Q. About what time/year did vets discover and diagnose navicular syndrome/disease in horses? How was it originally treated, etc?
It would be a big help if anyone could direct me to professional/reliable websites containing this information. It's for a research report and I just can't seem to find it anywhere.
Thanks =]
It would be a big help if anyone could direct me to professional/reliable websites containing this information. It's for a research report and I just can't seem to find it anywhere.
Thanks =]
A. You have to scroll down a bit to come to it: http://chestofbooks.com/animals/horses/Diseases-Of-The-Horse-Foot/C-Navicular-Disease.html
I'm not familiar with this website, but the literature citations are clear and it's probably trustworthy.
FWIW, it's likely that navicular disease was known and recognized by horsemen earlier than the 1752 citation indicated in the website. Three factors kept it from appearing in the literature earlier: first, it wasn't until at least the 1700's that books became fairly accessible; mass printing of books required a sufficient demand to make printing profitable, and prior to the 1700's, there weren't many people who were literate and could afford to buy books.
Second, prior to about the 1800's at the earliest, there weren't veterinarians per se. There were people who were knowledgeable about horses and the things that could afflict them, but knowledge about horses wasn't considered the stuff of scholarly treatises. There were itinerant horse copers (dealers) who collected knowledge and remedies about horse illnesses and problems and used them in their trade, picking up horses they could patch together cheaply and sell for a profit, but the information these people possessed wasn't formally collected and published.
Third, most of the earliest references to navicular would most likely be in the form of mention in letters people wrote or in the hand-written records kept by people who bred and raised horses. The survival and discovery of this kind of information is mostly by chance and depends on someone somewhere along the line recognizing the significance of what's in the letter or other document and then drawing attention to the document to someone who publishes it.
I think it's pretty likely that although the earliest apparent mention of navicular disease was in the mid-1700's, it was actually pretty well known and familiar to horsemen much earlier, it's just that references to it haven't survived or haven't been recognized.
***************************************
BTW, for veterinarians to describe the disease, there first had to be veterinarians! We take it for granted that there have always been vets, but that isn't the case. This website gives some information on the early days of veterinary medicine as a formal academic discipline: http://animalpetdoctor.homestead.com/History1.html
I'm not familiar with this website, but the literature citations are clear and it's probably trustworthy.
FWIW, it's likely that navicular disease was known and recognized by horsemen earlier than the 1752 citation indicated in the website. Three factors kept it from appearing in the literature earlier: first, it wasn't until at least the 1700's that books became fairly accessible; mass printing of books required a sufficient demand to make printing profitable, and prior to the 1700's, there weren't many people who were literate and could afford to buy books.
Second, prior to about the 1800's at the earliest, there weren't veterinarians per se. There were people who were knowledgeable about horses and the things that could afflict them, but knowledge about horses wasn't considered the stuff of scholarly treatises. There were itinerant horse copers (dealers) who collected knowledge and remedies about horse illnesses and problems and used them in their trade, picking up horses they could patch together cheaply and sell for a profit, but the information these people possessed wasn't formally collected and published.
Third, most of the earliest references to navicular would most likely be in the form of mention in letters people wrote or in the hand-written records kept by people who bred and raised horses. The survival and discovery of this kind of information is mostly by chance and depends on someone somewhere along the line recognizing the significance of what's in the letter or other document and then drawing attention to the document to someone who publishes it.
I think it's pretty likely that although the earliest apparent mention of navicular disease was in the mid-1700's, it was actually pretty well known and familiar to horsemen much earlier, it's just that references to it haven't survived or haven't been recognized.
***************************************
BTW, for veterinarians to describe the disease, there first had to be veterinarians! We take it for granted that there have always been vets, but that isn't the case. This website gives some information on the early days of veterinary medicine as a formal academic discipline: http://animalpetdoctor.homestead.com/History1.html
Why do vets have differing opinions on a cats average lifespan?
Q. In my vets office one of the vets told me the average cat lives to be 18 years of age and another vet in the same office said 12-15 years. How could two vets in the same place not even be close on agreement. This is a busy 24 hour clinic where they probably see a lot of the same patients. Is a cat's lifespan that much of a mystery? Can someone who has owned several cats put some light on this subject please?
A. It depends on the breed of the cats they have experience with, and what data they're using. Cats, like most domesticated species including humans, are gaining longer life expectancies. Also, your vet knows more about your specific cat. Cats kept strictly indoors live a little longer than indoor-outdoor or strictly outdoor cats. In addition, mixed-breeds can easily outlive purebreds by a few years or more (the more mixed, the longer the life expectancy can be due to mixed genetics--purebreds are usually inbred to at least some degree).
If vets know so much about dogs, why do they reccommend low quality dog kibble?
Q. Such as Iams, Purina, etc. It's all my vet sells basically.
If vets are supposed to be experts when it comes to dogs, why do they reccommend such bad quality food?
If vets are supposed to be experts when it comes to dogs, why do they reccommend such bad quality food?
A. Nutrition is a very small class, though some vets do specialize in it (and I don't mean specialize as in really, really like it, I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterinary_specialties).
In general, aspiring young vets walk into a room to take a short class on nutrition. The speaker that is delivering the lesson is actually EMPLOYED by IAMS, Purina, etc. Vets that sell food at their clinics get added benefits/bonuses.
I'm lucky. My vet is older and has been around the block a couple of times. He doesn't buy into BS and supports my decision to feed RAW.
-Alika613
In general, aspiring young vets walk into a room to take a short class on nutrition. The speaker that is delivering the lesson is actually EMPLOYED by IAMS, Purina, etc. Vets that sell food at their clinics get added benefits/bonuses.
I'm lucky. My vet is older and has been around the block a couple of times. He doesn't buy into BS and supports my decision to feed RAW.
-Alika613
How much does it costs to neuter a rabbit in Florida and what are the names of those clinics or vets?
Q. My friend lives in FL and wants to neuter her bunnies. Can you list clinics or vets and the costs of the surgery at those places in Florida? I will choose a best answer!
A. I live in Cleveland, the quote I got from the vet for rabbit neutering was around $135. It can cost less at shelters and rescues than at the vets, and there is a price difference between males/females. Most vets/shelters are happy answer questions over the phone, have your friend call those closest to her to ask if they do rabbits and how much. The local humane society might be able to refer her, too.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment