Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia within the 19th century miasmatic landscape.

When contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) was first detected on a farm north of Melbourne, at Bundoora, in 1858, the predominant theory of miasma was being challenged by contagionist theories of disease transmission. This well-documented case was recorded during a period of change in the scientific assessment of disease and therefore affords an exploration of what aspects of the landscape were considered important for livestock health at the time. Although the introduction, vaccination programs and eventual eradication of CBPP on mainland Australia has been well explored, scholars have neglected this aspect of the disease's history. By comparing 19th century records of farmland with how the site appears today, it is also possible to highlight the limited information provided by contemporary texts, while at the same time developing an appreciation of the ways in which the perception of the rural landscape has changed. This differing perception has implications for the utilisation of these sources for veterinary and environmental historians seeking to understand the mid-19th century agricultural landscape and how it relates to animal health.

Scientific conviction amidst scientific controversy in the transatlantic livestock and meat trade.

A century before the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), Great Britain and North America grappled with pleuro-pneumonia - a disease in cattle that had equally maddening consequences. Towards the end of the 19th century, this condition was at the heart of a transatlantic trade dispute that lasted for decades and attracted the attention of livestock farmers, diplomats, shipping moguls, veterinarians, public health regulators and journalists the world over. Scientific controversy aggravated the situation when there were doubts about the scientific judgment of Privy Council veterinary officials, who were simultaneously conducting disease-diagnosis activities and pushing for tighter regulations at British ports. At this point, William Williams, principal of the New Veterinary College in Edinburgh, waded into this troubled arena. His strong convictions spawned a long-running disagreement with the British Government over the diagnoses of pleuro-pneumonia in cattle imported from the USA and Canada.

Review of successes and failures of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia control strategies in Tanzania.

Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) was first introduced in Tanzania in 1916 and was eradicated in 1964. The disease re-emerged in the country in 1990 and since then it has spread widely, threatening the entire national cattle herd. Because of lack of a clear disease-control policy, uncontrolled cattle movements, lack of public awareness and commitment, ineffective legislation, attempts to control and eradicate the disease for the last 10 years have failed. We reviewed the methods that were used to control CBPP in Tanzania during the 1916-1964 and 1990 episodes.

Louis Willems (1822-1907) and the immunization against contagious bovine pleuropneumonia. An evaluation.

Louis Willems's name is intimately linked with the history of prophylactic immunization in the nineteenth century. When he obtained his medical degree in 1849 contagious bovine pleuropneumonia or lung sickness was raging among the cattle population in most European countries. As the son of a cattle fattener Willems was confronted directly with the problem in his father's stables and decided to study the disease and to search for a remedy to combat it. The disease is caused by Mycoplasma mycoides and subspecies mycoides, but in the middle of the nineteenth century during the battle between the miasmatists and the contagionists, many had doubts about its contagiousness. Willems defended from the start the contagiousness of the disease and noticed that animals who had survived an infection did not contract it a second time. He demonstrated that inoculation of the serous fluid from the lungs or from the pleural cavity of affected animals into healthy cattle led to pronounced local reactions. When these inoculated animals later on came into contact with diseased cattle they were shown to be immune. In his first trials he inoculated at the base of the tail or around the nostrils but this led to very severe reactions and frequently to death. He then started inoculating at the tip of the tail with much better results. Most animals showed a more or less pronounced reaction at the inoculation site and about seven percent lost their tail partially or completely through necrosis, but the mortality remained very limited. The local reactions were caused by the etiological agent itself. The lesions in the connective tissue of the tail showed much resemblance to those in the interlobular septa of the lungs and contained strong accumulations of serous fluid. The tip of the tail was obviously a good choice; this was confirmed later by many authors and the procedure is still being used today in areas where the disease is still prevalent. Inoculation at other sites of the body such as the neck or the dewlap, led to very severe reactions often followed by death. Willems also demonstrated that local inoculation at the tip of the tail not only immunized the animals against infection via the respiratory tract resulting from contact with diseased animals, but also against a second inoculation in the tail, in the neck or elsewhere. Material harvested from the inoculation site in the tail (so-called secondary "virus") could also be used as inoculum. Animals who showed no reaction to the first inoculation received a second one after a few weeks. Immunization as a result of inoculation was proved repeatedly experimentally as well in Willem's lifetime, by himself and by his contemporaries, as later in more recent trials. Failures were usually attributable to inoculation of already infected animals or to the use of badly stored or purulent inocula. Inoculation during the incubation period did not provide protection. Willems' concepts about the mechanisms of immunity were understandably vague and ill-defined. He considered pleuropneumonia as an affection of the whole body with process in the lung in case of natural infection; following inoculation this process took place somewhere else and one created as it were a typical lung infection at another site of the body. Through the introduction of the "virus" a "dynamisation" of the whole body took place by which the blood and other organs became insensitive to reinfection. This explained why the inoculation protected not only the inoculation site, but the whole organism; Willems thought that the infection did not spread from inoculated to non-inoculated animals; this opinion was supported by some other workers in the field but opposed by others. The publication of his results created enormous interest in his country and abroad. In several countries commissions were created, trials were initiated and several foreign observers came to visit Willems in Hasselt. In general his results were confirmed abroad at least

Early methods of surveillance and control for contagious bovine pleuropneumonia.

From the many existing documents on the history of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, it is possible to describe the practical measures adopted for disease surveillance and control from ancient times until the 19th century. Surveillance was based on diagnosis, post-mortem examination, animal inoculation and also on knowledge of the conditions under which infection occurred: aetiology, pathogenesis, mode of infection, susceptible species, virulent material, incubation period, etc. The historical facts are assembled and compared, with comments on each of these points. Control was based upon the application of health control measures or vaccination. A study of these two procedures makes it possible to compare their efficacy and to describe the principal steps in their implementation.