Comparison of Water-Based Foam and Inert-Gas Mass Emergency Depopulation Methods

被引:18
作者
Alphin, R. L. [1 ]
Rankin, M. K. [1 ]
Johnson, K. J. [1 ]
Benson, E. R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Delaware, Dept Anim & Food Sci, Avian Biosci Ctr, CC Allen Biotechnol Lab 107, Newark, DE 19716 USA
[2] Univ Delaware, Dept Bioresource Engn, Newark, DE 19716 USA
关键词
broiler chicken; mass euthanasia; mass culling; stamping out; depopulation; foam; physiological response; EEG; DISEASE-CONTROL PURPOSES; BROILER-CHICKENS; ON-FARM; BEHAVIORAL-RESPONSES; AVIAN INFLUENZA; POULTRY OPERATIONS; CARBON-DIOXIDE; H5N1; OUTBREAK; MIXTURES; EXPOSURE;
D O I
10.1637/8764-033109-Reg.1
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
Current control strategies for avian influenza (AI) and other highly contagious poultry diseases include surveillance, quarantine, depopulation, disposal, and decontamination. Selection of the best method of emergency mass depopulation involves maximizing human health and safety while minimizing disease spread and animal welfare concerns. Proper selection must ensure that the method is compatible with the species, age, housing type, and disposal options. No one single method is appropriate for all situations. Gassing is one of the accepted methods for cuthanatizing poultry. Whole-house, partial-house, or containerized gassing procedures are currently used. The MC of water-based foam was developed for emergency mass depopulation and was conditionally approved by the United States Department of Agriculture in 2006. Research has been done comparing these different methods; parameters such as time to brain death, consistency of time to brain death, and pretreatment and posttreatment corticosterone stress levels were considered. In Europe, the use of foam with carbon dioxide is preferred over conventional water-based foam. A recent experiment comparing CO2 gas, foam with CO2 gas, and foam without CO2 gas depopulation methods was conducted with the use of electmencephalometry results. Foam was as consistent as CO2 gassing and more consistent than argon-CO2 gassing. There were no statistically significant differences between foam methods.
引用
收藏
页码:757 / 762
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
*AM VET MED ASS, 2007, J AM VET MED ASSOC, V230, P168
[2]  
American Veterinary Medical Association [AVMA], 2007, AVMA GUID CUTH
[3]  
[Anonymous], GUID CAR US AGR AN A
[4]   Multifocal avian influenza (H5N1) outbreak [J].
Balicer, Ran D. ;
Reznikovich, Shmuel ;
Berman, Elyakum ;
Pirak, Michael ;
Inbar, Amnon ;
Pokamunski, Shimon ;
Grotto, Itamar .
EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2007, 13 (10) :1601-1603
[5]   Foam-based mass emergency depopulation of floor-reared meat-type poultry operations [J].
Benson, E. ;
Malone, G. W. ;
Alphin, R. L. ;
Dawson, M. D. ;
Pope, C. R. ;
Van Wicklen, G. L. .
POULTRY SCIENCE, 2007, 86 (02) :219-224
[6]   Use of water-based foam to depopulate ducks and other species [J].
Benson, E. R. ;
Alphin, R. L. ;
Dawson, M. D. ;
Malone, G. W. .
POULTRY SCIENCE, 2009, 88 (05) :904-910
[7]   The challenge of controlling notifiable avian influenza by means of vaccination [J].
Capua, Ilaria ;
Marangon, Stefano .
AVIAN DISEASES, 2007, 51 (01) :317-322
[8]  
Dawson MD, 2006, APPL ENG AGRIC, V22, P787
[9]  
Gerritzen MA, 2008, ANIM WELFARE, V17, P285
[10]   Slaughter of poultry during the epidemic of avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2003 [J].
Gerritzen, M. A. ;
Lambooij, E. ;
Stegeman, J. A. ;
Spruijt, B. M. .
VETERINARY RECORD, 2006, 159 (02) :39-42