourth, and fifth and above parities and in different stages of lactation. There was also a significant decline in average milk yield/animal/day in the third, fourth, and fifth and above (p < 0.05) parities, and early, mid (p < 0.01), and late (p < 0.05) stages of lactation after vaccination. Fortnightly total milk yield/animal decreased to, i.e., 9.25, 5.96, 12.38, 21.69, and 13.60 kg in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth and above parities, respectively (Fig. 17). Sahiwal cows showed a decline of 10.45, 15.22 and 16.50 kg in fortnightly total milk yield/animal in early, mid and late stage of lactation vaccination, respectively (Fig. 18). The study depicted that after IBR vaccination, there was a significant (P < 0.05) decline in 0.80, 1.25, 0.91 kg in average milk yield/animal/day in the third, fourth and fifth and above parity, and non-significant decline in average milk yield/animal/day of 0.61 and 0.40 kg in the first and second parity, respectively (Fig. 19). A significant decrease in average daily milk yield/animal/day in different stages of lactation, i.e., 0.70, 1.02, and 1.03 kg in early and mid-stage (p < 0.01) and late stages of lactation (p < 0.05) after IBR vaccination, respectively (Fig. 20) was recorded. In the case of IBR vaccination, the difference in average milk yield per animal per day between pre-vaccination and post-vaccination was plotted in a scatter plot (Fig. 21) to understand the effect of vaccination on individual Sahiwal cows. The milk yield data below the "0" line showed a decline in milk yield, while the data above the "0" line displayed no effect on the milk production of the Sahiwal cows after IBR vaccination. Interestingly, it has been observed that out of 61 Sahiwal cows in milk during vaccination, 52 (85.24%) showed a decline in milk yield after vaccination, and 9 (14.76%) showed no effect of vaccination on milk production. Out of affected Sahiwal cows, 37.71% of animals showed a decline up to 10%, 19.67% of animals showed a 10–20% decline, and 24.59% of animals showed a 20–30% decline, 9.84% animals showed a 30–40% decline and 8.19% animals showed more than 40% decline in average daily milk yield/animal

The most effective way to prevent disease and protection of livestock is vaccination. Most animals experience stress during vaccination, which affects the development of their immunity to the vaccination (Sivajothi et al., 2018). Vaccination causes stress, classified as acute stress that helps prime the immune system and chronic stress that harms the humoral immune response (Zhang et al., 1999). Acute stress controls the immune system and improves animal vaccine reactions (Hughes et al., 2013). The humoral immune response to vaccines is known to inhibit chronic stress (Cohen et al., 2001). Vaccination causes macrophages, monocytes, and dendritic cells to generate powerful pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin 1 (IL-1), IL-6, and tumour necrosis factor (TNF-); these pro-inflammatory cytokines may cause the liver to produce acute-phase proteins rapidly which may act on the hypothalamus to induce fever and malaise, and they may retard growth and lower feed efficiency of animals. Insufficiently high concentrations of these pro-inflammatory cytokines may induce hypoglycemia, reduce cardiac output, cause hypovolemic shock, and cause disseminated intravascular coagulation (Roth, 1985). The transient loss of milk production (Giovannini et al., 2004; Bergeron et al., 2008) and vaccination-associated animal stress (Morgemstem et al., 2020) are topics that have been well brainstormed among researchers. Although some research found no negative vaccination effects on milk production, other studies have found transient fever and post-vaccinal milk decline in dairy cattle (Musser and Anderson, 1996). Species- and breed-wise reduction in milk associated with vaccination has been studied, especially in cattle (Bergeron et al., 2008; Schulze et al., 2016; Abutarbush et al., 2016; Morgemstem et al., 2020); Holstein Friesian cattle (Scott et al., 2001); Deoni and Crossbred cattle (Krishnaswamy et al., 2021); sheep; and goat (Giovannini et al., 2004). Several studies reflect a decrease in milk yield after vaccination.The possible reason for the post-vaccinal milk drop is due to a transient fever that reduces milk production in some cows. The effects of vaccination on milk yield appear transient and cannot be seen on 305-day yields (Dhaliwal et al. 1996). However, according to Scott et al. (2001), lactating dairy cows experienced a significant mean temperature increase of 0.41°C one day after vaccination and experienced the most pronounced milk production drop after vaccination. Based on the forecasting of the post-vaccination milk decrease described in the literature, we chose a trial period in this investigation that lasted from 15 days before vaccination to 15 days after vaccination to find the total loss of milk for a temporary period after vaccination. According to Bosch et al. (1997), measuring the mean milk production over a long period would make it impossible to detect even significant short-term impacts if a longer period after immunization is chosen. To confirm the consistency of the milk production before vaccination and to prevent any misunderstandings regarding the beginning and end dates of the trial on the part of the farm workers who recorded the milk production, Bosch and coworkers chose to record the daily milk production for a longer period (spanning 15 days before and 15 days after vaccination). Musser et al. (1996) observed a loss of milk production between 0.6 and 1.8 kg/day/animal for three days following the administration of the Escherichia coli bacterin-toxoid vaccine to dairy cows, and they also reported that vaccinated cows also produced milk at a rate that was around 7% lower than that of controls. Krishnaswamy et al. (2021) investigated the short-term impact of FMD immunization on milk yield in Deoni and crossbred cows. They found that following vaccination, in terms of corrected milk yield, the Deoni cow saw a slight decrease of 90 g per day; however, in the crossbred cow, there was a 360 g decline from pre-vaccination milk yield. Thus, Deoni and crossbred cows that had received the FMD vaccine saw a brief, non-significant decrease in milk production. Scoot et al. (2001) noted a significant (P < 0.05) decline in milk production (-2.53 kg/d) one day following vaccination with a vaccine containing four killed viruses bovine herpesvirus-1 (BHV-1), bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), and parainfluenza-3 virus (PI-3V)) in combination with a 5-way Leptospiralbacterin in North America for vaccinating the dairy animals. Bosch et al. (1997) also reported a similar result, and there was a slight but substantial (P < 0.05) decline in daily milk output of around 1.4 kg per cow. Like the present study, Schulze et al. (2016) found a decrease in daily milk production in vaccinated cows compared to non-vaccinated cows (26.8 ± 0.39 vs. 28.2 ± 0.44 kg) after phase I inactivated Coxiellaburnetii vaccine. Giovannini et al. (2004) also reported a 10.5 g per day reduction in milk production from the Bluetongue-vaccinated cows. Abutarbush et al. (2016) investigated the impact of the LSD (lumpy skin disease) vaccine on milk production and observed a 5.5–16% decrease in daily milk production. Vaccine C (cattle master gold FP 5) and Vaccine T (triangle 4 + type 2 BVD) were used in cows by Bergeron et al. (2008). After vaccination with BVD killed or with combined killed viruses of BVD Types 1 and 2, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), and parainfluenza-3 (PI3), they observed milk production losses of -1.83 and − 0.63 kg per day, respectively, compared to the control (saline, -0.02 kg per day), which were similar to our findings (Bergeron et al., 2008). Morgemstem et al. (2020) reported a 0.41 kg decrease in daily milk yield for five days after LSD vaccination. After receiving Mannheimia haemolytica sub-unit immunization, Armfelt et al. (2020) reported a 0.7 kg daily milk yield reduction for three days. During the 30 days after immunisation, with the exception of days 2 and 21, there is no apparent decrease in milk production in lactation groups 1, 2, and > 2, or overall (Morgenstern and Klement, 2020). The intramammary Escherichia coli J5 vaccine demonstrated that the milk yield of control cows significantly decreased (-7.7 kg) the day following the challenge, but the milk yield of vaccinated cows did not change (+ 0.5 kg) (P = 0.02). After that, there was a slight difference in milk production between vaccinated and control cows (Wilson et al., 2007). Bivalent modified-live vaccine against the bluetongue virus did not result in significant variations in milk yield between vaccinations and control (Monaco et al., 2004). A commercial polyvalent vaccine against mastitis or a herd-specific Staphylococcus aureus vaccine causes considerably less milk production and 305-day milk output in the vaccinated group than in the control group (Hamedy et al., 2016). By Angelova et al. (2018), cows vaccinated against LSD had daily milk production that was 27.79 kg before vaccination and 24.31 kg after vaccination (P < 0.001). A transient reduction in milk yield and increased body temperature after vaccination were reported by Scott et al. (2001), Bosh et al. (1997), Musser et al. (1996), and Bergeron and Elsener (2001). Scott et al. (2001) reported lower daily milk yield by up to 5 kg in cows with the highest milk production. The post-vaccinal effects of FMD vaccination in a herd of Jersey and Red Dane cows caused a slight reduction in milk output observed in the vaccinated cows, which continued from 4 to 5 days. The total loss in milk yield ranged from 4.25 to 8.5 percent, with an average daily loss of about 6.0 percent of the total yield (Kalita et al., 1983). The average milk production (mean ± SE) before and after FMD vaccination was 7.68 ± 0.28 and 7.07 ± 0.28 kg, respectively. The overall milk yield of the herd recovered to pre-vaccination levels by the sixth day following vaccination, with the greatest losses occurring on the first day after vaccination, with a mean of 0.58 ± 09 kg. Over the time period, an average cumulative output loss of 1.93 kg per animal was determined (Pramod et al., 2021). Various authors reported a decrease in milk yield after vaccination, which corroborated our study. The differences in findings between different authors in the quantum of decrease in milk yield after vaccination varied across the studies due to variations in the type of vaccine, breed, parity, stages of lactation, management, and environmental factors. The duration and magnitude of milk yield reduction depend on the type of vaccine (live or killed), including antigens, the type of adjuvant, production, and stage of lactation of the animal, as well as from environmental factors.

It has been concluded that vaccination may cause a significant decline in fortnightly total milk yield/animal and average milk yield/animal/day in different parities, and stages of lactation were recorded after FMD, HS&BQ, Theileriosis, and IBR vaccination. 67.5 to 85.3 percentage Sahiwal cows showed a decline in milk output after vaccination, whereas 14.7 to 32.5 percentage Sahiwal cows showed no effect in milk output after vaccination. So, ameliorative strategies can be formulated to minimize the vaccination stress in dairy animals using ideal adjuvants, DNA vaccines, and immunomodulators. Vaccination should be mandatory as herd immunity can be created, and it is one of the best ways of prevention. It is critical to raise public awareness of the temporary effects of vaccination stress on milk production loss and the individual variability of dairy animals in order to increase vaccination acceptance. Similarly, how vaccination interferes with reproduction also needs to be explored.

Author contributions

Atul Singh Rajput: Perform the experiments and prepare the manuscript. M. Bhakat: conceptualize the work, analyze the data, and drafted the manuscript; T.K. Mohanty and Sanjit Maity helped in statistical analysis; R.K. Baithalu and G. Mondal: Prepared figures; A.A. Mir, S.L. Gayathri, and M.S. Rajput: Assisted in data collection; R.K. Dewery and N. Shah: Assisted in data compilation; All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that all relevant data are within the paper and the datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Funding

Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Acknowledgment

Acknowledged the Director of ICAR-NDRI, Karnal, for providing the research and academic facilities required for the study.

Abutarbush, S.M., Hananeh, W.M., Ramadan, W., Al Sheyab, O.M., Alnajjar, A.R., Al Zoubi, I.G., Knowles, N.J., Bachanek-Bankowska, K. and Tuppurainen, E.S.M., 2016. Adverse reactions to field vaccination against lumpy skin disease in Jordan Transboundary and emerging diseases, 63, e213–e219
Angelova, T., Yordanova, D., Krastanov, J., Miteva, D., Kalaydhziev, G., Karabashev, V., Mihaylova, M., Marutsov, P. and Ivanov, N., 2018. Quantitative and qualitative changes in milk yield and cheese-making properties of milk in cows vaccinated against lumpy skin disease Macedonian Journal of Animal Science, 8, 89–95
Armfelt, M.A. and Overton, M.W., 2020. Effect of vaccination with a Mannheimiahaemolytica subunit vaccine on milk yield in lactating dairy cows The Bovine Practitioner, 54, 66–71
Baljer, G. and Mayr, A., 1971. Statistical studies on pregnancy complications following foot and mouth vaccination in Bavaria 1967-1970 ZentralblattfürVeterinarmedizin. Reihe B. Journal of veterinary medicine. Series B, 18, 293–305
Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics-2020-21; http://www.dahd.nic.in/about-us/divisions/statistics
Bergeron, R. and Elsener, J., 2008. Comparison of postvaccinal milk drop in dairy cattle vaccinated with one of two different commercial vaccines Veterinary therapeutics: research in applied veterinary medicine, 9, 141–146
Bosch, J.C., Frankena, K. and van Oirschot, J.T., 1997. Effect on milk production of vaccination with a bovine herpesvirus 1 gene-deleted vaccine The veterinary record, 140, 196–199
Cohen, S., Miller, G.E. and Rabin, B.S., 2001. Psychological stress and antibody response to immunization: A critical review of the human literature Psychosomatic medicine, 63, 7–18
Dhaliwal, G.S., Murray, R.D., Dobson, H., Montgomery, J. and Ellis, W.A., 1996. Effect of vaccination against Leptospira interrogans serovar hardjo on milk production and fertility in dairy cattle The veterinary record, 138, 334–335
Gethmann, J., Hüttner, K., Heyne, H., Probst, C., Ziller, M., Beer, M., Hoffmann, B., Mettenleiter, T.C. and Conraths, F.J., 2009. Comparative safety study of three inactivated BTV-8 vaccines in sheep and cattle under field conditions Vaccine, 27, 4118–4126
Giovannini, A., Conte, A., Panichi, G., Calistri, P., Dessì, M., Foddis, F., Schintu, A. and Caporale, V., 2004. Effects of vaccination against bluetongue on milk production and quality in cattle vaccinated with live-attenuated monovalent type 2 vaccine Veterinariaitaliana, 40, 648–653
Hamedy, A., Passarge, O., Sobiraj, A., Freick, M., Frank, Y. and Steinert, K., 2016. Mastitis vaccination using a commercial polyvalent vaccine or a herd-specific Staphylococcus aureus vaccine: Results of a controlled field trial on a dairy farm Tierarztliche Praxis. Ausgabe G, Grosstiere/Nutztiere, 44, 219–229
Hansen, P.J., Soto, P. and Natzke, R.P., 2004. Mastitis and fertility in cattle-possible involvement of inflammation or immune activation in embryonic mortality American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 51, 294–301
Hughes, H.D., Carroll, J.A., Sanchez, N.C.B. and Richeson, J.T., 2014. Natural variations in the stress and acute phase responses of cattle Innate immunity, 20, 888–896
Kalita, C.C., Rahman, S., Rehman, A. and Sarma, G., 1983. Studies on the post-vaccinal effects of foot-and-mouth disease vaccination in cattle Indian Veterinary Journal, 60, 957–961
Krishnaswamy, N., Jeyakumar, S., Selvan, R.P.T., Gowane, G.R., Mahadappa, P., Vijayapillai, U., Dechamma, H.J., Patel, B.H.M., Saravanan, P., Ramesha, K.P. and Sanyal, A., 2021. Short-term effect of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccination on the milk yield in the Deoni and crossbred cows Tropical animal health and production, 53
Lorenz, R.J. and Straub, O.C., 1973. Statistical evaluation of allergic reactions following vaccinations against foot-and-mouth disease in 1970 ZentralblattfürBakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene. ErsteAbteilungOriginale. Reihe A: MedizinischeMikrobiologie und Parasitologie, 223, 1–14
Martinod, S., 1996. Combination vaccines for cattle The Bovine Practitioner, 30, 36–39
Monaco, F., De Luca, N., Morelli, D., Pisciella, M., Palmarini, S., Di Giandomenico, M. and Savini, G., 2004. Field vaccination of cattle using a bivalent modified-live vaccine against bluetongue virus serotypes 2 and 9: effect on milk production Veterinaria italiana, 40, 661–663
Morgenstern, M. and Klement, E., 2020. The effect of vaccination with live attenuated Neethling lumpy skin disease vaccine on milk production and mortality—an analysis of 77 dairy farms in Israel Vaccines, 8, 324
Musser, J.M. and Anderson, K.L., 1996. Effect of vaccination with an Escherichia coli bacterin-toxoid on milk production in dairy cattle Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 209, 1291–1293
Pramod, R, T., Lasna, S. and Bibin, B., 2021. Influence of FMD vaccination stress on milk production in crossbred dairy cattle of Kerala Indian Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 95–99
Rae, D.O., Kunkle, W.E., Chenoweth, P.J., Sand, R.S. and Tran, T., 1993. Relationship of parity and body condition score to pregnancy rates in Florida beef cattle Theriogenology, 39, 1143–1152
Rathod, P., Chander, M. and Bangar, Y., 2016. Livestock vaccination in India: an analysis of theory and practice among multiple stakeholders: -EN- -FR- La vaccination des bovins en Inde : uneanalyse de la théorie et de la pratique chez diverses parties prenantes -ES- Vacunación del ganadovacuno en la India: análisis de la teoría y la praxis de diversosinterlocutores Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 35, 729–739
Rathod, P., Hiremath, S., Manjunathachar, H. V., Balaraj, B. L., and Bangar, Y., 2014. Adoption status of livestock innovations and factors affecting their adoption in Bidar District of Karnataka. Indian Journal of Field Veterinarians (The), 9(4), 62-65.
Roth, J.A., 1985. Cortisol as mediator of stress-associated immunosuppression in cattle In: Animal Stress, (Springer New York: New York, NY), 225–243
Roth, J.A., 1999. Mechanistic bases for adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine failures In Advances in Veterinary Medicine, (Elsevier), 681–700
Santman-Berends, I.M.G.A., Hage, J.J., van Rijn, P.A., Stegeman, J.A. and van Schaik, G., 2010. Bluetongue virus serotype 8 (BTV-8) infection reduces fertility of Dutch dairy cattle and is vertically transmitted to offspring Theriogenology, 74, 1377–1384
Schulze, L.C., Borchardt, S., Ouellet, V. and Heuwieser, W., 2016. Effect of a phase I Coxiellaburnetii inactivated vaccine on body temperature and milk yield in Bibliography dairy cows Journal of Dairy Science, 99, 541–550
Scott, H.M., Atkins, G., Willows, B., and McGregor, R., 2001. Effects of 2 commercially-available 9-way killed vaccines on milk production and rectal temperature in Holstein-Friesian dairy cows The Canadian veterinary journal. La revue veterinairecanadienne, 42, 793–798
Sivajothi, S., Prithvidhar Reddy, Y.V., Sudhakara Reddy, B., Vani, S., Chandel, S., Ravikanth, K. and Ganguly, B., 2018. Evaluation of herbal anti-stressor product (restobal) during the vaccination stress in buffaloes International journal of current microbiology and applied sciences, 7, 723–727
Vijayakumar, M., Park, J.H., Ki, K.S., Lim, D.H., Kim, S.B., Park, S.M., Jeong, H.Y., Park, B.Y. and Kim, T.I., 2017. The effect of lactation number, stage, length, and milking frequency on milk yield in Korean Holstein dairy cows using automatic milking system Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 30, 1093–1098
Wilson, D.J., Mallard, B.A., Burton, J.L., Schukken, Y.H. and Gröhn, Y.T., 2007. Milk and serum J5-specific antibody responses, milk production change, and clinical effects following intramammary Escherichia coli challenge for J5 vaccinate and control cows Clinical and vaccine immunology: CVI, 14, 693–699
Zhang, F.X., Kirschning, C.J. and Mancinelli, R., 1999. Bacterial lipopolysaccharide activates nuclear factor-kB through interleukin-1 signaling mediators in cultured human dermal endothelial cells and mononuclear phagocytes. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 274, 7611–7614

No competing interests reported.

Tables.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Individual Variation of Transient Milk Production Loss After Vaccination in Sahiwal Cows (Bos Indicus)

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Material And Methods

2.1. Location of the study

2.2. Ethics declarations

2.3. Management practices

2.4. Experimental design

2.2 Statistical analysis

3. Result

3.1 Effect of FMD vaccination on milk production of Sahiwal cows

3.2 Effect of HS + BQ vaccination on milk production of Sahiwal cows

3.3 Effect of theileriosis vaccination on milk production of Sahiwal cows

3.4. Effect of Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR) Vaccination on milk production of Sahiwal cows

4. Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1