LAUSR

Internal teat sealants (ITS) reduce the risk of new intramammary infections over the dry period by forming a physical barrier to pathogen ingress. As the first and last 2 wk of the dry period are high-risk periods for new infections, maintaining an effective barrier in this period is a key requirement. Few studies have systematically examined sealant retention and none have done so under New Zealand pastoral conditions, where cows frequently move to separate grazing for dry periods, typically 80 to 90 d long. This multi-herd study was a split-udder equivalence trial comparing 2 ITS formulations for retention and efficacy in preventing periparturient clinical and subclinical mastitis. Both ITS contained 65% (2.6 g) bismuth salts, which contribute to the barrier within the teat canal, emulsified in ≤1.4 g of mineral oil. However, one ITS additionally contained <10% amorphous silica. At dry-off, treatment was randomly allocated to diagonal teat-pairs within 409 cows on 4 farms. All cows met industry best practice criteria for ITS treatment alone. The study unit was quarter within cow and farm. Outcomes included clinical mastitis (CM) incidence for the last 7 d of the dry period and first 42 d of lactation, subclinical mastitis (SCM) incidence 96 h after calving, and quantity of residual after centrifuging 50 mL of colostrum collected from each quarter within 24 h of calving. Proportional outcomes were analyzed using Bayesian mixed models with a binomial distribution and logit link function, whereas the quantity of residual was analyzed using Bayesian finite mixture models and cluster bootstrapping. We set a region of probable equivalence (ROPE) of ±2.5% between proportions and ±0.2 g for residual weight. Records were available for 1,596 quarters (399 cows). We detected no meaningful difference in incidence of CM or SCM attributable to differences in sealant: the model predicted treatment differences of 0.00 with a 95% highest density interval (HDI) of ±1.00%. Across all cows and farms, the marginal difference in the percentage of quarters with CM was 0.11% (95% HDI: -2.11 to 2.49%), and for SCM 0.00 (95% HDI: -1.98 to 1.94%). Including the quantity of residual recovered at calving did not improve fit or predictive ability of the models predicting CM or SCM, and the coefficient spanned the null value. The distribution of the weight of material recovered at calving was multi-modal; for 25% of quarters, more residual was recovered than inserted. When the residual weight was less than or equal to the median residual weight (2.06 g; range: 0.19-6.03 g), there was a ≥90% probability that any treatment difference in residual was ≤0.2 g. When the residual weight was between the median and 75th percentile (4.40 g; 95% HDI: 4.00 to 4.75 g), there was no clear difference in residual between products. Above the 75th percentile, there was a 90% probability that the residual from quarters differed by product type (difference = 0.36 g, 90% HDI: 0.20 to 0.54 g). In conclusion, both products had equivalent efficacy for SCM and CM. As the quantity of residual increased, the difference in residual weight recovered increased but this may represent increases in debris rather than indicating a more effective barrier.