TUBERCULOSIS IN DAIRY CATTLE. (Derbyshire Advertise, and Journal, Jan. 6.)

Otago Witness, Issue 2363, 8 June 1899, Page 6

TUBERCULOSIS IN DAIRY CATTLE. (Derbyshire Advertise, and Journal, Jan. 6.)

•On Friday aftorno'on a very interesting lecture upon the above subject was delivered in the St. James's Kail, Derby, under the auspices of the Derbyshire Dairy Farmer^' Association. .The lecturei was Mi W. G. R. A. Cox. M.R.V.C.S., of Manchester, and the chairman was Mi R. Finney.

The Chairman, in introducing the lecturer, said that the disease of tuborculosis was one which they, as farmers, would be glad to nee eradicated. At tho same time, however, he fc-lt — and he thought he should be expressing the opinions of all present — that if this disease was to be stamped out by slaughtering animals affected it would be a very costly proceeding — (Hear, hoar.) The matter \\ as onp which was engaging the attention of the dairy farmers all over the country, and perhaps in_Derbvsliivi: move than .ny other di E trict because in this county the bulk of the milk produced was sold in a raw state, and not converted into choeso. — (Hcai. heat.) He hoped that the lecturer would give them some valuable information with re-ipect to tuberculosis. — (Hear, hear.)

Mr Cox, who was received with applause, said that in common with their chairman he thought this question of luherculosis, as affecting -the milk supply, was one of great moment, for it concerned not only the producer but tho consumer. Up to the present time, nearly the whole of the statements made about tuberculosis wa« prejudicial to milk and meat producers, but it had now Ijcpu asserted that ealiiin the flesh of animal? affected with thi« malady scarcoly over produced the disease in man. Mr Elliott, the' secretary to the Board of Agriculture, had also paid, when speaking before the Royal Commission, that as experience was trained people became less al aimed at the theories previously held with respect to tuberculosis in jattle uid ile effects upun rain. Of course, thpy knew that consin »ntijß* did oxist in bnvinca as well us in the

human family, but^he would like to ask I whether the consumption in animals was to be compared wtih the disease as it appealed in the human race. There was a very great difI ference. In cattle the disease was commonly known as " grapes," and the parts principally affected were the lungs and the lung structure. ! ITe explained the difference between what was technically known as diffused and local tuberculosis. In his opinion, tuberculosis could exist in an animal to a great extent without doing the carcase any harm. If a farmer- desired to examine the lungs of a cow thoroughly ho should first of all give the animal a sharp run round the yard. He believed that in all cases the disease could be diagnosed without the aid of tuberculin or anything else. — (Hear, hear.) Describing tuberculosis of the bowels, he said that a cow might breathe all right and give a good quantity of milk, but be subject to periodical attacks of diarrhoea, and eventually become what was known as a waster. A consumptive attendant was as dangerous to a cowshed ii 3 consumptive cows were to human beings. — (Hear hear.) With regard to whether tuberculosis was hereditary, he was inclined to think it was. There were many opinions about this, however. It was known that there were familie'3 amongst all breeds of cows, and especially those that were heavy milkers, which completely broke up and died through the disease. It was true that the disease was seldom found at birth unless some exciting csuse developed it in the parent. In his opinion, animals suffering from the disease ought never to be bred from. It was the principle of the selection of the fittest and the 'exclusion of "the cattle from the dairy at an earlier period which, was^reducing the disease. •It was absurd to. say tliat the milk of tho present day was causing all the consumption an.biigst human beings. In 1553- the con- [ suiuptive mortality of. this country wa5. 2934 j per million, but now it had fallen to 1032. .There had been a great agitation recently j caused by the Medical Officer of Health for 1 Manchester, and many were following the lead jhe had taken. That gentleman urged that I consumption was due to the drinking of milk from cows affected with Ihe'xu'sease. He (the speaker) had done a considerable amount of slumming in Manchester,- and he found that poor children" got about aT farthing's worth at a time. This milk was,'ni many cases, taken intj a room where there were six or eight children, some of -them consumptive. * The roorr. had a bad smell and scores of germs were doubtless floating about. The Mqjiical Officer of Manchester founded his statement upon the mortality of such children as these, but he never went to see chilI dren who* lived on milk and partook of it in better sanitary surroundings. — (Shame.) If the poor children to whom he had referred had more milk and lived under hotter sanitary conditions, they would b9 all the better. — (Hear, hear.) Manchester had adopted clauses 24 and 27 of the Glasgow Police Amendment Act of 1890, dealing with the sale of milk •in the city. Such clauses gave power to any inspector appointed to enter a dairy from which milk was sent into the city, and examine any cow kept there to determine whether such animal was. suffering from any disease liable to affect the milk she gave. They had Professor Delapine inviting the' people to support such a scheme, and it was said that the clauses had been carried out in Glasgow .with the greatest, advantage. A greater error was never committed. He (Mr Cox) went to Glasgow and found that t*he act there was completely a .dead letter. Only seven .farmers outside the city boundaries had had their dairies inspected during the last nine yearrf. Many people in Manchester were of opinion that the adoption of such clauses, there would be a very serious thing for the dairy farmers, and sc they made up their minds to oppose it. Under such clauses a farmer could ba compelled to have his. cattle inoculated. All those cattle upon which there was a reaction had to be excluded from the dairy, and thero had been an • average of quite 40 percent, inoculated upon'' which it had reacted. This meant that half a farmer's dairy stock was to be turned out. Let anyone enter an ordinary dairy in Derbyshire or 'Cheshire and inoculate 50 cows. In 20 cases there might, .perhaps, bo reaction. Out of the 20 cows how many would be fit to send tc the butcher, and how much would they get for them? .Pro-, fessor M'Fadyan said that such cows would not be worth sixpence less, but the butcher tuld them differently. — (Hear, hear.) He (tho speaker) was as much in favour of the farming interest as of the dairy interest, and lie thought that such a system should be done away with, — (Hear, hear.) It was in this spirit that the society with which he was connected framed an amendment to this clause to the effect that cows only suffering from tuberculosis should be examined. The society came off somewhat badly, however, for the amendment was altered by the Lord Mayor'of Manchester to read : " Cows with indurated udder«." Now a cow's udder might be indurated from other causes than tuberculosis," so that it was a great hardship for a farmer to have hie cows tested for this reason only.— (Heai, hear.) The lecturer went on to describe the disgraceful condition in which ho hiJ seen some cowsheds in Manchester, arid coi! tended that more good would result from inspectors paving more attention to the sanitary surroundings of dairies where cows were kept. — (Hear, hear.) Then the Medical Officer of Manchester was in favour of the Copenhagen system of dairying, but that system was really no bettor than that of the English farmers. When gentlemen from this country went to Denmark to spc; the dairy farms they were conducted to what were really a few " show " farms, but the majority of dairies, which ,hey nevei saw, were no better than those in this country. — (Hear, hear.) A farmer might take milk from a cow that was poricctly healthy, and yet, at the same time, draw tuberculosis from her. How was thiß? It was because the baeiHi or germs which floated about continuously had entered the teat of the cow during or after the operation of milking. Just one word more with regard to the reaction after tho tuberculin test. He knew a farmei who had 120 cows tested, and in 85 cases thero was a reaction. This farmer had toifiell these cattle. He took them from fair Co fair and market to market, and at last sold thq.m at a great sacrifice,' obtaining £6 to £8 pach for them. He purchased a lot more, And almost one-half of them reacted, and he had to sell them in the same way. If this system was going to be made general,. it was going to nrake dairy farming even. less .profitable than it was at present. — .(Hear,, hearj He believed that a great deal of. good would come out of this agitation in the hygiene cattle and their Burrour.ding.«.^-(HGar, hear.). Farmers must bvc.ed from Btr-ong hardy stock, and bring them up under good sanitary- conditions. — (Hear, hear.) In pome dairies- he had visited ho found excessive air space, but not-sufficient ventilation. There bhould be freedom frona stonch, ami particular attention phould be paid to the question of drainage." Passing on tc the question bf foot} and'tvulef,' he remarked that grains, in'rhoder'ation',' were"a very good thing. He thought that official inspection of dairies was bound to take place, hut it might very well be left in the hands of country veterinary surgeons. In drawing his remarks tc a close, the lecture, atated that' in. iv*

the eradication of tuberculous amongst oattl« would never take place 'as " long as there was one human being upon earth who was suffering from - consumption. — (Hear/ hear.) He advised dairy farmers to study the question carefully and take such a stand mi the matter that their own interests would be protected, whilst at the same time the publicgenerally, and the consumers of milk in particular, might rest assured that their safety would bo guarded as well as it possibly could be. — (Applause.) "Mr Cox, at the close of hfa lecture, answered a number of questions, and ou the motion of Sir John Alleyne, seconded by Mr Allsebrook, he was accorded a hearty vote of thanks for his able and instructive address.