A bacteriological investigation of subcutaneous abscesses in cats

Ten out of eleven subcutaneous abscesses in cats harboured anaerobic bacteria. Seven of the ten abscesses contained a mixture of obligate anaerobes and facultative anaerobes or microaerophilic bacteria. All of the anaerobic isolates were sensitive to the antibiotic metronidazole, but were resistant to streptomycin. Three isolates from one abscess were resistant to penicillin and ampicillin. Clinical resolution of subcutaneous abscesses was poor when procaine penicillin was used alone as treatment.     

Synthetic pyrethroids and avermectin for controlling the grapevine pestsLobesia botrana,Cryptoblabes gnidiella andDrosophila melanogaster

Field treatments in a vineyard with 0.015 or 0.01% a.i. of cypermethrin, fenvalerate, fenpropathrin or AC-222,705 were more efficient in controlling the grape-berry moth (Lobesia botrana Schiff.) and the honeydew moth (Cryptoblabes gnidiella Mill.) than four standard treatments consisting of two with 0.05% a.i. fenitrothion and two with 0.075% a.i. diazinon. In pyrethroid-treated plots, infestation at the end of the trials ranged between 2.5 and 12%, compared with 21% in the standard treatment plots and 34% in the untreated plots. Cypermethrin, fenpropathrin and AC-222,705 exhibited similar field activity, while that of fenvalerate was somewhat lower. Under laboratory conditions, cypermethrin at 0.005 and 0.01% a.i. was significantly more potent than fenvalerate, fenpropathrin and AC-222,705; at a higher concentration, 0.015% a.i., all pyrethroids were highly active, with mortality ranging between 75 and 95%. Under laboratory conditions the vinegar fly (Drosophila melanogaster Meig.) was in general more susceptible to pyrethroids than was the grape-berry moth. Cypermethrin and AC-222,705 at 0.005% a.i. and avermectin at 0.0035% a.i. were potent compounds against the vinegar fly and more active than fenvalerate and fenpropathrin.     

TRANSLOCATION OF AMINOTRIAZOLE AND DALAPON IN AG ROPY RON REPENS (L.) BEAUV.

Summary. Tracer studies using single drops of solutions containing 3–amino-1,2,4–triazole-5–¹⁴C (aminotriazole-¹⁴C) or 2,2–dichloropropionic acid-2–¹⁴C (datapon-¹⁴C) revealed that in couch plants (Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.) growing under field conditions in the autumn and at the stage where the aerial shoots were 40–50 cm long, both compounds moved in both symplast and apoplast. Dalapon was less mobile in the symplast than aminotriazole and only negligible amounts of dalapon were translocated to the rhizomes. The nodes of the treated shoots appeared to act as barriers to translocation, a phenomenon more pronounced for dalapon than for aminotriazole.
Application to a basal green leaf led to a more uniform distribution of the compounds within plants and rhizomes than when the application was made to the youngest fully-expanded leaf.
In couch plants with aerial shoots 10–15 cm long treated in the stubble, the distribution of both aminotriazole and dalapon was mainly restricted to the treated shoots. Even 15 days after application only trace amounts of radioactivity could be found in the rhizomes and untreated shoots.     

The veterinarian and animal welfare

At no important point does the Animals Protection Statute mention the competence of Veterinarians, but the "competent Authority". Also, the Animal Epidemics Statute and the Federal Hunting Statute provide for the cooperation of the veterinarian, but not for his competence to make decisions. This situation is even being overlooked by the investigating authorities, when in the case of using animals for "sport" or other problematic events, questions of the animals psychology and ethology have to be dealt with. In the courts the remarks of non-specialist qualified persons can lead to wrong decisions as can either unsuitable or wrong evidence.     

Dispensing law and sale of animal feed

For the veterinarian, drug sale is generally permitted by his licence of drug dispensing. According to the law on animal feed, feedstuffs are not regarded as drugs and thus they are not licensed to be sold by veterinarians. Drugs, however, may only be released for the treatment of individual animals, which are previously examined by the vet. The sale of animal feed is not regarded as part of veterinary practice. Only in case of a registered additional business, a veterinarian is allowed to sale feedstuffs. Dietetic animal feedstuffs are also regulated by the Animal Feed Act. Dietetic drugs, however, are regulated by the Drug Act and are strongly to be delineated from dietetic feed. Thus, the term "dietetic" alone does not automatically give any legitimatization for a sale of feedstuffs in veterinary practice.