Cargando…

Evaluation of Two Compressed Air Foam Systems for Culling Caged Layer Hens

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Control of avian influenza and similar diseases in commercial poultry operations is challenging; the six major steps are surveillance, biosecurity, quarantine, depopulation, disposal, and cleaning and disinfection. Depopulation is used to cull animals that are terminally ill and to r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benson, Eric R., Weiher, Jaclyn A., Alphin, Robert L., Farnell, Morgan, Hougentogler, Daniel P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5981272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29695072
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8050061
_version_ 1783328012948733952
author Benson, Eric R.
Weiher, Jaclyn A.
Alphin, Robert L.
Farnell, Morgan
Hougentogler, Daniel P.
author_facet Benson, Eric R.
Weiher, Jaclyn A.
Alphin, Robert L.
Farnell, Morgan
Hougentogler, Daniel P.
author_sort Benson, Eric R.
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: Control of avian influenza and similar diseases in commercial poultry operations is challenging; the six major steps are surveillance, biosecurity, quarantine, depopulation, disposal, and cleaning and disinfection. Depopulation is used to cull animals that are terminally ill and to reduce the number of animals that can spread an untreatable disease. Water-based foam depopulation was used effectively during the 2014–2015 highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak in the United States. Water-based foam, however, cannot be used effectively in caged poultry operations. Compressed air foam systems were initially developed for structural fire-fighting and, with modifications, can provide the conditions required to effectively penetrate a poultry cage and provide sufficient residence time for depopulation. In this experiment, compressed air foam was used to depopulate caged layer hens. Compressed air foam resulted in faster unconsciousness than carbon dioxide gassing. The experiment demonstrated that compressed air foam systems have promise for depopulating birds raised in cages. ABSTRACT: Outbreaks of avian influenza (AI) and other highly contagious poultry diseases continue to be a concern for those involved in the poultry industry. In the situation of an outbreak, emergency depopulation of the birds involved is necessary. In this project, two compressed air foam systems (CAFS) were evaluated for mass emergency depopulation of layer hens in a manure belt equipped cage system. In both experiments, a randomized block design was used with multiple commercial layer hens treated with one of three randomly selected depopulation methods: CAFS, CAFS with CO(2) gas, and CO(2) gas. In Experiment 1, a Rowe manufactured CAFS was used, a selection of birds were instrumented, and the time to unconsciousness, brain death, altered terminal cardiac activity and motion cessation were recorded. CAFS with and without CO(2) was faster to unconsciousness, however, the other parameters were not statistically significant. In Experiment 2, a custom Hale based CAFS was used to evaluate the impact of bird age, a selection of birds were instrumented, and the time to motion cessation was recorded. The difference in time to cessation of movement between pullets and spent hens using CAFS was not statistically significant. Both CAFS depopulate caged layers, however, there was no benefit to including CO(2).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5981272
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59812722018-06-01 Evaluation of Two Compressed Air Foam Systems for Culling Caged Layer Hens Benson, Eric R. Weiher, Jaclyn A. Alphin, Robert L. Farnell, Morgan Hougentogler, Daniel P. Animals (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: Control of avian influenza and similar diseases in commercial poultry operations is challenging; the six major steps are surveillance, biosecurity, quarantine, depopulation, disposal, and cleaning and disinfection. Depopulation is used to cull animals that are terminally ill and to reduce the number of animals that can spread an untreatable disease. Water-based foam depopulation was used effectively during the 2014–2015 highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak in the United States. Water-based foam, however, cannot be used effectively in caged poultry operations. Compressed air foam systems were initially developed for structural fire-fighting and, with modifications, can provide the conditions required to effectively penetrate a poultry cage and provide sufficient residence time for depopulation. In this experiment, compressed air foam was used to depopulate caged layer hens. Compressed air foam resulted in faster unconsciousness than carbon dioxide gassing. The experiment demonstrated that compressed air foam systems have promise for depopulating birds raised in cages. ABSTRACT: Outbreaks of avian influenza (AI) and other highly contagious poultry diseases continue to be a concern for those involved in the poultry industry. In the situation of an outbreak, emergency depopulation of the birds involved is necessary. In this project, two compressed air foam systems (CAFS) were evaluated for mass emergency depopulation of layer hens in a manure belt equipped cage system. In both experiments, a randomized block design was used with multiple commercial layer hens treated with one of three randomly selected depopulation methods: CAFS, CAFS with CO(2) gas, and CO(2) gas. In Experiment 1, a Rowe manufactured CAFS was used, a selection of birds were instrumented, and the time to unconsciousness, brain death, altered terminal cardiac activity and motion cessation were recorded. CAFS with and without CO(2) was faster to unconsciousness, however, the other parameters were not statistically significant. In Experiment 2, a custom Hale based CAFS was used to evaluate the impact of bird age, a selection of birds were instrumented, and the time to motion cessation was recorded. The difference in time to cessation of movement between pullets and spent hens using CAFS was not statistically significant. Both CAFS depopulate caged layers, however, there was no benefit to including CO(2). MDPI 2018-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5981272/ /pubmed/29695072 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8050061 Text en © 2018 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Benson, Eric R.
Weiher, Jaclyn A.
Alphin, Robert L.
Farnell, Morgan
Hougentogler, Daniel P.
Evaluation of Two Compressed Air Foam Systems for Culling Caged Layer Hens
title Evaluation of Two Compressed Air Foam Systems for Culling Caged Layer Hens
title_full Evaluation of Two Compressed Air Foam Systems for Culling Caged Layer Hens
title_fullStr Evaluation of Two Compressed Air Foam Systems for Culling Caged Layer Hens
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Two Compressed Air Foam Systems for Culling Caged Layer Hens
title_short Evaluation of Two Compressed Air Foam Systems for Culling Caged Layer Hens
title_sort evaluation of two compressed air foam systems for culling caged layer hens
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5981272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29695072
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8050061
work_keys_str_mv AT bensonericr evaluationoftwocompressedairfoamsystemsforcullingcagedlayerhens
AT weiherjaclyna evaluationoftwocompressedairfoamsystemsforcullingcagedlayerhens
AT alphinrobertl evaluationoftwocompressedairfoamsystemsforcullingcagedlayerhens
AT farnellmorgan evaluationoftwocompressedairfoamsystemsforcullingcagedlayerhens
AT hougentoglerdanielp evaluationoftwocompressedairfoamsystemsforcullingcagedlayerhens