Final Pathology Report Results

[gjensen]

The smaller the group you start with the less likely a carrier will pop up. Up to 5% of 20 is one. If they are broke up into smaller groups you might have the oppurtunity to isolate it if it does. The more groups you have, the more likely you will have a group(s) that is not exposed. Just sharing thoughts. Good Luck.

 

[SilkieCanada]

Quote:
What happens if one pops up with MG again? Your going to cull them all again? There are lots of people in your shoes. I had to cull a handful of new birds I bought from a bird show. They where in quarantine and my main flock never got sick. Not that I know of. I still dont feel right about my decision to cull them. I mean this could just go on year after year. Cull cull cull. Half a decade could go by and your still culling the birds every year if something pops up? Trying again the next year. Thats whats always in the back of my mind. How do people enjoy their birds if they are constantly looking for runny noses or constantly getting them tested. Test today that doesnt mean they are not carrying something next week. Im checking for runny noses every night and every morning. Im sick of it. This is like a zombie movie. Are there any statistics out there about how many flocks actually contain this or other respiratory disease? It just feels like there is lots of opinions going back and forth without any hard data.

Its 2011, and the backyard chicken movement is picking up. People have pet chickens. Pet chickens are becoming mainstream. I dont realistically see people culling their pets because they get runny noses. I dont see parents telling their kids, "sorry honey your pet chicken has a runny nose so we had to kill all of them." These are the people buying diapers for their birds. Indoor chickens and so on. The more chickens move into the pet market the more of the MG your going to see. People are less likely to cull a pet. They will get some baytril and life goes on. Nobody is culling their dogs. Its one thing to run a business with breeding or eggs and so on with chickens and to have a certain standard but its just not going to happen for the mainstream pet market.

 

[Erica]

I don't know if there are firm answers to your qualms, mitx, but I really think culling is a responsibility of the breeder, not the end-purchaser who might take home a few pets. Definitely it's the pet-owners who suffer most when carrier flocks are used to breed chicks to be sold. Ongoing sickness (not to mention vet bills) can easily make chicken-keeping seem like a terrible experience.

This is why, I believe, breeders ought to be not only vigilant but thinking long-term. For some people that means trying to breed for MG resistance (for all they know they're probably equally breeding less debilitating strains of MG); for some it means constant use of antibiotics; and for some it means eradicating the actual disease by totally depopulating and starting over with clean stock (or treated eggs). I know which of these types of breeders I'd rather buy from.

 

[SilkieCanada]

Well I wouldnt want to buy a bird that is going to be sick. I agree with you guys.

However, why is the "responsible" thing to cull the bird. Why isnt the responsible thing for everyone to vaccinate their birds instead of cull them? To me that would make more sense.

So for example you have 2 sellers. Bob and Bill. And they live next to each other. Both breed birds. Bob doesnt cull, he wants to medicate his sick birds. Bill is offended by this because there is risk that the sick birds will infect his flock. And Bill believes in culling. So he doesnt want his flock to get culled because he feels Bob is being irresponsible and endangering his flock. But if both sellers vaccinated there wouldnt be a problem. Shedding or none shedding, if the disease is so dangerous everyone should have protected themselfs. Why isnt this the responsible solution? And yes I get that "everyone" will never vaccinate. But on the flip side, everyone wont cull neither. And the MG will spread regardless of your best efforts to cull and keep a healthy flock. There are lots of Bobs out there. Its just a matter of time before Bills birds get sick.

Am I being naive?

 

[Elite Silkies]

Quote:
Vaccines only mask the symptoms of the illnesses/diseases so they are not physically expressed. The birds can still get the disease that you vaccinate them for.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Quote:
I agree with you - there is always a transmission risk, even with a "closed flock" because of wild birds, or even fomites such as shoes or tires.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Theoretically the mycoplasma that causes the disease can only live around three days in the absence of a host. It would seem that sanitizing and leaving the yard vacant for a few weeks would more than do the trick - if you can keep wild birds out.

There are also two new immunizations out that are non-pathogenic.

 

[SilkieCanada]

Quote:
Vaccines only mask the symptoms of the illnesses/diseases so they are not physically expressed. The birds can still get the disease that you vaccinate them for.

Wow are you serious? Whats the point of vaccines then?

 

[Erica]

There are different strains of MG, some less pathogenic than others, even as there are different strains of marek's. It's quite conceivable you could vaccinate against one strain but still acquire others.

On rare occasions it's also possible for *certain* vaccines to spread disease. I don't know about the MG vaccine and don't want to speculate, but the basic rule is, if you vaccinate, you have to vaccinate forever.

The example I'll give for spreading of disease is tick fever in cattle. Here in Australia, if you use tick fever vaccine with cattle, the local ticks will bite the cattle and become infective if they then go on to bite any non-vaccinated cattle. My local Department recommended I vaccinate for tick fever even though it was unknown in my region... That would have ensured that it soon became known in my region, which I found astonishing for an agriculture department to advise doing. (It begs the question whether authorities and vaccine distributors are too closely linked these days.) I doubt whether some sort of infectious result is true of vaccines for CRD, but it's worth thinking about before committing.

Ultimately though it comes down to what you read, what your worldview is and what your future plans are... I would never say someone shouldn't vaccinate or that they're wrong for doing so, it's a choice. Let's hope it continues to be one, because diversity of ideas, like diversity of genetics, is the best way to ensure long term survival for a species.

The way I look at it, biosecurity against MG isn't difficult, and given its short lifespan off the bird it's also fairly easy to eradicate if you can source MG free birds (which you can if you're careful). Culling and cleaning out after an infected flock only has to be done once if you keep up an anti-MG biosecurity plan (which again isn't hard)... Contrast this to ongoing vaccination of each and every chick, with possible pathogen mutation to become resistant to the vaccine, and the case for vaccines starts to leak...

cheers
Erica

 

[Elite Silkies]

Quote:
Vaccines only mask the symptoms of the illnesses/diseases so they are not physically expressed. The birds can still get the disease that you vaccinate them for.

Wow are you serious? Whats the point of vaccines then?

Vaccinations are suppose to decrease the death rates because they do not express the symptoms of the disease which is what causes the death. Say like Mareks..... they could still acquire the disease even after being vaccinated but the vaccine should stop them from producing the physical symptoms of the disease.