Accepted Versus Acceptable
A few years ago, I investigated an equine herpesvirus (EHV) outbreak associated with a yearling sale. We found a lot of sick horses, both from the sale and horses that were infected when purchased horses were brought home. A lot of actively racing horses got sick and missed races, which cost people even more money. Part of the investigation was asking people what percentage of horses from sales they expected to get sick right after the sale. The average answer was 80%, and many people said 100%. When you think about it, it's absolutely astounding that people will spend what is often a great deal of money to buy a horse that they expect will get sick, and then (more often than not) put it in the same barn as their other horses, thereby putting all the animals at risk of infection.
Why do we put up with a system where we accept this degree of illness? Is this expected and accepted rate of disease really acceptable? More specifically, are there practical (and really just common sense) measures that can be used to reduce the risk of horses getting infected at sales and/or transmitting disease to other horses once they reach the home farm?
Specific thoughts and facts about how to reduce disease transmission on farms, tracks, sales and everywhere else horses gather will come in other posts, but infection control is not rocket science. Basic measures can greatly reduce the risk of disease transmission. However, the first step is to change people's attitudes - it should never be considered "normal" for such a high percentage of animals to be sick. If 80% of the horses get sick, we're doing something wrong.
