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
What is the difference between a credit card and personal line of credit?
Q. I have just applied for a Wells Fargo Credit Card--I also have a checking account with them as well. Anyways, i was approved for a secured credit card of 800 dollars and denied a personal line of credit? I have to send them 300 dollars for collateral to get my card. Can someone explain this to me more thoroughly. Thank you.
A. Your best bet is to actually ask Wells Fargo.
Being a Banking industry vet, I can assume that what Wells Fargo terms a "personal line of credit" is actually an unsecured credit card.
You may not have enough credit or a low credit score, so they have offered you a secured credit card, i.e. one backed by some collateral (your $300) and most likely a higher rate of interest.
Hopefully after some time with responsible usage and on-time payments, they will reconsider.
Being a Banking industry vet, I can assume that what Wells Fargo terms a "personal line of credit" is actually an unsecured credit card.
You may not have enough credit or a low credit score, so they have offered you a secured credit card, i.e. one backed by some collateral (your $300) and most likely a higher rate of interest.
Hopefully after some time with responsible usage and on-time payments, they will reconsider.
Where does your vet give vaccinations at?
Q. I read on another forum that vets have started giving vaccinations in the legs (1 vaccination per leg) instead of the neck so if the dog develops cancer from the vaccinations they know which one it was.
I'd never heard this until today. My vet, and every vet I've used before, gives vaccinations in the dog's neck. Where does your vet give vaccinations?
It was just from a forum user that I heard it from.
I'd never heard this until today. My vet, and every vet I've used before, gives vaccinations in the dog's neck. Where does your vet give vaccinations?
It was just from a forum user that I heard it from.
A. GREAT question! While I have limited information about Caine vaccine protocols, but have provided a resource that discusses the low risk of Vaccine Asoociated Sarcomas in dogs) but I have given you the most recent information about cats, which may be the reason that dog owners are beginning to think differently about vaccine sites. There is a risk ( which, while vaccine manufacturers claim is about 1 or 2 in 10,000) for developing Vaccine Associated Sarcoma, cat breeders and fanciers feel that this reaction is vastly under-reported.
http://www.thecatsite.com/Health/225/VaccineAssociated-Sarcoma-In-Cats.html
To combat the risk of cats dying from this condition, veterianrians developed, working together,a protocol, while not diminishing the risk, makes it possible to treat more effectively and to be able to know precisely where each vaccine was injected.
http://www.cfa.org/articles/health/vaccination-guidelines.html#recommendations
It is no longer recommended that cats be injected at the scruff of the neck. This protocol has been recommended for many years now, as breeders and veterinarians work together in concert.
Since practitioners report that this reaction is extremely rare in dogs, the protocol for canines apparently has not changed as of yet. I would imagine that in the future, as research continues, that this may be considered down the line.
http://www.zzcat.com/TumorTidbits/Vaccination-Sarcomas-in-Dogs.txt
The reason that vaccines are given in the leg, actually, is that if a sarcoma develops, it is practical to amputate if necessary. Since this is a virulent and rapidly growing tumor, if it develops on the neck area, multiple surgeries are often required in cats, with a poor prognosis. In fact some veterinarians are injecting certain vaccines into the base of the tail, as tail amputations are far less drastic than legs.
I would discuss your concerns with your veterinarian, however. I was mortified last year, when questioning a local veterinarin ( in case of emergency) where he vaccinated, and he still uses the scruff for cats. Of course, I wouldn't ever use his practice since he obviously has not kept up with the research and is ignoring the AVMA's recommendations for felines.
Hope this helps!
Troublesniffer
Owned by cats for over 40 years
Former Siamese and Oriental Breeder
Freelance writer/blogger for http://www.petside.com
http://www.thecatsite.com/Health/225/VaccineAssociated-Sarcoma-In-Cats.html
To combat the risk of cats dying from this condition, veterianrians developed, working together,a protocol, while not diminishing the risk, makes it possible to treat more effectively and to be able to know precisely where each vaccine was injected.
http://www.cfa.org/articles/health/vaccination-guidelines.html#recommendations
It is no longer recommended that cats be injected at the scruff of the neck. This protocol has been recommended for many years now, as breeders and veterinarians work together in concert.
Since practitioners report that this reaction is extremely rare in dogs, the protocol for canines apparently has not changed as of yet. I would imagine that in the future, as research continues, that this may be considered down the line.
http://www.zzcat.com/TumorTidbits/Vaccination-Sarcomas-in-Dogs.txt
The reason that vaccines are given in the leg, actually, is that if a sarcoma develops, it is practical to amputate if necessary. Since this is a virulent and rapidly growing tumor, if it develops on the neck area, multiple surgeries are often required in cats, with a poor prognosis. In fact some veterinarians are injecting certain vaccines into the base of the tail, as tail amputations are far less drastic than legs.
I would discuss your concerns with your veterinarian, however. I was mortified last year, when questioning a local veterinarin ( in case of emergency) where he vaccinated, and he still uses the scruff for cats. Of course, I wouldn't ever use his practice since he obviously has not kept up with the research and is ignoring the AVMA's recommendations for felines.
Hope this helps!
Troublesniffer
Owned by cats for over 40 years
Former Siamese and Oriental Breeder
Freelance writer/blogger for http://www.petside.com
How often do rats need to see the vet?
Q. I am thinking about getting a small animal. Well, two if I get rats since they like company. But one thing I keep hearing is that they need to go to the vet a lot. Is that true? How often do they usually need to go to the vet? Not just for normal check-ups. That too, but mainly I've been hearing that they are prone to getting ill and such.
A. They should not need to go to the vet for a regular check up, they only need to go if they're sick.
But how often they get sick can vary a lot. It depends on where you get them, genetics/how well they were bred, how well you take care of them, and a lot of it is luck of the draw.
If you get rats from the pet store that aren't bred very well or cared for well, there is a good chance they will be sick when you get them so they might need a vet visit then, but you might be lucky and they will be healthy. Rats from reputable breeders are bred to get sick less and are taken care of properly so they should not be sick when you get them.
But after that it is hard to tell. Some rats just end up being sickly and get respiratory infections every few months so they need to see the vet for that. Some rats are very healthy and may never need to go in their life. Some may just need to go once or twice for a slight infection or an abscess.
They definitely are prone to illness though, so only get them if you can afford the vet if they do end up needing it. They can get respiratory infections, abscesses, cysts, tumors (females are very prone to benign mammary tumors, but either gender can get cancers) or other kinds of general infections.
Just make sure you do plenty of research on what bedding and housing they should have (certain things will make them sick), feed them a proper balanced and healthy diet (if they're healthier they'll get sick less), try to get them from a good breeder, and give them plenty of play time and exercise. This will prevent illness the best you can, but have a vet lined up before you get them in case. I would suggest having at least $100 saved for each rat you get, and yes make sure you get at least 2 rats, they should never be alone.
Personally, my current rats have not had to go to the vet very often at all. I have 5 rats right now, 4 were from pet stores and all needed to go within the first month I got them because of respiratory infections. One was from a rescue so it had good care and a vet available so was healthy when I got it. But since I first got them, only one has had to go to the vet a second time, and she is close to 2 (although it was quite an expensive trip, like $400 because of surgery). But like I said, some rats are just sickly throughout their whole lives, no way to tell how often your rats will have to go.
But how often they get sick can vary a lot. It depends on where you get them, genetics/how well they were bred, how well you take care of them, and a lot of it is luck of the draw.
If you get rats from the pet store that aren't bred very well or cared for well, there is a good chance they will be sick when you get them so they might need a vet visit then, but you might be lucky and they will be healthy. Rats from reputable breeders are bred to get sick less and are taken care of properly so they should not be sick when you get them.
But after that it is hard to tell. Some rats just end up being sickly and get respiratory infections every few months so they need to see the vet for that. Some rats are very healthy and may never need to go in their life. Some may just need to go once or twice for a slight infection or an abscess.
They definitely are prone to illness though, so only get them if you can afford the vet if they do end up needing it. They can get respiratory infections, abscesses, cysts, tumors (females are very prone to benign mammary tumors, but either gender can get cancers) or other kinds of general infections.
Just make sure you do plenty of research on what bedding and housing they should have (certain things will make them sick), feed them a proper balanced and healthy diet (if they're healthier they'll get sick less), try to get them from a good breeder, and give them plenty of play time and exercise. This will prevent illness the best you can, but have a vet lined up before you get them in case. I would suggest having at least $100 saved for each rat you get, and yes make sure you get at least 2 rats, they should never be alone.
Personally, my current rats have not had to go to the vet very often at all. I have 5 rats right now, 4 were from pet stores and all needed to go within the first month I got them because of respiratory infections. One was from a rescue so it had good care and a vet available so was healthy when I got it. But since I first got them, only one has had to go to the vet a second time, and she is close to 2 (although it was quite an expensive trip, like $400 because of surgery). But like I said, some rats are just sickly throughout their whole lives, no way to tell how often your rats will have to go.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
