EVALUATION OF SOME DISINFECTANTS ON TOTAL MICROBIAL LOAD IN TEATS CUPS AND MILK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigation was carried out at the farm of Animal Production Department, College of Agriculture and Forestry, Mosul University on 20 Dairy Friesian Cows. The Cows were milked twice daily in their stands with an Alfa Laval pipeline milking machine .Teats Cups were treated by disinfectants as follows:1-Untreated Teat Cups 2- Wet towel washing water (55-60C0) followed by paper towel drying. 3- Wet towel washing (55-60C0) then by 0.1:1000, 5:100, 1:100 Iodophor respectively, followed by paper towel drying. 4-- Wet towel washing (55-60C0) then by Hibitane at a concentration of 1%, 0. 5%, 0.25%, respectively followed by paper towel drying. 5- Wet towel washing (55-60C0) then by half strength Lukewarm potassium at a concentration 0.5:10000 , 1:10000 respectively followed by paper towel drying, All these treatments were applied onto teats cups for 30-60 seconds. The aims of this study is to evaluate the effects of these disinfectants on Colony forming units (CFUs) of teats cups swab samples and Colony forming units (CFUs) of milk samples. The lowest percentage in the reduction of Log2 /swab of teats cups surface was noticed when wet towel washing (55-60C0), followed by paper towel drying being 36.05%. By using Iodophor there was an increase of about 20% in the reduction of TBC/swab(Total Bactrial Count) with each increase in Iodophor concentration, and were 58.5%,79.3% and 95.7% with concentrations of 1:100, 0.5:100 and 0.1:100). The highest concentration of Hibitane gave a reduction in TBC/swab similar to that of the highest Iodophor concentration, being 94.5%.A decline in the percentage of TBC/swab was proportional with the decrease in Hibitane concentration, being 62.6% and 42.1%, when Hibitane was used at concentrations of 0.5% and 0.25% respectively. Potassium permanganate treatments show a slightly better than wet towel treatments, being 44.9% and 46.9% in concentrations 0.5:10000 and 1:10000 respectively. The reduction percentage of Log2 TBC/ ml of milk in different treatments was noticed when wet towel washing (55-60C0), followed by paper towel drying being 30.0%. By using Iodophor there was an increase of about 20% in the reduction of TBC/swab with each increase in Iodophor concentration, and were 56.2.5%,79.0% and 95.5% with concentrations of 1:100, 0.5:100 and 0.1:100). Hibitane concentrations gave a reduction in TBC/swab lower than that given by Iodophor, being 75.4%.A decline in the percentage of TBC/swab was proportional with the decrease in Hibitane concentration, being 47.3% and 39.5%, when Hibitane was used at concentrations of 0.5% and 0.25% respectively. Potassium permanganate treatments show a slightly better than wet towel treatments, being 40.5% and 49.7% in concentrations of 05.10000 and 1:10000 respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".