162
Immunization against Rinderpest by Scarification Method
standpoint, absence of recognizable local or
general reaction during immunization may be
regarded in one sense as a disadvantage. To
prove that absence of reaction in vaccinated
animals does not necessarily indicate failure to
induce immunity, it would be necessary to vacci-
nate and test a considerable number of animals.
(Further experiments on an extensive scale are
in progress). Some attempt towards this end
in the case of rinderpest is provided by the
experiments recorded in this paper.
The results in the case of hill bulls indicate that
by the present technique the method cannot be
used safely in this breed, owing to their very
high susceptibility.
Hall [1934] found that the minimal amount of
whole blood that could set up a (delayed)
reaction in animals susceptible to rinderpest was
0.0002 c.c. It would be impossible to measure the
amount of antigen absorbed from the scarified
site, but considering the concentrated nature of
the vaccine-pulp implanted and the minuteness
of the dose of virus required to infect an animal,
it may be presumed that the amount absorbed
would exceed this limit.
Some Russian authors [cited by Hutyra, Marek
and Manninger, 1938] were inclined to believe that
the natural-infection occurred as two distinct
types, viz., exanthematous and non-exanthema-
tous. Should this difference of virus type be
established, it may be possible to adapt the exan-
thematous strain to growth in dermis. In this
case the use of such a virus, either alone or with
the addition of a suitable tissue depressant, might
cause the antigen to be fixed, resulting in local
pustule formation and so rendering the host im-
mune to both virus types.
It may be admitted that infective agents like
those of anthrax and small-pox, where vaccina-
tion through intracutaneous route has given en-
couraging results, may have had a special predi-
lection for the skin. On the other hand, with
infections like typhoid which are not known to
possess any marked predilection, equally favour-
able results were obtained by Tuft [1891]. This
finding in the case of rinderpest, which some be-
lieve to have a predilection for the epithelial
tissues and also in a proportion of cases for the
skin, should apply with a greater degree of cer-
tainty where the antigen employed is a living
virus capable of proliferation. It may also be
added, as a fact of common knowledge, that local
irritation of skin sites favours the proliferation of
virus implanted thereon.
The simplicity of the operation, the considerably
smaller amount of apparatus and attendants
needed, the case with which the method can be
adopted, particularly during expeditions and war
conditions, and the possibility of its being more
readily acceptable to Indian stockowners, owing
to its close resemblance to small-pox vaccination,
with which they have been familiar for decades,
would appear to be facts of importance.
SUMMARY
The possibility and manner of applying goat-
adapted rinderpest virus by scarification is re-
ported. Results obtained by the two routes of
inoculation, viz., scarification and subcutaneous,
are compared. The simplicity of the operation
and other advantages accruing to the scarification
method are pointed out.
The chief points brought out by the experiment
are:
1. The ease of performing the scarification me-
thod and the smaller amount of apparatus and
attendants required are considered to be its
chief advantage over the subcutaneous method.
2. Results indicate that in most cases reactions
following immunization by scarification are slight
or absent.
3. Out of 19 animals tested at intervals up to
a year, immunity was strong in 15, partial in three,
and apparently absent in one. Of the five animals
immunized subcutaneously, immunity was strong
in four and partial in one.
4. Absence of reaction in the scarification
method appeared to be without effect on the re-
sulting immunity.
5. The scarification method by its present
technique cannot be safely employed in hill
cattle of Kumauni breed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grat ful to Dr F. C. Minett, to
Mr J. R. Haddow, and to Mr S. R. Hassan, for
helpful suggestions and facilities, and to the first-
named for assistance in writing the paper.
REFERENCES
Burnet, E. (1909). The campaign against microbes
(Eng. trans.) Bale Sons and Danielsson, London
Besredka, A. (1927). Local immunization. (Eng. trans.)
145. Bailiere, Tindall and Cox, London
Edwards, J. T. (1930). The problem of rinderpest in
India. Imp. Inst. Vet. Res. Pusa Bull. 199
Hall, G. N. Thesis, H. Roth. Zurich, 14
Hutyra, Marek and Manninger (1938). Special Pathe-
logy and Therapeutics of the diseases of domestic
animals. 4th Ed. 272
Neufeld, F. and Meyer, H. Quoted by Tuft
Tuft, L. (1931), J. Immunol 21, 85