Warmblood Import Nightmare

[ynl063w]

@Denali6298

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.”

In my experience kits are only used in academia, and if something unexpected happens with your results that you can’t explain, you start over with a new kit. Academics don’t have time or money to test every raw material they are going to use prior to use; they buy the kits that someone else has put together and assume the best. That’s what makes sense for their purposes.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is a completely different animal. You’re making batches of medicines that will be ingested, injected, inhaled by living beings. Kits aren’t used because It’s not really possible to verify the quality of the contents of the kits. Documentation of every single thing that happens in every step of every process is hugely important because when the global health authorities show up for inspections, they will go over all of it with a fine tooth comb and ask questions like you’re on trial.

I suspect the USDA lab might lie somewhere between these two extremes, but I would hope it’s closer to the drug manufacturing practices since so much money is at stake regarding the value of the animals they are testing.

[anon6923113]

@ynl063w - thanks for the explanation of quality control procedures, and due diligence. It does make sense to me, and answers exactly what I was attempting to ask. My background is in accounting… not science… but what you describe is what I would casually call an audit trail.

I believe I’m grasping what you are saying with respect to an academic lab vs. GMP lab. But do you mind clarifying what GMP stands for? I will admit I am ignorant, and it is probably obvious. Oh well. I’m just curious.

[Denali6298]

@ynl063w

In my experience kits are only used in academia, and if something unexpected happens with your results that you can’t explain, you start over with a new kit. Academics don’t have time or money to test every raw material they are going to use prior to use; they buy the kits that someone else has put together and assume the best. That’s what makes sense for their purposes.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is a completely different animal. You’re making batches of medicines that will be ingested, injected, inhaled by living beings. Kits aren’t used because It’s not really possible to verify the quality of the contents of the kits. Documentation of every single thing that happens in every step of every process is hugely important because when the global health authorities show up for inspections, they will go over all of it with a fine tooth comb and ask questions like you’re on trial.

I suspect the USDA lab might lie somewhere between these two extremes, but I would hope it’s closer to the drug manufacturing practices since so much money is at stake regarding the value of the animals they are testing.

So when people talk about kits in reference to a test, I’ll use the CFT since it’s real met to the thread, academic labs will test/ do trials with the CFT kits? Does that ultimately have any bearing on changing which test is used Ie changing to the western blot? Or am I diving down a rabbit hole and/or way off track.

[IPEsq]

@gottagrey

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.

The USDA requires the following for a horse coming from Germany:

• An official health certificate, issued by the exporting country.
• An import permit, issued by the National Import Export Services.
• A reservation at an animal import center and at an approved CEM quarantine facility, if applicable. [mares and stallions]

The health certificates required for the US only require declarations pertaining to where the horse was for the past 60 days before import.

Geldings must also pass the following: an observation period in quarantine (minimum 42 hours) plus blood testing for dourine, glanders, equine piroplasmosis, and equine infectious anemia.

So, I don’t think pretesting is a requirement, but it is routinely and customarily done to save US buyers from easily avoidable problems prior to shipping. The buyer is the one usually paying for this; sellers are not typically responsible. I suppose if the purchase price “includes import” the seller may do it. Everyone I know who does a lot of importing is sure to test before closing the deal. And the shipper/import agent I used would not have shipped the horse without the lab report. So, it’s best practice for the horse to be tested even though USDA will do its own testing anyway. That wouldn’t have helped in this particular situation, since the horse was tested, unless for some reason we are missing a piece of the story and horse had a “suspect” test that was written down as negative because it didn’t meet the threshold for positive over there. Not saying that is the case but it is an unlikely possibility. It’s also an unlikely possibility the horse was exposed to something and the timing was bad–also not impossible like the story with my friend’s horse that was put down for EIA sometime between release from quarantine and the horse making it to new owner’s barn. Whether that exposure was to glanders in this case is questionable, but since we don’t seem to know what he does have that’s causing the positive test, poor horse is stuck.

The requirements note that Australian horses are exempt from glanders testing, so clearly the USDA considers horses coming from anywhere in Europe to be a possible risk for glanders but the vet needs only state that the premises and neighboring premises where the horse was for the 60 day period prior to import was free of glanders and other diseases, in contrast to Canada’s rules.

There are longer observation periods for horses coming from certain countries based on different disease risks there. I think it can be difficult to always swear to everywhere a horse has been in the past 6+ months, especially if you are a dealer. But note that it appears from Canada’s rules that a 1/5 CFT would be acceptable, whereas for the US it’s not

[MHM]

@IPEsq

But note that it appears from Canada’s rules that a 1/5 CFT would be acceptable, whereas for the US it’s not

So does that mean this horse could have been imported through Canada and cleared their quarantine with a 1/5 CFT, and then gotten on a truck to cross the Canadian border into the US?

I do find it a little questionable when horses are imported for short term competitions and kept separate from the other horses in different barns or tents. Even if they do not have stalls together, they are still using the same schooling area together on show days.

[anon6923113]

@IPEsq - thanks for a good explanation of process.

The pre-testing of the 4 diseases screened for in relation to European countries of origin you describe in your post… is it an assumed standard practice that it’s done at a European lab? That’s what I was assuming all along, and when I saw the post from iberianfan indicating that they did pre-testing on her horse and had everything sent to the USDA lab in Iowa for analysis BEFORE the horse even shipped from Madrid to Amsterdam pre flight, and BEFORE they actually wired money for the purchase… I found that quite interesting.

Is that different than the pre-testing process you went through with your horse? I hope my question makes sense

[CHT]

@trubandloki

I looked at the Facebook page and the GoFundMe and I do not see anything.

Do you think an update will be given if the decision is to euthanize? I am guessing not. I doubt they will want to read the comments that will come if they post that information even if it is the best thing to do now.

[trubandloki]

@CHT

Do you think an update will be given if the decision is to euthanize? I am guessing not. I doubt they will want to read the comments that will come if they post that information even if it is the best thing to do now.

I should hope the comments would be nothing but condolences.

[gottagrey]

@IPEsq

The USDA requires the following for a horse coming from Germany:

• An official health certificate, issued by the exporting country.
• An import permit, issued by the National Import Export Services.
• A reservation at an animal import center and at an approved CEM quarantine facility, if applicable. [mares and stallions]

The health certificates required for the US only require declarations pertaining to where the horse was for the past 60 days before import.

Geldings must also pass the following: an observation period in quarantine (minimum 42 hours) plus blood testing for dourine, glanders, equine piroplasmosis, and equine infectious anemia.

So, I don’t think pretesting is a requirement, but it is routinely and customarily done to save US buyers from easily avoidable problems prior to shipping. The buyer is the one usually paying for this; sellers are not typically responsible. I suppose if the purchase price “includes import” the seller may do it. Everyone I know who does a lot of importing is sure to test before closing the deal. And the shipper/import agent I used would not have shipped the horse without the lab report. So, it’s best practice for the horse to be tested even though USDA will do its own testing anyway. That wouldn’t have helped in this particular situation, since the horse was tested, unless for some reason we are missing a piece of the story and horse had a “suspect” test that was written down as negative because it didn’t meet the threshold for positive over there. Not saying that is the case but it is an unlikely possibility. It’s also an unlikely possibility the horse was exposed to something and the timing was bad–also not impossible like the story with my friend’s horse that was put down for EIA sometime between release from quarantine and the horse making it to new owner’s barn. Whether that exposure was to glanders in this case is questionable, but since we don’t seem to know what he does have that’s causing the positive test, poor horse is stuck.

The requirements note that Australian horses are exempt from glanders testing, so clearly the USDA considers horses coming from anywhere in Europe to be a possible risk for glanders but the vet needs only state that the premises and neighboring premises where the horse was for the 60 day period prior to import was free of glanders and other diseases, in contrast to Canada’s rules.

There are longer observation periods for horses coming from certain countries based on different disease risks there. I think it can be difficult to always swear to everywhere a horse has been in the past 6+ months, especially if you are a dealer. But note that it appears from Canada’s rules that a 1/5 CFT would be acceptable, whereas for the US it’s not

Exactly my point. If one were to look up import/export requirements - each country will have similar and dissimilar import/export requirements for horses leaving/coming to the country. So in a way what VAhorsemom suggested is already done to a point but the receiving countries have it in their best interest to test the animals upon arrival. It’s the only way to ensure certain diseases remain at bay, as well as to make sure the animals that are traveling are kept healthy and treated if necessary - which is also why many states require health certificates too.

I feel bad for this family and this import nightmare - there is always the hope that “this time /next time it’ll be okay” , and who knows the accuracy of the information that has shared, and even then you can call a business 3 times and often get 4 different answers as often as you get the same answers each time.

[anon6923113]

@CHT

Do you think an update will be given if the decision is to euthanize? I am guessing not. I doubt they will want to read the comments that will come if they post that information even if it is the best thing to do now.

Multiple folks, self included, have made posts indicating that no one should blame them if they euthanize. They are now in a terrible bind.

Regardless of contentious twists and turns on this thread - I seriously do not think ANYONE would be critical in the event a decision was made to euthanize this horse. I know I actually made a specific post several pages ago specifically saying so.

I’ve certainly been incorrect in terms of how I read the room before. And after calming down and going back and reviewing my own posts… I will indeed own that I went overboard in terms of my criticism regarding bringing up the military service as part of the GFM plea. I should have stopped posting the other evening about it but didn’t. We all have moments when we just get worked up over stuff. I went back and deleted most of my posts on that topic.

But I have seen ZERO indication on ANY of the posts on this thread, from any of the different people who have participated that indicates their would be ANYTHING other than overwhelming sympathy for the owners if they decided to euthanize.

[2tempe]

An update on the Go Fund Me page indicates that they pulled another sample on the 23rd. Wouldn’t results be known by now or does the weekend complicate it?

[anon6923113]

@gottagrey

Exactly my point. If one were to look up import/export requirements - each country will have similar and dissimilar import/export requirements for horses leaving/coming to the country. So in a way what VAhorsemom suggested is already done to a point but the receiving countries have it in their best interest to test the animals upon arrival. It’s the only way to ensure certain diseases remain at bay, as well as to make sure the animals that are traveling are kept healthy and treated if necessary - which is also why many states require health certificates too.

I feel bad for this family and this import nightmare - there is always the hope that “this time /next time it’ll be okay” , and who knows the accuracy of the information that has shared, and even then you can call a business 3 times and often get 4 different answers as often as you get the same answers each time.

Aaaah. NOW I understand what you were pointing out.

@MHM also made an incredibly straightforward observation… if Canada accepts a CFT of 1 then yeah… this situation is pretty messed up when you think about it.

[anon6923113]

@2tempe - I don’t believe you have any intention of violating forum rules… but I’m pretty sure you can’t share the link to the GFM.

You can copy and paste the trainer’s recent comment from the 23rd that is publicly visible on that link. And if you do… I don’t THINK anyone will accuse you of “stalking” her on social media or anything like that

[Denali6298]

@Virginia Horse Mom

@2tempe - I don’t believe you have any intention of violating forum rules… but I’m pretty sure you can’t share the link to the GFM.

You can copy and paste the trainer’s recent comment from the 23rd that is publicly visible on that link. And if you do… I don’t THINK anyone will accuse you of “stalking” her on social media or anything like that

Good looking out.

[MHM]

@trubandloki

I should hope the comments would be nothing but condolences.

You’re more optimistic than I am.

I would hope the same thing, but I wouldn’t blame them for a split second if they chose not to post about it.

[ladyj79]

@MHM

You’re more optimistic than I am.

I would hope the same thing, but I wouldn’t blame them for a split second if they chose not to post about it.

indeed, because if they chose euthanasia as the least insane cost choice, they will be vilified by some of the same people expressing concern for them now.

[JustTheTicket]

@CHT

Do you think an update will be given if the decision is to euthanize? I am guessing not. I doubt they will want to read the comments that will come if they post that information even if it is the best thing to do now.

I would hope at the very least they would say something on their gofundme so people wouldn’t keep donating.

[anon6923113]

@ladyj79

indeed, because if they chose euthanasia as the least insane cost choice, they will be vilified by some of the same people expressing concern for them now.

? Who do you think would vilify them for euthanizing?

On January 24th, last Friday I posted the following… (post 629 I think)

[I]”I’ve definitely stated criticism of certain aspects of this situation… but I absolutely would NOT criticize the owners making a decision to euthanize the horse. I do sympathize with the position the mother is in… her daughter is 15 and aware of the situation, and trying to explain to a 15 year old that horses are livestock, etc, USDA policy is inflexible… that’s tough.

I have kids and animals, and have held both my kids while they sobbed because we had a beloved animal cross the rainbow bridge. At times, I have revealed the truth slowly in smaller pieces in order to cushion the blow for my kids. They’re younger though. I don’t know that is possible with a 15 year old.

I do know that it might be a heck of a lot easier on the mother and the child if the trainer… who they seem to trust and like, told them specifically that she would 100% support them if they chose to euthanize this horse. If you have never owned a horse before (I am under the impression this family hasn’t) and you have never had to make the call to put one down … it’s a hard thing to go through. Especially when it’s not an acute catastrophic situation like a major colic or broken bone. If the trainer also offered a free lease, or perhaps a sort of free partial lease (the child gets 3 specific days a week or something like that) on a specific horse in her lesson program or at her barn for 6 months to 1 year to this family and child while they are working through this mess and grieving… it might help cushion the blow and perhaps give the child something positive to focus on for a bit, as well as help mitigate the financial hit this family experienced on this whole imported horse purchase gone HORRIBLY wrong. The trainer did indeed act as the buyer’s agent in the situation… I’m no fan of lawsuits as they rarely solve much of anything. Maybe this would be a good way to heal and go forward, and be something that the trainer actually COULD choose to do at this time to help her clients.

Just a thought on the whole issue of how awful it will be to euthanize this horse for the family emotionally… and how the trainer could help support them. People online criticizing a decision to euthanize on the part of the family probably haven’t ever had to make a really hard call before with a horse who was young, and a financially impossible and impractical bill related to “saving” it.”[/I]

[MHM]

@JustTheTicket

I would hope at the very least they would say something on their gofundme so people wouldn’t keep donating.

They can just shut down the GoFundMe at any time, right?

[JustTheTicket]

@MHM

They can just shut down the GoFundMe at any time, right?

They can but they can probably also put why they’re closing it? Idk, I’ve never set one up, but I’m just guessing that people who already donated might be interested in knowing as well. I don’t care what they do either way, so I’m not vilifying them.