Vet Blog
11/03/09
Breaking news.
Vetsulin insulin is widely used in diabetic dogs (and, occasionally, diabetic cats). I was therefore disturbed to receive the following e-mail from the American Veterinary Medical Association.
FDA-CVM Issues Alert About Problems with Vetsulin® Porcine Insulin Zinc Suspension
November 3, 2009 – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, in cooperation with Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health, has announced that Vetsulin® may have varying amounts of crystalline zinc insulin, the active ingredient, in the formula. As a result, use of the product could result in a delay in action of the drug as well as prolonged action, which could cause difficulty in managing diabetic pets. Get more information on the AVMA web site, AVMA.org: http://www.avma.org/aa/vetsulin_091102.asp
If you administer Vetsulin to your pet, I recommend that you contact your veterinarian about this matter immediately. Unreliable insulin can lead to chronically high blood sugar in pets. Worse, it can lead to accidental insulin overdose. For information on the symptoms of insulin overdose in pets, go to my website:
http://drbarchas.com/insulin
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
07/28/09
 I freely recognize that I practice veterinary medicine in one of the most progressive places in the world. Just a couple of states over, things are quite a bit different.
In November, 2008 the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) adopted an official policy against cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking. It turns out that some vets in Utah aren’t happy about that.
Here’s an excerpt from an article in the July, 2009 issue of DVM Newsmagazine.
AVMA’s hard line too hard?
Call for softer stance on cosmetic surgery among resolutions facing convention delegates
Jul 1, 2009
By: Christina Macejko
DVM NEWSMAGAZINE
SEATTLE — The Utah Veterinary Medical Association (UVMA) wants the AVMA to lay off the “hard-line slant” it took when the policy on ear cropping and tail docking was changed late last year and is asking the House of Delegates (HOD) to soften the policy.
In November 2008, the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) executive board changed the policy to read, “The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.”
While the association was not necessarily in favor of the practice before, the policy change, for the first time, explicitly states its opposition to it.
It’s a move that UVMA says was made under pressure from outside groups.
“One of the reasons the Animal Welfare Committee suggested a change to the executive board was to bring the policy more into line with the American Animal Hospital Association and other countries,” UVMA explains. “We are the American Veterinary Medical Association, not any other and do not need to apologize for our positions.”
I have said repeatedly that I believe ear cropping and tail docking as well as debarking and declawing will wane in availability in coming years. Each year fewer vets are willing (or even able) to perform these surgeries.
New graduates from veterinary school generally abhor the procedures. Older vets who have no moral qualms with the surgeries (and who evidently run the show in Utah) are retiring every day.
The demographic shift will settle this debate in time. Meanwhile, the ethical wrangling over the procedures continues.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
06/10/09
 People instinctively fear change, even if the change in question will benefit them in the long run.
Consider the case of California’s Humane Farming Initiative, a ballot measure that passed by a landslide last November. The law states that by 2015 farm animals must be allowed enough space to stand up, turn around, and stretch their limbs. Pigs, egg-laying hens, and veal calves will benefit most from the new law.
When the initiative passed, some farmers and food animal veterinarians squealed louder than the pigs the law was designed to help. A few of them protested that the law will end agriculture in California.
I beg to differ.
I believe that California’s farmers will adapt to the new regulations. When the rest of the world implements similar measures (and it will), California’s farmers will be ahead of the game. The law will help California remain a dominant agricultural powerhouse.
A sea change has occurred in the public’s beliefs about animal welfare. Opponents of the Humane Farming Initiative couldn’t sense that change, but I believe that California’s farmers and food animal vets will benefit from it.
Many food animal veterinarians and two major veterinary organizations now have failed to notice a different sea change. They have taken postions on an issue that places them squarely on the wrong side of history. The organizations are the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). I am a member of both organizations.
At issue is the routine use of antibiotics in livestock.
When I was in veterinary school, I was surprised to learn that antibiotics are added to animal feeds for reasons other than disease control or prevention. Feed manufacturers may add antibiotics (such as tylosin) simply because they can cause animals to grow slightly more efficiently. This reduces the total amount of feed needed for each animal. It reduces the time to slaughter. It increases profit margins, in theory. In practice, since so many farm animals receive antibiotics I suspect that the competitive advantage farmers gain from the medicines is wiped out.
I doubted in veterinary school, and I still doubt, that adding antibiotics to animal feeds simply to increase efficiency by a few fractions of a percent is worth the risks.
What are the risks? Excessive use of antibiotics is linked to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that may pose health risks to animals and people. And if antibiotics aren’t withdrawn from feed for an adequate length of time before slaughter, residues of the drug can end up in meat (controls are in place to prevent this, but it has been known to happen nonetheless).
Let’s face it: using antibiotics simply to make animals grow more rapidly does not pass the smell test. That’s how I see it, and that’s how I’m betting more and more people are going to see it. (Consider the backlash against rBST in dairy cows. In my opinion, rBST is safer than antibiotics.)
Here is my prediction for the record. In 30 years, antibiotics no longer will be used to promote efficient growth in food animals. Nobody wants tylosin in his turkey sandwich.
Yet the CVMA and the AVMA, pandering to food animal vets who have failed to sense the sea change, are proudly and actively on record in favor of using antibiotics to promote animal growth.
The CVMA recently published a newsletter in which it bragged about its role in defeating a bill in that would have required school districts to purchase meat from animals that were not fed antibiotics.
At around the same time, the AVMA sent me a link to a legislative action alert. The AVMA appears to be working to generate opposition to a bill in the US senate that would restrict antibiotic use to disease treatment and prevention.
It’s too bad. In my opinion, the elimination of antibiotics from animal feeds is inevitable. The CVMA and AVMA should be leading the way on this issue. Instead, they are standing myopically in the way of a change that I believe could benefit farmers and food animal vets in the long run.
And speaking of myopically attempting to prevent the inevitable, tomorrow we’ll talk about people who support breed standards that call for ear cropping and tail docking.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
12/23/08
 The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has published an online guide to first aid for cats and dogs. The site includes recommended lists of supplies, tips on handling injured animals safely and instructions on basic first aid procedures.
The site is a good resource for people with pets. You can check it out by clicking here.
About the photo: Abbey’s bandage looks well placed.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
12/02/08
 I mentioned in a recent post that veterinarians are becoming increasingly reluctant to crop ears and dock tails for cosmetic purposes or to meet breed standards.
Many vets, myself included, purposefully have not learned the procedures and have not familiarized themselves with breed standards. I have amputated tails and ears during my career, but I have done so only when medically necessary.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is the nation’s leading organization of veterinarians. I am a member. It is my opinion that the AVMA has a less-than-perfect track record on animal welfare issues. The AVMA’s position on Proposition 2 was, in my opinion, an example of poor leadership by a very important organization.
However, less-than-perfect is not the same as all bad. The AVMA has just released a position statement on ear cropping and tail docking that I feel is extraordinarily well reasoned. Here it is.
The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.
A recent article in DVM Newsmagazine quotes Dr. Ron DeHaven, chief executive officer of the AVMA, elaborating on the AVMA’s new position statement.
“For many years the AVMA has acknowledged that ear cropping and tail docking of dogs for cosmetic purposes are not medically indicated nor of benefit to our canine patients,” DeHaven explains. “If it can be responsibly demonstrated that the purpose of performing the procedure is to protect the health and welfare of the dog, then of course the association would support the appropriate surgery.”
Dr. DeHaven, I couldn’t have said it better than you.
About the photo: I think Spooner the Doberman/Dobie mix looks adorable with floppy ears and a long tail!
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
11/04/08
 For those of you who haven’t been following the news, there is an election in the United States today.
It turns out that several important issues are on the ballot. I will be watching one with particular interest.
Today Californians will vote on Proposition 2, the Humane Farming initiative. If it passes, this ballot measure will change California law by 2015 to allow all farm animals to stand up, lie down, turn around and spread their limbs.
Proponents of the measure (including me) claim that the measure is a no-brainer. Click here, here or here to see what I have had to say about this matter in the past.
Opponents of Proposition 2 worry that it will lead to decreased food safety, outsourcing of agriculture to Mexico and a shattered agriculture industry in California.
Here is my prediction. Proposition 2 will pass by a landslide today. In 2015, when all farm animals are allowed to stand up, lie down, turn around and extend their limbs the sky will not fall. Disease will not spread. Food production will not be outsourced to Mexico. I predict that Proposition 2 ultimately will strengthen and invigorate California’s agriculture industry and economy.
Have a great election day.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
09/19/08
 Few people who lived through it will forget the massive pet food recall that occurred in the early months of 2007. Dozens of brands of food were contaminated. Untold thousands of dogs and cats fell ill or died.
As I mentioned in a previous post, research (supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association–I occasionally have my differences with the organization, but I should emphasize that it also does a tremendous amount of good work) concluded that animals were sickened by a combination of two chemicals in the contaminated food: melamine and cyanuric acid.
Melamine is a chemical normally used in the manufacture of fertilizer and chemicals. It can be used, nefariously, to boost the measured levels of protein in foods when they are tested.
Cyanuric acid is a byproduct of shoddy melamine production. The combination of cyanuric acid and melamine causes crystals to form in the kidneys of mammals, leading in some cases to kidney failure.
Or, to put it another way (what follows are unproven allegations): the manufacturer involved in last year’s pet food recall appears to have used melamine to make wheat flour appear to be higher in quality than it actually was. However, that manufacturer appears to have been too cheap to purchase high-quality melamine. The low-quality melamine used to throw off protein testing contained cyanuric acid. The combination of melamine and cyanuric acid sickened and killed pets.
Now, a similar process appears to be happening to humans. Infant formulas tainted with melamine have been linked to illness in thousands of infants in China. Several deaths have been attributed to the formulas.
I have yet to see cyanuric acid mentioned in any article related to this newest scandal, but I suspect that time will show that it, too, is involved in the problem.
It’s a sorry situation. My heart goes out to the parents of all affected individuals–dog, cat and human.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
09/16/08
 A quote from Albert Camus’ The Fall has haunted me since I first read it years ago. I was tempted to dust off my copy of the book and find the quote for this post, but let’s face it: I am a busy man living in the post-Google world. Thirty seconds after recalling the passage, I had successfully copied it onto my computer’s clipboard.
To be sure, you are not familiar with that dungeon cell that was called the little-ease in the Middle Ages. In general, one was forgotten there for life. That cell was distinguished from others by ingenious dimensions. It was not high enough to stand up in nor yet wide enough to lie down in. One had to take on an awkward manner and live on the diagonal; sleep was a collapse, and waking a squatting. Mon cher, there was genius—and I am weighing my words—in that so simple invention. Every day through the unchanging restriction that stiffened his body, the condemned man learned that he was guilty and that innocence consists in stretching joyously.
–Albert Camus, The Fall
At this point you may be wondering whether the vet blogger has lost his mind. What on earth does existential writing from 1956 have to do with a vet blog?
This topic is about California’s Proposition 2, the Humane Farming Initiative. I have covered Proposition 2 twice on this blog already: here and here.
My favorite summary of Proposition 2 comes directly from the text of the proposition(link is PDF format):
The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.
Current farming practices in California allow the use of sow gestation crates, veal crates, and egg production facilities (employing battery cages) that confine animals in conditions reminiscent of Camus’ “little-ease.” The idea behind Proposition 2 is to eliminate these practices by 2015.
The people who support these practices are not sadists or medieval-style torturers. The farming practices are economically motivated.
But I quote Camus to make a point. It is absolutely obvious–in fact, it is self-evident–that confining anybody or anything in a manner that does not allow it to rest, stand up, turn around or stretch is inhumane.
So when I saw that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the nation’s largest organization of veterinarians, had issued a statement on Proposition 2, I was anxious to read it. Here is an excerpt. (I encourage you to click on the link to the AVMA’s position statement. I find it interesting that the linked page includes a photograph of a free-range chicken farm, rather than a photo of battery cages such as the one at the start of this post. Proposition 2 would eliminate battery cages.)
Although the American Veterinary Medical Association applauds every effort to promote animal welfare, the AVMA is concerned about possible, unintended negative consequences to animal welfare of enacting Proposition 2.
I beg your pardon? Allowing animals to stand up, lie down, turn around, and stretch their limbs may have negative consequences on their welfare? Does the AVMA truly think that anyone will believe such nonsense?
The AVMA is the voice of veterinary medicine in America. The AVMA represents and speaks for all vets in this nation, whether it claims to or not. When the AVMA releases a statement like the one above it damages the credibility of all veterinarians. And I don’t appreciate that.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
06/10/08
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is the leading veterinary organization in the United States. I have had my differences with the AVMA, particularly in the debate over horse slaughter. However, I owe it to the AVMA to acknowledge that they, in the long run, have done an incredible amount of work to advance the causes of animal health and welfare.
The AVMA publishes guidelines for veterinarians on a number of issues relating to animal welfare. Readers may be interested in a brochure that was recently released and targeted to veterinary students. It is a lengthy PDF document, but it gives insight into the guidance that the organization is offering to budding veterinarians.
Here is a link to the brochure (PDF format).
As you read it, remember that the leadership of the AVMA walks a tightrope when they publish such material. The AVMA does not merely represent dog and cat vets–its ranks include large numbers of dairy, swine, beef cattle, horse, and other livestock practitioners. Its membership is diverse and sometimes fractious. However, in my opinion the brochure does a good job of skirting controversy.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
03/30/08
Most of us are acutely aware that millions of unwanted dogs and cats face euthanasia each year in the United States. I was surprised, however, to find out that unwanted horses are alarmingly common as well.
I first became aware of the problem in 2006 when a representative from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) sent me a preposterous e-mail. The message urged me to oppose legislation that would close horse slaughterhouses in the United States. The quote below is from the e-mail.
Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) today will offer an amendment . . . that will drastically harm the welfare of horses . . . [t]hese changes will affectively [sic] shutdown [sic] the horse slaughter plants and will force the estimated 70,000 unwanted horses to find a new home.
I had to read that e-mail four or five times before I could believe it. The AVMA was claiming that, if you are a horse, it is better to be slaughtered than to find a new home. I was furious. To me it looked like a leading organization, with a mission to protect the interests of veterinarians and animals in the USA, was shilling to industry.
I still believe that the AVMA was pandering to the horse slaughter industry when its representative sent that e-mail. Despite the AVMA’s opposition, a ban on horse slaughter in the USA was enacted.
And, alarmingly, it turns out that horse welfare may have been adversely affected by the ban.
The AVMA reported on January 15, 2008, that horse slaughter is now being outsourced to Mexico. The number of horses sent to Mexico for slaughter each year has increased from approximately 11,000 before the US slaughterhouses were closed to approximately 44,500 after. And, it is suspected that many horses that are sent to Mexico for “breeding” or “recreation” are also ending up in slaughterhouses. The conditions inside the slaughterhouses are not known. Most of the meat is exported to Europe.
I suspect that the problem of unwanted horses will be as intractable as that of unwanted dogs and cats. But I am not convinced that re-opening the American slaughterhouses is the solution.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
|
|
|
You have questions. 