Comparison of the efficacy of four drug combinations for immobilization of wild pigs

被引:17
作者
Ellis, Christine K. [1 ]
Wehtje, Morgan E. [2 ,3 ]
Wolfe, Lisa L. [4 ]
Wolff, Peregrine L. [5 ]
Hilton, Clayton D. [6 ]
Fisher, Mark C. [4 ]
Green, Shari [4 ]
Glow, Michael P. [1 ]
Halseth, Joeseph M. [1 ]
Lavelle, Michael J. [1 ]
Snow, Nathan P. [1 ]
VanNatta, Eric H. [1 ]
Rhyan, Jack C. [7 ]
VerCauteren, Kurt C. [1 ]
Lance, William R. [8 ]
Nol, Pauline [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] USDA APHIS, Wildlife Serv, Natl Wildlife Res Ctr, Ft Collins, CO 80521 USA
[2] USDA APHIS, Vet Serv, Ctr Epidemiol, Ft Collins, CO USA
[3] USDA APHIS, Vet Serv, Ctr Anim Hlth, Ft Collins, CO USA
[4] Colorado Div Pk & Wildlife, Ft Collins, CO USA
[5] Nevada Dept Wildlife, Reno, NV USA
[6] Texas A&M Univ, Cesar Kleberg Wildlife Res Inst, Kingsville, TX USA
[7] Wildlife Pharmaceut, Windsor, CO USA
[8] USDA APHIS, Vet Serv, Natl Vet Serv Lab, Ft Collins, CO USA
关键词
Wild pig; Chemical immobilization; Medetomidine; Midazolam; Butorphanol; BUTORPHANOL-AZAPERONE-MEDETOMIDINE; CHEMICAL RESTRAINT; NASAL OXYGEN; FERAL SWINE; SUS-SCROFA; XYLAZINE; TILETAMINE/ZOLAZEPAM; NALBUPHINE; TELAZOL(R); HYPOXEMIA;
D O I
10.1007/s10344-019-1317-z
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Field immobilization of native or invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) is challenging. Drug combinations commonly used often result in unsatisfactory immobilization, poor recovery, and adverse side effects, leading to unsafe handling conditions for both animals and humans. We compared four chemical immobilization combinations, medetomidine-midazolam-butorphanol (MMB), butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine (BAM (TM)), nalbuphine-medetomidine-azaperone (NalMed-A), and tiletamine-zolazepam-xylazine (TZX), to determine which drug combinations might provide better chemical immobilization of wild pigs. We achieved adequate immobilization with no post-recovery morbidity with MMB. Adequate immobilization was achieved with BAM (TM); however, we observed post-recovery morbidity. Both MMB and BAM (TM) produced more optimal results relative to body temperature, recovery, and post-recovery morbidity and mortality compared to TZX. Adequate immobilization was not achieved with NalMed-A. Of the four drug combinations examined, we conclude that MMB performed most optimally for immobilization and recovery of wild pigs.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
ADAMSON DT, 1996, ANESTHESIA SECRETS, P6
[2]   Trap-effectiveness and response to tiletamine-zolazepam and medetomidine anaesthesia in Eurasian wild boar captured with cage and corral traps [J].
Angel Barasona, Jose ;
Ramon Lopez-Olvera, Jorge ;
Beltran-Beck, Beatriz ;
Gortazar, Christian ;
Vicente, Joaquin .
BMC VETERINARY RESEARCH, 2013, 9
[3]  
Carpenter JW, 2013, J EXOT PET MED, V22, P308
[4]   MEDETOMIDINE, A NEW SEDATIVE-ANALGESIC FOR USE IN THE DOG AND ITS REVERSAL WITH ATIPAMEZOLE [J].
CLARKE, KW ;
ENGLAND, GCW .
JOURNAL OF SMALL ANIMAL PRACTICE, 1989, 30 (06) :343-348
[5]  
Enqvist K., 2000, MEDETOMIDINE TILETAM
[6]   Efficiency and safety of xylazine and tiletamine/zolazepam to immobilize captured wild boars (Sus scrofa L. 1758):: analysis of field results [J].
Fenati, Massimo ;
Monaco, Andrea ;
Guberti, Vittorio .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH, 2008, 54 (02) :269-274
[7]   Immobilization of collared peccaries (Tayassu tajacu) and feral hogs (Sus scrofa) with Telazol(R) and xylazine [J].
Gabor, TM ;
Hellgren, EC ;
Silvy, NJ .
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES, 1997, 33 (01) :161-164
[8]  
Gianotti GC, 2010, ACTA SCI VET, V38, P133
[9]   The sedative effects of low-dose medetomidine and butorphanol alone and in combination intravenously in dogs [J].
Girard, Nicolas M. ;
Leece, Elizabeth A. ;
Cardwell, J. M. ;
Adams, Vicki J. ;
Brearley, Jacqueline C. .
VETERINARY ANAESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2010, 37 (01) :1-6
[10]  
Hannon JP, 1989, LAIR379