Foot and Mouth Disease

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 74, 20 December 1933, Page 13

Foot and Mouth Disease

Sir, —On reading the further dejwirtmental reply on the above subject, I at once concluded that the Department of Agriculture was at last becoming ‘conscious of jeopardy incurred” by importation of Argentine hides. . It forces one to the conclusion that innocent little calves ought not to be blamed for conveying deadly germs after their skins have been removed from them, and the department must be given credit for knowing the difference between a calf and a cow. But does it know the pathogenic difference, if any? The horse is declared to be innocent'also because he refuses to load himself with germs at all. It is true that I committed the awful crime of borrowing a book from the department. This book is honest enough to tell its age, and because of this smudge it is discredited. I quoted another book which I had not borrowed —not quite so old. dated 1923—but that the department’s apologist entirely ignores. That, too, says that horses accommodate the germ which must have changed its habits if it does not do so still.. But perhaps the horse himself has become obstreperous and has changed his mind on the subject. Can anyone believe that? I cannot. If horses were attacked fifty years ago they can be attacked to-day.—• I am, etc., J. A. CONNELL. [This correspondence is closed.]