Effect of vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease on milk yield in dairy cows

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5291250/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Effect of vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease on milk yield in dairy cows

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5291250/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Despite limited evidence, concerns about decreased milk yield during foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccination programs are common among farmers and the dairy industry. This study evaluated the impact of FMD vaccination on milk production in dairy cows. In Experiment 1, a total of 593 lactating Holstein cows averaging 37.2 ± 0.3 kg/day in a free-stall system were randomly assigned to receive (n = 268) or not (n = 325) a dose of FMD vaccine on Day 0 of the experiment. Milk yield was recorded from Day − 3 to Day 9, and body temperature was measured in a subset of 96 cows from Day 0 to Day 3. Among cows producing ≥ 37.2 kg/d, vaccinated cows had lower milk yields between Days 1 and 5 than unvaccinated cows did (40.7 ± 0.3 kg/d vs. 42.9 ± 0.3 kg/d) (P < 0.05). In cows producing < 37.2 kg/d, vaccinated cows had lower milk yields on Days 1 and 2 (31.0 ± 0.3 kg/d vs. 32.9 ± 0.3 kg/d; P < 0.05). Vaccinated cows had higher body temperature on Day 1 (39.1 ± 0.1°C) than control cows (38.2 ± 0.0°C) (P < 0.05), with no difference on the other days. In Experiment 2, 146 lactating Holstein cows averaging 20.3 ± 0.3 kg/day in a pasture-based system were randomly assigned to two experimental groups to receive (n = 78) or not receive (n = 68) a dose of the FMD vaccine on Day 0. The milk yield was measured on Day 0 and Day 3, and the milk composition (i.e., fat, protein, and lactose contents), somatic cell count (SCC), and milk urea nitrogen concentrations were analyzed on Day 3. No significant differences in milk yield, composition, or SCC were found between the groups (P = NS). In conclusion, a decrease in milk yield was observed after FMD vaccination in high-producing dairy cows (∼40 kg/d/cow) managed in a free-stall system, whereas no significant difference was detected in Holstein cows producing ∼20 kg/d, which were managed in a pasture-based system. These findings highlight the importance of considering production levels when assessing the impact of FMD vaccination on dairy production.

Bovine

dairy cows

FMD vaccine

hyperthermia

milk composition

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly infectious viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed ruminants (1). It is probably the most important livestock disease in the world in terms of economic impact, mainly because of production losses, death of animals, and restrictions on animal product trading, which act as barriers to international trade and high control/stamping out costs (2, 3). The virus can be present in excretions and secretions from infected animals, including milk (4, 5, 6). Vaccination is an effective strategy that can prevent clinical FMD. It has proven to be a highly useful approach in preventing dissemination and has made elimination of the disease a possibility (7, 8, 9, 10). The complete protection of a herd reduces the opportunity for the virus to enter, replicate and challenge individuals who may have not been vaccinated or who do not have sufficient immunity to resist (8). Vaccination against FMD is the most powerful strategy to prevent, control, and eradicate this devastating disease (11).

The side effects of FMD vaccination, specifically the effects on production traits, have not been sufficiently addressed. In Bos taurus beef cows, FMD vaccination has been shown to induce pregnancy failure when it is administered before Day 45 of pregnancy, whereas no difference was found after Day 46 of pregnancy (12). Comparable results were reported previously in Bos indicus cattle in Brazil (13). This adverse effect in beef cows was associated with a slight increase in body temperature and local adverse reactions at the inoculation site after vaccination (12) and with an increase in acute-phase protein levels and haptoglobin (13, 14). Although there is limited knowledge about the possible effects of FMD vaccines on milk production (15, 16), dairy farmers and industry often argue that FMD vaccine administration causes a transient drop in milk yield (17, 16). Farmers’ knowledge and their stance on vaccination are principal factors for an effective control program (18, 19, 17). On the other hand, misinformation can lead to poor decision-making, and history shows how low vaccination coverage has caused FMD to rise to epidemic proportions (20). Further investigations are needed to draw robust conclusions on the possible effects of FMD vaccinations on milk yield in dairy cattle.

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether FMD vaccinations have any effect on the milk yield of Holstein cows at two different production levels (i.e., ∼40 and ∼20 kg/d/cow) managed in two different production systems (free-stall and pasture-based systems, respectively).

Two experiments were conducted during the period designated for FMD vaccination by the official campaign against FMD in Uruguay (i.e., 15 February to 15 March 2020). A total of 739 lactating Holstein cows were used in the experiments; these cows were located on two dairy farms that produce an average of 37 kg/d/cow in a free-stall housing system (Experiment 1) and 20 kg/d/cow in a pasture-based system (Experiment 2). All experimental procedures were approved by the Internal Animal Care Committee of Fundación IRAUy (protocol number 003/2019). In both experiments, within each location, the females were randomly assigned to two experimental groups to receive or not receive 2 ml of FMD vaccine (Bioaftogen series 945, Biogenesis Bagó, Buenos Aires, Argentina). According to the manufacturer, the vaccine consisted of an oil emulsion compound containing FMD virus types O1 Campos and A24 Cruzeiro replicated in BHK suspension cell culture, inactivated with binary ethylenimine, and purified with polyethylene glycol. Vaccination was administered as recommended by the official authorities by subcutaneous injection in the neck region with a 15 mm × 18 gauge needle/

2.1. Experiment 1

2.1.1. Animals and experimental groups

The study involved 593 lactating Holstein cows, consisting of 263 primiparous and 330 multiparous, with a body condition score (BCS) of 3.7 ± 0.1 (mean ± SEM, scale 1 to 5, from emaciated to obese, respectively; 21). The cows had an average milk yield of 37.2 ± 0.3 kg/d/cow (ranging from 21 to 60 kg/d) and 187.8 ± 2.7 days in milk (DIM, ranging from 34 to 492 days). These lactating animals were managed under the same conditions in a free-stall housing system across three locations within the same company. The cows were milked three times a day (i.e., at 10:00 h, which was considered the morning; 18:00 h, which was considered the afternoon; and 02:00 h, which was considered the evening milking) and received an average of 25.5 kg dry matter per cow of a total mixed ration with unrestricted access to water. On Day 0 of the experiment, the animals were randomly assigned to two experimental groups to receive (n = 268) or not receive (n = 325) the FMD vaccine. From Day -3 until Day 9, milk production was measured in terms of quantity (kg), conductivity (mS/cm), and milk flow (kg/min) (DemaTron 70 GEA Farm Technologies, Düsseldorf, Germany, endorsed by the International Committee for Animal Recording). The data were recorded (Dairy Plan C21, GEA) and analyzed via commercial software (DairyComp, Valley Agricultural Software, California, USA). Body temperature was determined from Day 0 to Day 3 postvaccination by measuring the vaginal temperature once a day (between 11:00 and 12:00) via digital thermometers (OMRON, Dalián, China) in a subset of 96 cows that received (n = 56) or did not receive (n = 40) the FMD vaccine. All the measurements were taken by the same operator. The environmental conditions, including humidity and air temperature, were recorded to calculate the temperature‒humidity index (THI) via the following formula: THI = (0.8 × T °C) + [(RH/100) × (T°C – 14.4)] + 46.4, where T = temperature and RH = relative humidity (22). The THI scores were as follows: 81 on Day 0, 78 on Day 1, 75 on Day 2 and 72 on Day 3.

2.1.2. Determinations

The daily milk weights from the morning, afternoon, and evening milking sessions were combined to determine the daily milk yield (kg/d). The morning milk accounted for 34.8 ± 0.1% of the daily production, the afternoon milk accounted for 31.9 ± 0.1%, and the evening milk accounted for 33.3 ± 0.1%. For data analysis, cows were classified according to daily milk production, which was calculated as the average for the three days preceding Day 0 of the experiment (37.2 ± 0.3 kg/d). For further analysis, cows were categorized into those producing above and below the average: ≥ 37.2 kg/d (mean 42.4 ± 0.3 kg/d, n = 276) and < 37.2 kg/d (mean 32.9 ± 0.2 kg/d, n = 317), respectively. Cows were also classified according to DIM, using the average DIM: < 188 DIM (mean 111.9 ± 1.4 days, n = 207) and ≥ 188 DIM (mean 228.5 ± 2.0 days, n = 386). Cows were classified as normothermic when their vaginal temperature was < 39.5 °C and hyperthermic when their vaginal temperature was ≥ 39.5 °C (23).

2.2. Experiment 2

2.2.1. Animals and experimental groups

The study involved 146 lactating Holstein cows, 45 primiparous and 101 multiparous, with a BCS of 3.6 ± 0.1 (mean ± SEM), a milk yield of 20.3 ± 0.3 kg/cow (ranging from 9.4 to -35.9) and 260.8 ± 8.5 DIM (ranging from 14 to -584 days). The cows were managed in a pasture-based system and milked twice a day, at 05:00 h (considered morning milking) and at 16:00 h (considered afternoon milking). During the experiment, the cows grazed on a sorghum field and were supplemented twice a day with 4 kg of a balance ration (18% vegetal protein) with unrestricted access to water. Only cows without clinical symptoms of mastitis were included in the experiment (24). The mean annual bulk milk somatic cell count (SCC) in this herd was 198.1 ± 8.7 × 1,000 cells/ml, with a protein content of 3.47 ± 0.02% and a fat content of 3.53 ± 0.05%. On Day 0 of the experiment, the animals were randomly assigned to two experimental groups to receive (n = 78) or not receive (n = 68) the FMD vaccine. On Day 0 and Day 3, milk yield was recorded at each milking time using milk meters (J. Delgado, Scuéllamos, Ciudad Real, España). On Days 0 and 3, milk yield was recorded at each milking time using milk meters (J. Delgado, Scuéllamos, Ciudad Real, Spain). During the afternoon milking on these days, individual 10 ml milk samples were collected from proportional-line samplers, preserved with bronopol (2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol, CAS number 52-51-7), and transported to the laboratory (COLAVECO, Colonia, Uruguay) for analysis of milk components and SCC.

2.2.2. Milk composition

Milk samples taken on Day 0 and Day 3 were analyzed for fat content (g/100 ml, %), protein content (g/100 ml, %), lactose content (g/100 ml, %) and SCC (x 1,000 cells/ml). Additionally, on Day 3, milk urea nitrogen concentrations (MUN, mg/dl) were also analyzed. The SCC was performed with a somatic cell counteremploying aflow cytometerbased on the fluoro-optoelectroniccell counters technique (Delta Instruments Combiscope FTIR 600 Dairy Analyzer, Somascope 600, North Shore, New Zealand) according to ISO 13366-2/IDF 148-2:2006. The expanded uncertainty intralaboratory for the SCC was 0.002 log 10, and the interlaboratory uncertainty was 0.004 log 10. The milk components were analyzed via mid-infrared spectrometry (Delta Instruments Combiscope FTIR 600 Dairy Analyzer, Lactoscope 600, North Shore, New Zealand) according to ISO 9622:2013 – IDF 141. For fat content, the expanded uncertainty intralaboratory was 0.012 g/100 ml, whereas the interlaboratory uncertainty was 0.023 g/100 ml. For protein content, the expanded uncertainty intralaboratory uncertainty was 0.096 g/100 ml, and the interlaboratory uncertainty was 0.028 g/100 ml.

2.2.3. Determinations

Cows were classified according to DIM (classification was performed with respect to the average DIM) into < 261 DIM (mean: 189.8. ± 2.4 days and 22.6 ± 0.4 kg/d, n = 89) and ≥ 261 DIM (mean: 375.6 ± 8.2 and 19.0 ± 0.4 kg/d, n = 57). The relationship between milk fat and protein content was calculated (fat %/protein %).

2.2.4. Statistical analysis

In both experiments, the mean daily milk yield was analyzed via a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) using InfoStat software (25). The model included treatment (vaccination vs. no vaccination), day of the experiment, parity status (primiparous vs. multiparous), DIM (< 189 DIM vs. ≥ 189 DIM for Experiment 1, and < 261 DIM vs. ≥ 261 DIM for Experiment 2) and their interaction as fixed factors. In Experiment 1, the analysis was performed separately for two different milk yield levels (i.e., ≥ 37.2 kg/d/cow and < 37.2). Animal identification (in both experiments, 1 and 2) and herd location (in Experiment 1) were included as random factors. In Experiment 1, body temperature was analyzed via GLMM, including the same variables previously described as fixed factors, while animal identification was included as a random factor. In Experiment 1, both Pearson's and partial correlation coefficients were used to describe the relationships between variables. Specifically, we analyzed the variation in milk production before vaccination (averaged over the three days preceding Day 0) and the average milk production on Days 1 and 2, alongside body temperature on Day 1. The logistic procedure was used to generate the regression model and determine the intercept and slope values according to maximum likelihood estimates for each significant continuous order effect. The probabilities were determined according to the following equation: probability ¼ (elogistic equation)/(1 þ elogistic equation). Logistic regression curves were constructed according to the coefficients provided by the interactive data analyses from InfoStat software. Polynomial regression was used to select the statistical models according to the significance of the regression coefficients (P < 0.05) and in relation to the coefficient of determination (R2). Regression analysis was used to determine the nature of the relationship (linear, quadratic, or cubic) between each measurement influenced by pregnancy or the occurrence of estrus. In Experiment 2, the SCC and milk composition were analyzed via GLMM using InfoStat software. The SCC data were analyzed using the natural logarithm of the SCC, and the SCCs were log-transformed to a somatic cell score (SCS = log2 (SCC/100,000 cells) + 3) (26). The statistical model for MUN included the following fixed factors: treatment, DIM (< 261 vs. ≥ 261 DIM), parity status and their interaction. The model for milk lactose, milk fat, milk protein and the relationship between milk fat and protein included treatment, DIM, parity status, milk production level, day of the experiment and their interaction as fixed factors. Animal identification was included as a random factor.

Data from both experiments are presented as the mean ± SEM, with significance set at P < 0.05 and tendency set at 0.05 < P < 0.10.

3.1. Experiment 1

The daily milk yield was affected by the administration of the FMD vaccine, by the day of the experiment and by their interaction (P < 0.05). The data were compared separately to milk yield levels in high- and medium-producing cows. In high-producing cows (≥ 37.2 kg/d), milk yield from Day 1 to Day 5 was lower in vaccinated cows than in unvaccinated cows (40.7 ± 0.3 kg/d vs. 42.9 ± 0.3 kg/d, respectively) (P < 0.05). In medium-producing cows (< 37.2 kg/d/cow), milk yield was lower on Days 1 and 2 in vaccinated cows than in unvaccinated cows (31.0 ± 0.3 kg/d vs. 32.9 ± 0.3 kg/d, respectively) (P < 0.05). The results are shown in Fig. 1.

During the evaluated period, milk yield varied significantly based on DIM, with cows ≤ 188 DIM producing 42.8 ± 0.2 kg/d compared with 34.3 ± 0.1 kg/d for those ≥ 189 DIM (P < 0.05). Parity status also influenced milk yield, with primiparous cows producing 35.4 ± 0.1 kg/d milk and multiparous cows producing 38.8 ± 0.1 kg/d milk (P < 0.05). No significant interactions were detected between treatment (vaccination) and either DIM or parity status (P = NS). The detailed results can be found in Table 1.

Table 1

Daily milk yield (kg/d/cow, mean ± SEM) of lactating Holstein cows after the administration of the FMD vaccine (Day 0) vs. the unvaccinated control group.
		Day 0	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5
Main effects
FMD vaccine	With (n = 268)	36.9 ± 0.4^a	35.4 ± 0.5^a	36.0 ± 0.5^a	36.3 ± 0.4^a	36.2 ± 0.4^a	37.3 ± 0.4^a
FMD vaccine	Without (n = 325)	37.1 ± 0.4^a	37.9 ± 0.5^b	37.5 ± 0.4^b	37.5 ± 0.4^b	37.7 ± 0.5^b	37.9 ± 0.4^a
DIM	≤ 188 days (n = 207)	41.8 ± 0.5^b	41.3 ± 0.6^b	43.0 ± 0.6^b	42.0 ± 0.5^b	42.4 ± 0.5^b	42.7 ± 0.5^b
DIM	≥ 189 days (n = 386)	34.6 ± 0.3^a	33.3 ± 0.4^a	33.8 ± 0.4^a	34.1 ± 0.4^a	34.1 ± 0.4^a	34.8 ± 0.4^a
Parity	Primiparous (n = 263)	35.4 ± 0.3^a	34.3 ± 0.4^a	34.7 ± 0.4^a	35.1 ± 0.3^a	35.1 ± 0.3^a	35.7 ± 0.3^a
Parity	Multiparous (n = 330)	38.4 ± 0.4^b	38.5 ± 0.5^b	38.5 ± 0.4^b	38.3 ± 0.4^b	38.5 ± 0.5^b	39.0 ± 0.5^b
Different letters for the same column for each main effect indicate P < 0.05. No interaction between FMD vaccine treatment and DIM or between FMD vaccine treatment and parity status was detected (P = NS).

Body temperature depended on treatment, day, and their interaction (P < 0.05). On Day 1, the temperature was greater in vaccinated cows than in unvaccinated cows (39.1 ± 0.1 vs. 38.2 ± 0.1°C, respectively; P < 0.05). The temperature of the vaccinated animals declined on Day 2 to values comparable to those of unvaccinated cows (38.5 ± 0.1°C vs. 38.4 ± 0.1°C, respectively; P = NS). The results are presented in Fig. 2. While 34% of the vaccinated group experienced a body temperature higher than 39.5°C (hyperthermia), none of the cows in the unvaccinated group experienced hyperthermia during the experiment (P < 0.05). The mean values are shown in Table 2. Milk production, DIM and parity status had no influence on temperature variation (P = NS); there was no interaction effect between these factors and FMD vaccine treatment (P = NS). No correlation was found between daily milk production and body temperature in either vaccinated or unvaccinated cows (P = NS). The relationships between variations in milk production before and after vaccination and body temperature on Day 1 for vaccinated cows are shown in Fig. 3.

Table 2

Percentage of dairy Holstein cows suffering hyperthermia (≥ 39.5°C) after FMD vaccination (Day 0) compared with unvaccinated cows.
	Day 0	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3
With FMD vaccine (n = 56)	0% (0/56)	34% (19/56)	2% (1/56)	2% (1/56)
Without FMD vaccine (n = 40)	0% (0/40)	0% (0/40)	0% (0/40)	0% (0/40)
P value	-	< 0.01	0.40	0.40

3.2. Experiment 2

FMD vaccination had no effect on milk yield, which was 20.3 ± 0.4 and 20.4 ± 0.4 kg/d/cow for vaccinated and unvaccinated cows, respectively (P = NS). The results are presented in Fig. 4. Milk content and SCC were not influenced by FMD vaccine administration (P = NS). The concentrations of MUN tended to be lower in vaccinated cows than in unvaccinated cows (21.3 ± 0.2 vs. 22.3 ± 0.3, respectively) (P = 0.06). On Day 3, the milk protein content tended to be lower in vaccinated cows than in unvaccinated cows (3.48 ± 0.05 vs. 3.66 ± 0.05, respectively; P = 0.08). Cows producing < 20.3 kg/d had greater protein content than those producing ≥ 20.3 kg/d on Day 0, 3.72 ± 0.03 vs. 3.44 ± 0.03%, respectively (P < 0.05). Milk protein content, SCC and milk yield were influenced by DIM (P < 0.05). The milk protein content and SCC were greater in cows aged ≥ 261 days than in those aged < 261 DIM (3.77 ± 0.04 vs. 3.47 ± 0.03% of protein), and the SCC was 230 ± 19 vs. 136 ± 12 × 1,000 cs/ml, respectively (P < 0.05). Moreover, on Day 3, the milk yield of cows with ≥ 261 DIM was 18.1 ± 0.3 kg/cow, whereas that of cows with < 261 DIM was 21.8 ± 0.3 kg/cow (P < 0.05). The statistical interactions are presented in Table 3, and the results for different experimental groups are detailed in Table 4.

Table 3

Main effects and statistical interactions (P values) of the effects of FMD vaccination (Day 0) on the milk composition and SCS of lactating Holstein cows (Day 3) (n = 146).
		Milk yield	Fat	Protein	Protein/fat	Lactose	SCS	MUN
Main effects
FMD vaccine	With vs. Without	0.45	0.87	0.08	0.42	0.18	0.22	0.06
Day	Day 0 vs. Day 3	0.08	0.34	0.08	0.73	0.08	0.61	-
Parity	Primiparous vs. multiparous	0.35	0.89	0.18	0.70	0.11	0.23	0.91
Milk yield level	kg/d Higher (≥ 20.3 kg/d) vs. Lower (< 20.3 kg/d)	-	0.79	< 0.01	0.86	0.41	0.43	0.92
Days in milk	< 261 d vs. ≥ 261d	0.01	0.43	0.05	0.95	0.70	0.02	0.80
FMD interactions
FMD vaccine x Day		0.39	0.82	0.09	0.87	0.10	0.83	-
FMD vaccine x parity status		0.66	0.25	0.30	0.76	0.19	0.31	0.25
FMD vaccine x milk production		0.47	0.11	0.31	0.28	0.56	0.99	0.22
FMD vaccine x DIM		0.08	0.99	0.11	0.75	0.47	0.39	0.92

DIM = days in milk; MUN = milk urea nitrogen concentrations.

SCS = log2 (somatic cell count/100,000 cells) + 3

Table 4

Milk composition and SCC of lactating Holstein cows after the administration of the FMD vaccine (n = 78) (Day 0) *vs.* unvaccinated cows (n = 68).
Milk component	Day of the experiment	With FMD vaccine	Without FMD vaccine
Fat (%)	Day 0	3.77 ± 0.10	3.69 ± 0.09
Fat (%)	Day 3	3.89 ± 0.11	3.95 ± 0.10
Protein (%)	Day 0	3.61 ± 0.04	3.63 ± 0.04
Protein (%)	Day 3	3.48 ± 0.04	3.66 ± 0.05
Protein/fat	Day 0	1.01 ± 0.02	1.01 ± 0.02
Protein/fat	Day 3	0.95 ± 0.03	0.96 ± 0.02
Lactose (%)	Day 0	4.80 ± 0.01	4.85 ± 0.01
Lactose (%)	Day 3	4.72 ± 0.02	4.73 ± 0.02
SCC (1,000 cells/ml)	Day 0	187 ± 20	195 ± 28
SCC (1,000 cells/ml)	Day 3	159 ± 17	148 ± 19

Since no effect or interaction was found between FMD vaccine administration and day (P = NS), the values are presented as descriptive data.

The main result of this study was that, in high-producing Holstein cows (e.g., 40 kg/day/cow), the administration of the FMD vaccine decreased milk yield within 5 days after vaccination, an effect that was not observed in cows producing 20 kg/day/cow. The vaccine also increased body temperature for one day after vaccination. Although body temperature and milk production appear to be associated with the response to the FMD vaccine, the outcomes suggest that hyperthermia was not the sole factor affecting milk yield in vaccinated cows.

The milk yield in cows with a daily production ≥ 37.2 kg decreased by an average of 5.0% during the five consecutive days following the administration of the FMD vaccine. Vaccination acts at different levels to induce an immune response; inflammation is a key part of the activation of the innate immune system, which may be associated with hyperthermia, listlessness, or temporarily reduced milk production, among other factors, as part of the immunologic cascade (27). Despite limited information on the effect of the FMD vaccine on dairy production, the current findings support a case report published in Israel (16). In a herd with an average production of approximately 30 kg/day/cow, the authors reported that subcutaneous administration of the FMD vaccine, which contained aluminum hydroxide gel and saponin as adjuvants, decreased daily milk production by 21.5% for seven days. The magnitude of this decrease was greater than that observed in our study, likely due to differences in vaccine composition and adjuvants; the vaccine used in our study did not contain saponin as an adjuvant, among other distinctions.

The administration of the FMD vaccine induced hyperthermia in 34% of lactating cows the day after vaccination. This observation aligns with prior research findings, which reported that 28% of beef cattle experienced fever within 1–2 days postvaccination (12). Furthermore, in crossbred cows, FMD vaccine administration resulted in a significant increase in body temperature, ranging from 0.4°C to 0.6°C (28). The precise mechanism linking hyperthermia and its impact on milk production remains unclear. An effective vaccine response relies on the activation of numerous dendritic cells, enhancing interactions between antigen-presenting cells and helper T lymphocytes in the lymph nodes (29). The release of cytokines into the circulatory system induces inflammation (30). These cytokines then reach the hypothalamus and other centers in the central nervous system, triggering the production of prostaglandin-E2, which in turn induces hyperthermia, lethargy, and reduced appetite (31, 32). Reduced feed intake decreases nutrient availability, potentially leading to a decline in milk production (33, 34). Hyperthermic cows are unable to engage the normal glucose-sparing mechanisms used by normothermic animals to maximize milk yield during periods of nutrient insufficiency (35). However, in our study, variations in daily milk production were not solely attributable to vaccine-induced hyperthermia, as milk yield decreased in both hyperthermic and normothermic cows following vaccination. Hyperthermia represents just one aspect contributing to decreased milk production; inflammation and reduced feed intake likely also play significant roles. Further investigations are necessary to understand the specific impact of the FMD vaccine on milk production in dairy cows, as this was not the primary focus of our study.

The outcomes observed in the herds of both experiments, with cows producing between 9 and 60 kg/d of milk, suggest that the negative impact of the FMD vaccine on milk yield primarily affects high-producing cows. Milk production decreased for five days in those cows that produced 42 kg/d and for two days in those cows that produced 32 kg/d. Conversely, vaccination did not affect milk yield, milk composition or SCC in cows producing 20 kg/d. Although this study did not investigate the underlying mechanism for these differences between high- and low-producing dairy cows, it is possible that the metabolic demands associated with increased milk production play a role. Greater energy requirements for milk production are often linked to metabolic and immunological disruptions (36), and reduced feed intake due to discomfort or loss of appetite after vaccination (37) may disproportionately affect milk yield in high-production cows compared with that in moderate- or low-production cows. In this context, Raina et al. (28) demonstrated that FMD vaccination caused a decrease in dry matter intake of 0.7–0.8 kg.

Vaccination is crucial for controlling and eradicating FMD, particularly in regions such as Uruguay, where the last outbreak in 2001 resulted in losses totaling $700 million (3). It has been reported that this disease reduces milk yield by 50–80% (38, 39, 40, 41, 42), increases the likelihood of mastitis and abortions, and delays the interval to conception (2). In terms of indirect costs, it is widely recognized that vaccination is more beneficial than an unvaccination control strategy (43). Given the potential decrease in milk production during FMD vaccination campaigns, the risk of disease outbreaks must be carefully weighed (17). While our study revealed a mild decrease in milk yield lasting only five days in high-producing cows following FMD vaccination, these losses are minimal compared with the catastrophic impact of an FMD outbreak on the livestock industry. Our findings provide robust evidence regarding the effect of FMD vaccination on milk yield, showing only slight effects in high-producing cows and challenging anecdotal claims on this issue.

The administration of the FMD vaccine decreases milk yield by 5% during the five days following vaccination and increases body temperature, causing hyperthermia in lactating Holstein cows that produce ∼40 kg/d and are managed in a free-stall housing system. Conversely, vaccination has no effect on milk production, milk composition, or the SCC in Holstein cows that produce ∼20 kg/day and are managed in a pasture-based system. This study provides scientific evidence of the impact of FMD vaccination on milk yield, offering practical implications for farmers and new insights for economic impact analysis and the implementation of official campaigns against this devastating disease in the dairy industry.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All experimental procedures were approved by the Internal Animal Care Committee of Fundación IRAUy (protocol number 003/2019) and were conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the National Council of Animal Care (CNEA) of Uruguay.

Consent for publication

The authors of the manuscript have provided their consent for its publication. All authors confirm that they have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper and agree with its content, including the disclosure of the presented data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

This research was supported by Insitituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA) of Uruguay. The authors express their gratitude for the financial assistance provided.

Author Contribution

All authors conceived and designed the study. C.G.P. was in charge of the field trials. C.G.P. and A.M. did data analysis and interpretation, as well as wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the official authorities of Ministerio de Ganadería Argicultura y Pesca of Uruguay for facilitating a single batch of the FMD vaccine to perform the experiment, the farmers for providing animals and facilities, and the veterinarians for technical assistance during the experiment. CGP y AM are researchers of the Insitituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA) of Uruguay.

Availability of data and materials

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

OIE, World Organization for Animal Health. Foot and Mouth Disease. An etiology epidemiology diagnosis prevention and control references. OIE. 2021. https://www.oie.int/app/uploads/2021/03/foot-and-mouth-disease.pdf. Accessed 04 October 2024.
James AD, Rushton J. The economics of foot and mouth disease. Rev Sci Tech. 2002; 21(3):637 – 44. 10.20506/rst.21.3.1356. PMID: 12523703.
Knight-Jones TJ, Rushton J. The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease - What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev Vet Med. 2013;112:161–73. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013.
Sellers RF. Quantitative aspects of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Vet Bull. 1971;141:431–9. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Burrows R, Mann JA, Greig A, Chapman WG. The growth and persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in the bovine mammary gland. J Hyg Camb. 1971;69:307–21. 10.1017/s0022172400021537.
OIE, World Organization for Animal Health. Old classification of diseases notifiable to the OIE List A. OIE. 2019. https://www.oie.int/en/what-we-do/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-diseases/old-classification-of-diseases-notifiable-to-the-oie-list-a/. Accessed 05 October 2024.
Barnett PV, Carabin H. A review of emergency foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines. Vaccine. 2002;20:1505–14. 10.1016/s0264-410x(01)00503-5.
Doel TR. FMD vaccines. Virus Res. 2003;91:81–99. 10.1016/j.virusres.2003.06.004.
Parida S. Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease virus: strategies and effectiveness. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2009;8(3):347–65. 10.1586/14760584.8.3.347.
Knight-Jones TJ, Robinson L, Charleston B, Rodriguez LL, Gay CG, Sumption KJ, Vosloo W. Global Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Update and Gap Analysis: 1 - Overview of Global Status and Research Needs. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2016;63:3–13. 10.1111/tbed.12528.
Capozzo AV, Vosloo W, de Los Santos T, Pérez AM, Pérez-Filgueira M, Editorial. Foot-and-mouth disease epidemiology, vaccines and vaccination: moving forward. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1231005. 10.3389/fvets.2023.1231005.
García-Pintos C, Riet-Correa F, Menchaca A. Effect of Foot-and-Mouth disease vaccine on pregnancy failure in beef cows. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:761304. 10.3389/fvets.2021.761304.
Ferreira LC, Cooke RF, Marques RS, Fernandes HJ, Fernandes CE, Stelato R, Franco GL, Lemos RA. Effects of vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease virus on reproductive performance of Bos indicus beef cows. J Anim Sci. 2016;94(1):401–5. 10.2527/jas2016.0165.
Kim D, Moon J, Ha J, Kim D, Yi J. Effect of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccination on Acute Phase Immune Response and Anovulation in Hanwoo (Bos taurus coreanae). Vaccines. 2021;9(5):419. 10.3390/vaccines9050419.
Yeruham I, Yadin H, Haymovich M, Perl S. Adverse reactions to FMD vaccine. Vet Dermatol. 2001;12:197–201. 10.1046/j.0959-4493.2001.00221.x.
Krishnaswamy N, Jeyakumar S, Selvan TRP, Gowane GR, Mahadappa P, Vijayapillai U, Dechamma HJ, Patel BH, Saravanan P, Ramesha KP, Sanyal A. Short-term effect of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccination on the milk yield in the Deoni and crossbred cows. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2021;53:217. 10.1007/s11250-021-02653-y.
Athambawa MJ, Kubota S, Kono H. Knowledge affecting foot-and-mouth disease vaccination behavior: traditional dairy farmers in the dry zone of Sri Lanka. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2021;53(1):88. 10.1007/s11250-020-02501-5.
Martin SW, Dietrich RA, Genho P, Heuschle WP, Jones RL, Koller M, Epidemiologic/Economic Tuberculosis Studies and Bioeconomic Research considerations. National Research Council. Livestock Disease Eradication: Evaluation of the Cooperative State-Federal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program. Washington, DC: National Academies; 1994. https://doi.org/10.17226/9144.
Dernburg AR, Fabre J, Philippe S, Sulpice P, Calavas D. A study of the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of the French dairy farmers toward the farm register. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90(4):1767–74. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)73293-3.
Fernando WWHS. Foot and mouth disease in Ceylon. I. History, eptzootiology and the economic losses. Ceylon vet J. 1969;17:43–58.
Edmonson AJ, Lean IJ, Weaver LD, Farver T, Webster G. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1989;72:68–78. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(89)79081-0.
Mader TL, Davis MS, Brown-Brandl T. Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci. 2006;84:712–9. 10.2527/jas.2005-646.
Drillich M, Beetz O, Pfützner A, Sabin M, Sabin HJ, Kutzer P, Nattermann H, Heuwieser W. Evaluation of a systemic antibiotic treatment of toxic puerperal metritis in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2001;84:2010–7. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74638-0.
Ruprechter G, Noro M, Meotti O, Batista C, Adrien ML, Barca J, Meikle A. Endocrine and reproductive parameters in sick and healthy primiparous and multiparous dairy cows. Theriogenology. 2020;141:173–9. 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.09.026.
Di Rienzo JA, Casanoves F, Balzarini MG, Gonzalez L, Tablada M, Robledo CW. InfoStat. 2020. http://www.infostat.com.ar. Accessed 21 July 2022.
Ali AKA, Shook GE. An Optimum Transformation for Somatic Cell Concentration in Milk. J Dairy Sci. 1980;63:487–90. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82959-6. Available online at.
Lippolis KD, Cooke RF, Schubach KM, Marques RS, Bohnert DW. Effects of intravenous lipopolysaccharide administration on feed intake, ruminal forage degradability, and physiological responses in beef cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2017;95:2859–70. 10.3168/jds.2017-13171.
Raina AA, Patel M, Somagond A, Jeyakumar S, Selvan RPT, Gowane GR. Effect of foot-and-mouth disease vaccination on acute phase response and milk production in the Holstein-Friesian crossbred cow. J Appl Anim Res. 2023;51(1):495–500. 10.1080/09712119.2023.2229409.
Baccili CC, Martin CC, Decaris N, Madureira KM, Chase C, Gomes V. Effects of 3 Different Commercial Vaccines Formulations against BVDV and BHV-1 on the Inflammatory Response of Holstein Heifers. Vet Sci. 2019;6(3):69. 10.3390/vetsci6030069. PMID: 31455017; PMCID: PMC6789449.
Burny W, Callegaro A, Bechtold V, Clement F, Delhaye S, Fissette L, Janssens M, Leroux-Roels G, Marchant A, van den Berg RA, Garçon N, van der Most R, Didierlaurent AM. Different adjuvants induce common innate pathways that are associated with enhanced adaptive responses against a model antigen in humans. Front Immunol. 2017;8:943. 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00943.
Bosch JC, Kaashoek MJ, van Oirschot JT. Activated bovine herpesvirus 1 marker vaccines are more efficacious in reducing virus excretion after reactivation than a live marker vaccine. Vaccine. 1997;15:1512–7. 10.1016/s0264-410x(97)00092-4.
Kuhla B. Pro-inflammatory cytokines and hypothalamic inflammation: implications for insufficient feed intake of transition dairy cows. Animal. 2020;14:65–77. 10.1017/S1751731119003124.
Kadzere CT, Murphy MR, Silanikove N, Maltz E. Heat stress in lactating dairy cows: a review. Livest Prod Sci. 2002;77:59–91. 10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00330-X.
Polsky LB, Madureira AML, Filho ELD, Soriano S, Sica AF, Vasconcelos JLM, Cerri RLA. Association between ambient temperature and humidity, vaginal temperature, and automatic activity monitoring on induced estrus in lactating cows. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100:8590–601. 10.3168/jds.2017-12656.
Wheelock JB, Rhoads RP, VanBaale MJ, Sanders SR, Baumgard LH. Effects of heat stress on energetic metabolism in lactating Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci. 2010;93:644–55. 10.3168/jds.2009-2295.
Butler A, Alberio RH, Etcheverry E, Butler HM. Pérdidas embrionarias en un rodeo de vaquillonas Aberdeen Angus de 15 meses vacunadas contra Fiebre Aftosa en dos momentos diferentes de edad gestacional. Taurus. 2018; 80:33 – 7. Available online at: https://www.redalyc.org/journal/864/86465821002/html/
Rodrigues MC, Cooke RF, Marques RS, Cappellozza BI, Arispe SA, Keisler DH, Bohnert DW. Effects of vaccination against respiratory pathogens on feed intake, metabolic, and inflammatory responses in beef heifers. J Anim Sci. 2015; 93(9):4443-52. 10.2527/jas.2015-9277. PMID: 26440344.
Ferrari G, Paton D, Duffy S, Bartels C, Knight-Jones T, the World Organization for Animal Health. Foot and mouth disease vaccination and post-vaccination monitoring – Guidelines. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and. 2016; Available online at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/55035374-054a-4d2f-9d8c-2735211b5be9/content
Onono JO, Wieland B, Rushton J. Constraints to cattle production in a semiarid pastoral system in Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2013; 45(6):1415-22. 10.1007/s11250-013-0379-2. Epub 2013 Feb 17. PMID: 23417827.
Jemberu WT, Mourits MC, Woldehanna T, Hogeveen H. Economic impact of foot and mouth disease outbreaks on smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Prev Vet Med. 2014;116(1):26–36. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.06.004. Epub 2014 Jun 17. PMID: 24985154.
Barasa M, Catley A, Machuchu D, Laqua H, Puot E, Tapio M, Ikiror D. Foot-and-mouth disease vaccination in South Sudan: benefit-cost analysis and livelihoods impact. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2008;55:339–51. 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2008.01042.x.
Bayissa B, Ayelet G, Kyule MN, Jibril Y, Gelaye E. Study on seroprevalence, risk factors, and economic impact of foot-and-mouth disease in Borena pastoral and agro-pastoral systems, Southern Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2011;43:759–66. 10.1007/s11250-010-9728-6.
Barratt AS, Rich KM, Eze JI, Porphyre T, Gunn GJ, Stott AW. Framework for Estimating Indirect Costs in Animal Health Using Time Series Analysis. Front Vet Sci. 2019;6:190. 10.3389/fvets.2019.00190.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
24 Oct, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
24 Oct, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
23 Oct, 2024
First submitted to journal
18 Oct, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Effect of vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease on milk yield in dairy cows

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

3. Results

3.1. Experiment 1

3.2. Experiment 2

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Declarations

Competing interests

Funding

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

Availability of data and materials

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1