Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:05:50.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of lyophilized skin for testing the bactericidal activity of teat disinfectants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

A. John Bramley  and
Elizabeth M. Hogben
A. John Bramley
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9 AT, UK
Elizabeth M. Hogben
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9 AT, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The bactericidal activities of various concentrations of 3 disinfectants commonly used for teat disinfection were compared in vitro using small discs of pig skin previously contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus. Solutions containing 40 g/1 Na hypochlorite, 25 or 50 g/1 chlorhexidine digluconate or iodophor containing 5 g/1 iodine were found to have equivalent or superior bactericidal activity to a solution containing 10 g/1 Na hypochlorite. This in vitro technique offers a convenient alternative to in vivo tests for teat disinfectants and with minor modifications could be applicable to the testing of skin antiseptics in general.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 1983 , pp. 3 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

British Standards Institution 1960 a B.S. 541Google Scholar
British Standards Institution 1960 b B.S. 808Google Scholar
Bruning, J. L. & Kintz, B. L. 1968 Computational Handbook of Statistics. Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, R. J., Johnson, D. W. & Dewey, L. 1976 Screening tests for new teat dips. Journal of Dairy Science 59 1997–2000Google Scholar
Gerring, E. L., Hall, R. & Sandoe, A. J. 1968 The evaluation of a teat dipping formulation containing chlorhexidine. Veterinary Record 83 112–115Google Scholar
Hoare, R. J. T., Williams, L. G., Richards, R. J. & Boutcher, L. G. 1977 The New South Wales mastitis control programme, 1. Field aspects and their effect on clinical and sub clinical mastitis. Australian Veterinary Journal 53 529–533Google Scholar
Holbrook, A. 1958 The determination of small quantities of chlorhexidine in pharmaceutical preparations. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 10 370–374Google Scholar
Jackson, E. R. 1971 Bovine teat chaps: occurrence, aetiology and significance in relation to udder infection. Thesis. University of Reading, EnglandGoogle Scholar
King, J. S., Morant, S. V. & Bramley, A. J. 1977 a The bactericidal activity of a teat dip containing chlorhexidine and cetrimide. Veterinary Record 101 421–423Google Scholar
King, J. S., Neave, F. K. & Westgarth, D. R. 1977 b Disinfection properties ofsome bovine teat dips. Journal of Dairy Research 44 47–55Google Scholar
Neave, F. K., Dodd, F. H. & Kingwill, R. G. 1966 A method of controlling udder disease. Veterinary Record 78 521–523Google Scholar
O'shea, J., Meaney, W. J., Langley, O. H. & Palmer, J. 1975 Comparisons of the effectiveness of iodophor and hypochlorite disinfectant teat dips in reducing new intramammary infection in dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 14 99–105Google Scholar
Pankey, J. W. & Philpot, W. N. 1975 Hygiene in the prevention of udder infections. I. Comparative efficacy of four teat dips. Journal of Dairy Science 58 202–204Google Scholar
Philpot, W. N., Boddie, R. L. & Pankey, J. W. 1978 a Hygiene in the prevention of udder infections. IV. Evaluation of teat dips with excised cows’ teats. Journal of Dairy Science 61 950–955Google Scholar
Philpot, W. N. & Pankey, J. W. 1975 Hygiene in the prevention of udder infections. II. Evaluation of oilbased teat dips. Journal of Dairy Science 58 205–208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philpot, W. N., Pankey, J. W., Boddie, R. L. & Gilson, W. D. 1978 b Hygiene in the prevention of udder infections. VI. Comparative efficacy of a teat dip under experimental and natural exposure to mastitis pathogens. Journal of Dairy Science 61 964–969Google Scholar
Somerville, J. M. & Rose, I. D. 1978 Control of bovine teat skin lesions with glyeerinated iodophor teat dips. Veterinary Record 102 262–263Google Scholar
Twomey, A., Haggie, D. & Arnold, M. 1979 Evaluation of ‘Bradophen’ as a teat sanitizerfor mastitis control. N.Z. National Dairy laboratory ReportGoogle Scholar
Wesen, D. P. & Schultz, L. H. 1970 Effectiveness of a post-milking teat dip in preventing new udder infections. Journal of Dairy Science 53 1391–1403Google Scholar
Wilson, C. D. & Kingwill, R. G. 1975 A practical mastitis control routine. Proceedings of the Seminar on Mastitis Control. IDF Document 85 422–438Google Scholar
Wilson, C. D. & Richards, M. S. 1980 A survey of mastitis in the British dairy herd. Veterinary Record 106 431–435Google Scholar