Comparative Study of the Healing Process of Disbudding Wounds in Calves Using Bepanthene® or an Antibiotic Spray
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Farm and Animal Recruitment
2.2. Disbudding and Treatments
2.3. Assessment of the Disbudding Wounds
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Panel 1—Veterinary Practitioners
3.2. Panel 2—Veterinary Medicine Students
3.3. Panel 3—Nurses from the Human Medical Field
3.4. Joint Evaluation
“Not Applicable” Responses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Adapted Bates–Jensen Wound Assessment Tool
Item | Assessment |
Edges | 1 = Indistinct, diffuse, none clearly visible 2 = Distinct, outline clearly visible, attached, even with wound base 3 = Well-defined, not attached to wound base 4 = Well-defined, not attached to base, rolled under, thickened 5 = Well-defined, fibrotic, scarred, or hyperkeratotic |
Necrotic Tissue Type | 1 = None visible 2 = White/grey non-viable tissue and/or non-adherent yellow slough 3 = Loosely adherent yellow slough 4 = Adherent, soft, black eschar 5 = Firmly adherent, hard, black eschar |
Exudate Type | 1 = None 2 = Bloody 3 = Serosanguineous: thin, watery, pale red/pink 4 = Serous: thin, watery, clear 5 = Purulent: thin or thick, opaque, tan/yellow |
Exudate Amount | 1 = None, dry wound 2 = Scant, wound moist but no observable exudate 3 = Small 4 = Moderate 5 = Large |
Skin Colour Surrounding Wound | 1 = Pink or normal for breed 2 = Bright red and/or congested 3 = White or grey pallor or hypopigmented 4 = Dark red or purple and/or haemorrhagic 5 = Black or hyperpigmented |
Granulation Tissue | 1 = Skin intact or partial-thickness wound 2 = Bright, beefy red; 75% to 100% of wound filled and/or tissue overgrowth 3 = Bright, beefy red; <75% and >25% of wound filled 4 = Pink and/or dull, dusky red and/or fills < 25% of wound 5 = No granulation tissue present |
Epithelialization | 1 = 100% wound covered, surface intact 2 = 75% to <100% wound covered and/or epithelial tissue extends >0.5cm into the wound bed 3 = 50% to <75% wound covered and/or epithelial tissue extends to <0.5 cm into the wound bed 4 = 25% to <50% wound covered 5 = <25% wound covered |
References
- Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D.J. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Vet. J. 2005, 169, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stilwell, G.; Carvalho, R.C.; Carolino, N.; Lima, M.S.; Broom, D.M. Effect of hot-iron disbudding on behaviour and plasma cortisol of calves sedated with xylazine. Res. Vet. Sci. 2010, 88, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D.J. Addressing the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 135, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morisse, J.P.; Cotte, J.P.; Huonnic, D. Effect of dehorning on behaviour and plasma cortisol responses in young calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995, 43, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sylvester, S.P.; Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D.J.; Bruce, R.A.; Ward, R.N. Acute cortisol responses of calves to four methods of dehorning by amputation. Aust. Vet. J. 1998, 76, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stilwell, G.; de Carvalho, R.C.; Lima, M.S.; Broom, D.M. Effect of caustic paste disbudding, using local anaesthesia with and without analgesia, on behaviour and cortisol of calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reedman, C.N.; Duffield, T.F.; DeVries, T.J.; Lissemore, K.D.; Adcock, S.J.J.; Tucker, C.B.; Parsons, S.D.; Winder, C.B. Effect of plane of nutrition and analgesic drug treatment on wound healing and pain following cautery disbudding in preweaning dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 6220–6239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutherland, M.A.; Huddart, F.J.; Stewart, M. Short communication: Evaluation of the efficacy of novel disbudding methods for dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 666–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ridgway, R.; Neary, J.; Turner, A.; Barrett, D.C.; Gillespie, A. Evaluation of horn bud wound healing following cautery disbudding of dairy calves with and without the use of oxytetracycline aerosol spray. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 745632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertone, A.L. Principles of wound healing. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 1989, 5, 449–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosgood, G. Stages of wound healing and their clinical relevance. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2006, 36, 667–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Werner, S.; Grose, R. Regulation of wound healing by growth factors and cytokines. Physiol. Rev. 2003, 83, 835–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.H.; Huang, B.S.; Horng, H.C.; Yeh, C.C.; Chen, Y.J. Wound healing. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2018, 81, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balsa, I.M.; Culp, W.T.N. Wound Care. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2015, 45, 1049–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fossum, T.W. Small Animal Surgery, 5th ed.; Elsevier, Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lux, C.N. Wound healing in animals: A review of physiology and clinical evaluation. Vet. Dermatol. 2021, 33, 91-e27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cross, K.J.; Mustoe, T.A. Growth factors in wound healing. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2003, 83, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schultz, G.S.; Sibbald, R.G.; Falanga, V.; Ayello, E.A.; Dowsett, C.; Harding, K.; Romanelli, M.; Stacey, M.C.; Teot, L.; Vanscheidt, W. Wound bed preparation: A systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair Regen. 2003, 11, S1–S28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kretschmann, J.; Früchtl, L.; Fischer, M.-L.; Kaiser, M.; Müller, H.; Spilke, J.; Mielenz, N.; Möbius, G.; Bittner-Schwerda, L.; Steinhöfel, I.; et al. Einfluss eines multimodalen Schmerz managements sowie des Alters zum Zeitpunkt des Eingriffes auf die Wundheilung nach thermischer Zerstörung der Hornanlage bei weiblichen Deutsch-Holstein-Kälbern. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2021, 163, 836–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowan, M.P.; Cancio, L.C.; Elster, E.A.; Burmeister, D.M.; Rose, L.F.; Natesan, S.; Chan, R.K.; Christy, R.J.; Chung, K.K. Burn wound healing and treatment: Review and advancements. Crit. Care. 2015, 19, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akova, M. Epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in bloodstream infections. Virulence 2016, 7, 252–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, D.A.; Carter, G.P.; Howden, B.P. Current and emerging topical antibacterials and antiseptics: Agents, action, and resistance patterns. Clin. Microbiol Rev. 2017, 30, 827–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stilwell, G.; Laven, R.A. Comparison of two topical treatments on wound healing 7 days after disbudding of calves using thermocautery. N. Z. Vet. J. 2020, 68, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Velez, R.; Sloand, E. Combating antibiotic resistance, mitigating future threats and ongoing initiatives. Mol. Ecol. 2016, 25, 1886–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ebner, F.; Heller, A.; Rippke, F.; Tausch, I. Topical use of dexpanthenol in skin disorders. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2002, 3, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bayer. Bepanthen Plus 50® Package Leaflet: Information for the User 2020. Available online: https://www.ravimiregister.ee/Data/PIL_ENG/PIL_13305_ENG.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2022).
- Bates-Jensen, B. Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool. 2001. Available online: https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/388243/22.-Bates-Jensen-wound-assessment-tool-BWAT.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2022).
- Stilwell, G.; Lima, M.S.; Broom, D.M. Comparing the effect of three different disbudding methods on behaviour and plasma cortisol of calves. Rev. Port. Ciênc. Vet. 2007, 102, 281–288. [Google Scholar]
- Adcock, S.J.J.; Tucker, C.B. The effect of disbudding age on healing and pain sensitivity in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10361–10373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skarda, R.T. Techniques of local analgesia in ruminants and swine. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 1986, 2, 621–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallerand, A.H.; Polomano, R.C. The relationship of gender to pain. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2000, 1, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adcock, S.J.J.; Vieira, S.K.; Alvarez, L.; Tucker, C.B. Iron and laterality effects on healing of cautery disbudding wounds in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 10163–10172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Groups | Day of Assessment | Days from Disbudding |
---|---|---|
Group 1 (13 animals) | 20 October 2021 | Day of disbudding |
22 October 2021 | Two days | |
25 October 2021 | Five days | |
9 November 2021 | Twenty days | |
19 November 2021 | Thirty days | |
Group 2 (14 animals) | 17 November 2021 | Day of disbudding |
19 November 2021 | Two days | |
22 November 2021 | Five days | |
7 December 2021 | Twenty days | |
17 December 2021 | Thirty days * |
Pt | Time | Bepanthene | Cyclospray | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Edges | 2 days | 3.19 ± 0.39 | 3.34 ± 0.28 | Time effect: F (1.976, 102.1) = 24.15, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 7.40, p = 0.01 * Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 155) = 0.47, p = 0.71 |
5 days | 3.10 ± 0.46 | 3.35 ± 0.48 | ||
20 days | 3.00 ± 0.74 | 3.20 ± 0.58 | ||
30 days | 2.10 ± 0.97 | 2.53 ± 1.05 | ||
Necrotic Tissue | 2 days | 2.38 ± 0.42 | 2.77 ± 0.47 | Time effect: F (2.249, 117.0) = 18.28, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 19.13, p < 0.01 * Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.05, p = 0.98 |
5 days | 2.63 ± 0.48 | 2.98 ± 0.45 | ||
20 days | 2.60 ± 0.41 | 2.97 ± 0.58 | ||
30 days | 1.94 ± 0.74 | 2.25 ± 0.84 | ||
Exudate Type | 2 days | 1.52 ± 0.66 | 1.50 ± 0.85 | Time effect: F (2.429, 126.3) = 3.11, p < 0.04 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.38, p = 0.54 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.3, p = 0.15 |
5 days | 1.48 ± 0.41 | 1.50 ± 0.81 | ||
20 days | 1.77 ± 0.98 | 1.55 ± 0.90 | ||
30 days | 1.26 ± 0.36 | 1.24 ± 0.33 | ||
Exudate Amount | 2 days | 1.30 ± 0.42 | 1.33 ± 0.59 | Time effect: F (2.422, 125.9) = 2.41, p = 0.08 Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.09, p = 0.76 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.63, p = 0.59 |
5 days | 1.22 ± 0.23 | 1.31 ± 0.52 | ||
20 days | 1.50 ± 0.74 | 1.34 ± 0.58 | ||
30 days | 1.20 ± 0.33 | 1.15 ± 0.26 | ||
Skin Colour | 2 days | 2.51 ± 0.37 | 2.80 ± 0.49 | Time effect: F (2.776, 144.4) = 22.61, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 13.75, p = 0.01 * Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 1.53, p = 0.21 |
5 days | 2.61 ± 0.32 | 3.03 ± 0.32 | ||
20 days | 2.60 ± 0.38 | 2.75 ± 0.38 | ||
30 days | 2.13 ± 0.62 | 2.22 ± 0.54 | ||
Granulation Tissue | 2 days | 3.87 ± 0.34 | 3.81 ± 0.31 | Time effect: F (2.288, 119.0) = 52.40, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.11, p = 0.74 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.28, p = 0.84 |
5 days | 3.81 ± 0.35 | 3.83 ± 0.41 | ||
20 days | 3.55 ± 0.64 | 3.66 ± 0.45 | ||
30 days | 2.80 ± 0.77 | 2.86 ± 0.67 | ||
Epithelialization | 2 days | 4.38 ± 0.27 | 4.42 ± 0.33 | Time effect: F (1.457, 75.77) = 38.41, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.91, p = 0.34 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.03, p = 0.99 |
5 days | 4.33 ± 0.35 | 4.45 ± 0.27 | ||
20 days | 4.22 ± 0.55 | 4.29 ± 0.46 | ||
30 days | 3.25 ± 1.11 | 3.34 ± 1.02 |
Pt | Time | Bepanthene® | Spray | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Edges | 2 days | 3.07 ± 0.55 | 3.24 ± 0.35 | Time effect: F (2.147, 111.7) = 18.59, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 1.499, p = 0.23 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.16, p = 0.92 |
5 days | 3.20 ± 0.38 | 3.29 ± 0.41 | ||
20 days | 3.35 ± 1.05 | 3.40 ± 0.93 | ||
30 days | 2.21 ± 1.07 | 2.46 ± 1.20 | ||
Necrotic Tissue | 2 days | 2.31 ± 0.69 | 2.81 ± 0.54 | Time effect: F (2.712, 141.0) = 14.20, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 27.71, p < 0.01 * Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 1.08, p = 0.36 |
5 days | 2.33 ± 0.38 | 3.00 ± 0.57 | ||
20 days | 2.31 ± 0.37 | 2.62 ± 0.58 | ||
30 days | 1.82 ± 0.54 | 2.17 ± 0.87 | ||
Exudate Type | 2 days | 1.01 ± 0.07 | 1.21 ± 0.41 | Time effect: F (1.980, 103.0) = 2.263, p = 0.11 Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.74, p = 0.39 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.87, p = 0.46 |
5 days | 1.03 ± 0.15 | 1.16 ± 0.63 | ||
20 days | 1.34 ± 0.79 | 1.30 ± 0.78 | ||
30 days | 1.20 ± 0.29 | 1.14 ± 0.30 | ||
Exudate Amount | 2 days | 1.00 ± 0.03 | 1.18 ± 0.35 | Time effect: F (2.028, 105.5) = 2.709, p = 0.07 Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 1.916, p = 0.17 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.75, p = 0.52 |
5 days | 1.01 ± 0.07 | 1.10 ± 0.40 | ||
20 days | 1.24 ± 0.57 | 1.24 ± 0.55 | ||
30 days | 1.11 ± 0.16 | 1.11 ± 0.25 | ||
Skin Colour | 2 days | 1.45 ± 0.35 | 1.59 ± 0.46 | Time effect: F (2.810, 146.1) = 1.79, p = 0.15 Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.03, p = 0.86 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 1.4, p = 0.24 |
5 days | 1.50 ± 0.46 | 1.47 ± 0.35 | ||
20 days | 1.70 ± 0.37 | 1.57 ± 0.40 | ||
30 days | 1.51 ± 0.42 | 1.59 ± 0.43 | ||
Granulation Tissue | 2 days | 4.01 ± 0.49 | 3.71 ± 0.42 | Time effect: F (2.595, 179.9) = 30.48, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 208) = 5.729, p = 0.02 * Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 208) = 0.51, p = 0.68 |
5 days | 4.05 ± 0.43 | 3.73 ± 0.45 | ||
20 days | 3.85 ± 0.82 | 3.73 ± 0.61 | ||
30 days | 2.95 ± 0.93 | 2.87 ± 0.61 | ||
Epithelialization | 2 days | 4.18 ± 0.49 | 3.98 ± 0.38 | Time effect: F (2.129, 110.7) = 28.74, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.02, p = 0.89 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 1.14, p = 0.34 |
5 days | 4.01 ± 0.54 | 4.01 ± 0.39 | ||
20 days | 3.91 ± 0.57 | 3.95 ± 0.45 | ||
30 days | 3.07 ± 0.82 | 3.28 ± 0.89 |
Pt | Time | Bepanthene | Spray | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Edges | 2 days | 3.05 ± 0.38 | 3.17 ± 0.35 | Time effect: F (1.902, 131.9) = 29.23, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 208) = 3.72, p = 0.06 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 208) = 0.15, p = 0.93 |
5 days | 3.02 ± 0.36 | 3.22 ± 0.42 | ||
20 days | 2.88 ± 0.50 | 3.06 ± 0.49 | ||
30 days | 2.24 ± 0.77 | 2.31 ± 0.81 | ||
Necrotic Tissue | 2 days | 2.18 ± 0.60 | 2.41 ± 0.45 | Time effect: F (2.553, 132.7) = 11.80, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 8.42, p < 0.01 * Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.52, p = 0.67 |
5 days | 2.07 ± 0.58 | 2.48 ± 0.45 | ||
20 days | 2.08 ± 0.44 | 2.28 ± 0.47 | ||
30 days | 1.68 ± 0.56 | 1.88 ± 0.74 | ||
Exudate Type | 2 days | 1.17 ± 0.33 | 1.20 ± 0.57 | Time effect: F (2.094, 108.9) = 2.161, p = 0.12 Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.65, p = 0.42 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.12, p = 0.95 |
5 days | 1.17 ± 0.36 | 1.31 ± 0.54 | ||
20 days | 1.43 ± 0.83 | 1.45 ± 0.90 | ||
30 days | 1.21 ± 0.31 | 1.28 ± 0.31 | ||
Exudate Amount | 2 days | 1.17 ± 0.21 | 1.23 ± 0.38 | Time effect: F (2.112, 109.8) = 3.05, p < 0.05 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.61, p = 0.44 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.14, p = 0.94 |
5 days | 1.20 ± 0.22 | 1.28 ± 0.29 | ||
20 days | 1.42 ± 0.62 | 1.41 ± 0.51 | ||
30 days | 1.25 ± 0.33 | 1.27 ± 0.31 | ||
Skin Colour | 2 days | 2.17 ± 0.35 | 2.29 ± 0.44 | Time effect: F (2.692, 186.7) = 22.73, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 208) = 0.02, p < 0.01 * Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 208) = 0.31, p = 0.82 |
5 days | 2.10 ± 0.38 | 2.38 ± 0.40 | ||
20 days | 2.06 ± 0.53 | 2.25 ± 0.57 | ||
30 days | 1.54 ± 0.44 | 1.70 ± 0.48 | ||
Granulation Tissue | 2 days | 3.19 ± 0.39 | 3.00 ± 0.37 | Time effect: F (2.761, 143.6) = 13.59, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 1.23, p = 0.27 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.36, p = 0.78 |
5 days | 3.10 ± 0.44 | 3.04 ± 0.43 | ||
20 days | 3.11 ± 0.61 | 3.05 ± 0.49 | ||
30 days | 2.59 ± 0.59 | 2.60 ± 0.53 | ||
Epithelialization | 2 days | 3.91 ± 0.47 | 3.83 ± 0.49 | Time effect: F (2.479, 128.9) = 14.52, p < 0.01 * Treatment effect: F (1, 52) = 0.15, p = 0.69 Interaction time–treatment: F (3, 156) = 0.44, p = 0.73 |
5 days | 3.91 ± 0.57 | 3.80 ± 0.48 | ||
20 days | 3.86 ± 0.70 | 3.77 ± 0.58 | ||
30 days | 3.30 ± 0.88 | 3.38 ± 0.72 |
Parameters | Added Bepanthene Values | Added Spray Values | p Value |
---|---|---|---|
Edges | 308.9 ± 63.87 | 327.8 ± 66.49 | <0.0001 |
Necrotic Tissue Type | 238.9 ± 67.59 | 276.5 ± 97.18 | <0.0064 |
Exudate Type | 142.5 ± 32.67 | 143.8 ± 31.86 | 0.33 |
Exudate Amount | 132.2 ± 26.21 | 134.7 ± 30.59 | 0.156 |
Skin Colour Surrounding Wound | 220.6 ± 79.77 | 235.8 ± 96.33 | 0.12 |
Granulation Tissue | 368.4 ± 114.9 | 361.2 ± 107.2 | 0.84 |
Epithelialization | 418.6 ± 73.56 | 420.9 ± 62.90 | 0.77 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Martins, G.; Stilwell, G. Comparative Study of the Healing Process of Disbudding Wounds in Calves Using Bepanthene® or an Antibiotic Spray. Animals 2024, 14, 2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172526
Martins G, Stilwell G. Comparative Study of the Healing Process of Disbudding Wounds in Calves Using Bepanthene® or an Antibiotic Spray. Animals. 2024; 14(17):2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172526
Chicago/Turabian StyleMartins, Gabriela, and George Stilwell. 2024. "Comparative Study of the Healing Process of Disbudding Wounds in Calves Using Bepanthene® or an Antibiotic Spray" Animals 14, no. 17: 2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172526