Vet Blog
09/01/09
On June 10 the Vet Blog discussed a defeated bill that aimed to restrict non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in California livestock. Although the issue has been tabled in the Golden State, a proposed federal law has taken over the limelight.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
A New York congresswoman is trying to rally support for a federal bill that would restrict antibiotic use in food animals just months after a similar measure tanked in California.
Despite being voted down in Sacramento, a proposal that bans feeding antibiotics to cattle, hogs and poultry to increase their growth seems to be gaining momentum in the nation’s capital, where the Obama administration has condemned the practice.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 70 percent of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to healthy animals. Conventional farmers and ranchers routinely feed antibiotics to their herd to help the animals use their food more efficiently and bulk up faster. They say the medication also helps ward off pathogens that could sicken or kill their livestock.
But scientists and doctors fear that the overuse of these drugs makes them less effective in fighting bacteria in humans and animals. Microbes that develop immunity to the drugs will multiply and flourish.
As I mentioned in my original post on this subject, I was surprised to learn in veterinary school that antibiotics are added to livestock feed in many instances strictly to cause food animals to grow more quickly. This economically motivated use of antibiotics is, in my opinion, unwise. Non-medical use of antibiotics could contribute to these medicines becoming less potent in sick animals and people. This activity does not pass the “smell test”. Nobody wants to eat meat that has been pumped with drugs.
Nonetheless the proposed law has its critics.
[S]ome ranchers and farmers argue that the measure would probably endanger livestock, flood the market with imported meat and raise the cost of producing food.
It is true that eliminating antibiotics from animal feeds could lead to higher food costs. But I suspect many ranchers (and food animal vets) oppose it because they fear it will dent their profits. I believe their logic is flawed.
I am not an expert in economics. But it stands to reason that if all producers of a good utilize a product (in this case, non-therapeutic antibiotics) that increases efficiency, then no single producer gains a competitive advantage. Competition will pass the savings from the efficiency to the consumer. This means that no rancher really benefits financially from antibiotic feed additives.
Except for those who decline to use them.
Many consumers already have turned to antibiotic-free meat and poultry because they want products that have been raised naturally and out of an industrial farm setting.
Many people (I suspect the number will be ever-growing) are willing to pay a premium for antibiotic-free meat. Producers of this product can charge a premium.
These producers in my estimation are the ones who have the most to lose from the proposed law. But I have a hunch they are not the ones most vocally opposing it.
Biological sense, or biological nonsense?
Some well-respected veterinarians have joined the ranks of people opposing the proposed law. And some of them are using logic that, in my opinion, is highly spurious.
“From a biological standpoint [banning antibiotic feed additives] doesn’t make sense,” said John Maas, a professor at UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine and a cattle expert. “Instead of using small doses to prevent illness, you’re going to have to increase the dose 100 fold when the animal gets sick.”
Typically using antibiotics to control disease can cut potential illness by 25 to 50 percent, [said Michael Apley, a clinical pharmacologist, veterinarian and professor at Kansas State University]
If antibiotic feed additives truly prevent disease, then why limit them to livestock? Drs. Maas and Apley, do you add penicillin to your pizza or tetracyline to your turkey? Do your compliment your childrens’ lunches with tylosin in order to prevent disease?
I didn’t think so.
Elimination of antibiotics from livestock feed is inevitable. It is time to embrace this fact and move forward.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
07/27/09
 I’m going to file this one under “science adds insight into what we already knew”. I see pets (both cats and dogs) who have owners wrapped around their phalanges on a daily basis!
From the July 31, 2009 issue of The Week.
What ‘meow’ really means
Cats are known to be manipulative, and a new study of their purring confirms just how clever they can be. Karen McComb, an animal-communication researcher at the University of Sussex in the U.K., analyzed the purrs of house cats as they begged their owners for food. She found that when cats were hungry, they altered their purring so that it was eerily similar to the cry of an infant. When McComb played back these cat cries to human listeners, people found them almost impossible to ignore. The mixture of frequencies in the sounds “subliminally triggers a sense of urgency,” McComb tells ABCnews.com. She suspects that this human-like vocalization is natural to cats, but that they learn to exaggerate it to get what they want from us.
Photo: Peeshy knows you will obey. Who could say no to her?
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
06/27/09
 Clearly they meant well . . .
From the “It must be true . . . I read it in the tabloids” section of the July 3 – 10, 2009 issue of The Week.
Two baby flamingos at . . . London Zoo have developed a phobia of the color pink. The month-old chicks, named Little and Large, both have the pale gray plumage flamingos are born with. In an attempt to feed them, zookeepers used a pink sock-puppet of an adult flamingo, but it only terrified the chicks. Their resulting phobia of anything pink has worrying implications for their future mental health. “We’ll just have to hope they get used to the color,” said keeper Alison Brown.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
06/23/09
 I’d like to thank Denise, of San Francisco, for drawing my attention to a clever program in Merced County, California. The program highlights my all-time favorite blogging theme: the benefits that humans derive from dogs and cats.
Last October this blog covered a program in which veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder trained service dogs. The veterans enjoyed demonstrable improvement and the dogs went on to help other disabled individuals.
Merced County’s program is similar. In the program, at-risk high school students train assistance dogs. According to the county’s website, the students have reaped numerous benefits.
While training service dogs for the disabled, at-risk youth learn about child abuse, animal abuse, and domestic violence, and also explore empathy, citizenship, responsibility, and good choices.
The dogs are accepting and non-judgmental while offering love and motivating the students.
Watching the dogs’ rapid, measurable progress teaches the teens that positive reinforcement, empathy, and an encouraging, upbeat attitude are effective methods of interacting with others.
The children that participated have improved self esteem, behavior at home, school performance, and many are no longer involved in the child welfare system.
Through pre-testing and midway-point testing, HSA is able to show the teens knowledge of dog behavior, domestic violence, and child / animal abuse.
Interviews with the teens reveal diminishing gang involvement, self-injury, and substance abuse.
Interviews with parents show support for the positive impact on the teens, including improved home relationships, grades, and a decrease in trouble at school and negative peer relationships.
The community receives an increase of well-trained dogs to provide assistance to those in need.
As for the program’s downsides . . . I can’t think of any.
According to the County Website, the program was the idea of a social worker who noticed the positive effects of an in-training service dog on children. My hat goes off to that individual, and to the County of Merced.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
06/02/09
 I am a huge fan of foreign travel. Unfortunately, the way animals are treated in some countries makes me downright nauseated.
I have seen a disturbing amount of animal suffering all over the world, from starving dogs in Nicaragua to whipped donkeys in Egypt to packs of dogs shot en masse in Thailand.
One incident in particular is unforgettable for me. I was with several other travelers on a Mekong River boat in northern Laos. We saw a person on shore relentlessly beating an elephant as it struggled to haul a felled tree up the river bank. At least one person in the group was moved to tears.
The incident sparked a conversation among us. Several of my fellow travelers had recently completed a trek that involved riding on elephants. They stated that they were mortified by the inhumane treatment the animals received at the hands of the guides.
I resolved then and there never to go on an elephant trek (although several fellow travelers argued that the treks were, all things considered, good for elephants).
However, surely travel in general can benefit animals. Participating in jungle adventures gives locals an incentive to conserve the forest. African safaris provide money to impoverished people and give them incentives to protect charismatic megafauna (although safari-goers are quite notorious for harassing animals such as cheetahs in their attempts to obtain perfect photos).
I have long wished for some guidance on how I can travel responsibly as an animal lover. Thanks to today’s “Gulliver’s Best” blog (a feature of The Economist), I now know where to go for that guidance.
Gulliver’s blog discusses a new website published by the World Society for the Protection of Animals. The site, compassionatetravel.org, offers tips ranging from volunteering with local animal welfare organizations to steering clear of animal rides such as elephant treks.
I’ll be reviewing the site thoroughly before my next big adventure. And I encourage you to do the same.
Tomorrow: back to reader question and answer!
Photo: Animal cruelty meets deforestation in northern Laos.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
04/17/09
 I have been following the heartbreaking saga of Macho B since his demise in early March.
Macho B was the United States’ only known resident wild jaguar. Until his death he was arguably our most charismatic piece of megafauna.
His death after being captured by Arizona Game and Fish officials has sparked quite a controversy. I have weighed in on the matter twice: here and here.
Bill, from the Southwest Jaguars blog, recently contacted me for an internet question and answer session discussing wild cat captures in general and Macho B’s capture in particular.
You can find the interview here.
Photo: this is not, in my opinion, a good way to start a wild felid capture. Courtesy of Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
04/11/09
I found this in the April, 2009 Veterinary Practice News.
Spay/Neuter Bill Returns
California state senator Dean Florez, D-Shafter, reintroduced legislation that requires pet owners to have their cats and dogs sterilized. The bill requires that dogs be spayed or neutered unless the owner gets an unaltered dog license. Roaming cats would have to be spayed or neutered.
Julie Mancuso, founder of Social Compassion in Legislation said the bill would cut euthanasia ratios and save taxpayer dollars.
Bill Hemby of PetPAC, a group that helped defeat a similar bill last year said the legislation arrives during financially tough times for the state, making enforcement a challenge.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
04/10/09
 If you have ever doubted that pets can lead high quality lives after losing a limb, consider the following blurb from the March, 2009 issue of Veterinary Technician.
Three-Legged Race for Agility
There’s certainly no stopping Amy, and her perseverance and tenacity carry over to Serena, her 10-year-old mixed-breed dog (although Amy prefers the agility term “All-American”). Serena recently earned her championship title in agility, despite having only three legs.
Adopted by Amy 9 years ago, Serena had been performing agility for many years when she suffered a severe fracture of her right front leg, which was already weakened by previous radiation treatment. The leg couldn’t be saved, but Serena’s love for the sport was undiminished.
Today, Serena continues to inspire people in competitions held around the country. Amy realized the impact Serena made on people’s lives when she met a father and son who watched Serena compete. Afterward, the father turned to the young boy and said, “Son, see that dog out there? Whenever you say you can’t do something in life, think of her. She’s the reason why you can.”
I have only one disappointing thing to say about Amy and Serena. I was able to find a MySpace page for Serena, but not a Dogster page. Amy, please, for Serena’s sake, upgrade to Dogster!
Photo: Lilly Mae does it with four legs.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
03/30/09
 Just when you thought it was safe to fly with your pet . . .
People often worry about traveling on airplanes with their pets. This concern is especially common when the pet cannot be carried onto the plane and must travel in the cargo hold.
The cargo holds used for pets are pressurized and heated. Several years ago there were some well-publicized incidents in which pets perished during air travel, but until a few days ago I had not heard of any bad experiences for quite some time.
Then I came across a short article in the March, 2009 Veterinary Economics.
Frequent chewer
This pooch reluctantly racked up some frequent flyer miles
A New Zealand dog apparently didn’t appreciate being placed in the luggage compartment of an airplane headed for Melbourne, Australia. He showed his displeasure by doing everything he could to bring down the aircraft.
The pooch escaped from his kennel during the flight and chewed electrical wiring and interior panels. Luckily, the auxiliary engine the wires led to had been shut down after takeoff, negating the risk to the plane or its passengers [including the dog].
When ground handlers opened the cargo doors, they found an angry, distressed dog. Maybe next time his owners will upgrade his seat to first class.
Although Veterinary Economics attempted to report the incident as a comedic episode, it should serve as a cautionary tale. The dog in question was not dissatisfied with his seat assignment. He sounds like he suffers from separation anxiety.
If you are worried about flying with your pet, try this. Get the carrier out several days (or even weeks) before the trip. Put your pet in the carrier for several hours each day to test his reaction to it. This will habituate him to the carrier, and help him to view it as a safe, protected part of his territory. Feeding the pet in the carrier often helps this process.
Most animals that are comfortable in their carriers will do fine on flights. If your pet cannot get used to the carrier, talk to your vet about calming agents such as feline facial pheromone or dog appeasing pheromone. As a last resort, some animals are sedated for flights. But in my experience, sedatives usually aren’t necessary.
Photo: David Monniaux
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
03/09/09
 The Arizona Game and Fish Department has published a web page offering more details about the final day of Macho B’s life. Macho B was the USA’s only known wild jaguar. A tracking collar was placed on him after he was captured by Arizona Game and Fish officials in February. The big cat quickly fell ill. He was re-captured and euthanized approximately two weeks later.
A few days ago I posted about the incident, and speculated that Macho B’s initial capture may have hastened his death, but was not likely to have been the cause of it.
Here are some quotes from the Arizona Game and Fish website, along with my comments. As with my last post, a moderate amount of speculation is included in my comments.
“During the necropsy [animal autopsy], we didn’t find anything out of the ordinary for a cat of Macho B’s advanced age,” said Dr. Rice, a veterinarian and executive vice president at the Phoenix Zoo. “But, given the extremely small size of his bladder despite aggressive intravenous fluid therapy, it was apparent that his kidneys were shutting down. I expect the histopathology reports to show that this animal had been experiencing kidney failure for awhile. Kidney failure is more a matter of weeks or months, not days.”
Intravenous fluids treat kidney failure by helping the kidneys to flush toxins out of the bloodstream and into the urine. If Macho B’s bladder failed to fill, this implies that the condition of his kidneys was grave. In my experience, few cats survive if they fail to produce urine despite aggressive intravenous fluid therapy.
This implies that euthanasia may have been the kindest choice for Macho B in the situation (although I would not want to be responsible for making such a decision in the case of a national treasure such as Macho B).
There are few therapies for cases of kidney failure that do not respond to intravenous fluids. One option, dialysis, is not feasible in a wild animal. Another option, combining fluids with medications (furosemide and dopamine) that increase urine output and theoretically increase kidney blood flow, is commonly used in humans and dogs. However, this combination therapy has not been proven effective in any species, let alone jaguars. Dialysis and combination therapy are merely symptomatic treatments. They do little to treat the underlying kidney disease; that would require a kidney transplant, which is not possible at this time in jaguars.
I agree with Dr. Rice that Macho B’s kidney disease was most likely pre-existing. However, any attempt to guess how long Macho B would have lived had he not been captured would require an extreme amount of speculation.
Veterinarians indicated that Macho B showed no physical signs of illness that could have been detected by the biologists that originally collared him after he was unintentionally captured during a mountain lion and bear study. Diagnosis of kidney failure depends on running blood tests to analyze the blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine levels, which are the two most important indicators of kidney function.
Blood tests run Monday upon arrival at the zoo showed Macho B’s BUN was greater than 180, but an exact level could not be determined because the maximum reading on the diagnostic equipment was 180. The upper limit of a normal BUN level is 30. The cat’s creatinine level was 15.2 with the normal range being .3 to 2.1.
It is true that cats with mild or moderate kidney disease can appear completely normal upon physical examination. The cat could have appeared completely normal when he was first captured, even if he was suffering from kidney disease.
I am a bit disappointed that the exact level of Macho B’s BUN was not reported. Although the machine used could not read values greater than 180, samples can be diluted to obtain exact values. If the technicians running the tests were not comfortable performing this procedure, the samples could have been sent to a reference laboratory for more precise results.
That said, any BUN greater than 180 is extreme. Likewise, a creatinine of 15.2 often indicates a hopeless situation.
Arizona Game and Fish Department biologists had hoped to learn more from blood samples taken at the original capture, but the samples were deemed to be inadequate for testing. The blood samples were collected for use in DNA analysis in accordance with the capture protocol developed by leading jaguar experts. They were not intended to determine the health or condition of the animal at the time of the collaring, which would have required a different blood handling process.
After this incident, I’m confident that leading jaguar experts will change the protocol. DNA analysis requires a few drops of blood. Samples for blood chemistry analyses (which test, among many things, kidney function) require approximately three cubic centimeters–a very small amount of blood from such a large cat. Both samples are straightforward to obtain. As long as a jaguar is anesthetized, there is no reason not to obtain a slightly larger sample of blood. I’ll bet the Arizona Game and Fish officials are regretting their decision not to collect a comprehensive blood sample from Macho B at his initial capture. If nothing else the sample could have proved that his kidneys were already compromised, saving the officials from some of the painful scrutiny they are dealing with now.
The jaguar’s initial capture was guided by protocols developed in case a jaguar was inadvertently captured in the course of other wildlife management activities. The plan, which was created in consultation with leading jaguar experts, includes a protocol for capture, sedation and handling.
This quote makes an important point. I have been involved in wild cat captures. Such procedures are complex, harrowing, and prone to complications. They are not to be undertaken lightly.
No self respecting biologist would capture a jaguar without doing his homework. All of the information I have seen indicates that the people who captured Macho B performed their due diligence. They planned carefully. Their protocols were well thought out. Things went badly. That isn’t necessarily their fault. I am not convinced that anything was done wrong.
The loss of Macho B is heartbreaking. But I personally don’t feel that finger pointing is appropriate.
Photo: Macho B in happier days. Courtesy of Arizona Department of Game and Fish
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
|
|
|
You have questions. 