CAE thoughts/discussion
 

Is cae really that big of deal? I've wondered this for a while.


Someone bought my last cae+ doe about 2 years ago, I was upfront that she had it. The lady actually told me she wanted cae+ goats because the local vet told her the test is for "antibodies" against it and that means they would be more likely to be immune to it or something. I was astounded (didn't agree/still don't agree), and really questioned why the (very well known large animal) vet would tell her that. I didn't think much more about it.

Fast forward---friends of ours bought some milk goats--complete newbies. After me telling them my experiences with a dishonest breeder and cae, they were very cautious and demanded testing before purchase (from someone else). This was last year, they bought the goats and all is well. I talked to friend yesterday and he mentioned that he wanted to find a buck, but it must be tested, which led to him telling me his goats are very healthy and only came back with a "little bit" of cae. I was further astounded that the same lg animal VET told him it was normal. normal... wow. after I picked my jaw off the floor, I kinda said something like it's either + or -

I don't want + goats, I had one that had classic symptoms--I know what it looks like. But I also know the majority of + goats never show symptoms (I think I read somewhere over 50% of all goats are +, and of those 50%, 10% are symptomatic) Don't know how true that is or where it came from.

I can see the value in breeding high prevention (especially if you have a lg # of goats and the milk is community milk for all kids), but really, a small homesteader with a few goats, is it that big of deal?

And I also wonder if forums like this where a few people make a HUGE deal about it kinda have a snowball effect and cause panic (I mean, there is a huge difference between cae and cl)? I can see both sides, it's good to KNOW about it, and make decisions based on knowledge. But, on the other hand, if a goat is healthy/asymptomatic/raises only her own kids (which at least 50% of those will be eaten) and has good genetics the fear may cause people to feel pressured to cull unnecessarily.

This post is more me thinking out loud more than anything. I'm not firmly on either side--I guess I'm in the middle. (the 2 obvious sides being cull, cull cull, tragedy and it doesn't matter)

If you have a CAE positive doe and she is very valuable and non symptomatic then it can be managed. However I think to let her raise her kids or be in a pen with any kids that might sneak a meal off of her is highly irresponsible.

Sould we turn a blind eye to it because a lot of goats may have it and it might be more trouble to find disease free goats and go to the effort to test to prove it? No.

Livestock is hard work. That hard work includes keeping disease free animals. Is there a valid reason that just because someone wants just family milkers then it should be okay to propagate disease? Why should small breeders/family milkers/homesteaders be exempt from disease testing and maintaining healthy disease free herds?

I too have had a symptomatic CAE doe that we had put down. Its very hard to see your goat in that kind of pain. Maybe even more so for the family milker/small breeder/homesteader who's goats border on being pets as well. Yes a doe may go her whole life without ever showing signs. But plenty of those babies that get the disease from her may. Is it fair that a goat be sold as a family milker only to find out that by the time she is two or three she can barely move on her knees and her udder is so hard the owners can barely get any milk out and have to put her down? When instead, if the breeder had just tested and culled and pulled babies as needed, they could have had a healthy,productive goat that lived to be 10 or 12.

CAE is so preventable. Why would anyone not test and pull babies and cull if need be? In one generation you can have a clean herd. Or if you are careful ,never have CAE in your herd at all.

Most people who get backyard goats do it foe health reasons. Should they not also be concerened about the health of their animals and spreading disease?

Is AIDs a big deal? After all, most of the people that have AIDs are asymptomatic for many, many years. Some folks that are exposed to it on a regular basis never get it. Does that mean, if you are in the dating game, that you shouldn't use safer sex practices or ask for tests before engaging in intimacy? (The religious debate out of this, but even going that way, a person who was once very promiscuous and then was saved....should a potential spouse ask for testing before going through with an "I do"? It is about the same thing.)

And while SOME goats can go through life asymptomatic, they are still spreading the disease to OTHER goats.

You see, this is something that folks often overlook...the disease spreading from dam to kid through the milk is only the *most common* way the disease is spread...it is not the ONLY way. The virus is shed through white blood cells, which show up in mucus, blood and other bodily fluids....and any/all of these means are a potential for spreading the disease from a positive goat to a negative goat. And while your positive goat may be asymptomatic, there are no guarantees that your others goats will be also.

Oh, the lady that was looking for antibodies?

"Caprine Arthritic Encephalitis is a retro-virus; in other words, antibodies created by the CAE-positive goat are not effective in attacking the virus. The presence of antibodies indicates infection but not immunity to the disease. " -- Tennessee Meat Goats

Sorry, but it is absolutely irresponsible to NOT cull a positive goat. There are plenty of healthy goats out there, the disease CAN be eradicated within a single generation in ANY herd, but what is more:

By keeping and maintaining a positive goat, you are putting OTHER people's goats at risk. Can you guarantee that the animal will NEVER escape and come in contact with other goats , or for that matter, local deer? What about your best friend's 4 year old who managed to wander out from under sharp, parental eyes (and yours too!), get to the barn, and let all the goats out?

Or any number of other things that can and do happen. I have a horse that is EXCELLENT at unlocking the goat pens if you aren't exceptionally precise..

It isn't just about the individual goat....and that lrg. animal vet needs to be sat down and given one HECK of a what for about all the misinformation he is passing around! In fact, if it were me, I'd take out a full page ad in the local paper and let EVERYONE know he is passing out misinformation about goat health and disease.

As a vet., HE needs to man up to his responsibility for livestock health also.

Oh and, my large animal vet agrees that we should work towards eradicating CAE and understood completely when we asked to have our CAE positive doe put down.

Very good and valid points, and I mostly agree. But I don't think that cae will ever be eradicated (not saying I think it should be overlooked and uncontrolled), what I mean is most people who have goats are never going to pull babies and bottle feed. That is mostly for the enthusiasts (us, I mean, we visit a forum regularly...about goats, lol). I'm glad enthusiasts exist--they are good for the goat/animal world. I'm also glad the knowledge is out there and discussed so more and more people will know about it to help control it.

I just don't think it's realistic to expect the average person (who is not represented in this forum), to go to unnatural extremes in fighting this disease which is no big deal to many people (like the vet down here).

I do not think it's irresponsible to not test, but I kinda do think it is irresponsible to test....find positives....and not manage it (whether it be pull kids and separate or cull).

I'm glad I know what I know, and there are very strict breeders who improve the breeds, raise awareness, and raise goats for the benefit of the commoner.

Is it irresponsible to NOT vaccinate your dog? If your dog is exposed to an animal that possibly has rabies, is it responsible to just say "Ho, hum, not gonna test unless the dog shows symptoms"?

I mean, most people just have a dog for a pet. They aren't "enthusiasts". So they probably wouldn't want to be bothered in making sure that, say, parvo or distemper isn't spread about. I mean, who cares if Fluffy, next door, who IS owned by an "enthusiast" happens to catch a disease from the person who doesn't wish to properly maintain the health of their pets, right?

Or cats. Most folks just have one, or maybe two, for pets. They aren't "enthusiasts". So they shouldn't have their indoor/outdoor cat tested for feline leukemia, right? Just an expensive thing, and who wants to know that one's cat is going to have a shortened lifespan and spread the disease to all of the other cats in the neighborhood. If Mrs. Johnson's pet Persian gets it from playing "bat a paw" through the window screen, who cares, right?

No. I am sorry, but no matter if you have two goats or twenty goats....no matter if you are rich, poor, your goats have pedigrees dating back to the time of King James, or your goats have an ancestry of Grade Doe x Athletic Fence Breaker...it doesn't matter...

If you are not willing, or cannot afford, to have your goats tested and, if need be, provide separate, secure facilities for, OR cull, disease positive animals, as well as provide the proper veterinary health maintenance on your animals, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE OR BREED GOATS.

You can substitute the word "goat" or "goats" with dog, cat, horse, cow, llama, parrot, chimpanzee, or elephant, and I would feel the same way.

It doesn't matter if people like that STUPID, IDIOTIC, MORONIC vet doesn't care about disease...or if half the people in your county don't care about disease...it is still irresponsible to aid in proliferating disease.

The *ethical* and *responsible* thing to do is to test regularly (testing then keeping a closed herd counts too!) and to either quarantine and/or cull positive animals.

Anything less than that is unethical and irresponsible.

Goats aren't the same as people and cae isn't the same as aids (I understand it's the same type of virus--but it's impact is what I'm talking about). It's hard for me to get past that first paragraph. Extremely inflammatory.

I'm not pro cae, if you want to equate it with something human (which I don't see as necessary), I'd say it's more like herpes. I want to know about it so I can take the necessary steps to prevent it, teach my kids about it. But it's out there and 1/2 of the population has it (50-80% says google)--and 50% of potential spouses of my kids have it.... Have you seen pictures of really, really bad herpes? Did you know you can die from it?

I know cae is more serious than herpes in most cases, but most + goats never show symptoms (not some, like you said, most) AND spread is very unlikely via other avenues besides milk, possible, but unlikely.

Remember I'm not advocating ignoring the problem, but blowing it out of proportion isn't helpful either.

~sighs~ CAE is a retro-virus, like AIDs. That's not inflammatory, it is true. Herpes is not a retro-virus, it is in the family of viruses related to Chicken Pox, a completely different thing.

You are wrong in that most CAE positive goats never show symptoms. Most CAE positive goats die from encephalitic seizures before they even reach a month old. These deaths are often written off as "unexplained" or given a misdiagnosis. But if you don't test your goats and you have kid deaths, especially if ALL kids of a multiple birth from a single doe die, you need to look at testing your goats.

I understand that you are not "pro-CAE"... but I still cannot advocate just keeping a positive goat around. I have likened it to AIDs, to distemper, to rabies, and to feline leukemia. Any of those can be considered inflammatory, I guess.

However, for the entire discussion, I think I can sum it up into one word:

"Coggins"

People did not want to be responsible and ethical. They did not wish to test and EIA started spreading to expensive animals. EIA isn't all that contagious either...about the same as CAE except under certain circumstances.

~chuckles~ But when it came right down to it, when people did not wish to do the responsible, ethical thing themselves, then it got mandated and they were FORCED to do the responsible, ethical thing.

It has not eradicated the disease. A few cases pop up every year in each state. However, it has SEVERELY lessened the disease.

~shrugs~ Your call. If we, on our own, do not "blow it all out of proportion" and police ourselves... and insist on responsible and ethical practices among our own, then eventually the government WILL step in and FORCE the idiots to act right.

I, myself, prefer to take the high road and be voluntary. I will continue to blow it all out of proportion.

I wonder why the Govt does not step in and mandate a program of testing similar to sheep scrapies? I don't have goats, yet, but have raised a small, (closed for the last 8 years) flock of sheep for 17 years. I read this thread with great interest as I plan to get a few milk goats in the future. I have no plans to show or even raise breeding stock. But keeping them healthy and productive and long-lived is just as important to me as it is to a large milk operation. There is no way I will buy our starter herd from someone who cannot prove their animals are tested free from CL and CAE. Do goats carry Johnes (sp) like cattle and sheep? I would want that tested for too.

kabri, it will get there. Eventually the government will mandate such testing just like they did coggins in horses, scrapie in sheep, etc.

Yes, goats, like cattle and sheep, can carry Johne's. I test my goats for CAE, CL, Johne's, Brucella and TB. I have done the same kind of testing when I have had over 20 goats, and when I have had only two goats. I don't see how numbers or lack thereof have anything to do with wether or not one tests...except that the bill is less when it is 2 goats. :)

The government doesn't care how many horses or sheep I have...they just want me to test them yearly. The government also doesn't care if I let them roam on a 100 acres with nothing out there but a stock pond for water and a mineral block (basically ignoring them and letting them fend for themselves) or if I have Martha Stewert's barn (which, according to sources who have been there, does not smell like a barn. Instead, it smells like lemons.) and they eat from crystal feed troughs and drink Perrier from a fountain.

The government cares that I test them and that they are free from disease which can be passed to other people's stock.

~shrugs~ I am the same way. I don't care what a person does on their farm and/or homestead, as long as their management practices do not effect *me*.

I test. I do the ethical thing towards my neighbors. Their stock is NOT going to catch diseases due to *me*. I expect the same ethics and integrity in return.

I thought scrapie wasn't something easily tested for in live animals. Last I knew it could only be diagnosed from lymph or brain tissue samples. I have not heard of anyone testing for scrapie in sheep or goats unless it's post mortem....maybe I am wrong??

And, yeah, goats can get Johnes disease but the blood test for it is not very reliable until advanced stages of the disease from what I have gathered.

I have had mixed feeling about CAE in the past also. I know of someone who has been raising goats for 20+ years, has positive goats, but has never had any goats experience signs or symptoms of the disease. I have seen the herd myself--no large knees or any other signs of arthritis, no hard udders, no unthrifty goats whatsoever. I know that CAE is mutagenic and it makes me wonder if it's only certain strains or mutations of it that produce symptoms. Very mysterious disease...

Yeah, good luck with that. Testing is one thing, poor management is another. I need a new ram, found one that should fit our needs and the seller was willing to answer my health and management questions. Have seen animals in the neighborhood living in deplorable conditions too. I don't expect the same ethics these days from my neighbors, they don't see anything wrong with how they tend to their animals. :( I hope you have better neighbors than we do!

The last thing we need is bigger govt. Most of the meat goat breeders are not going to test for CAE or CL as it's not cost effective on large herds and Their turn over on animals is so fast that they really don't care. I would say that generally the dairy people care more

I cannot agree that the dairy people care more, 6e. ~sighs~ It would be nice if that were the truth, but often, it just isn't.

I know meat herds that test VERY regularly. CAE, Johne's, Etc., have huge effects on kidding rates and mothering ability, and therefore it behooves them to have disease-free animals whenever possible. The meat herds do NOT tend to pull kids at birth...they want does that are good mothers. What good does it do them to have kids dying of encephalitic seizures before they are a month old, and therefore before they can be sold?

No, it is the dairy people and the small producers who are being the hole in this road. Dairy folks make their money off of the milk...not necessarily off of the kids. For the most part, in dairy, doe kids at least are often pulled for bottle feeding as it makes them friendlier, and, of course, the does can be milked right from the get go, if only to feed kids. Milk can be pasteurized on site to feed to wanted kids. Therefore, why test and why cull? The actual management practices make it less necessary.

Oh, but the small producer. THAT is where the true balking about the program lies. The larger dairies, eventually, will go CAE free just because it is a bit easier, and it allows them more freedom in trading stock between them.

But the small producer, the "pet person" who cannot bear to cull their beloved DarlingSweetieSugarPie. THAT'S where the disease tends to get a foothold and STAY. The people with less than 50 goats are both more financially, and more emotionally, invested in each goat and less likely to test....and more likely to ignore or rationalize away positive results.

Meat breeders do not test for CL, that is true. But they DO test for, and cull for, CAE. CAE, unlike CL, can have major, VAST effects on their bottom line.

The small dairy folks, though, that have between 2 and 50 goats, tend to be the ones who really tend to be guilty about not doing the necessary things for goat health. Not JUST testing and culling, but also vaccinations and mineral shots.

6e, I didn't mean that we NEED more government, what I meant is that because of folks not stepping up in their responsibilities, we're going to GET more government. Lots of people complained that we didn't NEED more government when coggins tests were mandated, either.

If we do our OWN policing, and PUSH things like testing and culling, maybe, just maybe, we might AVOID more government.

kabri, just because I expect others to be as ethical, honest and responsible as I am does not mean that I get it. ~wry smile~ However, the very fact that my neighbors or other goat people in my community are less than ethical in their management of their goats does not mean I am going to let myself off the hook in that department just because everyone else is doing it. :)

More, I think of it as, if I am in responsible company that believe in ethical management practices, then I am in good company. And if everyone around me thinks that it is okay to keep disease ridden animals and infect their neighbor's stock...well, then I am simple better than them, aren't I?:)

I also do not understand why someone would breed a known diseased goat (or any animal for that matter). Okay okay, CAE you can pull kids, but to not pull kids & just knowingly spread a disease, well that's not right. Same goes for Johne's & CLA.

Wake up breeders: manage the diseases or the government will step in and manage our privately owned stock for us. Why? Because we can't manage them ourselves.

We have meat goats. We screened them on purchase, when we were starting out. Bought from reputable herds, and continued our testing. Now our decent sized herd is clean clean clean. We practice biosecurity & monitor to keep them clean. Are we selling goats for meat? HAH! No. Breeders they sell for at top dollar I might add. In 7 years I havn't had to unload a goat for meat yet. *wink* think I found my niche market.

Anywho right now, there is a breeder I know of who has a herd of CLA positive goats. They are sending them off to a "pet home" to live out the rest of their lives because they couldn't cull (read kill) them. Not sure exactly how many goats they have, but it sounds like it's over 10 positive for CLA. They want a clean herd-but apparently it's okay to spread the disease on someone elses property. Once the goats leave their hands how can they guarantee they will remain just pets for 10, 12, 13 years? Scenarios like this make me cringe, and vow to remain vigilent in our quest to maintain a clean herd.

To each his own but, geez, to answer the question YES it's a big deal, and not just for CAE but for Johne's and CLA also.

HF
Hoping this goes through, my first one didnt

Good for you Caliann! Sure wish more had those ethics!!! Another thought occurred to me reading this thread, what are the chances that these diseases can mutate and cross over to humans via meat/milk? I've read that there is a suspected connection between Johnes (mostly from cattle) and crohn's in humans. Sure would make even more sense to test and only produce healthy animals.

Diseases tend to mutate, kabri. CL (CLA) already has some documented cases in humans. It's only a matter of time before these diseases pass over to humans.

Thanks, HF, for putting in for the meat breeders! One of the big Boer breeders I talked to mentioned maintaining a CAE free herd for purely practical and financial reasons. Kid loss hits meat breeders in the pocketbook no matter how you look at it.

And to everyone reading: You don't want things like NAIS? I don't either. But if WE, collectively, do not manage disease in *our own animals*, we're gonna GET NAIS, or something like it, whether we want it or not. Acting in the most responsible manner that we can is all that is going to keep the government out of our business.

Personally I would not have sold a CAE positive goat, I would worry that even if the kids are pulled it could spread. I would have had the goat put down by a vet. But to each his own and I know you gave full disclosure.

You say we on the forum make a big deal about it and you are wondering if it is such a big deal yet you say you do not want positive animals :shrug:

I am not going to have a goat knowingly suffer from the disease, possibly spread it, watch their knees get big and lose the ability to walk, it is not humane. Nor would I want their kids to get it either and so on. CAE to me is an actual problem so I test for it.

I think that vet is an idiot but many "goat vets" are not good nor do they really know goats. So anything they say I research before I believe them anymore. One vet cost me a lot of money and grief for what ended up being a shot lump. She knew two things about goats CAE and CL and that's is all.

I am not scared of the government nor do I think they are "all up in my business", and funny how people are not either when it comes to tax refunds, social security and other government benefits but they if they do a census or something people start screaming about the government violating their rights. No I do not want NAIS nor would I want to participate if it was voluntary. Do away with disease sure but have to list all my animals carrying a license and etc no thanks.
Will I continue to test my animals either way? yes.
Do I believe CAE is a problem? yes.

Around here it's the exact opposite. The meat herds are the ones that don't really care about CAE or CL. The goats are moved through so fast that it doesn't matter to them. They vaccinate and worm and that's about it. The dairy herds are the ones that do all the testing, but the dairy herds around here are less than 100 or so goats and the meat herds measure in the hundreds. I'm sure the smaller meat goat producers might.

I'm NOT saying that just because the meat goat people do or don't that everyone else should or shouldn't. Each one has to do what they feel they should. Goat people around me tend to lean to one of two ideas. Either they test for everything and are very careful or they go the other way and don't really care and most of those are the small producers with just a few goats and it really makes no difference to them if Sweetie out back gets sick, they wouldn't put her down anyway. Doesn't make it right, just facts.

Oh, and Calli, I agree that people are often the ones that push the govt into acting because they do not police themselves. It's pretty sad when people need a babysitter to make them do what they should have done in the first place.

Glad to hear you are!! I wish more would and what's even worse is when well known breeders push off diseased goats KNOWING that they are and lying to the unsuspecting. That ruins it for everyone.

~nods~ I understand that you are neither advocating nor condoning such things, just stating them as facts.

I am not *for* more government...but it is the same. I am just stating facts.

The Extension Offices around here are offering a certification program for tested herds. Everyone knows it is step one towards government mandated testing, but what can you expect? In traditional, Texas sneakiness, they are trying to do it bit-by-bit under the radar with new regulations, but it is going to end up the same.

Small producers that refuse to test and cull are endangering the livelihood of large producers whose bottom line depends upon the production of healthy kids. That sort of situation doesn't last long before someone starts screaming about regulation.

Should have responded earlier, but didn't have time. No interest in responding in depth now. From a herd that had their first symptomatic doe at 9 years old. Tested the herd and made the decision to manage CAE out of the herd rather than cull entire lines of non-symptomatic does after 8 years of dam raising. When 3 of your original five does appeared to have been positive? Kinda hard to figure tossing 8 years of breeding out the window. All positive (and suspect positive) goats that leave the farm go to a slaughter auction where two meat buyers fight over them and generally pay top dollar because they generally aren't symptomatic (2 in the past 5 years).
All goats sold to other breeders are either raised on Prevention or negative dams and are usually tested negative before sale. But hey, we are unethical people for having made the decision to manage it instead of slaughtering over half of the herd.
Real easy to say what you would do? But have you had to make that decision?

I believe I said in an earlier post:

"The *ethical* and *responsible* thing to do is to test regularly (testing then keeping a closed herd counts too!) and to either quarantine and/or cull positive animals."

I apologize that when it was discussed about *managing* CAE out of a herd that I did not state that specifically.

HOW one deals with CAE positive animals depends upon the operation. The fact that you ARE dealing with it means that your sarcastic comment of being unethical people is false.

CAE is important to me. I test my goats yearly.

I don't want cae, but I have no problem with someone else who doesn't want to test. I don't feel it's irresponsible at all providing they have healthy animals (+goats can be very healthy).

I'm not trying to say I think cae should be ignored, but I do think it is extremely exaggerated by some (not all, and there are many who won't voice their opinions because of the vocal few who are....passionate).

If it was that horrible of a disease and half the goat population has it, I think we'd see/hear more about it outside a goat forum (which I like, btw, I enjoy talking to and learning from more experienced people and helping out).

I hope I'm coming across clear, I can't tell.

dosthouhavemilk:

Quite to the contrary you are an ethical breeder based on your post.

You are managing your herd
you are testing your herd and are in tune with the health of your herd
you are culling (killing) positive animals
you are using the best possible means of screening available to you and testing prior to sale other than auction, presumably low-risk animals
You are not simply propogating the problem
you are not hiding the fact you are managing it


You, my fellow goat herdsperson, are to be commended. It is not the choice I would have made, but you had a lot more at risk than I & the very fact you are working to salvage those valuable bloodlines shows your compassion for the breed. The fact that you are managing it brings you high above those that ignore or hide the problem.

The key word being managing it.

You are doing a fine job.

HF

I have only met 4 breeders outside of this forum that tests for CAE or CL, and that includes 3 HUGE big name breeders that everyone here would recognize. . . most I've met don't care.
I do care because I would feel unethical selling a goat that I knew had either.
I test.
Do I think there might be something to breeding for resistence. I do.
I really do.
I do not have the knowledge to do it; I think there are breeders out there that might. . .
CAE testing isn't 100%, CAE prevention isn't either. . .it freaks me out.
I know the few honest folks that do stive to prevent it and have for many years and have practiced diligent prevention have had goats seroconvert - you really can't be positive - there are many unknowns. If someone tells me they know their goats cannot have it - I know to be suspicious. I know people first hand - honest, reputable breeders with 30 years breeding - and I know they have had it happen -
I am just not sure what I think - I know I act the way I feel I must regarding the goats and testing because I am honest and want to be ethical.
Doesn't mean I don't question it all. I do. But I have no other answer, for now. . .test, and get a negative and wonder if it might turn positive later on. . .

As long as someone's CAE positive, healthy, non-symptomatic goats are able to infect someone else's healthy, CAE-negative goats who may or may not end up being non-symptomatic, then yes, it is irresponsible.

Say my next door neighbor has goats. Say they are positive for CAE. Now, it doesn't bother my neighbor as s/he could care less if all and any kids born die within seconds, as the neighbor could care less about his/her goats. They are just kinda there.

Now, since this is a personal story, say that brand new, EXPENSIVE new doeling I just bought sidles up to the fence and grabs a sip from the neighbors diseased, infected goats. Or, for a less expensive measure, say ONE of the goats are JUST getting symptoms and sneezes all over my new doeling and my herd queen...and they both catch CAE.

But my goats aren't so lucky as the neighbor's goats. My doeling starts having seizures within the week, and dies. My herd queen, within the year, has to be put down because she is leading a miserable, symptomatic existence.

The neighbor's goats, of course, are still grazing along, healthy and nearly asymptomatic. However, I am out many hundreds of dollars for an expensive doeling (financial) and am heartbroken over my beloved herd queen (emotional).

Do you HONESTLY believe that is ethical and responsible behavior by the neighbor? You see, *I* have been a caring person, making sure my goats are not disease ridden and therefore my neighbor does not have to suffer from financial or emotional setback due to my actions or lack thereof....but it's okay if the neighbor causes me loss and sorrow?

If that is NOT your position...then please clarify, because it sounds that you are advocating *other* people being irresponsible.

I am not sure how it isn't irrresponsible to know there is a disease out there that is primarily spread in the colostrum and milk from mother to babies and NOT test for it. How can anyone justify infecting babies with a disease that could easily have be prevented if the breeder just knew the status of their does?

Having positives in your herd that you manage so that it doesn't spread does not mean that you are unethical, it means just the opposite of that. It means you tested, you know their status and are taking steps to prevent the babies from having it.

People know CAE is out there. They know that it will get passed from mother to babies. They know there is a test for it. Justify it how you will, the fact remains that not testing is irresponsible. I have had a symptomatic positive doe and had to make the heart breaking decision to put her down because she was in so much pain. I have known others who had to put down symptomatic does. There is no reason to pass disease on to others because you (generic use of the word you) don't want to go to the effort to be responsible.

If one doesn't want to go to the effort to test, then they shouldn't be breeding animals.

Since I'm new to the dairy side of goats I went to my first show a couple of weeks ago. I heard the owner of a well respected herd, who was winning like crazy at the show, tell someone that they might want to keep their doeling away from one of her does because her herd was CAE positive!! I had decided at the last minute not to take my two bucklings to the show, and I am SO glad. With milk from all these does, ( infected and not infected), all over the place I would have been terrified!! My goats are my babies, not just livestock, and I try to be very careful not to expose them to any more potential problems than I must. Talk about irresponsible------bringing infected does to a show.

Let me assure you from experience and the mouths of show breeders - many, many, many does at shows are positive -
scary stuff if you show and have animals there, esp. kids

I won't show because of diseases.

I'm not wealthy, I saved for a while to get my goats...and after some research, ended up waiting FIVE YEARS to finally get my goats. I think I have good goats.....not top of the line show winners by any means.... but certainly not scraping the very bottom of the quality barrel either. Why on earth would I drag them to a show with possibly contaminated goats?? Just not worth the stress of worrying.....If I ever feel the need to have my goats evaluated by an unbiased party, I'd do something like the V-Shows or Linear Appraisal.

I bought all of my girls negative CAE test and plan to test again before breeding season....a diseased goat cost as much, if not more in the long run than a healthy one, so why take a gamble and bring home a disease?

If I had to chose a goat evil to deal with, I'd chose CAE simply because it's the easiest to manage and you can achieve clean herd status if you work hard enough, practice good biosecurity and are vigilant.

If I ever had CL, I'd be done with goats...

To me health testing is a valueable tool in any breeding operation. My Chinese Cresteds are health tested OFA, OPTIGEN, CERF. 80% of the puppies I've had are in repeat homes (2 or moreof my puppies in one house) who have them spayed/neutered as pets. My mother in law can't understand why I spent so much doing test when they didn't leave as breeders anyways....BUT, I made the choice to bring those lives into the world, and in doing so, it is my moral obligation to do everything in my power to assure my puppies are free from genetic defects. Not to mention, I know the 4 puppies I placed in breeding/show homes will not be spreading genectic defects to future generations...

So why not the same for my goats? They may not be top of the line, but the very least I can do is do everything in my power to ensure future generations created by me have the best start and the best chance at a long, productive, pain free life.

CAE test is $4, plus shipping and blood drawing equipment.....Pretty cheap peace of mind IMO....not to mention a valuable tool if you do have positives so you can cull/separate and pull kids and raise on CAE prevention..

Many people that show have more than just CAE in their goats. They "manage" the diseases, and keep them symptom free through show time.

If all theses "show" people, who have lots of time and money and work in their goats have healthy show quality goats.... doesn't that maybe say cae isn't the worst thing in the world? (not that I'm condoning bringing +goats to shows, just that they are out there)

Some of the most well known, knowledgeable goat people we all know and reference do/did not test. fisacofarm.com I wouldn't dare call them irresponsible.

I'm sorry if this is a bit of thread drift, but...

I have just started raising goats. I've read the books and talked with people. There is a VAST difference between book reading and what you need to do!

I bought a 1 yr old Saanen and 1 yr old Alpine. Both were bred. I had the vet test them for CAE. They were fine. The Saanen then developed a characteristic cyst by her jaw. I took her to the vet and he said CL (didn't test, but lanced). I immediately isolated her from the Alpine. The Saanen then had her baby several days later. I immediately separated the baby and have been raising it off replacer. I think the doeling may have had a sip or 2 from mom before I separated her. The vet said no big deal. The vet doesn't think this is any big deal. The breeder I bought her from is freaking out, but her herd is all OK (all tested).
Any advice?

Thanks,

SC

I don't think CAE testing will ever be mandated--the economic incentive is not strong enough since the vast majority of goats that have the virus never display any symptoms and lead normal, healthy lives. It also present no threat to the public because it is not transmissible to humans or other livestock (except for a very small and unlikely possibility of it MAYBE spreading to sheep).

CL is a totally different ball game than cae--serious stuff. Did your vet test the sample? I'm assuming not. I would find a vet to actually test it.

And, get that baby some grocery store bought whole cow milk and toss the replacer...

Since CAE isn't a zoonotic disease, it isn't that distressing to keep a CAE positive goat. It's not even a reportable disease in this nation. And it's estimated that something like 75%+ of all goat herds in this nation have had CAE exposure. You're not going to eradicate it unless the government gets serious about it like they have other diseases in other species. And even then, do we really want more government oversight? Look at what all the current regulations have done to family farms. The truth is, the disease is not going to ever hurt a human. It's just not zoonotic.
CL does have the potential to infect humans. And people who have goats with lumps should pasteurize their milk for their own safety. But it is not a reportable disease either. And the same statistic is used to approximate the percentage of herds that have had a CL+ animal at some point. Plus, with CL, because it is zoonotic, it will never be wiped out no matter what people do. It can always have the potential to be drug into a herd from some "visiting" wild animal crossing the lot or a dog, cat, etc visiting the waterers or feed. It's just a bacteria. You aren't going to eradicate it, even if you test constantly and cull, cull, cull. There is always the potential for bacteria to find it's way to a caprine from the ground or anywhere else.
I think everyone worries too much about both of these things. You can't completely get rid of them from the caprine species in this nation at this point in time. It's just not going to happen in the near future no matter what you do. People have lived in this world with goats and these diseases for centuries, even millennium. And they have lived in harmony for the most part. It simply isn't something to be hysterical about because it isn't going to change, and it hasn't killed off humanity in the last 6000yrs. We are probably more careful about diseases now than anytime in the past history of the world. And, in the past, these diseases didn't wipe out villages or continents of people who relied heavily on caprine livestock. Why worry so much now when we are more careful.

If you don't have CL on your property and the woman you bought her from didn't have CL, then I highly doubt it is, but you can draw blood and send it in to be tested. Not as accurate as the pus from the abscess, but it's better than nothing.