Some people need to be shot

[mpete]

Or at least stop giving advice.... Long story short... "Kathy" has for years been telling people the wrong advice, leading to the death of at least 2 goats. Well, she got involved in someone with a sick goat with an abcess, had blood drawn and told the owner it was likely to be CL. She says the test came back "positive 1.8" and the guy flipped out, killed the goat and now thinks he is dieing of "CL poisoning". I am totally sickened by this. As most of you with knowledge know that "a 1.8 is negative". We have tried for years to educate this lady, and she just doesn't get it....
Thanks for letting me vent.....

[CaliannG]

~hugs you comfortingly~ Yeah, I commiserate.

I have the opposite here. The person who is supposedly the "area guru" REFUSES to test any of HER goats, tells everyone else not to bother with testing, and that neither CL nor CAE can be controlled anyway so you might as well not bother to test.

What we have in common is people who are supposedly the "knowledgeable" folks of the area giving terrible advice and causing problems for other.

You have my deepest sympathies.

[where I want to]

I'm not sure of the meaning of positive 1.8 but there is a difference between a titer of 1:8 and 1:8 negative. Without the negative part, it simply means that the titer was small enough to be within the measuring error of the test so they can't really say it's negative or positive. But it's not negative. It can be the result of a CL vaccination.
I can tell you that one goat I pulled from her mom who had CL at birth before she even hit the ground and hand raised was always 1:8 although everyone else was always negative. Eventually she developed CL abcsessed like her mom- both were cultured. Both were culled. I had always read that a baby not exposed to the Mom after birth would be negative. I personally don't believe that now as I grabbed that kid as she was coming out, she and the mom lived totally isolated from each other, no one else has ever had anything but a negative titer and the mom's abscesses were drained at the vets. I suppose it was possible that some cross condemnation took place despite my care but I don't really think that is likely.

[dm9960]

so the kid can get it invitro?

[nehimama]

Originally Posted by where I want to

I'm not sure of the meaning of positive 1.8 but there is a difference between a titer of 1:8 and 1:8 negative. Without the negative part, it simply means that the titer was small enough to be within the measuring error of the test so they can't really say it's negative or positive. But it's not negative. It can be the result of a CL vaccination.
I can tell you that one goat I pulled from her mom who had CL at birth before she even hit the ground and hand raised was always 1:8 although everyone else was always negative. Eventually she developed CL abcsessed like her mom- both were cultured. Both were culled. I had always read that a baby not exposed to the Mom after birth would be negative. I personally don't believe that now as I grabbed that kid as she was coming out, she and the mom lived totally isolated from each other, no one else has ever had anything but a negative titer and the mom's abscesses were drained at the vets. I suppose it was possible that some cross condemnation took place despite my care but I don't really think that is likely.

That is disheartening!

[TroutRiver]

That's too bad. I know someone in this area too who gives horrible twisted advice about animals (she thinks she's the expert on dogs, goats and horses) it took me awhile to see through it all, now it sickens me.

[where I want to]

Originally Posted by dm9960

so the kid can get it invitro?

Or from the fluids of the mom on the way out? I don't really know.

I do have a daughter of the doe I pulled at birth. I had her tested at a year- so far she is 1:8 negative unlike her mom who was always 1:8 (without the negative.) So it is not a sure transmission (so far.) But I will check her every year probably forever.