LIVESTOCK BODY PROTECTIVE MATERIAL, LIVESTOCK BODY PROTECTIVE FILM FORMING KIT, AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING LIVESTOCK'S SICK/INJURED AREA

Abstract

Provided is a livestock body protective material that includes (A) an emulsion obtained by dispersing a rubber-based macromolecule serving as a dispersoid in a dispersion medium including water as the main component, and (B) a coagulant blended according to need, and that is used to form a protective film for protecting a livestock's sick/injured area.

Claims

1. A livestock body protective material comprising (A) an emulsion obtained by dispersing a rubber-based polymer serving as a dispersoid in a dispersion medium including water as a main component, wherein the material is used to form a protective film for protecting a livestock's sick or injured area.

2. The livestock body protective material according to claim 1, further comprising (B) a coagulant.

3. The livestock body protective material according to claim 2, wherein (B) the coagulant is at least one type-selected from the group consisting of a calcium salt and a magnesium salt.

4. The livestock body protective material according to claim 2, wherein (B) the coagulant is at least one selected from the group consisting of facile acid, citric acid, acetic acid, malic acid, fumaric acid, maleic acid, tartaric acid, gluconic acid, succinic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid.

5. The livestock body protective material according to claim 1, further comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of (C) a surfactant, (D) a sterilizing disinfectant, and (E) a pharmaceutical component.

6. A kit for forming a livestock body protective film that is composed of: (i) a base containing (A) an emulsion obtained by dispersing a rubber-based polymer serving as a dispersoid in a dispersion medium including water as a main component, stored in a predetermined container, and (ii) a curing agent containing (B) a coagulant, stored in a container different from the above container. wherein the kit is used to form a protective film for protecting a livestock sick or injured area.

7. The kit for forming, a livestock body protective film according to claim 6, wherein the curing agent further contains (F) water and/or a water-soluble solvent.

8. A method for protecting a livestock's sick or injured area comprising forming a protective film for protection of a livestock's sick or injured area by adhering the livestock body protective material according to claim 1 on a livestock's sick or injured area.

9. A method for protecting a livestock's sick or injured area comprising forming a protective film for protection of a livestock's sick or injured area by adhering any one of (i) a base containing (A) an emulsion obtained by dispersing a rubber-based polymer serving as a dispersoid in a dispersion medium including water as a main component and (ii) a curing agent containing (B) a coagulant on a livestock's sick or injured area, and then adhering the other on the livestock's sick or injured area.

10. (canceled)

Description

EXAMPLES

[0082] Hereinbelow, the livestock body protective material of the present disclosure is specifically described in view of Examples and Comparative Examples, but the present invention is not limited to those examples.

[0083] In Examples and Comparative Examples, raw materials that are used for production of a livestock body protective material and abbreviations thereof, and the method for evaluating operability (time for application work, time for peeling work, and time evaluation) and safety (skin peeling from wound area, number of bacteria) are as described below.

<Raw Material>

(A) Emulsion

[0084] Natural rubber emulsion: NR (solid component concentration: 50% by mass, viscosity: 50 mPa.Math.s, minimum film-forming temperature: 10 C., dispersion medium: water)

[0085] Isoprene rubber emulsion: IR (solid component concentration: 50% by mass, viscosity: 50 mPa.Math.s, minimum film-forming temperature: 10 C., dispersion medium: water)

(B) Coagulant

[0086] Lactic acid: LA

[0087] Calcium chloride: CC

(C) Surfactant

[0088] Ammonium lactic acid: LAA

(D) Sterilizing disinfectant

[0089] Povidone iodine: PVPI

(E) Pharmaceutical component

[0090] Aloe extract: AR

(F) Water and/or water-soluble solvent

[0091] Water: WA

[0092] Ethanol: ET

<(i) Base and (ii) Curing Agent>

[0093] (i) Base: Blending amount of a base containing each raw material described above is shown in Table 1 (unit: parts by mass).

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 (D) (E) (A) (C) Sterilizing Pharmaceutical Emulsion Surfactant disinfectant component Composition NR IR LAA PVPI AR (i)-1 100 (i)-2 100 (i)-3 99.5 0.5 (i)-4 99.5 0.5 (i)-5 97 2 [0094] (ii) Curing agent: Blending amount of a curing agent containing (B) the coagulant is shown in Table 2 (unit: parts by mass).

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 (F) (B) Water and/or water- Coagulant soluble solvent Composition LA CC WA (Water) ET (ii)-1 100 (ii)-2 100 500 (ii)-3 100 500 30

[0095] (ii)-1 is a curing agent with composition in which (B) the coagulant (LA: lactic acid) is 100 parts by mass. (ii)-2 is a curing agent with composition in which 500 parts by mass of a solvent (WA: water) is included with 100 parts by mass of (B) the coagulant (CC: calcium chloride). (ii)-3 is a curing agent with composition in which 500 parts by mass of a solvent (WA: water) and 30 parts of a solvent (ET: ethanol) are included with 100 parts by mass of (B) the coagulant (CC: calcium chloride).

<Method for Evaluation>

(1) Method for Evaluating Operability

(Time for Application Work)

[0096] By using the livestock body protective materials of Examples 1 to 12, evaluation was made while having the time required for protecting a livestock's sick or injured area or a healthy area as time for application work. In Example 6 in which a gauze was applied as an application material, the evaluation was made by having the work time including the time for applying a gauze as the time for application work. Shorter time for application work indicates easier forming of a protective film. In Comparative Example 1, the time required for protection by wrapping a bandage around a livestock's sick or in area or a healthy area was taken as the time for application work. In addition, a case in which the time for application work is 3 minutes or shorter is evaluated A and a case in which the time for application work is longer than 3 minutes is evaluated C (Time evaluation 1).

(Time for Peeling Work)

[0097] One day after performing the above application work, the time required for complete peeling of the protective film was evaluated as the time for peeling work. Shorter time for peeling work indicates higher operability. In Comparative Examples, evaluation was made by having the time at which the bandage is removed as the time for peeling work. In addition, a case in which the time for peeling work is 3 minutes or shorter is evaluated A and a case in which the time for peeling work is longer than 3 minutes is evaluated C (Time evaluation 2).

(2) Method for Evaluating Safety

(Skin Removal)

[0098] Presence or absence of skin removal at the time of peeling a protective film was observed with a naked eye. In addition, a case in which no skin removal has been confirmed is evaluated A and a case in which skin removal has been confirmed is evaluated C.

(Evaluation of Number of Bacteria)

[0099] The effect of blocking bacteria by a protective film was evaluated as follows. In Examples 10 to 12, the healthy area (about 30 cm30 cm) of livestock (dairy cow) was cleaned completely with alcohol, and a protective film composed of the livestock body protective material was formed on that part. The livestock was allowed to move freely for one day. After that, the protective film was peeled, and the part (about 1 cm.sup.2), to which the protective film had been formed before, was wiped with a cotton swab (Promedia ST-25 manufactured by ELMEX), and the cotton swab was dipped in 10 mL of physiological saline. In Comparative Example 1, the healthy area of livestock (dairy cow) was cleaned with alcohol, and then wrapped with a bandage. The livestock was then allowed to move freely for one day. After that, the bandage was removed, and the part (about 1 cm.sup.2), around which the bandage had been wrapped before, was wiped with a cotton swab (Promedia ST-25 manufactured by ELMEX), and the cotton swab was dipped in 10 ml of physiological saline.

[0100] 1 mL of the physiological saline in which the cotton swab was dipped was added dropwise in a culture medium (aerobic bacteria culture, 6400AC, manufactured by 3M), and then cultured at 37 C. for 48 hours. After culturing, the number of colonies in the culture medium was counted, and, by assuming that one bacteria forms one colony, the number of bacteria in the aforementioned 10 mL of physiological saline was calculated from the number of colonies (number of colonies10=number of bacteria). The number of bacteria which has been obtained was evaluated according to the following evaluation criteria. Generally, if the number of bacteria is less than 1000/cm.sup.2, it was deemed that cleanliness is maintained. Furthermore, the number of external bacteria (number of bacteria in soil) was roughly 10000/cm.sup.2 or more although there is variation.

Evaluation criteria [0101] A: Less than 1000/cm.sup.2 (The number of bacteria was low, and the protective film part was maintained in a clean condition.) 1000/cm.sup.2 or more to less than 10000/cm.sup.2 (The number of bacteria was somewhat high, but it was less than the number of bacteria in the outside.) [0102] C: 10000/cm.sup.2 or more (The number of bacteria was high, so that the effect of reducing the number of bacteria by the protective film could not be confirmed.)

Example 11

[0103] The base (i)-1 was directly used as a livestock body protective material 50 g of the livestock body protective material (the base (i)-1) was directly applied by spraying to a sick or injured area (about 10 cm10 cm) of livestock (dairy cow) to form a protective film, and evaluation was made in terms of the operability and safety. In Table 3, the blending amount of each component is shown, and the results of the operability and safety are shown in Table 4.

Examples 2 to 5

[0104] The protective film was formed in the same manner as Example 1 except that only the bases (i)-2 to (i)-5 were used as a livestock body protective material, and evaluation was made in terms of the operability and safety. In Table 3, the blending amount of each component is shown, and the results of the operability and safety are shown in Table 4.

Example 6

[0105] First, a gauze was applied to a sick or injured area (about 10 cm10 cm) of livestock (dairy cow). Subsequently, 75 g of the livestock body protective material (the base (i)-1) was directly applied by spraying on top of the gauze to form a protective film. At that time, the area sprayed with the livestock body protective material had a slightly larger area (about 12 cm12 cm) than the gauze such that the livestock body protective material completely covered the gauze. In addition, evaluation was made in terms of the operability and safety, in the same mariner as Example 1. In Table 3, the blending amount of each component and the like are shown, and the results are shown in Table 4.

Example 7

[0106] 50 g of the base (i)-1 was directly applied by spraying on a sick or injured area (about 10 cm10 cm) of livestock (dairy cow). Subsequently, 50 g of a curing agent ((ii)-1) was applied by spraying on the part to which the base had been sprayed, and thus a protective film was formed. In Table 3, the blending amount of each component and the like are shown, and the results are shown in Table 4.

Examples 8 and 9

[0107] To a sick or injured area of livestock (dairy cow), (i) the base and (ii) the curing agent were sprayed in this order in the same manner as Example 7, except that the composition of the livestock body protective material was as those described in Table 3. In addition, similarly to Example 7 evaluation was made in terms of the operability and safety. In Table 3, the blending amount of each component and the like axe shown, and the results are shown in Table 4.

Example 10

[0108] The operation and evaluation were made in the same manner as Example 1 except that the animal body (healthy area, about 30 cm30 cm) of livestock (dairy cow) was applied with the base (i)-1 by spraying. In Table 3, the blending amount of each component and the like are shown, and the results are shown in Table 4.

Example 11

[0109] The operation and evaluation were made in the same manner as Example 7 except that the animal body (healthy area, about 30 cm30 cm) of livestock (dairy cow) was applied with the livestock body protective material by spraying, in the order of the base (i) and (ii) the curing agent. In Table 3, the blending amount of each component and the like are shown, and the results are shown in Table 4.

Example 12

[0110] The operation and evaluation were made in the same manner as Example 11 except that the livestock body protective material was applied by spraying in the order of (ii) the curing agent and (i) the base. In Table 3, the blending amount of each component and the like are shown, and the results are shown in Table 4.

Comparative Example 11

[0111] The animal body (healthy area) of livestock (dairy cow) was wrapped with a bandage, and evaluation was made in terms of the operability and safety. The results are shown in Table 4.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Livestock body protective material (i) Base material/ Application Application (ii) Curing agent Subject material method Example 1 (i)-1/(ii) None Animal body of livestock None Spray 50 g/0 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 2 (i)-2/(ii) None Animal body of livestock None Spray 50 g/0 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 3 (i)-3/(ii) None Animal body of livestock None Spray 50 g/0 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 4 (i)-4/(ii) None Animal body of livestock None Spray 50 g/0 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 5 (i)-5/(ii) None Animal body of livestock None Spray 50 g/0 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 6 (i)-1/(ii) None Animal body of livestock Gauze Spray 75 g/0 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 7 (i)-1/(ii)-1 Animal body of livestock None Spray 50 g/50 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 8 (i)-1/(ii)-2 Animal body of livestock None Spray 50 g/50 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 9 (i)-1/(ii)-3 Animal body of livestock None Spray 50 g/50 g (dairy cow) (Sick/injured area, about 10 cm 10 cm) Example 10 (i)-1/(ii) None Animal body of livestock None Spray 100 g/0 g (dairy cow) (Healthy area, about 30 cm 30 cm) Example 11 (i)-1/(ii)-1 Animal body of livestock None Spray 100 g/100 g (dairy cow) (Healthy area, about 30 cm 30 cm) Example 12 (i)-1/(ii)-1 Animal body of livestock None Spray 100 g/100 g (dairy cow) (Healthy area, about 30 cm 30 cm) Application Method Used material Subject material Comparative Bandage Animal body of livestock None wrapping Example 1 (dairy cow) (Healthy area)

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Operability Time for Time for Safety application peeling Number work Time work Time Skin of (Seconds) evaluation 1 (Seconds) evaluation 2 removal bacteria Example 1 40 A 25 A A Example 2 40 A 25 A A Example 3 40 A 25 A A Example 4 40 A 25 A A Example 5 40 A 25 A A Example 6 60 A 25 A A Example 7 60 A 20 A A Example 8 60 A 20 A A Example 9 60 A 20 A A Example 10 90 A 40 A A A Example 11 120 A 30 A A A Example 12 120 A 30 A A A Comparative 480 C 300 C A C Example 1

[0112] As it is shown in Table 4, in Examples 1 to 12 in which the livestock body protective material was used, a protective film was able to be easily formed in a sick or injured area and also in a healthy area of livestock (dairy cow) within a relatively short time, and also the protective film was able to be easily peeled within a relatively short time. In any of those Examples, a protective film was able to he evenly formed, and also, in any of those Examples, the protective film was able to be peeled all at once. No abnormality was shown from the sick or injured area after the protective film had been removed therefrom, and it was possible to confirm that there was an improvement in injured state. In Example 5, in particular, the injured state has been improved compared to other Examples. In Example 3, since a surfactant was added to the livestock body protective material, more favorable applicability was obtained and peeling was easier compared to other Examples.

[0113] On the other hand, in Comparative Example 1 in which a bandage was used instead of the livestock body protective material, it took time even for wrapping a bandage due to wild behavior or the like of livestock. The same problems occurred at the time of removing the bandage. Furthermore, in Comparative Example 1, even if the leg part of livestock was wrapped with a bandage, the bandage was lost or the like as the livestock moved, and thus it was found that the holdability of bandage was very poor. When the livestock having the bandage maintained therewith was observed, the bandage was found to be soiled due to permeation of excretions or muddy water. As a result of performing a bacteria test with those livestock, the number of bacteria has Increased in the internal side wrapped with bandage due to the infiltration of excretions or muddy water from the bandage to the inside.

[0114] Furthermore, although it is not shown in the table, when a commercially available adhesive was used, time was required for application due to the difficulty in easy stretching. Furthermore, as there was a part which solidified during the application, it was very difficult to have uniform application. As a result, irregularities occurred in the application, and also there was a part that was not able to cover a sick or injured area. Due to those reasons, it is believed that the effect of blocking bacteria is low. Furthermore, since the adhesive was strongly adhered onto a sick of injured area, it was very difficult to peel, and thus the livestock behaved wildly due to pains. Accordingly, only fragmental peeling was yielded without complete peeling. Furthermore, skin on the sick or injured area was also partially peeled off.

[0115] Disclosure of Japanese Patent Application. No. 2016-117683, filed on Jun. 14, 2016, is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.