Viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) has been considered for many year
s to be a major cause of loss in the French trout industry. The high p
revalence of VHS in certain geographic areas made a control strategy b
ased on control policy unfeasible. This provided the impetus for immun
oprophylaxis development that resulted in 3 successive types of vaccin
es: inactivated, live attenuated and recombinant vaccines. When delive
red by intraperitoneal injection, the 2 propiolactone-inactivated VHS
virus was immunogenic and/or protective for trout all of sizes, but it
was not suitable for the practical immunization of alevin, the trout
life stage that is the most sensitive to VHS. A carp cell-passed, atte
nuated variant of the VHS virus was effective after both immersion or
injection delivery and met the practical requirements of juvenile vacc
ination. However, this vaccine was discarded because it retained some
virulence that discouraged the launching of its commercialization. The
n came the era of genetically engineered vaccines. The recombinant gly
coprotein of VHSV produced in Escherichia coli or in Saccharomyces cer
evisiae failed to protect fish whatever the route of delivery. A recom
binant baculovirus vaccine was found to be immunogenic and protective
against VHS, but only when delivered by injection. Due to its cost and
route of delivery, the latter vaccine was not licensed. Simultaneousl
y, the sudden occurrence of another rhabdovirosis, infectious haematop
oietic necrosis (IHN), in France, rendered vaccination against VHS que
stionable. Indeed, no cross-protection between these 2 rhabdoviroses e
xists. If vaccination is still believed to be an effective control met
hod for VHS, it should be based in the future upon an autoreplicative
vaccine. Protection against IHN will also have to be taken into consid
eration. It is also possible that certain technical devices will, some
day, render the injection of inactivated IHN and VHS viruses acceptab
le for the trout farming industry.