Comparison of Butorphanol-Azaperone-Medetomidine and Nalbuphine-Medetomidine-Azaperone in Free-Ranging Elk (Cervus canadensis) in Pennsylvania, USA.

IF 1.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Avery M Corondi, Justin D Brown, Jeremiah E Banfield, W David Walter
{"title":"Comparison of Butorphanol-Azaperone-Medetomidine and Nalbuphine-Medetomidine-Azaperone in Free-Ranging Elk (Cervus canadensis) in Pennsylvania, USA.","authors":"Avery M Corondi, Justin D Brown, Jeremiah E Banfield, W David Walter","doi":"10.7589/JWD-D-23-00127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chemical immobilization is commonly used to capture and handle free-ranging elk (Cervus canadensis). Butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine (BAM) and nalbuphine-medetomidine-azaperone (NalMed-A) are compounded drug combinations that are lower-scheduled in the US than drugs historically used for elk immobilizations. We compared BAM and NalMed-A for immobilization of free-ranging elk using free-darting and Clover trapping. From January 2020 to April 2022, 196 female elk were immobilized in Pennsylvania, USA. We report vital rates, induction and recovery times, and the need for supplemental drugs. We built mixed-effects logistic regression models to describe differences between drug choice based on induction and recovery times, capture method, and individual variation. Several models were competing, including our null model, which suggests that BAM and NalMed-A are comparable based on the parameters we evaluated. Supplemental drug administration was more frequently needed in NalMed-A immobilizations (21.2%) than in BAM immobilizations (9.0%). Overall, we found minor differences between BAM and NalMed-A, both of which appear to be effective for immobilizing elk in both free-darting and Clover trapping scenarios when performing moderately invasive, minimally painful procedures on free-ranging elk.</p>","PeriodicalId":17602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-23-00127","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chemical immobilization is commonly used to capture and handle free-ranging elk (Cervus canadensis). Butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine (BAM) and nalbuphine-medetomidine-azaperone (NalMed-A) are compounded drug combinations that are lower-scheduled in the US than drugs historically used for elk immobilizations. We compared BAM and NalMed-A for immobilization of free-ranging elk using free-darting and Clover trapping. From January 2020 to April 2022, 196 female elk were immobilized in Pennsylvania, USA. We report vital rates, induction and recovery times, and the need for supplemental drugs. We built mixed-effects logistic regression models to describe differences between drug choice based on induction and recovery times, capture method, and individual variation. Several models were competing, including our null model, which suggests that BAM and NalMed-A are comparable based on the parameters we evaluated. Supplemental drug administration was more frequently needed in NalMed-A immobilizations (21.2%) than in BAM immobilizations (9.0%). Overall, we found minor differences between BAM and NalMed-A, both of which appear to be effective for immobilizing elk in both free-darting and Clover trapping scenarios when performing moderately invasive, minimally painful procedures on free-ranging elk.

美国宾夕法尼亚州自由狩猎麋鹿(Cervus canadensis)中布托啡诺-阿扎哌隆-美托咪定和纳布啡-美托咪定-阿扎哌隆的比较。
化学固定法通常用于捕捉和处理散养麋鹿(Cervus canadensis)。布托啡诺-阿扎哌隆-美托咪定(BAM)和纳布啡-美托咪定-阿扎哌隆(NalMed-A)是复方药物组合,在美国的列表中低于历史上用于麋鹿固定的药物。我们比较了 BAM 和 NalMed-A 在使用自由飞镖和三叶草诱捕法固定放养麋鹿方面的效果。从 2020 年 1 月到 2022 年 4 月,我们在美国宾夕法尼亚州固定了 196 头雌性麋鹿。我们报告了麋鹿的存活率、诱导和恢复时间以及对补充药物的需求。我们建立了混合效应逻辑回归模型来描述基于诱导和恢复时间、捕获方法和个体差异的药物选择差异。有几个模型具有竞争性,包括我们的空模型,它表明根据我们评估的参数,BAM 和 NalMed-A 具有可比性。NalMed-A 固定法(21.2%)比 BAM 固定法(9.0%)更需要补充药物。总体而言,我们发现 BAM 和 NalMed-A 的差异不大,在对自由放养的麋鹿进行中度侵入性、微痛手术时,这两种方法似乎都能有效固定自由放养和三叶草诱捕情况下的麋鹿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Wildlife Diseases
Journal of Wildlife Diseases 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
213
审稿时长
6-16 weeks
期刊介绍: The JWD publishes reports of wildlife disease investigations, research papers, brief research notes, case and epizootic reports, review articles, and book reviews. The JWD publishes the results of original research and observations dealing with all aspects of infectious, parasitic, toxic, nutritional, physiologic, developmental and neoplastic diseases, environmental contamination, and other factors impinging on the health and survival of free-living or occasionally captive populations of wild animals, including fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Papers on zoonoses involving wildlife and on chemical immobilization of wild animals are also published. Manuscripts dealing with surveys and case reports may be published in the Journal provided that they contain significant new information or have significance for better understanding health and disease in wild populations. Authors are encouraged to address the wildlife management implications of their studies, where appropriate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信