"Journal" Pleas for Eradication of Hydatids

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 101, Issue 2, 15 August 1960, Page 180

"Journal" Pleas for Eradication of Hydatids

Battle Against Apathy

", . . hydatid disease is preventable if thorough and complete measures are adopted, and the responsibility rests upon those who own or have charge of dogs . . ."—"The New Zealand Journal of Agriculture", July 1914. Statements in similar terms are being made even today, but with the difference that at long last there is obvious widespread determination to act. The "Journal's" pages over the past 50 years have often drawn attention to the dangers and loss from hydatids and the need for treating dogs. It is inescapable that for many years, in fact until very recently, stock owners did not prove to be very receptive to the Department's urgings.

IN early advice there was a tendency to over-emphasise the dog dosing aspect. Writers at that time mentioned the importance of preventing dogs from having access to infected offal, but only later seem to have realised that the only practical recommendation was “no raw offal”. However, that due emphasis came to be given to this is shown by preventive measures listed in an article

in the October 1929 “Journal”, which were headed, by the following: Never let dogs feed on raw offal. If this rule were strictly observed on farms, sheep stations, in the vicinity of country slaughterhouses, abattoirs, and freezing works the dogs could not become infested. If such offal is required for feeding dogs it can be rendered harmless by boiling before use.

st years were elapse before the feeding of raw offal to dogs was prohibited by law, though this it must have been realised would not stop the practice, which was merely a manifestation of apathy among dog and stock owners about hydatid contro . Dosing with Arecoline n eary articles powdered areca nut was prescribed for the dosing of dogs, but by 1929 there is reference to arecoline hydrobromide (prepared from areca nut). Even then the now familiar pills were apparently not freely available, because a “Journal” item published later that year announces the manufacture by a local firm of tablets to be marketed “. . . in

bottles containing 20 doses, at a cost of 6s. 6d.” The efficacy of arecoline had been known for many years and dosing with areca nut was advocated at least as early as 1897 when, according to the annual report of the Department, “. . . 80 per cent of the dogs in New Zealand are suffering from tapeworm and are continually voiding segments full of eggs each of which is capable of producing hydatid disease either in man or the lower animals.” Difficult Years An article in the February 1935 “Journal” mentions hydatid disease in humans “increasing somewhat” and re-echoes what by now has become a familiar exhortation: “The incidence of the disease can be reduced, provided an effort is made to do so.” And a later significantly optimistic passage reads: The success of the reduction of the number of cases (of hydatids in humans) in Otago can be credited to those men in Dunedin and surrounding districts who have spent a good deal of time in teaching the people about this disease.* This was a difficult period to promote a scheme such as that for hydatid eradication, because farmers and the country generally were just emerging from a period of austerity imposed by the most serious economic depression in New Zealand’s history. People were naturally preoccupied with restoration of living standards, which in many instances had fallen during the previous four years to little above subsistence level. Nevertheless the key to the solution of the problem was at least realised, as indicated by the following statement in the “Journal” for December 1935: That only an intensive educational campaign will result in the disease being overcome is now widely recognised. . . . The Livestock Division has been endeavouring to improve matters for years by the use of press publicity, by lectures to farmers, and lately by means of broadcasting. The same article suggested what was perhaps the main reason for so little progress in reduction of hydatid disease in farm animals despite considerable publicity: It is very fortunate for the farmer, but definitely inimical to effective

control measures which depend on his cooperation, that the presence of hydatids in the liver and lungs causes so little financial loss. In practically all cases it is only these parts [liver and lungs] which need to be condemned, and their value is extremely small. The last remark may have been valid for the period referred to, but with the lifting of the economic depression prices improved substantially. In 1939 a “Journal” article on hydatid prevention refers to the very considerable waste in the condemnation of millions of sheep’s livers every year. Today losses of livers condemned because of hydatids infection are estimated to represent a reduction of over £2 million in returns from meat. In 1939 came the issue with dog licences of arecoline hydrobromide for dosing of dogs. To assist farmers in the correct administration of the drug the “Journal” in September carried a well illustrated article showing steps in dosing of dogs. Prejudice Against Arecoline Allegations aoout the harmful effects of arecoline are not new. Sir Louis Barnett in the November 1941 issue of the “Journal” comments on “unwarranted rumours . . . and gross exaggeration” having “combined to create a scare against the use of the drug”. Careful research work in the field and in the laboratory on thousands of dogs, he added, had shown arecoline tablets, when properly administered, to be safe and effective. Detailed Article “Prevention of Hydatids”, an article by L. K. Whitten, Parasitologist, Wallaceville Animal Research Station, in the August 1946 “Journal” was the most detailed to have appeared on this subject. It undoubtedly created widespread interest in eradication, as frequent requests for information about this time led the Department to publish a bulletin “The Hydatid Disease” compiled by Whitten. Several editions of this have been printed and it remains a standard reference. The present Chief Advisory Officer (Hydatids) in the “Journal” for October 1951 emphasised the thoroughness with which hydatid eradication would have to be conducted: ... a few individuals who do not cooperate [in the eradication of hydatids], especially if they move about the country with dogs, can delay elimination indefinitely. How-

ever, if general opinion is strong enough recalcitrant dog owners may feel ashamed to find themselves detracting from the public welfare. This need for thoroughness was obviously very much in the minds of those who several years later formed voluntary eradication committees to operate on the basis of complete area coverage. Public Interest Roused at Last About 1956 there were clear indications that, through campaigning by health authorities, officers of the Department of Agriculture, and voluntary committees, public opinion had at last been roused to support wholeheartedly measures aimed at eradication of hydatids. It was realised that a great deal had still to be learnt about the best methods for moving progressively toward total eradication. Research on some aspects of control was urgently needed and this led to the formation in 1957 of a Hydatid Research Unit by the New Zealand Medical Council. An early report (the “Journal”, February 1959) by the unit’s director, M. A. Gemmell, made some suggestions which represented an extension of what had hitherto been the recognised eradication procedure. His recommendations included these: Q Only men properly trained should dose dogs and they should be responsible for dog registration. Arecoline hydrobromide should be used mainly as an agent for diagnosing tapeworm infestation. 0 As soon as dog control officers are available dog owners should not be allowed to handle arecoline. Gemmell’s recommendation for the use of arecoline as a diagnostic agent has been adopted in the new phase of the hydatid campaign which has developed from the passing of the Hydatids Act 1959. Control has come under the direction of the National Hydatids Council (set up under the Act) and of local bodies. The latter have appointed Hydatid Control Officersthe dog control officers envisaged by Gemmellwho have received special training. Apathy Gone There has been a remarkable change in the attitude toward hydatids; the all too evident apathy against which “Journal” articles campaigned for many years has gone. Henceforward the “Journal” will review the progress toward eradication rather than plead for interest in it.

* Sir Louis Barnett, Professor of Surgery at Otago University, in the 1930 s organised an anti-hydatid campaign which culminated in the formation of the Hydatid Research Committee (of which he was chairman). Meticulous research by Dr Enid Batham and others enabled hydatid eradication measures to be drawn up on sound lines.