In the 2001 outbreak of FMD in Uruguay:

• A. Vaccination was stopped after all cattle received two doses of vaccine.
• B. Cattle, sheep, and swine were all vaccinated to bring the disease under control.
• C. The vaccination campaign greatly reduced the number of animals required to be slaughtered to control the outbreak.
• D. The vaccination campaign proved to be a much more costly approach to FMD control than the slaughter eradication approach used in the U.K.

Answer: (C)

Vaccination can limit the spread of foot-and-mouth disease and protect herds, so fewer animals end up being culled to stop an outbreak. In the 2001 Uruguay situation, vaccination was used in conjunction with surveillance and movement controls to create immune barriers around infected areas. This approach slowed or stopped transmission more quickly than would be achieved by slaughter alone, so the overall number of animals that had to be slaughtered to bring the outbreak under control was greatly reduced. The other statements don’t reflect what was observed in that outbreak: vaccination did not simply involve a fixed two-dose stop point, it wasn’t a blanket, all-species campaign, and the point isn’t about higher costs compared with the UK’s strategy—the emphasis is on how vaccination cut the need for widespread depopulation.