Disposal Of Offal in Control Of Hydatids

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28573, 30 April 1958, Page 20

Disposal Of Offal in Control Of Hydatids

Any measures for the control of hydatids disease that did not include proper disposal of offal were a waste .of time, it was agreed at a combined meeting of Marlborough and Nortß Canterbury hydatids eradication committees held at Waiau recently. Offal disposal was the responsibility of individual dog owners. Twenty delegates present represented the committees of Marlborough (Kaikoura to the Sounds), Claverley. Cheviot. Amuri, Scargill-Omihi, Hawar-den-Waikari, Kowai and Ashley. Mr R. E. Hiatt (Amuri) was elected chairman, and Mr G. A. Hay (Kowai) was elected secretary for the meeting. The chairman of each committee gave an outline of the history and present operation of the control scheme in his area. It was reported that Kaikoura dosed 550 dogs, Claverley 70 dogs, Cheviot 800 dogs, ScargillOmihi 600 dogs, HarwardenWaikari 1300 dogs, and Amuri 1400 dogs. Kowai and Ashley had not yet begun dosing. The meeting decided to have combined meetings annually. Discussing straying dogs as a danger to control schemes, the Cheviot delegates said they had approached their county council with a request for a by-law requiring dogs to be tied up between dusk and dawn unless under command. One delegate suggested that any by-laws should specify an approved type of dog chain. It was generally felt that the spring clip was the only type certain of holding a dog. Offal Disposal The meeting agreed that any measures for the control of hydatids disease that did not include proper offal disposal were a waste of time. Some delegates felt that dosing- alone was at the outset of a scheme a valuable educative measure. The Kaikoura delegates said they felt sure that had they started their scheme of offal disposal alone, they would have failed. Dosing carried out by a dosing officer led the way by education and securing the cooperation and goodwill of dog owners. When the majority of owners became fully alive to all the implications and were ready to back the committee by active co-operation then inspection and advice on disposal methods was instituted smoothly. Dosing carried out by young farmers or dosing officers placed the onus on the committee undertaking the work but in satisfactory offal disposal the onus was squarely on the shoulders of individual dog owners, it was said. Proper offal disposal

presented certain difficulties farmers—the main one was overcome initial inertia. Most delegates agreed that most important feature of kennrijß W hygiene was the welfare of ■ ren and the dogs. A of droppings from infected doaeSiS created a concentrated area where children were than likely to play, it was Good kennels helped to keep dogs.;® in good condition and kept dogs.® away from the children. Finance When finance was discussed, it was said that the outlay on local publicity and extra arecoline pffis •*< was a fairly heavy burden, Tha<’> ' meeting passed a motion that I lithe Government be requested I'-, for an annual monetary grant to >• hydatids committees. The Amuri committee had en- >, ■ countered some trouble with doe- dS ing which it considered was caused by the ineffectiveness of Jk some issue pills, but test, trialsflt left the whole matter sive. Mr P. Olissoff (Kaikoura) said?fl| that the Christchurch distfcCM office of the Health DepartmeanH had submitted about 20 randomlgß samples of pills to the Goven»<n® ment Analyst and all pills varieuH between 12 and 17 of effective arecoline mide. This indicated that all of'-lfl these sample pills were eflee--9 tive. Dogs appeared to vary their reaction to arecoline and aarfl occasional dog appeared to immune to effective dosing. Thil'J® often led to a wrong appraisal of''Ht the effectiveness of the pills. When the work of the hydatids W research unit, Dunedin, was discussed, delegates expressed ap- I preciation of Mr Gemell's visits and advice in their areas. The meeting resolved that the Minister of Agriculture, the chairman of the Meat Board and the chairman of the Wool Board be requested to arrange an extension of Mr Gemell’s order of reference so as to include all matters relevant to hydatids eradication and publicity. A motion was carried that it ■ be suggested to the Otago committees that a meeting of all South Island committees be held and that Mr Gemell be asked to address the meeting.