cl injection?

susanne · #21 10/20/09, 08:33 PM

true, there are different management practices.
the way of transmission is well known.
everybody is entitled to do what fits the circumstances.
it is wrong to spread false information.
this disease is zoonotic and it is a matter of time when it will be required to have an animal tested before transported across state lines.
in my opinion (and this is truly my very own

) this is a disease that requires culling every infected animal tha was confirmed through testing. and by culling i mean killing. an infected animal will never have a place at my farm and i hope i will never have to deal with it.
i know a person that got infected with this disease. and let me tell you, it looked very painful.

LaManchaPaul · #22 10/20/09, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken in Maine

When people start talking about the only way to deal with CL is to kill the animal... that is fear mongering. There is an histeria on these forums perpetuated by a small number of people that this is a disease that will bring ruin to the goat industry.

It is my opinion that angelsprite was the person citing research and expereience as well as encouraging safe and healthy practices.

The transmission of CL is unknown and unproven... The idea of killing every goat that has an abscess is ridiculous!

To my distinguished Maine college from the other side of the aisle:

If I am one of the small numbers of people who tell new goat-herders to avoid CL diseased animals and the farms where CL exists AND if an animal has a CL lump to fatal cull then I accept your title of a fear monger while I explain that this is responsible management.

Either my eyes are too old to spot the cited research by angelsprite that you refer to or you are again in error. I specifically asked for the phone number and website for all of the “free” information proclaimed to dispel the notion that CL is a serious disease and to treat it similar to foot rot.

It is certain that the CL exude is contagious. Ridiculous to you and sound goat keeping to others to destroy CL positive animals.

angelsprite · #23 10/20/09, 09:18 PM

Susanne,
I'm just afraid the spreading of false information cannot be defeated. So many people don't feel obligated to verify anything they say before they say it. Researchers go to such great lengths to verify their results before publishing. It's a shame more people don't avail themselves of that information.
I've spoke my peace on this issue and I hope everyone else feels free to hold or form their own opinions, whatever those opinions are. Each to his own.
Speaking of verifying information... The NAIS was killed by an act of Congress. Funding of the project was shut down during the last congressional session due to resistence by producers, the extraordinary cost of trying to set up the system, the unfeasability trying to build such a large and complex computer system for the purpose of organizing more information than any data entry clerks could possibly keep up with, etc. Anyone who is participating in any "voluntary pilot program" expecting the NAIS to come into existence, it isn't funded and will likely NEVER be funded. They gave that money to the banksters for TARP.

deineria · #24 10/20/09, 10:01 PM

I think it is very interesting to hear both points of view - really, at the end of the day, each person's experience is what they will go on for farming, child rearing, marriage dealings, religion, lol. . . and obviously, many people = many experiences. I appreciate the information on both sides.
I have not yet encountered CL in my goats, so I have no informed feelings on the matter.

LaManchaPaul · #25 10/20/09, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelsprite

Susanne,
I'm just afraid the spreading of false information cannot be defeated. So many people don't feel obligated to verify anything they say before they say it. Researchers go to such great lengths to verify their results before publishing. It's a shame more people don't avail themselves of that information.

THE FALSE INFORMATION BEING SPREADED IS BY ANGELSPRITE. The shame is how researchers' information gets contorted by someone and with many eloquent words explains the opposite of what is published.

I went to the first site referenced by this poster only to find that what Angel espouses isn't what the research shows:
http://www2.luresext.edu/goats/libra...r/winter00.pdf
Goat Management Tips - Diseases:

Caseous Lymphadenitis by Lionel Dawson, D.V.M.
page 4
quote: If abscesses affect more than one lymph node, the carcass will be condemned at slaughter. Decreased body weight and milk production also occurs, and reproductive efficiency is often lower when these animals have developed internal abscesses.
end of quote.

Thanks for the reference on good reading in the other thread. I will read the sites referenced for the sake of reading good material, but no longer in search of reasons not to fatal cull a CL positive animal. As the educated person angel professes, an exact site reference would be nice to support the position. I'd really like to read published material that says that it is not safer and more productive to fatal cull CL+.

A humane goat-herder would not allow CL+ to suffer nor to subject all herdmates to the same costly disease. OK, yea my opinion and I don’t give it in hopes of changing someone’s mind on CL, just askn’ that you stop giving false information.

DairyGoatSlave · #26 10/20/09, 11:40 PM

I do belive this has gotten QUITE off topic! Im asking CJB to shut it down

betsy h. · #27 10/21/09, 12:00 AM

TAMU is doing studies with the antibiotic Tulathromycin (Draxxin) to see if the effects of CL can be mitigated- or to use the "C" word, CURED. Since CL is a bacterial infection, it seems reasonable to think just maybe we have a chance to actually DO something about this nasty.

I'd go straight to TAMU and find out what the current status of that study is showing us!

DairyGoatSlave · #28 10/21/09, 01:29 AM

thank you betsy

angelsprite · #29 10/21/09, 01:48 AM

Betsy,
Thanks for mentioning the TAMU study. The results and conclusions have already been reported.
I am taking the liberty of posting some links to the articles here but I will also put them on my 'great links for information and contacts thread'.

Our taxes pay for much of this research. It's important to keep up with the new information that is being published daily. There's a lot going on in the goat world.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19405888

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.234.9.1162

Two sources of an article detailing the results of a comparison of three treatment regimens for goats and sheep with Casseous Lymphadenitis, confirmed to have been caused by C. psuedotuberculosis.

The results are these, 44 caprines (sheep and goats) owned by clients (private owners) were included in the study. All presented with abscesses. The contents of the abscesses were tested and infection with C. pseudotuberculosis was confirmed.
The animals were divided into 3 groups with varying numbers of abscesses (lesions). It is unclear whether any or all of these animals had internal abscesses. From the description, it appears that most, if not all of them had external abscesses, and some may have had internal abscesses, but that information is not included.
Group A had 14 caprines with 15 lesions that were lanced, flushed, and the animals were treated with Penicillin G Procain by subcutaneous injection. 13 out of the 14 animals responded to treatment and the lesions had resolved by 1 month after the trial began, a 92.9% success rate.
Group B included 12 caprines with 15 lesions. These lesions were treated without being lanced by flushing them out (levage) with needle and syringe, then Tulathromycin was injected into each lesion. 14 of the 17 caprines resolved by one month after the trial began, an 83.3% success rate.
Group C included 17 caprines with 18 lesions. This group was treated without lancing the abscesses, by flushing them with a needle and syringe (levage) and with Tulathromycin injections subcutaneously. 14 of the 17 caprines resolved by one month after the study began, a success rate of 82.4%.

The results and conclusions are that CL can be successfully treated in sheep and goats with Tulathromycin in systemic injections.
I would like to point out though that the standard flushing and systemic Pen G injections was the MOST successful treatment in this study and is considered a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with Casseous Lymphadenitis in sheep and goats.

What is lost in all the arguing is the fact that goat owners are expected to cull their CL positive goats only because SHEEP are very vulnerable to the internal form of the disease. Goats were, for a long time, considered to be a valueless vector for transmission of CL to those valuable and vulnerable sheep. CL has been a sheep vs goat people problem much longer than it has been a dairy goat vs meat goat people problem.
Most of the economic losses attributed to CL in goats is only due to culling of goats that could be easily treated and retained in the herd. In other words, goats don't usually die of it. Sheep, on the other hand, tend to die of it, and that's why goat owners are expected to cull CL affected goats. Horsemen would laugh a goat raiser out of the room if they suggested culling a CL horse. So would cattlemen.
The new thinking is a result of the increase in the number of goat breeders in this country and the perceived economic importance of goat production. The economic impact of CL culling in goats is just too great for a thriving goat industry to withstand when the animals usually recover without further difficulty and culling means needless economic losses for producers.
Culling only one member of a herd because it popped out with an abscess makes no sense either. If a breeder wants to cull for CL, they should cull the entire herd, not just the goat with the abscess. Obviously, the whole herd was exposed to the bacteria because CL abscesses generally appear within 2 to 3 weeks of exposure to the bacteria and if one goat popped up with an abscess, then it is likely that most or all of the other goats were also exposed at the same time the abscessed individual acquired the bacteria.

Okay, NOW I have spoke my peace on this issue. I really hope we can all get past the angst this issue seems to engender and get down to some real facts. If 44% of the sheep in this nation are CL carriers and goats can't be tested accurately to get even a vague idea of a real number of carriers until they actually have an abscess, then there is no way to eradicate this disease and culling only costs people money, selects for more vulnerable goats, and more virulent bacteria.

http://www.sheepandgoatsusa.org/2008Grantees.htm
Scroll down to:
Texas AgriLife Research 2147 TAMU,
The Prevalence of Caeous Lymphadenitis in Selected Goat Populations and the Impact of Treatment with Tulathromycin Versus CUlling Affected Animals

Vicki McGaugh TX Nubians · #30 10/21/09, 01:53 AM

Ken, than post. Answer the questions. I didn't say I was the expert, I just answer the questions.

Knowing what a study says has rarely been of equal value to what I know from farm experience. In the end with goats if you don't do the leg work yourself, you can't afford to stay in business. How much BS have we listened to over the last 20 years, from inadquate testing of CAE, CL missinformation the list is pretty long.

You can tell from Angelsprites post she didn't bother to really read what I wrote, because I said, my vet is like minded to her, what she wrote is very much the party line for dealing with communicable disease in your herd, it's no big deal. Slice and dice and learn to live with it...well...Living just barely over an hour from me, it's very unlikely anyone with CL in a dairy herd will thrive during breeding stock sales, with the internet it just simply makes it impossible. Herds with CAE and CL simply are put out of business as new folks get smarter and smarter. You can only sell so many animals before your reputation due to your management proceeds you. I couldn't sleep at night telling folks that it's OK to manage CL in their herds, or to vaccinate.

Betsy would love to hear more on the study you heard about, and Dairygoatslave, is there not any thread in which adults, breeders who have had goats for more than 5 minutes can have a spirited discussion about anything without tattleing? I love answering questions, but it would be nice if everyone could post what they know, debate it as fact or fancy....but then I have Nubians and you have LaManchas...and I am very much like my breed, bossy with a big mouth. Vicki

DairyGoatSlave · #31 10/21/09, 01:55 AM

LADIES PLEASE! We all have our opinions but dear lord!(and I am talking to EVERYONE)

Vicki McGaugh TX Nubians · #32 10/21/09, 02:03 AM

No really, Please what??? I really don't get what you are so upset about.

I don't have time to read the study posted, but did you? Had the post been closed would we have gotten to read it? No... Vicki

LaManchaPaul · #33 10/21/09, 08:02 AM

Vicki said, "I couldn't sleep at night telling folks that it's OK to manage CL in their herds, or to vaccinate." Well said. I would add that I couldn't sleep if I kept my big mouth shut to someone advocating injecting a CL lump and calling it manageing CL. From experience and obversation I KNOW that to be untrue.

DGS, I apologize if I offened you. It was not my intention to offend anyone. However if what I know to be true and what I find in the documents isn't brought out under the title of this thread, then where? Please PM me with suggesstions on how I might have spoken differently to not have gotten off topic. Respectfully.

susanne · #34 10/21/09, 09:04 AM

with all things said, i do not want to repeat.
about studies???? who funded them? one of the big boys from pharma industry?? it is always nice to see different outcomes depending from whom they got the money from.
goats are in our food chain and i really do not want that crap on my table.
i still would rather kill instead of treating.
for the herds that want to treat, i wish they would do better homework.

DQ · #35 10/21/09, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelsprite

Two sources of an article detailing the results of a comparison of three treatment regimens for goats and sheep with Casseous Lymphadenitis, confirmed to have been caused by C. psuedotuberculosis.

The results are these, 44 caprines (sheep and goats) owned by clients (private owners) were included in the study. All presented with abscesses. The contents of the abscesses were tested and infection with C. pseudotuberculosis was confirmed.
The animals were divided into 3 groups with varying numbers of abscesses (lesions). It is unclear whether any or all of these animals had internal abscesses. From the description, it appears that most, if not all of them had external abscesses, and some may have had internal abscesses, but that information is not included.
Group A had 14 caprines with 15 lesions that were lanced, flushed, and the animals were treated with Penicillin G Procain by subcutaneous injection. 13 out of the 14 animals responded to treatment and the lesions had resolved by 1 month after the trial began, a 92.9% success rate.
Group B included 12 caprines with 15 lesions. These lesions were treated without being lanced by flushing them out (levage) with needle and syringe, then Tulathromycin was injected into each lesion. 14 of the 17 caprines resolved by one month after the trial began, an 83.3% success rate.
Group C included 17 caprines with 18 lesions. This group was treated without lancing the abscesses, by flushing them with a needle and syringe (levage) and with Tulathromycin injections subcutaneously. 14 of the 17 caprines resolved by one month after the study began, a success rate of 82.4%.

The results and conclusions are that CL can be successfully treated in sheep and goats with Tulathromycin in systemic injections.
I would like to point out though that the standard flushing and systemic Pen G injections was the MOST successful treatment in this study and is considered a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with Casseous Lymphadenitis in sheep and goats.

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]What is lost in all the arguing is the fact that goat owners are expected to cull their CL positive goats only because SHEEP are very vulnerable to the internal form of the disease. ]

no...what is lost is how many of those goats presented with abcesses again and in what time frame. how the production of those goats over a lifetime compared to healthy cl free goats as well as the transmission rates to healthy cl free goats under these 'treament' conditions and their production losses including the time and money spent treating them, the costs of seperate facilities until the abscess is healed etc...... treating the abcesses is nice but it seems like a really crummy long term solution. a nice quick solution is to get healthy goats and eliminate the infected ones!

studies are useful but any individual one can't address the full range of issues concerning something like this. you have to use a little common sense! it is, as of now, incurable, contagious, zoonotic and causes health and production problems. a study that simply says this can be treated isn't enough to conclude that it is worth being treated.

obviously your mind doesn't want to be changed. and you prefer to make concrete conclusions and reccomendations based on very limited studies that don't address real world issues. I am pursuing this thread to prevent people new to goats and the diseases that infect them from coming away from this thinking cl is no big deal.

betsy h. · #36 10/21/09, 10:25 AM

As I understand, this study was supported by one of the Boer goat associations......members donated the $$$.

Vicki McGaugh TX Nubians · #37 10/21/09, 02:04 PM

Excellent post DQ.

"Group A had 14 caprines with 15 lesions that were lanced, flushed, and the animals were treated with Penicillin G Procain by subcutaneous injection. 13 out of the 14 animals responded to treatment and the lesions had resolved by 1 month after the trial began, a 92.9% success rate."

How hysterical, if they had done nothing 100% of the abscess lesions would have resolved by 1 month after the trial began! Treatment isn't the point. Vicki

susanne · #38 10/21/09, 02:26 PM

systemic antibiotic treatment can not be successful because the bacteria is encapsulated in the lymph node. well known fact.

in the trial that is mentioned here, i'm missing how many animals got a new abscess after a while???? less than the untreated control group? did they even use a control group?

i think to help the eradication program, there need to be more studies done on vaccine to keep animals healthy that had contact with infected animals. blood test needs improvement too to isolate infected animals before they get an abscess and spread the disease. this would be IN MY OPINION, the only acceptable management.

DairyGoatSlave · #39 10/21/09, 08:28 PM

Vickie, I feel that you all could have taken your information and put it on the cl and cae sticky without all this arguing among the posters.

angelsprite · #40 10/21/09, 09:00 PM

Susanne,
Actually, there is quite a lot you are missing. First and most importantly, if you drain an abscess, you will see that those abscesses are very vascular. The medical community now understands that it is not the fibrotic tissue or lack of blood supply to a CL abscess that makes it difficult to treat.
Some fellows did a study that showed the bacteria is more sensitive to antibiotics in the normal culture and sensitivity tests because it is free floating in solution. If you take that same bacteria and layer it into biofilms, as the body does in an abscess, you find that it takes much higher concentrations of those same antibiotics to kill it. In order to treat the bacteria successfully with systemic injections, they will have to develop a new class of extremely highly concentrated antibiotics. It's as simple as that.
The antibiotic they are using in the trials may be one of these, or it may be one that the bacteria is very sensitive to in a biofilm state. Either way, the work is promising. It is promising because they included sheep in the study. Goats rarely die of CL, but sheep die of it like flies because they tend to develop the internal form of the disease. If they can find a way to treat CL in sheep and prevent them from dying of it, then, this bacteria becomes less of a monster. It will be just another bacterial infection that the vet tells the goat owner, ah, don't worry about it. Just take it home and flush it out and give it penicillin. The sheep owners will be told they have to use Tulathromycin to cure their animals.

WRT how many got abscesses later. They were not trying to determine whether abscesses would recur, they were trying to treat the abscesses with antibiotics and get them to resolve without the animals developing internal CL and dying from it. If the animals can survive and they don't develop internal abscesses and die, then the treatment is considered to be a success. I think you are expecting goats, sheep, pronghorn antelope, birds, rats, mice, raccoons, etc to one day ALL be perfectly clean and free of bacteria, but that isn't possible. Without bacteria and viruses to challenge the immune system, the immune system would become inactive and it wouldn't be able to play it's role in selection. Without challenges, it woud become useless and the first little thing that came along would kill the goat. Even the common cold. No animals can or will ever be completely free of any and all bacteria and viruses.

WRT to vaccine. The vaccines they have tried to develop in goats were disappointing mainly because there was too high a reaction rate with too little immunity. Not enough bang for the buck and the risks were too high. There is no CL eradication program. A disease can only be eradicated if it has no natural hosts other than the one in which it is trying to be eradicated. Like Smallpox. Smallpox has only one natural host, man. By vaccinating every human on the planet (and not all of them were cooperative either) they were able to eradicate the disease. Polio has few natural hosts other than man but it has NOT been eradicated. It still exists in the Southern Hemisphere, but polio as an epidemic disease was a man made phenomenon anyway. I doubt they will ever be able to eradicate it in the third world, but it does not usually take the form of epidemics there. CL has numerous natural resiviors and it can't be eradicated. Even if you killed all the goats that you could determine had ever been exposed to CL, it can exist for some length of time (undetermined) in soils. A deer, a rat, a bird, a housefly, comes into contact with the hay your goat eats and you just can't figure out how it got that disease.
And trust me, culling by USDA or CDC or USAMRIID is not something you want to see. Be careful what you wish for. hey don't come in and kill a goat. They come in and kill all the goats, then they trace the herds those goats came out of and kill those herds, and then they restrict premisis or call them "permanently infected".
I can only assume that you have been on the "goat owner" end of CL before and that's why you are so unwilling to see any new information on the disease published. It's because you fear the disease. I understand that, but I have only been on the "consulted by owner" end of CL, so I have nevery had to decide whether I would keep or cull a CL goat in my herd. I have always advised against culling, since CL is just another bacterial infection. It's not Anthrax. It's not rabies. It's not Brucellosis. I think goat owners should be far more concerned about those diseases, especially dairy goat owners who are selling raw milk. If I were putting my money into testing, I would be testing for diseases that are difficult if not impossible to treat in humans that can and do kill humans. CL is treatable in EVERY species that acquires it and now, it appears, the success rates in sheep are up too. So, it's all good.

And there is something else. I would fight for your right to dispose of any CL positive animals just like I fight for the rights of owners to prevent others from causing them unecessary economic losses. Your goats are your goats and you have the freedom under the Constitution of the United States to manage your herd as you see fit. If you give that power to government, you have to know, the government doesn't care about you, your finances, your goats, or anything else except showing that they "meet or exceed expectations" in their G- position. You and other goat owners are far more competent to make decisions for your own goats than any USDA agent, I promise. And most USDA agents would tell you that too.