Is Biosecurity the only reasonable way to combat the spread of the Koi virus?
Yes, Biosecurity is a quicker and more effective alternative to vaccination or immunisation - both of which usually help produce more resistant bacteria and/or mutant virus strains. But Biosecurity means spending money to take the measures necessary to isolate your stock and make sure you have control over what goes in and what comes out.
Why do that when you can make money by developing a vaccine?
Yes, I know this is going to get a few heads shaking. But look at the background data - then decide for yourself:
1. We have a deadly virus going around which has infected fish but major populations still remain uninfected.
2. We do not yet know everything about how the virus propagates itself, how it stays alive in nature outside fish.
3. We know there are already different strains that show different properties.
4. We do not know the potential of new mutant strains developing under certain circumstances.
There are those who will say that it is better to develop a vaccine. Yes, but developing and perfecting vaccines take time. Knowing how long the vaccine will stay effective is difficult. Whether the vaccine will be effective against mutant strains is anybodies guess. (Look at the influenza virus, which, although it is a different type of virus, we need a new vaccine every year!).
But why develop a vaccine when you can contain the virus and prevent it from spreading?
The answer: If you want to make money out of a disease.
A vaccine can only be commercially successful if there is a disease out there.
I leave you to fill in the blanks!
The inventors of the virus vaccine are claiming on their website http://www.kovax.co.il/ that “No system of testing and disease prevention by exclusion is ultimately as effective as a vaccination process.” I think they are right. After all, what could be better than having your fish protected against the virus?
Comment by Mario — March 28, 2007 @ 9:41 pm