HOLISTIC OR ALTERNATIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE.

It is a difficult task to briefly describe “holistic” or “alternative” veterinary medicine.  The dictionary defines “holistic” as being concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with parts or divisions, while “alternative” describes something existing or functioning outside the established cultural, social, or economic system.  Both definitions are correct but do not adequately address the wide variations within the realm of holistic veterinary medicine as practiced today.

The range of alternative therapies  is immense ... acupuncture, herbs, homeopathy, refined colostrum products, microbial products (lactobacillus and yeasts), mega-vitamins, radionics, and many other natural products and procedures. The list goes on and on and I apologize if I’ve left out someone’s favorite therapy. Most are useful and generally effective alternatives to the drugs, hormones and antibiotics commonly used  in veterinary medicine today. 

 

   A HOLISTIC PRACTITIONER

I believe that the distinguishing characteristic of  holistic  practitioners is the way they approach problems ... in short, the way they think. A true holistic practitioner not only looks at the patient as an integrated unit but also views it in the context of the whole ecosystem in which it lives.  In this regard, a sick animal is not only a patient to be treated but is also a symptom of  a sick farm.  Both patients need help.  Any remedial action must include what is necessary for the immediate relief of the patient as well as a critical assessment of the long-term effects of the chosen therapy on the patient and the environment. Part of the treatment must also be the removal or reduction of predisposing factors. 

 A holistic practitioner should also be well versed in several treatment modalities and  be able to pick the most appropriate ones needed in any situation.   In some situations this might even include the judicious use of antibiotics, if really indicated and if it has a reasonably good chance of success. 

 Finally, a true holistic practitioner should emphasize holistic animal health management (proactive) rather than any kind of treatment (reactive), whether it be holistic or conventional. 

 It should be noted that the terms holistic and alternative are not interchangeable.  For example:  an acupuncturist may be practicing alternative medicine, but if he only treats symptoms and does not search for the cause or other useful therapies ... then he is probably not a holistic practitioner. A fine distinction perhaps, but a significant one.  

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

 To me, the greatest advantage to the holistic approach is that it works!  In the hands of an experienced practitioner most holistic/alternative treatments have as good or a better success rate than conventional therapy. I think this is true because holistic practitioners attempt to find and treat the cause not just the symptoms.  

 There are many other advantages to holistic medicine ... less pollution, fewer side effects, and especially the fact that holistic medicine follows the old medical axiom, “at least do no harm.”  This advice seems to have been lost or overlooked in the U.S. as evidenced by the recent report that pharmaceutical drugs are now either the 4th or 6th leading cause of death.

 Unfortunately, several factors have slowed public acceptance.  The sale and use of natural products do not generate the huge profits necessary to buy researchers, lobbyists and politicians as does the sale of  antibiotics,  pharmaceuticals, herbicides and insecticides. Thus we have little credibility in some circles because we do hot have research to back up our empirical observations.

 Because so few schools teach these advanced concepts, there are not enough qualified practitioners, although the number is growing. Those that do engage in holistic practice are often subjected to harassment by government agencies.

 The biggest disadvantage is that most people tend to use it for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time!   They will turn to alternative treatments only as a last resort when everything conventional medicine has to offer has failed. Usually by this time the patient is in advanced stages of the disease and also suffering from the side effect of all the prescribed drugs they have used. When the alternative  approach also fails, and it usually does in this situation, the patient gives up on the entire concept and never realizes that the alternative treatment might have worked had they used the right product or technique at the right time.  Unfortunately, this apparent “failure” provides more evidence for the pharmaceutical /medical complex  to ridicule and condemn  the entire concept of holistic medicine.

 

 THE FOCUS OF 

  HOLISTIC ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

 The success of the holistic approach requires a change in perspective and the development of a holistic outlook towards livestock management and disease control. It is not as simple as merely substituting a “natural” alternate therapy for a  “toxic” drug. The principles behind the success of holistic therapy go much deeper than the characteristics or source of the  medication. 

 Conventional Veterinary Medicine is primarily concerned with the  treatment of sick animals.  Even if successful, the loss of life and production added to the cost of treatment makes this approach by far the most expensive.

 Veterinarians also emphasize disease prevention.  Herd health checks and vaccination programs fall into this category. As essential as these procedures are, the outlook is still towards preventing disease.  Vaccinations may increase resistance against a specific organism but does little to elevate the animal’s vitality to the health enhancement level. Typical of this category are herds or flocks where the animals are not really sick or showing symptoms but are not really well and productive either.

 A third concept, usually neglected by conventional veterinary practitioners, is that of  health enhancement through holistic management.  Everything possible is done to raise health and vitality to the highest level possible.  All management practices are evaluated on the basis of their effects on the vitality of each animal in the herd. Strict attention is given to providing superlative nutrition.  In so far as possible, all environmental stress factors are eliminated.  Water is checked for nitrates or other toxins. Housing and ventilation are maintained at optimum levels.  Any equipment with which the animals come in contact is properly maintained and adjusted.  There are literally hundreds of other environmental factors that impact animal health and they all must be considered.  When animals are maintained at a high level of vitality their resistance is much 

higher.  Health enhancement is much more profitable than either treatment or prevention.

Mineral Toxicity?

Many myths and misconceptions about cafeteria-style mineral feeding programs abound in the agricultural community. I thought I had heard them all, until I was recently confronted with the following situation.

A livestock owner who was planning to begin a self-regulated mineral program was cautioned that mineral deficient animals would tend to over-consume deficient minerals to the point of toxicity. He was advised to start out by feeding a blend of the same minerals that would be offered individually later on.

In my opinion, there are several problems with this approach.

1. While it is true when starting a self-select mineral program some individual animals will eat an alarming amount of some products, I have never seen a confirmed case of actual toxicity when the full array of recommended minerals is provided.
2. If an animal consumes an inordinate amount of a blend to compensate for a previous deficiency of one mineral, it is, in effect, being force-fed all the other minerals in the blend which it may not need. It is expensive to force feed minerals the animals do not need.

Here are some other key points to consider.

• The essence of the Cafeteria style system is Choice— giving the animals the choice to exercise their innate nutritional wisdom. If you are concerned, you can start them off slower by only putting out small amounts at first and then gradually increasing the amount. That way they maintain their choice and are not forced to eat minerals they do not need.
• When starting on a program like this, animals may eat what appears to be excess minerals because they are not only eating to satisfy their daily needs but also to remedy the deficiencies they may have experienced in the past.
• Minerals are team players. You need the entire team on the playing field to win the game; minerals are the same way. You need to provide the full team to have a successful mineral program.
• Feeding other mineral blends, either top-dress or in the ration, should be minimized or avoided.
• Always provide a separate, free choice source of plain white salt.

The following incident illustrates another aspect of this ability:

 

Weather had made it a bad year for crop quality. In late winter, a good client called me about two problems. His cattle were eating excessive amounts of mineral, and his heifers would abort a live calf about 10 days before they were due to calve. The calf would live, but the heifer would usually die. Focusing first on his mineral problem, he decided to try a “cafeteria” mineral program in which each mineral was fed separately. He had to carry each bag of mineral through his cow-lot to get to the mineral feeder. His first few trips were uneventful. Then suddenly several of the normally docile cows surrounded him, tore a bag of mineral from his arms, chewed open the bag and greedily consumed the contents … a zinc supplement. 

Within a week after the mineral change, consumption returned to normal, and his remaining heifers calved normally. Apparently, the previous year’s stressful growing season had resulted in crops that were deficient in zinc or perhaps high in zinc antagonists. His mineral mix was high in Calcium with only small amounts of zinc. Their quest for zinc impelled them to over-eat the mixed mineral. Excess calcium interferes with zinc absorption. Every mouthful they took increased the imbalance and escalated their need for zinc. Inevitably, metabolic problems began in the most vulnerable group - young, growing heifers in the last stages of pregnancy. Finally they just gave up and checked out ... all for want of a few grams of zinc.

Check out: https://docrjhollidaydvmblog.blogspot.com/2020/08/hey-doc-my-cows-are-eating-dirt-waddya.html

Vitality, Health, and Disease

A graphic look at Life Force, Vitality, Health, and Disease

• The “vitality” line on the left side (looks like a thermometer) runs from “100” (Perfect Health) to “0” (dead).  Any animal’s relative health status can be plotted on this graph. 
• The “clinical line” by definition separates healthy animals from sick animals,  based solely on the presence or absence of symptoms.  
• The “relative profitability line” indicates a relative loss of production, profitability or performance. 
• We know and accept that there are differing levels of illness but our management decisions frequently seem to be based on the premise that an animal is not sick unless it is showing symptoms. 
• If an animal’s health and vitality begins to deteriorate there will be a decline in productivity or performance for a variable period of time before symptoms become evident.  The “relative profitability line” illustrates  this possibility. 
• With further loss of vitality, the animal crosses the “clinical line” when it begins to show symptoms of disease.  These symptoms may be mild at first ... “a little off,”  ... gradually increasing in severity until  “DEAD”.  

• Vitality chart 2 illustrates the journey of two cows as they are subjected to various influences that sap their vitality and set the stage for disease.
• Both cows — Red and Black — are exposed to faulty nutrition, nitrates in the water, and environmental stress, and both still appear to be healthy and productive but some of their reserve vitality is used up. 
• Finally, they are exposed to bacteria.  They both respond but to different degrees due to individual variations. 
• Black is dangerously close to the clinical line but still shows no obvious symptoms, although a really close observer might see mild symptoms developing.  
• In the prevention mode, the only tools in the conventional practitioner’s prevention toolbox are vaccinations and antibiotics.
• Black dips in vitality but does not go “clinical”.  She is able to overcome the infection because she had some resistance left.
• On the chart, Red shows a steady decline and after crossing over the clinical line, begins to show symptoms of disease. Conventional medicine would diagnose the bacteria as the “cause” of her disease. 
• We could give Red some antibiotics and hopefully kill enough germs to get her back up over the clinical line.  Or, we could treat her with herbs, or homeopathy or whatever and probably help her enough to shut off the symptoms.  BUT, unless we eliminate the stresses that put her at the susceptible level in the first place, we have really only installed a big Band-Aid!
• The above example begs the question: “Did the germs cause the disease? Or, would it be more accurate to ask:  “Did the bacteria trigger a disease in an animal that was already suffering from stress-induced, low vitality?”  The deciding factor was not the presence or absence of a disease organism, but the presence or absence of a strong immune system.  
• Just because an animal shows no symptoms does not mean it’s healthy.    
• The final stress that triggers symptoms is usually not the primary cause of the illness.   

I think we give germs way too much weight as the cause of problems. Obviously, microorganisms do vary in their ability to cause disease and a highly pathogenic organism may be able to cause disease in relatively stress free animals.  Even in those situations, well nourished, stress free animals are less likely to succumb.

In the grand scheme of things, the "bugs" are probably only doing the job assigned to them. As "censors of nature" their job is to recycle plants or animals that do not meet nature’s minimum requirements. In a dead animal we call it decomposition ... in a live animal we call it disease.

If one really believes that germs ‘cause’ disease then, by that same logic, they must believe that flies ‘cause’ garbage.