N.C.A. B.I.P.

Abstract

by Sheldon Dingle Norco, California

In the June/July '83 Watchbird Dr.

Baer wrote an article regarding the possibility of a cage and aviary bird improvement plan. Since that writing things have been moving right along and there is now an Abstract of the proposed National Cage and Aviary Bird Improvement Plan (NCABIP) a copy of which is printed here for your careful consideration. According to Dr. I. Howard Kahan, Chairman, Subcommittee Model State Pet Bird Program, the Abstract is not the final word. It is still subject to modification and adaptation. in fact, Dr. Kahan solicits the input of all interested parties. But please - read the Abstract carefully and discuss it with your friends. Then make your considered judgement.

ABSTRACT

The Sub-committee on the Model State Program for Pet Birds met many times during 1982, including meetings with 80 delegates of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), in an effort to estahlish a program which would bring a modicum of order to the present chaotic state of disparate laws and regulations, existent and nonexistent, throughout our 50 states, whereby attempts are made to manage the different facets of the cage bird and its allied industries. Such a measure would benefit both the cage/aviary bird and poultry industries, and the food supply of the nation.

As a result, the National Cage and Aviary Bird Improvement Plan (NCABIP) has been proposed. The NCABIP provides the first of a series of voluntary cooperative steps whereby breeders, producers. and distributors of cage and aviary birds can significantly improve the over-all health and well-being of their birds and provide protection against the major direct and indirect ravages of viscerotropic velogenic Newcastle disease (VVND), avian influenza (fowl plague), chlamydiosis, Pacheco's disease, pox, and other avian diseases.

The NCABIP will:

I. Curtail the movement of illegally imported birds, the principle source of VVND, by broad involvement of all sectors of the cage and aviary bird industry in a recognizable, approved, selfregulated. state-federally supervised program of health security, record keeping and bird identification;

2. Encourage uniform cage and aviary bird regulations among states and federal government; and,

3. Facilitate interstate movement of cage and aviary birds participating in the NCABIP.

The program is modeled after the National Poultry Improvement Plan. The cage and aviary bird industry recognized the desirability of their involvement in and adoption of a similar plan whereby it, too, may ensure and encourage the establishment of standards and procedures that are approved by industry, government and the scientific community.

PROPOSED PROGRAM

I. Authority, Objectives, Organization A. Authority. Possibly under a portion of

 

the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 429), but different from those authorizing the NPIP. Utilize currently "reserved" Part 146, Subchapter F (Poultry Improvement), Chapter I APHIS, VS USDA Code. This part was formerly used for the National Turkey Improvement Plan.

B. Objective. ProvideacooperativeStateFederal program through which new technology can be effectively applied to the improvement of cage and aviary birds throughout the country. The provisions of the program, developed jointly by industry members and State and Federal officials, would establish standards for the evaluation of cage and aviary birds with respect to sanitation and control of certain contagious and infectious diseases of birds and poultry. Participants and birds conforming to NCABIP standards would be identified by authorized terms that would be uniformly applicable in all parts of the country.

C. Amendment. The provisions of the proposed NCABIP would be changed from time to time to conform with the development of the industry and to utilize new information as it becomes available. These changes would be based upon recommendations made at a national program conference by official delegates representing participating aviculturists, importers, jobbers, and retailers from all cooperating states. Refer to Section VIII.

D. Voluntary. Acceptance of the NCABIP would be optional with the States and individual members of the industry within the States. The program would be administered in each State by an Official State Agency cooperating with USDA.

Basic Program Considerations

A. Sanitation and Health Management

I. Housing shall provide:

a. Protection against extreme and sudden changes in temperature.

b. Effective sanitation.

c. Security against pests and predators.

d. Containment to prevent escape.

2. Caging shall provide:

a. Construction characteristics commensurate with efficient, effective husbandry and sanitation.

b. Minimal opportunity for the collection of droppings, spent feed, and other debris or waste products.

3. Food and water containers shall be kept clean. Soaking in household bleach or equivalent recommended weekly.

4. Good housekeeping practices.

5. Isolation of new additions.

6. Bird density. Enclosure size should be adequate for the species and conditions of confinement. Perches should be sufficient in number to further enhance exercise and · > avoid over-crowding.

7. Pest control. Housing must be rodent proof and active control measures taken.

 

8. Proper feed storage. Feed shall be kept in enclosed containers or in unopened bags of suitable materials.

B. Accurate record keeping shall be maintained on all birds brought to or sold from the premises. Records shall be maintained for a predetermined period enabling an adequate audit trail of all purchases, sales, other movements and losses. This is a major deterrent to smuggling, prevention of VVND, and of paramount importance in rapid control of recognized VVND outbreaks.

Efficient, uncomplicated forms, similar to those used by NPIP, should be used.

C. All birds shall be identified by an approved band or other approved means. Closed banding is preferred over open banding for domestically hatched birds.

III. Recognition Terminology and Participants Directory

A. "U.S. Registered" classification awarded to those facilities and individuals in compliance with outline Sections II-A, Band C above.

B. "U.S. Hatched" a possible additional program classification awarded to those in compliance with program mentioned in Section IX-A below.

C. Registries/Directories listing importers, aviculturists, jobbers, and retailers in compliance with various classifications would be published and distributed to all interested persons and businesses.

IV. Classified and Unclassified Stock

An educational and grace period of specified length would he provided to enable aviculturists and industry to "gear up" to eventually meet requirements of each participant to deal only in NCABIP classified stock or their official state equivalent.

V. Suspension, revocation and/or denial from participation shall be so structured as to ensure fair, prompt disposition of reported violations. This is essential for the credibility of the Program and the protection of the public and poultry, cage and aviary bird industries.

VI. Supervision, Training and Inspection

A. National level. Expanded National Plans Office (Beltsville, Maryland).

B. State level. Ordinarily State Departments of Agriculture are preferred. However, as with NPIP in some states, inspection arrangements with other state agencies and industry organizations would be possible.

C. Training shall he required for inspectors and administrators concerning cage and aviary bird inspection, management, and disease control. This is a vital program consideration which is absolutely essential for establishing rapport, creating credibility and gaining willing cooperation.

VII. Separate Funding

National (4%) and the balance (96%) between states and Plan participants.

VIII. Amendment of the NCABIP

Delegates and Advisory (Steering or Executive) Committees. Delegates should

 

represent State or Regional Bird Improvement Boards. Presentation of amendments and their consideration should be patterned after NPIP. National Conferences should be back-to-back with those of NPIP to ensure close communication between NPIP and NCABIP advisors and delegates, and provide for efficient use of travel funds by persons involved in both plans.

IX. Supplemental Program Possibilities

A. Recognition of domestically hatched

stock.

B. VVND control.

C. Chlamydia control.

D. Avian influenza, Pacheco's disease, mycoplasmosis, pox and other avian diseases.

The creation of N.C.A.B.1.P. has been endorsed by the following organizations:

American Federation of A viculture

National Poultry Improvement Plan

Pacific Egg and Poultry Association

Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council Southeastern Poultry Association

United States Animal Health Association American Association of Avian Pathologists Pennsylvania Association of Avian Veterinarians Pennsylvania Poultry Federation

American Association of Avian Veterinarians

Roland Cristo, Bob Johnson, Ken Bowen, and Bob Worman read the Abstract prior to this printing in Watchbird and generated the following questions that they feel should be addressed.

1. Does the A.F.A. back the plan 100% and what is the procedure whereby the A.F.A. decides to support or reject this plan or any other?

2. How will the program be funded and what, if any, controls will regulate how much money will be required from the aviculturists now and in the future?

3. The program as proposed now will be voluntary. Will it remain so or will compliance become mandatory? 4. Who will inspect the participating aviaries and dealers and will that inspector be knowledgeable?

5. When an aviculturist or dealer has been given the seal of approval what will prevent him from violating the program's principles and operating below standards but under the aegis of the "seal"?

Cristo, Johnson, Bowen, and Worman also suggest that if the bird industry must come under some sort of control it would be best to have guidelines created and controlled by aviculturists. They have several ideas on that. But most important, they feel, and I concur, is that each of you should study the N.C.A.B.1.P. proposals and make a deliberate and positive motion either pro or con according to your convictions. It would be the height of carelessness to let something this important get by without understanding it. Let your voice be heard. •

 

PDF