No, I can assure you that the people in this situation are very real, and the last thing they wanted to do was to fundraise to try to get their horse out of quarantine.
9 Likes
That thought had not crossed my mind.
I was thinking more along the lines of either a miscommunication among some of the parties involved, or a very flexible pricing system, depending on the current circumstances on any given day.
The fact that all this information is coming at least third hand, if not fourth or fifth hand, makes it all speculation at this point.
3 Likes
i think this is likely.
I work in import/export regulation and it is so complex and there are often so many middlemen (Customs brokers, freight forwarders, specialty animal shipping services, airlines, etc.) involved that thing often get muddled, to put it lightly. Plus, importing virtually has its own language.
I often find it to be like playing a high-stakes game of “telephone” where some of the players don’t even speak the same dialect.
I’m not surprised that there is confusion. It’s almost guaranteed that communication will be problematic when things go wrong and it isn’t uncommon for perfectly intelligent people to make poor decisions. They often don’t fully understand or don’t have complete information. (Or they’re given flat-out wrong info. You’d think that the pros handling imports on a daily basis would know what they’re doing but that isn’t always the case.)
9 Likes
Interesting that Canada no longer recognizes that Germany is glanders free - [h=3]Glanders[/h] The horse(s) must be certified against Glanders as follows: For all Member States (except Germany):
- During the 90 days prior to export to Canada, the horse(s) have not had contact with any horses (including imported horses) that have been in an area where restrictive measures are, or have been, in place on Glanders during the preceding six months.
- The Member State is in full compliance with the relevant EU legislation for this disease.
- All premises on which the animal(s) have resided in the past 6 months must have been free from clinical and epidemiological evidence of Glanders infection during the 24 months immediately prior to movement of the animal(s) off the premises.
- The horses must have been tested with a complement fixation test or, where applicable, an alternate test acceptable to CFIA for Glanders, with negative results, on samples taken within the 30 days prior to export to Canada.
6 Likes
And considering that a horse with Glanders has not been euthanized in the US in recent memory as far as I know, I think it’s likely that the numbers did change. That the first estimate was given quickly, and that with the (alas weeks) they’ve had to think about it, they figured out how it could be done more affordably. Basically, that there’s a lot of on-the-fly problem solving going on. Again having this happen during the holidays may mean that the person who is most expert at any one thing was possibly unavailable when the question first came up.
5 Likes
They had an actual case, confirmed with testing and autopsy, back in 2015. It was weird though - I don’t think they ever figured out how the horse contracted it. The horse was bred and born in Germany. According to the report on it, the horse hadn’t been symptomatic, and was going through testing because it was sold to a foreign buyer who was preparing to import it (maybe to England?) and THAT’S when the Glanders was discovered. Details of that case almost sounded like it had chronic, low grade asymptomatic glanders.
There was a documented case in Switzerland back in 2011 I believe. I seem to recall they traced it to a horse imported from Lebanon. And that might be the root source for how the disease reappeared at all in Europe. Prior to that case, I think Europe was entirely glanders free for decades… just like North America.
2 Likes
As to the question of using the “official” U.S. lab in Iowa,that’s what my shipper in Spain did before the horse left Spanish quarantine. While I moaned about the extra time it would take, after all this, I am overwhelmingly grateful.
19 Likes
It must have been your post I was recollecting. So this can be done? Using the North American CFT and sending the sample to the USDAs preferred lab in Iowa? That definitely seems the smart thing to do from here on out for people. Did your horse have to stay in Spain’s quarantine area prior to export while you awaited these results? Is that a huge expense in terms of day rate, like the US side apparently is?
Just curiosity on my part. But it is interesting how complicated some of these details can get, and owners like you who have done it are providing a good education for everyone on the whole subject of importing.
1 Like
To be perfectly honest, I don’t know if it was just the piro test, or the CFT, or both, but the shipper sent blood to Iowa for testing. The horse stayed in Madrid - not even transporting to Amsterdam - until the results came back. My price was a fixed amount. I’m sure if he had stayed a lot longer, there would have been some sort of adjustment.
Even if it was just piro, seems sensible that CFT could also be done by the lab in Iowa. I probably have those records somewhere…
2 Likes
Sounds like you had a smart shipper who did want to avoid major pitfalls 
It’s really good to know that is possible! Thanks for answering my questions.
After going back and reading some of the thread, I honestly do wonder what role Horse Flight played in all this. Hopefully they… and others companies who act as shipper/import agent for US buyers, consider banding together and making it almost industry standard/the known best practice to do the pre-testing with the USDA preferred tests (for Glanders and Piroplasmosis) and to send samples off to the lab in Iowa that the USDA utilizes. I’m sure there’s a bit more expense, administrative headache, paperwork and phone calls, and time associated with that. But there is quite a bit of wisdom to paying a few hundred, or even a thousand more on the front end of the process, and sparing yourself a nightmare to on the backend.
It also might make it harder for an insurance policy to find some sort of “out” if something goes sideways with the horse during the whole import process.
2 Likes
Agreed! Molecular Microbiologist here too! We did have batches of kits that wouldn’t pass QC or give false positives/negatives due to the manufacture error, tech error or the test not being stored or tested at the right temperatures.
6 Likes
It’s already done to a certain extent- horses leaving the exporting country are given a slew of required tests. Does the US have the same entry requirement for horses leaving Germany that Canada does? Why should the shipper be required to do all the landing required testing prior to departure especially when the receiving country is going to test anyway.
Are there serial numbers or some such similar sort of information on kits that are recorded and permanently tied to the official report regarding test results with something like the CFT that they are doing for Glanders in this case? Hopefully my question makes sense. I might be asking it the wrong way though… I’m just curious as to how they might identify a link between a batch of kits and a significant uptick in the rate of false positives
Is there any update on the situation with this horse?
3 Likes
I looked at the Facebook page and the GoFundMe and I do not see anything.
1 Like
Thanks.
Supposedly they did another CFT back on the 23rd - I wonder if results were slowed down because of the weekend? It sure would be a blessing if it finally came back 0.
I saw the 23rd test comment previously mentioned here and on the GFM. I figured if it came back 0 they would have screamed it from the roof tops.
I do wonder what the horse has that keeps making it get the positive result.
1 Like
Of course there can be problems with raw materials but the point is that in GMP labs, those raw materials are tested robustly prior to use so that any quality issues are discovered before they are used in testing, and they are discarded if a thorough investigation determines that there is impact to the quality, safety, or efficacy of those materials. Academic labs don’t test or document anywhere near as robustly as GMP labs do because there is no need for it, but I would be shocked if the USDA lab in question here does not follow GMP procedures. I’ve worked in both environments and they are not at all the same.
And yes, lot numbers, expiration dates, volumes and concentrations used, are all documented (someone asked something like that). I would be surprised if there is not at least some kind of checklist that has to be completed, signed, and second person reviewed anytime a positive result pops in order to check all of these parameters from the lab notebook (which should also be reviewed periodically) as a due diligence exercise.
2 Likes
I’m reading these posts about the tests and all I get is SCIENCE! Not my strong suit. If I am understanding correctly the raw materials for the kits are tested and approved. Kit is created. If a kit is suspected, or multiples, of having issues it will be tracked by batch to identify any further issues? Am I getting that right or am I still stuck on “science.”
