Disease Prevention in an Indoor Psittacine Breeding Facility
Disease prevention is achieved by proper planning, quarantine, housing, feeding, immunization, and sanitation. Hygiene must be constantly maintained making cleaning and disinfection an important part of any animal production facility. If the numbers of pathogenic micro-organisms in a facility are allowed to build up, the chances of an individual bird coming into contact with sufficient organisms to cause a clinical infection is increased.
Sanitation includes the proper set-up of drainage, ventilation, and cages working towards hygienic conditions. An efficient and routine program is required to remove wasted food, feces and dust from the birds’ environment.
Bacteria and fungi should not be a problem in an aviary that is kept clean with proper sanitation. However mixed collections of wild-caught exotic birds can harbour carriers of highly contagious viruses. Viruses are difficult to control without disinfectants. If a bird dies from a contagious virus immediate and effective disinfection of the environment must be done.
Disinfection refers to the destruction of pathogenic microorganisms on inanimate objects by chemical or physical means. There may still remain spores or traces of microorganisms but these should not result in disease to healthy birds. Sterilization means nothing less than the removal and complete destruction of all living microorganisms; every single one. This can rarely, if ever be achieved in the cleansing of the animals’ environment though it is the aim.
When describing an agent’s effect on a type of microorganism the suffix -stat means that it prevents the multiplication of an organism and -cide means it kills that organism (Sainsbury and Sainsbury, 1988). For instance a bactericide kills bacteria; a fungicide, fungi and a viricide, viruses.
Physical means of destruction includes steam, ultraviolet light, extremes of pH and high heat. Chemical disinfectants are more commonly used and there are many types each with different characteristics.
Current Disease Situation
In the exotic bird industry disease continues to cause great hardship as rare, valuable or companion birds are lost. This may be attributed to the following factors:
- Rapid expansion in the keeping and breeding of exotic wild-caught birds without adequate and careful planning and preparation. Errors have occurred in the design of aviaries or flights, bird rooms, ventilation and in their management.
- A lack of experienced breeders with most operations on a trial and error management system and word of mouth information gathering.
- Laboratory difficulty in diagnosing even some common psittacine diseases such as Psittacosis, and most viral caused diseases plus the reluctance of some breeders to post their dead birds.
- A lack of experienced avian exotic veterinarians mainly due to college emphasis on animals of agricultural importance.
- Smuggling of birds which by-passes quarantine and is usually more stressful resulting in higher disease rates.
The use of drugs is no substitute for good sanitation. The continuous or massive administration of drugs to maintain health will sooner or later fail with the emergence of drug resistant strains.
Horizontal disease transmission may be by external vectors such as insects, wild birds, rodents and handling; by means of contaminated feed, water, or cages; and by the air from dust, dried feces, feather dander or water particles. Eliminating horizontal transmission requires a consistent and persistent reduction of the micro-organisms in the bird’s environment.
Vertical disease transmission is by infection of the reproductive organs of the breeding stock and subsequent contamination of the hatching egg. Vertical transmission can be reduced by breeding from captive-bred disease free birds and not breeding birds whose young die from a vertically transmitted disease.
Exotic Birds Versus Commercial Poultry Operation
Poultry operations can select healthy, vigorous, disease-free birds from one source while most parrot breeders are working with wild-caught birds from many parts of the world. Wild-caught birds are easily weakened by stress to the point of being susceptible to infection. Both new and resident stock may contain carriers of contagious micro-organisms to which they are themselves resistant but may still shed under stress.
An « all birds in all out » program is not feasible with parrots since they take years to begin breeding, are long lived and expensive. Fumigation is also not possible as the stress of removing the birds from the building and temporarily housing them may trigger a disease outbreak.
There should be good control of the micro-climate in the room using ventilation/fan control, humidification with misters or other equipment and air filters. Excessively dry conditions allow excreta to dry up and possibly aerosolize as dust leading to cross-contamination. A buildup of disease-causing organisms can be harbored in fine dust on rafters, window sills, walls and ceiling. The room design should avoid the existence of these types of surfaces.
A bird room should have a disinfection/entrance room before it, for visitors to change shoes or add disposable plastic boots. A foot bath can also be located here for dipping footwear into a strong disinfectant that is not inactivated by organic matter. However an improperly maintained foot bath is an ideal method of spreading disease.
The baby rearing room should be well away from the main bird room housing the breeders and the isolation room. Air flows should be separate. Cleaning equipment used in the adult rooms should not be used to clean the baby room.
Many associate hygiene with cleaning but it should start with cage design and enclosure construction. The cage set up should allow cleaning and disinfection to be done easily and efficiently. Suspended flights keep the birds away from their droppings and those of their neighbors. The space between cages should minimize the chance of a bird defecating onto the next cage; a foot being a reasonable distance to reduce this cross-contamination between cages.
To allow for a more thorough cleaning the walls, ceiling and floor should be water resistant and also withstand the force of a high pressure washer, if one is used. The floors should be concrete and sloping towards a drain. Poor floor drainage contributes to bad sanitation by making the removal of waste difficult. Wet and damp areas are unpleasant and provide breeding areas for flies.
The « cleanability » of surfaces is an important consideration when selecting building materials. Dirt and micro-organisms settle into the pores of surfaces and hide in cracks. These are difficult to remove even with brushing and high pressure. A smooth finish is preferable.
Morgan-Jones (1981) examined the levels of bacterial load on various cleaned surfaces and recovered significantly more bacteria from brick, painted wood and other surfaces than from plastic
(Table 1). PVC plastic sheeting with a slippery like finish is available from Mauco Industries Ltd. in 0.040 inch thickness, four foot widths and lengths up to 50 feet.
Table 1 –
Levels of bacteria recovered from cleaned materials from farm buildings.
|Surface||Total Bacterial Count (at 22°C)/100 cm2|
from Morgan-Jones (1981)
Wash-down and General Cleaning
An effective sanitation program should be executed in logical steps on a continuing basis. A thorough cleaning helps to control diseases by eliminating organic matter which interferes with disinfectant activity, by reducing the number of pathogenic organisms and exposing the rest for disinfection.
The use of vacuum cleaners in bird rooms should be avoided. They tend to blow around the dust and can scatter microorganisms. Viruses can also pass through the vacuum bag and back into the air. Floors should be swept as needed and mopped with a disinfectant periodically, perhaps once a week. To keep down dust and fluff during its removal, surfaces can be prewetted with a light spray.
To reduce the chance of zoonotic disease transmission or long term allergy and lung disease, a mask should be worn when working under dusty conditions. The 3M AseptexTM molded surgical mask (distributed by White Cross / VenTech Healthcare Inc.) is comfortable and appears to be effective under these conditions.
If masses of feces have started to build up on cage wire they should be scraped off. Gross filth should be removed mechanically as much as possible without creating too much dust. If no floor drainage exists then the plastic sheets or paper under the cages should be discarded and replaced with clean material.
Cages must be sprayed to soak and remove the remaining feces and gross filth. In this wash-down phase a germicidal detergent/ disinfectant that remains relatively effective in the presence of organic matter could be used.
Water Bowls and Feeders
To minimize fecal contamination of food and water the birds’ feeding area should not be below perches or a favorite roosting site. Water bowls should be cleaned and disinfected whenever dirty. To avoid cross-contamination bowls should go back into the same cage they came from or a second set can be used while the dirty set is soaking over night in disinfectant. Some birds may dirty their bowls with feed or feces more than others. If the bowls are not fouled, cleaning can be bi-weekly rather than daily. Nutrient supplementation of the water requires daily cleaning and refilling with fresh solutions. Bowls should be scrubbed with an abrasive pad to remove all slime and organic matter then soaked in a disinfectant that suits the circumstances (see below).
Gravity feeders should be periodically removed from the cage and completely cleaned. There may be areas within feeders where little movement of the feed occurs, either due to the birds eating only out of one side or their design. These areas can become breeding grounds for moths or can become moldy.
Feeders and water cups should not be dipped into a common bucket for filling. A feed scoop and water pitcher makes filling containers a sanitary procedure.
High Pressure Washers
The washing ability of high pressure cleaners is unmatched by brushes or other mechanical methods. Conventional cage cleaning with a hose/pail and sponge/brush is slow and tiresome and not as effective as with a powerful blast of water. The home use of high pressure cleaners is much more common in Europe where most of the machines are manufactured. The features required for cage cleaning and disinfecting include; an adjustable working pressure, a pencil jet and fan jet nozzle and most importantly a foaming nozzle.
Most high pressure washers have a variable flow chemical intake to allow the mixing of some liquid compound into the spray water. However, the addition of detergent to the power wash does not assist in the reduction of surface bacteria (Morgan-Jones, 1981) which is significantly reduced by more than 90% just by the physical force of the spray. This is also not an efficient way to apply disinfectant. Much of the product is aerosolized or lost with the spray run off and is not in contact with surfaces long enough to properly disinfect.
The important disinfection occurs during the final phase of the sanitation program. Here products with a high level of disinfection may be required especially if there is a viral problem. The efficient and safe application of these disinfectants is important.
Foaming appears to have many benefits over sprayer application of disinfectants. Foaming is achieved by mixing the proper brand of disinfectant with water and converting this solution into a thick clinging blanket of foam with the use of a special nozzle attached to a high pressure cleaner machine.
The following benefits are achieved:
- Extended Contact Time – the foam, due to its nature, remains in contact with cage and wall surfaces for a longer time thus is more effective in disinfecting and cleaning as most disinfectants are based on at least a 10 minute exposure period;
- Increased Penetration – results in more effective germicidal activity aiding in the killing of resistant organisms.
- Complete Coverage – the chance of contaminated areas being missed is eliminated due to the visual aspect of foam allowing you to see where you’ve applied the disinfectant.
- Greater Coverage – foam is projected up to three meters so all crevices and corners can be reached in large cages with poor access.
- No Aerosol Effect – because foam is applied with special nozzles there is no atomizing mist to irritate personnel or birds such as occurs with sprayers.
- Uses less Water – produces less moisture in areas with limited drainage.
- Residual Effect – when allowed to dry without rinsing, a micro-thin coating will remain on the surface and will continue to disinfect for at least seven days, according to some product manufacturers.
Of course there is concern for the welfare of the birds coming into contact with the disinfectants. When a pair is removed from their cage or flight it can be thoroughly cleaned before different birds are placed into it. However most of the time cleaning is performed with the birds left in their cages.
When we foam some species, such as moluccan and umbrella cockatoos, remain in their nest boxes where they usually hide when people are around, while most of the others, including the macaws and amazons, stay in the upper level or in the back of their flights on top of their nest boxes. With these birds the lower areas of their cages, where most of the contaminated cage wire occurs, can be foamed without the birds coming into contact with the disinfectant. A problem occurs with skidish birds, such as hawk headed parrots, goffin’s cockatoos and some amazons, which fly around during the foaming possibly getting the foam in their face.
If a bird gets some foam on its eye remove it from the cage and flush the eye with sterile water. Birds may rub irritated eyes with toe nails and a collar may reduce periophthalmic swelling.
Micro-organisms of Concern
A post mortem should be performed on all dead birds in order to determine which microorganisms are to targeted against. Here in Ontario the Veterinary Laboratory Services Branch (VLS) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food provides complete post mortem services including virology and histopathology. Your veterinarian can be mailed copies of the reports directly from VLS and should be consulted on the findings.
An examination of the cause of mortality at HARI indicates that viruses are the major cause of death. Our records show that since our establishment in October 1985 the cause of mortality in our breeding stock was diagnosed as some viral agent in 65 % of the cases, 11 % as bacterial, 7 % as mate aggression, 5 % as management errors and 12 % of other, or unknown causes or were not posted. The viruses isolated have been the enveloped or lipophlic type herpes and paramyxo-virus (not the Newcastle type) 95 % of the time with the rest being reo virus.
Half of the birds that were found to have high levels of pathogenic bacteria were lories fed a liquid diet high in simple sugars. We now feed lories our dry Tropican Mash which has solved this problem and firmed up their droppings.
Bacterial infections have been more common in hand-fed babies with Pseudomonas and E. coli being the organisms causing mortality. We isolated Pseudomonas from our well water source and it was growing in our brooder water.
The routine treatment of new birds with 1 % cholortetracyline (CTC) pellets for 45 days should eliminate carriers of psittacosis caused by Chlamydia psittaci. Cages and feeding equipment should be completely disinfected before birds are taken off the medicated pellet so they are not reinfected.
There are many disinfectants to choose from but they basically fall into a few categories based on their active ingredients and abilities to kill different micro-organisms. Many parent compounds have been made more effective, stable, and less irritating by the addition of other chemical groups. Therefore it is not appropriate to generalise the activity of a parent compound, such as iodine or phenol, upon the commercial derivatives available. Each commercial formulation is tested using standard procedures and it is the result of these tests that should form the basis of selection.
The concept of developing a policy for the selection and application of chemical disinfectants was first introduced for hospitals (Gardner and Peel, 1986). The selection of a type or brand of disinfectant should be based on the type of organism we wish to control, the surface/object involved, risk or harm to the user or animal and finally cost-effectiveness if two products appear to be similar in other respects.
Based on the pathogenic micro-organisms found in a psittacine breeding operation the brand of disinfectant for baby brooders and feeding syringes should be a safe bactericide product with some fungicide and viricide properties as well. The disinfectant for cage wire, walls and floors should be an effective viricide which is least affected by the presence of organic matter.
Chlorine compounds are traditionally popular disinfectants because of their rapid killing ability against many microorganisms and low cost (Gangle, 1988). They are among the most potent sporicides and are also lethal to both lipophilic and hydrophilic viruses.
Common house-hold bleach is the traditional form of chlorine. For even large indoor areas the vapors produced as bleach dries can be quite irritating especially for birds with their efficient respiratory system. Other negatives are its corrosive nature, especially on cage wire and its decrease in activity by even small amounts of organic matter.
A new form of sodium chlorite is reported to have a wide microbicidal activity and low toxicity to man and animals (Alcide, Alcide Corp) but it is expensive and not readily available. Alcide is a two-component sodium chlorite base:organic acid activator compound which are sold separately and once mixed together with water is active for about 14 days. This solution when applied as a spray or vapour was found to have a sporicidal effect after 15-30 minutes where-as a mixture of glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde were only sporistatic when applied this way (Wallace et al., 1988).
Free iodine has rapid lethal effects against bacteria and fungi but can be an irritant, tends to be toxic and is sparingly soluble in water (Russell and Hugo, 1987). However iodophores are compounds in which the iodine is “tamed” and are probably the safest of all disinfectants to use. They retain the germicidal action, but not the undesirable properties of iodine.
Iodophores are effective against a broad range of bacteria and fungi and their spores. They are also a good viricide but only after prolonged exposure. They remain active in the presence of organic matter provided that the pH does not rise above 4 (Russell and Hugo, 1987).
These qualities make the iodophores the disinfectant of choice for cleaning and soaking water bowls, baby syringes and brooders. Although iodophores stain plastic and hands, when the solution has lost its brown colour its an indication to change it.
Chlorhexidines have some limitations which makes their routine use questionable. Although less toxic than phenol and aldehyde disinfectants it is not effective against several types of bacteria. In an outbreak of herpes virus some recommend the addition of chlorhexidine (20ml per gallon) to the drinking water to slow the spread of the disease (Clubb, 1989). This assumes that spread is by ingestion however breathing in the organism may also occur.
When we used a chlorhexidine brand as a soak for our hand-feeding syringes we had an outbreak of pseudomonas infection in our babies. We actually cultured the bacteria from the soak water, the surface of the syringes and from our brooder water. Pseudomonas grows well in standing water and chlorhexidine is ineffective against it. This contra-indicates the use of chlorhexidines in circumstances where moist conditions occur such as brooders and incubators. We now add salt to our brooder water (1/4 cup per gallon) and have found this to be very effective in reducing the growth of organisms.
Some breeders report adding chlorhexidine to their hand-feeding food to prevent or control Candida infections (Clipsham, 1988). Sour crop is usually related to a poor food formulation or a systemic infection which has resulted in a slowdown in gut transit. Diets that either contain too many simple sugars or have poor water holding qualities may contribute to the problem by providing food for the Candida and further slowing down gut passage. It would be more logical to switch foods than continuously expose babies to chlorhexidine, a possible carcinogen.
Quaternary Ammonium (Quats)
Quats are cationic surfactants with strong bactericidal but poor sporicidal properties (Russell and Hugo, 1987). They are questionable fungicides and their germicidal activity is suppressed in the presence of organic matter.
Quaternary ammonium compounds make good general cleaners and do provide some preliminary destruction of disease-causing organisms. They are not widely used on farm sites because of the large amount of organic debris.
Phenolics are considered some of the strongest disinfectants and are acceptable for use in USDA supervised quarantine stations. They kill fairly quickly, within 10 minutes, and retain their effectiveness in the presence of organic matter better than most other disinfectants.
Phenolic derivatives, such as ortho-phenylphenol, are more effective as disinfectants. Common substitutions to the phenolic group are chlorine para- (4) and benzyl ortho- (2) . These derivatives increase the bactericidal and viricidal activity of phenol (Russell and Hugo, 1987).
Synthetic detergents have also been added to formulations of phenolics, increasing detergency (Prindle, 1983). This allows some brands to be used in a single application, cleaning and disinfecting at the same time.
Phenolics are potent bactericides, killing a broad range of disease-causing bacteria including Pseudomonas and Salmonella. Bacterial spores seem to be resistant to phenols. They are very effective against lipophilic or enveloped viruses but may have some limitations against other viruses. However the most commonly encountered parrot viruses, herpes and pox, plus another the paramyxoviruses, are enveloped viruses.
Phenolics are especially useful for cage wire and floor disinfection, and in footbaths. When used in foot baths or heavily soiled areas the diluted solution strength can be increased 3 to 4 fold.
Some products available are a combination of two or more compounds that are compatible and cooperative in action. They have been developed to broaden the spectrum of activity, increase residual action or add detergency.
One such product is LysofumeTM (Winthrop) which contains both a formaldehyde and quaternary ammonium compound.
Many compounds are incompatible and only premixed products should be used.
Aldehydes are some of the most effective biological killing agents with good resistance to organic matter inactivation. They are effective against most types of bacteria, bacterial spores, fungi, and viruses. They also provide residual activity on surfaces where they are allowed to dry.
One unique product, LysofumeTM (Winthrop), is a vapour-phase surface disinfecting fumigant which slowly decomposes yielding formaldehyde. In LysofumeTM the formaldehyde is trapped in solution thus significantly reducing the toxicity associated with formaldehyde gas. When applied to surfaces a level of 6-8% formaldehyde activity around the film coating is created until the active ingredient is fully decomposed. The rate of decomposition increases with an increase in temperature thus cold water should only be used.
The sporicidal activity of these compounds appears to be confined to situations where the object to be treated can be soaked in the solution (Wallace et al., 1988).
Glutaraldehyde is significantly more expensive than other disinfectants and is usually supplied already diluted at the use concentration of 2%. It may only be required when non-enveloped viruses or bacterial spores are of concern. These viruses include parvovirus, papillomavirus and reovirus. Glutaraldehyde is often used as a cold sterilization solution for utensils and endoscopes.
Safety and Toxicity
The recommended diluting instructions for each product must always be followed. Products should not be mixed as chemical incompatibilities may cause an increase in toxicity and/or decrease in effectivness. Some products when mixed together produce reactions that release toxic fumes. Chlorine gas from bleach is especially dangerous.
Some manufacturers make claims such as “non-toxic, non-injurious, non-irritating, non-corrosive and 100 % biodegradable”, for their water diluted products. These claims are based on tests with diluted solutions at the recommended use levels, usually 1:128 or 1:256. An American Veterinarian seems to go along with this for one of the strongest disinfectants a glutaraldehyde product (Cilpsham, 1988).
However when you read the fine print under the “Danger” and “Precaution” headings on the concentrate of these products it usually states “harmful if swallowed, avoid skin contact, wear rubber gloves and shield eyes with goggles or face shield, probable mucosal damage may result, corrosive”. Perhaps this contradiction is justified with the belief that dilution eliminates the toxicity. However its advisable to follow the precautionary statements made for the concentrate even when using the diluted disinfectant, as some labels recommend. This is especially important for the phenolics and aldehydes which are particularly irritating to skin.
There may be adverse effects with these chemicals after long term use, for both the person applying the agent and the animals. Also of concern are the environmental consequences of these chemicals entering the water table due to improper waste water removal although many of these products are biodegradable.
Mandl et al. (1987) studied the efficacy of various disinfectants on broiler breeder eggs contaminated with salmonella. No adverse effects on hatchability were obtained when hatching eggs were soaked in 2 % solutions of aldehydes, phenols or quaternary ammonium compounds for five minutes. Hatchability was significantly reduced by a 5 % solution of an iodophor compound. The most effective treatment of hatching eggs contaminated with Salmonella was submersion in hot water (600C) for one minute followed by five minutes in an aldehyde/phenol disinfectant (Mandel et al., 1987).
The use of good sanitation and isolation practices can be the best insurance in preventing infectious diseases in aviaries. It’s unfortunate that vaccines are not yet available for most of the viruses which parrots are susceptible to. But even when they are, a thorough sanitation program will still be an important part of disease control.
General cleanliness and professional management is the first step in minimizing a viral outbreak in our aviaries. Excreta must be removed from indoor facilities as often as necessary to prevent disease of the birds from cross-contamination.
For routine germicidal cleaning of incubator, brooder, feeding and watering equipment less irritating products such as iodophores and quats can be used. When cage disinfecting or if viruses are thought to be present the use of a phenolic or aldehyde based product provides the greatest assurance that thorough, if not complete, disinfection is achieved.
A good working relationship is needed between the aviculturist, an experienced avian veterinarian and a post-mortem laboratory. This aids in establishing a disease prevention program geared towards the particular circumstances of each facility with quicker responses to disease problems.
BLOCK, S. S. (1983). Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 3rd ed. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia.
CLIPSHAM, R. (1988). Preventative Health Care for Aviculture – disinfection and sanitation. Watchbird 15(5):16-22.
CLUBB, S. (1989). Disinfectants in the pet shop. Pet Business 15:6 pp 62-65.
GANGLE, J. (1988). Disinfection of clinic and aviary. Proc. Assoc. of Avian Tech. pp 25-28.
GARDNER, J. F. AND PELL, M. M. (1986). Introduction to Sterilization and Disinfection. Churchill Livingstone, London.
MANDEL, J., HAFEZ, H.M., WOERNLE, H. and KOSTERS, J. (1987). (Efficacy of disinfection methods for broiler breeder eggs contaminated with Salmonella.) Archiv. fur Geflugelkunde 51:16-21.
MORGAN-JONES, S. C. (1981). Cleansing and Disinfection of Farm Buildings. In: Disinfectants: Their Use and Evaluation of Effectiveness. Eds. Collins, C. H., Allwood, M. C., Bloomfield, S. F., and Fox, A. Academic Press, London. pp 201-212.
PRINDLE, R.F. (1983). Phenolic Compounds. In: Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. Ed. S. S. Block. Lea & Febiger 3rd ed. pp 197-224.
RUSSELL, A. D., and HUGO, W. B. (1987). Chemical disinfectants. In: Disinfection in Veterinary and Farm Animal Practice. Eds. A. H. Linton, W. B. Hugo, A. D. Russell. Blackwell Scientific Publications pp 12-42.
SAINSBURY, D. and SAINSBURY, P. (1988). Livestock Health and Housing. 3rd ed. Baillere Tindall, London.
WALLACE, J., DODD, J. and MILLETT, M. (1988). Comparison of the sporicidal effect of three disinfectant solutions within an isolator transfer port. Animal Technology 39:189-193.
Appendix 1 – Disinfectants:
- Name (Manufacturer) : size – Distributor $cost, cost/concentrate, Use dilution, cost/l diluted.
- Ingredients (% active disinfectant)
Javex (Bristol-Myers): 3.6 l – Food & Pharmacy stores $2.50,
$0.70/l, 1:32, $0.022/l.
Sodium Hypochlorite 6%.
Tamed Iodine (Iodophores)
Iosan (WestAgro Canada): 4.0 l – CoOp Stores $17.30,
$4.33/l, 1:333 , $0.013/l.
Phosphoric Acid, 15.95% ; Polyethoxy polypropoxy ethanol-iodine, 4.85% ; Nonylphenoxypoly ethanol-iodine, 12.60% (Provides 1.75% titratable iodine).
Quaternary Ammonium Compounds (Quats)
Multi-san (Diversey Wyandotte Inc.): 5 l – CoOp Stores $18.60, $3.72/l, 1:160, $0.024/l.
n-Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, 4.50% ;
n-Alkyl dimethyl ethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 4.50% ;
ethyl alcohol 2.25% (9.0% Ammonium Chlorides, 2.25% Alcohol).
Lysoquat (Winthrop): 4.5 l – Winthrop $16.30, $3.63/l, 1:256, $0.015/l.
Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 1.40% ; Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides 11.2% ; tetrasodium ethylene diamine tetraacetate 2.0% ; isopropyl alcohol 0.5% ; ethyl alcohol 2.8% (12.6% Ammonium Chlorides, 3.3% Alcohol).
Coverage 256 (Calgon Vestal Labs): 3.78 l – Sanofi $30.00, $7.94/l, 1:256, $0.031/l.
Octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 4.60% ; Dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 2.30% ; Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 2.30% ; Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides 6.14% (15.34% Ammonium Chlorides).
Lysovet (Winthrop): 4.5 l – Wintrop $31.63, $7.03/l, 1:256, $0.028/l.
Ortho-Phenylphenol 9.2% ; Ortho-Benzyl-para-chlorophenol 8.20% ; p-tert amylphenol 1.70% ; Sodium Dodecylbenzene-sulfonate 3.00% ; Tetrasodium ethylene diamine tetraacetate 2.80%, Isopropyl alcohol 2.60% (19.1% Phenolics, 2.6% Alcohol, 5.8% misc.).
One Stroke (Calgon Vestal Labs): 4.0 l – Sanofi $30.00,
$7.50/l, 1:256, $0.030/l.
Ortho-phenyphenol, 10.0% ; Ortho-benzyl-para-chlorophenol, 8.5%;
Para-tertiary-amylphenol, 2.0% (20.5% Phenolics).
Tek-Trol (Biotek Industries): 3.8 l – Biotek Canada $32.00, $8.45/l, 1;256, $0.033/l.
Ortho-phenyphenol, 14.0% ; Ortho-benzyl-para-chlorophenol, 12.0% (26.0% Phenolics).
0 (National Labs): 4.5 l – Nika Sales $23.37, $5.20/l, 1:80, $0.065/l.
Potassium Ricinoleate 3.3% ; Ortho-Benzyl-para-chlorophenol 3.2%, Sodium xylene sulphonate 2.0% ; Sodium lauryl sulphate 0.6% ; Tetrasodium ethylene diamine tetraacetate 0.6% (3.2% Phenolic, 6.5% misc.).
Glutaraldehyde (Winthrop): 5 l – Through veterinarians, expensive, no diluting. Glutaraldehyde 2%.
Lysofume (Winthrop): 4.5 l – Winthrop $31.07, $6.91/l, 1:128, $0.054/l.
2-(Hydroxymethyl)-2-Nitro-1,3 Propanediol 19.20% ; Formaldehyde 2.02% ; Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 2.29%.
Appendix 2 –
Recommended High Pressure Washer/Foamer Models
- Manufacturer (Distributer)
- Model: Operating Pressure, Water Volume, Voltage, Power, Price.
All of these models come with a cart (except the HD575), high pressure hose, spray gun, wand, and nozzle.
BSM (DeBoer’s Farm Equipment Ltd.)
– CP 60 : 1150 PSI, 2.2 GPM, 110 V, 1.5 HP, $ 1,145.
– SAC 100: 1650 PSI, 4.0 GPM, 220 V, 3.0 HP, $ 1,225.
The BSM models are a the best value as they also include a foaming nozzle, while this is an expensive accessory with both Karcher and WAP.
Karcher (Karcher Cleaning Systems Inc.)
– HD 575 : up to 1000 PSI, 0.6-2.2 GPM, 110 V, 1.8 HP, $ 1,295.
– HD 1000: up to 2465 PSI, 0.8-4.4 GPM, 220 V, 7.0 HP, $ 2,295.
The standard nozzles with these Karcher models can changeover to a pencil jet, for a powerful directed spray or to a fan jet which covers a broader area. Karcher is the world’s leading cleaning-equipment manufacturer and is based in West-Germany. Their equipment is being using by Exxon to spray down the oil covered beach rocks in Alaska. HARI uses the HD 1000 which removes the paint off the floor when used at full pressure.
WAP (Nika Sales)
– JET: up to 1000 PSI, 2.8 GPM, 110 V, 1.9 HP
– L3000: up to 2400 PSI, 4.5 GPM, 220 V,(5.0 HP)
Nika Sales can rent you a WAP-JET from Friday to Monday for $50. This model has a nozzle which is able to changeover to one that partially foams a disinfectant/detergent but if you buy one of these units it would be better to buy their special foaming nozzle accessory.
Manufacturers’ or Distributers’ Addresses;
Bio-tek Industries, Canada
11 Rimini Mews
DeBoer’s Farm Equipment Ltd.
RR # 1
Karcher Cleaning Systems Inc.
1770 Alstep Drive
Mauco Industries Ltd.
4115 Cousens St.
St. Laurent, Quebec
219 Silercreek Pkwy. North
Pressure Washers with PressureParts.com
Sanofi Animal Health Canada, Inc.
275 Sheldon Dr. Unit #8
Veterinary Laboratory Services Branch
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Located at: The University of Guelph
White Cross/Ventech Healthcare, Inc.
5700 Keaton Cres.
By Mark Hagen, M.Ag.
Director of Research
Original Title: Disease Prevention through Proper Sanitation
and Disinfection in an Indoor Psittacine Breeding Facility