Adherence and Efficacy of an External Teat Sealant to Prevent New Intramammary Infections in the Dry Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and adherence of an external teat sealant applied at drying off was evaluated in 2 studies between 1997 and 1999. At drying off, 2 quarters were randomized to receive intramammary dry-cow antibiotic therapy, and the remaining 2 quarters were treated with either a single or double application of external teat sealant. Approximately 3 d before calving, all teats that had been dipped at drying off were redipped in a single coating of teat sealant. Adherence of the teat sealant was scored for the first 2 wk after drying off, and physical traits of the teat skin and teat ends were recorded. Quarter milk samples were collected 1 wk before drying off, at drying off, 0 to 7 d, and 14 to 21 d postcalving. Somatic cell counts were determined from quarter samples taken at d 7 and 14 to 21 d after calving. Data were analyzed from 172 dry periods of 162 cows. The mean time of sealant adherence following drying off application was 3 +/- 0.13 d. Double sealant application significantly increased the duration of adherence by 0.67 d. Teats that had teat sealant applied twice at drying off and that had up to 3 d of adherence had the lowest linear score (LS) at 14 to 21 d (1.89 +/- 0.31) of all quarters. The LS of quarters that received antibiotic therapy only was 2.27 +/- 0.19. The majority of intramammary infections identified at drying off were caused by the minor pathogens, coagulase-negative staphylococci and Corynebacterium bovis (51 and 23%, respectively). The results from this study indicate that duration of sealant adherence to the teat-end should be considered when evaluating the impact of teat sealant treatment at drying off on the level of infection after calving. Double sealant application, cooler seasons, and longer teat lengths were associated with a significant increase in the duration of sealant adherence to the teat-end.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".