口蹄疫、猪瘟、高致病性猪繁殖与呼吸综合征3种疫苗同步两点免疫的田间应用试验

为探索农村散养猪口蹄疫（foot-and-mouth disease，FMD）、猪瘟（classical swine fever，CSF）、高致病性猪繁殖与呼吸综合征（highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome，HP-PRRS））疫苗的最佳免疫程序，在2个镇开展田间免疫试验，A镇采用"332法"免疫程序，即先用FMD和CSF疫苗同时在颈部分两侧注射，间隔14 d后再用HP-PRRS疫苗注射；B镇采用"321法"免疫程序，即将CSF和HP-PRRS疫苗混合后作一针在颈部一侧注射，FMD疫苗作一针在颈部另一侧注射。应用ELISA方法检测FMDV、CSFV和HP-PRRSV抗体，应用RT-PCR方法检测FMDV、CSFV和HP-PRRSV病原；统计、分析生猪免疫密度、免疫副反应率、生猪死淘率、散养猪抗体阳性率、屠宰猪抗体阳性率、死淘猪病原阳性率、屠宰猪病原阳性率等指标。结果显示，应用"321法"的B镇与应用"332法"的A镇相比，其HP-PRRS免疫密度、散养猪CSFV和HP-PRRSV抗体阳性率、屠宰猪HP-PRRSV抗体阳性率均显著增加（P<0.05），散养猪死淘率、HP-PRRSV阳性率均显著下降（P<0.05），而其他主要考核指标则差异不显著（P>0.05）。以上结果表明，应用"321法"免疫程序的免疫效果优于"332法"，值得在临床推广应用。

Application Experiment in the Field of FMD,CSF and HP-PRRS Vaccines Simultaneously Vaccinated at Two Different Sites

In order to explore the optimal immune procedure of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), classical swine fever (CSF) and highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (HP-PRRS) vaccines in backyard pigs in rural areas, field immune experiment was carried out in two towns. Town A used "332" immune procedure, namely, FMD vaccine and CSF vaccine were simultaneously injected at different sides of the neck, and HP-PRRS vaccine was injected 14 days later. Town B used "321" immune procedure, namely, HP-PRRS vaccine and CSF vaccine were mixed together and injected in one side of the neck, and FMD vaccine was injected in the other side of the neck. FMD, CSF and HP-PRRS antibodies were detected by ELISA, and FMDV, CSFV and HP-PRRSV were detected by RT-PCR. The assessment indexes, including the immune density, immune side-reaction rate, death rate of pigs, positive rate of antibody of backyard pigs, positive rate of antibody of slaughter pigs, positive rate of pathogen of backyard pigs, positive rate of pathogen of slaughter pigs and so on, were collected and analyzed. The results showed that, compared with town A used "332" immune procedure, the HP-PRRS immune density, the positive rate of CSF and HP-PRRS antibody of backyard pigs, the positive rate of HP-PRRS antibody of slaughter pigs were significantly increased (P<0.05), while the death rate and the positive rate of HP-PRRSV of slaughter pigs were significantly decreased (P<0.05) in town B used "321" immune procedure. The other major assessment indexes had no significant difference (P>0.05). The results indicated that the immune efficacy of "321" immune procedure was better than that of "332", and it was worthy to be applied in clinical practice.