Comparison of the efficacy of four drug combinations for immobilization of wild pigs

Abstract

Field immobilization of native or invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) is challenging. Drug combinations commonly used often result in unsatisfactory immobilization, poor recovery, and adverse side effects, leading to unsafe handling conditions for both animals and humans. We compared four chemical immobilization combinations, medetomidine-midazolam-butorphanol (MMB), butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine (BAM™), nalbuphine-medetomidine-azaperone (NalMed-A), and tiletaminezolazepam-xylazine (TZX), to determine which drug combinations might provide better chemical immobilization of wild pigs. We achieved adequate immobilization with no post-recovery morbidity with MMB. Adequate immobilization was achieved with BAM™; however, we observed post-recovery morbidity. Both MMB and BAM™ produced more optimal results relative to body temperature, recovery, and post-recovery morbidity and mortality compared to TZX. Adequate immobilization was not achieved with NalMed-A. Of the four drug combinations examined, we conclude that MMB performed most optimally for immobilization and recovery of wild pigs.

Effects of Inactivated Mycobacterium bovis Vaccination on Molokai-Origin Wild Pigs Experimentally Infected with Virulent M. bovis

“…Fifteen weeks post-prime, all pigs were anesthetized with intramuscular (IM) midazolam, medetomidine, and butorphanol (Wildlife Pharmaceuticals Inc., Windsor, Colorado, USA) at 0.03, 0.06, and 0.03 mg/kg, respectively, for transportation to the ADL [21]. Animals were transported 0.2 km in a stock trailer and placed into two rooms in the same mixed groups as at the WRF.…”

“…Twelve weeks post-challenge, pigs were anesthetized with IM butorphanol, azaperone, and medetomidine (BAM TM , Wildlife Pharmaceuticals Inc.) at 0.027 mL/kg (0.73 mg/kg butorphanol, 0.24 mg/kg azaperone, and 0.27 mg/kg medetomidine), and euthanized via captive bolt [21]. The animals were necropsied and the following 23 tissues collected for gross examination, histopathology, and culture: lung (caudal (2), cranial (2), cardiac (2), and accessory lobe (1)), liver, spleen, kidney, mandibular lymph nodes (LN, 2), parotid LN (2), retropharyngeal LN (2), superficial cervical LN (2), tracheobronchial LN, hepatic LN, mesenteric LN, ileocecal LN, and tonsil.…”

Improved Strategies for Handling Entire Sounders of Wild Pigs

“…Handling included weighing, determining sex, collecting tissue for genetic analyses, and recording general physical body condition and characteristics. We immobilized pigs >40 kg with either a mixture of tiletamine‐zolazepam (Telazol®, Zoetis, Parsippany‐Troy Hills, NJ, USA) and xylazine (AnaSed®, Lloyd Inc, Shenandoah, Iowa, USA; Sweitzer et al 1997 b ), a combination of medetomidine, midazolam, and butorphanol, or pre‐mixed butorphanol, azaperone, and medetomidine (MMB and BAM™; Wildlife Pharmaceuticals Inc., Windsor, Colorado, USA; Ellis et al 2019) via intramuscular injection using a pole syringe (jabstick; Complete Automatic Tranquilizing & Medication System, Dan‐Inject ApS, Denmark). Immediately following injection, we either released the pigs into holding pens or allowed them to succumb to the immobilant within a stall.…”

“…1). Once all smaller pigs were processed and the larger chemically immobilized pigs sufficiently recovered (alert, ambulatory), following intramuscular injection of recommended reversal agents by hand injection (Ellis et al 2019) we moved the smaller pigs into the trap with the larger pigs and released the intact sounder simultaneously.…”

“…Chemical immobilization and physical restraint are two handling strategies used for outfitting pigs with monitoring devices (Sweitzer et al 1997 b , Sparklin et al 2009, Wyckoff et al 2009, Lavelle et al 2018, Ellis et al 2019). Simple physical restraint may be more cost effective, but requires increased physical effort, can be dangerous to handlers, and can result in physical injury to wild pigs (e.g., trauma, hyperthermia, capture myopathy).…”