Goat experts and opinionated people needed: ivermectin vs herbals

[PotterWatch]

Is Ivermec sold specifically for goats or will it be labeled for another type of animal at the store? I am going to try and find some today, but there aren't many goat people around here, so most of the feed stores don't know the answer to questions about goats.

 

[freemotion]

Actually, I don't think anyone who posted here is actually completely against chemical wormers....I did ask for all sides of the equation.

This fall I took a CE course designed for MD's on "Nutraceutical Intervention...blah blah blah" (can't remember the entire LOOOONG name of the course right now) and we reviewed tons of research on natural substances. This course was for human MD's, mind you, not veterinary practice.

One of the problems with the research of natural plants and extracts is that no one wants to spend the money to fund it. It takes MILLIONS of dollars to finance research for pharmaceuticals, including chemical wormers, and the companies stand to make BILLIONS over the life of the patent, so they risk the upfront cost. Not so for a plant that anyone can grow in their garden or find in the woods. Yes, many pharmaceuticals are based on plants, but usually a synthetically produced version, which can be patented.

Also, many studies (underfunded and small, often) utilize only one herbal or extract, when in reality, they work best in combination with others, rarely alone (a little known fact.) Sometimes they are in a form that is not bioavailable. Sometimes the study is sneakily funded by big pharma when a lawsuit is pending, to try to cast reasonable doubt....it wasn't our drug that caused the heart attack, these people were all taking vitamin E, too

There are dedicated people out there who conduct their own "research" by using natural programs and tracking the health of their animals in responsible and educated ways, using fecals and carefully tracking production. Joel Salatin is one. I respect this research, and also understand that what works on one piece of land with a certain group of animals with their unique genetic strengths and weaknesses might not work for another owner.

I am a big fan of "empirical evidence" for this reason.

There are also articles and research studies available online that come from countries that do not have the political restraints that are found in this country. Don't be fooled into thinking that all the rules and regs are for our protection. There is a lot of money behind many of them. What really protects us is the threat of litigation, which generally happens AFTER many are injured, and so much money has been made, it is barely a blip on the financial radar of the giant corporation.

We need a soapbox smiley.....

 

[helmstead]

Quote:
Nope, it won't be labeled for goats.

I use cattle pour on and injectable, whichever is correct for each goat (some have reactions to the pour on)

Also you can use equine ivermectrin paste, at 3-4x the label dosage (ie a 50 lb goat, I would give a 200 lb dosage).

 

[Beekissed]

There are dedicated people out there who conduct their own "research" by using natural programs and tracking the health of their animals in responsible and educated ways, using fecals and carefully tracking production. Joel Salatin is one. I respect this research, and also understand that what works on one piece of land with a certain group of animals with their unique genetic strengths and weaknesses might not work for another owner.

The man knows his stuff and has put a lot of thought, trial and error, and research of many kinds into his farming theories. When you read them, they make sense. I would say he could buy and sell most of us on these threads and he didn't start out rich~he must know something about livestock...

... he's made a fortune on them!

Heck, scientists still don't know just how aspirin works! They just know it does and it seems to be good enough for millions of Americans to trust it. Some things don't have to have time and money spent on them to find out if they work...they just do! We know they do because someone first tried it~more than likely by accident~it brought a desirable result, so it was repeated. If it continued to bring a good result without any side effects that could not be controlled, it was put to good use.

Before there were scientists and specialists, there was good ol' common sense, trial and error research modes. If not, we would still believe the world was flat...as all the learned men of that time decided was irrefutable fact!

 

[patandchickens]

Quote:
Don't confuse two things here -- *whether* something works, and *how* it does.

The question as I see it is not *how* herbal/natural wormers work (really, I mean, the exact mechanism by which LOTS of things work is poorly or sometimes not at all understood-- like for instance gravity). It's WHETHER they work, in a better-than-placebo better-than-control-treatment way.

I have no reservation using something that I don't know exactly how it works.

I do have reservations, personally, about using something that there's no what I'd call GOOD documentation of WHETHER it works.

(By good documentation I mean numerical well-designed peer-reviewed studies.)

It is very unfortunate that such work has, by and large, not been done on 'natural' remedies (although some *has* been, often with less than encouraging results)... and that ought to be corrected... but as it stands now, for an animal with a known health problem, personally I'd rather go with something that has a better documented record of WHETHER it works. (Also better safety studies, doseage studies, etc).

(e.t.a. -- I am reluctant to rely solely on "good old common sense trial-and-error research modes" because they have produced a lot of common wisdom that is just plain flat-out WRONG, like heavier objects fall faster, the moon is larger near the horizon, and a whole bunch of superstitious cures along the lines of bury-a-toad-at-the-crossroads-at-midnight-to-cure-a-wart that under actual testing just do not hold water. The whole REASON the scientific method was developed was to make up for noticeable SHORTCOMINGS of good old common sense trial and error.)


Pat

 

[freemotion]

And how many drugs have made it to market, based on studies, and later been pulled when people are dying?

One of my uncles was an anesthesiologist who told me that he did not use a new drug until it was in use for at least 10 years before he trusted its safety. This was a man of science, who in reality, operated more the way the people who use herbals do....observing what really happens, in spite of numbers, which CAN lie.

That being said, I love reading research!

Oh, am I just throwing more gasoline on this fire? (tee-hee

)

 

[patandchickens]

Quote:
Of course. That's generally a safety issue not efficacy (safety being usually more poorly studied, b/c much harder to study -- this is no less true of natural remedies than pharmaceutical ones). Also, that relates mainly just to the financial pressures within the pharmaceutical industry.

At least we find OUT about such problems, eventually, and recommendations change. How many herbals have been used and caused a bunch of deaths? Which ones shouldn't be used by whom or in what doseages? Who the heck knows, except on the basis of anecdote and personal experience -- and anecdote and personal experience exist just as much in the prescription of conventional drugs as well.

Numbers (properly obtained) are your friend. Numbers help you see in the dark and dispel illusion. Lack of numbers often misleads, and the worst thing is you usually don't even KNOW whether you're misled.

BTW, as I see it, the above has little-to-nothing to do with the identities of the players. If it were herbal/natural remedies that were well documented with properly designed studies, and pharmaceutical drugs lacked numbers, I would still be saying the exact same thing, only in the opposite direction.

The human mind is just WAY WAY too susceptible to honest error when all you've got is the "eyeball test" of whether something has helped or is safe.

JMO,

Pat

 

[Beekissed]

Hey, its all in good fun!

I agree with the so-called research on meds. I'm a nurse...I get to see first hand the results of millions of dollars of research. The data of this research is often slanted quite a bit, depending on who is funding the studies, who is contributing to the university that conducted the study, and what drug company lobbyists are hand in glove with whoever runs the FDA at the moment. The "numbers" are often not an accurate reading of the truth. Most of the money for these drugs do not go into research, it goes into advertisement/marketing of the drug. I get to see what doctors are given as "perks" for prescribing any given med! You wouldn't believe it! I have a very skeptical view of "modern" drugs and how much "research" is done to develop them.

What it all comes down to is this:

If you are looking for a more natural way to control parasites in your livestock, you will find it. The natural way takes a little more thought, a little more research, a little more pasture management and selective breeding for resistant livestock. Some very good farmers use these methods with good results. So, in fact, they can and do work if one wants to put in the time.

If you are looking for convenience and you don't care about using drugs to worm your livestock, then you can very easily use what is recommended by the dept. of agriculture and by the veterinarian. A lot of farmers for generations have used these drugs. So, in fact, its been proven that they can and do work, if you use some management of the different drugs to not develop a drug-resistant strain of any particular parasite and you don't mind dosing more frequently.

If both ways work and the individual parties are satisfied that they have reached their goal of good management of their livestock, what does it matter?

 

[patandchickens]

Quote:
Or, third category of option, you can use what's being called "natural" methods, here, for maintenance and handling modest blips in parasite load, but if a more serious worm problem becomes evident, e.g. in a newly acquired animal, use commercial dewormers to knock the problem down, then return to your previous management strategies.

It is not "either/or"; plenty of middle ground exists.

(Why should it be assumed that no resistance can develop to 'natural' remedies, btw??)

If both ways work and the individual parties are satisfied that they have reached their goal of good management of their livestock, what does it matter?

Well, I should think it would matter to the animals, whether they have more or less worm load (and more or less health overall, in other respects as well)

Pat​

 

[Beekissed]

(Why should it be assumed that no resistance can develop to 'natural' remedies, btw??)

I guess that could be true of some herbals if they act as a toxin to the worms. Some act as a surfactant and I don't know if one can develop a resistance to this agent. Some paralyze the worm and it could be said that some parasites could develop a strain that is resistant to this action.

*If both ways work and the individual parties are satisfied that they have reached their goal of good management of their livestock, what does it matter?*

Well, I should think it would matter to the animals, whether they have more or less worm load (and more or less health overall, in other respects as well)

I think I stated a qualifier here, as highlighted above~IF both ways work, what does it matter. Of course it would matter to the animal~and I'm sure, to the farmer~if they did not work! If they did not work, I can't imagine their use would be repeated.