VACCINE TREATMENT FOR MAMMITIS

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6733, 9 October 1928, Page 8

VACCINE TREATMENT FOR MAMMITIS

To Tho Editor. Sir, —As both the Director-General of Agriculture and the Chairman of tho D. F. U. have passed comments on my previous letter, may I again tresspass on your valuable space to reply. In the first place 1 wish to thank tho Director-General for his handsome admissions of the correctness of my statements. The Director-General now definitely states “that only one test has been carried through with our vaccine, that at Wallaccvillo in 1925."

Dess than half a dozen cows wore taken for the tests. I understand these were inoculated and then the virus was injected up the cows’ teats into tho udder. We claim that this was hot a practical test, as probable millions more germs would be placed in the udder than would gain ingress in the usual course of infection. Thus the necessary degree of exactitudes to make the test of any value would be absent. Yet it is on this unscientific and seemingly valueless test the officials condemn tho use of our vaccine. It is interesting to note that Mr. Lyons did not accept my invitation to investigate every herd X had treated because “no exact information could be obtained in this way; the inoculations having been carried out too long before.” May I point out that I had herds in all stages of treatment from Just commencing to those done 3 years and more. If confess I fail to grasp his reasoning, for I should think the longer herds had been immune from the disease the more efficient and valuable the vaccine. I am much surprised that the reason why tho vacicne .supplied by my company was net used was because “suitable cows were not -available at tho laboratory.” My contention is that those cows should have been “got.” But if the cows required were so rare, why did they obtain the vaccine before this fact? To sum up, tho Director-General admits “that through the fault of an official the test at Buakura was not carried on; that his staff at Wallacevillo only carried out one test, and were unable to obtain suitable animals for further tests; and did not have the courtesy' to advise the suppliers of tho vaccine until a considerable time had elapsed (and then only after being pressed for the results). 1 contend the Director General has fully vindicated the attitude my company takes up in .not having any" confidence in his department. In reply to the chairman of the D. F. U., I wish to say that as Mr. Campbell failed to understand my plain' and definite statements in my previous letter, X now fully realise how it was he was unable to grasp similar statements made by mo when I met tho sub-committee. At that meeting the chairman took the notes on the back of an envelope and probably was unable to read his shorthand afterwards. I advised my company immediately of what transpired, a copy of which is in my letter book. But to show that he did understand, he told mo during the Winter Show and in the presence of another gentleman that ho had been speaking to Dr. Beakes and had obtained his consent for Massey College to do the scientific portion of the demonstration, . Tho last time I called on the chairman only a few wooks ago, he told mo that he and another were paying a visit to Massey College to arrange tho work, and he x )rom i 1° phone me tho result. This he did not do, nor has he ever taken the trouble to advise me of anything. I state definitely that I was not advised of tho nature of tho conference nor did I know until I saw his letter in print that Massey College was unable to do the testing of tho cows, but this is rather contradicted by the director-general who says they may if they wish. As Mr. Campbell is concerned about the words “tost” and “demonstration.” may I point out that a test is not always practical, whereas a demonstration always is. To give a simple illustration: A man makes a motor car, he “tests” it for hill climbing, flexibility, reliability, etc., during which he makes alterations, adjustments, etc., until he obtains the results ho desires. Then he “demonstrates ’’ its efficiency to tho public. Tho scheme suggested by The Department of Agriculture and advocated by Mr. Campbell is not practical, for no farmer would divide his herd, milk each, half in separate sheds by different machines, with a staff for each half. My offer was practical; and that was for the D.F.U. to select a herd, and I would treat that herd in exactly the same way as I do in the usual course of business, the only difference being that every cow would be tested before inoculation ami at intervals for a year or longer as tho D.F.U. desire.

That is the demonstration I offered to give. If it is not satisfactory, to the D.P.U. I have always been willing to consider any reasonable alteration that might bo suggested but 1 want the chairman to understand that if his union does want any alteration ho should advise mo of the fact, and meet me. I also want to know definitely whether the D.F.H. want to back out of the arrangements made and the conditions drawn up or not. If you don’t want the demonstration, say so. But if it is to go on, the union must obtain some authority out side the Department of Agriculture to do the scientific portion of the work.

I am. etc., E. McMUEBAY, Eepreseuting Hamilton Vaccine Coy.