SCARLATINA IN COWS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15558, 7 March 1911, Page 10

SCARLATINA IN COWS.

(" Field”) "With the public gaze long fixed upon the cow as the purveyor of tuberculosis, upon the rat as the medium of plague, the dog, the pig, the rabbit infesting us with parasites conveyed as ova or as hydatids upon, our salads, poor pussy giving us sore throats, and the oyster carrying typhoid in his »• it is not suipusing that a section of the medical profession should devote itself to the study of the liseases of man in relation to animals, nid for a tew to become more or less ib.sessed with the idea. Although it is a long time since Professor Axe traced ■ lV j ja t is now called the “ Hendon disease” to vessels washed where mman scarlatina v. as piessnt, a clear verdict of not guilty has never been given ror tlie cow; but, per contra, diphtheria and sore throat have been charged to her udder and teats. Milk-borne diseases are not necessarily cow-born. Milk, it is agreed on ail hands, affords a convenient medium of conveyance for all sorts of microm nanisms. Before such word was invented or the microscope employed, the dairymaid learned how easily her pans became ropey, or slimy, oi blue, cr otherwise discoloured, and butter would not “ come,” cr went wrong. The housewife knows that tea and coite.e and spices will impart their flavour and odour to milk, and the scientist, having long since proved tho communicability of vaccinia and other diseases from 'animals to man, is asking himself how many more may not be traceable to the cow, as being the chief source from which we take an uncooked product. It may be remarked, inter alia, that the goat, coming next ill the order of milk-givers for human consumption, has not escaped censure, and she has been charged with being the authoress of Malta fever; but, so fai as we are aware, no specific chaigc* has yet been brought against the yak or the ewe or the mare or ass—-but they are suspect. The latter species oi nnlUers arc chiefly employed by people not vet educated up to the point or fear of everything they eat or drink, but more concerned in the getting of it, and, perhaps, immune by reason of heredity, as some Asiatics seem to be when 'habituated to, drinking foul water, and only lose their iesi.-,tmg power after a long period of uripuso.iment under British guardians who provide them with pure waver. The question of a casual relationship between tho disease of the cow and scarlatina is of special interest to the veterinarian, and it is very iindcsiiable that anything like partisanship should obtain in either the medical or veterinary branches oi patnoiogicai study. Infectious fears are even more readily spread than infectious diseases, and, while every living person is interested in tiio medical aspect of the question, only the dairying section or the community is concerned to defend the cow. Professor A. .Gotten, M H C V S.. of the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College, has recently written an impartial account c; the “ rtdationsmp between scarlet fever, dipluhena, and sore throat of man, and diseases or the udder and teats of cows, in which ho says “ it is undisputed and has long been recognised that certain diseases oi tho cow are communicable to man ; out the part which milk may play as a medium ill tho spread of contagious diseases other than thoso from n Inch the cow is known to suffer docs not appear to have received much attention until 1857, when Dr Taylor, of Penrith, published what is in ad prooability the first record of a milk-borne epidemic, the disease being typhoid lever.” Dr Taylor’s conclusions were doubted at the time, but have been amply verified since by the -system of compulsory notification with its systematic injuiry into the origin nl epidemics and the means by w hicii iney are spread. All the same, the most searching inquiries into milk-borne epidemics have often failed to trace the ori<dnal source of infection, although, gs Professor Gofton says, a definite relationship may have been comparatively easily established between the epidemic and the milk supply. . . Once the cow falls under suspicion,

outbreaks of disease among milk consumers are attributed to her, os in the case of the Kilburn and St .loan s Wood epidemic of diphtheria: but it would seem that Professor Power in this instance suggested the cow as resuonsiblo simply because no other source could be found, not because there was co-existing disease among cows of a similar nature. As showing how much the case is assumed rather than proved against the cow, we may quote the same official's report: “In th® end I found myself, as on a former occasion, called upon to face the question vrhecuer 01 not actual cow conditions might have been competent for the results observed, and in considering the question i came to see that a hypothesis of cow causation would lit the facts that needed explanation as well as, or even better than, any other hypothesis.’ hypothesis as good as or better than any other would scarcely be accepted as evidence in a court of law, and without other testimony, and counsel for the cow would have an excellent defence—an alibi, in short. In reference to the same outbreak Professor Power speaks of a suspected cow that “ had here and there lost portions of her coat, and that her buttocks and posterior udder were fouled with excremental matter, and, perhaps, vaginal discharge as well.” This description would, we fear, apply to quite the majority of' cows towards tile end of a winter of confinement in any but the best dairies even to-day ; and he proceeds, “ that if scarlatina has other animal source than human source, it may be that one such source is the cow that has recently calved, a cow either j not at all ill (except for her parturi--1 tion) or not. so obviously ill as would prevent her milk being used for human consumption.” These appear to be tlie 1 facts on which his hypothesis of the ' bovine origin of the outbreak were based, and on which the proposition was first seriously advanced that scarlet fever ol man might have an animal origin. The Local Government Beard then instituted experiments under the direction of Dr Klein, and he, together with Professor JBrown, concluded that the Hendon disease was scarlatina of the cow. On the other hand, the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council, as a result of subsequent investigations. just as emphatically declared the malady bore no etiological relationship bo human scarlatina. Into the minute descriptions of the eruptive conditions of the skill, which was bv no means constant, we need not; here enter, but at Macclesfield, where an epidemic was experienced in ISB9, Dr Parsons, in his report of his suspicions of a recently introduced cow into the doubtful herd, says “ tfco only explanation which suggests itself as to how the milk of this particular cow came to have infectious properties is that the cow herself may nave developed in the puerperal condition some ailment, so trivial, so evanescent as to have escaped the notice not enlv of her owner, but also of the eminent veterinary authorities who at a later stage examined her.” It should be added that the medical inspectors also made their examinations and wero as unable to discover any ailJ ment among the herd in question. Whatever e!«e may be said, there are no characteristic symptoms of this alleged bovine scarlatina which permit

of its diagnosis by clinical examination. “ If.” as Professor Golton says, “ Klein’s conclusions were correct, it is most extraordinary that in the twen-ty-five years that liavo elapsed since

he carried out his experiments no confirmation of his results have been forthcoming.” The experiments were

. unfortunately confined to the injection I of streptococci isolated from the cows, but no scarlatinal material was om-

ployed to infect those animajs. A later attempt was made both by feeding and inoculating cows with human .scarlatinal material, on behalf of the Local Government Board, but absolutely failad. ■ Sir John Macfadyean went further and introduced tho morbid material inf° the genital passages of a newly calved cow, but failed to com- ! nvinicate the disease. In the Glasgow epidemic the cow disease (whatever it inav have been) was in existence a month before the milk became infective, and this is quite inconsistent with what is known of its period of incubation. In the last reported outbreak, occurring in London in 1909, it was suggested than bovine scarlatina had its origin in the feeding cake; but this, ns Professor Gofton says, “is so improbable that it does not merit discussion. ' The position for and against the theory of iniik-borne scarlatina may be summarised as fellows:—For: Failure in certain milk-borne epidemics of scarlet fever to trace human infection. Tho co-existence of scarlet lever in man and of an eruptive disorder of the teats and udders of cows. The discovery of streptococci by Klein with which be claimed to reproduce the cow disease. Similarity cf post-mortem appearances in man and beast. Against: The failure to trace infection to human sources is not proof of cow infection. The human and cow disease have not occurred synchronously. There is no reason for believing Klein’s streptococcus to bo the specific organism, as it occurs in cases of sore throat without scarlatina. The post-mortem appearances are common to a number ol diseases. All attempts to infect cows experimentally with scarlet fever have failed, and there is no known case of infection of cows as the result of contact with infected persons. Continental as well as British veterinarians are unanimously of opinion that the cow is not- tho subject of scarlatina. Professor Sir John Macfadyean. principal of the Royal Veterinary College. with tho double qualification of a Bachelor of Medicine and a member of Lbti Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. so vs, in the “Journal of Comparative Pathology”: “Tho alleged cow scarlatina has failed to establish n place for itself in veterinary pathology, and, except among medical officers of health in Great Britain, belief in tile occurrence of such a source oi human outbreaks lias, within recent years, steadily lost ground.” We must all hope that'Sir John will prove to be right.