• 1. National Audit Office Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Foot and mouth disease: applying the lessons. 2005. Available at: www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2005/02/0405184.pdf. Accessed Oct 23, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Pendell DL, Leatherman JC, Schroeder TC, et al. The economic impacts of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak: a regional analysis. J Agric Appl Econ 2007; 39: 1933.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Ward MP, Highfield LD, Vongseng P, et al. Simulation of foot-and-mouth disease spread within an integrated livestock system in Texas, USA. Prev Vet Med 2009; 88: 286297.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. National statistics for cattle. Available at: quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/0C9713F1-79E1-3B6E-B286-92370887B62E?pivot=short_desc. Accessed Jul 11, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Burns K, Kahler SC. More news from the boardroom: poultry depopulation. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007; 230: 657658.

  • 6. Howard SC, Donnelly CA. The importance of immediate destruction in epidemics of foot and mouth disease. Res Vet Sci 2000; 69: 189196.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Crispin SM, Roger PA, O'Hare H, et al. The 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom: animal welfare perspectives. Rev Sci Tech 2002; 21: 877883.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Laurence CJ. Animal welfare consequences in England and Wales of the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease. Rev Sci Tech 2002; 21: 863868.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Texas Animal Health Commission. Operation Palo Duro February 21–23 2007. Available at: www.tahc.state.tx.us/emergency/May2007_OperationPaloDuro.pdf. Accessed Apr 1, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Sutmoller P, Barteling SS, Olascoaga RC, et al. Control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease. Virus Res 2003; 91: 101144.

  • 11. Nusbaum KE, Wenzel GW, Everly GS Jr. Psychologic first aid and veterinarians in rural communities undergoing livestock depopulation. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007; 231: 692694.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Farm Animal Welfare Council. Foot and mouth disease 2001 and animal welfare: lessons for the future. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Publications Division, 2002;21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. AVMA. AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals: 2013 edition. Available at: www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf. Accessed Nov 1, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Hsu CC, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval 2007; 12: 18.

  • 15. Stalker SA, Weir E, Vessel SL, et al. Planning a coordinated local health care system response to a pandemic using an accelerated Delphi technique: phase 1. Can J Public Health 2009; 100: 6569.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Buck WB, Osweiler GD, Van Gelder GA. Clinical and diagnostic veterinary toxicology. 2nd ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing, 1976;326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Lorgue G, Lechenet J, Rivière A, et al. Clinical veterinary toxicology. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Science, 1996.

  • 18. Plumlee K. Clinical veterinary toxicology. St Louis: Mosby, 2003.

  • 19. Kahn CM, Line S, eds. The Merck veterinary manual. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Merck Sharp Dohme Corp, 2005;131:425.

  • 20. Jones J, Hunter D. Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1995; 311: 376380.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Green KC, Armstrong JS, Graefe A. Methods to elicit forecasts from groups: Delphi and prediction markets compared. Int J Forecast 2007; 8: 1720.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Ramsey TL, Eilmann HJ. Carbon monoxide acute and chronic poisoning and experimental studies. J Lab Clin Med 1932; 17: 415427.

  • 23. Braun U, Abgottspon S, Gubler E, et al. Decreased sedation by xylazine and high blood pressure in cows with BSE. Vet Rec 1999; 144: 715717.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Grandin T. Return-to-sensibility problems after penetrating captive bolt stunning of cattle in commercial beef slaughter plants. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 221: 12581261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Glanville TD, Richard TL, Harmon JD, et al. Environmental impacts and biosecurity of composting for emergency disposal of livestock mortalities. Des Moines, Iowa: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Definition of hazardous waste. 40 CFR 261.3.

  • 27. Yang PC, Chu RM, Chung WB, et al. Epidemiological characteristics and financial costs of the 1997 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Taiwan. Vet Rec 1999; 145: 731734.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Gibbens JC, Wilesmith JE, Sharpe CW, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Great Britain: the first five months. Vet Rec 2001; 149: 729743.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Ferguson NM, Donnelly CA, Anderson RM. The foot-and-mouth epidemic in Great Britain: pattern of spread and impact of interventions. Science 2001; 292: 11551160.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Perez AM, Ward MP, Carpenter TE. Control of a foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Argentina. Prev Vet Med 2004; 65: 217226.

  • 31. Davies G. Foot and mouth disease. Res Vet Sci 2002; 73: 195199.

  • 32. Plum Island Animal Disease Center. New foot-and-mouth disease vaccine gets licensed for use on cattle. October 2012. Available at: www.dhs.gov/publication/st-piadc-press-release-oct-2012. Accessed Apr 30, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. USDA APHIS Veterinary Services National Center for Animal Health and Emergency Management. FAD PReP foreign animal disease response plan. Fort Collins, Colo: USDA APHIS, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Feasibility of depopulation of a large feedlot during a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66502.
  • | 2 Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66502.

Abstract

Objective—To examine the feasibility of depopulation of a large feedlot during a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the United States.

Design—Delphi survey followed by facilitated discussion.

Sample—27 experts, including veterinary toxicologists and pharmacologists, animal welfare experts, feedlot managers, and consulting veterinarians.

Procedures—4 veterinary pharmacologists, 5 veterinary toxicologists, 4 animal welfare experts, 26 consulting veterinarians, and 8 feedlot managers were invited to participate in a Delphi survey to identify methods for depopulation of a large feedlot during an FMD outbreak. A facilitated discussion that included 1 pharmacologist, 1 toxicologist, 1 animal welfare expert, 2 consulting veterinarians, and 2 feedlot managers was held to review the survey results.

Results—27 of 47 invited experts participated in the Delphi survey. Survey consensus was that, although several toxic agents would effectively cause acute death in a large number of animals, all of them had substantial animal welfare concerns. Pentobarbital sodium administered IV was considered the most effective pharmacological agent for euthanasia, and xylazine was considered the most effective sedative. Animal welfare concerns following administration of a euthanasia solution IV or a penetrating captive bolt were minimal; however, both veterinarians and feedlot managers felt that use of a captive bolt would be inefficient for depopulation. Veterinarians were extremely concerned about public perception, human safety, and timely depopulation of a large feedlot during an FMD outbreak.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Depopulation of a large feedlot during an FMD outbreak would be difficult to complete in a humane and timely fashion.

Abstract

Objective—To examine the feasibility of depopulation of a large feedlot during a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the United States.

Design—Delphi survey followed by facilitated discussion.

Sample—27 experts, including veterinary toxicologists and pharmacologists, animal welfare experts, feedlot managers, and consulting veterinarians.

Procedures—4 veterinary pharmacologists, 5 veterinary toxicologists, 4 animal welfare experts, 26 consulting veterinarians, and 8 feedlot managers were invited to participate in a Delphi survey to identify methods for depopulation of a large feedlot during an FMD outbreak. A facilitated discussion that included 1 pharmacologist, 1 toxicologist, 1 animal welfare expert, 2 consulting veterinarians, and 2 feedlot managers was held to review the survey results.

Results—27 of 47 invited experts participated in the Delphi survey. Survey consensus was that, although several toxic agents would effectively cause acute death in a large number of animals, all of them had substantial animal welfare concerns. Pentobarbital sodium administered IV was considered the most effective pharmacological agent for euthanasia, and xylazine was considered the most effective sedative. Animal welfare concerns following administration of a euthanasia solution IV or a penetrating captive bolt were minimal; however, both veterinarians and feedlot managers felt that use of a captive bolt would be inefficient for depopulation. Veterinarians were extremely concerned about public perception, human safety, and timely depopulation of a large feedlot during an FMD outbreak.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Depopulation of a large feedlot during an FMD outbreak would be difficult to complete in a humane and timely fashion.

Contributor Notes

Supported by the US Department of Homeland Security under award No. 2010-ST-016-AG0002.

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, expressed or implied, of the US Department of Homeland Security.

Address correspondence to Dr. Sanderson (sandersn@vet.k-state.edu).