Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Carl K. Johnson x
  • Pharmacology x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate efficacy of florfenicol treatment for bovine mastitis caused by Streptococcus agalactiae, Staphylococcus aureus, nonagalactiae streptococci, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella sp, and others.

Design

Double blind study with cases randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups.

Sample Population

861 cows/10 commercial dairy farms.

Procedures

Experimental (750 mg of florfenicol) or control (200 mg of cloxacillin) treatment was administered by intramammary infusion every 12 hours for 3 treatments to all cases. Treatments were randomly assigned, identified only by numerical labels. To retain blinding, the longer withdrawal time was adhered to for all cases. Cases remained in the study only if there was no other treatment. Quarter samples were recultured 14, 21, and 28 days later. If all samples after day 1 were culture negative, the case was defined as cured. If only 1 of the follow-up results was positive, the case was considered cured if the day-28 somatic cell count was < 300,000/ml. Failure of treatment was defined as 2 or more culture-positive follow-up samples.

Results

Florfenicol and cloxacillin did not differ significantly in efficacy versus clinical (n = 85) or subclinical (n = 71) bovine mastitis, or for any etiologic agent (χ2). Overall cure rates for mastitis were: Str agalactiae, 5 of 8 (63%); Sta aureus, 5 of 54 (9%); Streptococcus sp, 16 of 35 (46%); Staphylococcus sp, 7 of 33 (21 %); E coli, 5 of 11 (46%); Klebsiella sp, 3 of 6 (50%); others, 1 of 9 (11%); and all cases, 42 of 156 (27%).

Conclusions

Florfenicol did not offer any advantage over cloxacillin in efficacy against bovine mastitis. Overall cure rates were low. As with most mastitis treatment regimens, poor efficacy may be partly attributable to the short duration of treatment. (Am J Vet Res 1996;57:526–528)

Free access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research