Effects of R5 1163 on intake and Metabolism in Moose

Journal

of Wildlife

Diseases,

27(1),

© Wildlife

Effects

of R5 1163

on intake

and Metabolism

Disease

C. Schwartz,’ Kris J. Hundertmark,’ and William R. Lance2 1 Alaska Department Moose Research Center, 34828 Kalifornsky Beach Road, Suite B, Soldotna, Alaska 99669, USA; Inc., P. 0. Box 8938, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525, USA

R51 163, a newly synthesized purine alkyl piperidine that produces reliable Sedation in cattle, was tested in five adult bull moose (Alces alces). Compared with controls, all animals dosed with 0.4 mg/kg BW ate significantly (P < 0.05) less dry matter for at least

short duration on the animal’s Five healthy

1 wk

tamed

after

treatment.

ing metabolism, did

not

differ

groups, almost

estimates

the day

between

although two times

sus control

Median

measured

moose mals

of rest-

of injection.

treatment

and

et

control

the coefficient of variation was larger for drugged (15%) verindividuals. Dose response was larger animals exhibiting longer

(8%)

allometric, with effects. Key words: R51 163, anesthesia, tranquilizer, moose, Alces alces, heat production, drymatter intake. Long-term

physiological

animals

often

necessitate

pling

of blood

the with

past, moose synthetic

which

carfentani! 1974; al.,

requires

(Franzmann

1984).

lethal

1978;

and

Gasaway

et

and

a!.,

1982;

Parker

et al., (MRC:

1984). At the Moose Alaska Department

Game,

34828

Suite

B, So!dotna,

uated

a new

tential

use

R51163 alkyl

animals

for

Alaska,

we

may

that

produces

after

purine

intravenous

(Degryse of

as a possible

wanted

a drug

sufficiently

and

this

study

tranquilizer that for

would bleeding

in-

of 0.05 (BW),

Ooms,

for

to

for yet

test

rapid

each

followed

the be

and while

15.2 were

moose.

calm

had

respi-

been a

pre-

counter-

163

on rest-

and sedation design was

given

intramuscular

lasted

s24

hr.

treatment

on

were days,

Two

and

were reversed, and the Separate trials were effects

mals

1986).

was

to

and

of R51 163; controls Intake trials lasted 14

wk

control

process was conducted

of the

drug

resting

me-

intake. standing

Animals were on a weighing

hand scale.

kicking

quently we mg/kg BW. Dry-matter

se-

and

(IM) injections at doses to 0.15 mg/kg body weight

pens

Control animals were weighed but not injected. An animal injected with 0.2 mg/ kg body weight (BW), was insufficiently tranquilized, and was capable of violent

po-

reliable

to

(Fleiss, 1986). Andivided equally into and control. Treat-

were

trials

tabolism injected

and synthesized

(Schwartz

feed intake experimental

crossover randomly treatment

bull

accustomed

All animals

injection,

to test

eval-

have

were

feeding

animals

animals repeated.

Road,

99669) that

and

effect

tractable

trained to walk onto scale for weighing. tested the effects of R51

et

moose.

purpose

R51 163

Beach

compound

in cattle

respectively

We

Kalifornsky

ration were

viously balance We

following

Center Fish and

of Fish and Game, Wildlife Laboratories,

chamber.

or

Thorne,

2

ration

(IM) injections not drugged.

Franzmann

Research of

facilities,

ment

potentially

1978;

holding

metabolism

(Haigh

1982;

is a newly

tramuscular and 0.10 The

Haigh,

piperidine

dation

are

animals

degrees

et

1991

R51 163. All aniMRC and main-

Animals

varying

In

Arneson,

Franzmann

opiates

humans

1977;

and

et al.,

Synthetic

to

immobilized etorphine

to test at the

a formulated

1985).

a two-period imals were two groups:

sam-

sedation.

been like

on ,

ing metabolism, of animals. The

of wild

repeated

have opiates

Gasaway

a!.,

studies

Association

(3-yr-old)

were used were reared

a!.

119-122

in Moose

Charles

ABSTRACT:

pp.

1991,

water ad

that

Heat production indirect respiration

of 119

was

over

of

in

conse-

tests

with

0.4

measured

a 2-wk

maintained

m pens; available

handled, our

intake

moose

were

when

conducted

daily

period. separate

Ani3.1

x

and trace mineral salt libitum. The protocol Schwartz was

measured chamber

et

al.

(1984).

using (Rege!mn

an et

JOURNAL

120

OF WILDLIFE

DISEASES,

VOL. 27, NO. 1, JANUARY

II

1991

within

I

and

sponses

among the

significance

N

was

means

were

R51

163

dry

matter

of

(Fig.

of

over

the

FIGURE

moose

1.

Daily

treated

untreated

with

intake

of dry

163 (day

HS1

control matter

of

five

1), compared

and

adult

to five

moose.

1981) following protocol described

the

Heat production was measured at 15 mm intervals in fed animals lying calmly in the respiration chamber. Statistical testing of differences between treatment and control groups abolic trials was determined for

a

2-period

1986).

crossover

Linear

covariance

TABLE 1. 2-wk period

design

regression were

used

Responses following

during by the

and

of five injection.

adult

of

H51163,

.

Weight Week

number

Treatment

1

2

1 +

2

Values ‘This These

value values

within

measured

(kg)

because

1a+b(days) Regression (b)

intake

(g/kg

individ-

were

tested

wide

variation

Elevation

(1)

Intercept

(a)

3

479

8.17”

20,13F

-4.38

4

539

6.48”

5

603

3.39’

14.24” 10.94b

-5.19 0.78

3.87

74.99

59.49

11.17

75.12 6307

9.37

1

333

3.99’

87.09’

2

372

2.33’

70.07’”

3

471

2.31’

67.75”

60.83

4

499

0.71’

36.76”

34.63

5

542

and

column

is not

significantly

different

from

the

control.

are

significantly

different

from

the

control.

with

the

4.64’

15.13”

-

1.17

83.33

-

4.48’

40.66’

-

1.52h

79.16”

same

superscripts

are

not

in

BW#{176}75/d)over

48.05’ 36.47’

All All

con-

parameters

12.29’

-

not and

metabolism

among

of the

was kg/d, and

on resting varied

food

0.8

treatment

observations

by

Slope

week ±

9#{216}3b

Drug

week

0.6

first

weight

374

All

the same

of means

the

346

Control Control

second

163

control

Mean

the

injection

sig-

of

during

significantly

different.

=

with

differed that

kg/d)

0.89):

of R51

lieu

as

=

(Ta(F

treated

injection.

0.3 kg/d for the groups, respectively.

Median

=

kg/d)

±

uals.

groups in slope 141.98).

from

0.5

±

pooled

1

Drug

1 + 2

(t

1.4

2.33)

Re-

for

2

All

Control

during

different

at beginning of week

Animal

Drug

change

Effects

variation

to

following

following

analysis

moose

(+ 1.2

week

1.8 trol

mett-test (Fleiss,

to describe

group

time

in animals

=

inlevels

period.

over treatment

±

(t

the

generally

measurement

(-3.5

intake

injection

anorexic

then

of intake

change

nificantly

recommendations by Hubbert (1987).

on

to pretreatment

pooled

Weight

0.05:

=

post

were

but

ble 1) differed significantly 15.81) and elevation (F R51163

al., and

effect 1 wk

animals intake

lines

at P

at least

2-wk

gression

re-

Statistical

±SE.

a profound for

food

trial.

determined

injection,

creased

DAY

had

animals’

intake

reported

Treated

1).

day

individual

during

1.0 70.42

7.08 67.76

a

SHORT

observed

in

ment.

some

Median

production

did

-0.072,

=

(117

P

not

differ

Resting

of

output

would

the

case

and

the

and

be

heat mean

mately sponse

extreme

and while

trough others

(50

kcal).

drugged tween trol

The

animals

though we were tion measurements evident over

to

and

This

apparent

the

approxiThis

resome

30

was

Al-

out

of

the

drug’s

partially

response

explained

observed

between

in-

dividuals. Dosage metric.

response For

450

kg;

kg.

The

allo-

was

two

two

>600

R51

studies,

weighed

largest

bull

bull

was

unable to stand BW of R51163.

when dosed He attempted

at 0.4 mg/kg to stand sev-

eral

pushing

nose

times

ground joints on

his

but

his

into

could

only

get

up on the

of his front

legs.

He

tried

hind

caused

feet

injury

secondary

and that

infection

versely, dosed

by

one at

0.4

small mg/kg

carpel of the male BW

joint was

area.

in spring

energy mortality

=

346

capable

when This

and

are

if es-

in poor

reduction

in

of D. C. Johnson

assistance

during

Morgan

This Aid

the asMc-

reviewed

study was in Wildlife

the

a contribution Restoration,

W-22-6.

LITERATURE DEGRYSE,

A. D.,

parative

A. A. OoMs.

on cardiovascular, in

of

cattle.

1986.

respiratory

the

sedatives

Drug

Comand

H 51163

Development

Re-

8: 433-441.

J. L.

1986.

experiments.

York,

432

The J.

AND of

Medicine

design Wiley

and and

analysis Sons,

New

of clinYork,

pp.

A. W.,

Immobilization

Animal

CITED

effects

xylazine

ical

L.

AND

studies

FRANZMANN,

of

for

provided statistical B. Schneider, D.

S.

manuscript. of Federal

intake

animals

help

and

E. F. Becker and K.

New

kg)

recovery during

potentially increase affect vulnerability

the

care

Knight,

in

imposed

intake could or indirectly

animal

FLEISS,

(F = 1.14), recovering during this

must be considered used on wild moose,

condition.

study. sistance,

(i.e.,

during in eleva-

level of response

reduction

pecially body

search

Con-

elevations

week.

gastrointestinal

in

and

their

significant

and

which

that

Differences observed

their upon

animals is to be

the

resulted

slopes

drugged R51 163

carpal

joints,

(BW

first The

“walking”

ultimately

greater

Project

one

of the sig-

3.97) and elcomparisons 1974) among

=

tions (F = 96.62) but not slopes indicating that all animals were at approximately the same rate

for

effect.

lines

animals differed

demonstrated

faster recovery times). the second week were

to predation. We appreciate

effects of R51 163 were time. Animals appeared

(>450 kg than small

Regression drugged dosing

elevations

exhibited

the

the

8.2%.

and

violent

differences existed between animals of different weights; smaller animals generally

for

kcal;

only

slopes

period; however, was dependent

peak

variation

exceeded

cycling

varied

ap-

unsure why heat produccycled in treated ani-

mals, it was not constant in

at to trough);

(>100 kcal), slight variation of

of variation

cycle

high

was 15%. Variation below measurements in con-

seldom

coefficient

very

between

coefficient

animals high and

was

Treated

values. individuals;

measurements showed only

BW).

of

were

variation

kg

uptake

readings

to control among

(