Avery M Corondi, Justin D Brown, Jeremiah E Banfield, W David Walter
{"title":"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。","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":" ","pages":"950-955"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"950-955\"},\"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}","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}
Comparison of Butorphanol-Azaperone-Medetomidine and Nalbuphine-Medetomidine-Azaperone in Free-Ranging Elk (Cervus canadensis) in Pennsylvania, USA.
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.
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.