large herds not testing why?

[Ziptie]

Or are they. If you remember I have been on the hunt for goats on and off. I have deiced another cow is not in our cards.

I thought we had some lined up for July but the lady just took them down to the auction and sold them.

Might be she knew that I wanted them tested (she is the 4-h goat leader around here) or maybe I made her upset about talking about not wanting to buy from another family around here that milks 150 goats but they have CL.

Calling around on Creglist found another large dairy selling (says he milks around 500 a day) he knows they have CL and has not tested any of the goats for CAE, or any of the other ones.

So, are the company’s that are commercially selling the milk testing the milk or is it just they are ultra pasturing the milk.....come to think of it they can't be doing UP because the place that collects the milk is making cheese with it.

What you guy think what is going on?

[dozedotz]

Many, many people who buy goats buy them without being prepared (fencing, housing, hay, etc.)They buy them because they are not too expensive, do not take up as much space as other typical farm stock, provide milk for the family (FREE...they think) and that's just how it is. They are stunned by a price of say $250. or $300.! If their $50. or $25. goat dies, no big deal...sad for the kids, maybe...but not a big deal. Breeders IMO react to this mentality about goats and act accordingly. Meaning: why pay for testing, why spend a lot on food and medications. Also, why keep "just a few manageable numbers" when the money adds up on a $50. or even $25. goat if you have lots of cute kids to sell. As more people become knowledgeable through this site and others about goat care, feeding and diseases more customers ask about testing, more customers check out the goats eyes, feet, fecal deposits and general condition of the operation...but they still don't want to pay more than say ... $100. which to them is a lot of money....more than they paid for their fabulous little cock-a-poo that is un papered and doesn't need any shots because it lives in the house....right? This IMO is because even when you are up to date on what to ask about, if you haven't actually done the work to keep your herd clean and healthy, you still do NOT appreciate the amount of time, $$ and work that went into that healthy animal you want to purchase. So, IMO, it just doesn't work out financially for many breeders to do what is necessary year after year just to be told, "Well, I can get two for the price of that one." or "You don't show or have a BIG name, why do you want so much for this kid?" There are good answers to all the questions, but the buyer isn't necessarily ready to really HEAR them. Then, of course, there are always the stories about the show herds who sold the CAE, CL, etc., etc. goat which translates to there is not such think as a "guarantee" on the health of any goat so why pay so much for a goat that might die? That is why there are so many breeders who (in this case HONESTLY told you...most don't) have untested, large herds with little concern...it is profitable. Period. The demand is for a cute, inexpensive, looks ok to me little animal that is easily forgotten if it doesn't pan out. On the other side the demand is to make a profit off your land in the cheapest way possible with as little time invested as possible. You need IMO to keep looking for a breeder who is testing and can prove it, runs a clean operation and has a proven track record with people. That breeder may not have show quality animals, may not have a big herd or name and may charge an amount that is reasonable for both of you. Then YOU become the breeder for whom you have been looking!! It will not be easy, but it is worth it.

[mygoat]

A big herd is more about herd health management and PROFIT. Most of us aren't making any money off of fluid milk sales. Testing is not necessarily a profitable venture, especially in large herds. If your kid price is drastically increased its worth it, but you can't flood the market locally. If you have a commercial dairy and need to move 1000 kids per year, You're selling them cheap and fast - price reflects the fact that they are not tested. When buying, replacement genetics, they are probably buying for the best prices and culling those that are sick, don't perform etc. Generally to stop CAE/johnes (if they care) they use replacer. For CL, if they care to manage it they cull those that show signs, vaccinate, isolate those with active abscesses etc.

For the huge herds, testing is just not feasible for a profitable venture. I find it profitable for my scale because it increases my kid prices - doesn't translate to huge herds though. They don't have time to sell to people wanting 1-2 kids or goats, really - not when they can load 'em up and ship 'em.

At the end of the day, culling those that don't perform for whatever reason (including disease) is smarter than testing for it on those levels of production. Most diseases do not effect large percentages of the herd, and can be managed at an acceptable level with relative ease.

As for human consumption, all milk is likely pasteurized. Goats milk sold as fluid milk doesn't fly off the shelves, so they normally 'ultra' pasteurize it (cook it) so it has a long shelf life. Otherwise, most goat milk commercially likely goes into pasteurized cheese making. This likely reduces/eliminates the risk of johnes and eliminates the risk of CL which isn't likely to be in milk anyways.

[punchiepal]

Our local seems interesting as far as goat thoughts. Had a vet tell me CL is like a teen getting pimples.... Most goats are not disbudded. Very few tested. CAE? What's that? Yeah, yeah this is a milking goat. What does she give a day? What?! I am supposed to milk her? YOU DRINK GOAT MILK???!!!! Questions about amount/length of a lactation often cannot be answered. You want how much for that goat? It's just a goat.

[mygoat]

Milks around 500/day. She's gotta have around 1000 kids born a year (that's not including the animals she cycles through as some dry and some freshen!), plus 500 does, plus probably at least 25 bucks. So saying she tests only the adults, that's around 525 adults. CAE only at 4.00 each, 2100.00 to test. Of course with CAE elimination they'd just have to test just a couple times, but still - if she culled the positives to go all negative, she's likely culling profitable animals. If they're still profitable, and the goal is milk... why cull them?

Then there's the time it takes to draw that many animals.

Johnes is the same way, but more expensive. 3281.25 for ELISA. Probably could do it for 5.00/goat using pooled fecals (2625), but if they come up positive that's a LOT of running of individual cultures that are ALMOST as expensive as the main pooled test is! and they have to run all the animals in the pool to find who is positive! Or, the producer could just cull unthrifty/unprofitable animals and raise kids in a manner that prevents infection.

[Frosted Mini's]

Agree with above. Also, the person that took the goats to the auction may not have realized you were serious about purchasing her goats. I personally get many inquiries on goats that don't pan out and I don't always remember who has asked me about my goats. Money talks, so next time ask if the person wants a deposit or maybe even offer their price in full to hold them until you're ready to get them.

[billooo2]

I was told by the U. of Washington that only 1 out of 10 CAE positive animals will show any symptoms by the age of 3. Some breeders have decided to simply try to prevent the transmission of the disease.

When I was having my goats tested for CAE, I was going to have them tested for CL, my vet said, "Don't waste your money. We have not found that test to be reliable."

IMO the current testing regimen for CAE is woefully inadequate.

REALLY!!!!!.....a test with a rate of 90% false positives!!!!!......and most of us use that for culling decisions!?!????

[Ziptie]

Originally Posted by billooo2

I was told by the U. of Washington that only 1 out of 10 CAE positive animals will show any symptoms by the age of 3. Some breeders have decided to simply try to prevent the transmission of the disease.

When I was having my goats tested for CAE, I was going to have them tested for CL, my vet said, "Don't waste your money. We have not found that test to be reliable."

IMO the current testing regimen for CAE is woefully inadequate.

REALLY!!!!!.....a test with a rate of 90% false positives!!!!!......and most of us use that for culling decisions!?!????

So, is it worth while to get goats from these guys then? If they can sell the milk commercially and they are not UP the milk I guessing the milk from these goats or ok.

They are breading hard for milk production, thriftiness, ease of birth. That is what I want.

I must admit I am one of those people I want goat to give milk, not a pet. I don't care if it is the ugliest thing in the world if it gives good milk. BUT...I also don't want a critter that will make my family sick or my other animals.


hmmm....I didn't realize the false positives were so high.

It was so much easier getting a milk cow.

Maybe, I just need to dive in a get what I get.

[Alice In TX/MO]

I would NOT buy a goat from a big commercial goat milk facility.

Yes, it is worth it to buy from a mid size goat farm that tests. SEE THE PAPERS.

Around here, the recommendation is that if you get a positive test result, retest. Other issues can cause a positive result.

I've NEVER EVER heard that 90% of the positive tests are false. NEVER.

[TeenyTinyFarm]

When my mom and dad had the dairy in GA in the 80's they tested for everything (well except CL, not sure if they were testing for it at that point, but I don't recall an abscess of any type on any goat ever!) we had a herd of about 150, that we milked for cheese that my mom made. I had asked her recently about testing and why she did it. Her answer was quite simple. She wasn't particularly concerned about the diseases themselves, but more her reputation and ability to sell to reputable breeders. A clean herd meant she could exchange a buck for a season and bring in new genetics, retain some and sell some for a nice profit. It was all part of the bottom line. I would "think" a breeder that is concerned with their own reputation and the health of their herd would find that investment worthwhile.

You need to figure out what you are comfortable dealing with. I personally wouldn't want to deal with a pus spewing CL abscess on any goat ever. Right now I have two brush clearing whethers. If they had CAE, it's not the end of the world. It's just the two of them in a happy life eating scrub, never to breed. If I were to have a milking doe, I would test her before feeding her milk to my children. My mom fed us raw milk from tested, clean, healthy does. I would do the same for my own

[punchiepal]

Originally Posted by billooo2

I was told by the U. of Washington that only 1 out of 10 CAE positive animals will show any symptoms by the age of 3.

I take this comment to mean that the animals do TEST positive, meaning the testing is accurate, HOWEVER only a few show symptoms by 3 yo. Kinda like saying "oh well just get rid of it before they show symptoms". This is often how dairy cows are run. Milk till they drop so the disease stuff doesn't matter. Well, dairy goats often out live cows therefore disease IS important and something I don't want on my farm.

[punchiepal]

If you are talking about the diary I think you are RUN!!!!!!

[mygoat]

Whoever told you that 90% of positive results were false positives were WRONG. The manufacturer of the test reports 4 out of 1000 tests may be false positives and animals should be retested. Usually they are due to testing kids too early that were exposed to CAE positive but PASTEURIZED milk, which cause an antibody response in the kids but not an infection. 90% of animals may be ASYMPTOMATIC BUT STILL INFECTED AND STILL ABLE TO SPREAD THE DISEASE. The ELISA is a pretty darn good test to use, more sensitive than the PCR even for the same disease. I wouldn't hesitate in the least to use it as definitive diagnosis. Testing is, however, only part of a management and disease evaluation program - knowing herd history is important and assessing the chances of infection or false positives (which are also rare but possible due to incubation periods, genetic differences between strains of the virus, genetic differences between goats, and of course MANAGEMENT/stress levels of the goats being tested). They do indicate that recent vaccination and late pregnancy - both which alter the immune system - are poor times to sample and may lead to higher rates of false positives/negatives. Once again, not due to the tests ability, but due to sample error.

Direct from WADDL's info page, here: http://waddl.vetmed.wsu.edu/animal-disease-faq/cae

8. What does a positive or negative mean?
A positive result means the goat has been infected with the CAE virus and has made antibodies reactive with the CAE antigens used in this test. This goat is regarded as potentially contagious for the virus, especially if lactating. The antibody against CAE is not a protective antibody and infectious virus can still be spread in milk and blood of this goat. As many as 90% of positive goats may be free of clinical signs of the disease, and remain so for years or life. A young goat not infected with CAE virus which has received heat-treated colostrum containing CAE antibodies may also test antibody positive for several months because of passive transfer of maternal antibodies from the colostrum. We recommend re-testing these kids after six months of age to determine their true infection status. A negative result means that this goat is either not infected, or has been recently infected and is producing amounts of antibody too low to be detected. While the latter case does not appear to be common, it is a good reason to retest all negative goats when not in a closed herd. Goats that are negative should be periodically tested (twice a year for the 1st year, and annually thereafter).


9. Can an animal testing positive ever test negative on future tests?
Goats infected with CAE virus are infected for life. Thus a goat tested true positive by the CAEV cELISA test would not later clear the CAE virus infection. Occasionally a very young animal, fed heat-treated colostrum containing CAE antibodies may test positive and later negative from the decline of passively acquired antibodies in the colostrum. In some goats, seroconversion may be delayed for months after exposure. These "silently" infected animals test negative for antibody until the viral infection is activated by stress or other factors. It has not been determined whether these goats were infectious to other goats during the time they harbored the virus but remained seronegative. Lastly, although the CAEV cELISA test is a USDA licensed test showing excellent ability to detect CAE virus antibody true positive results it is not perfect test. The commercial manufacturer of the cELISA test publishes a test specificity of 99.6%, which means 4 in 1000 tests could generated a false positive result that upon retesting could test seronegative.


10. Is there a difference in the types of serology tests available for making a diagnosis of CAE virus infection?
Yes, WADDL has a validated and USDA licensed (cELISA) for CAE virus antibodies. This test is more sensitive (ability to detect true positive animal) than the agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) test (sensitivity of 85%-90% and specificity of 100%). Values for the CAE cELISA have been set by double testing goat sera by ELISA and a very sensitive research assay, called immunoprecipitation. The positive cutoff score for the cELISA had a sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 99.6%, which means there is a false positive rate of 4 out of every 1,000 samples tested.

[billooo2]

Originally Posted by mygoat

Whoever told you that 90% of positive results were false positives were WRONG. The manufacturer of the test reports 4 out of 1000 tests may be false positives and animals should be retested. Usually they are due to testing kids too early that were exposed to CAE positive but PASTEURIZED milk, which cause an antibody response in the kids but not an infection. 90% of animals may be ASYMPTOMATIC BUT STILL INFECTED AND STILL ABLE TO SPREAD THE DISEASE. The ELISA is a pretty darn good test to use, more sensitive than the PCR even for the same disease. I wouldn't hesitate in the least to use it as definitive diagnosis. Testing is, however, only part of a management and disease evaluation program - knowing herd history is important and assessing the chances of infection or false positives (which are also rare but possible due to incubation periods, genetic differences between strains of the virus, genetic differences between goats, and of course MANAGEMENT/stress levels of the goats being tested). They do indicate that recent vaccination and late pregnancy - both which alter the immune system - are poor times to sample and may lead to higher rates of false positives/negatives. Once again, not due to the tests ability, but due to sample error.

Direct from WADDL's info page, here: http://waddl.vetmed.wsu.edu/animal-disease-faq/cae

My information came from WADDL.

Perhaps some of the confusion comes from the use of the term, 'false positive.' To me, if only one of ten 'positive' animals ever develop symptoms, then it is 90% false positives. When they refer to a lab test they are talking about the accuracy in identifying an antibody,

GOSH!!!!! maybe they are testing for the wrong antibody (especially since they say that this antibody is 'non-protective'......SOMETHING is protecting 90% of the animals).....or it seems that there might be more than one antibody working against the CAE virus.

IMO, ideally we should be breeding for an animal with an immune system that is effective in fighting off the CAE virus........but we do not have the tools/lab tests to manage our animals toward such a goal.

We don't even have a test to tell us if they even have the disease.

IMO, we are woefully inadequately equipped to make intelligent decisions.

[mygoat]

Originally Posted by billooo2

Perhaps some of the confusion comes from the use of the term, 'false positive.' To me, if only one of ten 'positive' animals ever develop symptoms, then it is 90% false positives. When they refer to a lab test they are talking about the accuracy in identifying an antibody,

GOSH!!!!! maybe they are testing for the wrong antibody (especially since they say that this antibody is 'non-protective'......SOMETHING is protecting 90% of the animals).....or it seems that there might be more than one antibody working against the CAE virus.

IMO, ideally we should be breeding for an animal with an immune system that is effective in fighting off the CAE virus........but we do not have the tools/lab tests to manage our animals toward such a goal.

We don't even have a test to tell us if they even have the disease.

IMO, we are woefully inadequately equipped to make intelligent decisions.

No. Animals can be infected and spreading the disease without obvious symptoms. Just because a human is infected with HIV virus and doesn't yet have AIDS, doesn't mean they can't spread it. Same deal. Some people become affected sooner than others, doesn't mean the tests are inaccurate or 'false positive' when a person tests HIV positive but doesn't have AIDS symptoms! (Or, just as herpes virus infected humans can spread herpes when they do NOT have an outbreak!) There are many diseases that are spread without outward symptoms. Some diseases are at their peak in shed rates BEFORE The onset of symptoms as well. I believe the common cold/flu is like that, but it's been a long time since I've looked into it. I don't do much human medicine stuff. :P

The reason why not all animals have symptoms is just the way the disease presents. If you don't manage/test your herd, your percentage of animals infected and able to show symptoms will increase with time. Under poor management you may see much higher rates of symptoms - note it says AS MANY AS 90% WILL NOT SHOW SYMPTOMS - that is probably in the ideal situation, and higher percentages of symptomatic animals are possible. And, thats rates up to 3 years of age - that' still a growing doe, makes you wonder what the percentages are like past 3 years of age. Differences between genetics of the strains of virus as well as between different goats can also effect when and if they show symptoms.

I think you're greatly misunderstanding the way this disease/immunity/testing jargon works and that's the issue here. A false positive is an animal that is TRUELY negative but for whatever reason, tests positive due to testing at an inappropriate time or exposure without infection. A false negative is an animal that is infected but due to inappropriate sample times OR too soon in the infective process for antibodies to be detected. Of course, all of these have a degree of error but the ELISA is VERY low. That is why all positive tests should be repeated. The fact that the antibodies are not protective doesn't mean it's the wrong antibody - it just means that they do not do a great job of preventing infection (say as a vaccine).

As I said, the ELISA is a VERY GOOD TEST FOR THE DISEASE. Wether or not there are symptoms. I work at DCPAH and have had opportunities to discuss the CAE ELISA with the virologists here (he's actually going to be one of my professors this fall, too) and he has said that a positive elisa is pretty darn definitive especially if it's repeated.

[billooo2]

Originally Posted by mygoat

No. Animals can be infected and spreading the disease without obvious symptoms. Just because a human is infected with HIV virus and doesn't yet have AIDS, doesn't mean they can't spread it. Same deal. Some people become affected sooner than others, doesn't mean the tests are inaccurate or 'false positive' when a person tests HIV positive but doesn't have AIDS symptoms! (Or, just as herpes virus infected humans can spread herpes when they do NOT have an outbreak!) There are many diseases that are spread without outward symptoms. Some diseases are at their peak in shed rates BEFORE The onset of symptoms as well. I believe the common cold/flu is like that, but it's been a long time since I've looked into it. I don't do much human medicine stuff. :P

The reason why not all animals have symptoms is just the way the disease presents. If you don't manage/test your herd, your percentage of animals infected and able to show symptoms will increase with time. Under poor management you may see much higher rates of symptoms - note it says AS MANY AS 90% WILL NOT SHOW SYMPTOMS - that is probably in the ideal situation, and higher percentages of symptomatic animals are possible. And, thats rates up to 3 years of age - that' still a growing doe, makes you wonder what the percentages are like past 3 years of age. Differences between genetics of the strains of virus as well as between different goats can also effect when and if they show symptoms.

I think you're greatly misunderstanding the way this disease/immunity/testing jargon works and that's the issue here. A false positive is an animal that is TRUELY negative but for whatever reason, tests positive due to testing at an inappropriate time or exposure without infection. A false negative is an animal that is infected but due to inappropriate sample times OR too soon in the infective process for antibodies to be detected. Of course, all of these have a degree of error but the ELISA is VERY low. That is why all positive tests should be repeated. The fact that the antibodies are not protective doesn't mean it's the wrong antibody - it just means that they do not do a great job of preventing infection (say as a vaccine).

As I said, the ELISA is a VERY GOOD TEST FOR THE DISEASE. Wether or not there are symptoms. I work at DCPAH and have had opportunities to discuss the CAE ELISA with the virologists here (he's actually going to be one of my professors this fall, too) and he has said that a positive elisa is pretty darn definitive especially if it's repeated.

We are only testing for the presence of antibodies........nothing else.

I spent my career in human medicine.........false positive would indicate a disease that is not actually present.

The approach we are using for CAE would likely be considered a joke in human medicine...and some would make accusations of it being a scam. Apparently, in approximately 30 years we have made no progress in obtaining better data to make management decisions.

[mygoat]

Many, many, many tests look for antibodies in human and animal medicine as a way of detecting disease! It is a VERY good way at determining health status. The rapid HUMAN HIV TEST IS LOOKING FOR ANTIBODIES, NOT THE ACTUAL DISEASE. They are considered extremely accurate, if the sample is done at the proper time in the infective cycle - meaning, more than about 25 days after infection occurs. And if something DOES come up positive - they send off a blood sample to confirm... which is exactly the process I've been detailing as used with livestock.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medi...l-hiv-test.htm

http://www.theaidsinstitute.org/educ...v-tests-work-0

When these antibody tests are developed, research is done believe it or not. They are validated processes and evaluated for their ability to actually detect infections. That's how we get info on specificity, accuracy etc.

Lymes diseases is also diagnosed with antibody tests. Syphilis is another. Using antibodies as a diagnostic tool is by far very well understood and it's usefulness for some diseases cannot be disputed. It is not very good for some other diseases, however, for which other methods are used.

Human Mercks: http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/inf..._diseases.html

And finally, lets face it - for animal medicine, the tests need to be fast, accurate, and AFFORDABLE. I'm willing to look for antibodies if it's pretty darn accurate, vs try to culture it or use a PCR process (which in this case, is less accurate than the ELISA test!) to detect the actual organism if the price is several times over what the cost of the antibody test is.

YES, all test results are to BE INTERPRETED based on symptoms, history etc... that's what doctors and veterinarians are for. All tests are diagnostic TOOLS, and depending on many factors, may be more or less accurate. Consistent results with repeated tests means higher and higher chance that the results are accurate, as well. To say it is inaccurate or a poor way to diagnose/base management on, is terribly misleading and IMO, incorrect.

[Clovers_Clan]

Ziptie-

If you are keeping a small herd, to test or not to test, depends on risk aversion. When a large dairy operates without testing, they factor in a percentage of diseased goats that will need to be culled. With a hundred+ goats, that number will be relatively low and there will be less attachment. If you have just a couple of goats, there may be a good chance none of them are diseased. But... on the other hand if you have just one that is, you'll be faced with euthanizing an animal you're attached to AND potentially losing a whole herd and/or contaminating land for years.

Another consideration is that with very small herds you may find the ability to "rent" a clean buck is far more cost effective than to own and upkeep a good buck. The cost for testing a few does is worth it. And, of course, you'll have a better market for the handful of kids produced.

Personally, at the very least, if I had to choose between buying from a large untested herd and a small untested herd, I'd pick the smaller herd and look all the goats over thoroughly. But its still a crap shoot. I'm sure there are many who've dodged the bullet but there are those on the forum who have found out the hard way. And their stories are heartbreaking.

[billooo2]

Originally Posted by mygoat

Many, many, many tests look for antibodies in human and animal medicine as a way of detecting disease! It is a VERY good way at determining health status. The rapid HUMAN HIV TEST IS LOOKING FOR ANTIBODIES, NOT THE ACTUAL DISEASE. They are considered extremely accurate, if the sample is done at the proper time in the infective cycle - meaning, more than about 25 days after infection occurs. And if something DOES come up positive - they send off a blood sample to confirm... which is exactly the process I've been detailing as used with livestock.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medi...l-hiv-test.htm

http://www.theaidsinstitute.org/educ...v-tests-work-0

When these antibody tests are developed, research is done believe it or not. They are validated processes and evaluated for their ability to actually detect infections. That's how we get info on specificity, accuracy etc.

Lymes diseases is also diagnosed with antibody tests. Syphilis is another. Using antibodies as a diagnostic tool is by far very well understood and it's usefulness for some diseases cannot be disputed. It is not very good for some other diseases, however, for which other methods are used.

Human Mercks: http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/inf..._diseases.html

And finally, lets face it - for animal medicine, the tests need to be fast, accurate, and AFFORDABLE. I'm willing to look for antibodies if it's pretty darn accurate, vs try to culture it or use a PCR process (which in this case, is less accurate than the ELISA test!) to detect the actual organism if the price is several times over what the cost of the antibody test is.

YES, all test results are to BE INTERPRETED based on symptoms, history etc... that's what doctors and eterinarians are for. All tests are diagnostic TOOLS, and depending on many factors, may be more or less accurate. Consistent results with repeated tests means higher and higher chance that the results are accurate, as well. To say it is inaccurate or a poor way to diagnose/base management on, is terribly misleading and IMO, incorrect.

As far as I know......the presence of antibodies demonstrates that thed organism has been exposed and the immune system has responded to it.

The presence of antibodies does not mean that the disease is actually present and/or active.

I had to annually have a 'tine' test done. This test would be to detect the antibodies for TB. I always tested negative. However, I knew some co-workers that would test positive.......and they would need further testing, which showed that they did not have TB. So, they had been exposed to TB, but did not have the disease.

IMO, what we are doing is a "screening" test .........but we are woefully lacking in further tools to make intelligent decisions.

[carterj1998]

What is cae and cl? I have two alpine does and how do you test them?