Contagious Lumpy Dermatosis (LCD) is a strictly animal viral disease, with low mortality (generally 1%), but a high economic impact. Systematic culling is a scientifically inconsistent and disproportionate measure.
A seemingly quiet threat to cattle is sparking debate among scientists and farmers alike: Contagious Lumpy Dermatosis (LCD). While the disease carries a relatively low mortality rate—typically around 1%—its economic consequences are substantial. But are current strategies, like widespread culling, the right approach? Experts are increasingly saying no.
LCD is a viral disease affecting animals, primarily spread by blood-sucking insects like mosquitoes and flies. This key detail distinguishes it from highly contagious diseases spread through direct contact. Any effective health strategy, therefore, must consider the virus’s biology, the role of these vectors, and seasonal changes to avoid disproportionate measures.
Vaccination Questions and Regulatory Concerns
Table of Contents
Currently, in France, the Bovilis Lumpyvax-E vaccine (Merck Animal Health) is being used to vaccinate cattle against LCD. However, this vaccine, based on a live attenuated virus of the “Neethling” strain, isn’t without potential drawbacks. These include the possibility of viral replication post-vaccination, the emergence of symptoms mimicking the disease itself, interference with accurate diagnosis, and a potential risk of viral recombination or reversion—a concern already documented in scientific literature on capripoxviruses. Vaccination, therefore, isn’t a biologically neutral act, especially when applied across entire herds.
Adding to the complexity, the regulatory framework surrounding this vaccine is fragile. It’s being used under a temporary authorization for use (ATU), lacking full marketing authorization (AMM) and robust pharmacovigilance data collected in real-world conditions. This raises significant concerns about health and scientific responsibility, particularly when vaccination is mandated.
Culling Doesn’t Solve the Problem
Perhaps most controversially, vaccination doesn’t preclude the possibility of culling. Vaccinated animals are still subject to health police measures, meaning the vaccine doesn’t guarantee protection from slaughter. This inconsistency erodes breeder confidence and casts doubt on the overall strategy. Systematic culling, experts argue, is both scientifically inconsistent and a disproportionate response.
The practice of total livestock slaughter stems from outdated eradication models designed for diseases with high mortality rates, rapid direct transmission, and zoonotic risk—none of which apply to LCD. The consequences of this approach are severe: the destruction of carefully selected livestock, economic collapse for farms, immense stress for both animals and breeders, and a potential loss of food and agricultural sovereignty.
A More Rational Approach: Targeted Quarantine
A more appropriate strategy would involve quarantining infected animals, providing treatment (ivermectin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, vector control, antibiotics to prevent secondary infections, and nutritional support), and focusing on skin care. Targeted quarantine is scientifically sound, considering the disease’s vector-based transmission, relatively long incubation period (4 to 14 days, potentially up to 28 days), and limited direct contagiousness through skin lesions. Isolating and treating symptomatic animals, combined with movement controls, would be a rational and proportionate health strategy.
A Call for a Paradigm Shift
This alternative strategy deserves clinical evaluation, replacing ideological bans with evidence-based decision-making. Ultimately, the current management of LCD is inappropriate, driven by fear of a disease with low mortality and no human transmission, and relying on methods like mass vaccination and total slaughter. A truly scientific approach must integrate viral biology, prioritize proportionality, protect both animals and breeders, and pave the way for effective alternative protocols. Science advances not through obligation and prohibition, but through the rigorous evaluation of alternatives.
