Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T23:57:18.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The persistence of cloxacillin in the mammary gland when infused immediately after the last milking of lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

A. Smith ,
F. K. Neave ,
F. H. Dodd ,
A. Jones  and
D. N. Gore
A. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
F. K. Neave
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
F. H. Dodd
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
A. Jones
Affiliation:
Beecham Research Laboratories, Brentford, Middlesex
D. N. Gore
Affiliation:
Beecham Research Laboratories, Brentford, Middlesex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A series of experiments has been carried out in order to develop antibiotic preparations which, when infused into the udder at drying-off, eliminate established infection and prevent new infection from occurring in the dry period. It has been shown that the persistence of antibiotic in the dry udder is affected by the solubility of the antibiotic salt, the quantity of antibiotic infused and the base in which it is formulated. Whereas 0.2 g cloxacillin as the sodium salt infused in a 3% aluminium monostearate in mineral oil base after the last milking of lactation persisted for less than 1 week, 0.5 and 1.0 g cloxacillin in the form of the benzathine salt, in a similar base, usually persisted for 3 weeks.

Secretions removed from the udders of dry cows inhibited the growth of Bacillus subtilis and Sarcina lutea but not 2 strains of staphylococci.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 1967 , pp. 47 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1967

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

Albright, J. L., Tuckey, S. L. & Woods, G. T. (1961). J. Dairy Sci. 44, 779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brander, G. C., Jones, A., Neave, F. K., Dodd, F. H., Kingwill, R. G. & Westgarth, D. R. (1964). Vet. Rec. 76, 329.Google Scholar
Cooper, P. D. (1956). Bact. Rev. 20, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. D. & Rowley, D. (1949). Nature, Lond. 163, 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalling, T. & Stableforth, A. W. (1948). J. Fmrs’ Club 4, 39.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. J. (1964). Vet. Rec. 76, 545.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. J. & Haskins, M. D. (1953). J. comp. Path. Ther. 69, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funke, H. (1961). Acta vet. scand. 2, Suppl. 1.Google Scholar
Jepsen, A. (1950). Nord. VetMed. 2, 447.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. D. (1941). Cornell Vet. 31, 127.Google Scholar
Jones, A. & Pay, R. M. (1961). Analyst, Lond. 86. 669.Google Scholar
Lightbrown, J. W. & Sulitzeanu, D. (1957). Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 17, 553.Google Scholar
Mass, E. A. & Johnson, M. J. (1949). J. Bact. 58, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murname, D. (1946). Aust. vet. J. 22, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neave, F. K., Dodd, F. H. & Kingwill, R. G. (1966). Vet. Rec. 78, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neave, F. K., Dodd, F. H., Kingwill, R. G. & Oliver, J. (1959). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy p. 25.Google Scholar
Neave, F. K., Dodd, F. H. & Lee, L. M. (1951). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy, p. 23.Google Scholar
Oliver, J., Dodd, F. H. & Neave, F. K. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. T. (1963). Antimicrob. Ag. Chemother. p. 366.Google Scholar
Pearson, J. K. L. (1951). Vet. Rec. 12, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, S. A. & Boucher, K. A. (1954). Analyst, Lond. 79, 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, W. A., Durbin, C. G., Wilner, J. & Collins, H. J. (1954). Antibiotics A. (1953-1954), p. 421.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, F. (1959). Acta pharmac. tox. 16, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schalm, O. W. & Ormsbee, R. W. (1949). J. Am. vet. med. Ass. 115, 464.Google Scholar
Sohofield, F. W. (1946). Can. J. comp. Med. 10, 63.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. S. & Lees, K. A. (1956). Analyst, Lond. 81, 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A., Dodd, F. H., Neave, F. K. & Brander, G. C. (1966). Vet. Rec. 79, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, G. R., Kraft, M. E. & Underbjerg, C. K. L. (1947). Am. J. vet. Res. 8, 325.Google Scholar
Tucker, E. W. (1954). J. Am. vet. med. Ass. 124, 122.Google Scholar
Uvarov, O. (1960). Vet. Rec. 72, 1228.Google Scholar