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

Benson, E. R.; Weiher, Jaclyn A; Alphin, R. L.; Farnell, Morgan B.; Hougentogler, D. P.

doi:10.3390/ani8050061

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Potential problems with gas-based methods include its sourcing, delivery and storage, vaporization rate and risk of operator exposure both to the gas itself and as a potential pressurized equipment malfunction [31][32][33]. In contrast, the results of the present studies indicate that water-based foam alone may be an acceptable alternative for large-scale depopulation in swine due to its relative ease of use, minimal risks to personnel, use of less volume when compared to inert gas implementation and the established use in poultry [23,[33][34][35][36]. Without the addition of gas(es) to foam, depopulation sites need not be equipped with gas storage tanks or vaporizers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

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

Lorbach

Campler

Youngblood

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (CO2), nitrogen gas (N2), compressed air foam (CAF), compressed nitrogen foam (CAF-N2) 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 CO2 (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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

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

Lorbach

Campler

Youngblood

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From a welfare point of view, time to onset of insensibility is critical [39], but the use of a minimal anesthesia model in EEG studies is valid if there are welfare concerns [38, 40, 41]. Given the unknown outcome of the KED devices, the turkeys were euthanized under light isoflurane anesthesia in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electroencephalographic, physiologic and behavioural responses during cervical dislocation euthanasia in turkeys

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a critical need to develop appropriate on-farm euthanasia methods for poultry species. Euthanasia methods should affect the brain first causing insensibility, followed by cardiorespiratory arrest. Neck or cervical dislocation methods, either manual (CD) or mechanical (MCD), are reported to cause a prolonged time to loss of sensibility and death with inconsistent results upon application, especially MCD methods. However, there is limited information on cervical dislocation in turkeys. The overall objective of this study was to assess the welfare implications of CD and a newly developed MCD device for euthanasia of cull turkeys in comparison with intravenous (IV) pentobarbital sodium (1 mL/4.5 kg), the gold standard euthanasia method. Time to death using electroencephalographic (EEG) and behavioural responses were monitored in eight and eighteen week-old turkeys for five minutes after each euthanasia method application. Spectral analyses of EEG responses and onset of isoelectric EEGs were compared to baseline EEG recordings of birds under anesthesia and behavioural responses were studied among euthanasia treatments. A significant decrease in brain activity frequencies analysis and isoelectric EEG were recorded as time of brain death. Results All turkeys euthanized with IV pentobarbital sodium presented a rapid and irreversible decrease in the EEG activity at approximately 30s post-injection with minimal behavioural responses. CD and MCD methods caused EEG responses consistent with brain death at approximately 120 s and 300 s, respectively. Additionally, isoelectric EEGs resulted in all pentobarbital sodium and CD groups, but only in 54 and 88% of the eight and eighteen week-old turkeys in the MCD groups, respectively. There were few clear patterns of behavioural responses after CD and MCD application. However, cessation of body movement and time to isoelectric EEG after CD application were positively correlated. Conclusions Use of CD and MCD resulted in a prolonged time to death in both age groups of turkeys. MCD application presents a number of welfare risks based on electroencephalographic and behavioural findings. Intravenous pentobarbital sodium induced rapid brain death, but possesses several on-farm limitations. To develop improvements in cervical dislocation methods, further investigations into combined or alternative methods are required to reduce the prolonged time to insensibility and death. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1885-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…69 The use of gas-infused expansion foams are also being used and researched. 70,71,72 However these foams really still result in asphyxiation. H2S might be useful in these types of situations.…”

Section: Animal Euthanasiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Unreactive N2 (Nitrogen gas) or the Reactive Toxic but Potent Anesthetic H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide gas) for More Humane Prisoner Executions and Animal Euthanasia? More Lessons, and Questions, from Anesthesia

DUNCAN

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On January 25, 2024 convicted murderer Kenneth Eugene Smith was executed in the US State of Alabama by N2-induced hypoxia, raising serious questions about this new method. The shortcomings of N2 (nitrogen gas) in this event are discussed. H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide gas) which, although very toxic, has been shown to be a very potent volatile anesthetic (VA). The effects of these two gases on loss of consciousness, the hypoxic ventilatory response, TASK-1/3 channels and how PaO2 fits in are explored. Huge numbers of animals are euthanized yearly, sometimes also using N2-induced hypoxia, and more rapid humane methods could be beneficial. How these studies reflect on the January 25, 2024 events is discussed.H2S potent anesthetic properties and the ability cause very rapid loss of consciousness and death presents itself as a possible far more humane method for execution and, in many cases, animal euthanasia.These technical discussions are not directed towards the philosophical debates about whether capital punishment is or is not just.

show abstract

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

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

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

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

Electroencephalographic, physiologic and behavioural responses during cervical dislocation euthanasia in turkeys

Unreactive N2 (Nitrogen gas) or the Reactive Toxic but Potent Anesthetic H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide gas) for More Humane Prisoner Executions and Animal Euthanasia? More Lessons, and Questions, from Anesthesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About