# Worming : Fecals/wormers etc.~from Saanendoah.com



## Sondra

Antheiminics (Dewormers) 
SOURCE: 
"Practice Tips Related to Medications in Goats - Medications Used in Goats" 
By Seyedmehdi Mobini, DVM, MS, Diplomate ACT 
GA Small Ruminant Research and Extension Center, Fort Valley State University of Fort Valley, GA 
Presented to the North American Veterinary Conference, January 2000. 
Also printed in summary in The American Assoc of Small Ruminant Practioners 
October-December 2000 issue of Wool &Wattles the AASRP Newsletter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. AVEFFNECTINS: BRAND NAME APPROVAL DOSAGE ROUTE MILK MEAT 
Ivermectin * Ivermec drench extra- label 0.13mg/lb (0.3mg/kg) PO 36-40 days 11 days 
Tvermactin Ivomec 1% extra- label 0.13mg/lb (0.3mg/kg) SC 36-40 days 56 days 
Doramectin * Dectomax extra- label 0.13mg/lb (0.3mg/kg) SC 36-40 days 56 days 
Eprinomectin ** Eprinex extra- label 0.22mg/lb (5mg/kg) PO 0 days 0 days 
Moxidectin * Quest, Cydectin extra- label 0.22mg/lb (5mg/kg) PO 0 days ? 
2. BENZIMIDAXOLES BRAND NAME APPROVAL DOSAGE ROUTE MILK MEAT 
Albendazole Valbazen extra- label 4.5mg/lb (10mg/kg) PO 5 days 27 days 
Fenbendazole Panacur/Safeguard approved 4.5mg/lb (10mg/kg) PO 4 days 14 days 
Oxfendazole Synantwic extra- label 4.5mg/lb (10mg/kg) PO 5 days 14 days 
3. CHOLINERGIC AGONISTS BRAND NAME APPROVAL DOSAGE ROUTE MILK MEAT 
Levamisole Levasole extra- label 3.6mg/lb (8mg/kg) PO 4 days 10 days 
Morantel Tartrate Rumatel approved 0.5mg/lb (10mg/kg) PO 0 days 30 days

* Milk kinetics of moxidectin & doramectin in goats 
* Milk kinetics of moxidectin & doramectin in goats 
* Pharmacokinetics of moxidectin & doramectin in goats 
*Thermal and long-term freezing stability of ivermectin residues in sheep milk 
** Eprinomectin in goat: assessment of subcutaneous administration (Parasitology Research 2003) 
Eprinomectin in dairy goats: dose influence on plasma levels and excretion in milk(Parasitology Research 2001) 
Some pharmacokinetic parameters of eprinomectin in goats following pour-on administration (1999)

Comparison of selective and systematic treatments to control nematode infection of the digestive tract in dairy goats.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: October - December 2000 Wool & Wattles 
American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners (AASRP) 
Ray Kaplan, DVM, PhD, 
Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 
On the efficacy of Eprinex cattle pour-on used on goats 
The systemic availability of the avermectins and moxidectin when administered topically is significantly lower in goats than in cattle. This leads to lower efficacy and longer subtherapeutic residual levels - a perfect situation for selecting for resistant worms. This will be especially important if there is a history of ivermectin use since resistance genes are already accumulating in the worm population. 
Yes these pour-ons will kill parasites and should not cause adverse reactions in goats. However, choosing this route of administration all but a rare instance will almost certainly hasten the appearance of avermectin-resistant parasites in the herd. With the ever increasing prevalence of avermectin resistance we are seeing here in the Southeast (we are starting to be surprised when ivermectin works), I think it is prudent everywhere to consider the issue of resistance every time a nematode control strategy is implemented. We have only a few drugs and cannot look forward to any new drugs in the foreseeable future. Clearly more research needs to be done -- but who will fund it? 
As an aside -- resistance to any of the avermectins (ivermectin, doramectin, or eprinomectin) appears to pretty much confer resistance to all of them. However, moxidectin (a milbemycin) continues to kill avermectin resistant worms -- although we expect this efficacy to be relatively short-lived.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Source: Excerpts from FARAD Digest, Extralabel use of ivermectin and moxidectin in food animals. 
Ronald E. Baynes, DVM, PhD1; Michael Payne, DVM, PhD2; Tomas Martin-Jimenez, DVM, Ph.D, DACVCP3; Ahmed-Rufai Abdullah, DVM1; Kevin L. Anderson, DVM, Ph.D, DABVP1; Alistair I. Webb, DVM, PhD, DACVA4; Arthur Craigmill, Ph.D2; Jim E. Riviere DVM, PhD1 
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD), 1- Department of Farm Animal Health and Resource Management, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, 2- Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, 3- Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, 4- Department of Physiological Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, 4- Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) access centers in the United States have been contacted in recent months about the extralabel use of several macrolide endectocides. The focus of this article is to provide an update on approved use of these drugs. Caution should be exercised with extralabel use of this class of drugs, particularly with moxidectin and ivermectin use in dairy animals. Macrolide endectocides are popular in livestock operations, because they are generally efficacious against most important internal and external parasites, and approved topical formulations can improve producer compliance. 
Because many macrolide endectocides are lipophilic, substantial concentrations will be found in edible tissues. As much as 5% of the administered drug can be secreted in milk1. Only eprinomectin and moxidectin pour-on formulations are approved for use in dairy cattle. This is because of the intrinsic chemical behavior and unique formulation chemistry of these 2 drugs. Ivermectin and doramectin are not approved for dairy animals, and their meat withdrawal times are long compared with other less lipophilic parasiticides. Parallel disposition data of milk and plasma ivermectin indicates a milklasma area under the curve (AUC) ratio of 1.08 for goats2. Compared with approved oral and subcutaneous routes of administration, approved topical application can result in less absorption but extended meat withdrawal times, because the dermal absorption process is rate limiting, and depletion of residues to established tolerances is prolonged.

Extralabel Use of Ivermectin.

Oral route in goats-Ivermectin is not approved for use in goats in the United States. However, the labeled drench dose for sheep (0.2 mg/kg of body weight [0.09mg/lb]) has an 11-day meat WDT. This is supported by an observed fat and liver depletion half-life of 1.1 days for the intraruminal route in sheep,5 recalling that it generally requires about 10-half-lives to eliminate 99% of the drug. Several studies further demonstrated that following intraruminal administration in goats,6 bioavailability was 2.5 times lower and the plasma half-life was 2.3 times shorter than in sheep7. These pharmacokinetic differences were not observed with doses administered SC.2 On the basis of these supporting data, FARAD estimates that if the oral drench approved for sheep is administered to goats at the labeled dose for sheep, then a meat WDI of 11 days should prevent meat residues in goats. If ivermectin is administered at up to 1.5 to 2.0 times the labeled dose for sheep, as is the common practice, then the WDI needs to be extended by at least one extra ERH. Based on the WDT for sheep, and in the absence of tissue depletion data for goats, FARAD assumes an ERH of 2.2 days obtained by dividing the WDT by a half-life multiplier (HLM) value of 5.3,4 The HLM represents the number of ERH needed for the concentration in tissue to reach the tolerance level. In summary, FARAD recommends a meat WDI of 14 days for up to 0.4 mg/kg (0.18mg/lb) per os. These calculations assume that the kinetics of ivermectin are linear. The milk WDI would be 6 days based on a study by Scott et al,8 that demonstrated that at 6 days, goats' milk was clear of the drug after an oral dose of 0.2 mg/kg. Based on this information, oral administration up to 0.4 mg/kg will require a milk WDI of at least 8 days in dairy goats.

Subcutaneous route in goats-Ivermectin was detected up to 25 days in milk from lactating goats given 0.2 mg/kg SC.2 There were no differences between plasma and milk pharmacokinetic variables, and the milklasma AUC ratio was 1.08, as stated earlier. The elimination half-life was 4 days for plasma and milk, and it would take 40 days (10 half-lives) to eliminate 99% of the drug via milk when administered by this route. Limited tissue residue data from an NRSP-7 study10 provided an ERH of 4.34 days (ke = 0.1594 days-1) in fat, which is the slowest depleting tissue. Application of our algorithm resulted in a WDI of 22 days. As this FARAD estimate is less than the cattle WDT, and there were limited available data, we recommend the cattle WDT of 35 days for an extra margin of safety.

Topical route in goats-Topical application of ivemectin (0.5 mg/kg [0.23 mg/lb]) to dairy goats resulted in about 0.5 ng/ml in milk at 6 days.8 Because milk residues were not detected at 7 days, this time can be used as a milk WDI for goats given ivermectin topically. Tissues were not assayed, but plasma concentrations were less than 1.0 ng/ml at 6 days, supporting the milk-plasma relationship described.


----------



## Sondra

*Re: Fecals/wormers etc.~from Saanendoah.com*

Extralabel Use of Moxidectin:

Oral route-Moxidectin is not approved for use in goats. Several goat farmers have been administering moxidectin to goats orally at the labeled pour-on dose (0.5 mg/kg) for cattle. It should be stressed that although the cattle label states that this drug has a zero meat and milk WDT by the topical route, it does not imply that the meat and milk WDI will be zero if given orally. Until FARAD obtains sufficient pharmacokinetic data for the topical formulation given orally at 0.5 mg/kg in goats, FARAD has based its WDI recommendation on European Union approvals in sheep and published studies on oral administration. It should be noted that oral bioavailability of moxidectin is 2.7 times lower in goats than in sheep,6,14 and the half-life in goats is 1.8 times shorter in sheep. This suggests that EU WDI for moxidectin in sheep will be more than adequate for estimation of WDI for moxidectin drench in goats. In France and the United Kingdom, the oral formulation for sheep at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg [0.09 mg/lb] has a 14-day meat WDT.15,16 On the basis of these data, FARAD estimates an ERH of 3 days for this dose and, therefore, includes an additional 3 ERH (9 days; WDI, 23 days) for goats given of a moxidectin pour-on formulation (0.8 to 1.6 mg/kg [0.36 to 0.73 mg/lb]) orally. It must be recognized that there are pharmaceutical differences between the dermal formulations being used in goats and the European approved drench, and these differences may influence tissue depletion. It is also important to stress that, irrespective of the route of administration, moxidectin has a longer mean residence time than ivermectin in sheep and in cattle when given orally or by the SC route.7,14,17 This may be related to its greater persistence once absorbed systemically and, therefore, caution should be exercised when using this drug in an extralabel manner, especially when administering the pour-on formulation orally to goats.

Topical route-Moxidectin is approved as a pour-on only (0.5mg/kg) in cattle with zero meat and milk WDT, and it is possible that increasing the dose substantially by this route will most likely require estimation of meat and milk WDI (Table 1). In the absence of data for goats, FARAD assumes that plasma and tissue clearance would be greater in goats than in cattle, as described for ivermectin. However, FARAD would err on the side of caution and recommend a milk and meat WDI of 1 day if this drug was topically applied to goats. 
DRUG SPECIES ROUTE DOSE (mg/kg) Meat WDI (days) Milk WDI (days) 
IVERMECTIN Goats Oral 0.2 11 6 
Goats Oral 0.2 -0.4 14 9 
Cows Oral 0.2 *24 28 
Goats SQ 0.2 35 40 
Cows SQ 0.2 *35 47 
Goats Topical 0.4 NA 7 
Cows Topical 0.4 *48 53

MOXIDECTIN Goats Oral 0.2 14 NA 
Goats Oral 0.5 23 NA 
Cows Oral 0.2 NA NA 
Goats SQ 0.2 NA NA 
Cows SQ 0.2 49 NA 
Goats Topical 0.5 1 1 
Cows Topical 0.5 *0 *0 
NA=not available; *=FDA approved WDT

References: 
1. Martin T, Baynes RE, Craigmill AL, et al. Pharm Res 2000 
2. Escudero E, Carceles CM, Diaz MS, et al. Pharmacokinetics of moxidectin and doramectin in goats. Res Vet Sci 1999;67: 177-181. 
3. Scott EW, Kinabo LD, McKellar QA. Pharmacokinetics of ivermectin after oral or percutaneous administration to adult milking goats. J Vet Pharmacol Therap 1990;13: 432-435 
4. NRSP-7 Animal Drug Request Number 
5. NRSP-7 Studies of Ivermectin in Goats (SQ Administration). Public Master File (PMF 3883) 
6. FAO. Moxidectin: Residues of some veterinary drugs in animals and foods. Monographs prepared by the forty-eighth meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1997. 
7. EMEA. Moxidectin Summary Report. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, 1999;London, UK. 
8. FOI (1998). Freedom of Information Summary, NADA 141-099 (original); Cydectin (moxidectin); January 28th, 1998.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA

** Temperature (rectal)..........101.5 - 103.0 ° 
Pulse..........70 - 120/min. 
Respiration..........10 -30/min. 
Rumination..........1. - 1.5/min. 
Puberty..........4 - 12 mos. 
Estrus (Length of Heat)..........12 - 36 hrs. (avg. 18 hrs.) 
Gestation..........148 - 153 days (avg. 150 days) 
Birth weight..........Dependent on breed and number (from 4.5 to 9.0+ lbs.)

** TEMPERATURE 
Rectal temperature of goats varies tremendously with the length of hair coat, ambient temperature and excitement. Before deciding whether or not a particular animal has a fever or subnormal temperature, it is best to take rectal temps of at least two other animals in the herd. On a hot summer day, a doe with acute mastitis may have a rectal temperature of 106.5° F. when "normal" animals housed with her may have 104.0 ° F. rectal temperature. In cold weather, a doe with acute mastitis may have a rectal temp. of 105.5° , when "normal" animals housed with her have temps. of 102.5 ° . It is not uncommon to find rectal temps. of 106.5 ° in apparently normal animals which have been chased to catch them in hot weather. The only way to be reasonably sure whether or not a particular animal's temperature is abnormal is to compare it with other at the same time. 
HEMOGLOBIN 
Goats is heavy lactation show lower normal hemoglobin values (8-9) then others. This is also true of dairy cows in peak of lactation. (see blood chemistry values )

top

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
BioSecurity

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Infectious agents may be spread by contact through fomites, inanimate objects that carry infections from one animal to another. Clothing, footwear, feed, bedding, and equipment, including automobile tires**, can harbor disease causing organisms, including: 
Bacteria: 
Salmonella spp.* 
Streptococcus spp.* 
Enterobacter spp. 
Clostridium spp. 
Staphylococcus spp. 
Campylobacter spp.* Actinobacillus spp. 
Klebsiella spp. 
Escherichia coli* 
Mycobacterium spp.* 
Corynebacterium spp.* 
Chlamydia psittaci* Viruses: 
BVD * 
Influenza * 
Pseudorabies * 
Foot and Mouth Disease* Y 
African swine fever* Y 
Herpesvirus * 
Rotavirus * 
Paramyxovirus * 
Classical swine fever* Y 
* indicates causes of disease outbreaks potentially involving large numbers of animals and/or transmission to humans. 
Y indicates a foreign animal disease 
** To avoid transporting infectious agents from one farm/herd to another, drive and park to avoid areas/surfaces traveled by animals, farm equipment and farm vehicles. Close car windows to minimize flying insects from getting inside.


----------



## Sondra

*Re: Fecals/wormers etc.~from Saanendoah.com*

Disinfection and Sanitation

Sterilization: 
The use of physical or chemical processes to destroy all forms of microbial life. 
Disinfection: 
The act or process of reducing the amount of microbial life with the goal of obtaining a safe level (destroying pathogenic microbes) 
Antisepsis: 
The disinfection of living tissue. The chemicals used for antisepsis are not the same as those used for disinfection.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Disinfection is one type of infection control that is widely used. For practical reasons, chemical disinfection is used in the clean-up of spills and to decontaminate surfaces.

Definitions and terms used to describe disinfectants: 
Antiseptic: a substance that kills or prevents growth of microbes 
Sanitizer: reduces the number of bacterial contaminants 
Sterilization: a physical or chemical processes to destroy all forms of microbial life. 
Germicidal: destroys bacteria but not necessarily viruses 
Detergent: emulsifies and suspends organic matter for easy removal 
Veridical: substance that kills viruses 
Fungicide: kills vegetative fungi, but not necessarily fungal spores 
Sporocide: kills microbial spores including fungal spores and bacterial endospores 
Antibacterial: any substance that reduces the number of bacteria

Bacteria after 15 seconds of treatment with 10 ppm chlorine. The dead cells are red, the green are the live cells. 
-Infection Control Today

Modes of Action of disinfectants 
To qualify as a disinfectant, the FDA requires that a compound completely kill all microbial agents for which it is labelled within 10 minutes of application on nonporous surfaces. Oxidation: 
Removal of Hydrogen or addition of Oxygen 
Desiccation: 
Removal of water from microbe and surrounding environment

Coagulation: 
Change liquids into jelly- inhibits life processes

Chemical reactions: 
Forms new compounds free of harmful qualities

Disinfectants can be chemical in nature: 
Phenols 
Halogens 
Quaternary Ammonia 
Alcohols 
OR

Non-chemical: 
Mechanical 
Sunlight 
Heat 
Time 
Desiccation 
Electricity

top CLEANING: 
Removal of organic debris (urine, feces) and washing of surfaces which have been exposed to organic debris must precede disinfection to be effective. Cleaning is the most labor-intensive part of the cleaning and disinfection process. Failure to remove the organic material by effectively cleaning an object may result in the survival of infectious agents. Efficient cleaning removes almost 99% of the bacteria from a contaminated object. Disinfectants should be applied only after removal of contaminated organic matter. Washed surfaces should be allowed to dry before applying disinfectants. Disinfectants should be allowed to remain on treated surfaces for a minimum of 7 minutes. Detergents should be used on non-disposable boots and equipment to facilitate the removal of organic debris from these objects. Tools used to clean these items must also be cleaned and then disinfected prior to additional use. Simple Green is a multi-purpose, environmentally-friendly detergent that is recommended for cleaning. This product works effectively with cold water. 
DISINFECTING: 
Detergents must be rinsed off thoroughly prior to the application of disinfectants to avoid any potentially hazardous chemical reactions. The use of disinfectants which have the broadest spectrum of activity, including efficacy on porous surfaces with organic debris, and contact safety is ideal. No single disinfectant will satisfy all considerations. Disinfectant properties should be evaluated with regard to the intended areas of use: 
EXAMPLES: 
Potassium peroxymonosulfate - Example: Virkon-S® (Farnum Livestock Products) - A balanced, stabilized blend of peroxygen compounds that provides broad spectrum disinfectant properties effective against most viruses, bacteria and fungi; is approved as a disinfectant by EPA and can be used to clean and disinfect. Effective against FMDv 
Hypochlorites (bleach) - Examples: Chlorox® (5.25% sodium hypochlorite), Chloramine-T , Halazone - Sodium hypochlorite is effective against most bacteria, viruses (influenza, herpes, and adenovirus; not rotavirus), and fungi at a 1:32 dilution (only in the absence of organic material). Disinfectant properties of sodium hypochlorite are inactivated by organic material and diminished by alkaline materials (lime) and moisture. Contact with skin is irritating. Commonly used on equipment and cleaned solid surfaces. Effective against FMDv at a 3% dilution. 
To Prepare 1 Gallon of a 1:32 Solution of Bleach (Read 1:32 as 1 part concentrate or 'stock solution' of Bleach to 32 oz water). 
1:32 dilution&#8230; 
= 1 'part' bleach to 32 'parts' water ('parts' can be any measure&#8230;oz, cups or truckloads!) 
= 1 oz Bleach : 32 oz water 
= 1 oz Bleach : 1 qt water 
= 30 cc Bleach : 1 qt water (note: 1 oz = 30cc) 
= 120 cc Bleach : 1 gal water (note: 120 cc = Two 60cc syringe- fulls&#8230 
\ Add 4 oz concentated Bleach to each 1 gal water (or, add 4 x 5 = 20 oz bleach to a typical 5 gal mop bucket)

Alkalies (lime) - Hydroxides of sodium and calcium are effective against many bacteria when application changes the local environment to a pH greater than 9. Contact with skin is caustic. Not recommended for use as a disinfectant due to the limited spectrum of efficacy and potential for contact irritation. Effective against FMDv 
Phenols and related compounds (cresols) - Examples: 1 Stroke Environ® (Calgon Vestal), Tek-Trol ® (Bio-Tek Idustries, Inc.) Lysol, Lysovet, Pine-Sol, Cresi-400. Phenols are effective against bacteria (especially gram positive bacteria) and enveloped viruses at 1 - 2% concentrations. Phenols are not effective against nonenveloped viruses and spores. Enveloped viruses include BRS, BVD, Coronavirus, IBR, Leukemia, PI3, Pox, Rabies and Stomatitis virus. Nonenveloped viruses include Bluetongue, Papilloma, Parvo and Rota virus. Phenolic disinfectants (including cresols and pine oil) are generally safe, but prolonged exposure to the skin may cause irritation. Phenols have a characteristic pine-tar odor and turn milky in water. They retain more activity in the presence of organic material than iodine or chlorine disinfectants. Disinfectant properties are enhanced by warm temperatures, and diminished by cold temperatures and moisture. Commonly used on surfaces of buildings. Not effective against FMDv 
NOTE: Phenol is commonly found in mouth washes, scrub soaps and surface disinfectants, and is the main disinfectant found in household disinfectants 
Quaternary ammonium compunds - Examples: Roccal-D (Winthrop), Omega (Airkem) - Quaternary ammonium chloride compounds are effective against most bacteria, some fungi, but are ineffective against all viruses. Disinfectant properties are diminished by organic, porous or fibrous materials as well as soaps, proteins, fatty acids and phosphates. Areas of use include nonporous surfaces free of organic debris when chlorine bleach or other similar disinfectant are unavailable. Not effective against FMDv 
Acetic acid - Vinegar is a 4% solution of acetic acid. Effective against FMDv 
Simple Green, not a disinfectant but a multi-purpose, environmentally-friendly detergent that is recommended for cleaning clothing, boots, tools, etc. This product works effectively with cold water. 
top 
Following are excerpts from Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet VME-0008-01 Disinfection in On-Farm Biosecurity Procedures 
http://ohioline.osu.edu/vme-fact/0008.html by Gary L. Bowman, D.V.M. and William P. Shulaw, D.V.M. 
Most disinfectants won't work if the surface to be disinfected isn't clean before applying the disinfectant. 
Steam and high-pressure washers can be very useful to clean porous surfaces. Organic materials such as soil, plant debris (like straw), milk, blood, pus, and manure often inactivate some disinfectants or protect germs from the disinfectant's active ingredients. Chlorine-based disinfectants are especially subject to this problem. Chlorine, the active ingredient in bleach, is relatively quickly inactivated by organic debris such as manure, and even milk, at the concentrations usually used on clean surfaces. 
In addition, even "hard" water can reduce or destroy the activity of some disinfectants. Likewise, some disinfectant solutions are only active for a few days after mixing or preparing. Failure to make a fresh solution of disinfectant after it has been prepared longer than a few days, or after it has become visibly contaminated by organic material like manure, may result in using a product that doesn't really work. Even worse, it may give a false sense of security. It is true that sufficient concentration and contact time can overcome some of these problems with certain classes of disinfectants, but often increasing the concentration or contact time makes use of the product impractical, costly, or caustic. 
Disinfectants also vary considerably in their activity against the assorted germs bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa about which livestock producers are concerned. 
For example, plain vinegar (4% acetic acid) will readily kill the foot-and-mouth disease virus, but it won't do much to Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, the cause of Johne's disease. Most commonly used disinfectants are not active against bacterial spores, the environmentally hardy life form taken by the germs that cause tetanus, blackleg, botulism, and anthrax. Formaldehyde is effective against most spores, but it is not really a practical disinfectant and is now considered a potential cancer-causing compound.

It is important to select a disinfectant that will be active across a wide spectrum of germs under the conditions in which it will usually be used. 
These conditions include hard water, contamination with organic material, and potential for toxicity or damage to environmental surfaces or skin and clothing. It is also important to keep solutions clean and freshly made as directed by the manufacturer.

Disinfectants must have sufficient contact time with the surfaces to which they are applied in order to allow them to kill the germs with which we are concerned. 
Contact time needed varies with the product and the germ. A quick splash of a dirty boot in a foot bath is not likely to accomplish anything except to give a false sense of security

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On most farms, disinfectants will be used in foot baths or for cleaning equipment and livestock premises. The most commonly used disinfectants fall into the following classes. 
Quaternary ammonium. The older quaternary ammonium compounds (Roccal DT) are good for some situations and relatively clean surfaces. They will not be particularly effective against FMD or M. paratuberculosis, the cause of Johne's disease, and have markedly reduced activity in the presence of organic material. Some of the newer quaternary ammonium preparations have improved activity. Compounds in this class usually have some detergent action; however, they are usually inactivated in contact with many soaps or soap residues. Quaternary ammonium compounds are more active at a high pH.

Phenol-based compounds. These compounds are coal-tar derivatives and often have a strong pine-tar odor. They usually turn milky when added to water and have good activity in hard water and in the presence of some organic material. They are considered active against many bacteria, viruses, and fungi, including the bacteria that cause tuberculosis and Johne's disease. They are not especially active against the FMD virus; however, they are good all-purpose disinfectants for farm use. Some examples of this class of disinfectants include One Stroke EnvironR, OsylR, and AmphylR. Chlorine, iodophors, and phenols are more effective at a low pH. Synthetic Phenols: They have a wide range of antimicrobial activity are reasonably active of surfaces with organic matter. 
Hypochlorites. Chlorine compounds are good disinfectants on clean surfaces and have a broad spectrum of activity. They generally are more active in warm water. They can be somewhat irritating and can be harmful to clothing, rubber goods, and some metals. Some of the newer chlorine-based disinfectants are complex molecules that are less irritating and more effective than older ones such as bleach and HalazoneR. Chlorine-based disinfectants are generally compatible with soaps but should never be mixed with acids. Their activity is strongly reduced by the presence of organic matter. Many chlorine solutions are unstable and need to be frequently replaced; read the label. Chlorine, iodophors, and phenols are more effective at a low pH.

Iodophors. Iodine compounds have been used as antiseptics and disinfectants for many years. The iodophors are combinations of iodine and another molecule that makes them water-soluble. They are good disinfectants but are also not as effective in the presence of organic debris. Iodophors are generally less toxic than other disinfectants but can stain clothes and some surfaces. They are inactivated in the presence of some metals and by sunlight. They should not be mixed with quaternary ammonium disinfectants as they will be inactivated. Some examples of this class are BetadineR and WeladolR. Chlorine, iodophors, and phenols are more effective at a low pH. Iodophors used with other disinfectants provide some residual activity but organic matter does interfere with their activity. It can vaporize at 120º F to 125º F (should not be used in hot water). 
Newer compounds. New disinfectants are being introduced regularly. Some of these are oxidizing agents. Virkon SR is a peroxygen molecule/organic acid/surfactant combination (surfactants reduce surface tension to help water-based compounds penetrate). It appears to have a wide spectrum of activity against many kinds of germs (including the FMD virus). It is relatively stable in the presence of some organic material. It has a pH of around 2.6, when mixed as directed, but is labeled as nonirritating to skin. It is advertised as useful on many kinds of equipment, including saddles, brushes, buckets, etc. Another compound, based on peroxyacetic acid, is Oxy-Sept 333R. It is now EPA-approved for foot-and-mouth disease virus and is reportedly active against a broad spectrum of germs. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Active ingredient concentration.: Some solutions are described in terms of the concentration of active agent in the working solution. If the stock solution is not 100% active ingredient, then you must calculate the concentration of active ingredient in the stock to get the correct concentration in the final working solution.

v = volume, (v/v is ml/100 ml) 
w = weight, (w/v is g/100ml)

Example: household bleach is 5% (w/v) sodium hypochlorite. If you want 0.5% hypochlorite in the working solution, then dilute 100 ml of bleach to 1000 ml with water which is a 10% (v/v) solution of the original stock concentration. If you had a 12% bleach stock, then would mix 42 ml of bleach stock with 958 ml water (this is a 4.2% (v/v) solution of the original stock.


----------



## Sondra

*Re: Fecals/wormers etc.~from Saanendoah.com*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guidelines For On-Farm Transfer of Teat Disinfectants - National Mastitis Council - July 2002 
Teat disinfectants are to be manufactured in accordance with the code of Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) established by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). To ensure product integrity, it is safest for teat disinfectants to be purchased in the manufacturers' original unopened, labeled container directly from manufacturers or their authorized distributors or agents. If bulk teat disinfectants are delivered to, and used on farms, the following precautions should be taken to ensure the safety and efficacy of the product.

The agent performing the transfer must be registered and have a drug establishment number. 
Use only dedicated, clean, non-reactive containers. 
Never store teat disinfectant in containers that have been used for pesticides, herbicides, motor oil, etc. 
Do not add a new batch of teat disinfectant to any volume of an old batch. 
Triple rinse the container with three doses of potable water equal to 25% of the container volume and drain completely prior to every filling. 
The on-farm container should have the following information on the label: 
1) name of manufacturer, repacker, and distributor 
2) net weight or volume of product delivered 
3) product name and type 
4) statement of active ingredient(s) 
5) directions for use 
6) batch code number 
7) expiration date 
Cool relevant safety information. 
The accompanying label needs to be replaced or updated at each filling. 
The equipment used for the transfer must be maintained to prevent contamination. 
Wash and cap ends of transfer lines after each transfer. The rest of the equipment must be cleaned following the plant's cGMP. 
Each lot manufactured or repackaged is to be sampled by the agent delivering the product and samples retained by them as per FDA requirements. 
Routine product testing should be done as part of the agent's cGMP validation. 
All teat disinfectants should be stored in a clean, cool, and dry area and not be exposed to freezing conditions. 
Teat disinfectants are considered to be drugs by the FDA. For more information on teat disinfectant regulations refer to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 21, Part 210. For more information on the use of teat disinfectants refer to NMC Teat Disinfection Facts and other related articles at http://www.nmconline.org/. 
top

REGIONAL PROBLEMS: Each area of the country, state, county, town has it's own set of problems and areas that need to be managed. Network with your veterinarian, extension office and local breeders for concerns special to your area. AN EXAMPLE: Here in southern most Southern California we have a severe problem with primary copper deficiency from our hay sources (Imperial Valley, Arizona). Our animals need to be supplemented with high amounts of copper. We all work together constantly to keep abreast of the copper status of our animals and the supplementation needed. 
PAY ATTENTION!

YOU AND YOUR VETERINARIAN: No matter how well you manage your herd, or how many experienced goat friends you have, you will still need the services of veterinarian. The money for proper medical care of your animals is more than well spent and will be returned to you ten fold in the long run. Try to locate and establish a working relationship with a veterinarian before you have a problem, find a vet you are comfortable working with, work with your vet and he/she will work with you. Don't wait until your animal is near death to call the veterinarian (and then blame or complain when he/she is unable to save the animal). Follow your veterinarians instructions and suggestions. Don't be afraid to offer your thoughts and observations to your veterinarian, the two of you are a team, it's not one against the other. If you can't establish a good team relationship with your veterinarian, get another vet. 
YOU THE CARETAKER: Observe your animals, watch to learn their habits etc., each animal has it's own personality, habits and routine, a change in this personality or routine will signal you that a problem is beginning and you can begin proper care hours or even days before a condition becomes serious. If you suspect your animal is acting "different" investigate at once, do not wait until later, or morning; examine the goat, watch to see that it is eating, is urinating and passing normal manure, take temperatures, etc. If any doubt call a goat friend or your veterinarian (now, no matter what the time of day or night) , and talk it over with them. CATCH THE PROBLEM EARLY. Trust your own judgment, you know more about your animals than you think you do and you can do more in emergency situations (i.e. problem kiddings) than you'll ever imagine you can. Keep a cool head and trust your "gut feelings" they'll serve you well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has been complied as information only,it is not intended as a means of diagnosing and treating an animal or to replace professional veterinary advice or care for your animals. This information is not intended to be a comprehensive review of any drugs, their uses, side effects, or special considerations. Veterinary consultation is vital when treating sick animals. Responsible decisions concerning treatments and drug safety or effectiveness must be made by each individual and their veterinarian. Never disregard veterinary advice or delay in seeking it as a result of information provided on this site. The anecdotal information, experiences and thoughts are my own or those I've personal knowledge of and are not meant to represent the management practices or thinking of goat breeders in general or the veterinary community. This information is presented without guarantees, and the author disclaims all liability in connection with the use of this information. The extra-label use of any product in a food producing animal is illegal without a prescription from a veterinarian the includes the milk and meat withdrawal information (seeELDU Q&A ).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Res Veterinary Science 2001 Jun;70(3):227-31 
Milk kinetics of moxidectin and doramectin in goats.

Carceles CM, Diaz MS, Vicente MS, Sutra JF, Alvinerie M, Escudero E. 
Departamento de Farmacologia, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia, Spain.

The milk kinetics of doramectin after a single subcutaneous administration and moxidectin following a single subcutaneous or oral drench were studied in goats (n = 15) at a dosage of 0.2 mg kg(-1). Doramectin could be detected in the milk for 21.0+/-2.9 days after subcutaneous treatment, and the total fraction of the dose recovered from the milk was estimated to be 2.9+/-0.88 per cent. Moxidectin, after either oral or subcutaneous administration, could be detected in the milk up to day 40 and the total fractions of the dose recovered from the milk were estimated to be 5.7+/-1.04 per cent and 22.53+/-1.09 per cent, respectively. The mean residence time after subcutaneous administration indicated that moxidectin delivered by the milk persists three times longer than doramectin; furthermore, the total fraction of the dose of moxidectin recovered from the milk was 7.7 times higher than that of doramectin.

PMID: 11676618 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Res Vet Sci 1999 Oct;67(2):177-81 
Pharmacokinetics of moxidectin and doramectin in goats.

Escudero E, Carceles CM, Diaz MS, Sutra JF, Galtier P, Alvinerie M. 
Departamento de Ciencias Socio-Sanitarias, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, Murcia, 30.071, Spain.

The pharmacokinetic behaviour of doramectin after a single subcutaneous administration and moxidectin following a single subcutaneous or oral drench were studied in goats at a dosage of 0.2 mg kg(-1). The drug plasma concentration-time data were analysed by compartmental pharmacokinetics and non-compartmental methods. Maximum plasma concentrations of moxidectin were attained earlier and to a greater extent than doramectin (shorter t(max) and greater C(max) and AUC than doramectin). MRT of doramectin (4.91 +/- 0.07 days) was also significantly shorter than that of moxidectin (12.43 +/- 1.28 days). Then, the exposure of animals to doramectin in comparison with moxidectin was significantly shorter. The apparent absorption rate of moxidectin was not significantly different after oral and subcutaneous administration but the extent of absorption, reflected in the peak concentration (C(max)) and the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), of the subcutaneous injection (24.27 +/- 1.99 ng ml(-1) and 136.72 +/- 7.35 ng d ml(-1) respectively) was significantly greater than that of the oral administration (15.53 +/- 1.27 ng ml(-1) and 36.72 +/- 4.05 ng d ml(-1) respectively). The mean residence time (MRT) of moxidectin didn't differ significantly when administered orally or subcutaneously. Therefore low oral bioavailability and the early emergence of resistance in this minor species may be related. These results deserve to be correlated with efficacy studies for refining dosage requirements of endectocides in this species.

Copyright 1999 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.

(moxidectin); January 28th, 1998.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2. Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank recommended withdrawal intervals (WDI) for ivermectin and moxidectin in dairy species 
DRUG SPECIES Route DOSE (mg/kg) Meat WDI (days) Milk WDI (days) 
IVERMECTIN Goats Oral 0.2 - 0.4 14 9 
IVERMECTIN Goats SQ 0.2 *35


----------



## Sondra

*Re: Fecals/wormers etc.~from Saanendoah.com*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FARAD Digest - Extralabel use of ivermectin and moxidectin in food animals 
Ronald E. Baynes, DVM, PhD1; Michael Payne, DVM, PhD2; Tomas Martin-Jimenez, DVM, Ph.D, DACVCP3; Ahmed-Rufai Abdullah, DVM1; Kevin L. Anderson, DVM, Ph.D, DABVP1; 
Alistair I. Webb, DVM, PhD, DACVA4; Arthur Craigmill, Ph.D2; Jim E. Riviere DVM, PhD1 
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD), 1Department of Farm Animal Health and Resource Management, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, 2Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, 3Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802, 4Department of Physiological Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, 4Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802. 
The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) access centers in the United States have been contacted in recent months about the extralabel use of several macrolide endectocides. The focus of this article is to provide an update on approved use of these drugs. Caution should be exercised with extralabel use of this class of drugs, particularly with moxidectin and ivermectin use in dairy animals. Macrolide endectocides are popular in livestock operations, because they are generally efficacious against most important internal and external parasites, and approved topical formulations can improve producer compliance. 
Because many macrolide endectocides are lipophilic, substantial concentrations will be found in edible tissues. As much as 5% of the administered drug can be secreted in milk1. Only eprinomectin and moxidectin pour-on formulations are approved for use in dairy cattle. This is because of the intrinsic chemical behavior and unique formulation chemistry of these 2 drugs. Ivermectin and doramectin are not approved for dairy animals, and their meat withdrawal times are long compared with other less lipophilic parasiticides. Parallel disposition data of milk and plasma ivermectin indicates a milklasma area under the curve (AUC) ratio of 1.08 for goats2. Compared with approved oral and subcutaneous routes of administration, approved topical application can result in less absorption but extended meat withdrawal times, because the dermal absorption process is rate limiting, and depletion of residues to established tolerances is prolonged. These pharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic differences are reflected in the approved withdrawal times (WDT; Table 1).

Extrapolated Withdrawal-interval Estimation Methods.

This article will focus briefly on specific FARAD cases or requests for information regarding extralabel use of ivermectin and moxidectin and the process involved in deriving recommended withdrawal intervals (WDI). The FARAD-derived WDI are based on pharmacokinetic data summarized in the FARAD database, which were published in peer-reviewed journals, FDA freedom of information summaries, and Food and Agriculture Organization monographs (Table 2). With complete data sets, the WDI are extrapolated from tissue kinetic information and the approved WDT. The latter are calculated by statistical analysis of tolerance limits containing the 99th percentile of the test animal population with 95% confidence. The FARAD has designated these extrapolated withholding times as WDI to differentiate them from WDT, which are approved by the US FDA. The WDI estimates are based on the effective residue half-life (ERH) derived from tissue kinetic information3,4

Extralabel Use of Ivermectin.

Oral route in goats-Ivermectin is not approved for use in goats in the United States. However, the labeled drench dose for sheep (0.2 mg/kg of body weight [0.09mg/lb]) has an 11-day meat WDT. This is supported by an observed fat and liver depletion half-life of 1.1 days for the intraruminal route in sheep,5 recalling that it generally requires about 10-half-lives to eliminate 99% of the drug. Several studies further demonstrated that following intraruminal administration in goats,6 bioavailability was 2.5 times lower and the plasma half-life was 2.3 times shorter than in sheep7. These pharmacokinetic differences were not observed with doses administered SC.2 On the basis of these supporting data, FARAD estimates that if the oral drench approved for sheep is administered to goats at the labeled dose for sheep, then a meat WDI of 11 days should prevent meat residues in goats. If ivermectin is administered at up to 1.5 to 2.0 times the labeled dose for sheep, as is the common practice, then the WDI needs to be extended by at least one extra ERH. Based on the WDT for sheep, and in the absence of tissue depletion data for goats, FARAD assumes an ERH of 2.2 days obtained by dividing the WDT by a half-life multiplier (HLM) value of 5.3,4 The HLM represents the number of ERH needed for the concentration in tissue to reach the tolerance level. In summary, FARAD recommends a meat WDI of 14 days for up to 0.4 mg/kg (0.18mg/lb) per os. These calculations assume that the kinetics of ivermectin are linear. The milk WDI would be 6 days based on a study by Scott et al,8 that demonstrated that at 6 days, goats' milk was clear of the drug after an oral dose of 0.2 mg/kg. Based on this information, oral administration up to 0.4 mg/kg will require a milk WDI of at least 8 days in dairy goats.

Oral route in cattle-Ivermectin has the same half-life in cattle as it does in sheep; however, because of a larger volume of distribution, plasma clearance is more rapid in sheep.9 For these reasons, WDT and WDI will be shorter in sheep and goats than in cattle. Surprisingly, there is limited depletion data for oral administration of ivermectin in cattle. Following intraruminal administration in cattle, depletion half-lives for 3H-ivermectin in fat and liver were 4.2 and 5.9 days, respectively.5 This suggests a longer meat WDI (42 days) for the intraruminal route than the approved meat WDT (24 days) with the approved oral paste. Plasma data from this study demonstrated a plasma concentration of 1.0 ng/ml of total residues at 21 days and undetectable at 28 days after a 0.3 mg/kg dose. In the absence of milk residue data, it is possible to estimate a very conservative milk WDI of 28 days, if we assume parallel depletion for plasma and milk and use published data in which the milklasma AUC ratio is 0.766 in cattle.1 This WDI will be conservative for oral administration, as the WDI was based on intraruminal administration of a 3H-labeled drug and a dose greater than the approved label.

Subcutaneous route in goats-Ivermectin was detected up to 25 days in milk from lactating goats given 0.2 mg/kg SC.2 There were no differences between plasma and milk pharmacokinetic variables, and the milklasma AUC ratio was 1.08, as stated earlier. The elimination half-life was 4 days for plasma and milk, and it would take 40 days (10 half-lives) to eliminate 99% of the drug via milk when administered by this route. Limited tissue residue data from an NRSP-7 study10 provided an ERH of 4.34 days (ke = 0.1594 days-1) in fat, which is the slowest depleting tissue. Application of our algorithm resulted in a WDI of 22 days. As this FARAD estimate is less than the cattle WDT, and there were limited available data, we recommend the cattle WDT of 35 days for an extra margin of safety.

Subcutaneous route in cattle-Ivermectin was detected in milk at 17.8 days and even beyond 29 days when lactating cows were given 0.2 mg/kg SC.1 The mean milk depletion half-life was 4.72 days, which suggests that it would take at least 47 days to eliminate 99% of the drug via the milk. As seen with goats, a parallel disposition in milk and plasma was observed, and the milklasma AUC ratio was 0.766. These data and WDI estimates are further supported by the observed plasma half-life of 4.32 days in another study of subcutaneous administration in cattle.11

Topical route in goats-Topical application of ivemectin (0.5 mg/kg [0.23 mg/lb]) to dairy goats resulted in about 0.5 ng/ml in milk at 6 days.8 Because milk residues were not detected at 7 days, this time can be used as a milk WDI for goats given ivermectin topically. Tissues were not assayed, but plasma concentrations were less than 1.0 ng/ml at 6 days, supporting the milk-plasma relationship described.

Topical route in cattle-There are no available studies on topical application of ivermectin in dairy cattle. However, plasma concentrations were less than 0.1 ng/ml at 42 days, and terminal half-life in plasma was 5.3 days in steers topically at the label dose.12 Assuming that milklasma ratios were 0.776, as described earlier, milk concentrations at 42 days should be 0.0776 ng/ml, and it would take at least 2 more half-lives (11 days) to arrive at a milk concentration of approximately 0.02 ng/ml. This milk concentration is equivalent to a safe concentration or a provisional acceptable residue for ivermectin in milk recently described in the literature.13 Based on these data and assumptions, a milk WDI of 53 days would be conservative estimate for dairy cattle exposed to ivermectin pour-on.

Extralabel Use of Moxidectin:

Oral route-Moxidectin is not approved for use in goats. Several goat farmers have been administering moxidectin to goats orally at the labeled pour-on dose (0.5 mg/kg) for cattle. It should be stressed that although the cattle label states that this drug has a zero meat and milk WDT by the topical route, it does not imply that the meat and milk WDI will be zero if given orally. Until FARAD obtains sufficient pharmacokinetic data for the topical formulation given orally at 0.5 mg/kg in goats, FARAD has based its WDI recommendation on European Union approvals in sheep and published studies on oral administration. It should be noted that oral bioavailability of moxidectin is 2.7 times lower in goats than in sheep,6,14 and the half-life in goats is 1.8 times shorter in sheep. This suggests that EU WDI for moxidectin in sheep will be more than adequate for estimation of WDI for moxidectin drench in goats. In France and the United Kingdom, the oral formulation for sheep at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg [0.09 mg/lb] has a 14-day meat WDT.15,16 On the basis of these data, FARAD estimates an ERH of 3 days for this dose and, therefore, includes an additional 3 ERH (9 days; WDI, 23 days) for goats given of a moxidectin pour-on formulation (0.8 to 1.6 mg/kg [0.36 to 0.73 mg/lb]) orally. It must be recognized that there are pharmaceutical differences between the dermal formulations being used in goats and the European approved drench, and these differences may influence tissue depletion. It is also important to stress that, irrespective of the route of administration, moxidectin has a longer mean residence time than ivermectin in sheep and in cattle when given orally or by the SC route.7,14,17 This may be related to its greater persistence once absorbed systemically and, therefore, caution should be exercised when using this drug in an extralabel manner, especially when administering the pour-on formulation orally to goats.

Subcutaneous route-There are limited pharmacokinetic data available in the literature for subcutaneous administration in goats,6 which makes estimation of meat or milk WDI difficult. In cattle, the half-lives for total residue of moxidectin in fat, liver, kidney, and muscle ranged from 9.0 to 12.2 days after SC administration (0.2 mg/kg).18 At 49 days, injection sites and back fat concentrations were 1,178 and 141 ?g/kg, respectively, and liver and kidney concentrations were less than 11 ?g/kg. As European maximum residue concentrations for fat, kidney, and liver are 200, 20, and 20 ?g/kg, respectively,19 then 49 days would be a conservative WDI for moxidectin given by the subcutaneous route to cattle. The FDA has also established tolerances of 50 ?g/kg and 200 ?g/kg for parent moxidectin in muscle and liver, respectively, in cattle.20 Unfortunately, FARAD has no milk residue information or milk-plasma AUC relationship from which to base milk WDI for this drug if given subcutaneously to dairy goats or dairy cattle.

Topical route-Moxidectin is approved as a pour-on only (0.5mg/kg) in cattle with zero meat and milk WDT, and it is possible that increasing the dose substantially by this route will most likely require estimation of meat and milk WDI (Table 1). In the absence of data for goats, FARAD assumes that plasma and tissue clearance would be greater in goats than in cattle, as described for ivermectin. However, FARAD would err on the side of caution and recommend a milk and meat WDI of 1 day if this drug was topically applied to goats.

FARAD Digest - Extralabel use of ivermectin and moxidectin in food animals 
The calculated WDI in this article were based on limited available pharmacokinetic data. Updated WDI can be obtained from our FARAD web site (www.farad.org) as more relevant data is available. It should also be noted that the recommended WDI are case specific and are not applicable for other doses or routes of administration, nor should they be extrapolated to other food animal species. If veterinarians are interested in obtaining such information, please contact us at 1-888-USFADAD or [email protected] or [email protected]

References: 
1. Toutain PL, Campan M, Galtier P, et al. Kinetic and insecticidal properties of ivermectin residues in the milk of dairy cows. J Vet Pharmacol Therap 1988;11: 288-291. 
2. Alvinerie M, Sutra JF, Galtier P. Ivermectin in goat plasma and milk after subcutaneous injection. Ann Rech Vet 1993;24: 417-421. 
3. Riviere JE, Webb AI, Craigmill AL. Primer on estimating withdrawal times after extralabel drug use. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988;213: 966-968. 
4. Martin T, Baynes RE, Craigmill AL, et al. Pharm Res 2000; 
5. Chiu S-Hl, Green ML, Bayliss FP, et al. Absorption, tissue distribution, and excretion of tritium-labeled ivermectin in cattle, sheep, and rat. J Agric Food Chem 1990;38: 2072-2078. 
6. Escudero E, Carceles CM, Diaz MS, et al. Pharmacokinetics of moxidectin and doramectin in goats. Res Vet Sci 1999;67: 177-181. 
7. Marriner SE, McKinnon I, Bogan JA. The pharmacokinetics of ivermectin after oral and subcutaneous adminstration to sheep and horses. J Vet Pharmacol Therap 1987;10: 175-179. 
8. Scott EW, Kinabo LD, McKellar QA. Pharmacokinetics of ivermectin after oral or percutaneous administration to adult milking goats. J Vet Pharmacol Therap 1990;13: 432-435. 
9. Lo P-KA, Fink DW, Williams JB, et al. Pharmacokinetic studies of ivermectin: effects of formulation. Vet Res Commun 1985;9: 251-268. 
10. NRSP-7 Animal Drug Request Number 17. NRSP-7 Studies of Ivermectin in Goats (SQ Administration). Public Master File (PMF 3883) 
11. Toutain PL, Upson DW, Terhune TN, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics of doramectin and ivermectin in cattle. Vet Parasitol 1997;72: 3-8. 
12. Gayrard V, Alvinerie M, Toutain PL. Comparison of pharmacokinetic profiles of doramectin and ivermectin pour-on formulations in cattle. Vet Parasitol 1999;81: 47-55. 
13. Baynes RE, Martin T, Craigmill A, et al. Estimating provisional acceptable residues for extralabel drug use in livestock. Reg Pharm Toxicol 1999;29: 287-299. 
14. Alvinerie M, Escudero E, Sutra JF, et al. The pharmacokinetics of moxidectin after oral and subcutaneous administration to sheep. Vet Res 1998;29: 113-118. 
15. DMV. Dictionnaire des Medicaments Veterinaires et des produits de Sante Animale diagnostic, dietetique, hygiene, petit materiel. Editions du Point Veterinaire, Cedex, France. 1997;pp 459-461. 
16. NOAH. Compendium of Data Sheets for Veterinary Products 1999-2000. National Office of Animal Health Ltd. 3 Crossfield Chambers, Gladbeck Way, Enfield, Middlesex, England. 1999;pp. 186-190. 
17. Lanusse C, Lifschitz A, Virkel G, et al. Comparative plasma disposition kinetics of ivermectin, moxidectin, and doramectin in cattle. J Vet Pharmacol Therap 1997;20: 91-99. 
18. FAO. Moxidectin: Residues of some veterinary drugs in animals and foods. Monographs prepared by the forty-eighth meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1997. 
19. EMEA. Moxidectin Summary Report. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, 1999;London, UK. 
20. FOI (1998). Freedom of Information Summary, NADA 141-099 (original); Cydectin (moxidectin); January 28th, 1998.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2. Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank recommended withdrawal intervals (WDI) for ivermectin and moxidectin in dairy species 
DRUG SPECIES Route DOSE (mg/kg) Meat WDI (days) Milk WDI (days) 
IVERMECTIN Goats Oral 0.2 - 0.4 14 9 
IVERMECTIN Goats SQ 0.2 *


----------

