Nor do I, but it's an important issue, and if we can agree to disagree, that might help.
For some reason, our gov't doesn't seem to take the small poultry farms as serious as they do in other countries.
I see it this way: our government cares way more about the health of it's people than many others. We're just a more medically, technically, economically sophisticated country. Mexico is not, unfortunately, a good choice to use as an argument against that. I thought that I explained it carefully that our FDA does not simply allow any drug to be approved, without requiring extensive and extremely expensive testing to see that there will be no residues or other harmful effects to humans by it's use on animals. It's much more complicated than just giving some chickens a drug, seeing that it appears to work, seeing that there are no apparent, immediate issues, and going ahead with it. One example is that some drugs have the ability to concentrate in the ovaries, and can be stored there and secreted into eggs that are laid for well into the future. Does this happen with Ivermectin? Probably not, but I don't know for sure. No one does, because it hasn't been studied extensively enough, and probably never will. Commercial chickens do not have the internal parasite problems that backyard flocks do, so there is not enough of a financial incentive for any company to attempt the studies that need to determine Ivermectin's safety, even if every backyard flock in America bought a bottle. The drug approval process costs literally millions and millions of dollars.
I hear the argument a lot from animal keepers and breeders, who think that they know more than their veterinarians. There's probably not a dog breeder alive who doesn't think so, and that's not a slam, I was once one. Yes, you may be able to tell a Mille Fleur d'Uccle from a Buff Brahma, and your vet can't, but believe me, they have a lot of training in certain medical issues that the averge person does not. The extra lable use of ivermectin that we discussed is a good example. People here come on with well intentioned but false advice about a second dose 14 days later being overkill, but the fact is that few wormers will kill the parasites in the egg. Not even Ivermectin, as good as it is. In many parasites, the cycle from egg until it hatches and grows into a form that will be killed by a worming medication is about 10 to 14 days. The "stupid" veterinarian who doesn't know the difference between a Runner duck and a China goose, knows that, and that's why he prescribed the way he did. The stupid non-chicken vet also knows that some of those newly hatching parasites will be exposed to small amounts of the drug, just as they are hatching, when it is in the end stages of being cleared (diluted) from the body. The exposure to a small amount in some cases is not enough to kill the parasite, but may be enough to trigger some resistance. Allowing it to grow and breed other resistant generations, by not giving a full dose in 10 to 14 days to kill it off, is what helps to develop other resistant parasites. Yes, it's hard to find a vet who will see poultry, and harder still to find one who is honest enough to tell you that he'll do what he can, but's it's not his area of expertise. Still, he has the basics behind him to not make the common mistakes that the averge lay person does. Part of the fault lies with the poultry keepers too. Many will cry over their little chicken, like they would for a dog or cat, but when it comes time to pay the veterinarian, they think it's only so he can make the next payment on his boat or his summer house. The knowledge, the supplies, the drugs, the costs to run the clinic, are the same, whether he's treating a $5 chicken, or a Westminster show winner. Medical costs are out of this world, for both humans and animals.
Professional- You also didn't take into account that maybe scheduling doesn't allow for it to wait either. Some have very busy lives and maybe this was the time they could get at it. Or maybe they were looking for a second opinion.
I hope that you don't misunderstand my tone here, but I disagree. IMO, if one doesn't have time to schedule needed treatments, then he probably shouldn't be keeping the animals. Also IMO, a second opinion should be from at least a similarly qualified individual as the first. I could ask my garbage collector about my dog's surgery, because he has had dogs forever, but that doesn't mean that I'll get a reliable answer.
