Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows

The U.S. swine industry is currently inadequately prepared to counteract the increasing threat of high-consequence diseases. Although approved and preferred depopulation guidelines exist, ventilation shutdown (VSD+) is currently the only method being deployed during a state of emergency to depopulat...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Joshua N. Lorbach, Magnus R. Campler, Brad Youngblood, Morgan B. Farnell, Tariku J. Beyene, Justin Kieffer, Steven J. Moeller, Andréia G. Arruda, Andrew S. Bowman
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	MDPI AG 2021
Materias:	swine depopulation aspirated foam disease Veterinary medicine SF600-1100 Zoology QL1-991
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/3a2762703b154944aa2581e2388f5803
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:3a2762703b154944aa2581e2388f5803
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:3a2762703b154944aa2581e2388f58032021-11-25T16:18:26ZComparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows10.3390/ani111131792076-2615https://doaj.org/article/3a2762703b154944aa2581e2388f58032021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/11/3179https://doaj.org/toc/2076-2615The U.S. swine industry is currently inadequately prepared to counteract the increasing threat of high-consequence diseases. Although approved and preferred depopulation guidelines exist, ventilation shutdown (VSD+) is currently the only method being deployed during a state of emergency to depopulate large swine populations. However, the permitted use of VSD+ during constrained circumstances has been criticized due to raised swine welfare concerns. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide gas (CO<sub>2</sub>), nitrogen gas (N<sub>2</sub>), compressed air foam (CAF), compressed nitrogen foam (CAF-N<sub>2</sub>) and aspirated foam (AF) during a 15-min dwell time on adult swine in an emergency depopulation situation. A small-scale trial using 12 sows per depopulation method showed the highest efficiency to induce cessation of movement for AF and CO<sub>2</sub> (186.0 ± 48 vs. 202.0 ± 41, s ± SD). The ease of implementation and safety favored AF for further investigation. A large-scale field study using AF to depopulate 134 sows in modified rendering trailers showed a mean fill time of 103.8 s (SD: 5.0 s) and cessation of movement of 128.0 s (SD: 18.6 s) post filling. All sows were confirmed dead post-treatment for both trials. The implementation of AF in modified rendering trailers may allow for a safe and reliable method that allows for the expedient and mobile depopulation of both small and large numbers of sows during an emergency.Joshua N. LorbachMagnus R. CamplerBrad YoungbloodMorgan B. FarnellTariku J. BeyeneJustin KiefferSteven J. MoellerAndréia G. ArrudaAndrew S. BowmanMDPI AGarticleswinedepopulationaspirated foamdiseaseVeterinary medicineSF600-1100ZoologyQL1-991ENAnimals, Vol 11, Iss 3179, p 3179 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	swine depopulation aspirated foam disease Veterinary medicine SF600-1100 Zoology QL1-991
spellingShingle	swine depopulation aspirated foam disease Veterinary medicine SF600-1100 Zoology QL1-991 Joshua N. Lorbach Magnus R. Campler Brad Youngblood Morgan B. Farnell Tariku J. Beyene Justin Kieffer Steven J. Moeller Andréia G. Arruda Andrew S. Bowman Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows
description	The U.S. swine industry is currently inadequately prepared to counteract the increasing threat of high-consequence diseases. Although approved and preferred depopulation guidelines exist, ventilation shutdown (VSD+) is currently the only method being deployed during a state of emergency to depopulate large swine populations. However, the permitted use of VSD+ during constrained circumstances has been criticized due to raised swine welfare concerns. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide gas (CO<sub>2</sub>), nitrogen gas (N<sub>2</sub>), compressed air foam (CAF), compressed nitrogen foam (CAF-N<sub>2</sub>) and aspirated foam (AF) during a 15-min dwell time on adult swine in an emergency depopulation situation. A small-scale trial using 12 sows per depopulation method showed the highest efficiency to induce cessation of movement for AF and CO<sub>2</sub> (186.0 ± 48 vs. 202.0 ± 41, s ± SD). The ease of implementation and safety favored AF for further investigation. A large-scale field study using AF to depopulate 134 sows in modified rendering trailers showed a mean fill time of 103.8 s (SD: 5.0 s) and cessation of movement of 128.0 s (SD: 18.6 s) post filling. All sows were confirmed dead post-treatment for both trials. The implementation of AF in modified rendering trailers may allow for a safe and reliable method that allows for the expedient and mobile depopulation of both small and large numbers of sows during an emergency.
format	article
author	Joshua N. Lorbach Magnus R. Campler Brad Youngblood Morgan B. Farnell Tariku J. Beyene Justin Kieffer Steven J. Moeller Andréia G. Arruda Andrew S. Bowman
author_facet	Joshua N. Lorbach Magnus R. Campler Brad Youngblood Morgan B. Farnell Tariku J. Beyene Justin Kieffer Steven J. Moeller Andréia G. Arruda Andrew S. Bowman
author_sort	Joshua N. Lorbach
title	Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows
title_short	Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows
title_full	Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows
title_fullStr	Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows
title_sort	comparison of gaseous and water-based medium-expansion foam depopulation methods in cull sows
publisher	MDPI AG
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/3a2762703b154944aa2581e2388f5803
work_keys_str_mv	AT joshuanlorbach comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows AT magnusrcampler comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows AT bradyoungblood comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows AT morganbfarnell comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows AT tarikujbeyene comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows AT justinkieffer comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows AT stevenjmoeller comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows AT andreiagarruda comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows AT andrewsbowman comparisonofgaseousandwaterbasedmediumexpansionfoamdepopulationmethodsincullsows
_version_	1718413249757577216

Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows

Ejemplares similares