And it was all going so well....Strangles :-(
- Thread starter KP nut
- Start date
x
Well Amber iz being scoped next week. Fingers crossed for a clear test! @Mary Poppins when Ben had strangles was he not scoped afterwards? I can't believe someone would be so reckless with other people's horses! Amber is totally fine and has been for ages but she is being kept in strictest isolation till she scopes clear. I just can't imagine ignoring it or selling on. I'd be a rubbish horse dealer!
It's all a bit of a blur to be honest as it was well over 5 years ago and it was my first few days of horse ownership where everything blew my mind!
I believe that Ben got strangles on the yard that I bought him from when he was on owner number 3. He was 4 years old then. He was then sold to a lady in the midlands and then returned to the previous owner a few months later because he was apparently 'dangerous'. They didn't test for strangles at the yard in the midlands and neither did the old yard when they took him back. He was then sold twice before I bought him, but both owners kept him on the same yard (the yard that he originally got strangles from). That yard did have a further outbreak when he was there, but I don't think that Ben was ever suspected to be the carrier.
When I got him he drastically failed the blood test. My yard insisted that he pass it to be allowed to stay there. I was given the option of keeping him in isolation for 2 weeks and re-testing, but the vet said that his levels in the blood test were so high that there was very little chance of them reducing to a safe level without treatment. He was then scoped and then had his guteral pouches flushed out. I can't remember if this was done at the time of scoping or at a later date. I had to keep him in isolation for another week and then they did a blood test which showed his levels were normal.
The previous yard owner (where he came from) offered me our place back there and said that the whole thing was ridiculous. They have horses coming and going all the time and have never tested for strangles before. They would have been happy to have Ben on the yard knowing how high his levels were. I keep talking about 'levels', but I don't actually understand the details. I just know that a 'high level' is not good! My yard is the only yard in the area that test for strangles like this. If they had refused to have him, I would have probably moved him somewhere else and just kept quiet. It would have either been that, or have him put through risky surgery or even destroyed. I think that is how strangles remains so prevalent. People don't want to know the answers!
I believe that Ben got strangles on the yard that I bought him from when he was on owner number 3. He was 4 years old then. He was then sold to a lady in the midlands and then returned to the previous owner a few months later because he was apparently 'dangerous'. They didn't test for strangles at the yard in the midlands and neither did the old yard when they took him back. He was then sold twice before I bought him, but both owners kept him on the same yard (the yard that he originally got strangles from). That yard did have a further outbreak when he was there, but I don't think that Ben was ever suspected to be the carrier.
When I got him he drastically failed the blood test. My yard insisted that he pass it to be allowed to stay there. I was given the option of keeping him in isolation for 2 weeks and re-testing, but the vet said that his levels in the blood test were so high that there was very little chance of them reducing to a safe level without treatment. He was then scoped and then had his guteral pouches flushed out. I can't remember if this was done at the time of scoping or at a later date. I had to keep him in isolation for another week and then they did a blood test which showed his levels were normal.
The previous yard owner (where he came from) offered me our place back there and said that the whole thing was ridiculous. They have horses coming and going all the time and have never tested for strangles before. They would have been happy to have Ben on the yard knowing how high his levels were. I keep talking about 'levels', but I don't actually understand the details. I just know that a 'high level' is not good! My yard is the only yard in the area that test for strangles like this. If they had refused to have him, I would have probably moved him somewhere else and just kept quiet. It would have either been that, or have him put through risky surgery or even destroyed. I think that is how strangles remains so prevalent. People don't want to know the answers!
So owner number 3 never tested him after his illness..... And he WAS a carrier and could have infected other horses. And indeed may have done as there was a subsequent outbreak.
I am really scared about this. My horses are now more or less immune. The pouch testing is to protect other horses. But other people are saying 'I'd rather not know' and are saying they would not bother testing at all. If mine are carriers and the flush does not work they are facing surgery or PTS. I am going ahead because I could not live with myself if one of my horses triggered another outbreak. It is bad enough that Amber triggered an outbreak that almost killed Oscar when when I DIDN'T know. So I can't imagine how I would feel if that happened when I DID know. So I can't let her or the others not be tested. But I am absolutely terrified about finding out. I would far rather not know!!
Incidentally, @Mary Poppins the blood test looks for antibodies to strangles. It can't detect the bacteria itself. But the anti-bodies indicate that a horse has been exposed to strangles and has developed an immune response to the bacteria. The more antibodies seen, the higher the immune response and therefore the higher the bacterial load.
I am really scared about this. My horses are now more or less immune. The pouch testing is to protect other horses. But other people are saying 'I'd rather not know' and are saying they would not bother testing at all. If mine are carriers and the flush does not work they are facing surgery or PTS. I am going ahead because I could not live with myself if one of my horses triggered another outbreak. It is bad enough that Amber triggered an outbreak that almost killed Oscar when when I DIDN'T know. So I can't imagine how I would feel if that happened when I DID know. So I can't let her or the others not be tested. But I am absolutely terrified about finding out. I would far rather not know!!
Incidentally, @Mary Poppins the blood test looks for antibodies to strangles. It can't detect the bacteria itself. But the anti-bodies indicate that a horse has been exposed to strangles and has developed an immune response to the bacteria. The more antibodies seen, the higher the immune response and therefore the higher the bacterial load.
Yes. Amber is being tested tomorrow. Oscar and Max the week after. Max has not even been ill, but as he has been out with the others, the vets are recommending he be tested too. In for a penny in for a pound I guess.
fingers crossed for you KP.
i bought skye without a vetting but she does have a very recent strangles test and its not something Ive ever bothered about before... but Im glad this time to know she has had it and is clear. Especially bringing her home to my place with 14 other ponies, youngstock and 2 mares heavily in foal.
i bought skye without a vetting but she does have a very recent strangles test and its not something Ive ever bothered about before... but Im glad this time to know she has had it and is clear. Especially bringing her home to my place with 14 other ponies, youngstock and 2 mares heavily in foal.
Yes, what you say makes sense because it looks like the virus remained when he was first infected. But is it also possible he became exposed again when he was sold and left the yard, or he became reinfected by the old yard when he returned?
As I understand it, horses generally don't get strangles more than once. Why is this? If the blood test shows a low level of anti bodies, surely they are no more protected than horses who have never had it?
Well I am not sure so don't take this as gospel, but from what I understand, antibody levels drop after the immediate exposure and continue to decline gradually, until after about a year or so they are so low that the 'levels' count as a negative bloods test. Which is why there are so many positive blood tests for horses who are NOT carriers - these are horses who have been exposed and whose antibody levels are still high enough to 'count' as a positive test but are actually declining gradually and they don't harbour any bacteria,. If a horse gets re-exposed then the antibodies recognise it quickly and kick back in again fast to protect the horse. I don't think it is 100% immunity though - but they are definitely more protected than horses who have never been exposed.
Amber has had her scope. All looked fine on the camera so let's just hope the sample tests come back clear too!!
Amber has had her scope. All looked fine on the camera so let's just hope the sample tests come back clear too!!
newrider.com