Deb Rebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>>If there is any bare tail left, it needs to be amputated as
>>>the layers of bare tissue will just die off and necritize,
>>>and infection will set in and kill the animal.
>>
>>This simply does not happen in gerbils.
>
>
>I had one go from this, for some reason it's partner
>went after the tail and hindquarters and chomped it up.
>
>The necropsy showed infection, and dying layers of
>tissue in the last quarter inch of tail. I attributed the
>death to the injuries and infection that had set in at
>the tail area...
Clearly assault on the tail and rump is a different issue to a simple
degloving of the tail. I have seen as much as 60mm of the tail degloved
without any problems. I have even known Pallid Gerbils have the whole
tail removed by assault. Obviously, in the latter case infection is more
likely due to the nature of puncture wounds.
As you say. Whatever he cause, the signs to look for are as you
describe. At any sign of infection amputation of the remaining tail is
probably called for.
My point is, that this sort of infection is very rare where accidental
degloving takes place and it is not normally a cause for concern as
observation is all that is called for.
I am a little concerned that unnecessary amputations could cause
complications, including infection that was not there before.
--
Julian
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
National Gerbil Society
http://www.gerbils.co.uk/
