Efficacy of an Iodophore Teat Disinfectant Against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae in Experimental Challenge

A 1.0% iodophore teat disinfectant (Full-Bac) was evaluated in comparison with a positive control (Bovadine), a commercially available 1.0% iodophore teat disinfectant. The study was conducted under conditions of experimental challenge, following the guidelines recommended by the National Mastitis C...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of dairy science 2005-01, Vol.88 (1), p.406-410
Main Authors: Leslie, K.E., Petersson, C.S., Vernooy, E., Bashiri, A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
bovine mastitis
Cattle
dairy cows
Disinfectants - administration & dosage
Female
iodophore
Iodophors - administration & dosage
Lactation
Mammary Glands, Animal - microbiology
Mastitis, Bovine - microbiology
Mastitis, Bovine - prevention & control
Staphylococcal Infections - prevention & control
Staphylococcal Infections - veterinary
Staphylococcus aureus
Staphylococcus aureus - drug effects
Streptococcal Infections - prevention & control
Streptococcal Infections - veterinary
Streptococcus agalactiae
Streptococcus agalactiae - drug effects
teat disinfectant
teats
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A 1.0% iodophore teat disinfectant (Full-Bac) was evaluated in comparison with a positive control (Bovadine), a commercially available 1.0% iodophore teat disinfectant. The study was conducted under conditions of experimental challenge, following the guidelines recommended by the National Mastitis Council. The test product and a positive control were compared in 41 cows, with 82 teats receiving each product at milking, during a 10-wk study period. There were no differences between the test product and the positive control in new intramammary infections due to Staphylococcus aureus, which averaged 13.4% in each of the 2 treatment groups. Additionally, no statistical difference was seen between the test product and positive control in new intramammary infections by Streptococcus agalactiae, which averaged 8.5 and 6.1% for the Full-Bac and Bovadine groups, respectively. Teat skin and teat end condition scores were statistically evaluated at wk 1, 5, and 9 of the study, and no significant differences were observed between the treatment groups. The test teat disinfectant provided similar germicidal activity to that of the positive control teat disinfectant with no adverse effects on teat skin or teat end condition during the warm-season study period.
ISSN:0022-0302
1525-3198
DOI:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72701-6