I was laying half asleep in bed this morning when I had an idea. (not necasarrily a bright idea though )

 

Psittacosis, scares me a lot now, and I am always thinking about the potential silent carrier birds who can infect my flock and family.

 

My idea is:

 

When you buy a new bird, you select a bird (from your healthy flock) to join them in quarantine, that way if the new bird is a carrier, the other bird will get sick and they can both be treated accordingly without affecting the entire flock. Choosing the "test" bird would be very difficult... but If Psittacosis is not in the new bird, then both birds will be fine

 

It's the concept of, risk one to save many.

 

What are your thoughts a views on this??

Edited April 24, 200817 yr by **Liv**

Having experienced a carrier of psittacosis and what it can do to the bird its with....I wouldnt wish that on any bird. Once you have gone through the incubation period of the disease and then the symptoms show there is very little time from the onset of visible symptoms and death....

You may not have the time to treat the infected bird that you put in the cage to test the theory. PM me for photos of the bird that contracted the psittacosis from the carrier. The photos did not come out clear....very bad photos. But you will get the idea. From first onset of visible symptoms to death was 1 day regardless of start of treatment.

 

 

PS many show breeder will quarantine in the breeder cabinet, but if this type of thing is going to happen...you lose good birds any way you choose to approach this method.

I will only quarantine in a breeder cabinet if the pair came from the same breeder with a recommendation that they be paired straight up.

Edited April 24, 200817 yr by KAZ

I see your point liv but I'm not sure if I could sacrifice a bird in that way... and thats kind of like how I'd feel. I know it would save the rest of the flock but I dunno...

It would a tough, heart breaking choice to make

The odds of getting a carrier bird in the first place i feel is fairly low, so a 'test' bird may never be exposed. But i also dont like the idea of having to risk a life, even if it could save many.

 

---> :mellow: <---

 

That is exactly why i thought i would ask for others opinions

Its not a totally wrong idea or not totally the wrong thing to ask about. In actual fact I would be certain that some people put "lesser birds" in with possible carriers to test the theory. I know I wouldnt as all of my birds are important to me and I see none as "lesser birds" not even my pet types as I love them all equally. Having been through the carrier bird infecting a healthy bird...and seeing the rapid advance of the disease once it showed symptoms... I just wouldnt wish that on any bird...ever.

Have sent the photos through to you Liv.

Edited April 24, 200817 yr by KAZ

And then you have the question of whether the test bird you put in with the "carrier" bird actually contracts the disease.

Mind you if a bird can carry the disease and not be affected by it, it may actually have some good genes to bring into the population. so that you could breed a whole aviary of psittacosis resistant birds. Although of course you would treat the carrier first so it wouldn't spread any disease.

Personally, I put all of my new birds on a course of Avicycline when they arrive. I know it says on the bottle that it doesn't treat psitticosis but it does, it just takes longer than the treatments of choice now. It may seem like overkill but I like to know that every bird that enters my flock is in pristine health. There may be the odd one that I don't bother doing this with (such as if I know the history of the bird and feel the chances are pretty slim) but especiallly if it is coming from an unknown breeder or a pet shop I take this precaution.

Personally, I put all of my new birds on a course of Avicycline when they arrive. I know it says on the bottle that it doesn't treat psitticosis but it does, it just takes longer than the treatments of choice now. It may seem like overkill but I like to know that every bird that enters my flock is in pristine health. There may be the odd one that I don't bother doing this with (such as if I know the history of the bird and feel the chances are pretty slim) but especiallly if it is coming from an unknown breeder or a pet shop I take this precaution.

When Kens birds has psittacosis and they were put on Doxyvet.....I was using Avicycline at the time. The vet said that it was the same thing but that the Doxy was better. The doxy is slightly stronger a dosage. But the vet said it was the same thing. So Melbourne budgies you are right in what you are doing in my opinion.

Edited April 24, 200817 yr by KAZ

The only advantage for me of Avicycline is that I can buy it over the counter whereas Doxy is vet only. I would need to have every new bird tested to be able to use doxy like that.

Chlorteracyline treats Psittacosis too. I can get it in 50g containers from a local bird dealer.

 

I am personally not a big antibiotic fan... I am always on the view that using too much antibiotics will cause super resistant bugs and lowers the immune system (double negative, not making a positive in this case) . I use antibiotics only on bacterial infections that the body has no chance of getting over on its own. - but thats just me

The main problem with antibiotics is when people don't follow through with a full course. There is a nasty tendency to stop taking them once you are starting to feel better and that is when bugs get resistant. After a full course there should be no bugs left to become resistant.

I agree with you Liv. Many of you know my views on antibiotics: Only use them if you KNOW they have a bacterial infection. Never because they "look sick" or as a "precaution".

Fair enough Sailorwolf, but personally I can't afford to get every bird that arrives tested just incase and then if I don't treat them and they end up in the aviary with 40 others birds the results could be horrendous.

Fair enough, but you also run the risk of a super resistant bug, which can do just as much harm if not more.

All this is a moot point if people quarantined for 60 days as is the recommended length of time.

All new birds should go on a full 45 days of Psittavet then 10 days of Probotic to give them some oompf.

The chances of a bird/bug becoming immune to the treatment are so infinestimally small as to be not worth worrying about but the consequences of not doing a proper quarantine with also the treatment is foolhardy - I was this foolhardy twice and paid a heavy penalty on both occasions (actually the birds paid the penalty - with their lives).

First time was with Megabacteriosis (now called Avian Yeast infection or similar) and the second time was Psittacosis.

 

Ideally birds should be given this medication annually - like a flu vaccination for want of a better example.

 

I have my flu vaccination annually - prevention is alot better than the cure. Mothers immunise their infants for Polio, Measles, Croup etc.

Thanks Karen you said what I was trying to say but better

 

The main thing is that they need the full course of the medication whether it is administered as treatment for a known disease or prophylactically(sp?). The recommended course for the one I use is 40 days so that's what they get.

The chance of becoming immune/resistant to treatment is not infinitesimally small, it happens all the time. It may be unlikely to happen, but it is not uncommon and you will always run that risk with any antibiotic or anthelmintic (worming drugs), that's why farmers have to change their drenches every year to prevent resistance occurring. Believe me, we have just been learning about it.Again birds can carry the disease with out showing any symptoms, these will usually come through with quarantine though. Any suspected birds can then be tested.

If you want to run the risk of resistance then you can use antibiotics as you like, but use them as instructed. Just remember that if resistance does develop, it won't just develop in your flock, the resistant bugs can be transferred to wild birds, pets and humans.

 

Resistance develops if antibiotics are used irresponsibly or willy nilly, or ignorantly. They can also develop even when prescribed (although rarely)

 

Vaccinations are different to antibiotics. With vaccinations you are injected with (or given) a weak virus or bacteria, a dead virus or bacteria or parts of the virus or bacteria. This is done when you have no infection. This allows your immune system to be able to develop an immunity to the particular virus or bacteria and be able to fend it off later when a real infection occurs. Vaccinations do not cause resistance to develop.

Antibiotics are given when the animal is already infected and are used to kill or halt bacteria already present. Antibiotics do not allow you to build an immunity as they are not a part of bacteria. They destroy the bacteria instead of your immune system. Giving anual doses of antibiotic will not give your flock immunity, it will just kill bacteria and if those bacteria are still in the environment your flock will be reinfected.

If you wanted to vaccinate your flock against psittacosis you would give small amounts of the bacteria, not antibiotics

Edited April 25, 200817 yr by Sailorwolf

I am all for vaccines.

I would pay for all my birds to have a Psittacosis vaccine without a blink of an eye!

 

I feel that giving the antibiotics bi-annually only stops the bacteria for those 6 weeks at a time. If the bacteria comes by say 3 weeks after the birds finished their treatment, wouldn't they still get sick

Yes they would Liv. I think a vaccine would be a great idea. There are many vaccines available for chickens and I think some can even be bought over the counter for people like commercial growers! It would be expensive for people with large aviaries but if you could do some sort of accreditation (like a couple of hour course) on how to give the vaccine yourself and then buy the vaccine over the counter on presentation of your course card that would be great.

I have just read that Psittacosis can not have a vaccine as the body does not build an immunity to the bacteria at all - so there goes that idea

Edited April 25, 200817 yr by **Liv**

They must build some sort of immunity, that is what a 'carrier' is. It's a bird that is carrying the disease but is resistant so doesn't show symptoms.

But a carrier carries the disease because it can not rid of the disease on its own. It needs antibiotics just like all the others. Just because it has no symptoms, dosen't mean it's immune, just means it's not showing symptoms.

 

It could be explained like this.... A person with HIV can have HIV for years and be completely fine, but can still spread the virus to other people if they are not careful. There is no HIV vaccine or immunity....

Edited April 25, 200817 yr by **Liv**

If the immune system wasn't able to fight the disease at all it would go unchecked and the full disease would develop. What is stopping the disease in a carrier bird from progressing?

Some can be carriers without having the disease affect them, it's not specifically an immunity although it can be looked on like that... it's like women... yes i know an odd example... We're born with all our eggs in our ovaries, but these eggs can't be used until something within us activates it, e.g. puberty... so for a bird to be a carrier the disease may not show until they fall ill with something else, which doesn't necessarily make them immune, but more... dormant......

eggs in ovaries are a bad example as they can't be passed on... but it's an example of it being dormant until activated...

Let me tell ya bout the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees... sorry that song just popped in my head after reading the thread... I get your point libby.

Edited April 25, 200817 yr by JimmyBanks