There is currently no specific treatment for the virus. A vaccine is available, but only experimentally. It has not been released to the public due to the risk it poses to already exposed birds.

Therapeutic intervention is limited to treating secondary infections. The individual bird can sometimes recover, but this is rare. If only the feathers are affected and the bird suffers no other symptoms, it can usually experience an acceptable quality of life. But if the bird's beak or nails are affected, veterinarians will recommend euthanasia.

The management of the disease lies thus mostly in prevention. Every new bird that enters a pen with other birds should be quarantined first and be tested for BFDV. Birds which are known carriers should not be introduced into new pens, especially not if those contain young birds.

Currently, antibiotic drugs such as penicillin or tetracycline are the only effective methods for disease treatment. Within wild populations, disease control consists of reducing the amount of bacterial spores present in the environment. This can be done by removing contaminated carcasses and scat.

In laboratory animals, prevention includes a low-stress environment, an adequate amount of nutritional feed, and appropriate sanitation measurements. Because animals likely ingest bacterial spores from contaminated bedding and feed, regular cleaning is a helpful method of prevention. No prevention methods are currently available for wild animal populations.

There is no vaccine for SVD. Prevention measures are similar to those for foot-and-mouth disease: controlling animals imported from infected areas, and sanitary disposal of garbage from international aircraft and ships, and thorough cooking of garbage. Infected animals should be placed in strict quarantine. Eradication measures for the disease include quarantining infected areas, depopulation and disposal of infected and contact pigs, and cleaning and disinfecting

contaminated premises.

The infection is treated with antibiotics. Tetracyclines and chloramphenicol are the drugs of choice for treating patients with psittacosis. Most persons respond to oral therapy doxycycline, tetracycline hydrochloride, or chloramphenicol palmitate. For initial treatment of severely ill patients, doxycycline hyclate may be administered intravenously. Remission of symptoms usually is evident within 48–72 hours. However, relapse can occur, and treatment must continue for at least 10–14 days after fever abates.

Prevention is through use of Stock coryza-free birds. In other areas culling of the whole flock is a good means of the disease control. Bacterin also is used at a dose of two to reduce brutality of the disease. Precise exposure has also has been used but it should be done with care. Vaccination of the chicks is done in areas with high disease occurrence. Treatment is done by using antibiotics such as erythromycin, Dihydrostreptomycin, Streptomycin sulphonamides, tylosin and Flouroquinolones .

Vaccination is the only known method to prevent the development of tumors when chickens are infected with the virus. However, administration of vaccines does not prevent transmission of the virus, i.e., the vaccine is not sterilizing. However, it does reduce the amount of virus shed in the dander, hence reduces horizontal spread of the disease. Marek's disease does not spread vertically. The vaccine was introduced in 1970 and the scientist credited with its development is Dr. Ben Roy Burmester and Dr. Frank J Siccardi. Before that, Marek's disease caused substantial revenue loss in the poultry industries of the United States and the United Kingdom. The vaccine can be administered to one-day-old chicks through subcutaneous inoculation or by "in ovo" vaccination when the eggs are transferred from the incubator to the hatcher. "In ovo" vaccination is the preferred method, as it does not require handling of the chicks and can be done rapidly by automated methods. Immunity develops within two weeks.

The vaccine originally contained the antigenically similar turkey herpesvirus, which is serotype 3 of MDV. However, because vaccination does not prevent infection with the virus, the Marek's disease virus has evolved increased virulence and resistance to this vaccine. As a result, current vaccines use a combination of vaccines consisting of HVT and gallid herpesvirus type 3 or an attenuated MDV strain, CVI988-Rispens (ATCvet code: ).

The first approach, which is the best approach at an effective management practice would be to eradicate or severely damage the Mountain and Cherry Leafhopper population because the leafhoppers are the number one vectors for this pathogen. To do this, pesticides (i.e. acephate, bifenthrin, cyfluthrin) could be applied or biological control (predators of the leafhopper) could be used. There should be a pre-season application of control measures as well as a post-season application. This is to maximize the effort at controlling both types of leafhoppers (Cherry and Mountain), thus cutting down the starting inoculum at both stages in the life cycle.

The organism should be cultured and antibiotic sensitivity should be determined before treatment is started. Amoxycillin is usually effective in treating streptococcal infections.

Biosecurity protocols and good hygiene are important in preventing the disease.

Vaccination is available against "S. gallolyticus" and can also protect pigeons.

There are numerous steps one has to take to try to manage the disease as best as possible. The aim is at prevention because once the pathogen reaches the cherry trees, disease will surely ensue and there is no cure or remedy to prevent the loss of fruit production as well as the ultimate death of the tree.

Psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD) is a viral disease affecting all Old World and New World parrots. The causative virus–beak and feather disease virus (BFDV)—belongs to the taxonomic genus Circovirus, family Circoviridae. It attacks the feather follicles and the beak and claw matrices of the bird, causing progressive feather, claw and beak malformation and necrosis. In later stages of the disease, feather shaft constriction occurs, hampering development until eventually all feather growth stops. It occurs in an acutely fatal form and a chronic form.

Cracking and peeling of the outer layers of the claws and beak make tissues vulnerable to . Because the virus also affects the thymus and Bursa of Fabricius, slowing lymphocyte production, immunosuppression occurs and the bird becomes more vulnerable to secondary infections. Beak fractures and necrosis of the hard palate can prevent the bird from eating.

Swine vesicular disease (SVD) is an acute, contagious viral disease of swine caused by the swine vesicular disease virus, an enterovirus. It is characterized by fever and vesicles with subsequent ulcers in the mouth and on the snout, feet, and teats. The pathogen is relatively resistant to heat, and can persist for a long time in salted, dried, and smoked meat products. Swine vesicular disease does not cause economically-important disease, but is important due to its similarity to foot-and-mouth disease.

Vaccines are available (ATCvet codes: for the inactivated vaccine, for the live vaccine, plus various combinations).

Given that avian reovirus infections are widespread, the viruses are relatively resistant outside the host, and that vertical and horizontal transmission occurs, eradicating avian reovirus infection in commercial chicken flocks is very unlikely. In addition, absence of detectable seroconversion and failure to detect virus in cloacal swabs are unreliable indicators of resisting infection, or transmission via the egg. Thus, the most proactive and successful approach to controlling this disease is through vaccination. Since chicks are more prone to being detrimentally affected by the disease right after hatching, vaccine protocols that use live and killed vaccines are designed to provide protection during the very early stages of life. This approach has been accomplished through active immunity after early vaccination and a live vaccine or passive immunity from maternal antibodies followed with vaccination of the breeder hens. Currently, efforts toward administering inactivated or live vaccines to breeding stock to allow passive immunity to the offspring via the yolk are being taken.

Psittacosis—also known as parrot fever, and ornithosis—is a zoonotic infectious disease caused by a bacterium called "Chlamydia psittaci" and contracted from infected parrots, such as macaws, cockatiels and budgerigars, and pigeons, sparrows, ducks, hens, gulls and many other species of bird. The incidence of infection in canaries and finches is believed to be lower than in psittacine birds.

In certain contexts, the word is used when the disease is carried by any species of bird belonging to the family Psittacidae, whereas "ornithosis" is used when other birds carry the disease.

Pacheco's disease is an acute and often lethal infectious disease in psittacine birds. The disease is caused by a group of herpesviruses, "Psittacid herpesvirus 1" (PsHV-1), which consists of four genotypes. Birds which do not succumb to Pacheco's disease after infection with the virus become asymptomatic carriers that act as reservoirs of the infection. These persistently infected birds, often Macaws, Amazon parrots and some species of conures, shed the virus in feces and in respiratory and oral secretions. Outbreaks can occur when stress causes healthy birds who carry the virus to shed it. Birds generally become infected after ingesting the virus in contaminated material, and show signs of the disease within several weeks.

The main sign of Pacheco's disease is sudden death, sometimes preceded by a short, severe illness. If a bird survives Pacheco's disease following infection with PsHV-1 genotypes 1, 2 or 3, it may later develop internal papilloma disease in the gastrointestinal tract.

Susceptible parrot species include the African gray parrot, and cockatoo. Native Australian birds, such as the eclectus parrot, Bourke's parrot, and budgerigar are susceptible to Pacheco's disease, although the disease itself has not been found in Australia.

Veterinary treatment or an improved and more stimulating environment may help birds suffering from feather-plucking. Organic bitter sprays are sold in pet stores to discourage plucking, especially of newly grown feathers, although this may make general beak-based grooming difficult for the animal. This is not recommended since it does not address the real reason why the bird is picking feathers.

There is some evidence that there may be a relationship between BoDV-1 infection and psychiatric disease.

In 1990, Janice E. Clements and colleagues reported in the journal "Science" that antibodies to a protein encoded by the BoDV-1 genome are found in the blood of patients with behavioral disorders. In the early 1990s, researchers in Germany, America, and Japan conducted an investigation of 5000 patients with psychiatric disorders and 1000 controls, in which a significantly higher percentage of patients than controls were positive for BoDV-1 antibodies. Subsequent studies have also presented evidence for an association between BoDV-1 and human psychiatric disorders. However, not all researchers consider the link between BoDV-1 and human psychiatric disease to be conclusively proven. A recent study found no BoDV-1 antibodies in 62 patients with the deficit form of schizophrenia.

Additional evidence for a role of BoDV-1 in psychiatric disorders comes from reports that the drug amantadine, which is used to treat influenza infections, has had some success in treating depression and clearing BoDV-1 infection. Counter-claims state that Borna virus infections are not cleared by amantadine. The issue is further complicated by the fact that amantadine is also used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and may have direct effects on the nervous system.

Infectious coryza is a serious bacterial disease of chickens which affects respiratory system and it is manifested by inflammation of the area below the eye, nasal discharge and sneezing...The disease is found all over the world causing high economic losses. Economic loss is due to stumping off and reduction of egg production in case of laying chickens. The disease was discovered early 1930s by considering clinical signs

The non-specific effects of vaccines can be boosted or diminished when other immunomodulating health interventions such as other vaccines, or vitamins, are provided.

There is no cure for CPL; the aim of treatment is to relieve the signs of the disease, and to slow the progression. Management requires daily care to prevent infection of the affected skin. The first step is to trim the feather from the lower leg, to ensure no affected areas are missed, and to allow application of treatments directly to the affected skin. Bacterial infections can be treated by gentle washing and drying of the skin. Topical treatments are required to treat chorioptic mange (caused by the mite "Chorioptes equi"), as the mites are not vulnerable to oral or systemic treatments when they are within the crusts on the skin. Daily exercise assists with the flow of lymph. Combined decongestive therapy involves massage of the leg to move the lymph, followed by specialized compression bandaging which creates a pressure gradient up the leg.

Horses with CPL often have poor-quality hoof, so regular trimming is required to help keep the hoof healthy.

Although infection of avian reovirus is spread worldwide, it is rarely the sole cause of a disease. For chickens, the most common manifestation of the disease is joint/limb lameness. Confirming infection of avian reovirus can be detected through an ELISA test by using and observing the expression of σC and σB proteins. However, isolating and identifying reoviruses from tissue samples is very time consuming. Isolation is most successfully attained through inoculation of material into chick embryo cultures or fertile chicken eggs. Inoculation of embryonic eggs through the yolk sac has shown that the virus usually kills the embryos within 5 or 6 days post inoculation. Analyzing the samples, the embryos appeared hemorrhagic and necrotic lesions on the liver were present. (Jones, Onunkwo, 1978). There have also been approaches to identify avian reoviruses molecularly by observing infected tissues with dot-blot hybridization, PCR, and a combination of PCR and RFLP. This combination allows for the reovirus strain to be typed.

Pacheco's disease is an eponymously named disease; it is named after the Brazilian veterinarian, Genesio Pacheco, who first came across the disease in 1929, in an outbreak affecting the turquoise-fronted amazon parrot, "Amazona aestiva". Initially, Pacheco's disease was thought to be a manifestation of avian psittacosis. The causative agent of the disease, a herpesvirus, was not identified until 1975.

The mode of transmission of BoDV-1/2 is unclear but probably occurs through intranasal exposure to contaminated saliva or nasal secretions. Following infection, individuals may develop Borna disease, or may remain subclinical, possibly acting as a carrier of the virus.

Marek's disease is a highly contagious viral neoplastic disease in chickens. It is named after József Marek, a Hungarian veterinarian. Marek's disease is caused by an alphaherpesvirus known as 'Marek's disease virus' (MDV) or "Gallid alphaherpesvirus 2" (GaHV-2). The disease is characterized by the presence of T cell lymphoma as well as infiltration of nerves and organs by lymphocytes. Viruses "related" to MDV appear to be benign and can be used as vaccine strains to prevent Marek's disease. For example, the related Herpesvirus of Turkeys (HVT), causes no apparent disease in turkeys and continues to be used as a vaccine strain for prevention of Marek's disease (see below). Birds infected with GaHV-2 can be carriers and shedders of the virus for life. Newborn chicks are protected by maternal antibodies for a few weeks. After infection, microscopic lesions are present after one to two weeks, and gross lesions are present after three to four weeks. The virus is spread in dander from feather follicles and transmitted by inhalation.

Non-specific effects are frequently different in males and females. There are accumulating data illustrating that males and females may respond differently to vaccination, both in terms of the quality and quantity of the immune response. If true, then we must consider whether vaccination schedules should differ for males and females, or as has been suggested "should we treat the sexes differently in order to treat them equally?"