R E P 0 R T.

to the lord president op the council.

Mt Lord,

1. Your Lordship having been pleased by your letter of instruction, dated 16th Referenöe. April 1888, to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into, and to report upon, the nature and extent of pleuro-pneumonia in the United Kingdom, and the effects of inoculation and other preventive measures in that disease; and also to inquire into the nature and extent of tuberculosis in the united Kingdom, and the means to be adopted to arrest its progress,

2.nbsp; We have now the honour to report that immediately upon receiving your Lordship's commands we proceeded to the duties thus imposed upon us.

3.nbsp; We met for the first time on the 17th of April, and thereupon commenced taking evidence, and continued our meetings from time to time up to the 4th of June. During that interval we sat for 17 days and examined 44 witnesses, as hereafter described.

4. Total Number of Witnesses, 44.

England (13).

Mr. J. Dunne

Mr. C. Stephenson, F.R.C.V.S.

Mr. A. Dean

Mr. J. Williams Bell

Mr. R. Bruce

Mr. Woodroof, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. Alexander -

Mr. W. Stratton -

Mr. Low -

Mr. Latter

Mr. Tisdall

Mr. A. Lingard -

Mr. Allender

Chief Constable Veterinary Surgeon Parmer -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;..

Farmer -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

Parmer and Stock Dealer -Vet. Surgeon Cowkeeper Tenant Farmer Justice of the Peace Clerk, Divisional Committee, L.A. -Dairyman -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

M.R.C.S., D.P.H., Camb. -Managing Director, Aylesbury Dairy Co.

Cumberland and Westmoreland

Northumberland.

Lincolnshire,

Dorsetshire.

Yorkshire.

London.

Wilts.

Kent.

Bromley, Kent.

Kensington.

London.

Horsham, Sussex.

Scotland (16).

Mr. Spreull, F.R.C.V.S. -

Mr. Cunningham, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. Rutherford, F.R.C.V.S.

Mr, W. Cairns -

Mr. Swan

Mr. Stenhouse, junr.

Mr. Biggar

Mr. T. Elliot

Mr. A. Mitchell -

Mr. Duthie

Prof. McFadyean, M.B., B.Sc, and

CM. Mr. Speir

Mr. Drummond Forbes -Mr. Peel Ritchie, M.D. -Mr. Littlejohn, M.D. Prof. MoOall, F.R.C.V.S.

Veterinary Inspector for Borough

Veterinary Surgeon

Dairyman -

Live Stock Salesman

Farmer

President, Shorthorn Society

Farmer

Royal Veterinary College -

Farmer

Landowner

President, College of Surgeons

Medical Officer of Health -

Principal, Vet. College

Dundee.

Edinburgh.

Midlothian.

Dalbeattie.

Galashiels.

Alloa.

Perthshire.

Edinburgh.

Lanarkshire.

Perthshire.

Edinburgh.

Glasgow.

OOMMITTHH ON' PMIUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUHKKOUI.OSIS

Ireland (6).

Sir Charles Cameron, M.Ü. Mr. Gavin Low -Mr. Chambors, M.U.C.V.S. Mr. Hedley, F.B.C.V.S. -

Prof. Carroll

Mr. Lawler, M.U.C.V.S. -


Medical Officer of Health -	Dublin.
Oattie Salesman	Dublin.	1
Veterinary Inspector	Drogheda.
Travelling Vet. Inspector, Irish	Dublin.
P.C.
Principal, Glasneviu Model Farm -	Dublin.
Vet. Inspector, South Dublin Union	Dublin.

Colonial (6).

Hon. P. Vanderbyl

Hon. W. M'Culloch

Mr. G. Watt

Hon. W. J. Winter

Mr. Pitzwillinm Wentworth

Mr. Mitchell Innes

Stockownor, Member Leg. Council

Stockowner, Member Leg. Council #9632;

Stockowner

Stockowner, Member Leg. Council -

Stockowner

Cape Colony.

Victoria. 'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^u '

New South Wales,

Victoria.

New South Wales.

Natal.

Official (2).

, ,. #9632; , #9632;

Mr. Cope, M.E.C.V.S. -Prof. Duguid, P.R.C.V.S.

Chief Inspector, Agricultural Department, Privy Council.

Assistant Inspector, Agricultural Department, Privy Council.

London. London.

Foeeign (1).

M. Lamens

Government Veterinary Surgeon

The Hague, Holland.

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.

History.

lt;\u; ,i.

Appondix, Cope.

5.nbsp; The general hi story of pleuro-pneumonia points to its introduction into the United Kingdom about the year 1840, but, unfortunately, no accurate account of the earlier outbreaks can be discovered, as the official records only go back to 1869. Prom this return it appears that since 1869, 74,552 animals have been returned as attacked, 59,599 killed as diseased, 7,480 have died, and 7,470 Recovered. Since the passing of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, which required that all cattle attacked by pleuro-pneumonia should be slaughtered, no returns have been made of animals that recovered. It appears that outbreaks of disease have constantly occurred in England, Scotland and Ireland for nearly 50 years, but have been of more frequent occurrence and more virulent in type amongst the cowsheds of large centres of population, such as London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, than elsewhere, This is mainly attributable to the greater susceptibility of cows giving milk, and to the insanitary condition of the sheds in which they are kept.

6.nbsp; The Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland have recently instituted an inquiry into pleuro-pneumonia, and have taken evidence on that subject from several eminent and representative men in Scotland. quot;We have had the privilege of receiving an epitome of the evidence thus taken, and have had an opportunity of re-examining some of the witnesses who gave evidence on that occasion.

7.nbsp; nbsp;Valuable as this evidence undoubtedly is, it is to be regretted that it was not published in eatfewso instead of in its epitomised form, inasmuch as some of the most importa,nt witnesses declared to us that, as at present published, it did not express the views which they desired to convey in their examination. We may state that, in addition to the evidence already referred to, we obtained much valuable documentary infoi mation, some of which will be found in the Appendix.

Q. 7270.

Q. 3005.

Documentary cvi-ilence.

Q. 808,

#9632;

UKPOUT.

\ll

8.nbsp; Previously to 1885 pleuro-pneumonia had beei: Hteadily decreasing, but in that Staiisties. year and in 1886 and 1887 a considerable increase has taken place. The disease has

been particularly prevalent in some parts of Scotland during this period, whore the number of outbreaks increased from 55 in 1884, Avith 321 cattle attacked, to 324 in 1887 with 1,380 attacked, whilst up to June 1888 there have been 123 outbreaks and 493 cattle attacked.

9.nbsp; The statistics for England for the same period, show in 1884, 257 outbreaks with 775 attacked, in 1887, 293 outbreaks and 1,047 attacked, whilst up to June 1888 there have been 113 outbreaks with 452 animals attacked.

10.nbsp; nbsp;The statistics for Ireland show that in 1884 there were 460 outbreaks with 1,194 animals attacked, in 1887, 240 outbreaks with 819 animals attacked, whilst up to June 1888 there have been 115 outbreaks with 395 animals attacked.

11.nbsp; nbsp;The following table shows the progress of pleuro-pneumonia in the United Kingdom during the past 10 years :

Great Britain.


			Cattle.
Years.	Number of Outbreaks.
Years.	Number of Outbreaks.
		Attacked.	Slaughtered.	Died.	Recovered.
1878 -	1,721	4,593	4,488	114
1879 -	1,549	4,414	4,296	119
1880 -	1,052	2,765	2,681	88
1881 -	729	1,875	1,797	78
1882 -	494	1,200	1,161	39
1883 -	349	931	897	35
1884 -	312	1,096	1,074	20
1885 -	404	1,51J	1,469	42
1886 -	553	2,471	2,409	63
1887 -	618	2,437	2,384	52

Ireland.


1878 -	1,365	2,765	2,612	143
1879 -	946	2,031	1,945	86
1880 -	759	1,541	1,500	41
1881 -	703	1,860	1,821	37	1
1882 -	534	1,365	1,328	28
1883 -	488	1,291	1,264	25	2
1884 -	460	1,194	1,183	11
1886 -	389	1,246	1,229	17
1886 -	343	1,050	1,041	9
1887 -	240	819	805	14

12. The spreading of disease indicated by these figures can be clearly traced to the movement of infected cattle through fairs, markets, and auction marts, more especially in Scotland, and their unguarded and reckless admission into the cowsheds of towns. It has been shown that in the year 1887 89 per cent, of the fresh outbreaks Agricultural have occurred on premises to which newly-purchased cattle had been introduced p^i^o within, the previous three or four months. That these newly-purchased cattle were q m^i infected and were the cause of the outbreaks is established by the fact that in most q ₅₆₈₁' cases they were the first to become affected.

13.nbsp; In the map attached to the Annual Report of the Agricultural Department for Distribution the year 1887, and annexed hereto, it will be observed that the outbreaks of pleuro- of disease iu

pneumonia were in the main confined to three districts in England; first, the metro-

the United Kingdom.

politan district, comprising the Metropolis itself, Essex, Kent, Middlesex, and Surrey ; second, the north-western district, comprising the West Riding of Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cumberland ; third, the eastern, comprising Norfolk alone. In this last case it is interesting to notice that the counties immediately surrounding Norfolk appear to have been entirely free from disease, a singular condition, which will be considered hereafter when dealing with Ireland.

14.nbsp; In Scotland, the same chart shows that the disease is practically limited to the central counties of Lanark, Edinburgh, Fife, Forfar, Perth, Dumbarton, and Inverness,

Vlll

COMMlT'ljilK ON PLEUKO-l'NKUMONIA AND TUBKUCULOSI8:

Q. 56G9, 508

in which was oomprised practically all the disease that existed during the past year in Scotland.

15.nbsp; nbsp;The deduction from the study of this very instructive map, is that pleuro-pneumonia is particularly prevalent in districts subject to two special conditions: first, in those districts in which town dairies are numerous, such as the metropolitan district in England and the Edinburgh district in Scotland; and second, in those districts Avhich largely receive Irish cattle, such as the north-western district of England (Westmoreland exoepted), which receives Irish cattle at the many ports on the coasts, and in Norfolk, which, in spite of its geographical position, is a large importer of Irish stock, chiefly coming through Liverpool, from Dublin, Dundalk, and Dundrum, and, therefore, specially exposed to pleuro-pneumonia.

16.nbsp; In Scotland the same principle will be found to hold good. The evidence which has been laid before us by the Scotch witnesses is almost unanimously in favour of the opinion that, a large per-centage of outbreaks were traceable to importations of diseased cattle from Ireland, through Glasgow and other ports. The number of outbreaks in Lanarkshire in 1887, viz., 7H, the largest number for any single county in Great Britain, goes far to support this theory. Tlie conditions, too, under which these animals are dealt with after arriving in Scotland, appears to be a fruitful source of spreading the disease. Cattle are moved through surrounding districts, exposed in open fairs and markets, and so not only form centres of disease themselves, but are the means of causing animals, which enter the fairs and auction marts healthy, to take away the seeds of disease with them.

17.nbsp; nbsp;It is true that attempts are made to diminish the risk of having diseased animals moved about the country, by requiring the production of certificates of health, and proof of their having come from healthy districts. quot;We are, however, satisfied that the protection afforded by these certificates is in many cases wholly illusory, and that too often, in the words of several witnesses, they are quot; not worth the paper they are written on.quot; In many instances this may arise from natural or accidental causes, but we regret to have to state that certificates are constantly tampered with wilfully by dishonest dealers.

18.nbsp; nbsp;The disregard, in many cases, of the restrictions upon the movement of cattle in Scotland, it is fair to say, does in some measure diminish the force of the accusations against Ireland which were made by every Scotch witness, and we cannot but believe that in some cases, when Irish cattle have been centres of disease, they may have contracted it originally from Scotch beasts with which they were brought in contact. Still, while this must be admitted, we are compelled to say that the evidence brought before us points to the conclusion, that the outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in England and Scotland are in a considerable measure traceable to the prevalence of that disease in Ireland. We desire therefore to lay before your Lordship the facts respecting the condition of pleuro-pneumonia in the latter country.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^l

19.nbsp; Ireland for many years has never been free from pleuro-pneumonia, but it is a very remarkable circumstance that, although the disease has been prevalent in that country for so long a period, it has been of late years almost entirely confined to Dublin, and to those districts of the eastern counties into which the cows from the dairy yards of Dublin are introduced. The importance of this fact in tracing the origin and importation of pleuro-pneumonia from Ireland to Great Britain will be immediately seen when we consider that the movement of stock in Ireland is almost invariably from the west to the east, and that the dairy yards and large grazing farms of Dublin and adjoining counties derive their supply of cows and stores from the southern and western parts of Ireland, and practically send back to these districts no stock at all. It is true that young calves are occasionally sent from the Dublin dairy yards to the western counties of Ireland, but they are very few in number and are sent out at such an early age that the risk of spreading the disease is minimised although one or two outbreaks are said to have found their origin from that cause! In this connection, it is worthy of note that whilst a large number of Irish cattle are received at Bristol, the district surrounding that port has been for several years entirely free from the disease, a fact which we may attribute to the cattle coming to Bristol being mostly exported from Cork and Waterford, which are outside the zone of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland, whilst a very large proportion of the cattle coming to the north-western district of England and the Scotch ports, are exported from Dublin, Dundalk, and Drogheda, which are within or adjacent to the comparatively limited area whicL is infected. It is not to be supposed that all the diseased animals which como into Great Britain have been inhabitants of this infected area in Ireland for any considerable period; and it is also Just to point out that many

(gt;. 8378-8Ü.

Q. 4646.

Q. 4023, 4:^x24.

Q. 5205,

G580-3,

CÜ29-32.

Certificates.

Q. 4032, 4033.

Q, 6680 6201-4. 6534, 8512-15.

Q. 3843.

Q. 4133.

Q. 4643, 6293-4.

Q. 2069, 2969.

Q. 4645-6,

8380-90,

8526.

Ireland.

Q. 8160-63,

8255-7, 8367.

Q. 8174, Q. 7784.

Q. 8481.

Q. 3011, 8466.

Q. 8890.

BKPOKT.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;IX

animals, which afterwards spread the disease in Great Britain, come from absolutely healthy farms in Ireland. There is, therefore, no doubt in our minds but that they contract the disease whilst passing through the infected ports and from contact with diseased animals on board the steamers.

20.nbsp; nbsp;Many of the Scotch witnesses have complained of the laxity and carelessness of Inspectiou at the inspection of cattle at the ports of embarkation in Ireland. It is quite certain ^Iris'¹ P^ort8' that, not unfrequently, diseased animals do pass the portal inspectors, but we are not Sioa disposed to attribute this entirely to incapacity or neglect. From the nature of the ooraquo;laquo; iraquo; case, the number of animals awaiting embarkation in a confined space is so large, and sect;406-1L ' the time at the disposal of the inspectors so short, that it is impossible to expect the detection of all cases of disease, especially of pleuro-pneumonia, which is in its

early stages so difficult of diagnosis. We find, however, that animals which have ^_n?,³⁹⁹~

been in the same herd or cargo with animals stopped as diseased have been permitted by the inspectors to leave the ports, presumably through ignorance on their part of the extent of the powers vested in them. We therefore recommend increased vigilance Q- ^8491,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;raquo;a and the detention of cattle in contact with the diseased animals at the ports of embarkation,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;n

21.nbsp; It is therefore plain to us that, if our efforts to stamp out the disease in thenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;| United Kingdom are to be successful, it is absolutely necessary to attack it at the 9* ooli'ionbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'i fountain head, and, whilst crushing every new outbreak in the United Kingdom, to 839i_2.~ ' devote our strongest energies to exterminate the disease in Ireland.

22.nbsp; Having thus briefly laid before your Lordship a history of pleuro-pneumonia, so far as it has been brought before us, and of the extent to which it at present prevails in the United Kingdom, it now becomes our duty to describe the symptoms and nature of the disease, and also refer to the forms of treatment suggested by the witnesses whom we have examined.

.1'

Nature and Treatment.

23.nbsp; Pleuro-pneumonia is a specific contagious disease affecting the lungs of cattle. It is characterised by the following symptoms as given in the Handbook of Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act and Order of Council for 1887. quot; The internal temperature is Symptoms. quot; always increased, even in the earliest stages of the disease; it may reach 104deg; or 105deg; quot; Fahrenheit. A short, dry, husky cough, which continues throughout and is easily quot; excited by moving the animal, is one of the earliest symptoms. The breathing is quot; increased in frequency and altered in character, is often accompanied with a grunt, quot; and becomes painful as the disease advances. A dull sound is emitted on percussing quot; the side of the chest over the diseased lung. Firm pressure applied to this part quot; will cause the animal to shrink. The appetite is generally diminished, but rarely quot; lost except in the advanced stages of the disease. In milch cows the secretion of quot; milk is always lessened but not completely stopped.quot;

24.nbsp; nbsp;The post-mortem appearances of the lungs of an animal affected with pleuro- Post-mortem pneumonia which has died or been slaughtered are of so marked and distinctive a appearance character that they ought never to be mistaken for other affections of the lung. The laquo;eumonia one special and peculiar feature is that when a cut is made through the diseased portion of the lung white bands are to be seen crossing and intersecting the darker structure, and presenting an appearance which is most aptly termed quot; marbling,quot; and it may be accepted as a fact that no case of pleuro-pneumonia ever existed in which this characteristic feature was absent.

25.nbsp; nbsp;There may or may not be pleurisy also present. Pleurisy is indicated by the Pleurisy, presence of exudation on the outside of the lung or on the wall of the chest. This lesion is usually confined to that portion of the pleura which covers the diseased part of the lung, and is frequently very limited in its area. In aggravated cases, where there is extensive disease of the pleura, there is also effusion of fluid into the cavity of the chest.

26.nbsp; Amongst the witnesses examined with reference to pleuro-pneumonia, there was Evidence. a remarkable agreement upon the following points:nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 495⁶6⁷⁷5⁶667,

(a.) That pleuro-pneumonia is an imported disease, and not indigenous to this 7i96!7775.'

nmmtT-vnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;rnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Onbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Q. 5404,8981.

country.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ 4077-9,

(b.) That it is an incurable disease, and therefore requires that the treatment should 4207,4327,

be of a preventive and not of a curative nature.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 439g' *lll'

(c.) That disease is communicable by contact between living animals, and through 4653', 4957-8,

the medium of the respiratory organs only.*nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;esog!⁵⁶⁷¹²'

* A few of the witnesses expressed their belief that the disenso might be conveyed by the infection of byres or shiids, but we could not obtain uny actual facts to support this belief.

0 54003.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;U

COMMITTKB ON riiEUBO-l'NEUMONIA AND TDBBUOULOSIB:

Incubation,

27.nbsp; nbsp;Another point which was prominently brought before us by various witnesses was the lengthened period during which pleuro-pneuinonia exists in the animal in a latent form. As regards the length of this period of incubation, very conflicting evidence was given. Several witnesses contended that the disease developed itself within three months, whilst others maintained that it might remain dormant for a much longer time, some even stating that they had known cases of the development of the disease after no less a period than 15 months. The evidence tends to show that the period of 56 days, referred to in section 20 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, is quite untrustworthy and insufficient as a period of safety from infection. It is obvious that the peculiarity of the disease, viz., the uncertainty as regards the period of incubation, must add largely to the difficulties of detecting it in its early stages. It is, indeed, only by the use of the thermometer that this can, in some degree, be effected, though it should be remembered that the increase of temperature points to abnormal conditions, and should make the animal an object of suspicion, but does not necessarily indicate the specific nature of the disease.

28.nbsp; nbsp;It is plain that the difficulty of detecting pleuro-pneumonia during this very lengthened period of incubation adds enormously to the probabilities of the spreading of the disease, and the difficulty of bringing it within efficient control. quot;We regret to have to add, that it has been made abundantly clear to us that, in many cases, this difficulty and clanger have been increased by the great carelessness on the part of some stockowners and dairymen to report promptly the appearance of disease on their premises, whilst it is a matter of not at all unfrequent occurrence to find deliberate concealment of an outbreak, even where the symptoms are manifest and beyond doubt, and instances were brought to our notice where animals, manifestly suffering from disease, were exposed for sale in public markets.

29.nbsp; nbsp;quot;We caanot but regard the existence of private slaughter-houses as a very serious ßvil. quot;When placed in crowded centres of population their insanitary effects cannot fail to be injurious; and they are, moreover, powerful aids to the concealment of all forms of diseases of animals. The witnessies we examined on this point were unanimously in favour of the erection of public abattoirs, such as are possessed by a very few of our principal cities, though they are to be found in almost all towns of any importance on the continent. We would therefore recommend that public abattoirs should be erected and maintained under the supervision and inspection of the Local Authority.

30.nbsp; nbsp;We have already pointed out that cowsheds are frequent centres of infection. This undoubtedly arises from the highly insanitary condition of, we regret to say, a large proportion of the dairies and cowsheds in many of our large towns.

31.nbsp; nbsp;Apart from the injurious effects to the health of the surrounding population, a subject which is outside our inquiry, we would desire to point out, both on grounds of humanity and as tending to the extermination of disease amongst cattle, the necessity of a more stringent and systematic inspection of town dairies and cowsheds. , , .

32.nbsp; nbsp;We may here observe that there is a marked difference in the management of the dairy herds of Dublin as compared with those of London and Edinburgh. In the case of the latter the cows once admitted rarely, if ever, leave the sheds until they are sent fat to the butcher for slaughter, which generally occurs at the end of 12 or 15 months. In Dublin, on the other hand, the animals are kept for a much longer period, and are generally only confined to the sheds during the winter months, being sent to open fields, some at a considerable distance from the city, in the summer. Inasmuch as the Dublin cowsheds are nOw admittedly constant centres of disease, it is clear that this practice largely increases the difficulty of successfully dealing with pleuro-pneumonia in the Dublin districts. Moreover, it inflicts great injury and injustice upon the owners of healthy cattle in the grazing districts near Dublin, by the frequent introduction of diseased cows from the Dublin dairy yards into those districts, which would otherwise have been free from disease.

33.nbsp;In connection with this subject, by the kindness of the Aylesbury Dairy Company, we had an opportunity of inspecting their farm near Horsham, and cannot help expressing our admiration of the excellent arrangements for the comfort and health of the animals in the recently erected cowsheds, and the stringent regulations there in force to prevent any possible infection of disease from other sources.

34.nbsp; The three chief methods of dealing with pleuro-pneumonia which have been prominently brought before us in the course of our inquiry are all of a preventive and not of a curative nature. They are : (1) Isolation ; (2) Inoculation; (3) Slaughter.

Q. 4103, 4428-34, 7099, 2656, 4635-60, 5712, 5816.

Q. .j240a, 6528, 8619.

Q. 5915, 6614.

Q. 5914, 6515-18.

Difficulty of detection. Q. 6549-54.

Q. 4643, 5310, 5317, 5341, 5740.

Slaughterhouses.

Q. 7726-8,

8345.

Q. 7791-2.

Town

dairies.

Q. 7030-2,

7637.

Q. 7849-50.

Q. 7642, 7929.

Q. 8171, 8692-8.

Q. 7783, 790O, 8840.

Suggested remedies.

BMPORT.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _xi

'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ' ' (!) Tsohtion ' #9632;#9632;#9632;#9632;#9632;' -#9632;#9632; 001 #9632; 10

.#9632;ill .1 . #9632; , ^ 'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;' #9632;':quot;.#9632;',-/nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632;.gt;:#9632; Inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .

35.nbsp; nbsp;Isolation and disinfection have undoubtedly considerable sanitary valua They Q- ^?330raquo; tend to limit the progress of the disease, and in some measure to palliate its results, S?quot; r_dbut no evidence has been brought before us to show that they can be thereby regarded ^W40quot;^o4 as a sufficient remedy for the evils Avhich we have to confront. Those who have laid

the greatest stress upon their efficacy, have only done so with the proviso that they should be employed in connection with some other more rigorous treatment, such as inoculation or slaughter. We find, however, that slaughter of all diseased animals, combined Arith isolation of those in contact, has hitherto failed to eradicate the disease.

#9632;'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ' #9632;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , i.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;iinbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632;.#9632;,,#9632;,,:.

(2.) Inoculation.

36.nbsp; A large portion of our inquiry has been devoted to a searching examination of inoculation, as we feel that the appointment of the Committee was chiefly due to the representations of those who believed they had found in inoculation an alternative to the policy of stamping out by slaughter, as hitherto adopted.

37.nbsp; There was a general agreement amongst all the witnesses we examined, both Nature of scientific and practical, as to the'method of performing the operation. The fluid taken ⁰P^eration-from the lung of -the freshly-killed aftimal is conveyed into the system ^ of the animal operated upon by a seton or iriöision at the end of the tail; but we find a considerable difference of opinion amongst those witnesses as to the ease or difficulty

of performing the operation. Most of the English and Scotch witnesses alleged that Q- 4439. tho operation ' was one of considerable delicacy, and requiring the presence of a skilled operator, whilst, on the other hand, we found that in the colonies and in the London dairies it is constantly performed by the stockoAvners or their employes, Q-4089. . Avithout the intervention of any professional assistance. The per-centage of deaths that, directly or indirectly, resulted from the operatioh. is not considerable, the general opinion being that it would never exceed 4 per cent. In many instances, how-ever^the a-niiaal lost the whole or part of the tail from inflammation consequent upon the opera,tion. The advocates of inoculation, however, do not regard these drawbacks as outweighing its advantages. -quot;

38.nbsp; The practice of inoculation, as a means of prevention, has never been generally Inoculation adopted in this country- whilst it has been extensively carried out in the Australian in Colonies, and African Colonies for at least a quarter of a century. This fact is probably due

to the exceptional circumstances attending the OAvnership of stock in the colonies. The large extent of the runs, the great size of the herds, the absence of power of isolation, and the want of strict inspection and control, the constant liability of Q-⁶⁷⁰³-cattle to disease OAving to the practice of driving large mobs of fat stock (in almost Q-5451-55. all of which pleuro-pneumonia exists) from inland'districts to the markets of Melbourne, Sydney, amp;c., compelled the stockowners to practise inoculation, as the only means at their disposal to limit and modify, if they could not entirely destroy, the disease.

39.nbsp; In this country inoculation is at the present time principally carried out in the dairies and cowsheds of the Metropolis, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, and in the counties of Lanark, Perth, and Fife. Throughout the country districts of England it has hitherto found littie favour.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^: .

40.nbsp; On a careful examination of the evidence given by the advocates of inoculation in Doubtful this country, both lay and professional, we cannot fail to be struck by certain results of prominent features which diminish considerably the value of that evidence.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - inoculation.

(1st.) We find a general ignorance as to the previous history of the animals

dperated upon, a point which is of great importance: iii view of the long pei-iod Q. 6640, 1 during which the disease may lie dormant, and the possibility that the animal inoculated might be already diseased, although apparently healthy. Prom the Q. 5887-8, evidence laid before us it also appears, that cattle have been known to contract 5921,656315. the disease after apparently successful inoculation.

(2nd.) In the dairies of London and Edinburgh, where inoculation is largely practised, the life of the animal is in general so short that it affords us no Q-⁷'²'¹⁵' reliable knowledge as to the immunity from disease conferred by inoculation, goeöl?laquo;

#9632; !

and in cases where the animal is released from confinement, we have very vague information as to its subsequent careeri

(3rd.) But the point which above all others militates against our obtaining ah

accurate idea of the exact prophylactic value of inoculation, is the fact that it is not Q. 5828-30,

: i

generally practised in this country, except in cases where an outbreak of pleuro- ⁶⁶40.

#9632; pneumonia has actually occurred. The mode of treatment adopted under such

b 2

OOMMITTKIO ON Pr.BURO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS

Value of inoculation.

Q. 6624-27 Q, 7074.

circumstances is as follows:The animals which are diseased, or suspected of being diseased, are slaughtered, whilst the rest of the herd are subjected to inoculation.

41.nbsp; nbsp;It is therefore impossible to determine what eii'ect, if any, inoculation has had in suppressing such an outbreak in this country, inasmuch as, in a large majority of cases, we cannot be certain that after the slaughter had been carried out any diseased animals were left on the premises which would be likely to continue the disease. It might therefore be open to assumption that, even if inoculation had not been practised, the spreading of the disease would have been equally checked by the slaughter of the diseased or suspected animals.

42.nbsp; On the other hand, the advocates of inoculation not unfairly point out that, in cases where inoculation may be said to have failed, such a result might have been attributable to the inefficient manner in which the operation was performed. This is a frirther illustration of the uncertainty and doubt which we have found throughout the whole of the evidence regarding the practice of inoculation.

43.nbsp; While we cannot deny that inoculation, in itself, is valuable, as a palliative and preventive method of treatment, it is clear to our minds that its employment in this country is impracticable, as with the present knowledge on this subject at the command of veterinary science, and under the recognised position of agriculture, it is impossible to employ this method under the only conditions that might render its operation successful. These conditions include :

(a.) Performance of the operation by competent men, specially appointed for the

purpose in all parts of the United Kingdom; (b.) Its employment universally and compulsorily upon all cattle above three

months old. Therefore, even if accompanied by other measures, it cannot be depended on as an efficient means of exterminating pleuro-pneumonia.

44.nbsp; nbsp;Throughout our Australian, New Zealand, and South African Colonies inoculation has been practised on an extensive scale for a long period, but neither universally nor compulsorily, and has been proved incapable of extirpating pleuro-pneumonia. Most of the colonial witnesses, whom we examined at great length, were of opinion that, without inoculation, the disease would have spread more widely and more rapidly than it did, whilst some considered that it arrested the disease in their herds. It is plain that some importance is attached to inoculation in the colonies, from the fact that in many cases inoculated cattle command a higher price than those on which the operation had not been performed.

45.nbsp; From the evidence of the colonial witnesses, however, it is quite certain that their advocacy and practice of inoculation is based upon, and limited to, the special circumstances of their respective countries, to which we have above referred ; for it will be seen, on a perusal of the evidence, that they universally admitted that, were the conditions of stock-owning in the colonies similar to those which prevail in England, with its small herds, greater power of detection and isolation, they would unhesitatingly adopt compulsory slaughter as the surest and most economical means of exterminating the disease.

46.nbsp; It must be taken into account that in America the feeling against inoculation is so pronounced, that any animals, bearing the trace of the operation, are only admitted into the country under a quarantine which is practically prohibitive.

47.nbsp; Further evidence of the inadequacy of inoculation, as hitherto practised, to eradicate pleuro-pneumonia is furnished by the history of the disease in the Netherlands. In that country pleuro-pneumonia has been known to exist since 1833 (it was, indeed, from thence that the disease was first brought to the United Kingdom in 1840), and from that period until 1885 it prevailed to an enormous extent, -and the injury it inflicted will be readily understood, when we remember that Holland possesses a larger head of stock per acre than any other country in the world. In the Report of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council for 1885 will be found an interesting account of the progress and treatment of the disease in the Netherlands.

48.nbsp; We have, with your Lordship's approval, and the sanction of Her Majesty's Treasury, summoned before us M. Lameris, one of the Government veterinary surgeons, residing at the Hague. In view of the fact that Holland is the only country in the world from which, after having obtained a good foothold, pleuro-pneumonia has been eradicated, the evidence of this gentleman possesses considerable interest and importance.

49.nbsp;From the evidence of M. Lameris it appeared that for many years inoculation was practised by owners of cattle, and so impressed were they by the benefits which

Q. 8930.

Eesult in Colonies.

Q. S465-6T

Q. 6724-8, 6771-5.

America Q. 4741-6.

The Nether lands.

BEPOBTnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^quot;1

appeared to result from that operation, that they petitioned the Government to make the inoculation of cattle in Holland universal and compulsory. The Ministers, however, declined to accede to this request, not only on the ground of expense, but because of the difficulties attendant on the carrying out of such a law, and of obtaining sufficient inoculating material.

50.nbsp; In 1871 an order was issued for the compulsory slaughter of all actually diseasednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ! animals, compensation being paid out of the Royal funds. After three years, com-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; I pulsory inoculation of suspected cattle was also employed, though not universally, q _G6(.₀__G2-These combined methods of treatment, however, although reducing the disease, failed q. 7114. jH to eradicate it, and therefore the system of stamping out was adopted, and since 1885

the Netherlands have been practically free from pleuro-pneumonia.

51.nbsp;M. Lameris was very decided in his opinion that compulsory inoculation could not q. 7120-havequot; cleared his country of disease; that stamping out was the safest and most 7127.

certain way of attaining this result, and proved, in the long run, to be the cheapest.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; f

52.nbsp; In considering the efficacy of inoculation as applied to this country, a distinction Exceptionalnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; u may fairly be drawn between ordinary farm stock, which is kept in the open air under case of townnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; |r natural conditions, and is constantly being moved about the country; and the cows q ggjj.gynbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; I which are kept in town dairies and cowsheds, which for the most part never leave these

buildings except for slaughter. As applied to the former class of animals we are Q. 4010.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

decidedly of opinion that inoculation, even if practicable, would be a method of

treatment at once expensive, uncertain, and even possibly dangerous. With regard

to cows in town dairies and cowsheds, we understand that the circumstances are

somewhat exceptional. In the first place, animals are subject to closer control,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;p

with better opoortunities of inspection, whilst dairymen complain, and not without some

cause, of a certain disturbance to their trade by the compulsory slaughter of their

entire stock. These exceptional circumstances may possibly be held to justify an

exceptional treatment, which we will more fully indicate when dealing with the

recommendations we shall have to offer.

(3.) Slaughter.

53.nbsp; The evidence before us abundantly proves that, where properly and thoroughly Q. 6543. carried out, slaughter has always been successful in completely eradicating pleuro-pneumonia. In cases where the result has been less satisfactory, it is undoubtedly traceable to various neutralising influences. Prominent amongst these are to be Expense. noticed the unwillingness on the part of Local Authorities to incur large expenses q. 8461, with the unpopularity of heavy rates, and a consequent laxity in carrying out the 8973. slaughter of diseased herds. To this feeling, too, in many districts may be attributed

the advocacy of inoculation as opposed to compulsory slaughter. #9632; In proof of this,

we will call attention to the remarkable admissions made by several witnesses from the districts where inoculation is popular, that if the compensation for slaughter were g 6338-9, payable from the Imperial exchequer instead of the local rates, they would advocate _Q ₉₁₆₁;₂slaughter in preference to inoculation. In such districts, therefore, the controversy as between inoculation and slaughter resolves itself merely into a question of finance.

54nbsp; nbsp;Another cause which militates against the success of slaughter we have already Concealment alluded to, viz., accidental or wilful neglect on the part of stockowners to report disease. ^A_Q^a^₅As an illustration of this latter point we would instance the case of Lanarkshire. In ^^ _m5^ that county the slaughter of diseased and suspected cattle has been carried out at 6960, 7016, a large expenditure of money. It is, however, unfortunately the fact, that Lanarkshire 8873. is still largely infected with disease, and this we attribute to the distribution of infected animals, through the fairs and markets of the county, and to the existence of unreported centres of disease. The conclusion which we draw from this is, that whilst rigorous slaughter is a necessary part of any system of stamping out, it is still to be regarded only as a part, and must be accompanied by a very strict supervision of fairs and markets, and the general movement of cattle throughout the country, and also bv a more vigorous enforcement of the penalties for concealment of disease.

55nbsp; nbsp; We regret to say that the system of inspection adopted by Local Authorities is, Veterinary in very many cases, highly unsatisfactory. Many of the veterinary surgeons, employed ^P⁶⁰!^' as inspectors, are young men, of small experience, and, consequently, in some degree, ^V⁷^' irresponsible. It is desirable that Local Authorities should select men of higher ₈₈₈4L₈₉. ' professional qualifications, at a scale of remuneration which may induce them to Q. 5902, sacrifice, if necessary, a portion of their private practice. Such officials should be MW. responsible for the condition of their district, and for its proper supervision by their J^⁰quot;⁸-⁴'

XIV

COMMITTEE ON PLEÜKO-PNBUMONIA AND TUBEUOULOSIS:

Kepoils. Q. laquo;493-5. Q. laquo;536,

8147.

subordinate inspectors, if any. Prom an adoption of this system we believe that mucli advantage would ensue.

56.nbsp; nbsp;We regret to have found great want of knowledge on the part of inspectors of Local Authorities, in reference to the diseases of live stock, in this and other countries, which are annually reported on in the Veterinary Reports of the Agricultural Department. We consider that all the Eeports relating to this subject should be distributed, as they are issued, to Local Authorities, for their own information and that of their inspectors. We also think that it would be advisable that the Consular Reports, referring to outbreaks of cattle disease in foreign countries, should be published as they are received, and issued in a similar manner.

57.nbsp; nbsp;The third of the antagonistic influences to which we allude is. the inability or disinclination of the Local Authorities to define the meaning of the term quot; contact.quot; It must be admitted that there are considerable difficulties in the way of determining with accuracy this expression. We have found conflicting evidence as to the distance to which the disease might be carried from one animal to another; some witnesses put 1,000 yards as a safe distance, whilst others believe that a small space, such as the breadth of a road or a thick hedge, would be sufficient protection. These opinions, of course, only refer to animals living in the open air, where the general conditions are natural and healthy, and the poisonous breath is largely diluted. In covered buildings, where thorough ventilation is seldom found, the poisonous exhalations dwell in a more concentrated form, and are more readily conveyed from one animal to another. The uncertainty as to the definition of contact has produced great want of uniformity of action, by enabling Local Authorities to interpret it with greater or less laxity according to their own feelings or prejudices. It must also be remembered that it was not until the issue of the recent Order of Council, dated March 10, 1888, that the slaughter of animals in contact was made compulsory, instead of being left, as hitherto, to the discretion of Local Authorities. It is not therefore surprising that amongst conflicting interests, financial or otherwise, and under the influence of preconceived opinions, there should have been total absence of uniformity of action, and in many districts a lack of vigorous treatment.

58.nbsp; nbsp;The compulsory slaughter clauses of the Order of Council of March 1888 are as follows :

quot; Contact.raquo; Q. 6510, 7500, 3720, 4219.

Q. 4219, 3720, 6510-12, 6603-7.

Q. 4039.

Q. 4622, 5202, 5177, 0189, 6530-33.

Compulsory

slaughter

order.

n i

Rkugliter Uubiin.

Slaughter of Cattle exposed to mfection of Pleuro-Pneumonia.

quot; 1.(1.) A local authority shall cause all cattle being or having been in the same field, shed, or other place, or in the same herd, or otherwise in contact, with cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia to be slaughtered within ten days after the fact of their having been so in contact has been ascertained or within such further period as the Privy Council may in any case direct. quot; (2.) A local authority shall cause all cattle which have been certified by an inspector of the Privy Council to have been in any way exposed to the infection of pleuro-pneumonia to be slaughtered within such period as the Privy Counöil may direct. quot; (3.) All cattle by this article required to be slaughtered shall be kept in a shed or other place approved by the Privy Council, and shall not be moved therefrom except for slaughter as herein-after provided.quot; In order to meet the difficulty of more correctly defining the term quot; contact,quot; we are of opinion that Article 1. of the Slaughter Order, 1888, should be amended by the addition, after the words quot; pleuro-pneumonia,quot; of the words quot; or being or having been quot; otherwise exposed to the infection thereof.quot;

59. In the case of Dublin, to which we desire especially to refer, nearly 1,500 animals have recently been slaughtered under this order. A post-mortem examination of their carcases was made under the supervision of Mr. Hedley, the travelling inspector under the Irish Privy Council, and it is important to notice that in many animals, which presented no obvious external appearance of disease, there were found extensive indications of pleuro-pneumonia. This instance is so remarkable that we desire to give it in detail. The entire number of animals slaughtered was 1,486, of which 956 were found upon a post-mortem examination to be healthy, and 530 diseased ; of these 530, 174 were found to show symptoms of recent disease, whilst no less than 356 are described as quot;old cases.quot; We may explain that quot;old cases quot;are those in which the animals after having been attacked by pleuro-pneumonia have apparently recovered, although a cyst had been formed in the lung. When it is remembered that each of these quot;old casesquot; may be capable, in certain circumstances, and for an uncertain

Q. 8560-70.

Q. 4108, 4112,

7087-9.

time, of propagating the disease, the great value of the recent slaughter order, under Q. 6igt;8 which these animals were destroyed, at once becomes apparent. But, as we cannot q⁸⁰^!^?' believe that all the diseased cows in the Dublin district have been included in the ₈ß_90gt;i ' above number of 530, we make a special recommendation herein-after with reference to this district.

60.nbsp; In view of these facts, we have no hesitation in expressing our approval of the Q' 652Ö-7. policy now being carried out by the English and Irish Privy Councils, and we are Q. 6620, convinced that, although from the peculiar and insidious nature of the disease, iihe ⁸⁸⁹⁰-result may not be immediate, still we cannot hope for the extermination of pleuro- q. 70,74-6 pneumonia in this country except by a vigorous persistence in this policy.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;8457-9.

Compensation.

61.nbsp; The scale of compensation at present given, and the manner in which it is Q. 6192. assessed, seems to us to give general satisfaction. Some exceptions to this, however, Q- 7290, must be made. The owners of valuable herds of pedigree stock, whilst they are ^9I42* disposed to acquiesce in the present maximum limit of 40L laid down by the Act, Q. 4734-37. complain that in many cases valuers have not given them any increased value above that of ordinary farm stock for pedigree animals slaughtered.

62.nbsp; The chief complaints, however, have come to us from the dairies of London and Compensn-Edinburgh, the dairymen having protested against a valuation which only takes into ^ ⁰_g¹_tockaccount the market value to the butcher of the animal slaughtered, whilst its actual ^ market value, as a milch cow, is left out of consideration; and also on the ground iflip^l. that no allowance whatever is made to them for the pecuniary injury they sustain to their business, nor for the loss from the breaking of contracts for supply of milk. We Q. 4675. arä not able to agree with the demand for compensation for disturbance of trade, for this must be regarded as forming a portion of the risk which a dairyman has to face on entering his business; and we believe that it can be to a considerable extent minimised, by bringing milk from country districts by rail, as is clone to a considerable Q. 4164, exlfent in England already, where it has been found practically feasible, owing to the 4169. 7266, improved scientific methods of refrigeration and the increased facilities of transport. 7739'7392-While, however, we cannot admit the justice of a claim for loss of trade, we fully 95/' recognise the hardship which dairymen now suffer from having their stock valued for q ^₃₆₍. purposes of compensation at their value to the butcher, which in the case of dairy 7371, stock is low, whilst they have had to pay for them on the basis of their dairy value. We believe, therefore, that in the interests of justice, and to avoid friction in the administration of the order, Local Authorities, or whatever body is entrusted with the administration of the law, should instruct their valuers to award compensation for the animals slaughtered on the basis of their value for dairy purposes.

63.nbsp; A large majority of the witnesses have taken exception to the sources from Source of which the compensation fund has been derived. Their contention was that, inasmuch cpmpensa-as the eradication of pleuro-pneumonia from the country is of national importance, and as the Local Authorities are compelled to act under the directions of the central authority in London or Dublin, the money necessary to carry out these orders should Q. 4625, be derived from the Imperial exchequer, as in the case of the cattle plague, instead of 8752-3. being thrown, as at present, upon the local rates.

64.nbsp; nbsp;This, in our opinion, is a question which must depend upon the nature of the authority to whom, from time to time, the administration of the Act may be entrusted. It is obvious that if it should be deemed desirable to transfer to any large extent the powers now exercised by the Local Authorities to a central board, it would be impossible to impose upon the [ratepayers of any special district the whole of the expense of carrying out the instructions of the central authority. We may observe that during two of the outbreaks of cattle plague, when the whole power of dealing with it was vested in the Privy Council, the expenses consequent upon their administration were defrayed out of the Imperial exchequer.

AdministroMon.

65.nbsp; We have, therefore, now to consider in whose hands the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, as applied to pleuro-pneumonia, can be most satisfactorily entrusted.

66.nbsp; In Great Britain at present, whilst the Animals Orders emanate from the Privy Great Council, their direct administration is vested in the various Local Authorities Britain. throughout the country. The result of this has been that although there has been a

xvi

COMMITTEE ON PLEXJEO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEBOÜI.O8I8:

Q. 7824. Q. 4196.

uniformity in the Orders issued, there has been considerable diversity in the manner in which they have been carried out. We find that the Orders of Council have been most loyally and effectively administered in various counties, whilst we regret to say that the same vigour has not been in all instances displayed by their neighbours. An obvious hardship arises from this, inasmuch as the counties which loyally enforce the Acts are burdened with a heavy expenditure, without having that security which they have a right to demand against the importation of fresh disease from the adjoining counties. The complaints which we received from Aberdeenshire and other counties upon this point were sufficiently convincing.

67. The administration of the Acts in Ireland is practically the same in its method, being carried out by the Local Authorities under the Irish Privy Council. It _ will thus be seen that, so far as the administration of the Acts is concerned. Great Britain and Ireland are independent of one another. From this it may conceivably result, although we are happy to say it is not so at present, that an antagonism of opinion might arise between the English and Irish Privy Councils, which would be most detrimental to our prospects of finally getting rid of pleuro-pneumonia. Seeing the mutual dependence of Great Britain and Ireland, one as the importer and the other as the exporter of cattle, it is a matter of the highest importance that there should not be left any possibility of any such antagonism arising in the future. This, we believe, might best be secured by placing the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in the United Kingdom under one central authority, as herein-after set forth.

Q. 4722-28.

lit;

Ireland.

lt;l 5204, 5232, 5281, 0219-23, 6037. '

Q. 4447,

4460.

q. 4997-8,'

Ü678.

Q.4985,

8831,

Experiments.

68.nbsp; In the evidence which has been brought before us we have found very conflicting opinions as to the necessity or practical value of experiments on inoculation as a remedy for pleuro-pneumonia. Many of the advocates of inoculation on the one hand declared that their faith in its efficacy required no confirmation, whilst its opponents maintained that, the only object being to get rid of pleuro-pneumonia as quickly as possible, it is undesirable and illogical to perpetuate the disease in order to carry out experiments, which after all could be valuable only on the most abstract scientific grounds.

69.nbsp; Most of the witnesses, however, were decidedly adverse to any experiments being carried out if the policy of compulsory slaughter as at present being pursued were to be in any way weakened or impeded thereby.

70.nbsp; With this opinion we desire to express our entire concurrence. We consider that if it should be deemed necessary or desirable that further experiments should be conducted, they should be commenced on the clear understanding that the investigation is undertaken entirely in the interests of science, and without any reference to the measures proper to be adopted for the extinction of the disease.

71.nbsp; Having regard to the experience of all countries in which pleuro-pneumonia has existed, we do not think it likely that experiments would result in the discovery of any preventive measure which would be more effective, expeditious, or economical than the stamping-out system, which has always succeeded in extinguishing contagious maladies wherever it has been promptly and rigidly adopted.

7'2. It is, however, right to point out that for many years past inquiries and experiments' as to the nature of pleuro-pneumonia, extending over a considerable period, have been conducted in this and other countries. We believe, and we are supported by almost all the evidence before us, that any experiments on the subject of inoculation would have to be extended over some years, and would be attended with considerable expense and a slight, but conceivable, risk to the cattle in the surrounding districts.

I: I,.

Q. 4962,

4982-88,

5177-9,

6032-5,

6051.

Q. 6546.

Q. 5191-93.

Q.4999-5002.

Summary of Eecommendations.

78. It now remains for us to lay before your Lordship a summary of the recommendations on the subject of pleuro-pneumonia, which we have to offer, and which are based upon the considerations above detailed.

74.__(1.) That the system of compulsory slaughter be applied not only to all diseased

cattle, but also to all cattle which have been in association with them, or otherwise in any manner exposed to the infection of disease.

KEPOBT.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; XV11

75.(2.) Compulsory slaughter should be accompanied by supplementary measures, such as restrictions on the movement and sale of cattle within, or coming from, infected districts.

76.(3.) Any exception to, or modification of, the system of compulsory slaughter, as provided in the Slaughter Order, 1888, should only be applicable to cattle in the dairy yards, byres, and cowsheds of largo towns, the owners or occupiers of which may claim in writing the privilege of exemption for their cattle from immediate slaughter, on the following conditions:nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;ii,,

(a.) No head of cattle that has been brought into such dairy premises shall be removed therefrom, except for the purpose of immediate slaughter.

(6.) In the event of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia, all the diseased cattle shall be slaughtered.

(c.) All the remaining cattle on such premises where an outbreak has occurred shall be branded, and regularly subjected to the thermometer test; and whenever a continuous increase of temperature, rising above 104deg;, is shown, they shall be slaughtered.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;U^;!

(d.) No fresh cattle shall be admitted into such premises while any of the cattle thus branded remain alive.

77.(4.) Inoculation, for the reasons already detailed, cannot be recommended as a means of eradicating pleuro-pneumonia, nor as practicable under existingnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i

conditions. Although it is open to owners to inoculate their cattle, it should be distinctly understood that that operation shall not give them any immunity from the regulations above suggested.

78.(5.) The scale of compensation for animals slaughtered compulsorily shouldnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;|.|,'

remain as at present. In the case of dairy cows, however, compensation should be awarded upon the basis of their value for dairy purposes, and not of their value tonbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; | I

the butcher.

79.(6.) We recommend that, in order to put a stop to the frequent concealment of disease, a more stringent scale of penalties be put in force.

(a.) That, for the first offence, the penalty should not be less than one-quarter of the present maximum penalty.

(6.) For the second offence, not less than one-half.

(c.) For the third offence, not less than three-quarters.

(d.) The full penalty for any further offence.

The above to be irrespective of anything contained in the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1881.

80.(7). The administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts throughout the United Kingdom, so far as they refer to compulsory slaughter and to the treatment and control of animals in herds or on premises where an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia has occurred, or in the surrounding area, shall be subject, to, and under the direction of, a central authority.

81. Local Authorities shall continue to exercise all the powers that they at present possess, subject to the foregoing transfer of control to the central authority in the case of an outbreak of disease.

82.(8.) In all cases of compulsory slaughter, compensation should be provided from a national fund, whether drawn from the Consolidated Fund, or from a national rate specially levied for this purpose. All other chargessuch as for inspection, disinfection, amp;c.should be defrayed from a local rate, as at present.

83.- (9.) It is highly desirable that the system of appointing veterinary inspectors by Local Authorities should be amended. Under each Local Authority there should be one responsible inspector, and care should be taken to secure the services of duly qualified, and experienced veterinary surgeons.

84.(10.) Throughout the United Kingdom district inspectors should bo appointed by the central authority, under whose direction they shall be, and to whom only they shall be responsible. Whether this system be adopted for the whole of the country or not, it is, in our opinion, highly desirable that it should be at once put into operation in those districts which we have already indicated as specially infected with disease.

85.(11.) A more rigorous and careful inspection of town dairies and cowsheds is

most urgently needed. We consider that every encouragement should bo given to the removal of such establishments from crowded centres of population, and wo would suggest the advisability, where possible, of suitable buildings being erected by corporations or other authorities, and let out to dairymen and cowkeepers.

86.(12.) A special system of inspection, and further restrictions upon tho movement of dairy cows, should be immediately established in the Dublin districts.

o 54003.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,,

#9632;

COMMITTEE ON I'LKUliO-rNlaUMONIA AND TUBEKCULOSIS:

sect;7,.(18.) Wherever practicable, Local Authorities should be called upon to erect public abattoirs as a substitute for private slaughter-houses.

88.(14.) Believing, as we do, that it is only by uniformity of action that we can hope to contend successfully with pleuro-pneumonia, we desire to express our firm conviction of the desirability of vesting the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in' a single governmental department, which should be sufficiently representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

89.(15.) In the event of its being deemed advisable to conduct an experimental inquiry into the nature of pleuro-pneumonia and its preventive treatment by inoculation, we recommend that such inquiry should only be carried out under the following stringent regulations :

(a.) By a board of experts duly appointed by the Government, and on premises

specially set apart and licensed for that purpose. [b.) No cattle entering such premises should ever be permitted to leave them except for the purpose of immediate slaughter, and under charge of an officer, who shall see that the slaughter is duly carried out.

JACOB WILSON (Chairman).

CLONCÜERY.

GEO. MACPHERSON GEANT.

PATRICK STIRLING.

J. BOWEN JONES.

VICTOR HORSLEY.

G. T. BROWN. _i

Eichakd'Dawson (Secretary),nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _F;

44,' Parliament Street, S.W. * July 10, 1888.

REPonr,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; xix

II.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Nature of the Disease.

1.nbsp; nbsp;This disease, technically known by the term tuberculosis, or tubercle, is so-called Nomencla-because it produces in the tissues of most warm-blooded animals small inflammatory ^tn-lumps or knots, the Latin word for which, as originally applied by Celsus, was quot; Tuberculum.quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; [#9632;jjj

2.nbsp; nbsp;The disease is known in the United Kingdom by different names, according to the parts of the body it may happen to attack, or according to the kind of lesions itnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;j, produces, or finally according to its general effect on the body. Thus, it is commonly |; calleä phthisis or consumption, pining, and ivasting (the animal being called a quot; waster quot;), scrofula, strumous disease, cheesy inflammation of the lungs, caseous pneumonia, caseous f broncho-pneumonia, tubercular pleurisy, the grapes, the grape disease (Grerman perlsucht), consumption of the bowels, tabes mesenterica, tubercular meningitis.

3.nbsp; For many years most of these conditions were supposed to be different diseases; we now know for certain that they are all forms of one and the same process, and caused by a microbe, i.e., a parasitic micro-organism, which, growing in the tissues, gives rise to the tubercles, and which, by reason of its being thrown off from the diseased animal in quantity, renders the malady a contagious one. ;#9632; Tuberculosis, therefore, exists only in those localities where the microbe happens to be endemic, that is, however, in all European countries, and can only occur in an animal by reason of the microbe being introduced into its system. The microbe, or bacillus, thus forms the poison or virus of the disease.

4.nbsp; The great discovery that the tubercles or foci of the disease contained a virus or poison capable of producing the malady when inoculated into the lower animals was first made by Klencke in 1843, but first described at length and placed on an undeniably firm basis by Villemin in 1865. The nature of the poison itself remained unknown until it was discovered by Koch, in 1881, to be a rod-shaped microbe.

5.nbsp; He found that this rod-shaped microbe was of a length* about equal to or less than the diameter of a red-blooded corpuscle. When magnified very highly and stained with certain dyes, it presents a dotted appearance, showing that the protoplasm forming its body is interrupted. This condition of the protoplasm is supposed further

#9632; I

to indicate its reproduction by spores or seeds, such seeds or spores of microbes having, it is well known, greater vitality that the adult rod.

6.nbsp; This greater vitality of the spore, and the viability of the rods are, of course, vitality and points of the utmost importance, since, if the mucus, or saliva, or expectoration of an power of animal or human being suffering from tuberculosis be dropped upon the ground, ^^sls_I^quot;₁^CQ_bdeg; flooring, or furniture of a room or shed, it is obvious that such secretions are, in proportion to the effect which exposure at the temperature of the air and drying may have in destroying the organisms and their spores, a source of danger to other animals

' ' I

or human beings who may accidentally take up the poison. From this it follows that the temperature of the air and drying for a very long period determine thenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i survival or death of the infective microbes. These points, therefore, require careful consideration and examination.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; |

7.nbsp; The temperature which is most favourable to the growth of the microbe is that of the ordinary heat of the body of a warm-blooded animal, namely, from 37deg; to 38deg; 0. = from about QS'S⁰ to lOOS⁰ Fahrenheit, but if the temperature falls to about 82deg; Fahrenheit such growth ceases. Though, however, cold thus prevents its development, it does not kill it, whereas if it be kept at a temperature of about 107'ö⁰Fahrenheit for several weeks the organism gradually becomes exhausted and dies.

8.nbsp; It is obvious from these facts that, if bacilli or their spores be scattered on the ground or elsewhere at the ordinary temperature of the outer air in our climate,

i i

* Some very slight differences hnve been shown to exist in the dimensions and the distribution in the body of the bacilli tuberculosis found in the human and bovine disease respectively. All authorities regard these differences to bo duo to the difference of soil in the two cases, and that no difference in the nature of the organism is thereby indicated.

o 2

! . \l

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS;

ll.i

Q. 4898, 5098, 8085, 880c

Paragraphs 24, 69, et seq.

Food of the bnciiluB.

they will not grow although they may fall upon a suitable soil. On the other hand, they will not be killed, and, moreover, the temperature of some dairy sheds in the summer may approach the point at which the development of the organisms outside the body would be possible. It is only, therefore, under these latter circumstances to be feared that in this country these tubercle microbes will grow and develop outside the body.

9.nbsp;The other condition, drying, is, in the case of most microbes, a very important one, since few resist dessication. Numerous experiments, however, have been made upon expectoration containing the bacilli. Such expectoration has been dried during very considerable periods, viz., several months, and has also been successively dried and moistened for similar periods, and yet the bacilli have not been killed, and when inoculated into animals they have actively produced the disease.

10.nbsp; It is abundantly evident, therefore, that the infectious discharges of a tubercular animal remain actively virulent in this climate for a long time after they have been cast from the body, and that stalls and sheds may thus become a source of danger unless thoroughly cleansed.

11.nbsp; nbsp;The bacillus, under ordinary circumstances, of course flourishes upon the living tissues of the animal it attacks, but its discoverer, Koch, showed that it could be cultivated artificially upon various purified, i.e. sterilised, animal fluids, such as the serum of blood, amp;c.

12.nbsp; The tubercle bacillus does not attack all domesticated animals equally. Arranging them in order of respective liability to the disease, they are as follows:

Man.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Groats.

Milch cows.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Sheep.

Fowls.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Horses.

Rodents.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Oarnivora, i.e., dogs, cats, amp;c. (very rarely).

Pigs.

13.nbsp; From this it appears that the organism grows most readily in those animals which are omnivorous and herbivorous,

14.nbsp; In all cases the female sex suffers more than the male, and in certain forms of the malady, as is common to all microbe diseases, young animals are more sensitive and more easily attacked than adults.

15.nbsp; Further, certain unhealthy conditions cause a predisposition to contract the disease and receive the poison. Such are

(1.) Starvation.

(2.) Deficiency of oxygen by bad ventilation.

(3.) Exhausting secretions, e.g., prolonged lactation,

(4.) Possibly heredity {viie infra. Modes of transmission of the virus. Art. 29),

(5.) Certain foods (asserted, but very doubtful),

16.(1,) Of these, starvation is very important, since it causes degeneration of the tissues, and diminishes thereby their resistance to the growth of the parasitic microbes,

17.(2,) The deficiency of oxygen by want of ventilation has been for very many years recognised to be a fertile source of predisposition to tubercular infection, and to be very favourable to the transmission of the virus from one individual to another. This is so notorious that reference need only be made to the instances recorded in works on Hygiene to substantiate the statement,

18,(3,) Exhausting production of milk can be easily understood to effect, as seen in the gradual emaciation, amp;c, of milch cows by the constant loss of the fat, albumen, and salts contained in the milk, just those degenerative changes which reduce the vital resistance of the animal. It is consequently very probable that the especial proclivity of milch cows to contract the disease is, to a considerable extent, due to this factor as well as to that expressed in Article 17,

19.(4,) The well-known influence of heredity in perpetuating tuberculosis among stock is attributed by some to the transmission from parent to offspring, not of the actual virus, but of a condition of tissue which is peculiarly favourable to the development of that organism. This view is naturally but a hypothetical one. Still, as it is held by many authorities, it is here stated. See also Arts. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

20.(5.) Some foods, i.e., grains, amp;c,, have been imagined to favour the occurrence of tuberculosis, but this is extremely problematical.

Animals attacked.

Circum-stances predisposing an animal to attack.

III I

UEl'OUT.

xxi

Modes in which the Virus or Microbe enters the Body.

21. The bacillus tuberculosis has been proved to enter the body, and to kill the animal q. 7528 by causing the growth of tubercles, in the following ways :

(1.) Inhalationinto the air passages and lungs.

(2.) Swallovnnginto the alimentary or digestive system.

(3.) Direct introductioninto the sub-cutaneous or sub-mucous tissue by means of a scratch or cut or sore in the skin or mucous membrane.

It is also supposed to be directly transmitted by

(4.) Eeredity.

Inhalation.

22,(1.) Inhalation.Owing to the fact that the signs of disease are most commonly found in the lungs, inhalation would appear to be the commonest way in which the disease is contracted. This has been tested by comparative experiments, in which animals inhaled tubercular secretions so minutely divided as to admit of the bacilli being distributed in a current of air, thus closely imitating that distribution of the virus which occurs when a tuberculous animal coughs, amp;c. The results of these experiments have been almost invariably positive, the animals breathing such infected air rapidly succumbing to the disease.

23. Co-habitation, therefore, of the diseased and healthy animals is a fertile source of spread of the malady.

24.(2.) Swallowing.Numerous experiments have similarly been performed upon Swallowing, the possibility of the tubercular virus entering the body through the alimentary canal. In these experiments, tubercular secretions, i.e., mucus, saliva, milk, amp;c., portions of Q. 7529. tubercles from diseased tissues and cultures of the bacilli have been swallowed by various animals (calves, pigs, sheep, rodents, fowls, amp;c.), with the effect that the disease has fatally followed the ingestion of such infective material.

25. It is obvious, therefore, that the digestive fluids do not necessarily exert an q_# 490^ injurious influence upon the poisonous bacilli.

26.(3.) Direct introduction into the tissues beneath the skin or beneath the mucous mem-

Direct introduction.

branes.If tubercular material, that is to say, secretions from a tubercular animal, or portions of tubercles be introduced into the loose tissues beneath the skin or mucous membranes the bacilli cause a local inflammatory swelling (i.e., a tubercle) at the seat of infective inoculation, and then grow along the lymphatic vessels, causing similar inflammation of these latter, and, finally, reach the nearest glands. These also become diseased, and from them the microbes pass through the large lymphatic vessels, which subsequently discharge into the veins, so that the virus is distributed throughout the body, and the disease, at first local, becomes general, affecting most of the organs (but especially the lungs, see pars. 37 and 42).

27.nbsp; Undoubted instances have been laid before us of such inoculation occurring; and others are on record in which the human being has become aflected with the disease by the microbe entering the system through a scratch or sore on the hands which have been brought in contact with tubercular sores or secretions.

1':

#9632;

28.nbsp; nbsp;Similarly, cases probably falling within this category have been recorded, and

Q. 4891, 4892.

one or two stated in the evidence, in which a bull has given the disease to cows, and the converse has also occurred, namely, that a bull has contracted the disease from cows.

In the former of these instances, of course the virus may have been contained in the secretions, and it may have thus reached the ovary and so affected the system generally.

29.(4.) Heredity.While it is undeniable that the disease runs through certain Heredity. families or strains, there is considerable doubt as to whether this is simply because the tissues of one particular breed or race are especially favourably disposed to nourish the tubercle bacillus, or whether the bacillus is actually contained in the ovum or spermatozoon, and so becomes a constituent part of the embryo and foetus, and develops within the uterus. The former view has already been referred to.

30.nbsp; In favour of the latter, it may be said that Baumgarten has actually, in the rabbit, observed the bacillus within the ovum, and, further, that the bacilli have, by different observers, frequently been seen mingled with active spermatozoa.

31.nbsp; Finally, in one striking case found by Professor Johne, of Dresden, an unborn Q- 2884. calf of seven months intra-uterine growth, was discovered to present numerous tubercles in its lungs, showing that if the ovum had not been inoculated, it had received the virus through the placenta, which amounts practically to the same thing. Similar intra-uterine infection has been shown to be more than probable in the human being.

. I

q. 3932, 3G34, 7551.

_xvilnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;COMMITTEE ON I'LEUEO-PNETJMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

32.nbsp; nbsp;Against this view of the infection of the ovum and embryo it has been suggested that the diseaso-produoing influence of the bacillus would prevent the 'ovum from

arriving at maturity.

33.nbsp; nbsp;Whichevor view be accepted, the solution of the practical problem, as tar as it is connected with this part of the subject, is easy, as all breeders have discovered the infinite risk of breeding from tuberculax- stock (see also Articles 79-80).

34.nbsp; nbsp;It has also been stated that in and in breeding will, of itself, give rise to the disease. This is, of course, erroneous, but, no doubt, such breeding in one line predisposes to general infection if the virus is at any time introduced into the herd.

I ;

Ac Treatment, par.67

Mode of Attack and Distribution of the Disease within the Body.

35. The disease, as already referred to, may attack the body of an animal in two

different ways.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ., ,.,., ^ -,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;n

36nbsp; nbsp; It may, for instance, be introduced into the blood, and be distributed generally over the body, spreading so rapidly as to make its entry difficult of discovery, and to gain for it under this condition the name of acute or general or miliary tuberculosis.

37nbsp; nbsp; On the other hand, it may, as already stated, affect for a considerable time only the point of entry and the neighbouring lymphatic glands, becoming subsequently distributed over the body from these latter. This is called in the first instance local

38.nbsp; nbsp;Local tuberculosis is also occasionally seen to follow the circumstances which usually produce general tuberculosis; thus in cattle the malady shows itself locally under the form known as grapes, where the pleura is alone attacked, this condition differing markedly from the form in which the alveoli of the lung itself are crammed with the tubercles and the other organs also affected.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

39.nbsp; nbsp;Local tuberculosis is more common in man than in the lower animals. In him it frequently attacks one point whatever be the mode of its original introduction into the body. In cattle this is very exceptional.

40.nbsp; nbsp;The distribution of the disease in the body is difficult to connect with any special mode of introduction of the virus, save perhaps inhalation.

41nbsp; nbsp; Undoubtedly, in cattle the luna-s and pleura; and the serous membranes generally are the favourite seats of the malady; any and each of the other organs being occasionally affected. In pigs it commonly attacks the glands in the neck. In rodents the spleen the liver, the lungs, and the bones. In fowls the nose, mouth, and the spleen. In horses, the glands, and in man, the glands, the lungs, the joints, and the

nervous system.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . . #9632;, -, ,

42nbsp; nbsp; Possibly, this predilection for the lungs, spleen, joints, amp;c. is dependent upon the rate of the circulation in those parts,_ the tubercle bacillus certainly appearing to grow best where the circulation is least vigorous.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -, _n ^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .r

43.nbsp; nbsp;The distribution of the disease and the bacilli in the body closely afiects the question of the use of tubercular meat as food.

44.nbsp; It appears that the marrow of the bones is affected at an early period, and that the bacilli may be present therein in considerable quantity before they discover themselves by changes obvious to the eye.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,-. j-

45nbsp; nbsp;Evidence also has been laid before us to show that, although rarely, the disease may affect the flesh, and that the ordinary methods of cooking are often insufficient to destroy the bacilli buried in the interior of the limbs.

46nbsp; nbsp;Further, although the bacilli may be found but rarely m the flesh, still the chance of their being present either there or in the blood is too probable to ever allow of the flesh of a tubercular animal being used for food under any circumstances, either for man or the lower animals.

47.nbsp; The tubercles or inflammatory patches produced by the bacilli m their growth m the tissues differ rather according to their seat, and the acuteness of the disease.

48.nbsp; If the malady is very acute and generalised in its course, the organs will be found riddled with small greyish knots, varying in size from one twenty-fifth of an inch (dust shot) upwards.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;e

49.' If the disease is more chronic, these small tubercles coalesce, the centres o£ the conioint patches thus formed become degenerated into cheesy masses, while the outer börder becomes hard, tough, and fibroid. This tough fibrous tissue of the tubercular nodule is well seen in the grape-like nodules of the ploural tubercles in cattle. Finally, the cheesy matter may become stony hard from the deposit of lime salts within it. This occurs when, owing to the death of the bacilli, amp;c., the disease ceases

See Question and Appendix.

:raquo;#9632;

fill

#9632;i i

,lt;

UBrOUT.

xxm

to spread at that point, and the tubercle shrivels into a calcified mass surromulod by a sheath of dense fibrous tissue. Such remains of tubercles are on post-morlom examination not infrequently found coupled with more recent lesions m animals previously supposed to be healthy.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , , i i -ir .i TiO The secretions from the organs thus diseased contain the tubercle bacilli, unu are consequently infective in proportion to the activity of the malady. Such socretioim are, the mucus from the air, alimentary, and genito-urmary passages, the saliva, nuiK,

^Sl⁶'Of* these, it is obvious that the fact of milk being infected is of primary importance to the health of both animals and of men, since milk has been proved


	Sec also pars. 24,61, 73.	1
	Constitutional symptoms produced by tuberculosis, Hud mode o iits termination.	\| 1 f
	See Article 49.	\| 1 f

both to contain the bacilli and to infect the lower animals, e.g., calves, pigs, amp;o., while unfortunately it is becoming abundantly clear that by the same method ot transmission of the virus the disease is communicated to the human being.

52. The general symptoms produced by tuberculosis are, when the disease is general, fairly easy of recognition, early malaise commencing, and emaciation preceding the occurrence of the other prominent symptoms, such as a dry cough, amp;c.

53 When, however, the affection commences locally and remains for weeks, or it may be months, very slowly growing, and so producing the hard fibroid nodules before referred to, no symptoms may be manifest to a casual observer at all, in tact,

the animal may be considered to be in a singularly fine condition.

54.nbsp; Ultimately, however, in all cases, if the malady has the opportunity of developing further (i.e., where the animal has not been killed in a well nourished condition at the commencement of the disease), the emaciation becomes very marked, the milk, previously abundant though poor in quality, becomes still poorer, and also diminished in quantity. The weakness, increasing with the wasting, there is distress on exertion, the cough and laboured breathing indicating the degree in which the lungs are affected, and physical examination of the chest {i.e., by percussion and auscultation) revealing their solidification and the pleuritic adhesions.

55.nbsp; The disease in the lower animals always terminates fatally.

Frequeticy of Proportionate Occurrence among Animah ami Men.

5G Now that the unity of the various processes which the tubercular bacillus sets up is known, it should be clearly understood that it has been calculated from the statistics of the registrars of various countries, that to this poison alone are duo from 10 to 14 per cent, of all deaths among human beings.

57.nbsp; In certain instances, even this number seems to have been exceeded, as m Paisley, where it is 17-5 per cent.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i i j ,

58.nbsp; Its proportionate occurrence among animals has not been so clearly made out.

59.nbsp; nbsp;It appears to be certain that it is more prevalent in some parts of the country than quot;in others, notably so in Ireland, and especially in Dublin, while it is much more common among milking cows than other kinds of stock. In Dublin, the percentage of animals discovered to be affected with the disease in the course of application of the recent Slaughter Act was 4-9 per cent. In some exceptional cases the per-centage is still higher, in others lower. Among Ayrshire dairy cattle, 25 per cent.. Question 835; 50 per cent.. Question 4262; 30 per cent., Question 5371 ; 4-5 per cent.. Question 5582; 3-5 per cent.. Question 5360; 37-5 per cent., Question 7620; 2 per cent, of all animals, i.e., cows, oxen, amp;c., killed at Edinburgh, Question 7684. In Germany the proportion of tubercular disease among cattle slaughtered appears to vary from 1-5 per cent, to 20 per cent, according to the district.

60.nbsp; nbsp;On analysis, it will be found that, as an almost invariable rule, the low per-cen-tages given are those for herds fed in the open air most of the year, the high death-rates being among dairy cattle cohabiting in sheds.

61.nbsp; nbsp;The relative frequency with which the disease appears among fowls seems to be not generally known, except to veterinary surgeons of large cities. Both from direct experiment and from clinical observation it is now proved, not only that the fowl contracts the disease from man by reason of its swallowing the expectorated bacdh, but also that it thereby forms a vehicle for the further transmission of the disease to man and the lower animals.

62.nbsp; nbsp;The widespread injury and loss it thus inflicts calls for legislative interference, which we will now proceed to consider.

63. Before doing so we must direct attention to the fact that in the view of several authorities this disease is believed to be on the increase.

See Appendix.

Sec pars. 8, 9,17,22,2;5.

Q. 8013.

Q. 7947, et.seq.,S0ä0.

Par. 70, Q. 8048, et seq.

Q. 2858, 4245.

Q. 4233, 4848, 5062.

.. _r. '#9632;'r*!9-*'iK''^,,-r7'WP'-amp;'i.***~* #9632;quot;$* *#9632; j laquo;w

XXIV

OOMMITTBH ON PLKUUO-l'NBUMONIA AND TUUEUOULOSIS:

Ä w^ lÄÄt^iÄtJÄ attenUo/given to hygieni, Seo par₈.69, requirements will still further reduce its virulence.

Remedial Measures.

65. The two poi._ta to be W jquot;-^ - laquo;onridemg ^twe^nZl^from (1) That the toease can he ^TlZvo? £e methods whioh we have already ÄÄr^S^ÄÄ tuhe.ea.ar diseased _meat or _milk.

^'ÄrÄtirh^räp^Mt with under the Public Health Aot is 'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Äuätel ^ Abe Measures ^ to preveat ^₌ .n oat ,e hut

^J^CS JÄÄ^ÄÄyÄ disease oo_md

from animals to man but also torn ma to ammaUnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_fl._om ^^ä should

Legislation, therefore, di^d to tte Proteotion M raquo;t oammioatlon to man.

at the same time inclnde such measures ^M quot;quot; _o^a'^sdeg; Pquot;! _mav ^ dismissed in a few

See Q. 8.laquo; 67. In the to* P^^rÄÄX^XÄn those eases (almost

S^ :ÄVToXdTth^re C'ÄÄl it is only looaUy manifested, and m wh.eh

A.nbsp; Pbevbntion.

B.nbsp; nbsp;EXTIBPATION.

A, Preventive Measures.

!gt;#9632;

l. Improved ^- ^^ ^^ #9632; ? ZTZdl Src (especially in the direction of providing

hygiene ofnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;(1.) Improved hygiene of cattle shMs ^e. ^^li^d^iion of stalls, amp;o. wherein

Ä .bed. y_r ventilation, pure ^^/^P^^^tTeTpa^ in the Dairy and Milk

tubercular animals have been kept). This has ^ P^ynbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ _ie8 _is ^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _nt

Shops Order, but xts ^^^^Tif should be much more stringently enforced, and

^S^Ähe hyg^nic nd^ ^uld rn^d^ isoMion of all suspected cases (see also par^ ^. P^tx^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_and ^

iSnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; See Q. 2867,

to another.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, _f _auency _with which animals, obviously

|nbsp; nbsp; laquo;nbsp; nbsp;di^ÄÄ^^nÄetrs^Ä^^

inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;diepoeal of inspector of nuisances may seize ^su^/,ⁿ_fl7^⁸X_er to prevent such sales, or to seize

,1:nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; diseasednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;72. We find the veterinary inspector has no power ^ preveut ₀ _t ^ Diseases

*nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ie'^ the beasts for slaughter, since tuberculosis is not included m the Contagious J^ise

Animals) Act of 1878.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;iu_T v^nl^r irade in such stock infected with

laquo;.laquo;0!.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 73-^ farther find that there .^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _beillg

tuheronlosis, and that they go by the name quot;i T'raquo;raquo;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_t _whi(,_h _mA

,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;frequently slaughtered m ^ f^^ l^bsÄn of the inspector of

Sstr'a^^cTtlcrrptpcC^i:'among the poorer inhabitants, and

Tr^eÄÄ^TÄ of opinion that power should be givelaquo; to the

1 It

vc et J_r^ey Sector to 3C Jab snciLimal, m fair, -tos or mlaquo;

Q. 8110.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;75. Notwithstanding the uniform Pquot; laquo;uce quot;f *raquo; ^dl8^^Be '^_t _re|_u,_ation, for the

hsT Ära raquo;^ÄVlt'FÄÄ a^Wnf laquo;c^uSrantinc of those .mpcrted

animals.

nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;quot;

I THY, jftt ^T'#9632;quot;quot;quot;'^ '^r^^ i _v 3-raquo;raquo;-#9632;-raquo;-quot;-raquo;--*--

_#nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;UEPOKT.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^XXV

; , for breeding there is any special danger of increasing the infection in England by ^rtTfrorabroaJ. ^he dangl, howover. exists in regard to te stook br.ugh from countries which are exempt from slaughter on }anclmg and yieoted to ordinary veterinary inspection during the present period of ^de^Xtil of the intro-76. It is, therefore, evident that the present rules tor the prevention ot tje mteo duotionoi disease into the United Kingdom from abroad, are ^complete A tu ther difficulty arises, owing to the failure of many veterinary surgeons to detect thenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; lt;

^ti^^S'^erto in those cases, so frequently referred to, where the Q. mi.

disease is stated to have been found to be exceedingly marked on post-mortem

exaTnatL Sugh presentingno obvious symptoms during life, no proper veterinary

TXZZl^im^me to suppose that extensive pleural or pulmonary disease See Q 8,08. would not be revealed by a careful physical examination of the chest by pe^smn ^ rscultation, amp;c., the statements to the contrary made on this point would notnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _}._T H

Ttweigh any legislative proposals, although such proposals would be partly dependentnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 1

quot;T^LT^o^Z^^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; very marked by heredity we Q.2BB.

think i^ highly desirable that breeders should in their own as well as m the public 4. Bieechug. interest, discontinue breeding from tuberculous stock.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; | |j

B.JUnßtvrpation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;|

80 In order to ensure the gradual extirpation of tuberculosis, we are of opinion To be that it should be included in the Contagions Diseases (Animals) Acts, for the purposes ^laquo;(A.)

of certain sections of those Acts, so as to provide: _n _n _n. , .,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , Acts.

(a) For the slaughter of diseased animals, when found diseased on the owner s

(h ) FortiuTpayment of compensation for the slaughter of such animals.

(c!) For the seizure and slaughter of diseased animals exposed in fairs, markets, amp;c..

and during transit.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.1.0.1.1 e

[d.) For the seizure and slaughter of diseased foreign animals at the place ot

landing in this country.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;x -^ .-. .-

81nbsp; nbsp;Notification of this disease should not be compulsory, because it may exist with- Notihcaüon. out developing any sufficient outward evidence to enable the owner to detect it, and its growth is so slow, that non-notification of its existence even in a large number of cases, would do little to nullify the stamping-out effect of the Act of 1878.

82nbsp; nbsp;The powers and responsibilities of inspectors m ordering the slaughter ot diseased animals should be the same for tuberculosis as for pleuro-pneumoma, according to section 51 (5) of the Act of 1878.¹⁵nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . 1, ^ _rWW

83nbsp; nbsp;An additional argument in favour of the slaughter of diseased animals is to be See Q. 577, found in the fact that frequently tuberculosis and pleuro-pneumonxa actually occur w,wi. together, or are mistaken one for the other, so that in either case slaughter would be

¹|4^yFurth^aer.^etuberole, though hereditary, is nevertheless much less contagious than Q. 2879. the other diseases included under the Act of 1878, and it is clear, therefore, that the immediate slaughter of diseased animals would go far to stamp it out, though doubtless owing to heredity, this stamping-out process would be gradual m its effect

86 The annual reduction of the disease would probably be very considerable, and evenquot; should it not be so, that would not constitute any reason against the adoption of the proposed regulations, since, however small the effect produced, the result to the nation must necessarily be gain.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . ,, ^ j-

86nbsp;__(3 ) Payment of compensation for loss of the armml~-A.fi m the other diseases Compensa-scheduled in the Act of 1878, so in this, the owner should be compensated for the laquo;on. Slaughter of a tuberculous animal at the rate of three-fourths of its value, before it was slaughtered, and the valuer should shape his estimate according to its worth to the owner, i.e., as a milk producer, or for any other special purpose

87nbsp; nbsp;If the animal should be one of great value, as m the case of pedigree stock, its worth might be determined by arbitration, and the three-fourths value paid m compensation under the provision before referred to.

* Sec 61 (6) of Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878. quot;A certificate of a veterinary inspector to the laquo; ^tiltmmSTot _Wa₈ affected with a disease specified in the certificate shall, for the purposes lt;laquo; of this Act, be conclusive evidence in all courts of justice of the matter certified.

o 54008.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;

#9632;#9632;^^^^-1 quot;. .',u#9632;quot;.)...-^ ..^

COWMITTEK ON PLEURO-PNKUMONrA AND TUBERCULOSIS

xxvi

If, I

Conclusion. Tr. tornnimtm* ourinüuirv, we desire to state that the great number and importance laquo;ÄrÄlaquo;AMWoreraquo;.,laquo;ompeMmJ.-^ÄÄquot; -S

pVuroineC.ISTuVcufoA.are of Ihe highest mtarsst -d -^00, not onlyto the stoekownelaquo; ef the Umted Ktagdom, but ako to raquo;^*ho ftt la^v

has rendered to us as Secretary to the Committee and to testify to the conspicuous ability with which he has discharged the duties of that oltce.

JACOB WILSON (Chairman).

CLONCURRY.

GEG. MACPHERSON GRANT.

PATRICK STIRLING.

J. BOWEN JONES.

VICTOR HORSLEY.

G T. BROWN.

Eichabd Dawson, Secretary,

44, Parliament Street, S.W. July 10th, 1888.

laquo;I :

t'\p?' ^.

#9632;

BBPOBT.

XXVU

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON TUBERCULOSIS. By Professor Horslet.

The foregoing Report on tuberculosis -which I have signed is entirely in aocordance with my vTws^gon the subject so far as it goes; but there are two points upon which I consider further legislation to be absolutely necessary.

These are

1.nbsp; Breeding.

2.nbsp; Notification of the existence of the disease.

1. Breeding.

Tuberculosis is notorious, even among the laity, as a disease which is transmitted from mS to offspring. This is a fact with which cattle breeders are specially Wir and which find! strong expression in the evidence attached to this Report C her' S Inerally-received truth has been completely confirmed by the results of 2 entific invesSS* as is also duly set forth in the Report Considering, therefore, Zexte^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;of this point, I think that the act of wittingly breedmg from

InimauTaffS Should be made an indictable offence. The only objection that can beTi to such legislation, which if effected would prevent the dissemination of the dLTe amongcattl! in this country, is that, owing to the present state of want of knowledgTamong cattle owners and even veterinary surgeons of the early symptoms Srphvlcal signs on examination, of this disease, prosecutions would occasionally oclr in cases i which no fault could properly be attributed to the owner, and that, therefore, such prosecutions would be needlessly vexatious.

Con Jdering, however, the extreme rarity with which such cases would occur and that as S tL mltter of non-notification each case would be tried before district magistrates on Town merits, this objection is deprived of the force it might have

!*W

I II t

2. Notification of the Existence of the Disease.

This noint requires no explanation, since it is clear that unless the veterinary inspectors or authorities receive information of occurrence of diseases it is impossible rensure tLThorough carrying out of the provisions of the Contagious Diseases

^tdllfberate non-notification should be punished cannot be doubted by anyone. Obiection howeveMo legislation in this direction has been put forward on the same SdsltZe upon which the prevention of breeding from diseased animals was KnWfld As however I consider that these objections have been already shown to C^no weight rrommend that both the forbiddal of breeding from diseased animals! and Te notification of the disease, should be included m any legislation tor tuberculosis.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _vi0T0R _H0RSLEylt;

Pquot;quot;P^^quot; laquo;ij.' , J'.u.'-i...^.^ . -

Iji

LONDON : rrinted by E y k e and Spot t i 8 #9632;raquo; o o d i

Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty.

For Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

i m '

III 11 I


			,

-r-7~77T ^raquo;raquo;f^^ #9632;**#9632;**

^ Si' //lt;93.

#9632;

REPORT

OF THE

\ iJ

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE

APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO

i'l

I If!

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS

IN THE

UNITED KINGDOM.

PART II.-MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND APPENDIX.

#9632;#9632;'#9632;#9632;:^:' *. ''V^

#9632;^ Its' .^ .^i'*-

PRINTED FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE,

BY BYBB AND SPOTTISWOODE,

raiNTBBS TO THB QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.

And to be purchased, either directly or through -^ ^Book9equot;^e^^om_E _ftndPYRE and SPOTTISWOODE, East Haudiklaquo; Steeet Fleet Stkekt, E.G., and EYRE and raquo;^ruJ₈*₂^AO_ABIMOTO,; _8tkeet, Westminstek, b.W.j or

ADAM and CHARLES BLACK, 6, Nobth Be,dge, EdiJBüBOH ; or HODGES, FIGGIS, amp; Co., 104, Gbakton Street, Dublin.

1888.

[0.5461.-i.'j Price 4laquo;. 2d.

---------^-

V V

#9632;''

* * *

tii

.. .

I it!

ili:

Iraquo;'

itii

' gt; .

P :i:

:-*

#9632;

-----.

INDEX OF EVIDENCE.

raquo;I

Tuesday, April 7th. Hon. P. Van der Byl -

Wednesday, April 25th.

Mr. A. Spreull, F.B.C.V.S. -Mr. C. Cunningham, M.R.C.V.S.

Thursday, April 26th.

Mr. R. Rutherford, F.R.C.V.S. Mr. W. Cairns

Friday, April 27th.

Mr. Swan .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

Mr. J. Stenhouse, junr. Mr. Biggar -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

Mr. Elliot -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;

Mr. Mitchell Innes -

Thursday, May 3rd.

Mr. A. Mitchell

Mr. Allender -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

Mr. C. Stephenson, F.R.C.V.S.

Pago 1

1'ago

Friday, May 11th.

Hon. W. I. Wi liter -Professor Duguid, F.R.C.V.S. Mr. W. Stratton

le.i

168 181

1*1

6 17

Monday, May 14th.

Mr. A. Drummond Forbes Mr. A. C. Cope, M.R.C.V.S. -

186 194

25 41

44 54 56 62 65

Tuesday, May 15th.

Mr. Fitzwilliam Wentworth -

Mr. Stephen Low and Mr. R. Latter

M. Lameris -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-

205 208 216

' I

Wednesday, May 16th.

68 71

Mr. Tisdall

224

Tuesday, May 29th.

Dr. R. Peel Ritchie, M.D. Dr. H. D. Littlejohn, M.D.

232

238

Friday, May 4th.

Mr. J. Dunne Mr. A. Dean -Mr. Williams Bell

90 100 104

Thursday, May 31st.

Monday, May 7th.

109 115 117

Sir Charles Cameron, M.D. Mr. A. Lingard, M.B.C.S. Mr. A. C. Cope, M.R.C.V.S.

244 254 259

Hon. W. McCulloch -Mr. Watt Mr. Bruce

Friday, June ist.

Tuesday, May 8th.

Professor McCall, F.R.C.V.S.

Mr. Woodroof, M.R.C.V.S. -

Mr. Alexandernbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-

Thursday, May 10th.

Mr. Duthie -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;quot; ..

Professor McFadyean, M.B., B.bc, and CM. Mr. Speir -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

121

134 138

Mr. Gavin Low

Mr. Chambers, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. Hedley, M.R.C.V.S.

261

266 273

Monday, June 4th.

140 149 155

Professor Carroll

Mr. Lawler, M.R.C.V.S.

2H-2 a86

o 56070, Wt. 1400.

a 2

ill #9632;

Iraquo;;

lilaquo;'

44 Parliament Street, Westminster, S.W., Tuesday. April 17th,

1888.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE

PLEUROPNEUMÜN1A AND TUBERCULOSIS,

PRESENT :

Mr. JACOB WILSON in the Chair.

Inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Pkokessor Brown, C.B.

Mr. Bowkn-Jones. ....nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; jnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Professor Horsley, F.K.S.

Mr. P. Stirling (of K.ppendav.e).nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ ^ _DAwgoN) ^^^^

The Hon. P. L. Vakder Byl called and examined.

Hon, P L. V. Byl.

i. (Chairman.) You area member of the Legislative Council of Cape Colony P-Yes; and 1 have lately visited, I believe, every Bnt.sh Colony, and have made a study of farming and stock breeding m _;he hope that I would gain some information toi the benefit of my own Colony.

2 You have been specially interested in agriculture in the Cape P-Yes, I have been an agriculturista farmerall my life.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . j .i,

3.nbsp; And as such you are deeply interested in the diseases of stock ?-Ye_S; everything connected with the diseases in stock.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

4.nbsp; You have devoted special attention to pleuro-

TTntbiTe^Volaquo; quot;ravels kept this in vie. and made it a special subject of consideration wherever you went V_Yes, wherever I met with the d.sease I

have studied it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . i.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; lt;.*

6. As a matter of fact, does this d.sease exist to any considerable extent in the Cape Colony ?-Not m the old colony just now. It was very bad; but with laquo;eat care beitowed by farmers in preventing d.seased Sock being taken about, I may say that it has nearly died out in the old colony. But in the Transvaal and

11 Has slauo-hter been attempted at all ?No ;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;------

but slaughler is done whenever the disease breaks out n April 1888,

on a farm. The first animal discovered to be diseased-----------

is immediately slaughtered, or within a few days.

12. And is tiie slaughtering order applied to the diseased animal only, or to animals in contact ?Only to the animal diseased.

13nbsp; nbsp; What are the preventive means which you especially adopt?Well, the animal that is attacked is immediately separated from the others. If you are under the impression that the disease has got a good bite of the animal already you smite it immediately, and inoculate the rest with the diseased lung.

14nbsp; nbsp;Is it your experience that the disease can be readily detected in its earliest stages?If you see your stock turned out in the morning and see them coming in at nigl.t, you can detect it immediately. I should say the animal is detected in four or five days if it has the disease on it; perhaps sooner if you ready take Darticular notice.

15. Are the herds in the Cape Colony generally l_arg_e pNo, they are not large.

) 6. What is the typical size of a herd ?Some 400 or 500 of what we call mixed.

Free State it is bad still. I recently met several herds in the Transvaal diseased.

7 In what direction has special care been exercised t Merely by farmers being very particular not to allow diseased cattle to go about their homesteads or to permit them to run on their lands.

8. And have they used any special means ol prevention ?As far as the Legislature is concerned ?

9nbsp; nbsp;Well, legislative or practical meanstSiO, wlaquo; have not taken any special meanssimply used our own energy and effected our purpose by not allowing diseased cattle to travel over the grounds.

10nbsp; nbsp;And were those energies devoted to the prevention of the disease or to the destruction of the animals ?To preventive means.

o 54008.

17 Various ? Yes; they would include cows, young oxen, and calves. I would look upon 500 as being the stock of a well-to-do farmer.

18.nbsp; I presume the oxen are used for draught purposes?Yes, and for slaughtering as well.

19.nbsp; nbsp;What would you consider the minimum size of a herd ?They vary a great deal. For instance, you would have farmers with perhaps a dozen head only, perhaps some with only six, and up to 100 and 200, and so on.

20.nbsp; And they would also bo mixed ?Yes. What we call small farmers would only have a few cows and a team of 10 or 12 head of oxen.

OOMMITTEK ON ^UO-i'M^OMA Araquo;U TOBKUOÜL08I8

i (-ml

Hon. P. X. F. laquo;yl

17 ApriUsa?.

21.nbsp; Arc those animal, enclosed or in the opon?-

_No thoy are raquo;OBÜy ^^1 ^quot;outoealc of the

22.nbsp; Therefore, in the case oi laquo;#9632; .Hsea.0, the whole country jlaquo; ^.^J ^

.; ÄoÄ.raquo;raquo;quot; #9632;gt;raquo;quot;^b' quot;quot;^li,quot;^lu,l *quot;' -Iz'HäÄuÄ-ä quot;='quot; ^to ^c^1,1*ⁱquot;^ofquot;

helping hand in case ot disease. laquo;' Jeak oull would g^quot;P.^0V-'quot;^^ laquo; 0^0 uUock, and after ^^^ ^ Wm a hand to the proper Plaquo;^quot;^/J^i o^ate hi. stock. ''T.ZTytf SJl water B.ppl_y?-No. our

waSs^UV/'Su^MoAA the midland district f^^^

^^STour --S and Us and vine-summer most o oui ^ _bl. _ed _t0 _UBe waler; m Sr^rStalaquo;^ Lea week and our

in the western provinces, and in the miQiau

quot;1?! 'ÄÄd in laquo; neW,.,laquo;raquo;.raquo;... raquo;f river. laquo;Jo

certain medicines, but we navt.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;;

above the brush of the tail.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

30 Do vou cut the hair off? iNo, 1 pu^ little'sinquot; after soaking j^ith ^ ^v^be matter that has run away from the lung,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^

^if IT Do'you'genhat matter from the lung itself ?-No it genmlfy runs away i-^diately after it

h tin Sn immediately there is a running from ^ 83 Do you mean from the entire uncut lung ?-

^Yl4 From the surface ?-^e8, but I generally givit two or three ^quot;^quot;^^^^ _?_Of course th

¹¹ ST ^iieS^^one, of course, by the stoc

nwnor ?#9632;Yes. *nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; *

37 You do not wait for a veterinary su^eon ?_No; we have only one or two surgeons in the who

^C038'And you inoculate by dipping some threads ?Ycs.'generally a little bit of twme.

30 About what thickness ?-The ordinary twine

it a knot to P^^andld? it as delicately a

^ Se to do Ä atUk the bone; by tying,9 possible ^t0 '^1o ⁿquot;^t . _t _hav0 ^ effect upon

A!' wte'tl^Aa^ _r/lt lose*?ilaquo;lt;l I have known the tail to drop oft. ^tel\ In bK that you avoi.l the bone, I uml.^s

lump on the tail from which the hair springs ?-Yos, ^Ält tÄr some three inches above that ump there is no bone ?-Yes, I know hat

43 So that you push up through the fibrous

_B,_r⁴uoture and til BklaVl fa ^.^il ^Ct the string to a part of the skm that is left. iUat would be^San eighth of an inch from the surface whore

¹ ^quot;AnTS' it completely through with an orSaiT needle ?-Yes, I put it right through and give 11 ittle knot, and then, if the animal, after four or five days, should swell a great deal 1 generally have the an^al eaught and draw the seton and open it so as to allow any matter to runoff. Of com so tbev swell sometimes to an enormous size.

46 Have you taken any particular notice as to the

nreciBe time that elapses between the perfomauce ol

bis noculatlon and the time when the effects begm

0 manifest thomselves ?-My ^7 l^ Z

because it, is such an 'W^}^ Z^quot;* attacked, but I daresay it takes effec in pe. haps eio-ht or nine days. 1 could not say positively.

40. But presumably with those arge herds you inotlate and turn them loose aga n Wes. those large herds of large properties generally run night and

^da47 And consequently you would not know at _TOw' laquo;articular time the effects begin to manifest ilC?-No, my memory is failing me b₌it is such an age since my herd was last attacked. It is abSit 12 or 13 years since I last inoculated my

^Cat48.quot; Then you spoke just now of experimenting uCately wdth inoculation and with the mternal remedies ?With the internal drugs.

49nbsp; nbsp;Were those drugs given with the idea of taking the place of inoculation ?-It was only trying to find

another cure, or a better one.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, 1 a

50nbsp; nbsp;But were they given to the inoculated animals ? No, to animals that were not inoculated.

51.nbsp; What drugs were used ?-Some farmers used what we call at the Cape Swedish tar. Diseased lung water is also sometimes used.

52.nbsp; Given internally ?-Yes. Others even tried

^ÖS quot;nave you any records as to the effects of those other preventives?-The people that made those exmriments always said that they hud met w. success, but their ixperiraents were never carried out by other individuals than themselves.

64 But those who did try them seemed to be satisfied with the _re₈ults?-Well,Inever saw an anmial that was dosed. It was mostly done by our farmers S the ea tem provinces, and the information I go quot;as through the public prints quot;that so-and-so had

done that,quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

55. (Chairman.) You have no personal experience

⁰ mTlProfessor Brown.) Then you said that when you have an outbreak in a herd, whether large or small you say that you take every precaution to pre ven 'the extension of the disease. What measures Said you adopt in a country like yours where you hwe no means cf isolating the animals so as to prevent ho extension of the disease?-! will give you one wS The first time the disease broke out amongst catt e, after two days I slaughtered the animal Ztwa attacked. I inoculated my cattle, and my cattle were placed in the same kr.ml-an open shed-everv^ight; and without fumigating the place, or unyüdng of that kind, we had not a second one

^S.Vutwhatlwant to get from you is this, quot;Ot vvhh regard to the cattle which you had protected in t af way! but in regard to the action of the rest of the counts beoaase the news would probably spread that PhS disease, ^yournelghb^^laquo;^ prevent infection taking place, would not they ^-Uur Ke are generally herded, and the order is to get

I *'

yolaquo; to meaTthlt yoi/inoculateimmed.ately above that

ft ll

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

them outside the range of cattle where the diseaso has

^Ä means have they of doing that P-That is simply left to the owner. He instructs his herdsmen, S piVloaS are taken, or should be taken, m accordance with those instructions.

59.nbsp; He goes with the men who have charge ot the i.prda?__His herdsman does.

60.nbsp; Have you any idea of a particular d.stance being necessary to prevent infection ?-It is generally faHy out orange.^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^

^0O62. Could you give the committee any idea of what distance they would drive them apart ?-About 500 or

^^/you'would not say how close they might go witlLt running the risk of infection P-No; we _Say quot; keep out of range,quot; that means a good ^ ^e Qt: (Chairman.) Out of gun shot?Rifle shot,

^elwiMr. Bowen-Jones.) How do you have your cattle disposed of ?-We disposed of them at sales. Our cat eare^P generally disposed of now, since there have bee urailways, by Lents going out and buying them. Sag nlg^es fo üie different farmersand purchases the cfttle that are driven to a certain place. We lavo a particular class of traders; thoy get goods from the merchants and go out for hundreds of miles and barter their goods with the farmer m exchange for cattle, and they collect the cattle or sheep or whatever there might be in such numbers after d,.-posing of their goods, and they return ^mediately to the market to Cape Town, Grahamstown, or lo.t Elizabeth. This man writes to the butcher that he Sally deals with that he shall blaquo; at such a spo on such a day, and the butcher sends his agent and bquot;ys the stock'from him. If the price does m,t smt him he writes to an auctioneer o^his agent n the village that he belongs to and then he advertises them to be sold at a public sale.

06nbsp; nbsp;Do outbreaks of diseases come from stock purchased at these fairs ?-ßepeatedly. I will not call them fairs. I call them sales.

07nbsp; nbsp;When you have an attack of pleuro-pneumoma on your farm, do you find that inoculation prevents iCo occurring from an animal that has been inolted? Supposing you 1-ve inoculated an Bttimal and he is turned out amongst the herd, is thaherd free from contagion, or will the inoculated ammagive the disease to the herd ?-To the herd which hanot been inoculated ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

68. Yes?To a herd that has not been in contac

with a diseased animal ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;ionlaquo; v

69nbsp; nbsp;I was going to say not one diseased ?Do yomean an inoculated animal that has been in contacwith the diseased animal ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . lt;#9632; _Q f,.

70nbsp; nbsp;Would it give the disease to a herd free frodisease ?1 would not risk putting it in contact witn herd not diseased.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . ,

71nbsp; nbsp; Supposing he has not been in contact with thdiseased animal and he is inoculated would tha githe disease to other animals ?-No, he could not ha

^tl172!^SHe^emigl.t ?-Oh, he might. In what way cou

run out in the pastures would have lose chance of

}/on. P.L. V. Bgl,

getting the disease ; that an animal diseased in a shed

Would transfer the disease sooner to the cattle m the

17 April 1888.

shed than a diseased animal outside ^vould transfer it

to cattle grazing.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; , ti

77. Then slaughter has never been tried in the colonies ?In our colony only diseased animals, ^ far as I know, are slaughtered. The natives oat the diseased meat with impunity, and I have never heaia that it did them harm,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. .

78nbsp; nbsp; (Professor Horsley.) I want to know if in the course of all your travels you have found that anyone has done any original work as to the nature of the poison, say, in Australia or in New Zealand ?-How

do you mean ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , ,

79nbsp; nbsp;Has anyone tried to discover the actual poison itself Has he taken the fluid from the lungs and tried to isolate the poison from it ?-I do not quite catch your meaning.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,. ,

80nbsp; nbsp;Yon know that in splenic fever there has been a discovery of a particular minute organism as the source of the disease. Have you found that anyone has discovered the same thing in pleuro-pneumonia . They have all gone in for the same treatment, by

quot;Tlquot;. quot;buquot;quot; they have not looked for the minute

organism ?No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . -^ it, Oor.laquo;

82nbsp; nbsp;As regards the inoculation in either the bape or Australia^!- New Zealand, is the mode of inoculation always the same ?In all cases that I saw. _

83nbsp; nbsp;Did you see inoculation tried in any case oy the'simple injection of this fluid underneath the skin by the syringe ?No, but by incision. _ _

84nbsp; nbsp;Just an incision ?Just like a vaccination. _ #9632; 85. But you have not seen any quantity ot tins

fluid iniected under the skin ?No.

86 In the cases that you have seen has the vaccination material always been taken straight from the l._ln28 VYes, I have never taken it from an animal that died naturally; the animal has always been killed. We look upon the virus from an animal that has died as poison to the healthy animal. We always kill the animal.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. .

87 Then, again, you have not seen any vaccination material sent from one place to another ?-Never. It might be that a lung would be sent 5 or 10 miles. 88. But that would be the lung, not the fluid in a

^tU89 Tlow do you know that the vaccination has succeeded, or do you not know ?-I have only my own experience to guide me. I have vaccinated my own cattle and prevented the disease from spreading.

90 You do not recognise in the condition ot tlie tail 'or in the condition of the anima.1, any proot that the animal has had a mild attack of pleuro-pneumonia ?-No. I was always under the impression that it was not attacked until positive symptoms pre-

91.nbsp; But then I mean after you have inoculated the tail you do not recognise in the swelling of the tail i {he inflammation that raquo;ucceeds-any particular form to show that the animal is properly vaccinated lt; The animal swelling always shows that the inoculation has taken well.

92.nbsp; You looked for swelling ; how far ?The least swelling in the tail is quite sufficient.

litill

i.¹

93 Then, of course, I understand you, in connexion with that point, that you have always used the lung fluid perfectly fresh ?-Yes, I did my work immediately.

94. Then you take, in fact, swelling to mdicute that the virus has taken effect?Yes.

95 Have you hadimimuls that have had the diseaso in a mild fashion and then recovered ?-l have never had a case where the animal has recovered alter being attacked.

96.nbsp; All the animals attacked on your ground you have slaughtered ?Yes.

97.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know that in your herds or in those ok your friends whether any such thing has occurred as ³nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; A 2

ho have sot it ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. .

7,3 Snpposinquot; an animal had pleuro-pneumoma in an 'incipient form, and ho was inoculated, doei your exp r ence lead yon to conclude that he will not give the diseaso to other animals ?-If he has been in con-

^tR074 I sav he has not been in contact, but the diseaso may l.e in an incipient form. Have you ever known an outbreak of pleuro-pneumoma from an ammal tha has been inoculated ?-I have not had cases in my

''Tr^You have had no experience ?-I have had no

^W7GX^lÄd that the stock well eared for are more free from liability to disease than those tlnu are mn oiU h. the pastures P-No, I should say that those

, r.

#9632;

ft¹

OOMMITTEB ON PI^ÜRO-PNKÜHONIA AND TOBEROULOSI8 =

Hon. I'. L. V. Byl

17 ApiiU888.

5 t nnvlaquo;v heard of an animal an animal to recover ?-t novel neau.

recovering.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, _f _u0^ _a thing; In

⁰¹ laquo;#9632; No #9632; wraquo;,M U Iraquo; Pquot;t 1quot;'deg; *'quot;' 'quot;'M'quot;deg;

^cftse , ,r c..- /; ^ You sav that you used every we have nothing of the kind.

that really protective measures are taken fies. iVr You snoke of inoculating your cattle. Did

that would be just as good.

106. That would be equally g⁰⁰V, y*quot; i n7 flavo vou tried that yourselt r¹ x es. ISquot; And you were satisfied that as far as your

herd was concerned the result was satisfactory ?-

_c^ A quot;-nd laquo;p-^o- do yolaquo; see rtocÄu-Tol^^e^^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; day and

quot;f U You do ?-Yes ; but there are herds that perhaps you would not see for perhaps a week, that is on large stock farms.

112nbsp; nbsp;You spoke of herds of 500 or 6O0 head ?-pÄs the o^ner would not see those cattle once a week The foreman sees them every day.

113nbsp; nbsp;The point I want to get at is that Buppo8 ng there s an outbreak and a herd is inoculated, what

ength of time would it be before either the owner or his foreman saw the cattle again. Are we to under-otnml that thev would run for a week and nobody see them or Je wo to understand that every night, or eveiT alternate night, they would be broaght in

never kraaled. 1 hey are in laquo;-'quot;r TVlaquo;, nrdinarv marking, or castrating the young bulls. The ordinary Ä used for ploughing or doing farm work are brought in every night.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^v,*

111 And those brought in are used only laquo; draught cattle?-Yes; and the others do not come into the kraal at all, they run night and day.

115 What would be the result o an outbreak thev would not be seen for a week -No ; and Sans the owner would be away and would not row^Pan_ything raquo;bout it at all until the news was sent

quot;^Sothat^isonlya^ln^s^le

t^lTSSg^mi;^ out within 8 or Äiles of Ms fa^grm would at once quot;g ^laquo;ffi

ught farther, and whenever the dj^id break would he prepared to inoculate ns stock

nbsp; nbsp;Down to what ago do you inoculate (-llmvo lated calves, not laquo;ucking from their mothers,

10 to 12 days old.

nbsp; nbsp;You inoculated weaned calves i¹xeamp;. . Have you over lost any from the effects of

AmUh^nevor died under the experiment in own herd^-There is no poison in the fluid lieve there is poison in the fluid when old and al is very badly diseased. When an animal I would not risk the lung.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , i raquo; v.

1. You do not run virus from the auiraal that has

ÄTteause you are under the impression that the s of the animal that has died is then poisonous ?-

23. But that the virus taken from an ammal ghtered at the beginning of the d.seaso is safe ?-

fperttly safe as inoculated matter and will i likely S cause the death of the animal on ich it is⁷ used ?-Certainly not I would never ommend virus from a dead animal.

25 Do you find with many of your animals that

inoculated that inflammation was so excessive as

cause the loss of the tail ?--Sever*L

126.nbsp; In what proportion ?I should say d6 per

t, lost their tails.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9830; 5 Tsr

127.nbsp; Not more than 33 per cent. ?JNo

128.nbsp; You inoculated your whole herd ?Yes, and

hers as well.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

129 Was this a breeding herd i¹1 es.

30 When did vou consider it safe to bring mask.to that herd?-laquo; the herd was inoculated my own farm under my own superintendence 1 ould not mind putting them in at once.

131. You would not mind putting them in at once?

IS'That is to say, that you would not mind going o a neighbour or a dealer that you believed had oocl stock ; or would you consider that there was any sk in going and getting breeding cows and brmg-them into yout own herd and m.x.ng them?-fmine were inoculated then I would not mind ; but would not say that mine would not transfer the disease to the uninoculated.

133. You would not say that they would ?They misht carry the disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -ist

134 But you would not consider it a quot;f,^?-* think it is risky. If I was really a large stockholder I would not do it. I would buy three or four head of Tti for slaughtering. It would not be worthwhile to keep them sepamll, but I _woui_d ot go and cast them into a large herd for a month or six weeks.

U5 (Frofessor Horsley.) That is only on account of being preliminarily aftected ?-Yes, prehmmanly. I would be afraid that they might carry the disease not their body but in their outer coat, or they might get it from the kr^al that they ^0^ and hey m|!ht transfer it to the healthy animals, and they miffht pick it up through dung or straw.

136. (Mr. Stirling.) You said that you inoculated all the rest of your herd. Are you satisfied that none of the herd lid the disease latent in them ?-I was under the impression that they were not affected

^yet137. You think that you could tell them?Yes, because I would have removed the cattle affected from

^Islf'How would you tell?-From the staring of the coat: and turn the animal out and drive him 300 or 400 yards and make him gallop and let his lungs nlav well. If he is diseased ho will stand and cough hnmedlately, and there will be a large extension of hTnostrils, and you will see him open his mouth to try and get it through the mouth as well as through

^m^Do^8, you test the temperature?-No, never.

% -

nfii'

But there was always a fever on them.

MINUTH9 OP nVIDENOK.

tested them with n ther-

156. (Fw/feMor Äbw%.) 1 want to ask whether

lion. L. V. Out.

re s any evidence of the conveyance ot the con-

140. But you never

would be no difference either way.

US You do not think there would be any diftei-Jrtl' No SiOUKh I believe that the weaker clasB ÄÄSÄ sooner attacked than the stronger

^Clai44 Have you ever observed any other form of

^iS ' wfuM you kno. it if you saw it ?_If I saw the two lungs with the different diseases. 147. Yes?No, 1 would not.

148nbsp; nbsp;How long has inoculation been practised at the Cape v-Ev-Tr since the disease has broken out.

149nbsp; nbsp;When would that b_e?-We have bad U for about, 1 think, 40 years.

150. And whence was it supposed to have been brought?-We attribute it to a Dutch bull im-

^m' And therefore you are under the impression that it ws imported from Holland?-^before we Sew A dteease had spread over a lot of country.

152 Does the disease still exist in the Cape/ Very li I have not heard of acjise o lung s.ck-ness for m les and miles from where I am hving ; bu ? the Transvaal I saw two or three large herd

^T^To what do you attribute the immunity in oncai Lr the otberi-Simply because they are ve y rXsin the Transvaal. You see there is no herdil there at all. Cattle run n.ght and day.

154 Is it your desire to convey to the Committe^ -Ilaquo; tint it is due to preventive measures an

ÄÄÄ, % *laquo; f ff fm

S_gquot; rivequot;!raquo;quot; raquo;.l laquo;-quot;T raquo;raquo;laquo; raquo;W Iquot;raquo;quot;laquo;quot;to crush out the disease.

155 Seeing you have done this by voluntary effor

ig on by tL cattle-men. Do you tfiink that a herds- ₁₇ ApnUSSB man can convey the poison by his clothes ?-I think-----------

¹¹⁶1T7'^ut you have no evidence of it ?-No, because we hive ne/er made so scientiiic astn y of the disease as to enable us to say that a man would be able in Ins laquo;lofhes to convey it from an animal to an animal.

158nbsp; nbsp;You have never known of a herdsman taking cave of one herd, and taking the disease out to another herd 'No. I have never heard of such a case.

159nbsp; nbsp; (Mr. Sowen-Jones.) You say you object to putting fresh cattle with those that have been n-oculatfd, because (hey might catch the disease through what I call intermediate contagion-eihu by their clothes, or dung, or so on?-Tt might be convoyed from the animal's skin.

160 Do you think it possible that these animals may give the fresh ones the disease 5 * ' V^''* their being herded with the diseased cattle ?-Yes,

¹ leT You¹ think that the inoculation will not prevent that ?-No, not until after some time-after a

TeMM* AW-) But, then, I understand you to say that it would not be through their breath or anyTnherent quality ?-lt would be from their outer

^COai63 Not from any inherent quality in the animals themselves, but from their coats or dung, or the drover ?That is so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; j .1

164. (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) I bar the dung and the drover. Do you think that the disease could be transmitted from'an animal, through his breath, we wi say alter being herded with diseased animals, and Suited after being herded with diseased animals?

__1 do not think it could.

165 (Mr. Stirling.) I asked you a question about tlu overseers under the owners. What class of men have you there as overseers ? Have you men competent to tell when an animal has the disease ?-^ e have iust the ordinary old natives.

166. Are they competent to tell this disease ?UU,

^167 I want to know what cla^s of herdsmen you have?They are all servants generally brought upon the farm, moit of them being the progeny of old slaves from Mozambique and Java.

168. But still they are men knowing what tins sickness is ?-Yes, they have ^en brought up to it. They see at onoe that an animal does not feed, and hey say, quot; Master, there is something the matter with that animal.quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

169 (Professor Brown.) But they judge very largely bv the driving test ?-The driving test is a vei-y good test; the staring of the coat, and not feed-Shut licking the grass. They lose their feeding

I \ \m

#9632;i-

11 i\

11 #9632;

r^⁰quot;=p^^hquot;nrn^Sirs

power immediately. The witness withdrew. Adjourned until Wednesday, April 25th

m ON pLEUEO-rNEUMONIA AND TUBEUOULOSIS:

COMMITTEE

SECOND DAY.

Wednesday, 25th April 1888.

PRESENT

Mb. JACOB WILSON in the Chaik.

Lord Cloncurry.

Sir G. Maopherson Grant, Bart.

Mr. Bowen-Jones.

Mr. Stirling.

Professor Horsi-ey, F.B.o.

Professor Brown, C.B.

Mr. Dawson, Secretary.

Mr. Andrew Spredll called in and examined.

quot;#9632;I \t

Mr. A. Spreull.

S5 April 1888.

170. (Chairman.) You are, I believe, a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?Yes, 1

present. I do not say that it would not be desirable to do so tor the future. But for the present it is quite sufficient to meet our requirements it we inoculate where the disease is already in existence.

187 Would you tell me what are the circumstances -which you expect to find in the juture that do not exist at present?-! expect quot;laquo; ^diffOT^V ^^ might at present be met by those who are against inoculation saying that we are propagating ^ ^sP^realt;J-ng the disease, while in the future I do not expect that we will have the same amount of opposition to ivore m^ and it is in order to prevent any statements being made of that kind that I do not recommend the further course of procedure that you suggest.

188 But in the event of an outbreak in three or four places in your immediate district of the Dundee parts of Forfar, would you then recommend as a preventive measure to inoculate the sound- herds h the immediate neighbourhood?-I do not thinkth.it s neTssary at all. I think if you inoculate the aiiimalsTn^e herds that are infected that is quite sufficient, at least I have always found it so.

189nbsp; nbsp;Have you always found it so, because you say that up to the present you have not tried any other ? We have never gone any further.

190nbsp; nbsp;You have given evidence before the Committee of the Highland and Agricultural Society on this subject ?I have.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.

191. ' And that evidence is embraced in this

namnlilet which I hold in my hand ?Yes. pampmet wnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_{j ^ ^ .^

Jen pllt was It quot;the Highland Society's last exhibition in Perth last summer on the 2 / th ot J uiy.

193. Have you had the opportunity, I presume, of seeing your evidence since it was printed?Yes, l

^hai94 Would you tell the Conmittee whether this embodies your present opinions ?--Yes, it ^ddeg;lt;;S.

195 And you do not desire to depart from it i Not as far as I am aware. Unless you point out

quot;quot;ÄsXt pu know is it correct P-Asfaras I know. I do not have any reason to object to any-thing that is there.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; u in, *_rt

197 There are two or three points I should like to ask von about in it. I notice in the second sentence herc^at yon generally approve of ^ conclusions drawn by Dr. Burdon Sanderson and Professor Sluid from their experiments at the Brown Institute where they showed that the disease cannot be com-munkated by food that had been presented to the diseased animal even if it was breathed over?-Yes. My experience leads me to that conclusion.

198 Further on you say, quot;If you moculato the laquo; animals in good time, you will neither have, the

171. And as such you are in practice at Dundee?

__Yesnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

172 Would you kindly tell the Committee how many years you have been in practice there ?~bmce

173. You are also, I believe, veterinary inspector under the Contagious Diseases Animals Act, 187raquo; £-Yes 1 have been Tnspector both for the burgh of Dundee and' the district of Forfarshire, the Dundee district, the county. The county of Forfar is divided into seven or eight districts.

174nbsp; nbsp;During the time in which you have been in practice you have, I presume, paid special attention to cattle pathology ?-Yes, that is my business.

175nbsp; nbsp;May I presume that during recent years you have had opportunities of B*laquo;^¹^ ^laquo;various out breaks of pleuro-pneumohia in your district?! have had a great many of them under my notice.

176nbsp; nbsp;As the result of your experience, have you discovered that after an outbreak there is any possibility of curing the disease ?-Not if the animal is

quot; quot;m⁶ I am speaking of diseased animals ?Oh, no. 178 Therefore the disease of pleuro-pneumoma is an incurable disease P-Pleuro-pneumonia when onco present is quite incurable so far as I know.

179.nbsp; nbsp;And would you call it an incurable disease f I would call it an incurable disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

180.nbsp; And that opinion is held by the profession quot;cnerallv?-As far as I know there are, perhaps, some Äry-exceptions, but these mi not to be taken into consideration at, all.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .

181.nbsp; And I gather from that that your treatment in cases of outbreak is in the form of preventive measures ?Certainly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . ,

182nbsp; nbsp;Would you tell the Committee what is the form of preventive measures that you adopt ?iho principal preventive measure that we adopt is Inoculation. Of course understanding also that we kill all that is diseased.

183nbsp; nbsp;I moan preventive in the general acceptation of the term ?But killing is preventive as far as thothers are concerned. It is not preventive as far nthe individual animals operated upon are concernedbut it is preventive so far as those which are lett.

184 You slaughter all diseased animals, and yoinoculate those which arc in ^contMt?rJ...

185. Do you further carry your principle ot inoculation into herds in which there are no diseaseanimals ?No, 1 have not done so.

180. As you have not done so, arc wo to nssum

m\i-

you do not recommend it ?-I do not recommend it at

MINUTES OF EVIUBNOK.

animals ?-l do not quite laquo;atl.or at what you aro

Mr.

A, Spreull.

ot them huve been.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_0Xneiicnce uover dis-

'quot;S. I. th.,. not ,.laquo;nl..._rl Piraquo; laquo;t iquot;lt;laquo;laquo;llaquo;raquo;raquo;^?_I pre.laquo;mo It i. WJ ^muc'''i'':'quot;'aiferent to dlff.-

TA -?*laquo;S to^o. 1.. Bo, I kooraquo; o owraquo;

deg;l:i-o%rtfÄÄ5tÄ

fourprofesrionaonotado^itnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ ^

208 1 ut is it the opmonbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _who _ha8 ^

adopted H ?-I do laquo;^üt ^kraquo;^_n _it _out. _Tho _m8jority ÄÄW trÄt fnoculation arc in favour

zv:^c^^'-- *^kiiiing ^the

subjects of it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ., . ppy _otii_er _Way

₂^J10. Ami, *quot;f quot;^ r^. M,o..w.n.edlo gi

,ou.roqraquo;.torforaquo;*'quot; raquo;raquo;#9632; ^ _out , _hole

^t.X?fÄ.-_äd.to_ho ._o

the operation m the pastnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _means

L, by po.l-mo.leraquo; raquo;#9632;raquo;#9632;raquo;raquo;^ .,., j _mul216. I 'Iraquo; oot quot;to to k.U nynbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ ^^

StoÄÄy . ,1* i. raquo;toy i.y raquo;

laquo;at* r ._rptoto.laquo;' afri

jl/. quot;quot;quot;quot;,. i_nt ₀f Symptoms, but it is pun

srCdÄLrif uUi^tion-^^^

Ihelreathing of the laquo;mma

j^oÄtsrHr-

CerSr-' No'animal with an encyst.nent

^bÄUlaquo; ^ y^0U can discover any f

220.nbsp; nbsp;But IKlaquo;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Jnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _that ! _can. of cncystment?No, i ao i jnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

221.nbsp; It appearlaquo;, ^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

''''S'l am not driving at anything, but to ascortaiu ₂₅ _Aprll _im,

the facts. Yolaquo; Bay that It is necessary to have an ----------

ⁱⁿ⁰2ÄÄut^?7^^discovei' ^'?^the ^,,calthy

unfmi you a nnot discover oncystment m its primary Tund^eloped form ?-Tliero is some difficulty. ^

224. Therefore, my question ^Woh you üitt noraquo; nswor is this: in that stage of growth ot encyst menth Wealthy animal and%he encysted animal^ on a par ?-You must regard thorn as such u..t.l such time as von prove them to bo otherwise.

225 You V on further to say that quot;i you get laquo; an encysted or diseased lung, kill the animal ?-

^Ce28^ft6^nlBut is it not your experience that a great many animals aro enc/sted laquo;-t laquo;ever arc ki led o

wUh the leLr. trace of encystment V-Üccidodly, or

^^fHavT^uTeVer discovered an encysted animal af.efslaulhtoi^vhich was thought ^ ^re 1

whetheidiscaseilaquo; present or not; and in th a way 1 weed these all out, and there is none left alter the

%rWe^\tnt:f;u consider thatincc^-

£Äi^^rfe^r£

outbieaKs ^oelnfc quot; ?_The only source that wc

^bti Tu to quot;yC'Sraquo; P-laquo;gt;y laquo;laquo;'I

laquo; could not find that out you could not help it, and it quot; would not matter, as no harm can ensue ?-That

quot; aJsTJyou then wish us to understand that an encyst anSal, having once had to d-ase and i

..,ilaquo;Pfl anvthinjj then it has done no harm.

234 Ä as you know it has not done any harm ? _No harm has been done in this way.

285 But do you not regard it as an clement ot dangt ?-Perhaps ild be if there; but, if not, then no harm is done.

236 But the animal would be still quot;raquo;Wo'Tf?' when^n animal once has the disease It never takes it

^^ That is not only your own opinion but it is borne out by experience is it notP-Yes, by experience that I have had.

238 (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Is that the disease itself or ?£ inoculated disease ?_I have not seen the disease occur after inoculation.

pneumonia ?

2*0 Yes?Never,

\f%

^:!

ältrS-ÄÄ regarded as healthy

COMMITTEK ON rLEURÜ-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. A, Spreidl,

35 April I laquo;88.

2-U. You Bay hero that quot;inoculation in the hands of cue man is ono thing and inoculation in the handa of another man is another tiling quot; ?Yes.

242.nbsp; Therefore) I would gather, in spite of what you said before, that it appears a delicate operation ? That is the result of hearsay.

243.nbsp; nbsp;Only you put it so in your evidence at Edinburgh ?But it is put in as the result of what I have heard.

244.nbsp; It does not say so ?I do not protend to say what it is in the hands of other men; but I understand from admissions that have been made that it has been unsuccessful.

245.nbsp; But it is rot stated here as an ipse dixit of itself ?Well, it is stated in that way ; I have heard admissions from one who has been unfortunate.

246.nbsp; With regard to the period of safety, do you consider that 56 days is a period after disease which you would regard as safe?It is quite safe with inoculation ; it is more than sufficient with inoculation ; it is not sufficient without it.

247.nbsp; What is the longest interval that you have known after which an outbreak has taken place ?I knew recently an outbreak which took place on the 55th day. There were succeeding instances with the same herd at about equal distances, and had these cattle not been slaughtered, my opinion is that it would have gone on lingering still, dropping off oue by one. That was the case of Fenton, of Dronley. It began with a single case that was not declared, and about six weeks afterwards a second occurred, and that was declared. On the strength of that the owner denied strenuously that he had the disease, and he was like putting me in the wrong with my farmer friends. The result was that he was like carrying the point up to the 5i(th day, but he was obliged to admit it after that.

248.nbsp; You would therefore consider that it would be dangerous to allow an animal to go at large not inoculated after 56 days ?I would consider it much more dangerous than if they were to go at large if they were inoculated animals.

249.nbsp; Let us put inoculation out of the way. What is the longest period of an outbreak in an uninoculated _capethe last previous case, for instance ?I could not give you anything else but what 1 have done just now.

250.nbsp; But that was an inoculated case ?-No, there was no inoculation. That is the longest period I have remembrance of at this moment.

251.nbsp; What is the longest period in an inoculated _C,J_C ?About 16 days. I tva quoting from my own ex|iericnce.

252.nbsp; You have never heard of anything approaching a year or 15 months?In inoculation?

253.nbsp; nbsp;In a non-inoculated herd ?Do you refer to the outbreak originally ?

254.nbsp; nbsp;Yes ?I am not referring to an original outbreak at allthe incubationbut to the space of time which I have found to elapse between the outbreak of disease and the next case.

255.nbsp; That, is what I mean. You have never heard of a case in the same herd without any further encystnicnt ?I huve heard of them within six months.

256.nbsp; Never a year?I heard once of two years ; but I was rather sceptical.

25'7. Hut never more than two years ?No, I don't think so.

258.nbsp; Would you think it a desirable act on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undertake experiments in inoculation ?Certainly, I think it is desirable.

259.nbsp; Could that be easily carried out ?It could be ; but it would be expensive.

260.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it a simple Operation ?Yes, as far as the conducting of the operation is concerned.

261.nbsp; And what class of professional men would be most suitable to conduct the experiments ?Those who have tried it before and have had experience of it.

262.nbsp; And how long would you think it would take to do it?It all depends upon what you want to prove.

2G3. We want to prove everything that can be proved ?If you want to go into a sciontitic investigation you would want some experts.

264. Do you consider it would be a satisfactory state of things without such men ?No, I think it would be dfcsirable to have them.

205. Let us have the most thorough investigation, if you have any at all, but how long do you think it ought to extend over ?I could not give an opinion.

266.nbsp; nbsp;We have regarded Mr. Spreull as an expert ? Yes, in one way, but not as regards the pathological and physiological conditions of the lung. I do not set myself up as an authority on microbes and bacteria.

267.nbsp; But you have set yourself up as an authority, and we regard you as an authority here ?This is as to the practical part of it.

268.nbsp; From your point of view, how long do you think it would take to conduct a satisfactory series of experiments such as would be really satisfactory to the country at large ?Well, in regard to the practical point of whether it would be successful in arresting disease one month would be quite sufficient in any ordinary outbreak.

269.nbsp; nbsp;But you have told us already that even 56 days are not enough?Without inoculation. If you are to inoculate you will stop it.

270.nbsp; nbsp;But you must conduct the experiments to show both sides in order to prove anything satisfactory ? I do not know when I would satisfy my neighbours; I know when I would satisfy myself.

271.nbsp; Then you want to satisfy yourself with regard to inoculation only, but you do not want to show the reverse ?I cannot tell what time it would take in order to trace the life history of those microbes.

272.nbsp; You admit there is a difficulty? I admit that I do not like to say anything about the life history of them, or the time necessary to demonstrate it.

273.nbsp; You think it desirable that we should have the history of them, and that we ought to know more than we do at present ?Certainly, if you do not grudge the expense.

274.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that it is a desirable thing to get at the bottom of this question and to investigate the whole scientific and practical part of it?Yes; knowledge is always desirable.

275.nbsp; nbsp;Considering the importance of this question to the country, to stock owners, and to the public at large, do you consider that a thorough investigation and inquiry both of a scientific and practical nature is desirable ?Certainly.

276.nbsp; nbsp;And in order to embrace the whole question I presume it could not be done in a very hurried manner ?Certainly, it could not be done in a hurried manner, if you include the whole question.

277.nbsp; You would not think it very desirable to take one portion only ? The practical portion is very easily demonstrated.

278.nbsp; nbsp;But that is not the whole question ?No, not by a long way.

270. In page 44 of your evidence you give the case of 380 cows and other animals inoculated. Now, I presume that the whole history of the case ought to be stated to prove your conclusions ?I have no case of 380 cows ; that is a cumulative amount.

280.nbsp; nbsp;Then you say, quot;The animals that became quot; diseased and had to be killed were all previously quot; diseased quot; ?Yes.

281.nbsp; nbsp;And ''not a single encysted case occurred quot; among all the remainder of them quot; ?I have already told you so.

282.nbsp; How do you know that?So far as I have gone by making post-mortem examinations.

28.'?. These wore not killed ?The bulk of them were killed.

284.nbsp; You say, quot; Among all the remainder of thorn quot; ? So far as 1 am aware.

285.nbsp; Those were not killed?1 can only say so now, almost all of them have been killed. I cannot say that they are all killed yet, but the majority are.

lit

MINUTES OF EV1DEN0K.

28(). You (iL'sciibo a craquo;se at the top of page -lö of oncystnuMit. Is not what you deseribo there the regular history of outbreaks ?Whereabouts is that?

287.nbsp; nbsp;You raquo;ay, quot;Tn the cnso of a byre declared quot; diseased quite recently, there* was a cow with an quot; encysted lung brought into it, and I found that quot; that encysted animal remained so apparently healthy quot; that the owner would not believe that there was #9830;' anything wrong with it at all quot; ?Oh, yes, that is a pretty common experience in fresh outbreaks.

288.nbsp; nbsp;Then you say about the middle of the page : quot; 1 would willingly agree, though I think it unneces-quot; tsary, that the movement of all animals inoculated quot; should be restricted for 12 months, or, if deemed quot; prudent, for the remaining portion of their life quot; ? Yes.

289.nbsp; You think that is imposing a necessary restriction ?I do not think it would be any hardship in our case, because the cases of outbreak that have occurred have been mostly in dairies, and the animals are not removed from where they are until they are taken to the slaughter-house. All that is necessary is to register them after inoculation, and keep them at, secluded as you can on the spot until they are slaughtered, and never allow them to be taken anywhere else. I do not think a bit of hardship would arise in that case.

290.nbsp; You say, quot; I am of opinion that inoculation quot; should be made compulsory quot; ?I think so.

291.nbsp; It does not say so here, but does that apply to cases of outbreak only?Yes, where disease has already made its appearance.

292.nbsp; But you do not think it necessary to do it in the neighbourhood of outbreaks ?It might be done with good eft'ect; it would prevent its spreading but I do not at present recommend it. I do not think that it would do any harm, but if done it would absolutely prevent the spread of it in other places.

293.nbsp; You do not think it would do any harm ?It would do good, for it would make them absolutely proof against the disease.

294.nbsp; Would you have the animals kept within a building?The inoculated animals, do you mean ?

295.nbsp; nbsp;Yes. You say, quot; Their movement should be quot; restricted for 12 months, or, if deemed prudent, for quot; the remaining portion of their life.quot; If that be so it would do no harm to inoculate animals in the immediate neighbourhood of a diseased herd; and I presume from that there would be no harm to keep them for the remaining portion of their lives ?In the neighbouring herd when no disease had existed that could only be done by agreement with the owners to stop the spread of the disease.

296.nbsp; I do not read that in this evidence ?But I am explaining that to you now.

297.nbsp; It is all very well to say that this does not represent your opinion?But that evidence you have got is just the answers to questions, and those answers are cut out from the context.

298.nbsp; Then what is placed before us now is not what you said before, for it does not fully express your opinion as then stated ?You were asking my opinion on points not probably brought before me at the time that these questions were asked.

299.nbsp; Why is it put down here then ?I do not know the questions that were asked,

300.nbsp; Then we may gather that you take exception to some of the conclusions in this evidence then ?No. I do not. It is quite my opinion as far as it goes. (Here Mr. Stirling explained that this was only an epitome of the evidence given by the. witness,)'

801. (Projessor Brown.) 1 gather from what yon have said tliat you could not have had very much experience in inoculatioti ?Well, I. consider that I have bad a good deal of experience.

302.nbsp; I thought you said you had inoculated about 400 animals ?420 animals in 20 different outbreaks.

303.nbsp; nbsp; When I said that you had not had much experience, I had in my mind the records of the last 20 years in the metropolis during which one man inoculated raquo;bout 2,000 a year ?Well, probably compared

o 54003.

with these numhers they dwarf mine completely; but 1 consider that I have had a fair experience.

304.nbsp; nbsp;You say that if the animals are inoculated with good vims, you find the operation perfectly safe ? That is my experience with it,

305.nbsp; nbsp;You told us you had not lost any rI have lost one.

306.nbsp; Of course that is a very small per-centago. How do yon test the virus ? You say you do not pretend to know anything of bacteriology ?I do not say that I do not know anything about bacteriology. I do not pretend to be an expert in it.

307.nbsp; Do you examine the virus by the microscope ? Yes. I have done so repeatedly,

308.nbsp; And what evidence do you take of its purity ? I do not take any evidence when I am going to use it. I take it from the lung as carefully as I can, ant. when I have satisfied myself of the purity of it and made an examination by the eye, I use it assuming it is correct. My experience leads me to know by sight.

309.nbsp; You do not decide by the presence of any particular organisms that you see under the microscope ?Not previous to use.

310.nbsp; It would not be of much use afterwards?I would not,

311.nbsp; You consider good virus to be taken from the freshly killed animal ?Yes.

312.nbsp; And from recent stages of the disease?Yes carefully selected,

313.nbsp; You say in your evidence that quot;you may get quot; concurrently the development of the inoculation quot; with the development of the disease quot; ?The development of the inoculation with the development of the disease. Is that what I understand you to sav ?

314.nbsp; That is what you say here? Is that your question ?

315.nbsp; You say that?Yes, I have seen that.

316.nbsp; Then, in a case where the disease already exists that would not interfere with the progress of the inoculation ?We do not usually get it; we sometimes get the peculiar condition of the tail that accompanies inoculation; it is not the usual thing to find it concurrently affected, but we find it sometimes.

317.nbsp; Have you any idea out of these 400 animals how many were inoculated that had the disease ? The number that I specify there, about 19, It is 16 in that lot, but you refer to 426, which is a larger number.

318.nbsp; And in how many of that 16 in which the disease did exist did you find the inoculation proceed in the ordinary way?About two or three. 1 am afraid I have made a mistake again. In the ordinary way did you say ?

319.nbsp; I am asking you about your own experience ? But I am afraid that I have mixed up the question again as I cannot hear what you say.

320.nbsp; nbsp;You say that there were 16 diseased animals among those you inoculated ?Yes.

321.nbsp; I want to know in how many of those 16 the inoculation took effect ?About two or three.

322.nbsp; That is what you said before ?Yes.

323.nbsp; nbsp;And others fail altogether ?Yes.

324.nbsp; Did you inoculate them again ?I did not; I kilted them whenever I found they were diseased.

82?. You did not know it before ?I had not examined them carefully before except by taking their temperature.

326.nbsp; nbsp;What became of those other two in which the inoculation took ?They were killed, too.

327.nbsp; nbsp;And yon found those were diseased ?Yes.

328.nbsp; nbsp;Have you ever repeated the operation ?No, I do not think so, so far as I remember.

329.nbsp; In one part of your evidence you say that the quot;#9632; authorities are very much against inoculation quot; ? Yes.

330.nbsp; nbsp;What authorities do you mean?Professor Brown is one of them. I understood that you were very much against it.

Mr. A, Spreu/',

25 April 1laquo;Slaquo;.


	1 11



		¹

r I

COMMTTTKK ON riiKUKO-X'NKUMONIA ANÖ TUBQBOUIiOSIB I

Mr. A. Spreull.

35 April 1888.

331.nbsp; How muny nioio?Well, ono of our Edinburgh men.

332.nbsp; 1 thought that you meant the Lociil Authorities. But why do you say tlmt I am against inoculation ? I understood you were from the tenour of the letter written in your name to tiie Dundee Town Cousricil. I was led to understand that you were against inoculation altogether.

333.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr, Stirling.) This letter signed by Mr. Peel, you moan ?Yes, a quotation from a report by Professor Brown.

334.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Tlmt referred to the report of 1886?I do not know -what report it is taken from; but it was given as your opinion, and your opinion was taken in regard to the question of whether we would be allowed, or rather whether you would recommend inoculation. I think that was how it was put, if I remember rightly.

335.nbsp; nbsp;You say here, quot; If I saw the proper exudate quot; of pleuro-pneunoonia I would have no difficulty in quot; distinguishing it quot; ?Yes,

336.nbsp; How do you distinguish the exudate of pleuro-pneumonia from any other exudate ?Weil, if I did not know that it was inoculated perhaps I might have some little difficulty in distinguishing it; but having inoculated the animals with the virus one has no difficulty in recognising the proper lesion when we see it.

337.nbsp; What you mean is the exudation from the inoculated tail?Yes, from the inoculated tail, while in the tail I refer to.

338.nbsp; You say an animal that dies from inoculation dies from blood poisoning ?Yes.

339.nbsp; And, therefore, I concluded that you would trace any case of death from inoculation to the fact of the matter being of a septic character ?Not necessarily ; it might be a superabundance of microbes of pleuro-pneumonia or some other microbe, such as bacilli.

340.nbsp; Would you expect if you put a perfectly pure matter containing only the virus of pleuro-pneumonia that the septic organisms would get into the animal ?They are not long in developing. It becomes a question whether they are not present to a greater or less extent always. I believe that that is so. Of course I am not to set myself up as an authority on bacteriology.

341.nbsp; You said just now that you would hesitate to recommend compulsory inoculation of healthy animals because you might be accused of spreading the disease ? Yes.

342.nbsp; Do you know any authorities who say that inoculation does spread the disease ?No, I never heard anyone say so; but there might be a possibility. I only put that in a hypothetical sense. I do not say that anyone has said so.

343.nbsp; In England no one has said that there is any risk ?No. 1 had no special reason for saying that. I only say so that we might not go one step further than is warranted by our present knowledge.

344.nbsp; nbsp;But putting on one side any risk of false charges, would you recommend compulsory inoculation of all healthy stock ?No.

345.nbsp; You would not?No, I do not think so; I think it is sufficient for the present purposes to inoculate when the disease has already broken out.

346.nbsp; What are the present purposes ?What are the present purposes, to get rid of the disease, of course.

347.nbsp; To get rid of the disease ?Yes.

348.nbsp; Would not that be the aim of inoculation under any circumstances ?Certainly ; but the one is of a very much more limited scale than the other; and you do not usually take a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

349.nbsp; But, supposing your present purpose is so far successful that you get rid of all the disease that you OftS discover, would not there still be a great risk of the nninoeulated cattle getting it through an undiscovered centre ?Well, there are some eases that are very difficult to trace. I grant you that.

350.nbsp; And, therefore, to provide against those accidental cases and the recurrence of disease, you would inoculate ?Logically, the inoculation all over is quite

correct. I do not object to it unless on the ground of being expensive.

351.nbsp; nbsp;Would you think there would he any objection on the part of stock owners to compulsory inoculation ?Some would object.

352.nbsp; The owners of podigroe stock would, perhaps, object ?Yes, they would very likely object. Some of the owners of dairy stock would object too.

353.nbsp; But, supposing that inoculation were made compulsory, would you think it necessary to attach to that system the condition that the animals should not bo removed for a certain period, or that the animals should not be moved during the rest of their lives ? I do not care which of the conditions you impose if inoculation were made compulsory, either to restrict them for 12 mouths, or make a restriction for the remaining portion of their lives. In our neighbourhood it would not make very much difference. As a rule, their average life does not exceed 12 months after date of purchase. They pass off as fat cattle at the end of 12 months with very few exceptions.

354.nbsp; nbsp;That, of course, applies exclusively to dairy animals ?To dairy stock and feeding stock also, as a rule.

355.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing you were to adopt that system of practical imprisonment for life to dairy stock, you would not bo able to distinguish between the animals belonging to tiie dairy stock and those simply belonging to the healthy herds of the country ?Inoculated animals could be branded and registered. There arc some districts that export a great number of cattle, and those are the districts which ought to be put under more restrictive measures than such a district as where I am located, because it is from those breeding districts that the disease mostly comes to us. For instance, in the west of Scotland, where a groat many cows are bred every year, we have got the majority of our cases of disease from the west of Scotland, from Sbirlitigshire and Ayrshire, and that neighbourhood.

356.nbsp; nbsp;Would you look upon the inoculated animal as a suspected animal ?I would not.

357.nbsp; Would the fact of an animal being inoculated suggest to you that it was from an infected herd ? Yes, but if inoculation was made eovnpulsory in all herds that would not be so.

358.nbsp; But at the present moment without knowing about the inoculated animals, what would you say ? At the present moment 1 would come to the conclusion that it had been in a herd infected with disease, because I do not know of any person who has gone in for inoculation except he had already had disease.

359.nbsp; Then the fact of the animal coming from the infected herd would he reasonable ground for suspicion ?Not if inoculated,

360.nbsp; Then if you were Governor-General of Canada you would not hesitate to admit inoculated animals from this country ?If it was successfully inoculated 1 consider it quite laquo;afe.

361.nbsp; How do you know whether it is successfully inoculated ?I can only judge by the experience 1 have had. I say that up to the present time that 1 have not seen a cast! of disease in an inoculated animalhence my confidence in inoculation.

362.nbsp; I am asking you to put yourself in the position of the Governor-General of Canada, and that you are required to decide whether cattle shall come from this country or not. You say you would lot in inoculated cattle from this country if Hiiccessfully inoculated ? Yes; but the difficulty, if I am Governor-General of Canada, is that I would have very little means of practically knowing.

363.nbsp; Under such circumstances what would you do ?I might regard them with suspicion so far as the practice was only carried out during the presence of disease. If it was general then I would take it as a matter of course.

364.nbsp; If the inoculation were general you would let those animals into the country ?Certainly.

365.nbsp; If you were simply cliarged with the business of stamping out the disease, would you adopt the

#9632;

If I

I*'

MINUTKS OF RVIDKNCÜJ.

#9632;

slaughtering process or the inoculation process ? Well, I think that I would bo quite justified in going into the inoculation process from the results of my ex peri en co.

36(5. Y on understand my question IYes.

367.nbsp; To get rid of pleuro-pneumonia which would you do?I would be quite prepared to support inoculation for this reason------

368.nbsp; nbsp;I do not want the reasonI understand the reasonT have had that; but I want to know which plan yon would adoptyou would not take both ?1 would adopt inoculation until it had proved a failure. If I found it a failure thou I would change my method.

369.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones,) I suppose there is no doubt that pleuro-pneumonia is not indigenous to this country ?Well, we have always been taught so, and of course it goes a long wtiy beyond my experience to say whether it is or is not.

370.nbsp; And if we onco get quit of the disease there is no particuliir reason why it should recur here?I do not think so. That is my opinion gathered from the experience that I have had, that disease always comes from some previously existing disease, just in the same way as the parents of one species never produce anything but their own species, and that goes on from generation to generation, the progeny being alsvays due to the pre-existence of parents of the same species. You never know where the disease begins originally.

371.nbsp; I understood you to say that if pleuro-pneumonia developes even in the sliglitest form that inoculation would not arrest its progress?Tt is no good whatever.

372.nbsp; nbsp;Under these circumstances would not latent disease in an animal that was moved from a place spread it in other directions ?I have not found it do so. Yon referred to inoculated animals, I presume, j list now ?

373.nbsp; Yes ?Well, I have not found it do so.

374.nbsp; You recommend inoculation. If inoculation is successful in one case, why don't you advocate its adoption universally ?Well, I do not recommend it universally principally on the ground of the expense, and considering that it is unnecessary for the purpose. As I said before, I do not consider it necessary to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

375.nbsp; Will inoculation protect an animal for life, from your knowledge ?Yes, for all the life they usually have with us; the longest period that I know of protection having been granted is a case of Mr. Nunn'sin South Africa,-which was recorded in some of the recent numbers of the quot; Veterinary Journal quot; for November 1H87.

376.nbsp; Of the life they have here ?Yes,

377.nbsp; The life of breeding stock is 20 years. Do you mean to say that it will protect an animal for 20 years ?There are not many kept for 20 years in our neighbourhoodI refer particularly to our neighbourhood. We usually do not keep them more than two years old, unless pedigree stock and dairy cows.

378.nbsp; In the breeding districts, as a matter of fact, they keep them much longer ?The duration of the protection is a point that no one can answer.

379.nbsp; (Professor Ilorslcy.) Do you regard four years as adequate in your experience ?Yes, but I cannot say that I have had experience of four years. The longest period I know of is that case recorded by Mr. Nunn, and that was two years.

380.nbsp; Even in your own experience ?Yes. None of my cases ha^ e afterwards been tested in this way.

381.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bmwn-Jones.) If inoculation will not protect more than two years, it will not safeguard a herd after that time ?I cannot tell you.

382.nbsp; It may not ?It may not, but it mayeither may or may not, I cannot tell you. That is one of the points that the inquiry would clear up.

383.nbsp; Can inoculation be safely carried out on every animalon lireeding animals, on cows in calf, for instance?Well, it is not desirable to do it within a short time of calving : but I Imve never found any

difficulty in doing it even a short time before calving, within a fortnight.

384.nbsp; But you say it is not desirable ?You have always a certain amount of dread ; I do not see any actual clanger, but you have a certain amount of dread. I have never found it do any harm, but one is more afraid of subjects that are more tender on account of the condition that they are in. That is the solo reason for saying so.

385.nbsp; Possibly a strong objection to compulsory inoculation would be raised on those grounds by breeders of stock ?They might raise an objection in this way ; that it might lead to abortion of the cow. I do not say that it would, but it might do so.

386.nbsp; Then again with regard to calves, is it safe to inoculate young calves under three months ?I have done them under three months.

387.nbsp; Would you recommend the adoption of inoculation for calves under three months old?Yes, I think so ; J do not see any objection to it.

388.nbsp; Are calves liable to take pleuro-pneumonia under that age ?They will take it at any age, certainly. I have not seen much of it in very young calves, but I do not see anything to prevent them taking it before that age.

389.nbsp; nbsp;What is the youngest age you have known a calf to take plenro ? I have not seen any very young calves take it, under three months would be about the youngest that I have seen take it so far as I remember just now. But I have no doubt that they will take it before that.

390.nbsp; You recommend the restriction of the movement of animals after they are inoculated for one year or for life ?I do that with a view to remove to a considerable extent objections to the operation.

391.nbsp; nbsp;Well, in that case the result would be, if the restriction was for life, almost a preventive in the breeding districts to breed cattle at all ?I do not recommend it on account of any necessity that arises for its being done, but simply to remove objections to the operation.

392.nbsp; If the country was once cleared under inoculation, is it not possible that it might occur again by animals that have been inoculated ?Not from inoculated animals. But supposing the country was cleared again by the slaughter of animals or in any way, it would still be possible to introduce it from abroad.

393.nbsp; But that is not the question. Would it be likely to recur by animals that had been in contact with diseased animals that had been inoculated ?I do not think so; I have never seen an inoculated animal take the disease, nor have I seen a healthy animal on being brought into contact with inoculated animals take the disease ; and I have seen them mixed within a very short time of inoculation, within about three weeks.

394.nbsp; Might it not occur from animals that had been inoculated, whore the inoculation had not taken properly ?If they had not taken the inoculation in the proper way, and their lungs had become affected and an encystment had taken place, or whether an encystment had taken place or not, if animals that had the disease in the ordinary form were mixed with other ones that had not the disease, in that case with new stock it is like heaping coals on a fire.

395.nbsp; But you say that you have heard of a case of pleuro-pneumonia after two years' absence from attack of a diseased animal?There was no inoculation in that case.

396.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing inoculation had not been successful with an animal that had been in contact with the disease, would it not be possible for an outbreak to take place ?Two yearraquo; afterwards ?

397.nbsp; Yes ?Well I do not think so, us I llnd animals often quite protected when very little local effect results from inoculation, I am rather sceptical as to the authenticity of the case I referred to as occurring after two yearraquo;,

398.nbsp; nbsp;Say seven montlis ?I have a case which has just been discovered where the disease is said to have

U 2

Mr i, Sp re ill I.

25 April 1888,

(

#9632;

COMMITTEE ON PLBUKO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBKKOULOS1H:

raquo;31

Mr.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; broken out 10 months after the purchase of the diseased

A- Spreult. animals.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , .

-----nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;399. Then i_t _Would be possible PThttt is in a ii'esh

25 April 1888. _ou(b_r(,ak, where no inoculation has ever been prac-

quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; tised.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , i

400.nbsp; Then it would be possible for sucli a thing to oci^ur'lO months afterwards ?It is very likely, I think, the disease had been stnouldei'ing on j but this case has just recently been declared.

401.nbsp; Butit impossible?We do not know the exact period of incubation.

402.nbsp; It is not possible PThe period of incubation is very indefinite, and in that way it may be possible. 1 do not think an outbreak could posssibly occur after any of the periods above mentioned when the animals have all been inoculated, even when several of them cannot positively be said to have been satisiactonly done.

403.nbsp; (Lord Clonvurry.) You spoke of 426 animals; were they all dairy cows?No, there were a few of them feeding stock.

404.nbsp; Were they all cows being fattened, or were they other classes of stock ?Yes, young feeding stock ; oxen or bullocks.

405.nbsp; Then your evidence does not apply to dairy cows solely in byres, but to mixed stock ?Yes, to the mixed stock.

406.nbsp; The mixed stock of Forfarshire?ie?, but the majority of them are cows.

407.nbsp; In your former evidence you mentioned 380 cows, now you speak of 46 additional ?Well, if they were stated as cows there whs a portion even then of oxen or bullocks. But that might have been a mistake on my part, or on the part of the printer. They are mixed cattle, but principally cows.

408.nbsp; But you mentioned some cuttle brought in from Ayrshirethe cattle that brought the. disease-were they dairy stock ?All dairy stock; all cows invariably cows, and invariably from one individual, or almost so.

409.nbsp; Do you think that if the inoculation was applied universally to dairy stock that there would be any need to apply it to the general stockto the young stockto the steers, and so forth ?I do not understand your question.

410.nbsp; Would the inoculation of dairy stock in byres be a sufficient protection for Forfarshire ?Not if there was disease among the feeding stock.

411.nbsp; {Chairman.) Do you mean in the same herd ? The disease breaking out in a certain herd, would inoculation in the dairy portion of that herd be sufficient ?I understand.

412.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloncurry.) I was trying to distinguish between a dairy farm with byres and the general stock of a farm ?Whenever tiie disease breaks out 1 would inoculate the whole stock on the place.

413.nbsp; When you say place, do you mean the farm irrespective of place, or merely the yards and enclosures ?The. yards and enclosures within the point of infection-the dairy byres, and if there are cattle courts 1 would include them.

414.nbsp; nbsp;You would include the rest of the stock ?If the cattle were in the fields or were half a mile away I do not (hink there would bean absolute necessity for that. I think that that is quite a safe distance, or even less. 1 think that the disease communicates itself principally by atmospheric agency, if not'solely by it.

415.nbsp; nbsp; This evidence would all lead up to the question of dairy cows in houses, and I was anxious to see how far it would be necessary to inoculate the cattle on the rest of the farm ?If they have not been in actual contact and under the same roof then I do not think that it is absolutely necessary to do it; but it may be wise as a precautionary measure. That depends upon the distance at which they are located, tmd the chances that they have had of being in con-tact with the deceased animals. That would require the discretion of an inspector or some parly on the ground vlii) knew the cireumKtaneesthe local aulJiority or whoever it may be.

416.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. MacPherson Grant) As to general inoculation, I think you said early to-day that you would not recommend it very strongly because it was liable to objections from opponents who did not believe in it; but you have said since that in your opinion it would have a good eiltet as a preventive ? I do not object to it as a princdple ; I think inoculation as a principle is good.

417.nbsp; That is putting aside the sledgohiimnier argument, compulsory and gtmeral inoculation of the whole country ?It would not be a bad thing.

418.nbsp; At all events, if sueeessfui, it would be an advantageous tiling. Would you tell the Committee something about the 426 animals that have been inoculated and passed through your bands. There was no encystment so far as you know ?None of them that so passed through my hands were attacked after inoculation.

419.nbsp; They were nearly all killed ?The bulk of them were killed. There may be a lew of them left.

420.nbsp; Have they all been examined?The bulk of them.

421.nbsp; By yourself?A number by myself and a much greater number by our inspector of markets, Mr. Knight, who has instructions from me to very carefully examine particularly all inoculated animals with the short tipped tails ; and he informs me that he has never lound one affected.

422.nbsp; nbsp;Well, then, you have spoken principally upon the effects. Of course, the animals that are most under you are iu the dairies?Yes.

423.nbsp; I am aware that you practise through other parts of the county ; but your experience is principally connected with the dairies ?it is principally ; but I have experience outside the dairy.

424.nbsp; nbsp;You say that the life of a dairy cow is about 12 months?They are imported and they are sent out about 12 months afterwards, many of them long before that ; but as a rule 12 months is about the time.

425.nbsp; Therefore imprisonment for life would not be a serious matter in their case ?No.

426.nbsp; Have you considered what the effect of im-prisoument for life would be on the general stock of the country apart from the dairies ?Jn that case some modification would be required to be brought in. Perhaps 12 months would be quite sufficient.

427.nbsp; A sort of ticket-of-leave ?You could register.

428.nbsp; Or give them a remission of sentence ?That is a thing I leave to your consideration, whoever may prepare the Bill.

129. We are not preparing Bills here, but we want your opinion. Is it in your judgment a practical i ourse to adopt, as you say in your evidence you recommend, that the animals having been inoculated should be confined for the whole course of their natural life ? Is that, in your opinion, a practical thing to do over tiie whole country ?For my neighbourhood I do not think it would be a serious matter for the dairy cow?, but for the whole country it is quite different.

430.nbsp; A great many dairies that supply Dundee are outside the borough boundni'y. There are a large number of cows in Forfar which are not strictly dairy slock ?That is quite true,

431.nbsp; nbsp;1 want to know if it is practicable in that locality or in any part of Scotland that you know to cany out u compulsory system of inoculation and imprisonment for life ?I do not think there is much difficulty so long as you give licences lor them to go to the slaughter-house.

432.nbsp; No matter if breeding animals, or what age they were, they should be imprisoned for life and only allowed a licence to go for immediate slaughter? That might be done where disease 1ms been, but that is all. We have little else but feeding stock and dairy stock. We do not have many breeding stock except breeders ol' pure stock; in tlieir ease it would be hardly a hardship.

433.nbsp; nbsp;We have got rid of the dairies. Now, wo leave out that portion of Forfar, and your experience

gt;#9632;

. ..itf'

MINUTES OF EVinKNOE.

is very large in Scotland, and you know very well many other parts of Scotland. You laquo;ay in Forfar-shire you do not consider it a hardship on breeders-there are not sullicient breedersbut you must know in other pai'ts of Scotland where there are breeding districts, where there are large and valuable herds, whether such a way of dealing with them is practicable ?I do not think it necessary to impose any such restrictions. I simply say (bat that could bo done with ns in order to do away with the objections to the operation. There is no shadow of doubt about that.

434.nbsp; We are rather going back again to those dairies in and about the neighbourhood of Dundee. We have read your evidence on that point, but I want to get a little beyond the dairies of Dundee, and beyond what you call the Dundee districts and For-farshire, which I know about myself, and I want to get into where it is more a breeding district, and I want to know if you really consider, as a practical thing, that you cau impose penal servitude for life upon the breeding stock in this country as a possible condition ?There would require to be some modifications for these districts.

435.nbsp; Therefore, shutting your animal up for life is practically only applied to the dairies of Dundee ? To particular districts where it is suitable, and where life is comparatively short.

436.nbsp; nbsp;If you had general compulsory inoculation, and you can see the proper restrictions, I presume that some of the animals would not take ? Probably there would be some that would not take.

437.nbsp; nbsp;If you were sent or were employed by anyone to inoculate a whole herd at the present moment, some of those animals you admit would possibly not t_ake ?Some of them would not probably have any visible appearance of the disease developed in the tail.

438.nbsp; They would not take ?They would not all be apparently affected, but still if not apparently they usually are quite protected, as there is often little or no appearance of the phenomenal characteristics of the disease in the inoculated part.

439.nbsp; nbsp;How would you regard those animals that did not take ?With a certain amount of suspicion.

440.nbsp; You would regard auimals that you had inoculated that did not take with a certain amount of suspicion ?Yes, and I would examine them more carefully.

441.nbsp; nbsp;You would examine them more carefully ? Yes, I would examine them more carefully.

442.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsky^ You say that you selected a suitable lesion to procure the lymph. What are the characters of the lesion that you consider suitable ? In the early stage.

443.nbsp; nbsp;In the stage of congestion?There is an exudated stage ; there is a salmon colour.

444.nbsp; The colour is a salmon colour, and when you cut it what flows out ?This lymph.

445.nbsp; nbsp;Of what character is it ? Is it clear ?It is pellucid, straw coloured.

446.nbsp; But it is not like matter at all ?Not at all.

447.nbsp; If the lesion had gone on to the formation of matter at all, you would reject it ?It would not be good.

448.nbsp; What is the condition of the tail that, you regard as indicating successful inoculation?The exudate.

449.nbsp; Yes, how soon ought it to appear ?About 11 or 12 days or three weeks.

450.nbsp; It may be 11 days oi three weeks before it appears?Perhaps even longer in a few solitary instances.

451.nbsp; What, is the longest time?About a month would be about the outside.

452.nbsp; nbsp;You use the Beton, 1 understand?Yes; I did not to begin with, but I have been doing so for simplicity. You can do it more freely and have less fear of the thing not being u success.

453.nbsp; Am I to uuilerBtantl thai; after you have passed the seton there is no preliminary iuflammation for the

first two or three days?Well, there Is a certainnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^J₍J''-

amount of preliminary inflammation on account of the ' ⁱ'P^re^uquot;' injury to the tail, and that tends to the absorption of 25 April 1888 the virus that you insert in the thread.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ___^._

454.nbsp; And that preliminary inflammation is quite localit disappears in three or four days?Yes, unless it runs into the other.

455.nbsp; nbsp;But it very often happens, I suppose, that that disappears for several days before the pleuro-exudate appears, or do you find that the one runs into the other ?The inflammation gradually runs on. The microbes are there all the time.

456.nbsp; nbsp;If it runs on, how do you know when the pleuro-exudate is really appearing?I. may say because it fills out in the skin and gets bulbous, and gets clear and glistening, till the blebs of lymph accumulate on the surface, and it is quitraquo; apparent if you come to inspect it, for it trickles out in the hand.

457.nbsp; nbsp;It is a pleuro-exudate at the point of inoculation. Does that come on quickly within 24 or 48 hours so as to see a distinct change on the point of inoculation ?Do you mean after inoculation ?

458.nbsp; nbsp;I mean in this way ; supposing you inoculate the tail you get the preliminary inflammation due to the inflammation of the seton ; that produces a certain amount of swelling, and then in 11 or 12 days, you say, you see pleuro-exudate ?You see it takes effect then.

459.nbsp; nbsp;üou say, then, that the swelling has increased rapidly ?And that it has begun to take its characteristic appearance.

460.nbsp; nbsp;Does it increase so obviously within 24 or 48 hours so that you can determine the incubation period of inoculation, say, in 11 or 12 days ?Probably in some instances you could say it, but there are a great many where you could not say so.

461.nbsp; Then you do not regard as some people regard any swelling as indicative of inoculation ?Certainly not.

462.nbsp; nbsp;You must have the characteristic appearance ? You must have the characteristic appearance in order to be satisfied.

463.nbsp; Do you always get those blebs ?Not always, but pretty regularly, but you must bear in mind that we cannot run and see them every day ; the thing passes on sometimes ; there may be a week or 10 days between our visits.

464.nbsp; Is matter formed in the pleuro-pneumonia exudate if the inoculation is a good one ?In the tail it does.

465.nbsp; nbsp;That is the way the pleuro inflammation terminates at the point of inoculation ?Yes.

466.nbsp; It always terminates by matter ?To a greater or less extent.

467.nbsp; Then you have always a loss of part of the substance of the tail ?As a rule. You do not always have it; there are many cases where the tail is left intact.

468.nbsp; Then you cannot always tell from the tail whether the animal has been inoculated ?Not necessarily after it has been healed up.

469.nbsp; Supposing you have taken a clean animal and inoculated it, I mean an animal clean to begin with, do you regard that animal as in any way diseased through the inoculation itself ?There is no doubt there is a taint left.

470.nbsp; But that taint you do not think it could communicate to any other animal?Certainly not; I cannot tell you the exact nature of the taint.

471.nbsp; nbsp;1 am not asking you. Supposing you were given a herd of animals to inoculate and you were going to regard them as healthy, you say you have not time to examine them thoroughly beforehand?It is not easy to examine cattle in farm courts and to take their symptoms when they are flying about like so many wild beasts ; you have got to do it by rule of thumb.

472.nbsp; nbsp;What, physical appearance do you rely upon ? Yon can very easily, raquo;s a rule, distinguish by the physical appearance of the beast, anu if it is nnthrifty-looking you immediately suspect it and it leads you

OOMMITTUE ON I'UCUKO-l'NKUMONIA ANraquo; TUllKllflU)SI8:

Mr. A. Sprenll.

25 April 1888.

to give a more careful examination in the individual

case.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _v

478. The first tiling is tho appoumnco .-'yes.

474.nbsp; And his breatliing ?Yes, obaerving the breatli und seeing if ho coughs.

475.nbsp; Do you employ tho driving test?xes, it necessury wo drive him around tho court and if wo find that ho begins to cough then we catch him, and if wo find disease we hill him at once.

476.nbsp; Do you think the driving test invariably shows you whether it is diseased ?Certainly not. The driving test would only show that there was bronchial Irritation in tho lungs, sufficient irritation in tho lungs to produce a cough.

477.nbsp; How much disease in the lungs would it show ? Would it reveal a patch two inches in diameter ? It might if coming in contact with some of tho bronchial tubes.

478.nbsp; Then you rely more upon the driving test as showing bronchial irritation rather than a comparatively extensive pleuro-pneumonia ?Certainly.

479.nbsp; Can you tell by anything else ?There is an unthrifty appearance of the hair, and the skin begins to get hide-bound.

480.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the temperature ?We always take the temperature whenever we are suspicious. Temperature is one of the most important things to

go by.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

481.nbsp; nbsp;Would you then find by the temperature the presence of a small patch ?If an encystment it would not reveal anything.

482.nbsp; If there is disease, and a patch about two inches in diameter, would it not ?As small as you like, it would reveal that ; it reveals it very early while in the act of forming or about to assume the act of form-

in⁰quot;.

^SS. As soon as the animal is inoculated with the poison its temperature begins to rise ?Whenever the febrile symptoms show themselves the temperature is elevated.

484.nbsp; If you take another disease, take rabies, and inoculate rabies, the animal's temperature does not rise during the time that the disease is incubating in it; it only begins to rise as soon as the animal shows other symptoms which can easily be recognised. Is it in your experience that in pleuro-pneumonia we have a rise of temperature very soon after the animal has come in contact with the poison ?Oh, no I would not think that; but perhaps some weeks or months afterwards ; probably five or six weeks before it became affected.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

485.nbsp; nbsp;Then what would you believe to be the incubation period ?As a rule, six weeks to two months; but there are cases, such as I have mentioned, from the date of the purchase of the uniraal that brought the disease to the date at which the disease was recognised ; varying up to about 10 months. In the two last outbreaks the diseased cow was purchased in one case in the beginning of July or end of June, and in tho other case in'the month of May, and they were only declared infected the one last week and the other only a fortnight before.

486.nbsp; nbsp;They were declared infected on account oi another animal taking it?Yes; but while that was so I must say also that when the cases were killed we found that they were almost invariably cases of encystment that had gone on for a considerable length

of time.

487.nbsp; nbsp;Am I to understand that in those cases ot so-called long periods of incubation, there was any possibility of tho animal having been affected by it beforehand or subsequently ?These were cases where the animals were healthy until the purchase of this particular animal, which had been found to be the real cause of bringing the disease, and proved to bo encysted after killing.

' 488. And in all the cases of long incubation the animal had encystment shown to be present as the origin of the disease ?Yes.

489. And there was no possibility of the disease

or veterinary surgeon ?I never knew of any case of disease been brought in by a herdsman or veterinary surgeon. It has always been brought by an aniraal. I consider that tho disease spreads while in the active stage, though often it does not show until later on.

490.nbsp; Do you think that inoculation, if practised upon an animal that is in the initial stage of the disease, that that inoculation will increase the activity of the disease ?Yes,

491.nbsp; nbsp;You spoke of a possibility of cultivating the virus. Do you know of any recent work in which that is done successfully ?Yes, the work that Professor Brown gave me the last time I was here. Mr. Power's. It is a very good thing. It seems altogether to be very good and clear on the subject.

492.nbsp; You do not know anything beyond that ? No ; but it seems to me very like what it should be, according to my information gained both by experience and from other veterinary literature on the subject.

493.nbsp; Prom your experience, do you think that if an animal has encystment that it is infective if that encystment is old ?I do not think that after a certain stage that encystment does spread the disease.

494.nbsp; Could you give the Committee an idea of what that stage is ?I cannot say positively, probably six months; I could not say exactly. We do not know when the encystment loses its power to infect.

495.nbsp; Could you say, from the appearance of the encystment. how that is ?No, but my opinion is that after a certain time the active, live bacteria or micro-cocci of the disease die, and it is then become incapable of propagating the disease, that they become more the germs of putrefaction that are present, that these have no specific action whatever, but are more developed from the process of decay going on.

496.nbsp; From what you said just now you believe yourself that there is no possibility of the virus being quot;conveyed on the skin of an animal ?I have never known of a case of the kind. It would stand to reason that if virus were spread on the skin of an animal and come in direct contact that it would produce its effect.

497.nbsp; You said a little while ago, and most people believe it, that it was conveyed by the atmosphere? Atmospheric agency is the only one potent in spreading the disease.

4^{)8. But you have known a clean animal that has been put into a byre and that has become infected, and that other animals have caught the disease ?No, I have not known of such a case.

499.nbsp; Have you ever seen inoculation practised by subcutaneous injection ?No.

500.nbsp; The duration of protection you said ) on believed yourself to be, from Mr. Nunn's observation, two years ?That is the only one of undoubted authenticity.

501.nbsp; nbsp;What is your experience ?I have not seen anything from my inoculations, but have been perfectly protected for the period that they have been allowed to exist afterwards.

502.nbsp; What is the practical disadvantage and injury to cattle due to inoculation raquo;Some people object to the tips of the tail going off. That is a sentimental objection. That is not of much account.

503.nbsp; nbsp; That is just the point. You do not regard the loss of the tip of the tail as a serious loss to the animal in depriving it of protection from flies ?I do not think it is of any very great consequence whatever.

504.nbsp; Of course, it would not'be in dairies, but it cattle are out in the fields the flies are annoying ? They seem to do quite as well without them. Some of my friends thought they would not be able to protect themselves from the flies; but thoy found that the animalp with the tip of the tails taken off were just as well able to get rid of the flies as the others.

505.nbsp; Then you say, from your experience, that the actual loss due to inoculation, that is to say, to accidents of inoculation, is only one in 400 ?1 have only lost one out of 420 from the result of inoculation itself.

506.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) I understood you to say just now in answer to Professor Horsley that you thought

t. -.^

III

having been brought in by a cattloman or a herdsman

MINUTES OP KVIDKNCK,

at the end of six months uu tmiiuiil with an oncystod lung would bo pretty sufe ?I think so. That is only a matter of opinion.

507.nbsp; You have no oxperionce. Iraquo; there not a risk, say, at the time of calving, that the capsule enclosing that eneystment may become soft and break; would not that make that animal a fresh centre of infection ?

__T. have some doubts upon that point. I do not

believe in the theory referred to.

508.nbsp; You have no knowlodKo ?No, 1 have no proof-knowledge of it. But my idea is that the eneystment after a certain time, instead of having any active germs in it, has only putrefactive germs present. I limy be wrong. I give it for what it is worth, that is my opinion.

509.nbsp; And that therefore they would not be intec-tious ?They would not communicate disease to another animal. I do not know at what particular point that would como into play. But that is my opinion, after a certain time which is indefluite.

510.nbsp; In answer to another question regarding the length of period that you thought inoculation would protect the life of an animal for, I understood you to say two years, simply because it was the longest known period of which you have any official information ?Yes, at present. I am quite prepared to extend it whenever I get further data.

511.nbsp; Then you spoke about experiments. Yon are in favour of experimenls being started, but you said you were rather doubtful about the time ?I cannot tell how long the scientific investigation with regard to the nature of pleuro-pneumonia and the germ theory connected^with it would occupy. That is an interminable subject.

512.nbsp; But those experiments which you made yourself. You made 18 or 19 of them ?Twenty.

513.nbsp; Over what period?Over the last 10 years. They began about 1878 or somewhere thereabout.

514.nbsp; Are we to understand that in those experiments marked on this paper put in with A, B, and C, that at that time you were equally careful, and took the exact data, and made the same careful investigations, that you do now ?I conductsd them exactly on the same line.

515.nbsp; And in all cases you made a post-mortem examination of the experiment ?-In a few. I did not see any post-mortem examination, but the disease at once completely disappeared after the inoculation and there was no bad effect whatever.

516.nbsp; nbsp;What are the youngest beasts you have inoculated ?About two or three months old.

517.nbsp; Would you be prepared to recommend tha calves of that age should be inoculated ?Yes ; I do not see any difficulty about it. Those cases that I did about that age seemed to do all right.

518.nbsp; Now in answer to a question No. 429 by Sir George Macpherson Grant, I should like you to explain. I did not quite understand your answer. I think you recommended a certain course of treatment for animals in vour part of the country ?Yes.

519.nbsp; Now you must be perfectly well aware that what, is done in that part of the country will not apply to Inverness, to a large portion of Aberdeen-shire, and a great deal of Perthshire, nor would it apply to large portions of England?That would

be so.

520.nbsp; If the mutter was in your hands and you were made responsible for getting rid of this disease in the country, woidd you seriously recommend that all animals should be inoculated, and that they should not be allowed to leave the premiseraquo; for a year or for any period ?I think a year would be quite auffioient for the disease to disappear and any opposition to the operation with it.

621. That is to say, you are prepared to shut up all breeding stock for a year ?It is a pretty hard measure, perhaps, but probably that could be modified. I do not see that it is necessary.

522. You do not see that it is necessary ?We only propose to do that in order to bow to those who are opposed to it. f do not think it is necessary at all.

523.nbsp; I am not supposing that raquo;nybody is opposed tonbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Mr.

it, I want to put it to you, you are the responsible #9632;l.^Vlaquo;laquo;''. man, now would you think it necessary therefore to ₂,. . .j, _188tl

shut up breeding stock ?So far as my experience quot;'_______

goes I have no reason to say that it is necessary beyond 56 days.

524.nbsp; That is your experience ?That is my experience. If you inoculate, you understand.

525.nbsp; I mean after inoculation, of course. You would not consider it necessary. To meet the objections, supposing there are any objections; do you think it would be possible to frame two sets of rules, one to apply to dairy stock and one to raquo;pply to breeding-stock ?I think that that would be necessary.

526.nbsp; Do you think it would be absolutely necessary ?I think it would bo well to do it.

527.nbsp; Then you said that the disease came from the quot;West of Scotland, and from Ayrshire, and from Stirlingshire. May I ask what authority you have for saying that ?Well, my experience.

528.nbsp; Have you traced the cattle ?Undoubtedly.

529.nbsp; As having come from certain places?As having come from the hand of a particular dealer.

530.nbsp; That is to say, they were told so ?The owners said so. They were stores, but they said the particular dealer. I have no authority for mentioning names; but they said that they had bought the cows from a particular owner and I cannot certify that that is correct.

631. Was it in a fair or in the market ?In the Dundee market most of them. Some of them were bqught in Perth and others in one of the Dundee fairs.

532.nbsp; But it was bought in the open market ?Yes.

533.nbsp; And there was nothing to show disease ? There was nothing to show that it was diseased at that time ; it was not recognised in some cases until about two or three months after purchase, and in other cases it was recognised within a few weeks after the time it was bought.

534.nbsp; Did the cattle come into the market with a certificate ?I believe so.

535.nbsp; Are you satisfied that that is a true record of where the animal came from ?I do not say that.

536.nbsp; It might be perfectly possible that they might have come from any other county, they may have come from Ireland ?I will not make any statement on that point.

537.nbsp; It is possible though ?Well, I have my own opinion.

538.nbsp; {Chairman.) Following up the questions of Mr. Stirling, have you in Forfarshire ever had occasion to trace the disease to animals imported from Ireland ?Yes.

539.nbsp; In addition to those from the West of Scotland ?Yes, I have repeatedly seen it come from Ireland.

540.nbsp; But that has not come out in evidence ? That is the first time I have been asked tho question as far as I remember ; if it was asked previously, then I did not comprehend the question.

541.nbsp; Did they come directly from Ireland or were they exposed in a fair in Scotland in the interval ? I have seen them come from Ireland to our markets, and I have seen them afterwards developc the disease.

542.nbsp; Have you seen the contrary ? Have you seen them come direct from Ireland on to a farm and then an outbreak occur ?I do not romombor that; I can-

not say that positively, it may have been.

543.nbsp; What you can say positively, and it is tho only instance that you can directly prove, is that they were exposed in a fair in Scotland ?As a rule that is so.

644. I want your special knowledge and your facts upon this point ?I cannot give you one case in which they were sent direct from Ireland to tho farm, These are cases very rare with us, as a rule they all go to the fair first and find their way to the farm afterwards.

546. Have you been able to trace afterwards any disease breaking out amongst Scotch cattle coining from a fair in which disease has broken out, traceable to Irish cattle ?I have soon a groat miiny cases of disease amongst cattle that come from fairs.

III

= in

#9632;

__,__

I'll

COMMITTEE ON PLBUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS!

Mr. A. Spreull.

;A6. Yolaquo; have not fitmhed ^e a^wer P-Whät elPe is there?there is some connect.on with Iretond.

r.47. That is what I want to get, because you have told us that yolaquo; have .k-tected disease winch you attriVmtod to T'ish laquo;ittle PifP-

548nbsp; nbsp; Have yon over seelaquo; a case where disease bw broken out amongst cattle imported dlreot from Ireland on tea farm, unless they had always goiw through

ho intermediate laquo;tnge of exposure in a tair i* es.

549nbsp; nbsp;So far these Irish cattle became laquo;lisoasod when exposed. Now find us a case where Scotch Ofrttle from coming in contact with those Irish cattle vlso became diseased ?That is from coming in contact with the Irish cattle.

650. Yes ?No, I know of none.

661. In your opinion, as a practical ^ l^ave 3 observed any difference in the breeds of cattle-raquo;*at is, of one being more susceptible than another ?-Dairy cows are most susceptible.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .

552. I mean the breed of animals, whether Ayrshire Shorthorns, or Angus aro more susceptible i-! a^aSy give- opinfon on that point, because they are mixed; both Ayrshire and Shorthorn; but alter the disease is in the herd it takes one as well as the

^0t5^e5^r3 You do not believe that there is any difference in the susceptibility ?-Not if herded in the same lot

554. I am assuming that they are ?-I do not consider that there is any difference if the d.sease is already amongst them.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

555^y L. the evidence yolaquo; gave before the Highland Society you clogged your desire for inoculation with conditions, these conditions being confinement for U months or a lifetime ?Yes.

556. Now you tell Mr. Stirling, on the othei hand, that you recommend inoculation without any conditions ?But my reason for recommending I gave

557 But you have told us that you recommend it without conditions ?-I considered that there is no danger, but in order to do away with any opposition that might arise I am prepared to admit that those restrictions should be put on.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. .

558.nbsp; Do you therefore sacrifice your former opinion, then ?Yes, to that extent.

559.nbsp; To the belter opinion of others r-Lo he opinion of others. I do not pretend to have all the sense in the world.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

560nbsp; nbsp;But on this point you are supposed to be the highest authority?I have had some experience.

561nbsp; nbsp; No doubt or you would not hold the important #9632; position that you do. But you sacrifice your opinion

o he opinion of the outside p.blie ?-Tbere are other veterinary surgeons, as good or better men gt;yho hold a different opinion, and I think it is only flaquo;ir that I should yield to some extent to their opinion.

562. But with inoculation recommended here with

567.nbsp; The very bottom line but one in page S ? That lot was not a lot of cows. There was a byre on one side and then two cattle courts. I can make a diagram for you, these being succeeded by two other cattle courts.

568.nbsp; I do not think you need trouble j tho only question is whether they were indirect contact or not?

__Tin, two first courts were connected. There was

an open air space, and a door between the byre and the first court.

569.nbsp; nbsp;What do you mean by a considerable distance then ?There were four courts ; I will show it in this way.

570.nbsp; Is it a question of mileage or yards fA question of yards, may be 50 yards or so.

571.nbsp; That is a considerable distance. They were 50 yards then from the byre in which tho outbreak of disease had occurred ?Yes.

572.nbsp; But you would not consider that interval quite a safeguard ?No ; I do not say that it is, because it proved otherwise.

573.nbsp; What would you consider a safe distance ?1

could not tell you exactly.

574.nbsp; In this evidence other witnesses do say what a safe distance is. Would you say that a safe distance is 200 yards or 1,000 yards distance ?200 yards might not be safe, but 1,000 yards would be absolutely

safe.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,

575.nbsp; I ask you this. Have you had any experience of tuberculosis ?Yes, but not a great deal. We do not have a great deal of tuberculosis in our neighbourhood I believe it is much more amongst pure bred stock than with the kind of stock we have to deal

with.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

576.nbsp; You have nothing to tell us specially on that subject ?Not as far as I know, unless you ask something that I can answer.

577.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) Have you ever found any case of tuberculosis and pleuro-pneumonia going on ton-ether?Yes, I have seen tuberculosis accompanying pleuro-pneumonia. I now remember one outbreak in which seven out of nine animals had the combined diseases, the patches of pleuro-pneumonia being mostly encysted.

578.nbsp; nbsp;Could you give the Committee any idea ot the number of cases ?No, I could not.

579 Or the proportion ? They would be comparatively limited. I do not know the exact number. I could not tell you.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; v. ,.. laquo;

580.nbsp; It is not usual for them to be in combination iquot;

581.nbsp; Have you mot with any cases of tuberculosis in dairy cattle independently of pleuro-pneumonia ? Yes, frequently, and more frequently indeed that combined.

582 Could you give the Committee any short simple statement as to the means you have of distinguishing one from the other?Well, we distinguish them by their physical appearance as a rule. You can distinguish them also by microscopical examination, but as a rule in practice we do not do that.

25 April 1888.

Ä¹

those conditions, does it not rather impress the public vith the idea of distrust or a want of confidence in the operation ?Probably they might read it in that way, but it is not meant to convey any such impression.

Ö83. 1 mean in the living animal?We can distinguish them in the same way as pleuro-pueumonia, but if you had a case of encystment and an old case ot consumption the two are very readily confounded.

584. Is there anything in the condition of tho animal that would assist you ?Not to the eye, I do not think ; hut if you make a microscopical examination, probably you would find something in tho case of tuberculosis.

685 Have you never met with any case, or heard of any, in which the disease has bten confounded ? I have seen it confounded; I have confounded it myself.

586nbsp; nbsp;So that cases of tuberculosis havo been| condemned as cases of pleuro-pneumonia F-Tcs ; they were thought to be encysted cases until you killed them.

587nbsp; nbsp; Still the inspector has condemned them as cases of pleuro-pneumonia?They were killed on sus-

563. Now at the bottom of page 3, in your report to the Dundee magistrates on experiments tried by you, you gave an instance of an experiment. \m say, 'laquo; This stock, like the last-mentioned one (1lt;), were quot; not all put under the operation at once, but were lt; inoculated in two lots, as one half of the cattle were laquo; kept in a separate part of the steading, and at a con-quot; siderable distance from the byre in which the out-laquo;lt; break of the disease had occurred.quot; Now you say thai this stock therefore is inoculated in two lots i Yes; I had several of them that did that.

564' Had both lots been in contact with the disease ? -T do not remember which particular lot it is, I think that it refers to lot A Yes ; they were all standing in the same byre.

565 But then am I to understand that this one was at a considerable distance from a byre in which the outbreak had occurred ?_Probably.

566. Look at the bottom line PIs it instance quot; I you are referring to ?

l!f:ll:

ill!

MINUTES OV KVIDENCE.

picion; that is thu propel' way, killing them, behoving

them to bo enoysteu cases of plouro^pneumonln.

588.nbsp; nbsp;And in tlioso cases have you found the tuberculous deposit very general?Very extensive in the lungs.

589.nbsp; nbsp;So that with your experience ol cattle you could not be always sure whether you had an extensive case of tuberculosis or a ease of encysted pleuro-pneutnonia?You might confound them; I have confounded them. I think that 1 once confounded

them.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, .

590.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horslei/.) I forgot to ask you about tuberculosis. I should like to ask you whether there is tiny evidence of the milk of a tuberculous cow having produced tuberculosis in a calf ?I am not aware that anything of the kind has taken place, but at the same time I can quite believe that it would be so.

591.nbsp; nbsp;Then you do not know any relation which has existed between the taking of tuberculous milk and the producing of tuberculosis in the human being P No, I could not; but it stands to reason that it might be so. I believe that it is so. I believe that tuberculous inilk is very bad for the human subject, and worse a great deal than the milk of pleuro-pneumonin.

502. How many cases of tuberculos's in cattle do you see in a year ?I believe they would occur perhaps once a fortnight; there would be about that in the slauahter-house approximately, I do not say positively, it might be a shade more or loss | but it is much more prevalent in some districts than it is in others.

593.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) And amongst difierent breeds of cattle than others ?I believe that in fine bred stock if tiiey once get the tuint it develops much more from in-iind-in breeding, from the desire to produce the maximum of good qnnlities.

594.nbsp; (Professor Ilorsley.) Is not the m-and-in breeding sufficient to account for it entirely ?I think that it may be so.

595.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) As a matter of fact, are Irish cattle separated in the markets from Scotch cattle ? My experience is that Irish cattle are exhibited in the same markets as Scotch cattle, but not in the same pens.

59(5. {Mr. 13oweti-Jones.) Does this account for immunity from disease ?-Probably it does, but probably it is duo more to the markets being held in the open air.

Mr. A. Spreull,

25 April 1888,

I i

|i III

M':

. %

The witness withdrew.

Cornelius Cunningham, V.S., of Slateford, near Edinburgh, called and examined.

C. Cunningham, V.S.

597.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairmnn.) You are a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?Yes.

598.nbsp; And you practice at Slateford, near Edinburgh ?\'es.

599.nbsp; You are also one of the veterinary inspectors to the local authority of Edinburgh under the Contagious Diseases Act of 18Y8 ?Yes.

600.nbsp; Have you been an examiner in anatomy and cattle practice for the Highland Society ?Yes, about 10 years.

601.nbsp; Have you also been examiner on the board ot the Eoyal College of Surgeons ?Yes, in horse anatomy, in the room of Dr. Fleming, when he was unwell, on three different ocsasions.

602.nbsp; As a practical veterinary surgeon have you paid considerable attention to cattle pathology ?Yes.

603.nbsp; In your practice has your attention been specially directed towards pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes, very specially directed.

604.nbsp; Why very specially directed, is it m consequence of your residence in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh ?In consequence of the prevalence of the disease in my district.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

605.nbsp; Which is due to the number of dairy herds m the district ?Yes, and the frequent changes of the cattle, the frequent changes of the cows in the dairies.

606.nbsp; But is it not owing in u great measure to the existence of the dairy herds in your district ?^Yes-

607.nbsp; And the consequent practice of changing the cattle ?Yes.

608.nbsp; I need hardly ask you, I suppose, as the result of your practice,whether you consider pleuro-pneumonia a curable disease or not after an outbreak ?Of course for a good many years we have not tried to cure it.

609.nbsp; Because you believe it to be an incurable disease ?Yes, it is an incurable disease.

610.nbsp; And therefore your practice is more of a preventive character ?Yes.

611.nbsp; In what direction, will you tell the Committee, has your methods of prevention pointed ?At first, and practising under the Act by itself, by simply slaughtering the affected animals we sometimes got quit of the disease, but in other cases, in spite of prompt slaughter und every precaution we could take, the disease would go on taking two or three subjects now and then, and linger for weeks and months about the premises. 1 was dissatisfied with that state of matterraquo;, and hearing of Mr. Rutherford's success, I thought I would give inoculation a fair and full trial.

612.nbsp; In consequence of what you heard ot Mr. Rutherford's practice did you commence inociilntion r¹

o 54003.

No, sir, I sent for Mr. Rutherford, and gave inoculation the fairest and fullest trial I could.

613.nbsp; Allow me to ask you whether in consequence of what you heard of Mr. Rutherford's practice you commenced inoculation ?Yes.

614.nbsp; How long have you practised inoculation? I began my first inoculation in October 1878.

615.nbsp; And since that time how many outbreaks have you attended ?I have had 18 outbreaks.

616.nbsp; During these outbreaks did you inoculate some of the animals ?Yes, we killed the diseased animals, and inoculated the remaining healthy ones.

017. And can you tell the Committee how many cases of inoculation occurred in those 18 outbreaks ? 500 inoculations.

618.nbsp; And what was the result of those inoculations?

__The result in every instance in my district was

that we got quit of the disease in from three to four weeks from the date of the operation.

619.nbsp; Did you lose many animals in consequence of the operations ?I have only seen four deaths from the operation.

620.nbsp; nbsp;Had you any instance of encysted lung, where encysted animals produced the disease?Do you mean with uninoeulated ?

621.nbsp; No, inoculated ?No, I have not.

G22. Can you readily detect encystment ?No, I cannot.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

623.nbsp; Therefore in going into a herd and being io nor ant of the antecedents connected with that herd you would have a difficulty in discovering whether the animals were healthy or encysted?Well, in mere encysts we might have a difficulty, but generally speaking we have not very great difficulty.

624.nbsp; But I understood you to say that you had a difficulty in discovering an encystinent ?Well, perhaps in one or two cases we might, but by inspecting herds with a thermometer, and other means at our disposal, I think that we can generally detect it. It would not leave very many undetected. That has been my experience.

626. And is the result of your experience that you would recommend inoculation in all cases of nn outbreak of disease ?Yes.

626.nbsp; Would you carry that further and recommend it universally ?In the case of disease, I would.

627.nbsp; But not without disease ?No, I would not recommend it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; laquo; . i i

628.nbsp; Then in the case of a series of outbreaks in any given neighbourhood, would you think it desirabk to inoculate the herds of tho ndjoining farms ?Yes, I would think it desirable, but it is not always

OOMMITTEK ON PLEUBO-PNMOUMONIA AND TUDKBCUL08I8:

C. Cimnitig'

hum, V.S.

25 April 1888-

nooossavy. I Imvo soon instances of that kind, and I had, but last your, u caso where In a certain district we had three outbreaks, In which inoculation was per-formod, surrounded by other farms, and wo did not inoculate tlio healthy adjoinlna farms or dairies, and wo succeeded in doing away with the diseaseit never spread any furtherwithout the inoculation ot the surrounding healthy stock.

629. I notice that you used the word quot; dairy. Uo you wish to indicate'to the Committee that your own oxporience is confined to dairy farms so far as this disease is concerned ?Not chiefly confined to dairy farms.. I have had other experience of breeding stock, several instances among stock.

6.'50. Do you consider that dairy cows in Ml milk are more susceptible than others ?I do.

631.nbsp; At what stage do you think after the disease has disappeared from the farm it would be safe to reiu-troduce fresh stock ?After inoculation ?

632.nbsp; nbsp;Yes ? -My practise is to inoculate the healthy animals, and I generally try to get the premises at least three months closed or isolated after inoculation. I think the promises might be freed within two months, but I prefer three months, and if possible four months.

633.nbsp; Upon what facts in your experience is that opinion based ?In almost all the outbreaks I have had, after inoculation the animals stand the 56 days, or three months or four months, if we can get this additional time, and then immediately afterwards some of my inoculated stock have been sold and a fresh lot of cows, not inoculated, brought in amongst them, and the latter stand perfectly healthy, and I have not had any recurrence of disease.

634.nbsp; Have you ever known an instance of disease being conveyed by individuals, by the herdsman or veterinary surgeon ?No.

635.nbsp; nbsp;And is it your experience that these outbreaks take place more frequently in winter than summer, or the reverse ?Spring is the most common time with me; February to May.

636.nbsp; Do you find that you are equally sucoesstul in inoculation during the whole time of the year ? No, I like mild moderate weather ; if too hot or too cold it is not favourable.

637.nbsp; But you do not find that generally in the spring ? -But that is the time I have generally found the out-

tho promises. Well, I believe, there is still a great deal of the contagion left on tho premises. Attor . stamping out you have to reintroduce fresh stock into the previously iulectod premises without any inoculation Of course under the inoculating process we inoculate all tho stock and close the premises for at least

047 Have you road tho evidence taken before the Highland Society ?No, I have not read it.

648nbsp; nbsp; Have you ever read any of the results ot the experiments at the Brown Institute ?No, I simply confine myself to my own practieul experience ot

inoculation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,, , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;e__,

649nbsp; nbsp;Therefore, if you are told that men ot your own profession had carried out important experiments, that they found it impossible to communicate disease other than by direct contact, you would not think that that would be in accordance with your experience^ No There are instances without doubt that, alter stamping out, if uniuoculated stock be put into the premises again, the disease will break out.

050 It would be very valuable to hear the instances to which you refer ?I have none of my own. I have never had any.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

651.nbsp; Have you ever had a case in your practice where such a thing occurred ?No; but I have known of two instances of friends of my own.

652.nbsp; Could you give us the names of those gentlemen?Mr. Aitkcn, of Dalkeith, and Professor Williams, and I think Mr. Rutherford ; but I am not so sure about Mr. Rutherford. I have never had instances in my own practice.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_ , .. j enc

653.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) You said you inoculated 6Ub animals ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

654.nbsp; What class of animals ? Were they chiefly dairy cows?Principally dairy cows. __ , ,.

655.nbsp; Were there any young stock ?Yes, breeding

656.nbsp; Up to what age?All ages.

657.nbsp; What has become of this stock, do you know f Most of them were dairy cows, and have been sent fat to slaughter.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; #9632; e

658.nbsp; Have you any record of any examination ot those dairy stock ?After slaughter ? . . ,

659.nbsp; Yes. Any post-mortem examination .-'JNo, they passed out of my hands.

660.nbsp; You are perfectly unable to say what the condition of the lungs were at the time of slaughterlaquo;' Yes, at the time of slaughter, but those animals never did any harm or produced disease at home. Whatever state their lungs were in they never produced pieuro-pneumonia in their district, and I see no reason why they should produce it elsewhere.

001. You said there were 18 outbreaks. Was there fresh stock mixed with these 506 animals atter your inoculation ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;laquo; r i. #9830;

602 And you have never known ot a iresb outbreak ?Not after the three months. I have never known of a fresh outbreak. Inoculated stock and fresh stock have stood side by side; I have seen them

often.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, T

663 When you were called in to examine a neru, what 'tests did you put to them?-I go generally around the animals and take a very careful look at them. Sometimes by this simple means we can pick out the unhealthy ones.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , o

664. From what circumstances do you judge i From their appearance, generally. They show an unhealthy appearance in their coat, and are not well filled up in their stomachs. Then we take the thermometer to them,

665nbsp; nbsp;What range of temperature do you consider a sign of disease ?Unless in very sultry weather, in which case T have seen even healthy cows up to 103, between 103 and 104 I look upon them with sus-

666nbsp; nbsp;Would you proceed to recommend them for slaughter under the Act ?It depends entirely on circumstances. Of course we do not depend upon the thermometer entirely, I find other circumstances raise the temperature.

#9632;#9632;A

* '#9632;

#9632;I

breaks occurring.

638.nbsp; And that is the most important time tor inoculation ?But we never inoculate without disease.

639.nbsp; You say that the outbreaks occur in the spring, but as a matter of fact you prefer to inoculate in the mild weather. Therefore you are inoculating in the spring when the weather is somewhat inconvenient for your operation ?Oh, yes. Of course in February and March we sometimes have very bad weather, unfavourable to inoculation.

640.nbsp; nbsp;Am I to understand that you consider that stamping out by slaughter is the correct principle for all diseased animals ?Yes, aifeeted animals.

641.nbsp; You would not go so far as to say probably, that you had equal faith in inoculation for exterminating the disease?1 do not understand the question.

642.nbsp; You would not go so far us to say that you had equal faith in exterminating disease from the country by inoculation as you would by slaughter ? 1 simply advocate the inoculation of infected animalsnot healthy animals.

643.nbsp; nbsp;I am speaking now of animals in contact ?1 would not advise the slaughter of animals in contactI advise inoculation of them.

644.nbsp; nbsp;Would you bo as likely to get rid of the diseasby inoculating the animals in contact as you would by slaughtering them ?Taking the other things intconsideration, I think we would. I prefer inoculation

645.nbsp; nbsp;It is not what you prefer; but does your experience lead you to believe that it would be equallefflcnoiouB; is that so ?-1 believe it would, takinother things into consideration.

646.nbsp; nbsp;Wiiat arc the things that you wish to take intconsideration ?When we stamp out the whole of

litt

herd we kill the healthy and diseased alike, and empty

-----

MINUTES OV KVIDBNCK.

. Cunning-

667 Would that tempcnvlaro not indicate any other possible disease?Oh, plenty of other things that would cause the rise of temperature. A cow near the calving stands genorally at 104, and stomach derangement would raise the temperature. Wo take those things into consideration. We examine the chest by auscultation. We judge each case on Us own

merits.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ *

668.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that using auscultation is Bufficient; are you certain to discover disease ?Not always. Underneath the shoulder, near the first or second ribs, you cannot. You cannot delect by auscultation alone.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , ' ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;* 5 tgt;

669.nbsp; Whether an animal has pleuro or not i*liy simple auscultation over the second or third ribs.

670.nbsp; Under these circumstances you would not inoculate the animal ?Of course I judge each beast on its own merits. In these doubtful cases we generally inoculate and watch the result. I think that inoculation has the power of developing the disease more

^qU671. Inoculation has the power of doing what? It has the power of developing the disease more quickly, and bringing it to light more quickly.

6^2.__Have you ever known a case of an encysted

lung ?' Have vou known of a case where the fresh outbreak of disease has been traced to an encysted lung ?I stamped out a place yesterday. That outbreak was due to an uninoculated cow with an encysted lung. Of course there was no inoculation practised there.

673.nbsp; You think that if you inoculated a beast which had the disease that that inoculation would develop it more rapidly ?Yes, if the animal had the seeds of the disease on it in the incipient stage I believe that inoculating that animal would develop the disease more rapidly. On the other hand, if the animal had passed through the disease and had nn encysted lung, the inoculation would not probably develope at all.

674.nbsp; But then would it not be possible that the capsule surrounding that encystment should at some time break afterwards and that animal become a centre of disease?I have never seen that, and I do not believe in that very much, because I think that that capsule substance, and the material that the capsule surrounds, is quite different from the pleuro-pneumoma lesions in the incipient stage or the developed stage. The capsule simply contains a piece of dead lung that has sloughed off and become separate and it is surrounded with pure matter. It is simply a dead bit of lung surrounded with matter enclosed in a sue, a very different thing from the lymph thrown out in the developing stages of plenro-pneumouia.

675.nbsp; I understand that is your opinion, you have made no experiments ?That is the real fact, sir, and the true state of matters; the cyst simply contains the dead part of lung surrounded with pure pus ; there is no lymph in that instance.

676.nbsp; I understand you to moan there is no danger in consequence of an encysted lung ; you would have no hesitation in putting that ?I would scarcely go that length; but what I wish to bring out is this, that I think there is too much weight attached to the fact of those encysted lungs with sacs and dead pieces cf lung in them. I do not think that these cases are really so capable of producing disease as what is gone-rally understood.

677.nbsp; But we are anxious to stamp out the disease in the country, and we do not want to give the disease a chance of going about and being re-introduced ?I am just as anxious as you are, and I have done my very best, and I have cleared my district without any stamping out. It never recurs, and I think that my plan is as good as the stampiug-out system, and is bettor. In former years, under the Act, without inoculation I tried to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia, but it recurred frequently; but since adopting inoculation I have had no recurrence after the three months' closure of the premises.

678. (Chairman.) Why does it recur ?It ha:? not recurred.

#9632; 079. Then you have a sinocuro ?It has not

ham, V.U.

curred with me in my district. Take the case hat

have hero in my list of outbreaks. 1 his is the lirst

25 April 1888.

se in 1878. The farm was a well-known bad centre disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. .

680 (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) Ts that a tlairy rm?Yes. That dairy has had the disease lour mes to my knowledge, twice under the Act. Alter e inoculated in 1878 that dairy was free from leuro-pneumonia up to last summer.

681. (Mr. Stirling From 1878 ?Yes. 1, at airy had pleuro-pneumonia four tunes within the iflht years prior to 1878, but after inoculating in 878 there was no disease till last summer, and then o were able to trace it from a cow from Edinburgh r Wishaw. Hero is a bad centre, and there was the requent recurrence of pleuro-pneumonia betöre wo eean inoculation, then we inoculated and the disease isappeared, and it did not make its appearance again or eight years. The second case was another very ell-known centre of disease. I have even seen that lace decimated by pleuro.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . ,, i_ai

682. (Chairman.') Is all this referring to the local authority of the county of Edinburgh ?Yes. ihis second outbreak in 1879. I have seen that byre very frequently ; the disease used to come back every now and again and run its course. But after Mr. Rutherford and I inoculated there in 1879, the premises have been free from pleuro-pneumonia.

6H3 (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) May we have the name of the farm, or is it a dairy farm ?Yes, it is in the county, and it is a dairy farm.

684 (Professor Horsley.) When you take what, you call lyiiph from the lung, how do you know whether the part of the lung you take it from is sun -able for inoculation ?-I take the whole circumstances into account. I examine the animal while alive; it must be a healthy animal and in good condition with the disease just beginning to develope itseü. _

685. Then you take the patch just as it is ; m what state would you consider it suitable ?-We do not generally take a patch ; we take above the patches

686 Do you take just outside the patch?Just where'the diseased and healthy meet There, in a good subject the cellular tissue is filled with yraph. That is the proper part from which to select the lymph.

687.nbsp; nbsp;What is the colour like?It is like sherry ; a

clear amber colour.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , v. tw

688.nbsp; What is the character of the lymph that you get; is that also quite clear ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

689.nbsp; Do you use the seton as a means of inoculation ?_Ycs, a seton of worsted thread.

690 Have you ever tried any other kind t-JNo.

691. How do you know whether the inoculation has been successful ?-Thcre is a certain course of procedure ; certain appearances present themselves after about the fifth or sixth day. Yon begin to sec a little swelling about the part, and the hair begins to stand on end ; that is one of the characteristics of it and the swelling and standing on end of the hair go on increasing considerably to the eighth or ninth day. In some cases it simply subsides again and there is no more about it. In other instances clear ymph begins to form at the root of the hairs and trickle down Whenever we see either of these appearances we say that the inoculation has been successful.

692.nbsp; (Chairman.) From other signs, does there seem to be any disturbance of the animal s health iraquo; There is a little perhaps for the first two days, but very little. The animals look and feed as well as

before.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

693.nbsp; (Professor Horsley.) Do you regard an animal that was clean before it was inoculated as beinquot; quite clean afterwards and incapable of conveying Ve disease?-! consider it after two or three months incapable ; I go by facts and I may say that I never took a healthy animal and placed it beside the animal that I had recently inoculated; 1 would not

^lt;O094 Then yon have no actual evidence that the

freshly inoculated animal was really capable of 111-

¹nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;C 2

COMMITTEE ON PLEUWO-l'NEUMOMA AND TUBEKOULOSIS l

714nbsp; nbsp;Was there any reason to suppose in that instance that it was possible for any current of air to have earned the poison ?No, I do not think so.

715nbsp; nbsp;Do you know tho arrangement ot tho walls, and so on?I do not think there would be any direct current of air between the two places, having retwd to the arrangement of the walls. There is another way that that cow might have been infected She was but recently in ; she may havo come out ot an infected herd, and not have got the contagion from

this byre.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;... ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -a

716. {Chairman.) When laquo;lid that cow come in? She was not very long in I remember.

717 (Professor Horsley) Could you find out tor the information of the Committee the facts con-oerning this cow ?I will endeavour to find it out.

liH (Chairman.) At the moment you did not think it sufficiently important to inquire iquot;to ?1 think that I had the information at the time. I think that I remember asking the man about the cow ; but I have forgotten it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; m- .

719 But there was nothing sufficiently startling to induce you to settle in your mind that that occurred from causes other than what arose in that byre ? Perhaps I should give you the full history of the case. The cow was taken from the shed and put into the diseased byre. She had only been a fortnight in this byro, and we found when she was killed that the lesion was of longer date, that it could not have occurred in the fortnight, and she must have had the disease in

the previous byre.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. ,. n

720 lt;Professor HorsUy.) Could you give the Committee any indication of how long it had been the property of this farmer ?The owner bought an Irish cow in Edinburgh market, and he brought her home and put her into tho centre of a big byre. And a week afterwards he sent for me to come and see her, and I took her out and killed her, and found pleuro-pneumonia; and in about a month four cows began to show indications of the disease. I should think this cow would have been put in almost the same time as the first or Irish cow, but I am not certain.

721.nbsp; That would be about five weeks, do you _nlean ?_No ; it would have been about two months.

722.nbsp; Then do you think, from the appearance of the lung, that the lesion was older than two months ? It would be about two or three months old; of course I did not expect to be here, and therefore I did not take very particular notice.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , .

723.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the protection afforded by inoculation, how long do you think it lasts, judging from your experience ?I cannot say from experience.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. . T

724.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any limit?There is no limit. 1 have no right data for judging.

795 Have the animals that you have observed remained free from disease until the time they were billed ?Yes, the disease has never attacked an inoculated cow after my inoculation.

V2G You soy that you have lost four animals in 500 inoculations?I have seen four pure deaths from the operation. Perhaps I should qualify that a little by saying that I have seen other casualties where the cow required to be killed after-these were not exactly deaths. Of course we take very great cure of these inoculated cows, and some of the deaths were due to cold and carelessness on tho part of the attendants.

727.nbsp; What was the total number of animals that have died in consequence of inoculation, including all accidents and casualties ; that is, including those that had to ho slaughtered ?Four actual deaths and seven casualties.

728.nbsp; Seven slaughtered ?Yes.

729.nbsp; That would be 11 altogether ?Yes. 730 I suppose some of those animals died froir.

septic ' poisoningfrom septicaemia ; could you tell ,0 how many ?-No, I do not think I cou d ihere were four of these animals, which succumbed to exposure to cold. They were inoculated, and they were slaughtered for paralysis in the hinder quarters.

C. Cunntng ham, V.S.

feotlna another?No, simply because I have never

nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;698. But you have a natural (Hsmclinatiou to put a

15 April 1888. _recently |nooulated animal with a healthy one?Yes,

----------- I would not do it- It is quite possible that the

inoculated animal might commuuicato disease when it is freshly inoculated, but I have no direct proot ot

69ß What do you believe to be the duration of time liuit the virus takes to develop in the animal; what is the incubation period ?I do not know; 1 have no certain data for that.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

697.nbsp; nbsp;But do you know from your own experience t I think about three or four or five days.

698.nbsp; Do you mean from the time of inoculating t

Yes

699nbsp; nbsp;When the animal takes the disease in tho usual way, in what is called the natural way how long do you think it is then?From three weeks to two months; that is about tho usual time.

700nbsp; nbsp;Have you known of any case in which the length of time appeared to be much greater ?Yes.

701nbsp; nbsp; What is the longest time of which you know ( That would require a little consideration ; I am, perhaps, scarcely prepared to answer that question

^(e702^eit would be quite sufficient if you could give us some sort of opinion ?-I think the longest period in my experience has been about four or five months; that is my own experience, but, of course, I have heard of other instances which have been different.

703 Can you tell the Committee whether in those cases of very long incubation period the disease was obtained from an animal with an encysted disease in its lungs, or whether it was obtained from a recently imported animal ?-The one that I referred to as the longestas the four monthswas this last outbreak that I had, about two weeks ago.

704. That was by means of an encysted animal, was _it _not ?An encysted animal not inoculated.

705 Have you any reason to suppose from what you have seen that the byre is ever the source of

#9632; #9632; quot;

infection, except from what you have understood from your friends. Professor Williams and Dr. Aitken i

70S. Have you any reason to suppose from your own person.! experience that the virus is capable of being transmitted on the clothes ot herdsmen ?Not from my own experience.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

707nbsp; nbsp; Do you from your own experience believe that the skin of one animal is capable of carrying it to another : I mean the skin of a living animal, supposing its saliva dropped on its hide and touched another animal ?-It is merely conjecture, 1 have no positive

proof of it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i i

708nbsp; nbsp;When yon spoke of animals being m contact, what docs that quot; contactquot; imply; does it imply that they have been in the same stall or in divided stalls ( Under the same roof, in tho same shed or cowhouse.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

709. Not necessarily separated from each other .' The two cows would be some distance apart; itcoinmon to find that when you have a diseased cow iis not the one next to it that takes the disease, busome cow away at another p:irt ol tho byre.

710nbsp; nbsp; Do you mean that, there are no partitionbetween the animals?There are no partitions between the animals.

711nbsp; nbsp; Have you seen any shed fitted with partitionbetween the animals in which the disease has spreafrom one stall to the next stall ?-l could give oninstance of a big byre, and we had three or foudiseased cows in another byre which was a a goodistance, and in that wo actually had one of tho cowinfected.

712.nbsp; How many yards would they be from onanother ?They would be about a dozen yard

apui't.

713.nbsp; Across an open space?Yes; it was a separa

byre altogether.

MINUTKS OF EVIDKNCK.

731. Had they much swelling on the back?Not

^atm No swelling on the baoU-No, the tails had hoaled it pretty well n.ul there was no welUDg. They Ld been exposed to cold draughts, and the cold

^Pr0₇WhÄ^iBthese ani.naisdiofrom ^ dejth ot four was from excess of inoculaHon-the excess o tho swelUnlaquo; of the vulva and anus-but you could ot ill feptio poisoning ; it did not affect the con-quot;titution of the animal; it was only a local swelling.

734? That would leave four quot;quot;^^un_f^ted. f⁰^-These four were slaughtered being unable to nse from

^rSeven died from excess and four died from cold and paralysis ; is that what you say ?No ; tour actuary died Vom excess of swelling four were tehtered for paralysis arising from cold, and three

C. Cunningham, V.S.

^^mMLSrin^tÄt£

36 April 1888.

ll ler^toek would have to be slaughtered ofi rt lice; that would be a very 8^^^ ^5 people not to tell, but to hide the ^tl S'^to_of''.^ he ease and say nothing about it. ^e^f oouv^ there is the heavy expense. These outbie k that 1 _hlld last year under inoculation cost the local authority laquo;bout raquo;50/., that was amo^ 22o c t 'n,₀ BlniiffhterlnK up of this man s stock that I aid y\tit f miTy Ilaquo; -ws, will, I reckon, be an expense to the local authority ot about 200/.

K^ErrÄi-t,^ it is stamped out vet You lave given us now in addition to what ^ou gave us before, namely, thecontagon left on the SL, that die principal poiuts which laquo;eem to be obiectionable to your mind are the expense and also tKuelty Nowl think you cleaned a dairy farm ftom Sto 1888 when you commenced inoculation ?

~748' Had there been cases previous to 1878?-

^Y^XTo⁰u^UtS^C how they were dealt with pre-.Jus to IS^P-Twice they were ^alt -.thunder the Act alone. I bad the premises under the Con ta-ious D seases Animals Act. The disease lingered Ä?se prlises for about ^

time, and the man lost, V¹''^ tl Lt Now thJ and nearly 30 another under the Act. JNow Wtvear undo/inoculation the man did not report th dCse early enough, and he ^^l ^T-cow on his premises that was in fact almost dead

^islrthe cow which came from Wishaw? _I do not know where thateow came from. 1 do not think tills cow was the one that brought the disease to

^ö^rin 1887 or 1888 you f J tbere was an old pleuro cow that was nearly dead ?-In 1887, last summer, there was an old pleuro cow nearly dead. We hoHhat cow, put down five others. TJe owner thus lost only six cows. Inoculation saved the others, about 30^y in number,-a great difference from former

^752. Ilaquo; a dairy of this sort, between 1878 and 1887 or 1888, whichever it is, what was the average We of a dairy cöw in your Midlothian dames ?-fen months

''^^Had'there been any contagion in the premises and might it not quite well have been shown in 1878/ Ül do not think the premises bad anything to do

^Wri thought you said that you did consider that contagion hadl great deal to do with the premises?

Not in that instance.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i #9830;!,* r

755nbsp; nbsp;Not in that instance alone ?1 said that i had never had any case in my own district where the premises have caused it, but some of my inds have I think that the outbreak in 1887 was caused by the imnortafion of cows from Wishaw.

756nbsp; nbsp;(K Clomurry.) Did these 18 outbreaks occur in byres ?Tt es.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;...

757nbsp; nbsp;Did you ever know of an animal in the open air, an out-feeding animal, have pleuro-pneumoma ? In two of the outbreaks the cattle were at the pasture, going to the fields in the day and coming into the byres at night.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_v

758. Corning in to be milked at night?--*esj coming in, remaining all night, and then turned out

I 111

PI h \ r P

H t.n be s uiisrniereu ior cÄVit,o,-gt;.. v -.-------

736nbsp; nbsp;Have many of the animals that you have in ooStÄ the tail, have you had to amputate he the tail?-1 could scarcely give you that at he momen Last summer I saved 75 per cent, of toils.

737nbsp; nbsp;Ilaquo; the loss of the tail in your opinion a serious ^advantage to the animal^-Of course a great many laquo;f the animals lose about 4 or 5 inches ot tnen teil quot;hat consider the whole tail is up to the ^ry'top, and I have only amputated the whole tail in

^ft m ÄyoTdo notthink it is a serious thing ?- -Jtls acisualty that we would rather do w'hout, but we do not consider it a very serious tin. g. Ihe ZrZ feeds perfectly well without ^1, ^ as J say there are only about five or six, that have lost tlio

^iaVS' (Sir G. MaoPherson Grant.) How many of those 18 outbreaks were in the case of dames and Sy farms ?-I think there was only one really breed-

iJ out pleuro-pneumonia by inocuktion has been nractically confined to the case of dairies, and not to ffgSl breeding stock of the country ?-There is

^ToTout of 18?-There were a good many

^XÄ'iyyofhad only one outbreak out of Se 18 ihich s^cüically referred o quot;d^ breeding stock in an ordinary farmer s held ?-Yes, i

^WiU^Ut You -recked by the Chairman whether vour view being that inoculation is useful in stamping ^utp euro pneumonia, you would recommend its un veml usequot; and I understood you to say tha taking evervthinquot; into consideration you would not .then ToÄ asked by the Chairman what were the thing that vou would take into consideration, and we nevei sot anv further than that you ob ected to it on the S und^hal if you stamp out by B^hter/ou could not set rid of the contagion that was left on thoromises that was the only reason that you gave usI S ?-Of course I have other objections to stamp

^ing₇44^lt,Will you tell us what the other objections arwhich you have to stamping out in deaUng witiTro Is compared with inoculation ?--0ne greaoSon that 1 havejto stamping out is ho cruebSnatureof the work. You have to kill off thwhole of the man's stock.

*?amp; (Chairman.) Gruel to the man do you mean

-Cruel to the stock, and in another way it is cru

* rtf mar, Here are 17 outbreaks among dair

h f;

alt;raquo;ain in the morning.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. .

759 Did you cvet- know of a case where the an.ma was altogether out in the open and was never brough into the bouses, say, in the summer, ^en it WM out day and night?-! cannot say; in my own district they are generally tied up. I had some isolated cattle It a placcf a goocf many years a*laquo; wWch we laquo;ever inside, they were out on Cnuglocklmr 11.11, ' ^ quot;⁸' and they took pleuro-pneumonia, I believe if I were

(#9632;#9632;;

raquo;8 aTdaiquot; stock and if I had slaughtered tlmm

out as I slaughtered that man's out yesterday that

would h've been a cruel proceeding to the 600 cow.

Id their owners. I practically put an end to that

mTn's business for two months , his m.lk and his Stock

Z cone and he is only pai.l compensation for the

y due of tic animals. 1. is a heavy loss to the man,

I it /a cruel piece of business to the ca tic.

Another objection tlmtl have to stamping out is this,

COMMITTED ON PLKUUO-X'NEUMONIA ANIgt; TÜBRK0ULOSIS:

C. Cunningham, V.S.

25 April 188fl.

looking over my books I could find other instances ; but that is the only one that oocim to me just now.

160. Was that before 1S78 ?Yes.

761 (Mr. liowen-Jones.) I think I gatheml trom your remarks that you do not consider the ÖÖ days are sufficient to render a herd free from liability to contagion ?-My own opinion is that it is rather a short time. T like another month, or perhaps two, it 1 can get it ; but I have cleared the promises at the end of 56 days and have seen no bad effect.

702 Why do you consider this extra time is required ?I think the longer time that wo have the

better.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

763. Do vou think the germs'remain on the premises or that the germs remain in one of the animals i More in the animals than in the premises, lake a case where there had been three or four or halt-a-dozen diseased animals in the premises, and the others are inoculated. That produces a sort of mild fever, which requires time to subside and for everything to settle down. That is the only reason. I think the 06 days rather short, and I like a little longer time.

764 Then you do not consider that animals are really free from contagion under four months.''1 es. I have seen it less than that,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

765.nbsp; I understood you have seen cases m which they arc safe in two months; hut you told us just now that you considered four months was a better period ? Yes, it is a better period.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^

766.nbsp; I)o you consider they are safer at four months thaji at two months?Yes.

767.nbsp; You stated just now that you objected to stamping out because the disease is left in the premises ; is that so ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

768 Is not disease left on the premises after inoculation ?That brings a point out that I cannot explain but I can state the fact that people bring in fresh stock not inoculated into inoculated premises and they do not take the disease, whereas in former times when brought in in that kind oi way they would have taken the disease readily. Under inoculat on our people now, with impunity, bring in fresh cattle sooner than they used to do long ago when the premises were cleaned out.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_aA_a,.~ 769 Is it your contention that inoculation rendeis animals entirely safe from contracting the disease a-rain ?As far as my experience goes it is. quot;770. Do you mean to say they never have it a second time ?-I have never seen it, that is all 1 have

^g0771 ^6aWhat is your personal experience with animals that are inoculated ; how long have you known them to live without having disease ?-What I have already Btated is that I have never seen a cow that i nave inoculated take plouro-pneumonia afterwards.

772. Has any animal that you have inoculated lived two years after you have inoculated it^1 should say that they have lived at least 18 months.

773 Then your experience only enables you to say that inoculation is a safeguard for 18 months P-Yes, so far as my experience goes.

771 And you know nothing as to whether it is a safeguard for any longer period ?-No I have had no opportunities for testing it. If I had been in a breeding district five or mx years ago I would have tested it, but unfortunately I am not m a breeding district, and therefore I have not had an opportunity of testing it.

775. After an outbreak in the byre I suppose you usually disinfected ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ - . _in _nrn

776 Would any disinfection bo sufficient to prevent a fresh outbreak after the removal of all diseasecattle ?According to the gentlemen that I hav

mentioned it was not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; g t l, .,

777. But from your own experience i'l havnever seen it come from the premises themselves.stated that I had never seen an instance of the kindbut I had heard of instances where it apparently ha

778 Yolaquo; recommend inoculation not slaughterin

should not you carry that out universally right through the country; if it is right in one case why should it not be in the other ? There is a very great difference. In the one ease you have the stock directly exposed to the contagion and diseased animals amongst them. In the other instance you have perfectly healthy animals with no disease near them. 1 think it is quite time enough to inoculate when the disease comes about the premises.

779.nbsp; Then you admit that you would never get rid of the disease by inoculating only a portion of the herds of the country ?I do not say that.

780.nbsp; Why, does it come in again ?It comes into my district from other parts where inoculation is not practised, principally from Wishaw, and sometimes from Cumberland, and sometimes from Ireland. Irish cows, Cumberland cows, and West of Scotland cows are the animals that in my opinion have brought the disease to my district.

781.nbsp; nbsp;If you can attest that, if you can get rid ot disease by inoculation, on what grounds do you disapprove of inoculation being carried out compulsonly throughout the country ?Because I think it is unnecessary.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

782.nbsp; But you say that disease comes in from the country now ?Yes. What I contend is this : that if inoculation was practised in Cumberland, and Ireland, and the West of Scotland, the same as Mr. Rutherford and myself do itI will only speak for our two selves the disease would very rapidly disappear from these districts.

783.nbsp; Do you say that inoculation cures disease in

your district ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

784.nbsp; If inoculation was practised in other districts from your point of view would it not cure disease in those districts ?Yes.

785.nbsp; If it was therefore practised compulsonly, would it not cure the whole of the kingdom ?But the inoculation is, of course, attended with certain little drawbacks, you very often lose a little bit of the end of the tail, for instance.

786.nbsp; Would it stamp out the disease in the whole of the country ?I believe it would.

787.nbsp; nbsp;Then why do not you recommend it ?Simply because of the inconveniences attending inoculation. Of course when you inoculate very often you have to take off a few inches at the end of the tail, perhaps you may kill an animal or disfigure an animal.

788.nbsp; nbsp;[Chairman.) Might that not occur in all _cases ?_If _We could perform inoculation successfully without leaving any blemish or endangering the life of the animal I would say make inoculation universal. But seeing that to produce the proper effect we have to innoculate rather severely, and as inoculatiou thus performed entails occasional disfigurement and occasional death, I would not recommend it universally.

789.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Inoculation in some cases 1 suppose does not take effect, does it ?Rarely, if the lymph is good ; it depends very much indeed upon the lymph.

790.nbsp; Suppose an animal was exposed to the disease and inoculation did not take, would not the germs of the disease still remain in that animal?I do not l^now.

791.nbsp; Then I will say quot; might it,quot; not quot; would itquot; ?

__It might. I will put it in this way : some of the

cows that I have inoculated do not take as you say ; I have done them two or three times, and still they will not take. According to your view that animal has the seeds of disease on it, consequently when a non-inocnlatcd animal is put beside that animal the non-inoculated animal should take the disease, but it does not ; fresh uninoculated cattle are put beside such animals and remain healthy.

792. In case of doubt whether an animal has pleuro or not, would not slaughter be more effectual than inoculation ?No; say the case we have been mentioning is a doubtful case, and has not taken inoculation, and you think it has the seeds of the disease on it, the best plan may be to put another animal beside that one. If another cow stands unharmed besiae

,rl

#9632;i '4

lllli

diseased cattle and diseased herds, logically, why

#9632;

MINUTES OT fTVIDKNOE.

that cow suvoly I am entltka to say that the cow is incapable of producing the dlsoase.

793. Assuming that you have a doubtful oaso, that vou have an animal which will not take ineculaUon.is it safer for that animal to be slaughtered or to bo in-oclted again?-! inoculate all these cases ag, and after the promises are clean fresh cattte are pu beside them, and they do not take the disease ; that

quot;Uf'iChairman.) Would you regard that animal with very great doubt and as an element of danger ?#9632;-Not when I see a healthy non-inoculatod animal standing beside it perfectly uuhnmed.

795. But is th.lt the onh .noaus by winch you would come to a conclusion upon the point -it is S proper means, I think, and the rigk and logical

^S (Mr. Bowen-Joncs.) Then in such a case you do not consider that slaughter would be the safest node of procedure to adopt ?-I think if these doubtful cases were capable of producing disease they would

have done it long ago.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i i * ;= it vmir

707 In such a case as we have alluded to, is it yom Jnion that the slaughter of thatono animal would ot be the safest thing to resort to ?-It might be the safer way, but I do not sec any groat need tor it.

798nbsp; nbsp;Now gt;ou recommend inoculation ; would it be possible to carry out inoculation unless disease did exist in the country ?-You cannot get the lymph, of course, unless disease exists in the country.

799nbsp; nbsp;Then disease must exist in the cpuutry U in-oculation be carried out?-Yes, we never take the lymph from any other source except from a diseased animal recently killed.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

800. (Chairman.) Do you consider it necessary to get the virus from a cultivated germ ?-I never depend

quot;^Ä you think it is possible?-! have never tried it, and I like to speak simply of what I have

^tri802 (Professor Brown.) Are we to understand vou as' saying that you do not fear anything trom a nfeceoflung which is already encysted ?-I did not

Bll You say thut you think there is a risk ol animals becoming diseased from being taken into infected premises, do you not?-i.es, from tho ox-

C, Cuniiint/-. ham, V.S.

25 April 1888.

perionco of tho gentleman that i have mentioned. 1 never saw it myself.

812nbsp; nbsp;On what basis exactly would you louml }Our opinion in such a case ?-Friends who are really good ludaes of the disease toll mo they have seen instances where tho byres have been emptied and tho cattle slaughtered, and when fresh cattle were put into these b-yres tho disease showed itself among the fresh stock. I never saw that, but friends that I have the utmost confidence in have told mo that.

813nbsp; nbsp; Did they say anything which would enable vou to iudge whether any stock freshly brought in had the'disease already ?No, they did not say that. Their opinion was that tho contagion had lingered about the promises after tho cattle had been killed.

814nbsp; nbsp;You spoke in one answer ot the hardship which would bo inflicted on owners if you carried out the raquo;laughter order and killed all the man's cows and kept his premises vacant for the 56 days?1 es,

I did.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ti ).

815nbsp; nbsp; I judge from that that you are not aware that the Order' of Council provides that when an inspector certifies that all the animals in a shed have been slaughtered or otherwise disposed of, and the premises cleansed and disinfected, the owner may move other animals in directly ?Not definitely aware of it; and another thing, I would not consider it safe. Such a proceeding I would not advise, nor, as an inspector,

allow.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; t * _t ;

816. I understand you to say that your district is

the county of Edinburgh ?A small part of the

county of Edinburgh.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;...,..lt; ,v,o

817 Do you happen to know what the state ot tue disease in the county is as compared with what it was when you began to inoculate ?I think 1 have seen no case barring this one, a fortnight ago since the month of July last year in my district. 1 think that there is no other case barring this one in the county of Edinburgh.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . , , _tW

818nbsp; nbsp;Do you not know what is done by the othei inspectors in the county, whether they inoculate or

I id

tfH

I think, made out

not ?_Two of the inspectors inoculate; tho others, 1 (hink, have very few cases of disease. , , , ,.

819nbsp; nbsp;Do you know what they do in the burgh ot Edinburgh VI may state that all the inspectors in the county of Edinburgh are in favour of inoculation.

820nbsp; nbsp;All the inspectors ?Yes; if they had any disease they would inoculate at once; every inspector in the country of Midlothian would do so. Mr. Borthwick, of Kirkliston, and Mr. Black, of llowgate inoculate, and they are the only two inspectors that 1 know of who have had pleuro in their districts

¹¹ 821 Do you know anything about the practice in the burghs, say, in the city of Edinburgh and in

Leith?__1 do not kuow much about that; that is

heyond my jurisdiction.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ... , ,

822 Then you probably do not know that notwithstanding inoculation the returns which wo got from tho inspectors come to this: that in the five years from 1878 to 1882 there were in the county of Edinburgh, which includes the burghs, in our returns 176 outbreaks, and in the last five years from 1888 to 1887 there were 177 outbreaks, that is one outbreak more than there were in the previous period ? I did not know it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . , , . .v.

823.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) Do not you think that those rigures are a very strong proof against inoculation ?

No, not at all.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, -, rgt; *i

824.nbsp; On what ground do you say that ?Un the same ground that In my own district last year I had seven outbreaks, but I am not responsible tor those outbreaks, and inoculation is not responsible for them. In almost every instance we could trace these outbreaks to cattle coming from VVishaw and Cumber-land, entirely out of my dlfitrict. My district keeps free till some fresh cow from VVishaw or some ot the other places I mentioned, comes and plants tho

r #9632;

danger from this encysted part is, to be greater than what it really is.

803 Of course the fact of the lung being encysted shows that at one time there was a patch oh active

'^SM'Ä^during the time the disease is active and the part not encysted there is a clear M raquo;quot;jW of the infection being communicated ?Yes, in tue

'ToÄÄnce to those eases which we are in the habit of calling limited disease can you detect it?

quot;quot;lä^Do^ou'tl'ink you could detect it always ithere were a patch as large as a man's head ,^-No, 1 do not pretend to do that.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

deg;07 In a case where the deposit occurs in thsupernumerary lobe on the right side ot the luniZg Än/of the heart, could you detect it then I said no. 1 have si. id already that we could nodetect it when it lay forward towards the first o

⁸⁶ 800 Then it follows, does it not, that the diseasis often in a position in which you cannot detect it i Generally along with this bit the remainder of thtons: is affected. That is far more common than onhttfe bit forward in front of the heart.

809 I have in my own mind many cases whicI have met with myself in the last 20 years whoLt one lobe lying in front ot the lioart tolaquo; beethe only spot where the disease existed .'Yom eperience and mine arc different, because 1 have n

SlÄve you not soon a case P-I may have sea case! but it is an isolated case, not a common ensGeSah? when 1 iiud that that bit of lung is ,n cctthe lower and back part of the luug is infected als

That is my experience.

24.

COMMITTEE ON l'LKUHO-PNKUMONIA AND TUlMOliOUr.OSlS ;

C. Cunniwj- disonse in it. Wc had coven outbreaks, nraquo; I say, lost hamV.S, summer i but dmt is uot duo to inoculation, nithor

------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;inoculation has the oredlt of takinf;; the six or seven

25 April 1888. ^^..^^ _aiul ₀₀pi_ng u'itli tlieni and doing away with all appearanoo of the disenBe in two or three months.

825.nbsp; (C/iairmaii.) Can you give UB a recent instance of a cow coming from Cumberland in that state ?Perhaps not in connexion with these outbreaks ; but taking those outbreaks that occurred in 1886. two were evidently from Cumberland cows.

826.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) May I take it that you are not aware that the county alone of Edinburgh, without the burghs, paid as compensation tor animals slaughtered for pleuro-pneumonia in 1884, 5ÖÜ/. 2s. 6d., and that in 1886 the same authorities paid 896^. 2s. (W. ?Of course they wore bound to do it with these fresh outbreaks in my district and my neighboui'H,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

S27. (Chairman.) Including the inoculation r When the outbreaks were brought there there was

837nbsp; nbsp;Is it liable to be found along with pleuro-pneumonia ?We sometimes find the two diseases together.

838nbsp; nbsp;From external symptoms is it likely to be taken for pleuro-pneumonia?It may occasionally be taken for pleuro-pneumonia, but it is not very liable.

839.nbsp; Has it within your experience ever been so ? Yes, in my experience with a cow last week it was. There was a cow standing there, of course she was in a pleuro infected place, and she was very like a pleuro cow and 1 would not object to a man mistaking that cow'for a pleuro cow, but when we killed her there was nothing but tuberculosis there, no pleuro at all.

840.nbsp; No pleuro at all do you say ?No pleuro even in an infected pleuro place.

841.nbsp; (Professor Horsley.) How many cases ot tuberculosis in dairy cows have you seen ?I could scarcely answer that question.

842.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen a largo number ?I have seen a good number. I have seen within these last two months six or seven, I daresay. At other times I do not see so many of them.

843.nbsp; Have you known of any cases in which tuberculosis lias occurred in a calf that has been fed on tuberculous milk ?No, there are not many calves near us. We are not in a breeding district.

844.nbsp; Have you not known any diseases occurring to human beings from the consumption of such milk ?No, I cannot say positively that I have.

845.nbsp; Do you mean that the question has not been directly raised before you ?I have often thought on comparing the sputa from a consumptive man with that which I took from the inside of a tuberculosis cow that they were really very like.

846.nbsp; Do you know of any instances in which tuberculosis'has spread in a herd of cows, where it has begun in one animal and gone through a herd ?1 remember one instance a good many years ago where we killed an Aldernov cow from tuberculosis, ihe very next year we killed a calf from her, a heifer then, and, in a short, time alter that, I was called to the place, and we found other ycung stock affected with tuberculosis, and it appeared as if even the pigs were a little affected with it. They had swellings behind the iaws, in the region of the glands I did not make the post-mortem examination, and i could not say positively, but it seemed in that instance to have gone through the stock. That was tho only instance that ever I saw of it.

847. And in that instance you did uot see tuberculosis occurring in any other animals on the farm except those pigs that you referred to ?There was tho young stock.

848 Was not your attention directed to the condition of the fowls ?No ; but I \m 3 seen it in fowls though.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,., _t

849. But in that particular instance you did not see it ?#9632;No, I did not.

some compensation to be paid, but. that does not prove that tho county is producing the disease, ihe disease is not hatched in the county but it is brought

into it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . . i c

828.nbsp; What is your opinion as to the interval ot space which would give immunity from contagion in respect of pleuro-pneumonia ?I could not fix any definite space.

829.nbsp; Would yon think 200 yards anything like it t That is merely a guess.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;₃ #9632; . e

830.nbsp; In the event of your being asked with reter-ence tcopy; a herd, quot; Am I safe in bringing my cattle on quot; to this farm within 200 yards of these diseased quot; animals,quot; what would you say ?I would not bring them any nearer than 200 yards.

831.nbsp; Is that about what you think would be tho minimum ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i o

832.nbsp; Hove you had any experience in tuberculosis f __Yes, I have had a good many cases of tuberculosis.

833! Do you find it on the increase or decrease ?-#9632;#9632; I think it is on the increase.

834.nbsp; To what do you attribute it ?It is hereditary.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; lie

835.nbsp; Do you find it occurring m some breeds ot cattle more than in others ?My experience has not been very extensive amongst them, but I think it_ is on tho increase amongst, the Ayrshire cattle. To give you an example, I have killed these 16 animals in that little dairy farm and I found four tubercular subjects amongst them. One or two showed the disease, but the others showed no signs of it whatever. A con-was killed vesterday that was apparently perfectly healthy, but we found on cutting her open that her chest was one mass of tubercules.

836. Could wu have discovered that from any external appearance ?No, there was nothing to guide you in the ease of that cow ; in other cases you can

III

ii:'

I;-I

,'#9632; f-

see it perfecdy wequot;

I-

The witness withdrew. Adjourned to to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

#9632;i

'#9632;',.

Ill

#9632;Pii

MINUTES OS¹ EVIDKNOB.

THIRD DAY.

Thursday. 26th April 1888.

PRESENT :

Mr. JACOB WILSON m tiik Chair.

Mr. Stirling, of Kippendavle

fKOFESsoR Brown, C.B. Professor Housr.Rr, F.K.S.

Mr. Dawson, Secrelaru.

Lord Clovcurrv.

Sir G. Macphbuson Grant, Bart.

Mr. Bowrn-Jones.

Mr. Richard Rutherford, F

Mr.B. Rutherford,] F.B.C.V.S.

TeaWas that when you had a proof sent to you ? ₂c A^TmS.

~~m (Mr. Stirling) Is this pamphlet the corrected copy of your evidence (handmff the same to

quot;tnYaJA'So far as it stands now, .after you have corrected it, does it embody your opinions?

~m^0amp;Ave they the opinions which you still hold ?-

^Y 373. I notice that, among other statements, you say quot; successful inoculation confers immunity #9632;'ilaquo;*-874 Is that your opinion ?-That is my deeded

^OP87ri also observe tMt you say, quot; I do not hold quot; that having inoculated an animal at one time gives laquo; Knmunify for ever.quot; Will you lundly say how you reconcile those two stateinentsPIn t;...- ..ay. IZ while I have proof that an -'^^l-f'* ^ ^ for instance, sustain the recurrence of plenro pnen mon a on premises twice-that lias occurred in my ow rsperiencf-X have no proof that an animal inoculated thU year would sustain an attack from the recurrence of contedonTn the premises in which it was five, or six, or even^ears afterwards. But if the evidence is worrti havin- at all, being hearsay evidence, I may be allowed to mention that some of my Australian fr.ends sav that in their experience they do not know of a say t^at in tnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;vnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;inoculated successfully

A Äease subsequently. In the transit from ^_n, _t of the country there will be a lot of youngsters St to 1 stalaquo;on where there has been an outbreak of pfeuXbut my friends say they have never seen a sL'le instance of an inoculated animal subsequently n'Lw in nassinquot; over diseased stations. S Was^P your first knowledge of inoculation fvLred from vour observations in Australia ?-No. fsaw Mr Smgee operate. I may tell you that my fS was an unqualifled practitioner ^Edinburgh and through him I knew Professor John Gamgee and quot;lOquot;raquo;⁰nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; enthusiastic exponent of

Wdlum ' to?; an^acticc of inoculation he put it wunems ^l,.^^u '. , .^ _but _lle d d it so atrociously ;;X!T ; iÄXit Of course the operation Dniuy '-raquo;quot;'}' t _a_w ti_le onerat on, and, even as a 7T Cf X niucl : tl those who survived the in on d no ^tonvards contract the disease ard St thoy Withstood the disease when it made its IppearaSeTn the premises in which they were, ihat i* the first I saw of inoculation.

877 From your observations in Austral.a, do yon

i . . tL cattle on an Australian ranche are

S^^liÄ^nio conditions as the ^

860. {Chairman.) You are a Fellow, I beheve, of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?- Yes. 851. And as such you practise at Edinburgh ?-

'852. Do you hold any appointment in connexion with the administration of the Contagious D.seases f Animals) Act, 1878?-I do not.

853! How many years have yon been in practice? For 28 vears.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .,

854. During that time, I presume, you have paid special attention to cattle pathology ?Yes.

855 And has your attention been specially directed to pleuro-pneumonia ?-Yes ; from the time when I was^P very young, and during these last 16 or 17 years

Töttn what part of the kingdom have you seen most of the outbreaks of pleuro-pneumoma ?-l n my own neighbourhood.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, laquo; t a .^.i;

857.nbsp; Do you mean in Scotland only ?-!laquo; Australia

as well.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. . . . i. a t

858.nbsp; Then you have also seen it in Australia i-! have been five times in Australia; that is where I had my attention directed particularly to it. I ^7*' tion now that I also practised as a veterinary surgeon in India, at Calcutta.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

859nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the treatment of plemo-pnenmonia in Scotland, am I correct in assuming that Vou have practised slaughter upon all diseased animals ? I have always recommended slaughter.

860nbsp; nbsp;Have you never attempted to cure?-Never since I was a student, when I was taught to try and

^CU861. Did yon in any measure succeed ? They recovered naturally occasionally.

802. Therefore you could not say ^fher the curative treatment had any effect or not ?-I could

quot;⁰863 From that I presume that your treatment has been more of a preventive laquo;''^acter ?-l.ntirely so. 864. In what direction has that been ?In inocu-

^lBt8⁰65 In inoculation only ?-Inoculation, of course, and killing out the disease when suspected.

866. By suspected do you mean before or ftftei

inoculation ?Both.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;uaitoua

867 You gave evidence some tune ago, I behovebefore'a Committee of the Highland Society?-! did. 8P8 And it is embodied in this pamphlet, is it notMv evidence is put there very incompletely. YOU wilTnoticethat the evidence is Pquot;Wi_She.l un o.tunatoly without the questions, and it reads merely like a serieof rSling statements, owing to ^quot;^^ by one gentleman and another, and therefore they a,without a context, and it does not road well. I m.

3 you that T cut out some of my evidence simply

o S4003.

OOMM1TTKK

ON PLEUUO-l'NKUMONIA ANB TUBBUCULOSIS:

#9632;M

because I have been surprised in studying the reasons for an outbreak, occurring when nothing else apparently but atmospheric contagion could exnlaiu it, at the distances sometimes that there is between them. In u memorandum I have hero, i have several outbreaks noted down where the disease clearly occurred, not by actual contact, wheio the cattle sheds or the byres were in close proximity one to the other. In fact, the buildingraquo; were built back to back, and very frequently having as i were loose roofs admitting of free communication, and in tact covering a very small'space of ground. Probably there would bo two or three byres, sometimes as many as 10 or 12 byres, covering a space of ground not ns large as an ordinary farmyard. Frequently I have known the disease to spread in one of these areas, which I call cluster areas; they are clusters ot buildings each owned by a different proprietor, and probably containing from a dozen up to 30 or 40 animals. 1 have known the disease occur lirst of all m one end ol the cluster, and shortly afterwards appear at the other end of the cluster, at a distance probably of 200 to

300 yards.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;₄. _t _P

893 Have you made any comparative estimate ot the cost to the country of slaughter and of inoculation respectively ?No. As you know, I have no means of ascertaining that; never having been connect-d #9632;with inspectorship I have no statistics to work upon. I know the number roughly of animals that I have myself inoculated.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , _n -nnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;iu

894.nbsp; quot;Would you kindly state them ?* rom the time tiiat I first commenced inoculating cattle in 1878 up to the end of 1887 I have inoculated roughlynot including calves5,115 animals, all of whom were under the influence of the contagium of pleuro-

pneumonia.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;....laquo;., ,

895.nbsp; nbsp; Were they in Scotland ?All in Scotland.

896.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Bowen-Jones.) When you say under the influence, do you mean exposed to the contagion ? Yes, direct contact with it or very close to it. Most of themI should think a matter of about a hundred _or twowere not actually in contact. I can give you the numbers year by year, and I can give you the number of outbreaks year by year, if yon like.

897 Can you give us the number of outbreaks or of animals infected in the first five of those years ? Yes I can. I will give yon the number of outbreaks first of all. The numbers ot diseased centres in the city of Edinburgh in 1878 was 38 ; the number ot animals inoculated, 891 ; the number of centres in the county ot Edinburgh in 1878 (this is my district ot practice) was 13, and in Leith 20, and in Portohello 3.

898. By the county of Edinburgh do you mean the county as compared with the burgh ?Yes. The 891 includes the number of animals in the county and city inoculated in 1878, and 485 in Leith and Portohello, over and above those in Edinburgh county.

899nbsp; nbsp; Perhaps it might be convenient if you would put your return in ?Yes, I will {handing in same).

900nbsp; nbsp;Will you please compare the first five years with the last five years ?The number pf dlseaBed centres in 1878 in Edinburgh was 38, and in 1879 *iO. I may tell you that it took me about two years to get over them after I once commenced. Then in 1880 there were eight centres; in 1881 three centres ; in 1882 four centres. Now when we got disease from the North of England you begin to rise againm

Afr, It-

llnllierforil, F.ll.C.V.S.

in the United Kingdom ?-I think that the opportu-

itv of corn-eying the disease in Australia^s much ^teUZffifoom their habit of fovm^moU

mi little sections where they lay down at night, tbe 26 Ai-nl 1888. laquo;^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _d _the _heftlthy together in large numbers. _

-----------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ₈₇₈ I_S it not the fact that animals In the open air

are es's liable to contract and to transmit the disease than those in buildings?-! can draw no difference. The faot U that in Australia thousands of cattle have dledotpleuro-pneumonla) that does not seem to be h very modified form of contracting the disease.

87raquo; Öo tar as the operation of inoculation is concerned, should you say it is o matterot the greatest delicacy ?-It is a matter requiring the yery greatest

^Ca880 And not an operation to be undertaken by' eyory practitioner ?-I do not know yery many practitioners whom I could entrust to do it. There has been no attention paid to the matter.

881. Is there any particular time of the year when inoculation is more efficacious than others ?It is quot;mudly fficacious at all times of the year, only there k a little more risk in certain circumstances at some

^TJTonr opinion that an animal mil not accept inoculation more than once?-It is my

^OP883ⁿ Is that your experience ?-That is my experi-

^en884. I und in another part of your evidence before the H ghland Society, you say that -the inoculated laquo; animal accepts it unmistakably.quot; I P~ ^ was a second case P-Thero is a good deal in this

#9632;m

Xg that i : quot;When I am not quite sure f I haye laquo;got a right tail lesion my plan is to inoculate again quot; I am content with a yery small indication so that laquo; I ..et development in the other animals in the same raquo; way. The inoculated animal accepts it unmistak-quot; ablvquot; Certain phenomena indicate a successful operation, and true success cannot be considered certain until a certain period has elapsed.

885 You recommend, I see, also that animals that have become naturally cured of the disease should be

^SaSo^ryou do recommend slaughter very

quot;^f you~Wd to eradicate the disease from

the country absolutely, would you not consider that

stamping out was the most efficac.ous method ?-

NoUn the face of my own statist cs, which I would

bo very pleased to hand in. I think myself that i

hiocuktion was as vigorously handled as I have

handled it wherever the disease occurred in a very

Ihor time indeed, both here and in Ireland ,t would

be completely stamped out, and it it did make it

reappearance⁵k9 danger becomes reduced to a mer

nothina in noint of fact.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , raquo;i

888. 13o yon inoculate only the animals in th

discard herd which are not diseased ?-I only inocu

ho those that lam satisfied are not diseased; bu

I never consider those inoculated animals safe nnt

a certain time has elapsed, because gt;t - qmte^v.thm

my experience for the disease to manifest itsell alte

inoculation, but not after a given time.

889 At what time is that ?I always think abou

i; r¹

188:} 14 centres, in 1884 10 centres, in 1885 one centre, in 1886 10 centres, in 1887 nine centres. I would like to explain here at once before I go any further, that these centres are notably cluster centres; that is to say, where under what I would call n good system there would not have been more than one byre occupying a given area of ground, there would probably be from three or four to ten or a dozen.

901nbsp; nbsp; Do I understand that it is in consequence ot the overlapping of boundaries ?The overlapping ot buildings, I would call it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,.-,,. e

902nbsp; nbsp;Is that in consequence of the administration ot different local authorities ?I would not like to go that length. It looks like a censure, but I think

three weeks practically. I have had two or three dated instances of where the disease ^ ^fPf _mch later than that. But even in my hamh that only indicates that a mistake may occur in the operation itself. As I have said, they are isolated

quot;quot;St)!⁶!!! the event of three or four separate outbreaks , a given district, would yon recommend mocdation uponquot; the adjoining farms ?_Yes, most decidedly. That ^:s to say, if the buildings were adjoining.

Siquot;. Would you recommend it if the buildings were not adioininlaquo; ?I would not always.

892 At what distance from disease would you consider a healthy animal safe from contagion ?-HSve not made up my mind about that, simply

MINUTKS OP KVIDBNOE.

quot;27

tli.it there can be no doubt that tho elcao proximity of byro to byre is a direct meanraquo; of propagating tins disease, and my figures would help to prove that.

90X {ProfLor Brown.) From what you have said just now, tho Coinmittoo would gather that tho disease has fallen off considerably in Edinburgh during the lust four years ?-It fell off most notably du ug 1880, 1881, and 1882. Then there was a slight increase of the disease, but never BO W M It Was before or in the subsequent years until 1885, when there was only one outbreak, and those increases wei^ traced to tho introduction of animals from the North of England chiefly, and from Ireland.

904 I think in one part of your ovidcncc before the Highland Society you make a remark to tho effect that Edinburgh used to be a hotbed of disease

tor's salary is, so that shows you that is a relative j^;^ statement.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . F.ll.d.y.S.

911. Then when you made tho statement you madenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;----.

it without knowing cither tho amount of compcnsiition 26 April 1888. or tho amount of the inspector's salary ?Yes, it was #9632; a relative statement simply. In some of those years what I have stated would bo the case notably In the country, and notably in Leith. There wore five years, at least, in Leith when tho compensation paid would not be much more than a pound or two. I would like to say that my evidence does not only refer to Edinburgh, but to that district in which I practise, that is, Edinburgh, Leith, and tho county. In Ilaquo;78 there were 20 centres in Leith and 344 animals inoculated. In 1879 there wore 14 centres in Leith ; in 1880 there was one centre; in 1881 there was

I m

! I If

praquo;.quot; a

none; m xoulaquo; ^^.^........ , --- -

but that it is now so decreased that the amount of compensation is something less than the inspector s salary ?Taking it on an average, it is. 1 speak of it as among my own clients who form the majority of the dairymen. I have already said that, when Iwas called upon to deal with this disease in Edinburgh, tho disease was in almost every byre in the place : my figures show that. It took mo about t ^o years to get over them. That meant 38 centres in Edinburgh alone, 13 in the county within a radius of three or four miles, and 20 centres in Lcith. 1 Hat was in one year.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.,,-# -

905. The city of Edinburgh in 1884 paidl49/. os compensation for pleuro-pneumonia; in 1885 it paid 63/ 10s., which shows, of course, a large decrease In 1886 it paid 9127.' 12.. 6d.; in 1887 it paid 530/. 15s. Can you explain your statement that the disease has decreased to such an extent that the amount paid for compensation is rather less than the inspector's salary, after the further evidence that I have now given you of these largo amounts paid for compensation in the city of Edinburgh alone ?-I think my remark referred chiefly to a companson between what used to have to be paid when I was called upon to deal with this disease and what they have been recently paying. It was a relative statement, as it were The compensation, I should think, would be some thousands-two or three thousands at the very least every year ; and, taking the average of year with year after 1879, it would just be about that. And another thing, in some of the years there were three outbreaks, four outbreaks, one outbreak, eight outbreaks, and so on annually.

906 Still the fact remains that in 1886 the city ot Edinburgh paid the largest amount of compensation that had been paid for a considerable number ol vears?-I have no idea of what the city of Edinburgh pays in that way; I have no actual figures, but exceedingly little has been paid to my clients.

907. I wanted to ascertain on what authority you based your statement that at the present time and at the time. I presume, when you gave your evidence, the disease had become such a very trifling matter that the compensation paid by the local authority was less than the inspector's salary ?At the time when I gave my evidence there had been hardly any disease in Edinburghit was cut down.

908 You did not mean that statement to refer to the particular moment, I suppose, when you were speaking ? You could not speak of the inspector s salary as being paid at a particular moment. You must have hwl some reference to a given period .-'1 have already said that my statement was a relative statement. I was comparing the amount of disease that used to be with what it then was; that was all as I met with it.

909nbsp; nbsp;You did say, did you not, that tho amount ot compensation paid by tho city of Edinburgh was less than the inspector's salary ?-Yes, 1 said so, and it should not he any more at any time if outbreaks bo well handled.

910nbsp; nbsp;Was it at all probable that the inspectors salary was anything between 600/. and 900/. a yew? I may toll you that I do not know what tho inspec-

one ; in 1884 there were five centres ; in 18Ho there as one centre only; and in 1886 six centres ; in 1887 nine centres.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , i i i

912 Are you not aware that in 1884 the local uthority of Leith paid 165/. for compensation ? In 1885 when 1 think you said there was one centre, they paid 110/. In 1886, when you said thero wore six centres, they paid 118/., nearly the same laquo;s they paid for the one centre in the previous year. In 18raquo;7, when you say there were nine centres, there was 58W. paid, the largest sum which they paid during the whole time ?Any little discrepancy in the point ot figures might arise in this way, that while I had the field of inoculation to myself for probably five or six years, in these last three or tour years thero have been different veterinary surgeons practising it; for whose results I cannot speak.

913.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowamp;i-Jones.) Wore the cases yon have been referring to all dairy cattle ?All that I have given yon were dairy cattle.

914.nbsp; nbsp;Tho compensation then for each animal would be about the same ?Yes, on an average; some of them were dear and some of them were cheap animals, but you can average it.

915.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Broivn.) You arc not aware, 1 prcRiime, that in the five years from 1878 to 1882 there were 176 outbreaks in the county of Edinburgh, that is, including the burghs ?I am aware about that, because I myself must have dealt with 120 of those outbreaks, 120 centres of disease, and some of those centres of disease may have had the disease more than

once.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , i c

916.nbsp; Are you also aware that in the last five years, from 1883 to 1887 inclusive, there were 177 outbreaks in the same district ?I am not aware ot that. My experience does not show that, and I have by far the largest practice of the kind in Edinburgh, or anywhere within five or six miles of it.

917.nbsp; At the same time you will believe me when 1 say that this information is obtained from tlie returns which your own local authorities have sent to the department?Yes; I think I said that during tho last five years there had been an increase of tho disease as compared with two or three years before that; but an increase only as one to three, as compared to what it was before. I would like to say about the county that my remarks about cluster centres apply very forcibly in tho case of the county. In two or three of those places, more than once to my knowledge, disease has appeared, owing to the introduction of a certain animal, probably in one place, and has spread from place to place, and that is notable in two or throe places in Edinburgh, and at a place called Davidson s Mains, and out about Liberton district, where the byres are very close to each other.

918.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen much of the literature on the subicct of pleuro-pneumonia during the last 30 years ? I have read some of it, but I would just say this : that my own work has been, as you know, largely in the direction of developing tho preventive practice, rather than In studying the theoretical literature.

919.nbsp; nbsp;You would probably rather that 1 should conline my inquiries to that branch ?Yes, if yon please.

#9632;r

#9632; rl

1) 2

OOMMITTEK ON ri.EVRO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS I

Mr.E. Rutherford, F.R.C. V.S.

26 April 1888.

920. I undorstood yon in one of your answers lo statothat in preventing or endeavouring _to prevent discuso you mainly depended on inoculation, is that

so?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; raquo; i i ii i

921 Have you tried the system of isolation, by which I mean going through the herd frequently with a thermometer, and separating all those which _sivcau indication of rise of temperature ?-l have; 1 tried that persistently for four years, simply because my clients would not acreo to inoculate. 1 was

the lung in the transition stage, between the (Irst Mid second stage. Just after the exudate has been poured out into that 'portion of the lungs which in colour ia salmon coloured. At that time the exudate is about the colour of pale sherry, and is plastic m handling it; absolutely free from smell, ami is perlectly pure and in a semi-liquid condition.

932 How long would yon consider that fit tor use after you have taken it ?I have used it when it has been eight days old, and no smell could be detected about it to indicate that it was wrong, and yet 1 found it to fail (an instance of this occurred lately in Glasgow) ; and I have used it when it was four days old and found it succeed. So, 1 would say, when it is absolutely pure, free from decomposition, from the first to the fourth day, it can be used with safety, after that it cannot be used with safety j but it must not bo used if there is the slightest taint of change setting in in its constituent parts, if there is decomposition setting up.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;t,

933.nbsp; I conclude that you are aware that, even when you take it fresh from the lung in the way you describe, the fluid contains a large number of septic organisms ?It may; I have not examined it under the microscope myself. I can only speak to the results ot it used under certain conditions.

934.nbsp; nbsp;After you have inoculated an animal a certain period elapses, does it not, before any swelling begins?

Yes, it does.

935.nbsp; Do you find any rise of temperature ?A very

immaterial rise.

936.nbsp; nbsp;Then the statement, that the temperature rises to the fever height, is not true in your experience? It is not true.

937.nbsp; By saying that the operation confers inununity when it is successfully performed, what do you mean exactly by the word ?I mean in the wordquot; immunity that it will not contract the disease, or give the

(llSGfiSC

938.' That it is absolutely protected, do you mean ? I think so. J have absolutely no knowledge whatever of a single instance to the contrary.

939.nbsp; Do you know of any other form of protective inoculation of which you can say, namely, that it is absolutely protective rNo, I do not.

940.nbsp; It is not true of vaccination, is it ?It is not.

941.nbsp; Nor of inoculation as a protection against anthrax ?No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , ,

942.nbsp; Nor black quarter?No. Cur animals live such a shoit life, as a rule, that I should think myself, if ever it wns put to the test by experiments, it will be found practically to be the case. I think it might be answered in this way, is it usual for a veterinarian to meet with pleuro-pncumonia occurring twice in the same animalthe true disease ? I cannot produce inoculation twice in the same animal, and 1 have tried that many times. I may infer from that being the case they are proof against the disease.

943.nbsp; Have you heard of other persons succeeding ? No ; it has always failed with me, and I have tried it

many a time.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 1

944.nbsp; Then you have not heard of anybody succeed-in.r iri getting the results twice from the same animal ?1 have not, and I do not think it is very likely; on account of my experience, that if they have been properly inoculated the first time a successful lesion is established subsequently.

946, Did you say that the operation was rather a delicate one ?I said one requiring care ; there is a little difference between the word requiring delicacy and requiring care. There is no great delicacy required ; it merely requires a man who will apply intelligently to the operation a certain amount of intelligent skill.

946. We had a Colonial gentleman here two days ngo, who told us that ho always operated upon his own stock, and he adopted roughly the method which you have described, only that he put the seton of twine dipped in the virus, which he seemed to collect, as you proposed, out of a sherry-coloured or salmon-coloured portion of the lung, and he did it merely

, ,::'

forced to do that, I had no other way of doing the work ; that was the line of practice then,

922, What was the result ?The result wns simply the aradual growth and spread of the disease.

923nbsp; nbsp;Then you did not find that that system arrested the disease ?-I did not, not a bit. 1 was not satisfied that it had the slightest effect upon it.

924nbsp; nbsp;During your experience with inoculation what results' have you gained?-! have never tfamp;f arrest an outbreak. There was only one outbreak m mv life where I never came to a satisfactory conclusion, and that was where the inspector on the tenth or twelfth day after inoculation stepped in and killed the lot. I never got a chance cf coming to a roncluslon about that. But my remarks, of course apply lo the aggregate results and the individual results also of nearly 150 outbreaks.

005 Have you known any instances of inoculated animais, that is to say, animals that you have rnocu-lated yourself, taking the disease afterwards ?Not alter 1 had pronounced them safe.

926nbsp; nbsp;That would be after an interval of about three weeks, 1 think you said ?_Three weeks practically; hut there are isolated cases that you are not satisfied about which might be a month or five or six weeks but there are a very lew of those, I should think not one in five hundred.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . j' #9830;

927nbsp; nbsp; What would you take to be the indication that the animal is .afe ?-Än absolute success ully developed lesion in the first place, quot; umlorm temperature, normal temperature tin oughout the whole course of the progress of the inoculated phenomena, and milking, feeding, and thriving well, say, for instance, for three weeks, at the very outside a month after inoculation. Those animals, m my experience, are absolutely safe 5 but that is not the case hero there is any falling off from that, and any failure of that. 1 have had one or two in my lifeprobably three, not very many more-and I have exp amed it to mUf by the thread having accidental y been .tripped of the virus, or from the animal itselt beuig the subject of the disease and my having failed to detect it, even though 1 had been examining it very carcfnllv. Another thing may account tor it, having cccas Sally experimented-rather, I would not like to uTlhe word quot; experiment quot;-but having occasion

sdlv used dry lymph.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .-57

lt;128 How do you perform the operation?-! opiate, as you are aware, at the tip of the tail-hquot;n e 01' turftce. I pass for about an inch and a haloi inch and three-quarters in ^^ the dn.ctioof the tail itself-not across transversely, but in thLSon of the tail-a worsted thread saturated witthe virus, which must be absolutely pure. , .

920 Do you adopt the plan of making an incision-No- 1 have tried all these plans, and 1 have abandoned'them all, simply because there is not uniform

quot;quot;'m ' Is there any objection which strikeraquo; you paikiilarlv to the method of incision winch is the mocommon method ?-I think there are two objectionsXfis t.s that the virus maybe washed away, anthe second is that there is an advantage in a breaina/much as U sets up a direct and immediate locitatmn, which, in this disease 0 pleuro-pneuniona ticula ly, leads to localisation ot the exudate. ¹ 031 Then as to the virus; what do you conridto be quot;'pure virusquot;?-Pure virus should be takVon an'animal that, with the exception o beipleuro-pncunionia, should be otherwise healthy.

llP¹'

#9632;' -.4

#9632;i raquo;

should also be aken from au animal from a portion of

MINUTES OF BVIDBNOB.

with an ordinary needle, pftssing it throueli and tying it in a knot so that it should not slip out, and then turned hi8 animals away. An operation performed by a stock owner in that way would not, of course, be done very dolicutoly ?-No; that is exactly my experience of the way lu whloh it is done 'quot; Austnv m and in fact not very long ago I had a Queensland squatter calling upon mo and thanking me for the papers that I have already published I daresay you have seen them. He said that they had adopted my mode of operation out there, and they haf found perfectly successful. The explanation of that is that they may do it roughly. Bullocks or male animals, eleven females who are not breeding, may be inoculated with less chance of going wrong and of danger than dairy cows standing up together and being fed together, and leading an artihcial life. I have fie-quently inoculated bullocks and young stock in open air and under circumstances when it would have been madness to inoculate dairy cows, and yet those animals have done perfectly well.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.,.,.

947 Then I gather that the chief object in using this extra care in the mode of introducing the virus is for the safety of the animal after the operation ?#9632;-Clearly so, especially in the case of dairy cows. In the case of bullocks there is no great necessity for great care further than that there must be great care in the selection of the virus and in choosing that particular mode of operation. I have ob3ections to almost every other mode.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .

948 So far as the actual efficacy of the operation is concerned, would you conclude that it may be done in

* ^4?Withoutlny^ioss of its good effectsJ-Per-fectly safely so long as the virus is properly chosen.

950nbsp; nbsp;Then I underotand, in answer to a question from the Chairman, that you were of opinion from your exoerience that inoculation is really the best way of raquo;ettins rid of the disease ?1 really think it is.

951nbsp; nbsp; A-ud that if you had the choice fairly put to von, quite irrespective of any question of cost or convenience as to whether )0U would slaughter out or innfuhte von would inoculate ?Yes, 1 would, and fsay so'ffisedlyafterlO years' dealing with this disease, that it every veterinarian in the event of an outbreak falling into his hands was to treat it as deliberately asl do when I get it, to treat it would be only a question of a very short time. I speak about the whole country; of every place where it has its centre this disease must be annihilated by inoculation, it cannot possibly survive if inoculation be carefully and skilfully and deliberately followed out.

952. Is it easy to detect the disease in all its stages ?

quot;quot;968. Is it possible?In the majority of instances I

^954!'In all cases P-Not in all cases; still there are a number of circumstances which go to make a carefuman sensible as to the presence or non-presence of a thoracic disease; other circumstances may lead up to the fact that that disease is plouro-pneumoma.

955 Still, you say that it is not always possible to detect when pleuro-pneumonia exists ?rhere arvery few cases indeed of animals that are under theonslant care and constant supervision of a vetennary surgeon where it would not be possible, very few

quot;im But still there are some ?-There are somwhere you can make a mistake about it; it might bsomething else, for instance, but there are very few,thnk exceedingly few, I would not like to say how few. They musi be very few, for i canno tax mmemory that I have met with many, if any at all, thaI have never been satisfied about.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .,, . ,

957nbsp; nbsp; Still, it comes to this, at least, that if inoculation were adopted, as pv^^J^y^Tanimals would certainly be inoculated r1 es; buthey would not remain alive afterwards.

958nbsp; nbsp; How do you mean?A man who undertakto arrest a case of pleuro-pneumonia by inoculatio

right to be satisfied with his first inspection-of these ^ raquo;; animals. I myself examine them individually-every fjffi[⁰fä

animal generally miseultatively and thermometrically,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-----

and not once but many times, until 1 finally dismiss ₂₍j _Ap_r|i _l888l

them. If my suspicious are at all aroused that animal-----------

must go down. The result is that, in my experience, 1 do not know of any animals that have ever afterwards come into the hands of the slaughterers that exhibit signs of pleuro-pneumonia ; that is, speaking ot my

own practice.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

959 Still there are cases, are there not, where you have not followed the animals to the slaughter-house ? Yes, there are a large number of cases, no doubt; but I have done all 1 could always through my clients to follow these animals up and make inquiry about them. I never once in all my life ever had any complaint come back to me about an animal that had been under my treatment by inoculation. Never once has any such animal been found to be the subject ot disease after being fattened, say.

960 Still, the records of the slaughter-houses show that a quot;large number of inoculated animals have been found to be diseased after slaughter?! would like to draw a distinction between inoculation, speak-inlaquo; generally, and my own practice. I say that no animals that have been under my own immediate care have been found to have been the subject of disease after being slaughtered. I do not know of a single one. That, of course, raises the question again ot the

operator.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , .

961nbsp; nbsp;Assuming that your system were carried out all over the country, it involves, does it not, a number of veterinary surgeons to inoculate precisely in the same way as you do, and taking the same care ?gt;es. but there is no difficulty about that, I should think ; there should not be in our days, when veterinary suraeons receive so much training and are supposed to be such a very much better class of men than they

used to be.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;..... __.

962nbsp; nbsp; Still it does involve special training, does not _it p_It does not require special training. I think that no man should inoculate until he has satisfied the authorities and his clients that he could successfully cope with the disease by inoculation. You, tor instance, have a right to know that local authority officers, if they were to undertake it, are perfectly capable of carrying it out successfully. At present 1 Bin satisfied that they are not, because I have hart to instruct lots of them.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , ,.

963 Have you any objection to the slaughter system 011 the ground of what is commonly called the waste of animal life ?I think that from the public economical point of view there is a large waste of animal life and an unnecessary waste; 1 hold that. And sup'eradded to that there is the destruction of businesses wnich have taken years and years to build up. J hold also that the rule will not apply equally 111 regard to farmers, in some instances, and to dairymen. 1 can well conceive circumstances under which it would rather pay a farmer to have his stock slaughtered up. It would be the very contrary thing with a dairyman. A fanner breeds and very often buys his stores tor the purpose of being slaughtered ; that is his object, and it would suit him very well sometimes to have an outbreak, in fact, I have heard of them saying so ; that they would not care at all for pleuro-pneumonia; it would pay them very well to have the stock slaughtered, simply because they would get the money at once, and they can always dispose of their produce, ihe very contrary is the case with the dairymen because they make a living of the animals by the produce, the milk, and they have very frequently, by years and years of hard work, built up more or less successfu businesses. The slaughter of those aulranls must result to them in inconvenience at the very least, and, as 1 laquo;ay, the destruction of their businesses 111 other

cases.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . , ^ .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.

064 The time occupied in shuiglitering out a dairyman's stock need not be U very long one, need it?It is not the slaughtering out: it is the filling up again.

j I *

'hi

I,'

laquo;

I w

1 #9632;

is ot satisfied with the, first inspection-he has no

OOMSUTTKK ON PLEUUO-PNEUMONIA. AND TUBBB0CLO8I81

Mr. R.

llullierford, F.lt.C.V.S.

26 April 1888.

965. You know of courso that under the Order in Council when the whole of the animals are slaughtered, and the place has been disinfected, he may bring in f'rlt;!sh stock as soon he likes?I have heard that. I do not think you would get very many dairymen in Edinburgh or Leitli who would venture to put them in again.

Ö66. Do you object yourself to putting animals in a place that has been disinfected ?I must confess I do in a groat many places.

1)67. Do you believe that the infection remains in the byre ?I do.

968.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any facts which you can give to the Committee in support of that view ?I have not noted down facts; but I have a distinct impression in my mind, as the result of a largo number of years' experience of the disease, of numberless instances of the reappearance of the disease ai'ter entirely clearing out a place and a now fresh stock being brought in. It may be said that wo brought the disease in again that we brought a fresh case of disease; but the same thing has happened in numbers of instances in different places.

969.nbsp; (Chairman.) Can you give mo one instance? I really could not give you the names out of a large number of clients. I could give you many instances, but I think Mr. Cairns, who has to be examined, is one instance.

970.nbsp; Has any instance recently occurred of that kind ?No, that does not occur now. Whenever wo have a case of pleuro-pneumonia at present we always inoculate,and, if possible, for a month or two afterwards, and then a fresh stock will come in for that very reason.

971.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) Are you aware that from 1872 to 1878 we tried at the Veterinary College to induce the disease in every conceivable way ? I have read some of the experiments.

972.nbsp; Later still we tried it at the Brown Institute ? No, I am not aware of that either. I should say that the surroundings of the Veterinary College and the surroundings of the Brown Institute are much too healthy, and the buildings in much too good order, to easily retain the contagion subsequently communicated.

973.nbsp; Those experiments included every possible method that anybody could suggest of inducing the disease with the morbid products of it; everything short of bringing the animals in contact with a living diseased one ?Still, it is a sort of negative proof of that in the face of the results of years and years of observation not of one institution hut of a great number of owners, all of whom have found in their experience that the disease very often breaks out, and there is no other mode of explanation except that the place itself is contaminated.

974.nbsp; Is there any evidence in those cases where disease has broken out in a fresh lot that some of the animals were not affected at the time that they were introduced ?As far as inquiry has shown they came out of perfectly healthy stocks. In the instances that have come to my knowledge when¹. I made the inquiry there were no traces of the disease where they came from,

975.nbsp; But you cannot refer us to any special case, you say ?1 cannot; but un the other hand, as supporting your contention, it would be only fair for me to say that in the vast majority of the outbreaks that I have dealt with, except those cluster areas that I have had the most bother with, the one result has been (and I have had any numbers of instances) that pleuro-pneumonia has been annihilated, in the great majority, in the premises, and fresh stock brought almost immediately afterwards, and no more disease after 9 or 10 years.

976.nbsp; Is that your general experience ?Yes.

977.nbsp; nbsp;You understand that I do not deny the possibility of disease being communicated by mediate contagion, 1 merely wish to put it clearly that I cannot get any evidence of it, and that we have utterly failed in our experiments to produce it. Do you

know that inoculation has been practised in various parts of Europe and America and Australia for a good many years ?Yes, 1 know all about that.

i)78. Do you know of any instances in which it has been successful in stamping out the disease ?No. Of course I do not know the French mode of operating exactly, but I know that the French admit that their operation has not been successfully conducted. They say so. Conneau, at a meeting of the Central Society in Paris lately, said undoubtedly that they themselves had been working on wrong lines. But there can bo no doubt that they are now progressing in the matter and adopting inoculation with much more vigour and very much more successfully, but that is only lately.

979.nbsp; Do you know that the disease is still rife, and has been ever since Doctor Wilhems commenced his operations in Belgium ?I believe they have pleuro-pneumonia more or less there ; but I do not know tho system, and I do not know if it is as vigorously carried out as I would insist upon. I cannot sec how (and I think you would admit it, but I do not ask you to admit it), if we are going to stamp out the disease in an area by the vigorous administration of preventive measures, if the same principleif the same practicebe applied to every disease, why tho disease should not be annihilated ?it is not logical to say otherwise.

980.nbsp; But still you know, as a matter of fact, that it has not been successfully pursued in other countries which have tried it for a very large number of yearsthat in those countries it has not had the efieet of stamping out the disease rI believe not; but I qualify my answer by saying that I do not know the system on which they work.

981.nbsp; (Chairman.) Are you aware that there are recurrent cases of disease in all these different countries ?Yea, I have heard so.

982.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) Notwithstanding all the evidence which is against the operation, do you, from your own experience, consider it, irrespective of any other consideration, the best thing to do for the purpose of stamping out the disease ?I think so. I think it is the best thing for the country to do; I do really; and I see no difficulty whatever in carrying it out.

983.nbsp; nbsp;(Lord Cloncurry.) The Chairman asked you if you considered that cattle would run the risk of contagion from an adjoining farm, and should be inoculated, and you said, quot; Yes, if they were in ad-quot; joining byres, but not in another state of things quot; ? If there had been an attack on the other side I would most certainly inoculate.

984.nbsp; nbsp;Have you known cases where the disease has spread to the stock in another farm, across tho fence, in the open airI am not speaking now of byres, but of an open fence ?It is quite a common thing in Australia.

985.nbsp; nbsp;Have you not heard of it in Scotland ?Yes ; bu t still there is a long distance where animals could not have been in contact, where apparently it has been carried by atmospheric influence.

986.nbsp; About your own district of Edinburgh you told the Chairman you could not recommend the occupation of an adjoining byre with tho disease on the other side of the fence ?It would depend entirely upon the distance. If they were at a distance which I considered unsafe, and tho wind was perhaps carrying the contagion in that direction, I would advise them to inoculate. I did so lately. At Fithie, in Forfarshire, where I was called to deal with an exceedingly bad outbreak, one that has been existing for a very long time, I found a very bad state of matters indeed. There wore about 30 or 40 young cattle, with a road dividing them from the actual presence of tho disease and actual contact with it, a farm road only, it was not a public road, but there was a field, und those youngsters going there, and there was a road, and there wero the premises that wore badly diseased. In dealing with the premises itself and with tho animallaquo; inside, I deemed it advisable to

#9632; '

MINUTBS OF EVIDENCE.

raquo;1

inoculate those youngsters. 1 brought them ull into the diseased premises, an^ inoculated them on the spot, and they did perfectly well, and there never was n case amongst them. 1 do not think they would have been safe outside.

987.nbsp; nbsp;To that extent then you alter your answer as to adjoining byres ?Yes ; it is a question of distance, J. think.

988.nbsp; What distance would you consider safe ?I think I might say they were safe at 500 yards or a quarter of a mile.

989 Not less ?I do not think they would be.

990.nbsp; {Mr, Bowen-Jones) You say, with reference to contagion in byres, that some of the animals in the course of your experience have taken the disease 200 or 300 yards apart; but you cannot explain why they have taken the disease in that way. May it not have been that these animals were diseased before they came into the byre ?I do not think so. These are the instances that I refer to as being cluster outbreaks. Where you have the same thing occurring over and over again, as I have had it occur in these four or five clusters that I refer to, the disease breaking out in one place and after a given time making its appearance at other parts of the cluster, then at other parts, but still within the same cluster, and also when you have the same thing happening in another cluster and this thing going on year after year, you are driven to that conclusion.

991.nbsp; You go further than that. You say it may be contracted by mediate contagion ?That is mediate contagion. I have known the disease even cross water.

992.nbsp; The disease is contagious, I suppose ? Undoubtedly.

993.nbsp; And is not indigenous to this country, is it ? ft is not.

994.nbsp; If it is once exterminated we could not get it again except by re-importation, could we ?Not if it was once exterminated under every circumstance.

993. If re-imported, and slaughter was adopted, would it not then be a very simple thing to keep it away ?Yes, probably.

996.nbsp; You said in your evidence before the Highland Society that you do not recommend universal inoculation, but only slaughter for diseased and suspected cattle, and inoculation in a herd that has been in contact?I do not think there is any necessity for universal inoculation.

997.nbsp; If inoculation answers in a small place, in a particular infected place, how can you logically say it should not be applied universally ?It could be applied, but 1 ask is it necessary to put the country, and to put stockownors, to the inconvenience and risk of introducing an operation which there are very few people at present able to perform or carry out properly. I say it is not convenient to do so at present, whereas, as a matter of fact, if it is vigorously dealt with in isolated outbreaks, it must be put an end to. I would go the length of saying, in order to meet these individual cases of this disease, isolate those animals at the place where they are for some time afterwards if there is any fear about them.

998.nbsp; For what length of time would you recommend isolation ?12 months.

999.nbsp; Do you think owners of breeding stock would nubmit to be subjected to the isolation of their stock for 12 months ?I have thought of that question frequently, and I think that they must give way to the general good. If it is in the public interests that isolated individuals should have their places shut up for a certain time, it is better that they should do that than that the whole of the stock owners and cattle owners of the whole country should be under an obligation of slaughtering.

1000. {Chairman.') Would not isolation in that form be worse than slaughter ?I think not. Mr. Biggar, of Chappeltown, will tell you that he thinks not; they may be fattened for slaughter. That meets that objection, und in the event where people are breeding very high-priced auimals I think that, rather

than raise an objection, they would bo too anxious to save them and keep them on the premises for a twelvoinonth to prove their general health. I think it never would bo objected to.

1001.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Jioweit-Jones.) Suppose a farm has got all tho stock it can bear on it, how can the breeder submit to his animals being kept for another yeor; how would he provide for that ?He would just have to kill otf his fnt stock.

1002.nbsp; Then he would suffer a groat loss in selling his pedigree stock at butchers' prices, would not he ? Under the slaughtering system he would have to do that at any rate ; it is compulsory in that case, but it is not in the other.

10Ü3. Then breeders of pedigree stock at present have no cases of pleuro-pneumonia amongst their stock in this country. In the case of inoculation and restriction for one year they would have to submit to it; in the present case they are free from it ? Yes.

^ 1004. So that slaughter would not affect them ? Neither would the other as long as they had not got the disease. They only suffer in the event of disease breaking out. For instance, in a pedigree stock, which is best, the slaughter of that stock or inoculation and the isolation of the saved herd ?I say the latter process is by far the preferable, both in the interests of the owner and of the country ; you save the strain of blood, yon do not annihilate it.

1005.nbsp; nbsp;I think you recommended inoculation in restricted areas ?Yes.

1006.nbsp; Can you inoculate cows in calf ?Yes; but not when they are close upon calving. I do not think it is safe then.

1007.nbsp; Would such animals be exempted under your proposition ?They would be isolated and inoculated as soon as possible. I have inoculated cows lately within a month of calving, but that is quite close enough.

1008.nbsp; Can you inoculate young calves ?Yes, but not when they are too young.

1009.nbsp; What is the earliest age at which you can safely inoculate a calf ?I think that should not be done much before 10 or 12 weeks, otherwise you might get bad results. They sometimes get inflammation of the joints, knees, and hocks, and they do not do -well.

1010.nbsp; Then that class of calves would Ve exempted under your suggestion ?Yes, for a few weeks, but if disease appeared inoculate at all risk.

1011.nbsp; Will inoculation give an animal immunity from a further attack ?Yes.

1012.nbsp; For how long ?I do not know any instances in which it has been otherwise.

1013.nbsp; What length of time have you known animals that have been inoculated living and exposed to the disease after it ?12 months. I think there was an outbreak that I had once at Kirkcaldy where animals were twice exposed.

1014.nbsp; Then you have no experience yourself to say that an animal may not take it after 12 months ?No actual experience that an animal may not take it then ; but I have never had a case that coidd give mo an answer to that question. We have a very strong inference that an animal will not take the inoculation twice. An animal will not submit to the inoculation twice, but I have inoculated animals that have been, and I have know them to have been inoculated probably a couple of years after the first inoculation, and you could get absolutely no result whatever from the second inoculation. Now that leaves a very strong inference amounting almost to a certainty in my mind that they would not contract the true disease.

1015.nbsp; I3ut you do not know that such a thing may not occur, or does your experience lend you to any other conclusion ?No; but 1 should like you to understand that that is from inferences all leading up to that conclusion.

101Ö. Ilaquo; inoculation always effectual?Vos ; inoculation will undoubtedly always arrest and raquo;tamp out pleum-pneumouia.

Mr.}{.

Itutherfurd, h'.U.C.V.S.

2G April 1888.

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEBOUIOSIS 1

Mr.B.

Rutherford, F.R.C.V.S.

'26 April 1888.

1017.nbsp; nbsp;Will every animal take plouro-pneumonia ? No.

1018.nbsp; Would those animals be exempted under your scheme ?No, and they should be destroyed, if suspected old subjects. If the animal will not accept inoculation, it is probably a subject of the disease; it should bo carefully examined at intervals and its fate determined by the result. There are very few such cases that there need be any doubt about, and when there is a doubt I would destroy.

1019.nbsp; Will an animal that is clean sometimes not take inoculation?No, I do not think so; an animal that is clean, that has never had pleuro in its life will undoubtedly accept inoculation.

1020.nbsp; You say you do not think so; are you certain ?I have always found them to do it.

1021.nbsp; Have you never known an instance where an animal has not taken it ?No.

1022.nbsp; Is that the experience of the veterinary profession generally ?They have no experience in this matter. The whole profession have not any experience in this matter to speak generally, largely, and definitely on that point.

1023.nbsp; Vaccination does not always take with an infant, why should inoculation always take with an animal?It is the case that it does. One thing you may depend upon is this that if they will not take inoculation they will not contract the disease ; it is impossible for an animal to resist inoculation and subsequently to contract the disease.

1024.nbsp; nbsp;1 do not see why it should be ?Because the liability to contract the disease shows that the food upon which the germs live within the body is there, and they would convoy the artificial disease that is niduced by inoculation in the presence of that food quite as readily as they would the true disease or via verso.

1025.nbsp; Docs a spurious inoculation ever take place in an animal that may pass muster as inoculation ? Yes, there are spurious inoculations; that is to say, cases where inoculation has not been properly performed ; for instance, the lymph may be bad and there may bo a number of instances of that sort. In inoculating a herd or a large number of animals you do not get in every instance identically the same local appearances, but that does not lead yon to believe that the animal has not accepted inoculation. Yon are satisfied, and you may probably remain satisfied, that the animal has accepted it if you are satisfied that you have used proper virus. With the majority of the animals upon whom you have operated you may get certain substantial results, and if on the almost daily direct examination of those eases where you have not those substantial results, but only partly so, you have a uniform temperature, that animal in every other respect thriving and doing perfectly well, you may be certain that this is an animal in which the susceptibility has not been so strong, and that it remains absolutely protected quite as much as the others who have exhibited a very much severer lesion. Speaking about the lesion as evidence of inoculation, you know some of the lesions are exceedingly mild ; you simply have an eruption round the seat of the operation extending about 4 or 5 inches, which subsides about the 14th or 16th or 17th day. In other cases the lesion may extend up the tail and affect the soft tissues in the neighbourhood of the anus and vulva and produce death, and the animals in both cases may have been operated upon in identically the same way and not an atom more of virus used; but still you would get these different results.

1026.nbsp; An animal that has been imperfectly inoculated would be liable to contract the disease, would not it ?Yes, that animal would not be inoculated at all.

1027.nbsp; nbsp;You have told us that a spurious inoculation did sometimes show itself ?What I mean by spurious inoculation is not what I have been just describing. Spurious inoculation is where animals have been inoculated with virus that was not vims; with lymph mat was not lymph.

1028.nbsp; Then that would not be protected, I assume ? No. I have had to deal with frequent outbreaks whore inoculation has been said to have been performed and had not been performed.

1029.nbsp; nbsp;Then such nnimals would bo liable to contagion, would not they?Yes; undoubtedly the disease never went from amongst them until I afterwards inoculated them,

1030.nbsp; Then that would be another class of animals that would be exempted under your scheme ?There would not be any chance of their being exempted if every veterinarian applied the operation correctly. The proper thing to do is to lay down a system of operation which must be followed.

1031.nbsp; Would the veterinary community want training to a higher degree and to a greater state of efficiency than they are now before the animals would safe ?No; the veterinary inspectors at the present time have to make themselves cognisant of the application of the laws, for instance, the present Contagious Diseases Law, and this would simply be a rider to that. Instead of slaughtering everything they would have to bracket quot; inoculation quot; in the Act and carry it out under a certain system. It would not require any very great amount of education to enable them to overtake that.

1032.nbsp; nbsp;But you say that the operation is not effectually performed now sometimes?It is not sometimes.

1033.nbsp; Then those animals would be excepted ?I do not say that at all. it would be for the local authorities to satisfy themselves that their officers were fitted for the duties ; and I say it is for the local authorities to see that they know their duties.

1034.nbsp; nbsp;If this class of animals that I have mentioned had germs of disease through being in contact with others, would they be liable to communicate it to other animals ?Yes, undoubtedly.

1035.nbsp; If this class of animals are liable to communicate the disease, how will inoculation extirpate it from this country ?I have always extirpated it in every outbreak that I have dealt with.

1036.nbsp; How can you extirpate it if these animals are liable to give it ?Which ones ?

1037.nbsp; We will take an animal that has been inoculated, and that may take the disease after two years ? I do not think that is likely, unless the operation has been wrongly done.

1038.nbsp; You do not think it likely, but it may ? Deal with the disease again if it breaks out. I have had such cases and always succeeded in getting rid of the disease.

1039.nbsp; They would not extirpate it that way ?You cannot be certain to extirpate it by slaughtering, on the same reasoning, because in dealing with every outbreak our knowledge of the spread is so indefinite that you cannot be certain after having destroyed and slaughvered out a herd that you have slaughtered out the disease.

1040.nbsp; The law provides for punishment in the case of outbreaks which are not notified to the authorities, does not it ?I am very much afraid that the law will not overtake every case, especially in Ireland.

1041.nbsp; That line of argument amounts to this, that the law wants strengthening in order to make compulsory slaughtering more effectual ?It does; but any amount of strengthening the law will not affect the spread of the disease from infected animals so long as we are not absolutely certain as to the mode of its spread and the length, or rather the area over which it may spread itself, and its mode of communication. I mean the insidious and long incubative nature of the disease.

1042.nbsp; That seems to me more an argument against inoculation rather than against slaughter ?No.

1043.nbsp; How can you entirely free the country from disease by inoculation, when you cannot perform inoculation without the virus of the disease?In every outbreak you have the means of annihilating it. You have in the infected animals a material which would encounter that disease in every outbreak.

Ml*

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

1044.nbsp; But you cimnot extirpate the Uiseust), because if you want ihc virus to [uooulato you niusl liuve the disease ?In the absence of the disease there would lie no necessity for the virus. In the presRiice oi the disease the virus would bo there, and it would only he a question of time when the disease would beeomo loss and leas at that rate, and it would be u very short time, too, 1 am persuaded.

1045.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir G. Mucpherwn Grant.) In your evidence before the Highland Society you are reported to have said : quot;I am prepared to admit the possibility quot; that a per-centage of animals may have the, disease quot; in a limited area of the lung ; such cases have come quot; under my notice, but it is not my experience that quot; these animals after passing through inoculation dis-quot; seminate disease.quot; That is to say, that these animals were diseased without bein? discovered ? 1 am very glad that you have opened up that question

__exceedingly glad, because 1 think it is the one qucs-

f\on that should be definitely settled, either by a consensus of evidence or by some demonstrations. I must tell you that in my dealings with the disease, I occasionally in isolated outbreaks have come across cases where it was possible, or where, if there was such a thing as an animal being left with a disease of an extremely limited area, which I could not detect, that I should expect to find the disease break out amongst fresh animals placed amongst them. I can put my finger upon outbreaks of that kind, and I am very glad that you have asked Mr. Biggar to come here, because his is one of these outbreaks. Mind you, there are very few, there must be very few, because I have not met with them. I simply admit the possibility and the probability from the appearance of the animals themselves, and from the history of the outbreak, but I have never met with such cases. I have never met with such animals that are left and dismissed by me after inoculation communicating the disease to others. This applies to my practice generally. I may tell you that in the case of the Kirkcudbrightshire outbreaks there were four outbreaks; I think I had charge of three, and all those three outbreaks had been coming on for some time. I found in each instance diseased animals over and above those which were isolated for the disease by tlie inspectors, and of course I slaughtered them. In all three outbreaks it was notably the case that if ever there were outbreaks where the disease, could have been present in an exceedingly limited area, which 1 did not detect and could not detect, although I examined them very ₀ft_enI say often, but I was in the city. It is a long distance from my place to Kirkcudbrightshire. In those three outbreaks the animals were all inoculated, and vigorously inoculated, and to this day, although they have been mixed up, and deliberately mixed up, over and over again with fresh stock for the purpose of being able to try and induce the disease among them, fhey have signally failed, notably in Mr. Biggar's case. In Mr. Biggar's case I think there were 11 animals left finally. There were 16 left out of about 30 or 40, and my assistant went down and he polished off five in one day at once, and inoculated the remainder.

1046. By polished off, do you mean that he killed

ji_vcp__At once; they had the disease. Of the 11 I

have admitted, and always admitted, that in Mr. Biggar's case there might have been one or two, and I was very anxious that Mr. Biggar shouhl put the matter to the proof. He purchased stores after the quarantine period had expired, built a shed, and mixed them up in two lots, and after a certain period^ began to slaughter out the stores in the presence of thquot; veterinary surgeons in the district, and he slaughtered out also those which had been inoculated, and not a trace of the disease could bo fouud in them. Now there was an instance where the disease was attempted to be produced and where it was quite possible. I think, however, in practice with a careful veterinary surgeon that these instances in limited area eases must be few and far between, because it is

nation, that any animal who has the disOBBO at all .,^Ar_l^r-quot;#9632;, developed can escape him. Then, raquo;gain, I think ÄJ'TO there is another explanation. It is only a theory, but ' _^ ^-it is as good as any other in the meantime. That is ₂6 April 1888

this, that those who do escape them must have the-----------

disease in a very exceedingly limited area, and those animals accept inoculation.

1047. (Mr. Bowen-Jones) By limited area do you mean a small part of the animal ?Yes, about the size of the top of that inkstand there. Those animals accept inoculation, and they accept it very freely, simply because the animal system has not been as it were denuded, starved out of the material upon which the disease lives, and they accept inoculation well. There is as it were a lifting of the disease from where it would isolate itsalf to the seat of the operation. I believe implicitly that the blood is starved out, is deprived of the means of the disease living upon it, and the lesion, which would have become a contagious one in ihe lung, becomes converted into a non-contagious lesion.

1048.nbsp; Can you indicate to the Committee to what extent this lung maybe diseased and the animal accept inoculation aud escape the disease ?I do not think it is possible to escape.

1049.nbsp; Will you please refer to page 34 of the evidence given before the Highland Society. It is not your evidence, but I have no doubt your attention has been drawn to it. On that page there is a reference to Salmond's case ?Yes ; there are a lot of things there I would like to correct.

1050.nbsp; nbsp;Do you agree with Mr. McCall in this: quot; According to Mr. Eutherford this animal was quot; successfully inoculated, the tail was amputated, and quot; it was considered safe quot; ?No.

1051.nbsp; You do not agree with Mr. McCall in that statement ?No, I do not.

1052.nbsp; Do you admit that the animal was inoculated ? Yes.

1053.nbsp; Do you admit that the animal contracted

disease?__There I do not admit the correctness of

Mr. McCall's statement.

1054.nbsp; Do you know the animal I allude to ?I do not now. I will tell you why I do not know the animal. Mr. Salmond is a very old gentleman, not able to manage his own business. His son manages it for him. It is not the first occasion on which I inoculated for Salmond, as Professor McCall has stated there it is the second.

1055.nbsp;Is this statement of Professor McCall's correct ? quot; On March 1st I required to take another cow and quot; kill it laquo;nd I found both lungs bad. This animal quot; was inoculated on the 9tli. According to Mr. Euther-quot; ford, it was successfully inoculated, the tail was quot; amputated, and it was considered safe; so that if quot; the cow of the 17th was confirmatory of the fact quot; that when an animal contracts pluero-pneumonia by quot; the natural method it cannot be inoculated, the case quot; of the 1st March was the very reverse. Both lungs quot; were bad.quot; Is that, correct? I presume it is because there were several cases.

10.^6. {Chairman.) Is the description of this particular case on March 1st correct?I do not. recollect the dates ; but I know it was an outbreak I had a lot of bother with.

1057.nbsp; {Sir G. Macphersnn Grant.) quot; This animal was inoculated on the 9th.quot; Is that correct ?That would be correct.

1058.nbsp; quot; According to Mr. Eutherford it was success-quot; fully inoculated, the tail was amputated, and it was quot; considered safe quot; ; is that correct ?That is not correct.

1059.nbsp; Then you do not consider that the animal was successfully inoculated ? No ; because 1 Imd already, ten days after the operation, informed the owner that several of the animals were diseased and that he should report them.

1060.nbsp; nbsp;quot; The tail was amputated.quot; Is that correct ? Yes.

1061.nbsp; quot; And it was considered safe quot; ?No ; that is not the (rase, because I could not say the animals were

,ii^

igt;

. jj

almost impossible, if he is careful in his daily exami-

0 S4003.

laquo;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;raquo;

OOMMITTEK ON rLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS;

Mr. It.

Rutherford, F.R.C.V.S.

26 April 1888,

safe when at tho same time I informed the owner that they had the disease.

1062.nbsp; Then you directly traverse Mr. MeGall's account ofthat animal ?Yes.

1063.nbsp; Do you adhere to the statement you made a short time ago, that your practice in inoculation has been very much confined to dairy stocks in and about towns ?Yes.

1064.nbsp; I know the class of bjiildings outside the burgh boundary ; they are very much contracted ? Yes.

1063. More generally than the breeding and the farming stocks in this country ?Yes,

1066.nbsp; I think you made a very strong statement on another point, namely, that it pays farmers better to sell out all their cattle. Do you adhere to that ?I have hoard of them saying so.

1067.nbsp; Is that a general statement?I do not think it would be a very general statement. I have heard them say so.

J 068, Would you be surprised to hear of people who have known dairymen say that it is not a bad thing to slaughter out all their cattle ?I have heard dairymen say so, but only where they purchased cheap cattle nnd had not much of a business at stake.

1069.nbsp; Then your remark would apply to both ? Yes.

1070.nbsp; Then the question of slaughtering out from an economical point of view might be as good for the dairyman as it was for the farmer ?No, not with respectable men. It is only people of a very low moral character in that respect who would suggest such a thing.

1071.nbsp; I suppose there is some morality in the farmer as well as in the dairyman ?I say in both instances it would only be those who had a poor idea of what they owed to their fellowmen.

1072.nbsp; As regards the slaughter system, I have heard it suggested that that would be so obnoxious to the farmers that they would conceal the disease and would not report the disease ; would you apprehend that ?I have not had sufficient experience of farmers to say whether they would be inclined, as a rule, to report or to hide ; but I have sufficient experience of dairymen to say that the majority of them would endeavour to hide it. I have not their authority for saying this, but I have that knowledge of the men from my long contact with them.

1073.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Does your distrust in the dairymen reporting a case apply equally to the big men as to the little men ?Much more to the big ones, for this reason, that they have a much larger stock and a very much larger business to meet the daily demand for milk. Little dairymen can easily get their supply from their neighbours.

1074.nbsp; (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.') As to infection remaining in the byre, you said, I think, that the dairyman's business is destroyed by the slaughter of the animals from which he makes his profit by milk, and he cannot fill his byres again ?I think very few would really.

1075.nbsp; Very few would ?Yes, not for some time afterwards. There lately is a very strong feeling in Edinburgh, after a long experience of the disease in old times, that the disease has a tendency to hang about the place.

1076.nbsp; About what length of time do you think a byre would be unsafe ?I might answer you as 1 answered a local authority some time ago about it. I think very much depends upon the nature of the building, the roofing, the flooring, and the walls; old loose roofs, old walls, old flooring and clay floors, and clay fixings about the troughs, and tho like of that, are ready means of affording a lodgment for an exhaled virus. Walls that are well plastered, and tho cemented stalls, good roofs, and the like of that, and floors that generally can be flushed with water, are comparatively safe.

1077.nbsp; nbsp;Would you consider it safe for a farmer to introduce fresh stock into a building where there had been pleiiro ?T think an ordinary building would

not be very safe for about three months. 1 liavo always thought tho present time, two months, is too little.

1078,nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Horsley.) I understood from an answer that you have given that you do not consider pleuro-pneumonia to be indigenous to Great Britain ? No; it is not so very old in Great Britain, about 40 or 50 years.

1079.nbsp; Do you think that if tho amount of it now existing were stamped out anyhow that it would recur unless imported ?No, it would not if there was a quarantine period before introducing fresh stock into infected places.

1080,nbsp; nbsp;What do you think to be the common source of the disease as regards Scotland?I havo found Ireland to be that chiefly, and during tho last few years largely the North of England.

1081,nbsp; Not the Continent; do not you havo cattle from the Continent ?No ; not that I am aware of.

1082.nbsp; Further, with regard to what you said about infection of byres, I gather that what you wanted to convey to the Committee was that if the virus fell upon the place where the floor was faulty, and consequently might be damp, the virus would be preserved ?I do not think there must bo any moisture about. I think the moisture would destroy it. I rather think that the explanation is this, that it is expired and finds a lodgment in some Ipose dust, probably in the walls ; it gets dislodged from that and ultimately finds its way into the respiratory organs again. I am afraid that is it.

1083.nbsp; I gathered from your evidence to the Highland Society that you thought desiccation would kill it ?Yes ; drying it artificially does kill tho virus from the lungsthat is, the liquid virus.

1084. Then if the virus fell into the crannies of a byre among the dust it would be dry too, would not it ?I would suppose so, but there may be a difference in the process. The fact remains that if you inoculate with worsted threads saturated with liquid virus taken from the lung, dried on sheets of paper, and kept for a certain time under any system you like, the results are very uncertain indeed. I got results, but not satisfactory results.

1085.nbsp; nbsp; Did I understand you that you would be able to supply the Committee with the facts of byres having been infected with pleuro-pneumonia in the way you indicate from this lodgment ?No ; unfortunately I have not got notes of any in particular, but the facts remain very strongly on my mind that cases of that sort have arisen in my practice.

1086.nbsp; Perhaps I am asking you too much, but do you remember in those cases in which such a condition appears to have occurred that in any of the cattle which were killed in the outbreak the disease appeared to be old, to be encysted ?No ; new cases.

1087.nbsp; Always new ?Cases newly visited with the disease.

1088.nbsp; Then you would not say that if the disease appeared to be smouldering in them, as it were, that that was in consequence of infection which had encysted ?Had that been so I should have condemned the mode of inoculation at once as being a possible factor.

1089.nbsp; What do you believe to be the mode of infection ; do you think, as a rule, it is by the air ? Yes; it is respired.

1090.nbsp; Do you believe it is possible for a herdsman to carry the virus on his clothes ?I do not.

1091.nbsp; You described to us the kind of lymph you used and where you have obtained it from. Have you ever used lymph that contained matter ?No, I have avoided it. I have known others do so and have bad results. You see there arc records of that havino' been done in other countries by inexperienced men, nnd you havo the results. Of course no sensible man #9632;would do such a thing. I say no more than that. It is my opinion that pleuro-pneumonia lymph will not stand attenuation ; it differs in that respect from any other animal poisonthe poison of rabies and numbers of other poisons will stand attenuationweakening to

lb.

MINUTES OF BVIDENCK.

.rot laquo; coi'tum result. Pleuro-pnoumoniu virus will not

think that that practice slaughter enforcement.

would increase with the

Mr. Ä. Rutherford, F.R.C.V.S.

raquo;tund that, You must uae it absolutely pure to get its

potency.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , ^

1092.nbsp; You must uslaquo; it when it is most potent t

Yes.

1093.nbsp; Then I also unclerstood you to say this, that you would only regard an animal to have been successfully inoculated by two points of evidence, first, the lesion that you produce in the tail ?Yes.

1094.nbsp; And, secondly, its remaining perfectly sound for a month afterwards ?Yes.

1095.nbsp; Then the duration of protection within your experience has been two years, 1 understand, because the animal has been killed after that ?Yes I have no reason to doubt that they are protected for then-natural life ; that is, I have no reason to think otherwise.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

1096.nbsp; But your facts take you up to two years t-

^Yc8-

1097.nbsp; And not beyond ?No.

1098.nbsp; As regards the practical disadvantages of inoculation, you stated to us that you have inoculated 5,000 odd cattle; can you give the Committee the number of animals that have died, first, on account of accidental septic poisoning, and, secondly, the number which have died from there being too great a quantity of virus?Yes.

1099.nbsp; nbsp;Please give the Committee, first, the total number of animals that have died from inoculation ? I cannot give that, but I can give you the per-centage.

1100.nbsp; The per-centage will do as well ?When I first of all commenced inoculating, the practice being solely confined to dairy cows, and to a large extent I was groping my way amongst a dairy practice, the average casualty of death from all causes was 5 per cent.not over, rather under. Then it fell to 3, and and now it is 1 per cent.

1101.nbsp; What do you consider to be the commonest casualty ?Spread of the inoculative lesion to the vulva and its neighbourhood.

1102.nbsp; Can you give us the per-centage of that, roughly ?That is the per-centage, 1 per cent.

1103.nbsp; Do you mean that the cause of the casualty is always that ?Yes; or it may be nn animal falling down and striking the soft tissues in front of the breast, or getting a blow on the side. You get the same exudative process set up there that you get in the lung.

1104.nbsp; What I understand you to say is, that in your present practice you never have any deaths from septic poisoning?No, none whatever.

1105.nbsp; You have seen that sort of thing, of course ( No, I have simply seen the spread of the peculiar inoculative actionthe lesion that you get iu the lung itselfspreading to the soft tissues about the haunch and killing by arrest of defecation and urination and the irritative fever set up.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ....

1106.nbsp; Have you not seen septic poisoning in the practice of others ?No.

1107.nbsp; Except Professor Gamgee? Yes, and he killed his cattle simply by operating at the very spot

1114.nbsp; (Professor Horsley.) Could you give thenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;__ Committee your opinion as to what you consider to be 26 April 1888

the amount of waste of animal life by such amp; method-----------

of slaughtering ?No, I have no statistics upon that none whatever.

1115.nbsp; Have you had charge of an outbreak in which animals have all been slaughtered ?I never had charge of an outbreak that I did not stop the disease, except the one I mentioned, as having occurred ten years ago in Lanarkshire, where the inspector killed off about 70 animals some few days after I inoculated them.

1116.nbsp; By inoculation?By inoculation. Those 5,000 and odd animals I have inoculated.

1117.nbsp; Does that represent your whole experience ?

__That is rather under than over because I went over

my books in one day to get those figures. If you put those 5,000 animals down to be slaughtered even at 10/. a head (and dairy cattle are worth nearer 20/. on an average in Edinburgh), it is from 50,000/. and upwards saved the ratepayers of Edinburgh and the

county.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , , . ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i

1118.nbsp; Do you regard an animal which was clean before the inoculation as infective in any way after the inoculation ?Not at all. An inoculated animal healthy at the time of the operation cannot afterwards be infective. I know of no case to the contrary, and there has been abundant opportunity.

1119.nbsp; From your experience what do you consider to be the amount of imperfect inoculation which is being practised at the present timecan you give us an idea?I know of one instance where a client employed an operator to inoculate in a case of pleuro among 19 animals ; the diseased animal was put down 18 were inoculated and 17 afterwards were destroyed for pleuro-pneumonia. In not one of the 17 was there a single true lesion of inoculation. There was a whole herd killed in consequence of inoculation being badly performed.

1120.nbsp; Can you give the Committee the actual total number of such instances as have come under your notice ?There has been a great number, especially within the last two or three years.

1121.nbsp; Can you get the number ?No ; there is not only a per-centage of deaths after the operation from the operation, but there are deaths from the disease, all of which is quite easily obviated as much above the average.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

1122.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing we could compare the two methods for economical reasons, do you think that inoculation would be more economical than slaughtering ?Undoubtedly, because I think it is quite as capable of annihilating the disease as the other is. I beg you to believe that I do not, say so from any interested motive. I have been accused of that by foreign papersCanadian papers, for instance-but I say it is not so. I am perfectly independent of anything ot

the kind.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,,,..,, a s ^

1123. In your evidence before the Highland bociety you speak of an incubative stage. Do I understand you by that expression to mean a stage of the disease

in an animal in which no lung lesion has appeared J From the time of contact until the time of the development of the disease it is very indefinite. I have known four and five and six months many a time.

1124.nbsp; In the lung ?No, I could not say in the lungin the body. You have the counterpart ot that in rabies poisoning. You know a man or a woman may receive a bite from a rabid dog and the poison remain perfectly inert for a most indefinite tune12 years has been mentioned, but 12 months is a common

time.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . ,

1125.nbsp; What is your idea as to the average incubation period of the disease ?Six weeks

1126.nbsp; Is that a general idea or could you give tlie Committee actual figures ?I could not give them actual figures, but you may take it as a well-ascertained fact. I think that most veterinarians who haw given the subject any attention will say about six weeks. The great majority of duirymen, who know

13 2

I avoid.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . . -

1108.nbsp; No doubt he got his septic poisoning trom the material that he used ?Yes,he used to tie a piece of lung in, irrespective of its condition to the best of my recollection. Odier operators have done the same with similar results.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , , t i

1109.nbsp; As regards stamping out by slaughter, 1 believe it is your opinion that that would leod to the concealment of the disease among the dairymen ?I am afraid so.

1110.nbsp; Do you know of any case at the present time of such concealment ?None; but I have heard dairymen talk about it lately as a thing likely to occur.

1111.nbsp; Have you met with the concealment of the disease in your actual experience ?Yes, I have.

1112.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Then you do know of it personally ?_Yes, but not at present.

1113.nbsp; In your own practice?I have met with cases where the disease has been concealed, and I

COMMITTEE ON PLBUKO-PNEUMONIA AND TÜBEKCULOS1S:

20 April 1888.

do from close and frequent observation say that six weeks from the time when they come in contact with the disease till they develop it is about the period.

1127.nbsp; Then I understand your evidence before the Highland Society to mean that if inoculation is practised during that incubation period it might be successful ?I am certain it would be if there is no lung change ; that is, if the disease has not begun to localise itself in the lung tissues. Phenomenal cbanses that rid the body of a tendency to develop in the lung are developed in the tip of the tail, the seat of the operation.

1128.nbsp; Then what I understand clearly is that the iiiooulation would have that beneficent effect if it is #9830;lone before the lung is really attacked ?I am certain it has.

1129.nbsp; Then you think that when a lung lesion has been set up inoculation will make it worse ?Yes, I think so if it is well set up, although I think I am quite prepared to say with an exceedingly minute case, although that must l)e very small indeed, arrest-ment and change of lesion in the lung may take place.

1130.nbsp; If it is extremely small?Yes. I may mention that an old client of mine whom I have just met (he is coming up to-morrow) tells me that in his instance, the very last case I put down, the lesion was not very much larger than the top of this inkstand was; that there must be very few escape if careful observations are made.

1131.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) In the evidence that you gave before the Highland Society you say that the incubative stage cannot be detected ?No, the disease cannot be detected in the incubative stage; that is what I said.

1132.nbsp; When giving your evidence before the Highland Society I understood you to mean that if the lung was the very least degree affected inoculation would immediately bring out the disease far stronger; am I right or wrong ?You are right generally.

1133.nbsp; Always ?Always in my experience ; that is a perfectly true answer.

1131. If you will turn to the print of your evidence before the Highland Society you will see that you say, quot;The consequence of that is that it is almost quot; impossible for an animal to escape observation unless quot; the disease is in an exceedingly limited area quot; ? That area may be no larger than a hazel nut.

1135.nbsp; Very well, supposing it is as large as an hazel nut, would you explain to me what is the change that yon think would come over that portion of diseased lung that would prevent it afterwards breaking out again and making the disease certain ?I think the change that takes place is thisit is a theory, but still it is one which I infer from resultsthat by inoculation the material upon which that lesion if left alone would grow upon is diverted to the seat of inoculation. It is matured there and the blood deprived of its power of producing the lung lesion to any greater extent than what has already taken place in the lung. A starvation process is going on. The material upon which it lives no longer exists, and that small lesjon, I apprehend, becomes converted into a non-contagious simple lesion, the same as what takes place in ordinary pneumonia.

1136.nbsp; It would become encysted, would it?I think not.

1137.nbsp; You think not?Except that simply it does not become an encysted contagions lesion. It gets cut off certainly from the rest of the healthy lung as a preliminary process to getting mended up.

1138.nbsp; Then you are of opinion that there would be no danger of that animal becoming what is commonly known as an old rogue ?I am. I do not think that an animal could become an old rogue that has been under the careful watching of an operator for several weeks ; I think they must have found out if anything was the matter with him.

1139.nbsp; nbsp;And that inoculation would find him out? Yes ; I have found out many a time these old cases that have been brought outall the old standing

cases of the diseases that have been naturally recoveredI have over and over again detected them in the course of dealing with outbreaks of pleuro-pneu-monia. As I have already said, in dealing with ordinary outbreaks where, from day to day, thormo-metrical observations are made and there is careful watching of every animal, it is almost impossible that any animal can escape and become an old roguo. In the meantime inoculation is doing its work, and if it has, as I apprehend it has, a changing action on the system, there is very little tendency for these old rogues to grow under the inoculative system.

1140.nbsp; But with regard to the change that you have just observed as taking place in the lung, do you mean that inoculation arrests it at that stage ?Yes, I infer so; but I tell you again I have not met with it. In post-mortem examinations I have never been able to meet any inoculated animals with the disease.

1141.nbsp; You have inoculated, I think, 5,115 animals? Yes.

1142.nbsp; Could you tell us how many of those animals you have followed ?Hundreds.

1143.nbsp; Could you give us any idea of what percentage ?I cannot, but my friend Mr. Reid, in Leith, for instance, the inspector there, who is also the inspector of the abattoirs, has made a point of examining every animal during the 10 years that has come in that I have inoculated, and he has never found a, single case.

1144.nbsp; May the Committee take it that 50 per cent, of your animals have been followed?Yes.

1145.nbsp; 60 per cent.?You may take it at 50 per cent, at any rate. I really could not tell you how many came into the Edinburgh slaughter-houses, but a very large number indeed ; some few may be sent away to other towns. They are always sold to be slaughtered after being fattened. I have never heard a single complaint, not once la my life.

1146.nbsp; To follow up another question that Professor Horsley asked you, I think you said that the incubation period extended from about five months ?Yes; there is the Australian experience, you know.

1147.nbsp; You also said you had known cases, but you could not give us any particular cases, where fresh stock had been brought into a shed and had taken the disease ?Yes.

1148.nbsp; And that you believed that disease to have been newly introduced in the herd ?Yes.

1149.nbsp; If the incubation period lasts five months, and you cannot follow these newly introduced animals back for a period of five months, is not that presumptive evidence that the disease may possibly be in the new stock ?No ; my remark applied to following an individual animal from the time of its being bought until it finally developed the disease. When I gave you that answer I had in my mind's eye an outbreak at Cameron Bridge, in Scotland, where the owners, who kept a large number of animals for the purpose of consuming their brewery waste products, were in the habit of quarantining; they were so frightened of pleuro that they used to quarantine all their new purchases. It was amongst the quarantined animals that the disease was detected. One animal had been noticed at the time of purchase as not being quite well. He was turned into the quarantine yard and was treated for ordinary pneumonia and recovered. I can give you the owner's nameAir. Haig. That animal was subsequently turned into the herd of grazing animals, amongst whom pleuro-pneumonia broke out five months afterwards, We had this animal brought out and it was slaughtered. That was an old case of pleuro-pneumonia.

1160. You say you have known fresh animals brought into a shed or farm where there has been an outbreak of disease, and that there has been H fresh outbreak amongst the new animals; have you followed these animals and traced their history for, say, a period of five or six months previously ?As a general rule, I have not. Individual outbreaks sometimes force their notice upon you as to what time must have elapsed since they were in contact with the

#9632;'M

yMl

\Mi

_l IP

mnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

MINUTKS OV KV1DKNCK.

disease, like the one I have just mentioned. As a rule, with iiewly-bvought-iu animals which have boon in contact (say, for instance, animals which have been brought over lioro from Ireland, and purchased into the same byres) it would generally bo about six weeks before thoy show the disease.

1151.nbsp; You have known of places, I think you said, where the disease had liung about for beweeu fivo and six months ?Yes.

1152.nbsp; Can you explain why the disease, in your opinion, is capable of being comimuiieated by farm steading surroundings, and is not capable of being communicated by the clothes of the attendant?! cannot.

1153.nbsp; But such is your experience?Yes, such is my experience. The explanation is probably this, that the clothes of the attendant are shaken, and they are exposed to the open air, and the infective matter gets disseminated in that way where it can do no harm, and dies.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

1164, Professor Brown gave you some statistics about the amount of compensation paid in Midlothian, both in the county and in the city. Can you explain why it it is there has been such an increase in the outbreaks since inoculation has been practised as compared with Ihe previous time when inoculation was not practised ?It is not the case. Prior to inoculation the number of outbreaks was as three to one. I draw your particular attention to this ; that those later outbreaks were in cluster areas where there is not only one byre, but probably 10 or a dozen altogether. In the great majority of the outbreaks that I have had the disease has been annihilated once and for all. In some of those clusters they have had the disease two or three times these last few years. One dairy gets it and it goes through the lot, not always commencing in the same place.

1155.nbsp; In answer to a question by Mr. Bowen-Jones, I understood you to admit that, supposing your system was to be followed out generally in the country, there were three classes of animals that would be excepted first, a cow about to calve; secondly, the calf, and thirdly, the imperfectly inoculated animals ?You must exclude the latter because that implies a bad operator. That had nothing to do with the question in my opinion. In the other cases you would, simply as a matter of economy and prudence, avoid inoculating for a certain time; you may, if you like, inoculate them, but it is at the risk of injuring them.

1156.nbsp; But still I understand you to mean that you would only defer the inoculation ?That is all.

1157.nbsp; You would defer the inoculation of a cow and oi a calf for a short period until tiiey were fit for inoculation ?Yes. Calves, for instance, could be slaughtered for veal at once; with calving cows I have done it where they were in contact with a very severe outbreak. At Kelengad, for instance, there were two or three cows very close upon calving, and I advised their slaughter rather than allow them to stand for, say, two or three weeks in a place where the disease was very bad; and they were slaughtered accordingly, I believe.

1158.nbsp; Then do you consider that the only danger would be in the imperfectly inoculated animals? There is a danger that those calving cows might contract the diseaseit is probable that some of them would. You must simply meet that by slaughtering them at once if they did contract it ; but they would not all do it, one or two out of the number might.

1159.nbsp; quot;Would not that be rather severe on breeding stock ?It is better than killing the lot, though. It is not absolutely necessary; it would only be in the event of their taking the disease. Much the most prudent plan is to delay their inoculation until they are in a fit state to receive it.

1160.nbsp; You spike about the present knowledge of the veterinary surgeons. Are you aware of the great difference of opinion that has existed (as brought out in the evidence given before the Highland Society) both as to the question of contact and as to the length

of time the virus would keep good?Yes, I am aware of it.

Mr. It.

Jluthiir/orn,

1161.nbsp; nbsp;Still, being aware of those great differencesnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;____

of opinion, would you be quite content to trust the 26 April 1888,

country veterinary surgeons that are being employed-----------

by the local authorities with the carrying out of the inoculation ?No, I have said the very opposite of that; I have said that before you entrust any veterinarian to undertake the inoculating of any man's cattle, the local authority have a perfect right to be satisfied that ho is capable of doing so, and if he is not, to get somebody else that is. If veterinarians were once for all told that thej; must bo capable of doing it, they would make it their business to understand tho disease, and not merely theorise upon it.

1162.nbsp; nbsp;How long were you in Australia ?I have been there five times.

1163.nbsp; But altogether ?Perhaps about six months each time. My duties were in India, and they took me down to Australia. It was during these visits that I paid particular attention in different parts of the country to the question of inoculation.

1164.nbsp; quot;What part of Australia were you in? Chiefly Victoria.

1165.nbsp; Were you in South Australia?No, I never was in South Australia for any length of time.

1166.nbsp; Then you cannot probably tell me what were the numbers of cattle moved through South Australia and Victoria ?I cannot tell you, but the number would be very enormous.

1167.nbsp; And you cannot tell me the por-centages of deaths from pleuro, I suppose ?No, I cannot; but I can tell you this, that I was personally acquainted with the inspectors in Victoria; and Mr. Bruce, the chief inspector of New South Wales, says that in these two provinces there is a continual direct intercommunication crossing mob after mob, and thot both Governments were profoundly impressed with the value of inoculation, after having tried the slaughtering out process which failed. Queensland had the same experience, I was told the other day by a gentleman who was over here. Now they are inoculating out there entirely, with the full approval of the Governmentnot compulsorily, but with their lull approval, and it is being done with entire success. There if a man was purchasing a station he would not object to purchase one where the disease had passed through it, and where they had been inoculated, so little fear have they of the animals that have been inoculated and have been saved. That is tho case also in New South Wales and in Victoria. Of course, in Victoria they lost hundreds and thousands, and so they did at the Cape. They have had a remarkable experience at the Cape.

1168.nbsp; nbsp;Can you speak to that from your personal experience ? I speak about the Cape, not from being at the Cape, but from letters that I have received and from what I have been told by my brother and Mr. Duck, who were two of the veterinary officers of the Transvaal expedition, and who arrested pleuro-pneu-monia during the Transvaal march.

1169.nbsp; nbsp;There is one point that you have not given us any information about, and that is, what class of cattle have you been chiefly working amongst? Chiefly dairy cattle.

1170.nbsp; Then you have not had much to do with breeding stock ?No. But the dairy cattle are much the most difficult to work with in cases of pleuro-pneumonia. They are living under artificial conditions, and it is therefore much more difficult to eradicate pleuro-pneumonia amongst dairy stock than it is amongst grazing stock.

1171.nbsp; Do you think the outbreaks are much more likely to occur amongst dairy stock ?Yes ; thoy are head to head, standing close to each other, and so it spreads very easily amongst them. Amongst grazing stock, of course, it will spread to a wider area.

1172.nbsp; I rather think that I must have misunderstood your answer to a question by the Chairman. I think the Chairman put it to you whether stock in fields were less liable to attacks of pleuro than stock

. :

lli

___________

:58

COMMITTKl?

ON PIKUnO-PHEUMONIA ANT) TUUEBOULOSIS

JMr. Ä.

Hutlierforil, F.U.C.V.S.

2laquo; April 1888.

in sheds ?No, I think they arc equally liable. The only difference is this, that lu sheds it spreads inuch more rapidly, I think, and in fields the area of the spread is nuich greater.

1173.nbsp; Do you not think the conditions under which the two sots of animals are kept and fed tend to make one more liable than the other ?I think not. The actual contact is quite enough, I think.

1174.nbsp; I mean the actual conditions under which animals are now. I want you to include the feeding ? __I think that lias nothiug to do with it.

1175.nbsp; Nothing to do with it ?Nothing whatever.

1176.nbsp; Has the unnatural system of feeding dairy cattle anything to do with it ?It has nothing whatever to do with the spread of the disease. It is simply the housing. It is more difficult to treat dairy cows, simply because they arc more likely to go wrong from the operation itself, and not from anything else.

1177.nbsp; nbsp;What age of stock do you chiefly deal with ? All ages.

1178.nbsp; Can you tell me what is the longest length of life of any quot;beast that you have inoculated that you know of ?I have often inoculated them 9 and 10 years old.

1179.nbsp; After your inoculation how long have you known an animal to live ?All our dairy cows we have slaughtered in a year or two afterwardssay, two years afterwards at the outside.

1180.nbsp; Therefore two years will he about the extent? __Yes ; I have also inoculated bullocks, fattening bullocks, which of course may have been kept for a long time, but certainly not more than two years.

1181.nbsp; Suppose that you were made the responsible person for issuing the orders of the Government of this country, and there was just this condition, that you were to get over the disease as soon as possible, I think you said that you would advocate inoculation thoroughly ?Yes.

1182.nbsp; Would you attach any condition to that inoculation; I mean by that, would you attach any condition that animals were to be shut up in quarantine for a year ?No, the present quarantine regu-latious are ample, taking 50 days as a minimum period.

1183.nbsp; nbsp;Or a shorter time after inoculation?No. In the case of dairy stock and feeding, for instance, it would not be necessary to attach any conditions, unless it were simply to satisfy people's scruples, nothing else.

1184.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman) Why would it not be necessary to attach conditions, especially in dairy cattle? Simply because they are under all circumstances slaughtered out whenever they are fat; there are no special conditions required. I would allow them to purchase in as rapidly as they liked so soon as ever they were fat; I would allow them to go out.

1185.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) Would you allow them to go out from the dairy into the fields after inoculation ? Yes, three or four weeks afterwards.

1180. In fact, you would place no restrictions of imprisonment beyond the three weeks after inoculation ? None whatever, as I think they can go out in the summer in numbers of instances immediately after the operation. There would bo no fear of their spreading the disease ; the only question would bo whether they would injure themselves.

1187.nbsp; nbsp;I think you wish to say something about breeding stock ?I apprehended when you asked that question just now that it might mean that there was a limited area question again rising up, and I was going on to say that to satisfy foreign nations like Canada you might isolate these animals for a certain time after you are satisfied that there is no fear.

1188.nbsp; nbsp;Otherwise, except with the idea of trying to satisfy foreign nations, yon would have no objection to the cattle three weeks after inoculation being allowed to go into the fields ?Three weeks after inoculation, yon know, is not much ; we would like it longer, call it n month; I have often put them out in three weeks, however,

1189. {Mr. liawen-Jones.) Would they get free from it in a month ?A month would give them a much bettor chance. I have called it three weeks, but you might call it a month to cover all contingencies.

1100. {Mr. Stirling.) You have spoken of experiments being advisable and very desirable in order to obtain thorough information on certain points. Have you formed any idea in your own mind as to how Ionquot; these experiments would need to be carried on in order to satisfy veterinary science ?I do not think it would require to be carried on to satisfy veterinary science so much as to satisfy the authorities, the Government or the Government advisers. Professor Brown, for instance, and his colleagues. To my mind there is only one point to be definitely settled; it is absolutely positive that inoculation arrests the disease; it is absolutely positive that an animal healthy at the time of inoculation will not afterwards contract the disease and will not give it to another, so that these points are all definitely settled.

1191.nbsp; {Chairman.) In whose mind are those points definitely settled, because I believe that is not universally accepted as yet ?I think you will find that the majority of those who have studied the matter must accept that.

1192.nbsp; nbsp; {Mr. Bowen-Jones.) We get conflicting opinions in this report of the Highland Society as to the points which you say have been definitely settled ?~However, these minor points are very easily settled. The point which to my mind must be settled by a series of experiments conducted in the face of the disease is whether, under a vigorous system of dealing with the disease, killing the diseased, killing the suspected and inoculating the remainder, it is possible for any to be left that are capable of afterwards communicating the disease, and whether they have actually communicated the disease or can do it. That is the one point. I hold that if inoculation is successfully and vigorously carried out such animals cannot exist, and if the worst came to the worst, and occasionally from a mistaken operation one or two here and there did escape and cause an outbreak somewhere else, put the same thing in operation again; inoculate, and you arrest the thing at once, but it would not occur very often, it would be exceedingly seldom. It never occurred with me, and I do not think it would occur so frequently as to become a question that would ever be a serious one.

1193.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling) The question was how long do you suppose the experiments would take ?How would you propose to carry them out ?

1194.nbsp; You have recommended the experiments, and we want to know what you would consider satisfactory experiments?Simply attack outbreaks. The Government are aware of every outbreak that takes place, let the outbreaks be chosen from those in the cities or in the country. Place those outbreaks in the hands of experienced inoculators whose work would be taken notice of by a Commission appointed on the _Spotgt;_a Commission that you can depend upon, composed of scientific and agricultural commissioners, and let them watch the result. After a given time slaughter up or follow the animals one by one until they were finally slaughtered to see if such a thing as a disease in a limited area did exist, and also to watch if any animals had contracted the disease from those that were pronounced to be safe.

1195.nbsp; Could you furnish the Committee later on with a paper showing how you would propose to deal this question ?Yes, I will do so with the greatest pleasure.

1196.nbsp; What would you suppose would bo the number of animals required to satisfy veterinary science generally that those points had been proved which you think should be proved ? Are you aware that it has been stated that it would require about 500 or 600 animals at least, or even a thousand animals, and would cost about 50,O00Z.?I do not think it would require anything of the kind. I think you simply require a few outbreaks, say, for instance,

laquo;,

I. f^; #9632;

MINUTES OP EVIDENCK.

two or three outbreaks in Ireland. I do not think it should bo done in one place, because you abOUltt simultaneously satisfy everybody, and compare tho work of each Commission one with the other, so tliat two or three outbreaks in Ireland should bo placed in the hands of a Commission; the same thing in England, und in Scotland.

1197.nbsp; Perhaps you would bo good enough to put all that in tho paper you promised to send in ?Yes ; I have always thought-that was the ono thing which was necessary. I must confess I would very much like to see Professor Brown satisfied on that point.

1198.nbsp; (Mr. Bowcn-Jones.) What is the duration of time it would require?I should say 12 months immediately after inoculation; purchase them in an entirely healthy district.

1199.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) Do you think 12 months would be quite sufficient ?T think 12 months would go a very long way towards doing it.

1200.nbsp; You mentioned Irish cattle in your answers to one of the questions. I think you said something about stock coming from Ireland ?Yes.

1201.nbsp; What cause had you for assuming that Irish stock brought the disease ?I was thinking of Irish cattle purchased from Irishmen.

1202.nbsp; Did that stock come straight from Ireland ? Yes, in nine cases out of ten it came straight across.

1203.nbsp; Was it not exhibited somewhere else on the road ?I think not.

1204.nbsp; You think not?No.

1205.nbsp; But you have no knowledge ?You might have doubts about it if it only occurred once or twice, but when it is constantly occurring amongst Irish cattle you may come to the conclusion I have.

1206.nbsp; Have you any outbreak in your mind where the cattle came straight from Glasgow, say, to Edinburghstraight from the boat to Edinburgh ?I have no particular instance in mind just now, but I have in innumerable instances killed animals which had only been a week or two in the byre, but which showed signs of disease, and I have found them well-marked cases of pleuro-pneumonia, cases that must have been existing for two or three weeks and longer and unsuspected.

1207.nbsp; Cases where the disease must have clearly started in Ireland ?Yes, clearly so ; and the very same with the North Of England cattle, especially during these last three years.

1208.nbsp; Those cattle, I understand, during tne past 18 months, at any rate, or two years must have arrived from Ireland with a certificate ?I believe so.

1209.nbsp; Is not that surely a very sufficient guarantee ? I do not think so. I think the inspection of cattle is not sufficient, that is the explanation of it. In fact

I have said so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . raquo;

1210.nbsp; Do you mean that you think the examination in Ireland is not sufficient ?Yes.

1211.nbsp; On what points ?A.s to the health or otherwise of tho cattle, I hold that it is absolutely impossible for an inspector, simply by watching an animal moving about, to say whether or not that animal is diseased. It is impossible. A man makes a rash statement and commits himself rashly to his signature on paper if he pronounces animals well simply from looking at them and from external observation of tho animals. That lias been proved over and over again, especially in the case of those English and Irish cattle which have been coming into Scotland.

1212.nbsp; Am I to understand that you moan that the examination is made too hastily, that there is not sufficient time in Ireland at tho ports of shipping allowed for the examination ?I do not know what the rules arc, but that is the case, and I think it can be met in this way. It is a thing that I have often thought of, that this country should have a system of guarantee that the cattle which come across from Ireland come from healthy stocks. It could be met in this way, not so much by a certificate as by a system of branding tho animals, which would mean that they had first of all come from stock that had not

had the disease, say, for six months, and that at the time of shipment they wero by a now examination found, as far as the inspector could see, to be healthy too; and to imitate that brand should be a criminal

Mr. li. Itullierford. F.R.C.V.S

6 Aiiril 188S

offence, liable to a heavy punishraeut for its committal.

1213.nbsp; nbsp;Surely the branding could be as easily procured as the certiiicale ? We imagine that the certifleato is a guarantee ?There are so many animals like each otherthat is what 1 referred to particularlythe marks should be on tho animal.

1214.nbsp; Do you think it is possible that a certificate having been got for ono lot of animals may be interchanged for another lot of animals ?Yes; I have known of numerous instances where animals nre certified as having boon 5(5 days in the owner's possession, and they have not been ^6 hours.

1215.nbsp; That is a very strong statement ?Yes; but it is constantly tho case with dealers, for instance ; dealers have no hesitation in giving you certificates.

1216.nbsp; nbsp;Why do you propose the adoption of the brand ?You cannot get over that, that would bo a proof positive.

1217.nbsp; nbsp;(Lord Cloncurry) Every animal that leaves Dublin is branded by nn inspector, is it not, with a crown and sort of imitation of the Eoyal arms ?It is not branded from the farm, but that is what it should be. You could brand them twice. Brand them by tho local inspector and brand them by the port inspector.

1218.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) Do you mean to say that your object is to brand cattle in much the same way as you would mark sheep, so that you could trace exactly where the animals came from ?Yes.

1219.nbsp; nbsp;So that in the event of the animals not having been 56 days in a man's possession you could ascertain that ?It could be proven at once.

1220.nbsp; Or, if they were found infected with pleuro, you would bo able to trace them, just tho same as you would blackfaced sheep ?Very likely. As I have said, I would make the imitation of that brand a very heavy punishable offence.

1221.nbsp; In that event do you think there would be no risk or very little risk of cattle coming from Ireland to Scotland ?You would cut it down to the minimum if you made it a punishable offenco, and if you had conscientious officers, whom I have no doubt you. would have, watching them, and not branding them, unless they were satisfied they wero doing so

correctly.

1222.nbsp; Have you seen the cattle coming over in tho boats ?No, I have not.

1223.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any personal experience of tho state in which they are shipped and brought over ?

No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. ,

1224.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman?) Am I right in supposing that there are various forms of lung disease in cattle ?Yes.

1225.nbsp; Is it possible in the hands of some practitioners that one may be misunderstood for another ? Yes, there arc frequent instances of this occurring.

1226.nbsp; And that has within your knowledge taken place, I daro say ?Yes.

1227.nbsp; You have shown, I think, pretty successtully that the operation of inoculation requires very great _car0 VIt requires intelligent care.

1228.nbsp; And you would not yourself bo satisfied, would you, to entrust such a delicate operation to every practitioner ?I would not. I think you have a right to be satisfied that your officer can undertake this equally as well as he can diagnose the disease.

1229.nbsp; nbsp;At the present moment the general practitioner is not really an adept at that art, is he ?I do not think they have studied the thing, but it would not take them very long to master it.

1230.nbsp; nbsp; You recommend inoculation universally throughout the country, allhough men are not in existence who are capable of doing it to your satisfaction ?

__I do not say that. I say that tho men are not in

existence in numbers who at the present time have practised it; but they would very soon make themselves proficient at. it.

COMMITTEE O!raquo; PLEUBO-VNKUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS I

Mr. H.

IMIurford, F.R.O.V.S,

Jll April 1888.

1231.nbsp; J)o you beliüVü, therefore, from your own experience thftt the system that you have adopted is the most efficacious ?Yes, I have found it so.

1232.nbsp; But you have not seen any oilier i¹X es, i have. For four years I dealt with it In my own practice, when I first came from India For four years I tried a system of isolation and killing out those I suspected us fast as I could, but 1 (lid not

succeed.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

1233.nbsp; Have you never seen any other operator poi-f_()rm ?_l have seen other operators perform, fc or instance, I have seen one or two whom I have been mslructiucr. I have seen them operate while 1 Have been standing by, and I have seen them subsequently operate, and do it with great proficiency, but not very many, not above half a dozen. I have seen nobody

⁶ ^S1234. You have told us that you think that one year would be ample for the purpose of the experiments ?I think so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , 1235. You have also told us that you regard with distrust and suspicion every inoculated animal tor the next two years ?No, I never said that.

1236nbsp; nbsp; Would you think it a complete experiment unleJs you could trace the animal to its death ?No, \ou would require to do that.

1237nbsp; nbsp;And ought you not, to make that experiment quite complete and satisfactory to the country at

knew it or not, but the speakers said it was well known, and they knew of the disease being present. That statement never was contradicted.

1248.nbsp; nbsp; Was that conversation made public ?It was a public meeting, and I think there were; reporters present; it was reported afterwards in the papers, but it never was contradicted.

1249.nbsp; [Chairman.) Do you know when the last outbreak in Cumberland was?No, 1 do not; but there wore a lot of veterinary surgeons present at that time.

1250.nbsp; Do you know anything more upon that point ?I know the names of n lot of them. I daresay I could find some of the printed statements. I know one man said deliberately that he knew the disease for a fact to be existing in one stock of about 300 for three years ; he named the stock.

1251.nbsp; You said, if you inoculated an animal with plenro-pueuraonia in its system, the disease would develop itself within three' weeks?Yes, it would; generally earlier,

1252.nbsp; Is it true, then, that in Mr. Salmond's outbreak in Glasgow, referred to by Mr. McCall, that, although you inoculated on February the 9th, cases occurred as late as the 9th of April, two months after inoculation ?That statement does not convey to you the actual facts of the case. It is an incomplete statement; very incomplete indeed, and a very misleading statement. There actually were three lots of

largo, both scientific and otherwise, to make it a very complete and scientific investigation ?-Yes ; I think you cannot make it too complete.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;....laquo;

1238. And it should also be in the hands of scientihc

men?Entirely.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .

1239nbsp; nbsp;There is much, I presume, that you admit also with regard to the germs and other matters ot a scientific nature?-! think that is of secondary importance. I think the first thing to do is to establish to the satisfaction of the Government and ot agriculturists who are directly interested the economical, value of inoculation in every point. Its scientific aspect can be gone into afterwards. Its economical value is the first thing.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

1240nbsp; nbsp; But it would not bo a complete experiment unless both the economical and the scientific were fully examined, would it ?-Only with this difference, that the scientific can be conducted in office and the other has to bo done in the sheds and in the actual presence of the disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,,,. . i t, ,.=

1241nbsp; nbsp; Yet you have said that the Ldinburgh buyeis have been supplied in modern times with diseased stock brought from Ireland and the North of England ? __Yes

1242nbsp; nbsp; Would you tell me from what part of the North of England they come ?I attended a meeting at Carlisle about 18 months ago where there were over a dozen veterinary surgeons assembled, and where this subject came up. it was broadly stated, and it never was challenged, that to their knowledge pleuro-pneumonia had been more or less in existence in Cumberland for three years.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ v ,.,k

1243.nbsp; Since that time yon say that from the North of England disease has been constantly coming ^Jt was at that time. I think it is falling offi_ now. I think it is better now. I think that meetings pro-ecpdings aroused public feeling.

1244.nbsp; Have yon had any cattle coming from the North of England since that time which has brought the disease?-! made the figures up to last year.

1245 What time last year?The time ot these outbreaks ; that would bo about summer-time, but they were not nearly so bad as they had been a year

⁶1246 Was there more than one outbreak in Edin-bimth) notin Cumberland ?-Yes. The animals came from Cumberland, but at the meeting I refer to it was stated that the disease was more or less in Cumberland. Some laquo;aid that they knew of places where it had been for three years.

1247. (Mr. Bowcn-Jones.) Do you mean that these outbreaks were not reported to the Cumberland authorities?-! do not know whether the authorities

1253. Then do you imply that the returns which are sent by the local authorities cannot be correct ?I have no doubt that they are correct to this extent, that that is the date on which Professor McCall put them down, but my explanation of the case is a very different one. There were actually three lots of cows in that man's premises ; that is to say, there was the lot that I inoculated; there was a lot. that was left simply because they were unfit for inoculation and were subsequently inoculated; and there was the lot that he purchased in to be inoculated immediately after the outbreak was reported.

1254. I want to ask you whether any of the cattle inoculated on February 9th showed the disease on April 9th ?Yes, they did; but they were reported by me, not very many days after the inoculation, to the owner. I have over and over again said that it must not be held that, because cattle do not exhibit the disease at the time of inoculation and examination, they are free from it; but I say this, that before a given time they will exhibit it. These animals did exhibit it, and they were pointed out by me to the owner for him to do his part; that is to say, bring them to Mr. McCall's notice. He never did so, and I do not think Mr. McCall was attending the byres as closely as 1 was; I was in the byres every other dav almost.

1255.nbsp; Have yon any experience of tuberculosis in cattle ?A practical experience.

1256.nbsp; nbsp;What do you mean by a practical experience in contradistinction to a scientific experience ?That there are those who meet with the disease in their own practice, and there are those who have made tuberculosis a scientific studya study of research. I have not done the latter, and 1 have met constantly with the former.

1257.nbsp; nbsp;Do you believe this is a disease which is on the increase ?Yes.

1258.nbsp; Do you consider it hereditary ?Yes.

1259.nbsp; In your practice have you observed it in the calves from tuberculous cows ?No. I have never examined calves at all, for we are never called in to treat calves ill dairy practice; they arc generally all simply fed on milk, and made into veal at once.

1260.nbsp; Can yon trace the increase to any special ₍,_ause ?Not unless it is breeding from animals who are already the subject of the disease themselves.

1261.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.) It is hereditary, then, in that wny ?Yes.

1262.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman?) Do you think it is likely to result from in-breeding ?I think that is so.

i'm

MINUTES Ol? EVIDENCE.

1263. (Professor Brown.) I understood you to say

1277.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) Then it is not the officials' fault; it is the owners' fault ?I think the owners

Mr. R.

Jtulherford, F.H.C.V.S.

lt; y

only when the ftuimals wero diseased ?That is so, but not otherwise.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; #9830;

1264 (Sir G. Maepherson Grant.) Ihat is 10 say it* you got a very unhealthy animal ?You cannot got a turnip from a carrot seed.

1265.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Horsley.) Have you had any evidence of calves or any young animals getting disease from the milk of tubercular oows rNo ; all our calves are only fed up and made into veal.

1266.nbsp; Then you have no evidence at all tnat mulaquo; in tubeicular cows has caused it ?None.

1267nbsp; nbsp; Have you ever seen tuberculosis begin witu one animal in the herd and spread to other adult animals in the herd ?No ; if it is contagious at all it must be very slightly so, and animals in byres are such raquo; short time therefrom a twelvemonth to eighteen monthsthat there is no time to spread. It may exist to a very serious extent indeed; there may be a very complete invasion of the economy ol the animal, and yet it may never exhibit the slightest symptom, and the milk he consumed the whole time.

1268nbsp; nbsp; Have you seen much tuberculosis in towis t No, I know nothing about that; I was never consulted about fowls.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . is

1269nbsp; nbsp;Have you ever seen tuberculosis in pigs f Neither in fowls nor pigs; I have no practice in fowls and pigssimply with cattle and horses.

1270nbsp; nbsp;(Lord Cloncurry.) You mentioned that there had been cattle from Ireland which brought the disease. Was that a recent time, or was it a long time ago?It is constantly.

1271.nbsp; Is it recently? Ever since I have been in Edinburgh they have been coming constantly.

1272.nbsp; Coming down to a recent timewithin the last 12 months ?Yes.

1273 Anything else besides cows? Any other class of stock?-No; just cows that I come in contact with. Wo have also blamed Lanarkshire as a source of disease. That is a county where animals

have been brought, from.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;m , , . #9830;lt;.

1274.nbsp; Are you acquainted with the offtcial statistics about pleuro-pneumouia in Ireland for the last 12

months?No.

1275.nbsp; If you saw a Government statement that there was no disease in Ireland except in the Dublin dairies, would you believe it?-I would not. I just now s^id I could not possibly believe it. They claim to have made a most rigid system of inspection, and yet constantly they have the disease amongst Irish cattle. If there is no disease in Ireland except in Dublin, and their system is as perfect as they claim it to be, and those animals are never exported, we ought never to have the disease amongst Irish cattle on this side of the water. But the very opposite happens to be the case. Consequently I formed the opinion tnat that statement of theirs is not correct, that the disease does exist in Ireland, and that the Government do not

⁰1276.nbsp; Is it your opinion that the facts are concealed from them ?They are concealed from them.

would conceal that if they could.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

1278.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Why should not the iact ₂₆ ^^ _188Si

that the disease is round Dublin be sufficient to account----------

for it ?I think that it would be to their interest not to allow animals to come over here from infected centres, and that they would make their inspection so rigid that it would be impossible for them to get across. But yet they do come. Consequently tlio deduction is that tho disease is outside Dublin, and veterinary surgeons whom I meet occasionally toil mo that it does exist outside Dublin.

1279.nbsp; You are not aware, then, that animals from Dublin are sent to distant ports for the pmpOBO of being exported ?No ; I am simply aware that we glaquo;'t a lot of disease from Ireland amongst Irish cattle, no matter where they come from; and if the people in Dublin say there is no disease in Ireland except what is in Dublin, and they claim that their inspection is rigid, I say I do not believe them. We get these cattle, and there must be disease elsewhere than Dublin.

1280.nbsp; (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Then would you say that cattle that come from other parts of Ireland besides Dublin communicate the disease in this country . I do not. know where they come from. They come from Ireland.

1281.nbsp; Do they all come from Dublin or not.-¹L could not say; but I think my proposition of branding them would meet the difficulty.

1282.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) I think you said just now that you had been blaming Lanarkshire ?-VYe have been blaming Lanarkshire for a few of our outbreaks, some of those which we had at the end of last year. A few of those animals come from there. 1 certainly trace the Dumbartonshire outbreaks to Lanarkshire.

1283.nbsp; To Wishaw ?To Wishaw and to one dealer in Duinbartonshire. I had four or five outbreaks there and stamped the disease out, and they were all traced to one man. He purchased them in Wishaw,

he said.

1284.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) All from one source, do you _say ?Yes, he purchased them in the Wishaw sale

yards.

1285.nbsp; (Lord Cloncurry.) I understand you to say that you have known of no cases other than cows in recent times where the disease has come from Ireland i __I only meet -with cases amongst Irish cattle.

1286.nbsp; nbsp;And you know of nothing els,e ?No. There are no stores coming to Edinburgh, nothing but dairy

stock.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

1287.nbsp; (Sir G. Maepherson Grant.) Ihereis a large importation of store cattle to other parts of Scotland, is there not ?Yes.

1288.nbsp; And those would not come under your observation ?No; they go by Glasgow, and away at once to Perth and the North.

1289.nbsp; (Mr. Bowen-Jones) Do you know ot any cases where inoculation has taken successiully more than once on the same animal ?No, I say it is impossible.

raquo;I I til

\ If;

The witness withdrew.

Mr. William Cairns, Fonntainbridge, Edinburgh, called in and examined.

Mr. W. Cairns.

1290 (Chairman.) You live at Fountainbridge, Edinburgh ?My place is at Fountainbridge, Edm-

^hmmi. Do you occupy a farm ?Dairy premises.

1292. You are practically a dairyman ?Yes.

129S For how many years have you been in that occupation ?-Since 1874. My father had it before

^inei294. How many cows have you in your dairy in a regular way ?Now, or at that time ? 1296. Now?I have only 55just now.

1296. Is that about your usual stock?Ihat is about the regular stock now.

o 54003.

1297.nbsp; Have you no other kind of stock except cows ? We have two young bulls.

1298.nbsp; But that is the regular stock; do you net keep a stock of young heifers ?No, we have sometimes one or two.

1299.nbsp; You buy in your stock for tho purpose of your dairy ?Wo do; we buy them all in.

1300.nbsp; How long, as a rule, do yon keep them, from the time of buying them in until the time of selling ₀ff p_lA)r about 9 or 10 months on tho average,

1301.nbsp; Are they then sold to the butcher ?They are then sold fat at the auction sales.

OOMMITTKE ON PM3UUO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBBKOULOHIS:

M_rnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;1302. Now, during the time that you have been in

W. Catrns. the occupation of your dairy huvo you had many out-

------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;breaks of pleuro-pneuinonia ?I do not think we were

26 April 1888. f_ree of it for any long period previously to 1874. As

----------- long ns I remember we were not free from it until we

got to inoculation.

1303.nbsp; And previous to that did you lose a great many on each outbreak ?Yes, a great many.

1304.nbsp; Did many recover?Some few recovered, but not many.

1305.nbsp; Did some recover that were actually diseased ? Yes.

1306.nbsp; nbsp;What induced you to commence inoculation ? We were just about cleaned out and ruined with pleuro-pneumonia. Our stock was down to 16. Mr. Rutherford had pleaded with roe two years previously to try inoculation. I did not believe in it.

1307.nbsp; nbsp;Had you any reason up to that time to induce that non-belief ?Simply prejudice ; that was the only mason I had. 1 did not believe in it. I had heard that it had been practised by Professor Gamgee and others, and that it had been a failure.

1308.nbsp; And what has been your experience since you commenced inoculation ?We commenced to inoculate on the 1st of February 1878. My first experiment was the buying of five cows from Mr. Gentleman, of Falkirk, to try an experiment upon them. I put them into a byre amongst the stock that were then in it; and from that byre there had been some removed that week with pleuro-pneumonia to the slaughter-house. At that time we were allowed to buy in as many fresh cows as we liked. But we could not sell them except to go to the slaughter-house.

1309.nbsp; At the time when you sold them and when you observed the outbreak previous to 187S, and were obliged to send them to the slaughter-house, did you sell them at any great sacrifice in price?Sometimes they were condemned altogether. At that time we had an inspector who was rather unscrupulous.

1310.nbsp; In which manner?He did not give us full value for the cows. It was found out afterwards that some cattle he had condemned he bad sold them himself.

1311.nbsp; Could you not detect the disease in the very early stages, in order that you might get the best prices ?it is rather difficult to detect it at the early stage, I would say.

1312.nbsp; nbsp;Your experience is that you cannot detect the disease until it is sufficiently far advanced to practically affect the selling price to the butcher ? You notice something wrong with them, but you are not sure that it is lung disease until it is on some time.

1313.nbsp; nbsp;Since 1878 how many outbreaks have you had in your byre ?One in 1878 and one in 1882, and none since.

1314.nbsp; Two outbreaks since the Act was put into operation ?Yes.

1315.nbsp; What proportion of those 55 animals did you buy in annually ?They are all bought in within a year, all (be 55. We buy and sell nearly every week. We put them out fat to-day and buy others to-morrow, as it were.

1316.nbsp; Do you attribute immunity from disease since 1882 to the fact of your having been more particular in the purchase or to the absence of disease in the district ?I would not knowingly buy a cow from a place where disease exists. If we had a cow affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and she recovered, and got where she would affect the others, we should consider that a very dangerous cow to have in the byre ; she would affect the others.

1317.nbsp; Are you very particular as to where you purchase your cows from ?I purchase them all in the Edinburgh Market.

1318.nbsp; But ns to what district or county they come fiom, I mean?If I see a beast apparently healthy I would buy her, if she is suitable to the purpose.

1319.nbsp; When you buy her I suppose she is generally close upon calving or has just calved?Just at the calving or has newly calved.

1320.nbsp; You might give us the average price of the cows that you bought during the past year?You mean the average buying price during the last year ?

1321.nbsp; nbsp;Yes ?22/. 10*.

1322.nbsp; Do you buy Irish cattle ?I have not bought any for years.

1323.nbsp; Why ?Because I thought they brought in pleuro with them.

1324.nbsp; You thought you would be on the safe side ? Yes.

1325.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) You began your evidence by giving us the history of the five cows that you tried an experiment with ?Yes.

1326.nbsp; Where did you say you got those five cows, at Falkirk?I bought them at Hay-market from Mr. Gentleman, of Falkirk.

1327.nbsp; nbsp;You put those five cows into the byre along with the rest ?Yes.

1328.nbsp; The byre from which diseased stock bad just been taken out ?Yes.

1329.nbsp; And what was the history of those five cows ; did they take the disease ?They were inoculated the following day and they kept perfectly healthy until the time that I sold them fat.

1330.nbsp; That might be how long ?From 9 to 12 months afterwards.

lt; 1331. Is the Committee to understand that you generally inoculate your fresh stock as soon as you have brought them in ?From that date ?

1332.nbsp; Yes ?I had those five cows on the Tuesday. On the Wednesday I bought three from Mr. John Martin, of Edinburgh, that I thought too good to experiment upon, and I put them in the same byre and I would not allow Mr. Eutherford to inoculate them. Those three cows were ordered out of the byre for pleuro-pneumonia by the inspector within two months at the outside.

1333.nbsp; Within two months?Within two months. The byre had been infected for years.

1334.nbsp; And the stock had been taken out of the byre previous to your bringing in the Falkirk cattle, and those three cattle that you would not allow to be inoculated got the disease ? Yes, and they were killed within two months of my bringing them in.

1335.nbsp; The five cows that you did inoculate were kept perfectly healthy from 9 to 12 months ?Yes; that removed my prejudice against inoculation.

1336.nbsp; What is your practice now, this last year? Have you been inoculating ?We have not inoculated since 1883. If we have an outbreak we inoculate for so many months until we are past all danger, and then we cease till we have got another outbreak.

1337.nbsp; nbsp;Why did you not inoculate the whole stock; would not that be desirable if inoculation is a preventive ? We would inoculate the whole stock, if after we have seen the success of it, as soon as we brought them in.

1338.nbsp; Then I understand you do not now at this present moment inoculate ?No, not since 1883.

1339.nbsp; Because you consider there is no reason at present ?We were free from disease then, and we have been free since then. We got quit of it with the inoculation.

1340.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Are you not afraid if it is in the neighbourhood ? I have no fear of it at all, not the slightest. If one cow was taken ill to-morrow, if I was allowed, I would have the rest inoculated, and they would be all right, and I would have no more fear for them. We might lose one or two in the operation.

1341.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) You have nothing but dairy stock ?A dairy stock only.

1342.nbsp; nbsp;Therefore you do not look upon the restriction of shutting up the cattle for a year as any great hardship ?We are not shut up for a year.

1343.nbsp; nbsp;You would not move the cattle except for slaughter VWe are allowed to move in 50 days.

1344.nbsp; nbsp;For a dairy stock would you consider that £. hardship ?We are sending stock every week to the fat market.

..II '

amp;quot;

ill

U ' 1'

MINUTES OP BVIDENOK.

1345.nbsp; Then I think you said just now that at one tirao tho order was that you were not to move the cattle out of tho byre at the time tho byre was infected ?Not except for slaughter, and the same if the stock were inoculated.

1346.nbsp; But being a dairyman and dealing in cows only that is not such a hardship, but, supposing you were dealing in other stock, would it then bo a hardship ?It might be a hardship it we had some fat cows und wanted them sold and coidd not; it is a hardship in that way. If you had them to stand there, or had to sell them at a sacrifice, or privately to a butcher, it would be a hardship. Of course we expect to get a better price in the open market; wo consider in two months that we are clear of the disease ; there is no fear of any infection then if the stock have all been inoculated.

1347.nbsp; I understand you change your stock every year ; that you have never an inoculated animal living for more than a year after inoculation, and that you have no experience in your own herd ?We do not know; we sell them alive and fat, and they go to the butcher.

1348.nbsp; What I wanted to get at is what was the longest length of time that you knew of an inoculated beast living ?Tho longest we have had in our own byres was, perhaps, 18 months, if we kept one specially for a show.

1349.nbsp; nbsp;Were they inoculated ?Yes. I remomber one that I paid 5(M. for, and I kept her for Mr. Swann's show.

1350.nbsp; Was she inoculated ?She was inoculated within eight days after I got her. We kept her for fully 15 months.

1351.nbsp; Inoculation did not affect the show quality? Only the appearance of the tail; she had a very short tail, but otherwise she was all right. She got the second prize only.

1352.nbsp; Would she have got tho first but for tho tail ?Of course there may have been a little prejudice, the tail being wanting.

1353.nbsp; Can you give the Committee any idea as to how long it is before an animal shows the first symptom after it has been in contact with a diseased animal ? How long do you think the disease takes to develop in an animal ?The only experience that I have of that is the case of the three cows that were put in direct contact with the disease, and tho first one showed symptoms in about six weeks afterwards, and the three were out of the byre within two months.

1354.nbsp; nbsp;Wore they' dead, or were they sent to be killed ?They had to be killed; they did not die ; they were ordered to be killed by the inspector.

1355.nbsp; Have you ever had an animal which has died from the disease after showing the symptoms, or have tho animals all been slaughtered ?We have had them die of pleuro-pneumonia, but that has not been the case for many years,

1356.nbsp; What was the average duration of illness from the time of the first symptom ?I should say from 10 to 14 days.

1357.nbsp; Was the disease in your byres ever confused with tuberculosis, with consumption ?Never.

1358.nbsp; What do you consider the first symptom of pleuro-pneumonia ?Well, the first symptom that you see is that the cow goes off her meat.

1359.nbsp; Is that before the coat looks staring?She looks dull and goes off her food and off her milk ; tho first symptom is the milk being short.

1360.nbsp; The milk is the first symptom before tho food ?The milk is before the food, or both together sometimes. One of the first symptoms is tho cow being short of milk, giving less than usual.

1361.nbsp; {Sir G. Macphenon Grant.) You do not inoculate now under present circumstances ?No.

13G2. Will you tell us the reason why you do not ? There is a certain risk or a certain death-rate from the operation, and if the stock is healthy it is not necessary to run the risk of inoculation.

1363.nbsp; Can you give any idea what that death-ratenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Mr.

is from tho operation ?One in 50.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; IV. Cainraquo;,

1364.nbsp; About two per cent. ?About t.vo per cent.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;~

1365.nbsp; Although you are a believer in inoculation ? 26 April 1888. Yes, I believe thoroughly in it

1366.nbsp; You still consider that tho risk is so great that you prefer uu outbreak before you would put tins preventive course into operation ?If wo have one cow turning ill we would have it killed at once, and tho rest inoculated.

1307.nbsp; But it is the case when you are buying cows every week, I should fancy, that you run a certain amount of risk of getting disease into your byros ? Certainly.

1308.nbsp; And feeling certain that inoculation iraquo; a preventive against a subsequent attack you still prefer to run the risk of an outbreak with nil its attendant circumstances to using this valuable proveutivo when you bring in new cows ?Yes.

1369.nbsp; nbsp;And yet the risk is only two per cent. ?Only two per cent. I do not consider it is nocessary to inoculate as long as the stock is healthy.

1369laquo;. You think it advisable not to inoculate because you say there is risk of death from the operation ?Yes.

1370.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) If you have had an outbreak and all the animals have been inoculated and are ill, have you any fear of bringing fresh animals into tho byre ?I would have no fear, but I would have them inoculated for a certain time to come.

1371.nbsp; nbsp;What is that certain time?Perhaps six months. For instance, in 1878, when I started to inoculate, we inoculated the whole year and also part of 1879, and we stopped then. In 1882 we had an outbreak again, and we had 71 inoculated in that year, and six in January 1883, and none since then.

1372.nbsp; nbsp;Then you have some dread of a further outbreak up to six months?I have no dread from inoculated cows ; but if one cow has had a mild form of this disease and she got better and does not take the inoculation properly we might not kill her, and she might stand in the byreof course, not knowing that she had itbut that is the only reason that would make me dread it.

1373.nbsp; nbsp;But, supposing you slaughtered all the animals in the byre, and that you whitewashed and purified the place, would you have any fear or hesitation in bringing fresh animals into it at once ?Do you mean at once ?

1374.nbsp; Certainly?If that was at my own risk I would get them inoculated as soon as I brought them in.

1375.nbsp; That is my point. Do you think that there are any germs of disease hanging about the buildings other than that in tho cattle themselves ?I do not think that there is if tho building is properly cleaned. But of course in some byres they have the old wooden stalls, and I do not know about them. All the byres 1 have now are cemented ; the stallsare cemented, and troughs are made of fireclay built in with cement. The. walls are of cement, and we can wash them and disinfect the place properly.

1376.nbsp; You have not known of a case of a cowman or attendant having communicated the disease ?I do not believe it can bo done in that way.

1377.nbsp; {Professor Brown.) You said yon had certain cows inoculated, and three that were uninooulated, and those three got tho disease ?These three got the disease.

1378.nbsp; How do you think you got it, from tho byre? We had cows in the byre that was infected and they took the disease. They came amongst an infected stock.

1379.nbsp; They got the disease from diseased animals that were taken out?Yes.

1380.nbsp; Were there any cows there with the disease on them ?We placed tho cows with diseased stock, and they themselves took the disease. Wo had only 13 or 14 cows when I started inoculation.

1381.nbsp; Were those 13 or 14 cows diseased? They were apparently healthy. When I bought tha

F 2

*#9632; y

,* raquo;h:

I^! I

. \

] I

m i i

#9632;

#9632;i

COMMITTEE ON PliEUKO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr.

W. Cairns.

26 April 1888.

five and the three cows, some of the old stock took the diseaseof course it luul been on thornand they were killed that week.

1382.nbsp; nbsp;But those three eows, were they at any time in the shed while they had diseased cows with them ?

__They were in the byre with cowraquo; that luul the

disease.

1383.nbsp; With those that had the disease ?They had it then, but we did not know it at the time. We had

14 of the old stock left, and of course we did not try inoculation upon them until wo saw how it would work.

1384.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) How many animals wero slaughtered with disease in your last outbreak? Only one or two so far as I remember.

1385.nbsp; Only one or two?Yes.

1386.nbsp; And were all the rest inoculated ?Yes.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

FOURTH DAY.

Triday, 27th April 1888.

'v. ,

PRESENT:

Mn. JACOB WILSON in the Chair.

LOEI) Cl-ONCUURY.

Sir Gr. Macphkrson Grant, Bart. Mr. P. Stirling (of Kippendavie).

Professor Brown, C.B. Professor IIoHSLEquot;i(, P.R.S.

Mr. R. Dawson, Secretary.

Mr. T. Swan. 27 April 1888.

Mr. Thomas Swan (of Edinburgh) called and examined.

13S7. {Chairman.) You are carrying on business in conjunction with your brother as a live stock agent in Edinburgh ?Yes.

1388.nbsp; What length of time huve you been in business?The firm has been established nearly 50 years.

1389.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee what is the nature of your business?Onr business is exclusively a commission onethat is, receiving stock for sale on eominission, and also buying them on commission.

13S0. Am 1 correct in saying that you have experience in cattle beyond the stock of the United Kingdom?We sell from America, Canada, Scandinavia, and all the foreign parts that send to this country all the countries which consign here.

1391.nbsp; And your business is in connexion with both fat and lean stock ?Exactly.

1392.nbsp; Can you give the Committee an idea of the number of cattle that pass through your hands during the year?We sell just now, which is the off season, about 1,200 a week, and sometimes during the autumn we get as far as 3,500 a week.

1393.nbsp; And of that stock you naturally include a good many Irish cattle?A great number.

1394.nbsp; Now, seeing that you have considerable dealings with cattle of various kinds and of all breeds, have you had much experience of cattle diseases generally ?1 have.

1395.nbsp; And has your attention been directed to pleuro-pneumonia in particular?Ever since I have been in business.

1396.nbsp; nbsp;Has pleuro-pneumonia as a disease been in existence ever since you have been in business, more or less ?I think so.

1397.nbsp; nbsp;Are you also a farmer ?Yes.

1398.nbsp; Are you interested in any way in dairy farming ?No.

1399.nbsp; nbsp;From what district in your experience have you observed the introduction of pleuro pneumonia most frequently ?Well, generally speaking, I have

not noticed any particular district. I have sometimes seen it break out amongst cattle from all districts.

1400.nbsp; I suppose you are speaking just now of home cattle?No; I am speaking generally.

1400laquo;. If I may put it in another form, I will ask you to what do you attribute the more frequent outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in Scotland ?To climatic influences in a great degree.

1401.nbsp; Do you desire to convey to the Committee that you are of opinion that pleuro-pneumonia can be originated spontaneously ?In some cases I have known it to be so.

1402.nbsp; And you think it is not confined to contagion only ?I do not think so.

1403.nbsp; Is there anything in the present system of farming compared with former times that in your opinion induces more frequent outbreaks ?I do not think so.

1404.nbsp; Have you much experience of cattle coming into Glasgow rYes, very large.

1405.nbsp; And you sell cattle in Glasgow?Every week.

1406.nbsp; Does pleuro-pneumonia very frequently occur there ?It has occurred, hut very seldom in an epidemic form ; it is the same there as everywhere else.

1407.nbsp; And to what cause do you attribute the outbreaks in Glasgow ?The outbreaks in Glasgow frequently occur amongst the dairy stock. I do not think there has been any cattle stopped at Glasgow for their coming there with pleuro-pneumonia. I have never known cattle slaughtered at the port of Glasgow by importing that diseose.

1408.nbsp; Prom what countries are cattle imported into Glasgow ?From Ireland and Canada and from America. The American cattle, as you are a#are, are confined at York Hill. The Canadians, after a quarantine of twelve hours, are treated as home cattle.

1409.nbsp; In your experience have you been able to trace any outbreak in Glasgow to cattle coming from Ireland ?I have not.

HINU'IKS OS BVIDBNOBi

1410.nbsp; nbsp;1 prosumo Scotland is not in a position to breed all the stock that it requires for the purpose of feeding ?Certainly not.

1411.nbsp; And it must necessarily therefore be dependent upon other countries for the supply of store stock ?To a great extent.

1412.nbsp; nbsp;Am I right in supposing to a very considerable extent from Ireland ?Ceriainly.

1413.nbsp; It is therefore of the utmost importance to Scotch agriculture that Ireland and Irish cattle ought to be free from disease ?Most distinctly.

1414.nbsp; Is it your opinion that the most stringent efforts should bo made to clear Ireland from that disease ?Certainly. I may say that it is the interest of everybody connected with agriculture to assist the executive in every way to get quit of the disease and to keep stock as healthy as possible.

1415.nbsp; And you would go so far, would you not, as to say that it is important to Scotch and English agriculture that Ireland ought to be freed from disease at any cost ?I should not allow cattle to be shipped from any district where there is disease, but I certainly should not go the length of saying that if there was a disease in a particular district that the whole of Ireland should be excluded.

1416.nbsp; I quite understand that in the event of an outbreak in any particular district in Ireland you would say that no cost should be spared in absolutely extinguishing the disease in that particular district ? Extinguished in what way ?

1417.nbsp; That is what I was going to ask you, getting quit of the disease ?I would certainly wish to see the disease extinguished.

1418.nbsp; Is it your experience that outbreaks of pleuro-pnenmonia are more frequent among dairy cattle than among store or feeding cattle ?It is.

1419.nbsp; nbsp;Seeing that you consider it of so much importance to have the store stock in all countries free from disease, what practice do you suggest to effect this object ?Wherever disease exists I should schedule that district within an area so as to preclude the risk of contagion or infection being carried to a sound centre, having put a cordon round the district.

1420.nbsp; nbsp;What would you do with the stock within it?

__Well, I should see; some of our people have not

been able to agree with inoculation.

1421.nbsp; I am not going to ask you that. I want to know your private opinion, your conscientious private opinion, of what is best for the country at large ? Well, to slaughter those that are affected.

1422.nbsp; First to slaughter those that, are affected ?

Yes.

1423.nbsp; What of those that remain, then ?Well, I should keep them there if they were feeding cattle.

1424.nbsp; How long ?To test them. I have known them in many cases------

1425.nbsp; In the case of feeding cattle you would keep them until fat and ready to sell to the butcher ? Ceriainly.

1426.nbsp; But with regard to those that have stdl lived in contact and run the risk of disease, would you think that a safe mode of treatment ?Yes, I will give an example of itseveral of them.

1427.nbsp; You think you would risk it, ?Yes. I was connected with a lot of cattle belonging to my sister in the county of Midlothian, and she had 21 of them. The disease broke out amongst them, and I went to the local authority of the county of Edinburgh and I was bid 15/. a head for these cattle, and I said that I would slaughter if they would give 15Z. a head for them. They would not allow 15/. a head for them, and the cattle that were affected were slaughtered and the balance were kept for 56 days, and there was no other outbreak amongst them.

1428.nbsp; nbsp;Let us put the example of an isolated case of only one outbreak, not a number, and where there were gome cattle diseased and some not diseased. Would you have a very great objection to slaughter those which were in contact, assuming that you had full value and compensation paid for them ?Supposing I was the holder of them ?

1429.nbsp; nbsp;Yes?And the local authority was going to amp;*lt; T.Smn, pay mo full value ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;₂₇ _April ₁₈₈₈_

1430.nbsp; Yes ?Certainly not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; __1_____

1431.nbsp; nbsp;You would not?No.

1432.nbsp; nbsp;Assuming that you received three-fourths value for the diseased animal and you received full value for the healthy animal in contact, do you think that would bo the safest modo of oxterminating the disease and of purifying the district ?Certainly, and I could not expect any more.

1433.nbsp; nbsp;You have had a great deal of experience of the working of the Act of 1878 ?I have.

1434.nbsp; nbsp;Is it your opinion that that Act embodies all that is necessary for the safe guarding of the herds of this country ?That Act of the Duke o£ Richmond ia just about as nearly perfect as possible, except ona thing,

1435.nbsp; nbsp;Is it your opinion that this Act is everything that you require ?Certainly.

1436.nbsp; If by any degree it fails, is it in the applica-and the administration of the Act ?Certainly.

1437.nbsp; Now am I right in supposing that this points to the want of uniformity of administration in various districts ?Most distinctly.

1438.nbsp; That whereas one county puts the Act in operation in its fulness, the adjoining one does not ? Yes, and they very often retaliate one upon another.

1439.nbsp; I was going to ask you what method do you suggest to remedy that?My opinion is, and always has been, that in places, such as we have in Scotland, with no less than 50 or 60 local authorities we should have a central board, say, in Edinburgh; that each county delegate a member to that board and have no basis, such as counties or any such thing; but let this board be a sort of parliament in regard to dealing with disease. You would leave it to them to define the area without regard to counties which they would say should be circumscribed.

1440.nbsp; Taking Scotland as a whole, how many of those central boards, as you call them, would you consider sufficient for the purpose ?I should consider one.

1441.nbsp; You would make Scotland into onerOne, certainly.

1442.nbsp; I wish to come to that a little more closely. Can you tell us what is done by the authorities of Perth, Fife, and Stirling ?They each do their own way. Stirling says we will not take any cattle from Glasgow or Ireland at all; Perth will only take them shipped at certain ports with particular certificates; Fife will take them from anywhere; and as the result we have confusion.

1443.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) I think, Mr. Swan, you will admit that the variations in the orders and regulations of the movement of cattle between Stirling, Fife, and Perth have been frequent ?They have been nearly uniform.

1444.nbsp; They have been changed; and you must be speaking of one particular time. I know what you have stated to be a fact, but that only existed for a short time ?Quite so.

1445.nbsp; {Chairman?) I was under the impression that Fife, Perth, and Stirling were all under the same orders, and that they did not admit cattle from Dublin or Belfast ?1 think they are all alike ; Fife, Perth, and Stirling are nearly all alike. They are acting in unison, and they have declined to take cattle shipped either at Dublin or Belfast. 1 may tell you that Fife will take Irish cattle bought in Edinburgh market outside of this arrangement.

1446.nbsp; nbsp;I will take that directly. Can you tell us what action is taken by Forfarsliire and Midlothian ? They are not so difficult to please.

1447.nbsp; nbsp;Will they accept cattle from Belfast and Dublin ?Yes, and East Lothian.

1448.nbsp; nbsp;And East Lothinn also ?Yes.

1449.nbsp; nbsp;Now, do you know any districts which, whilst refusing cattle coming direct, from Ireland, will accept them if shown in Edinburgh market first ?Fifeshiro for one ; and I am not sure in regard to Stirling. I do not, think that Stirling or Perth will; Forfarahire will.

I til

4()

UOMMITTOE ON I'LKUKO-I'NKUIWONIA AN1gt; TUBKBCULO8I8

Mr. T. Swan. 27 April 1888.

1450 Therefore this inconsiBtoncy in tho action of the various local authorities of Scotland induces you to recommend a system of centralisation i'-Yos, with the greatest positive assuronco I would do that,

1451. 1 suppose you are aware that the local authorities may from time to time agree to confer with each other ?I have seen them interchange opinions. 1452 Then do I gather from this that you would prefer that the powers given to local authorities should bo curtailed, and that, a general order should issue from tho Privy Council in order to produce a more uniform action vJ-My opinion is this : there is an immense loss occurs to tho feeding stock and store cattle all over the country by the conflicting operations of the loca authorities. But what I want to see is a central board for Scotland; and I would also recommend it for England, by which one local authority will not say to another, laquo; We won't take your cattle under certain laquo; conditions,quot; or quot; Wo won't admit them, or We laquo; won't allow you to send your cattle to us, but we quot; will have a board at Edinburgh or Glasgow, com-quot; posed of delegates from tho present local authorities, quot; and they shall considerwith regard to counties, laquo; and issue a uniform order having for its object the 'lt; protection of the country from disease.

1453 Then any loss entailed in carrying out these orders of the central authority would naturally be paid by the respective counties in which the disease broke out?Decidedly, unless from the Treasury.

1451 Would you recommend, therefore, that these local authorities, with the powers of payment as at present from any district, would be preferable to a uniform order being issued by the Privy Council and being paid by the Treasury ?I would prefer certainly that the management in regard to disease should be left to the country where it existed ; and I think also the payment should come out of the Imperial funds.

1455nbsp; nbsp;That is just the point; but do you not admit that the man who pays the piper has a right to choose the tune ?But tho Government is getting the benefit from the rates just now. I say if these cattle are slaughtered for the national benefit that the nation should pay for it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

1456nbsp; nbsp;You consider under any circumstances that any payment incurred ought to be met by the Trea-

^SU1i457 (Mr. Stirling.) On the ground that the nation is getting the benefit of it ?Certainly.

1458. (Chairman.) Do you go so far as to assume that so long as the defined county area exists as at present, and the orders put in force as they are at present, we shall have a difficulty in exterminating the disease owing to the way in which the Act is administered ?

1459nbsp; nbsp;Has any attempt been made to induce the Privy Council to adopt the system of your central boards ?I have written twice or thrice about it.

1460nbsp; nbsp;Have they given any indication of agreeing to your proposal?No: I had a letter just acknowledging the receipt from Mr. Peel, I think.

1461nbsp; nbsp; Do you think that it would be in the interest of the country at large that any further experiments on pleuro-pneumonia should be made with a view to further discoveries ?I cannot see what other experiments can be made.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;  . ^ ... i,

1462.nbsp; You think we know sufficiently about tlie disease and the cause ?We know too much about it.

1463.nbsp; Do you think we are in a position to act upon it with the knowledge we have already ?Most decidedly. I beg pardon, if it is to veterinary experiments you refer, I am not speaking ofthat, but practica

experiments.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. laquo;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; *

1464 I embrace the entire question of expenmentain order to get the whole history of the disease with a view to further knowledge, this naturally would bscientific ?Of course if science can lessen tho chancof disease, I should advise experiment.

1465. Have you any hopes of that, .^J--l hear tliaveterinary surgeons say so. I cannot say much abouit, but you very seldem get two or three of them o

14G6. Do you feel safe in the employraont of inoculation to rid tho country of disease ?Well, I was told last night by a man who had seventy thousand cattle in Australia a friend of mine who is in town, that that is tho only system they adopt there. I am decidedly against compulsory slaughter.

1467. {Mr. Stirling.) Against compulsory slaughter?Iain.

1408. (Chairman.) How do you reconcile that with the answer you gave a short while ago, that if they gave you three-fourths of the value for the diseased animals, and full compensation for animals in contact and which were healthy, that you thought it would be desirable to adopt that?I will tell you.

1469. Did you say that ?I admit I said that, but I will tell you why ; the local authority of tho county of Fife approached us two weeks ago, and asked us if we would assist them in slaughtering any cattle that had to be slaughtered under the recent orders of the Privy Council. I sent people across to Fife to do so for them, and I ordered the carcases to be sent to Glasgow for sale, and also ordered them to be sold by auction. I went and saw the carcases. The one which had been slaughtered I did not see, but I saw the 20 remaining, nine of which were stirks, and 11 were bullocks. There was not the slightest touch of disease amongst the whole 20. That I tell you in order to reconcile this answer with the previous one. This man has got his turnips and straw to eat; he has got to buy other cattle to replace those 20 cattle that were actually slaughtered ; and he could have had them fatted without the slightest chance of disease, because there was no manifestation of it.

1470.nbsp; Was it not possible that there might have been disease amongst them ?It might have been.

1471.nbsp; Then there is a risk ?There is a certain risk.

1472.nbsp; nbsp;But then this man has received compensation for his cattle ?Certainly.

1473.nbsp; nbsp;So he practically would not be the loser, beyond having his straw and turnips eaten in some other way ?But with regard to compulsory slaughter, we have not sufficient store stock in the country to meet the demands of those who feed cattle, and if you kill cattle out, as has been proposed, you will find a buyer of 20 cattle once a year who will have to buy perhaps 60, according to this arrangement; and where are you going to get them ?

1474.nbsp; nbsp;Are you not aware that there are certain counties and districts which by compulsory slaughter have not had a recurrence of disease for years ?I may have been.

1475.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know it?Not as a matter ot tact; but in Lanarkshire, where compulsory slaughter exists, it is as bad there as ever.

1476.nbsp; nbsp;Can that be traced in any way ?I do not suppose it can. Those people who are feeding the cattle, and have had their byres cleaned out, are buying them again.

1477.nbsp; And you admit that the cattle they buy bring the disease with them?Unless it is from the effects of the place not being properly cleaned; they will not buy diseased cattle if they know it,

1478.nbsp; Can you detect the early stages of pleuro-pneumonia in cattle when you buy them in large numbers ? At once.

1479.nbsp; No?Or else nobody would buy them.

1480.nbsp; And therefore there is a great risk always ? Of course there is ; when the disease is floating about there must be a certain risk.

1481.nbsp; But it is a more insidious disease, and more difficult to identify and discover than any disease, perhaps, within your knowledge ?Most distinctly.

1482.nbsp; Are you aware that tho disease does lurk in an animal for some considerable time before it develops itself ?I believe that, as there are various types of it.

1483.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) To take one of the last, subjects first, you spoke just now of the desirability of having a Central Council for the administration of this Act ?I did.

the same opinion.

\m\

MINUTES OF KVIDENOE.

1484.nbsp; If my memory is right, were you not one of those who attended on a deputation before the Central Committee of the local authorities in Glasgow in 1883 or 1884 ?No, I was not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

1485.nbsp; Was it your brother ?I do not think wo were represented.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

1486.nbsp; You remember that there was a meeting ot the Scottish Committee representing all the Scottish local authorities held in Glasgow about that time in the Burgh Chambers in Glasgow before we sent the deputation to the Privy Council in Ireland regarding foot-and-mouth disease and the transport of the animals ?I cannot recollect being there.

1487.nbsp; It was because of that point of Central Conn-cils having been discussed at the time that I mention it?Yes.

1488.nbsp; I wondered whether you were aware that one of the reasons that was alleged against the possibility of working on that system was the different interests of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the districts where the large dairy farms are, and the impossibility of reconciling dairy interests and the breeders' interests ?I think it would have the opposite effect. I should say that the central board would have only one object in view, that is, where both interests were represented you would arrive at a sound conclusion in the soonest way.

1489.nbsp; Where both were represented ?Yes.

1490.nbsp; How, then, would you on such boards represent Glasgow and Greenock interests, for instance. You know there is an immense deal of money derived from the cattle trade coming into Glasgow?Of course there is. I should like the local authority of the city of Glasgow and the burgh of Greenock to be represented on that board to look after their own

1H Tftl'A st 9

1491.nbsp; Are you aware if at any time the local authorities of Glasgow and Greenock presented a counter petition to the views of the local authorities of the Scottish counties, in consequence of the great interference with trade; that regulations made by the Scottish counties would have operated against Greenock and Glasgow?I know that the Glasgow people have complained very strongly of the restrictions placed upon the trade, against the admission of cattle to Greencck and Glasgow. I recollect that they at one time would not admit any Irish cattle unless they came from Greenock.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ₎

1492.nbsp; And you think the breeders' and dairymen s interests could be reconciled on the central board ?

I think so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. x-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;r

1493.nbsp; You spoke of the results of the variations oi the rules of the different counties ; could you give us any example of them ?I can.

1494.nbsp; I do not think you have stated what is tbe result of the variation in the rules between Stirlingshire, Fifeshire, and Perthshire as to the operation of the 66 days' rule ?Well, each local authority in these various counties issue rules for themselves; but recently, I believe, they have amalgamated or at least come to some understanding. Up to the time that they came to this understanding, Fifeshire was not so exclusive as the county of Perth or the county ot Stirling, and of course they found it to he to their mutual advantage to enter into some regulation.

1495.nbsp; Fifeshire took cattle, I understand, from Irelaadj or rather took cattle from Edinburgh?

Yes.

1496.nbsp; Without any rules as to the 56 days?

Certainly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_L.

1497nbsp; nbsp; And the effect was that the cattle were shipped first to Edinburgh, and then sent to Fife, and then brought to Perthshire and Stirling, in contravention of tlw rules, having gone to Fife lirst ?Ihey wont to Fife, but as to the admission into Perthshire or Stirling from Fife, I am not in a position to sajquot;. If they did so, they contravened the local authorities rules of those conntiea,

1498nbsp; nbsp;You said you were satisfied with the Act xs it stood. Do you think the custom of giving the certificates is a good one in practice ? Do you think that they are reliable ?Sometimes.

1199. Speaking generally, yon would say they were Mv. T. Swan. not, or that they were ?Well, I may toll you this, _A~T1_HSSthat when I wont homo last night I found a telegram ⁱ⁷ ^Apru quot;quot;quot;' from Glasgow from our people: quot; 275 cattle stopped at quot; Glasgow on account of irregularity in the certitt-quot; cates.quot;

1500.nbsp; {Chairman.) From what country were they brought ?Ireland. I got a later telegram: quot; Cattle quot; allowed to go ; they arc going to Perth. Professor laquo; McCall not satisfied.quot; Later on I got a telegram again : quot; 600 cattle stopped at Glasgow on account of quot; irregularity in certificates.quot; And they are there now, I suppose.

1501.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling) They did not in tho telegram convey to you where the irregularity was ?No. Professor McCall was evidently noo satisfied, the declarations had evidently not satisfied Professor McCall.

1502.nbsp; But these declarations were declarations signed in Ireland ?Certainly.

1503.nbsp; And you have had similar experience to this before ?I have.

1504.nbsp; Where do you find those certificates generally fail ; in what point of the declaration did they generally fail ; it is in the declaration, I suppose ?It is in the declaration.

1505.nbsp; On what point ?Well, if Professor McCall is not satisfied that the cattle have not come from a district which is not prohibited, he, I suppose, detains the cattle until he makes inquiries.

1506.nbsp; Are you aware that the system which you advocated of drawing a cordon round the infected areas was adopted in Ireland at the request of the Committee of the Scottish local authorities ?I am perfectly aware of that.

1507.nbsp; Are you aware of the result of that ?Yes, I am.

1508.nbsp; It was not altogether satisfactory ?Well, it was sometimes evaded, I believe.

1509.nbsp; The difficulty being that it was found almost impossible to prevent cattle being shipped by rail into the areas from different points rWell, the law might be evaded in some ways; but, generally speaking, from my own knowledge, those which were free exercised the most determined endeavour to act up to the ordersto keep themselves clear.

1510.nbsp; You were asked by the Chairman whether you found many diseased cattle from Ireland in Glasgow, and you said you had not ?Quite so.

1511.nbsp; Could you give the same answer in regard to Edinburgh and Perth ?I have never seen anything wrong at Perth at all; and I may tell you this, that, in addition to Professor Walley, who is inspector for the City of Edinburgh, wo make him an annual payment to examine all our cattle every Tuesday.

1512.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) That is a private examination?

__Yes, a private examination outside tho Act; and we

give him power to take any animals that he thinks doubtful, and if necessary send them to the Edinburgh slaughter-house to be examined and killed. We had a case of anthrax, and he made us clean out the whole place.

1513.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) I understand that with regard to Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Perth, in giving your answer, you spoke entirely on behalf of your own Arm ?So far as I know. The system of inspection at Perth and Edinburgh and Glasgow is identical amongst all the firms.

1514.nbsp; I suppose you are aware that various outbreaks in Perthshire have been traced to Irish cattle ?Yes, and to milk cows.

1515.nbsp; nbsp;And to milk cows ?Yes.

1516.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any reason to suppose that in tracing these outbreaks there may have been an error of judgment, that the disease may not have come from those Irish cattle as reported ?No; I thitiK every attempt to trace tho animals have been of the most searching character.

1517.nbsp; nbsp;You arc satisfied m to that?Yes.

, n

COMMITTEE ON l'LEUUO-PNBUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. T. Swan. 27 April 1888,

1 jlri. That there has been an honest endeavour to discover the animals wherever the disease has conic from ?Most decidedly.

1519.nbsp; nbsp;You spoke of the origin of the disouse as being climatic to a üortiiin extent?1 do.

1520.nbsp; nbsp;Have yon any knowledge of Australia ; havo you been abroad in the Colonies at all ?I have been in America only; I have been on the Continent of Europe also.

1521.nbsp; nbsp;Havo you any reason to think that one part of this country is more liable to the disease than the other; that is to say, Ireland more than Scotland, or Scotland more than England i¹No ; but I think if you change cattle from a warm climate, say, a soft climate, such as you havo in Ireland, to a different climate here, that they are more liable to take the disease on that account.

1522.nbsp; Thev are more liable ?I think so. 152;i. Bo you think that the age of the stock would

make any perceptible difference or add to that liability ?

__I do not think so. But the reason that I think that

Irish cattle are more susceptible to the disease than those in England is the treatment they get on board the steamers. They are put in there and they come out steaming and are rushed to the railway trains, and get hay in open pens, and get chilled. quot; 1524. You have seen those cattle come over very often ?I liave.

1525.nbsp; But you must be aware that those animals are examined very carefully by the Government inspector of the ports in Ireland on embarking ?Both on embarkation and debarkation.

1526.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that the time allowed for the examination is sufficient at embarkation ?I do, because they must be accompanied by the certificate from the places that, they come from before they get to the port of embarkation.

1527.nbsp; nbsp;I meant the period during which the inspector is enabled to examine the cattle ; is that sufficient ? Has he sufficient time when they are hurried on board so quickly to examine them properly? They are generally brought off the trains to the boat at the wharf, and the inspector there examines the certificate that comes with them from the place whence they have come, and he looks through the cattle. He does not examine them individually; he examines them collectively as a lot, and then he puts them on board, and the original certificate is left with

dairymen, but we sell on an average 70 dairy milk cows weekly. We also sell 150 dairy cows from Edinburgh and neighbourhood every week.

1535. Do you find that the disease exists more in the lean stock or in dairy stock in your experience ? You mean store cuttle.

153(5. Store cattlo

1537.nbsp; nbsp;Not in a general way ?I think it is more in dairy cows. I may say this that Edinburgh was never as clear of disease as at the present moment even amongst the dairy stock.

1538.nbsp; Not even amongst dairy stock?Not even amongst dairy stock. I never knew it to be so clear of disease.

1539.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) You have stated to the Committee that you thought that pleuro-pneumonia could arise spontaneously ?Yes.

1540.nbsp; On what facts do you base that opinion ? Well, I could give you one or two instances, but I have not the places just now where it broke out without anv possible chance of contagion or infection.

1541.nbsp; That is to say, you know oil a place in which the disease appeared into which cattle had never been moved ?Quite.

1542.nbsp; Could you give to the Committee subsequently in a paper the names of such places ?Certainly.

1543.nbsp; [Chairman.) Is this from personal observation pIt is from the owner of the stock himself.

1544.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Horsley) It is not your own personal experience ?Not my own personal experience.

1545.nbsp; It is reported to you by the owner of the stock ?Yes.

1546.nbsp; {Chairman) Where was that?It was in Berwickshire. 1 will send you the place.

1547.nbsp; {Professor Horsley) In your own personal experience you have not seen spontaneous origin ? No, I have not.

1548.nbsp; Well, then, you spoke of the disease being excited by climatic causes. Is it in your experience that the disease is more prevalent at any paiticular time of the year?Well, yes, it is in my own opinion.

1549.nbsp; At what period?Just about February or that time of the year after the stock takes to feeding on turnips.

1550.nbsp; And your attention has not been drawn to the disease at that time of the year because you have been dealing with more cattle ?No.

1551.nbsp; You deal with fewer cattle then than in the autumn ?Certainly.

1552.nbsp; By that you think that it is certain that tue disease is more common at that time of the year ?

Yes, I do.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

1553.nbsp; nbsp;Well, then, the treatment of the cattle on board ship coining from Ireland, you think, causes the disease or only leads to the disease; what do you say ? It leads to it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;gt;

1554.nbsp; You do not think that it causes the disease ?

__I do not think that it causes it, but causes the cattle

to be more susceptible to it.

1555.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that it is possible for an animal to take the disease in Ireland, then to undergo this treatment on board ship, and only to develop it a week after the animal is sold in Scotland ?No, I do not think that. I think the pleuro-pneumonia takes more than a fortnight to develop. You cannot determine the time when it does begin to attack the animal.

1556 Then we will put it in this way, supposing at Belfast, for instance, it shows no sign of disease, and that it gives no notice of it when landed in Scotland, but it shows the disease about a week after landing in Scotland. What would be your opinion then ?Then it must have had the disease before it left Ireland.

1557.nbsp; Do you think that the treatment on board ship would have called out or provoked the disease ?

__Supposing the animal had the disease when it left

Ireland ; is that what you mean ?

1558.nbsp; Yes?It would accelerate its development. ISöü! That is what I mean. You paid that your

mode of getting rid of the disease would be to schedule the area, to kill the disease, and to keep the other animals on the chance of their getting well ?Yes,

him,....... -.._rr..-₀ ----nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

That comes to the inspector at Glasgow, and he 1 suppose, makes the same inspection as takes place on the other side.

1528.nbsp; You said the disease is a very insidious one ; and you know the number of cattle that are shipped from Belfast every week is very large ?A very large number.

1529.nbsp; Many thousands ?Yes, a great many thousands.

1530.nbsp; The disease being so insidious, do you think that the examination can be made by an inspector in a wholesale manner ?They are supposed to come from healthy districts.

1531.nbsp; nbsp;They are supposed to ?Yes.

1532.nbsp; And when the cattle are landed in this country do you think that they are in a fit state for examination ? I mean to say, you know, of course, thathey are brought out from the hold of the vessel invery heated state; that they are often landed iNovember in the early hours of the morning whenis cold ?That is so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . a

1533.nbsp; Do you consider that an animal is in a hstate for examination at that time ?Well, the examnation must, be done in a very hurried way, becausthese Irish cattle are shipped at the latest possibmoment in order to overtake a certain market, anthey, perhaps, will not be more than six cr seven houin Glasgow altogether, an hour of which they fakto walk up to the station, and very often they wastraight up from the ship into the waggons.

1634. 1 think you said you are not u doiryma

you are not interested in dairy cattle ?No; not

MINUTES OP KVIDENCK.

1560. After how long would you propose to get rid of your schedule or cordon ; how long would you propose to keep tlitin ?If they wore fat cattle they would bo greatly gaining in value, and if there was no further outbreak of the disease

of animals, have you found out that it follows any Mr. T. Swan. particular path besides the usual linos of traffic ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

No; the lung disease in Scotland is gonorullv In 27 April 1888. those counties where stock is brought in for fattening purposes. The disease is not known, as Sir George Macphorson Grant is aware, on the west side of Scotland, where cattle are exclusively home-bred anil #9632;where, as a rule, they are self-contained.

1589. I thought so. Does not that seem to suggest to you very strongly that the disease is not spontaneous in Scotland, hut that it is always brought in ?There is no doubt whatever about that. You do not find it in epidemic form anywhere else, unless whore cattle are taken into the feeding centres.

1690. I do not think that 1 quite understood what you meant when you gave the answer about tbo spontaneous origin of the disease. Do you think yourself that if thoquot;quot; disease was stamped out at the present moment in Scotland, and if infected animals wore prevented from coming in, do you think that it would over bo heard of ?Yes.

1591. How do you account for its not appearing in home-bred animals where new stores are not introduced ?Simply because the system is entirely different.

1:1

1561.nbsp; nbsp;What time would you allow to elapse when you considered unimala safe; when you consider the farm to be clean ?56 clays after the disease.

1562.nbsp; nbsp;And you consider that the period of 56 days is sufficient ?I think so.

1563.nbsp; nbsp;Has it never been brought to your notice that under certain circumstances disease may appear to be smouldering in an animal for more than 56 days ? 1 have no doubt it has.

1564.nbsp; nbsp;It has never been brought to your notice ? Has it been brought to your notice that an animal may have the disease in an encysted form in the lung for a long time without showing any symptoms at all ?

__An animal if affected by disease ot that kind must

gradually show it by losing flesh.

1565.nbsp; nbsp;In your experience does that condition of things always revenl itself ?Certainly.

1566.nbsp; nbsp;So that you think there would be no possi-

You get a lot of stock bred to the land and acclimatised to it; but in the other case you take it from another place under entirely different circumstances.

1592.nbsp; Although you think that it is contagious, you think that it might be caused by circumstances otherwise than the specific poison of the disease ?Certainly. What I want you to understand is this: whore the country is exclusively a breeding one, that is to say, where it is self-supporting and in place of taking in cattle sends them out, you do not find disease exist there; but where a country is entirely dependent upon the outside for its supply of stock it always runs the risk of introducing disease.

1593.nbsp; {Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) You being desirous to exterminate this disease as far as possible, you told us that in the case of a farm which became infected what you would do. I want to ask yon a little further. You were to slaughter the affected cattle ; you would keep the others until they became fat and then dispose of them. But I want you to put the case of a breeding farm, how would yon deal with a breeding stock ?Well, if this system of inoculaticij, has the beneficial effect that people say it has, I should have them inoculated.

1594.nbsp; But you have not quite told us that in your judgment that inoculation is the proper way of dealing with it, and, therefore, would you inoculate? I want to know from your judgment, putting you in the position of a farmer holding breeding stock, how you would deal with this portion of the stock ?With a stock such as your own I certainly would not. have them slaughtered, but would run the risk o f keeping them.

1595.nbsp; But I am asking you to consider the welfare of the general cattle trade and the general agriculture of the country, not what I should like to do but what you say I ought to be obliged to do. How would you deal with this centre as regards breeding stock, which in many parts of Scotland is the most valuable part of the whole thing ?I should draw the cordon round it the same as around fat ones and risk them

1596.nbsp; Then how long would you keep that cordon round ?If the disease broke out and continued to break out periodically, I should certainly do it, because in a valuable bveeding stock to exterminate il altogether any amount of compensation would not compensate the man for the loss; and so long as the local authority was satisfied that there was no chance of any stock coming out of the cordon placed around 1 would let the stock stop there.

1697.nbsp; You would not insist upon them stopping there?Certainly I would.

1698.nbsp; How long would you keep thnm in penal servitude ?66 days after the last outbreak.

1599. That is the answer you gave previously ? Yes.

bility of any animal contracting the disease towards the end of 56 days. Have they not shown it until perhaps six weeks or two months after your permission has been granted I-'I do not think it is possible.

1667. Then you do not think there is any risk of keeping in animals possibly diseased after 56 days ? No ; I would risk it amongst my own stock.

1568. You would not consider it necessary to isolate those animals on suspicion ?No; I have tested that.

1669. You have tested it by actual experience ? Yes.

1570.nbsp; On your own farm ?Yes, on a farm at

Cathpair.

1571.nbsp; Is this the instance you gave just now? Yes.

1572.nbsp; On that farm animals were kept which had been in contact ?Yes, and I introduced a fresh lot amongst them.

1573.nbsp; After 56 days?Yes, and I bought a lot of stores.

1574.nbsp; And you introduced them amongst them ? Quite.

1575.nbsp; And there was no further outbreaks ot the disease ?No, not amongst either lot.

1576.nbsp; You say you are against compulsory slaughter, is that because of the waste of life ?It is the waste

of life.

1577.nbsp; Is it because you think that it is detrimental to the interests of the farmers ?Certainly.

1578.nbsp; And do you think that it is detrimental also to the interests of dairy keepers ? I do most distinctly.

1579.nbsp; More so than the farmers ?Most distinctly.

1580.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the questions that Mr. Stirling asked you; you regard the examination at the port of embarkation as sufficient because it is backed up by the certificates brought to that port ?Yes.

1581.nbsp; Do you think, then, that the certificate is to be trusted as indicating the farm where the animal came from ?It might or might not be so, but how can you replace it?

1582.nbsp; That is what I want to know. Do you know that in Australia they brand the animal with a brand indicating the farm from which the animal came ?I know that for a fact.

1583.nbsp; nbsp;And anybody who contravenes that is liable to heavy punishment ?I know that.

1584.nbsp; Do you think that the branding would be better than the certificate ?Do you mean the brand indicative of the districts ?

1585.nbsp; Yes?I should not object to that.

1686.nbsp; But, would not it be superior to the present method of certificating ?I believe it would.

1687.nbsp; Now in regard to inoculation, have you had any personal experience of inoculation ?No, I have not.

1588. With regard to the disease spreading In Scotland, having had so great experience of the shipments o 64008.

!#9632;

COMMITTEE ON I'LEÜRO-rNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS i

Mr. T. Swan. 1600. Your opinion is formed ns regards this point

------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;very nmch on your own experience ?Upon my own

27 April 1888. _idea.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;

-----------1601. And, from your experience, you said on a

certain farm in Midlothian ?Yes.

1602.nbsp; There you told us that you had un outbreak of pleuro #9632; the affected animals were slaughtered of course and sold, and then after 50 days you introduced fresh stores with those which had been in contact, and, so far laquo;s you have told the Conmiittce, you detected no appearance of disease either in the fresh cattle or in those that had been affected and kept beyond that 56 Jayg ?_No ; I sold the balance of those in contact with the diseased caitle after they were fat. The stores were in contact with them about a fortnight. The stores that were kept after being in contact with those cattle that bad been quarantined for 56 days were kept on that farm for nine months and then sold off as a lot fat.

1603.nbsp; These cattle were sold within two months after they had been in contact with the undoubted diseased animals. Are you prepared to tell us that such an examination was made of the carcases which would show that there was no disease ?Yes, every one of ihem. I made the examination myself.

1604.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) But what is the evidence which he calls diseased ; what evidence is there that the animals had the disease ?They were killed by the veterinary surgeon at Dalkeith and condemned for it. I saw them myself. There is no doubt whatever about the existence of the disease.

1605nbsp; nbsp; (.Chairman.) On whose farm was this ?My own sister, Mrs. Frier, of Cathpair. If it had not been the disease Mrs. Frier would not have got compensation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _N , . , ^ ,

1606nbsp; nbsp; (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) Again, to take you to tho Act of 1878, you find it satisfactory on the whole ? I think you complained not of want of an inherent defect in the Act of 1878, so much as a want of uniformity under different local authorities being different in practice ?Exactly so.

1607.nbsp; And to get over that you recommend a central board ?I do.

1608.nbsp; It would be a sort of parliament to deal with the disease ?Certainly.

1609.nbsp; And to which various local authorities should send delegates ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .

1610 Now I, as you know, am principally ac-nuaiuted with the North of Scotland, and we have had a good deal of cattle disease in some portions of the North of Scotland. Have you considered what would be a fair and just way of meeting some of those northern counties if they were in a minority on any special point for the management or carrying out ot orders VOn the contrary,! think it would be a great deal in your favour.

1611. You are aware, taking the county ot Aber-decni am not saying anything against the opinion of Aberdeenbut if the county of Aberdeen were ot opinion that the best way of dealing with, say, an outbreak of pleuro was the immediate slaughter; would it, not be rather hard upon them to prohibit them because a local authority, which is principally occupied with dairy farms, took a different view ?1 do not see that. What I complain of is this, and the object of my suggesting a central board would, be to get the unanimity and avoid the present want ot it.

1612.nbsp; What you want most, I thinkyou will correct mo if I am wrongis to get uniformity as to the movement of cattle i¹Uniformity as to the means to prevent disease and to get quit of these vexatious conflicting orders.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ., r. i.

1613.nbsp; 1 daresay you want to get nd ot disease in one way, or whichever has proved to be the best way, and at the same time you want lo get rid of the conflicting orders from the different local authorities i Certainly ; and I maintain that that is the only way of getting quit of the disease, because it is supposed that each local authority is to get quit of the disease in the

1614nbsp; nbsp;You do not propose to allocate the expense of any slaughter or any other action on the different counties where the disease takes place ?No; 1 think that where cattle are killed, as now, indiscriminately that it is very hard upon the ratepayers in those counties to have to contribute to the loss. I say it it is done for a national object the Treasury should pay

1615nbsp; nbsp;Would this he altogether fair that, because there is disease in the county of Lanark the ratepayers and taxpayers of the county of Sutherland should have to pay for that ?Well, supposing the disease was going to break out in an auction mart, and we will suppose that 600 or 700 cattle from diitorent counties all over the country, and that four cattle at different parts of this sale were affected with pleuro-pneumonia; what would be the effect if those cattle had to be sold; what would the City ot Edinburgh sav if a claim was laid on behalf of cattle coming from every county in Scotland and from Benmark and from elsewhere if they were asked to pay full value for these cattle which had not contributed anything except the dues to the revenue of the city ?

1616 That is not quite the answer to my question. Can you justify the imposition of this expenditure upon counties where there has been and is no pleuro at all, they themselves being desirous of dealing with the disease in a different way which they believe to be effective VMy impression is that where the thing is a national benefit the nation ought to pay tor

¹ ' 1617 1 think you said that in your judgment also the interest of both breedersthat is, farmers generally and the dairy ownersare quite well reconciled by such a central board ?I think so.

1618.nbsp; You think that they are not antagonistic at all ?Certainly not.

1619.nbsp; You were asked by Professor Horsley about the climatic question, and you drew some distinction between different portions of Scotland as regards the prevalence of the disease and you were good enough to talk of my district. I am sorry to say my district is not so clean of disease as I should like it to be. Are you aware that in the county of Banff last year there were 13 outbreaks ?I believe so.

1620.nbsp; Outbreaks of pleuro disease ?1 can accoant for that.

1621nbsp; nbsp; In the county of Elgin there was one ; in Inverness five; in Nairn one ; those are three counties that I am principally interested in ?Yes, I am aware of that.

1622nbsp; nbsp;I think you said to Professor Horsley that your opinion was that it was less frequent in districts where most of the cattle were bred ; that they run the greatest risk by importation ?Certainly.

1623nbsp; nbsp;There is no doubt about that, and therefore as long as you have a large importation from any country where there is disease you must run a very considerable risk?No doubt about that.

1624.nbsp; nbsp;And that you cannot tell by the present system of examination at the port of embarkation ; m the case of Ireland you cannot be certain that you detect the disease ?You cannot be certain that you are not buying cattle with the seeds of disease on

them.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . x, ,raquo; .

1625.nbsp; nbsp;You can neither detect it in Beltast noi Glasgow ?I do not suppose so, unless it is at a stage where it can be detected.

1620. That is to say, it can easily be overlooked i Quite. In its incipient form I should say so.

1627. And that the time at the disposal ot the inspectors in the four or five hours to catch the train to get them off is too short ?Yes. Of course I may tell you that no man would buy cattle with disease, it he knew it, either in Scotland or anywhere e se. He can only ship them under the provisions of the 1 rivy Council with regard to Ireland, and he can only bring them from those districts in that way unless there be some means or other of getting cattle from the outside district.

#9632;;laquo;

best possible way they can.

MINXJTKB OF MVIDKNCJB.

1628.nbsp; So that, although you told us originally that you havo not seou disease in Irish cattle at Glasgow, you have no doubt that in an incipient form there aro some there ?My opinion does not extend to Irish cattle alone. It may exist with regard to English as well as Scotch.

1629.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.) You mentioned about Lanarkshire and having some cattle where the stock was cleared out by disease and that then they bought n new stock and the same thing happened again ?Yes

1630.nbsp; nbsp;Did you refer to dairy cattle or to general farm stock in that case ?I am not speaking from my own personal knowledge, but that is the common opinion and that is the allegation and that is the reason why this compulsory slaughter seems to be useless.

1631.nbsp; But I want to ask you does that apply to the dairy stock about Glasgow district, or is it the ordinary farming district ?The stock of tho country generally.

1632.nbsp; And not dairy stock specially?It is not confined to dairy stock.

1633.nbsp; nbsp;And then also about Perth, you said that you could trace the disease in Perthshire to Irish cattle. Was that recently, within the last 18 months ?I think that the disease in Perth was principally traced from Ayrshire cows which came to a mart there and which spread the disease all over. There was no Irish cattle so far as I know affected.

1634.nbsp; nbsp;But in reply to the Chairman about the outbreaks in Perth you said that you traced it to Irish cattle ?If I did so that was wrong; it was to Ayrshire cows.

1635.nbsp; Have you known any case within the last year (ISSV) or the present year of disease being traced to any Irish cattle other than dairy cows ?In the country generally.

1636.nbsp; Under your own knowledgeof Scotland ot any Irish cattle that have passed through the hands of your firm other than dairy cowshave you known any disease brought into Scotland from Ireland ?--Yes, I have known several outbreaks. I must tell you this, that three fourths of the cattle fed in Pifeshire and Forfarshire and in Kincardineshire are Irish cattle.

1637.nbsp; But when you say cattle I want to draw a distinction between old cows that are brought to be fattened and other classes of cattle. Has the disease been traced to anything except cows ?Certainly to Irish cattle and any other classes of cattle. It is prevalent.

1638.nbsp; The reason I have asked that is that we have the returns of the Privy Council for 1887 and 1888. It is stated there that there is no disease in Ireland, except in the Dublin dairies ?But that does not prevent Irish cattle when they come to Scotland taking the disease or having it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

1639.nbsp; Then you think that they can take it during the journey and coming from a district where there Is no disease and developed the disease in Scotland ? Certainly the same as other classes of cattle.

1640.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) Evidently you mean that the clean cattle, the cattle arriving from Ireland in a clean condition, catch the disease in Scotland ? Certainly.

1641.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloncurry.) When you mention that these cattle come from Ireland you only hear that they come from an Irish boat, the ones you mentioned as having brought disease from Perthshire ?Yes, that is how it was.

1612. You merely take it as a fact that they.arrive in Scotland by tho steamboat. You believe that they came from Ireland ?But I mean to say this further, I do not mean to say that any outbreak or any disease in Scotland is exclusively confined to cattle coming from Ireland.

1643. quot;Coming fnjm Irelandquot; is a large word and includes some 20 million acres. You could not bo more accurate than you have stated it ?No.

1614. And the same way as to the class of cattle : you could not describe any particular district, you simply know that it was cattle ?Yes.

1645. You could not say that it was male or female, or two or three year old ?No, I could not.

1646.nbsp; nbsp;{rrofessor lirown.) I want to understand Mr. T. Swan. bout the central board that you advise. Do you meannbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - _uhat they should have full powers to pass other orders ? 27 April 1888. No. I would moan that the Privy Council should retain its present position, but that they should advise as a body with the Privy Council.

1647.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know that under the present circumstances the Privy Council puss certain orders which give to the local authorities powers to pass other orders ? Certainly.

1648.nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean then that this central board should simply have tho power which tho local authorities now possess ?They should have tho power that the different local authorities now possess, but they should be centralised.

1649.nbsp; Then in practice would it not come to this this, that a central board sitting in Edinburgh or Glasgow would pass orders which would bo enforced in the whole of Scotland ?What I mean to let you understand is that they should act in concert; delete counties altogether, and where disease exists to make areas in place of them.

1660. Still, would it not come to that that the board say, in Edinburgh, would pass certain regulations, and that those regulations would afiect the whole of Scotland ?Decidedly.

1651.nbsp; And therefore, whether the burghs in a certain county liked the regulations or not, they would have to cany them out ?Decidedly.

1651laquo;. In fact, the board in that respect would represent the Privy Council ?Certainly.

1652.nbsp; And then you said that you think that expenses incurred should be paid out of the Imperial funds?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,

1653.nbsp; As a man of business, do you think that it is probable that the Treasury would consent to pay expenses incurred by other people ?They are not generally very fond of it.

1654.nbsp; {Chairman.) Do you think that it is likely that they would do so ?--In the event of their not agreeing to that, where disease broke out in a particular district the ratepayers, as at present, would pay the same as if no central board existed, the same as they do just now.

1655.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brawn.) But the Treasury in that view would tsvke the place of the ratepayers ?If they paid the funds, of course.

1656.nbsp; You do not think the present Act of 1884, which gives local authorities power to send delegates to a central board, and to agree among themselves as to uniting districts, would meet the case exactly ? I do not think so.

1657.nbsp; Have you seen the Act commonly known as the Act for enabling local authorities to transfer the whole or certain parts of their district for the purposes of the quot; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act;quot; you have not read that ?Transfer it to where ?

1658.nbsp; nbsp;From one to the other ?That has been in operation in Fife, Perth, and Stirling. But what I want to impress upon you is this. Cattle trade of the country,quot; feeding,quot; quot; fat,quot; and quot; stores,quot;are so hampered by conflicting local authority orders that one place will say, quot; We will take your fat cattle,quot; and another will say, quot; No.quot; Stirling, for example, would not allow cattle to be taken into its burgh, and they had to be killed three or four miles away and sent in the carcase; and one county will go against another; and it is impossible for farmers who sell fat to know how to get on with them. If they were centralised with delegates, as I say, the trade of tho country would bo much more served,and I am perfectly certain that they could control the disease much bettor than at present.

1059. Do you think that any central board could decide about the movement of cattle from one district into another?Most distiactly.

1660. For example, if a board sitting in Edinburgh could decide as to themovementofcattlc from Edinburgh into a breeding district in the North of Scotland ? The North of Scotland would bo there to represent its particular local authority.

* lt;

G 2

OOMMIWBE ON VLEUUO-1'NEÜMONIA AND TUBKKCULOSI8:

Mr. r. sva,,. 1661, The dolegftte would be there ?-0laquo;^^ .

__nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;16G2 But then ho would bo only one ?Well, 1 do

27 April 1888. ot suppose that any body of men of common sense

----------- would insist upon forcing the cattle upon a district

whore there was the slightest risk of disease going into the county against the wish of that county.

1 ($63. But what do you think might happen if the one lelegato from tiie extreme north happens to bo opposed to the delegates from six districts in the south, whore there was disease from which district he desired to prevent the importing of cattle into his district ?|lo would be counterbalanced by the other counties that wore healthy.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,

1664.nbsp; nbsp;Atquot; any rate, ho would have to depend upon the common sense and good sense of the meeting . No, ho would not, because there would be a cordon placed around where the disease was which would prevent the disease being taken out ot that very district.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ., .

1665.nbsp; nbsp;1 gather from that last statement that you believe in the efficacy of a cordon ?I do.

1G66 You do not agree with Prince Bismarck, who said that, notwithstanding all the arrangements of the most perfect military system, the cordon was very frequently broken, and that there was strong reason to believe that the persons who had charge of the district of the frontier very commonly nonniveat the infringement of regulations ?The cattle for the particular district in which the cordon is could be counted and

marked.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , , n

ICO? But what I gather from the whole ot your statement is that yon clearly desire uniformity in place of the present regulations, which are so various (

Exactly so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

1668 You state in your answers to the Chairman, I think, that one groat objection to compulsory slaughter is that you would diminish the number oi store stock ? -Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;...

1609. What would bo the eftect of lessening the number of store stock upon the price of store stock ? It would materially raise the price.

1670. Would that be an advantage to anybody or _not ?_Tt would bo an advantage to the breeder, but it would be a disadvantage to the feeder.

1671 Is it one of the problems of agriculture which has yet to be solved that what is to the advantage ot the breeder is to the disadvantage of the feeder r¹ There are many cases where the advantage lies on the part of the breeder, and many cases where the feeder gets the advantage. But what I want to tell you is this : 20 yenrs ago in the greater part of the North ot Scotland they were breeders of store stock cattle to go south There was none of the land under the plough at least, very little of itand now there is a very large demand from these counties which have been pu* under cultivation for store stock which used to produce store stock and send them south. 'Jbeiefore the demand for store stock is increasing, while the produce of it is diminishing in Scotland.

1672. (Chairman.) That is just the question that 1 put to you before, whether there was anything m the present systeiji of farming compared with former times that has altered the system of management ot cattle, and you said there was not?1 thought it was m regard to the disease that you mentioned it.

''1673 (Professor Brown.) But that argument does not apply to the whole of the country ?It applies at least to Inverness, Sutherland, a great part of Moray-shire, Banffshire, and Perthshire, and Koss-shire.

1674.nbsp; It does not apply to the whole ot Great Britain ?Oh, no.

1675.nbsp; Are you aware that there arc a large number of countieiraquo; in which plcuro-pncumonia has no exist_onco ;'_I quite believe thatArgyleshire for one, I

think.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; a a laquo;

1676.nbsp; nbsp;In fact there are three largo groups, the liraof which takes the whole of Wales, with the exception of one county that is free altogether ?Yes | WalesI do not suppose, imports any cattle.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _TT , ,

1677 The first group includes balop, Hcretord

and the three south-western counties of Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall. The second group, extending into the Midlands, includes Lincoln, Nottingham, Leicester, Hutland, south of Peterborough, Huntingdon, the whole of Ely, Cambridge, and Suffolk. Ihe three groups consist of these and the two counties ot Durham and Westmoreland ?Are these at present free from disease, or have they never had it ?

1678.nbsp; It appears from this report at the end ot 1SÖ7 that those counties had been free during the whole ot 1887, and they include the groups from which pleuro-pneumonia is ordinarily absent?! quite believe that.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

1679.nbsp; The objection to which you refer, supposing it to bo well founded, would not apply to a consider-able part of Great Britain. You would dimmish the number of store stock; that does not apply to a considerable part of Great Britain ?It does not to those counties, because those Midland English counties have never been breeding counties : they have never been self-supporting.

1680.nbsp; (Chairman.) What do you say to Westmoreland?But take Lincolnshire, and Cambridgeshire, and Eutlandshire,

1681.nbsp; Cambridge certainly is, is it not ?Westmoreland is, ot course, essentially a breeding county. I do not know about Cambridge.

1682.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) As a practical man, you might possibly be able to explain why it is that these counties are exempt from disease ?-Well, I believe that East Lothian and other counties have been tor-tunate enough to escape.

1683.nbsp; What is the reason ?I cannot tell you. Rast Lothian derives its store cattle from Ireland, the same as Midlothian, and in Berwickshire there is no disease ; but it appears in Forfarslnre.

1684nbsp; nbsp;The explanation is that it is unaccountable; you cannot explain the fact that Suffolk had no disease at all during 1887, when Norfolk and Essex had a large number of outbreaks ?It is a moral impossibility.

1685nbsp; nbsp;I cannot explain it. There is a question which I suggested to the Chairman during his examination as to the evidence which you had in the case of your sister's farm of the actual existence of the disease. According to our returns when the outbreak was reported there were 21 cattle on the premises?

Yes.

1686nbsp; nbsp;And that only one was attacked ?Well, that is wrong. There were two came in carcase to EdinburghI am speaking from memory, but I will guarantee that I am rightthere were two came in carcase, and they were sent to the slaughter-house, and the local authority wanted to pay about 7/. a-piece for them I went out and I saw those i8 bullocks referred to in that pamphlet. I took a butcher with me At this time there was no compulsory slaughter. This butcher offered me 15Z. a-piece for them, and the steward told me that these three cattle were an averace They sent me the account that they had made of the bullocks in the carcase. I would not accept the weights that had been weighed at the station, and I told the local authorities that 1 wanted three fourths of 15/. a-piece, the value of those living, and I summoned thorn for it and they paid it.

1687. Those were supposed to be healthy?No, there were three carcases.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , ₄

1688 Three carcases diseased m the slaughterhouse?I think one was buried, but two came into Edinburgh in carcase.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _ ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .

1689. The lungs and all ?I do not know what became ot the lungs.

1690nbsp; nbsp;And you could not tell whether they were diseased or not ?-I did not see them. They were condemned and the local authority paid for them, and I demanded payment at the fair valuation of the cattle, I took Mr. Aitkin out and we agreed upon

the value.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. _T

1691nbsp; nbsp; And they were sold as diseased carcases (L suppose so ; but the local authority resisted except

'ri

iff

Monmouthshiie, Gloucester, Oxford, Berks, Wilts,

MINUTKS Of KVIDUNOK.

what they ottered at first, and I summoned (henji laquo;md

exempt from disease, than those which principally impurl, would you not recommend more boardraquo; instead

Mr. T, .Sioan. 27 April 1888.

of one central board, in order to protect both interests -I should certainly think that counties which are self-supporting in the way of breeding stock ought to have a full say in regard to self-protection.

171laquo;. But mightnot the representatives of breeding counties be easily outvoted by others more interested in dairying or importation?! go upon this idea (which'would be as near the fact as possible) that any representative of breeding counties at that board would not have his opinion flung aside against Uio wish of the county that ho represented. ;

1717.nbsp; Have you gone very closely into what the respective interests of the counties would be it this were carried out ?Certainly I have. I have considered the whole question.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

1718.nbsp; Have you considered the comparative numbers of the probable votes upon any given subject ?-~I would put it in this way, that the particular breeding counties would be entitled to more representation than

their fair share.

1719nbsp; nbsp;Where would you draw the line unless you give one county one vote, for there would bo the difficulty, would not it? I think there is a great deal in what you say. and therefore it is important that we should have your views specifically ?-That is a matter for

consideration.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , i i i

1720nbsp; nbsp;Would representation on the board be based upon population or upon rental, or what ?-It would be upon the interest of the county-the interest that the county had in it. I can perfectly well understand that a county like Argyle or any of the west parts of Perthshire, or other places, would view with alarm the introduction of Irish cattle or English cattle, or any other kind o? cattle.

1721.nbsp; nbsp;But, as a matter of fact, are not the breeding counties of Scotland in a minority as compared with the importing counties ?Decidedly.

1722.nbsp; nbsp;Could you define, then, which counties m Scotland import Irish cattle as a rule ?Irish catt e find their way into every feeding county m bcot-land.

1723.nbsp; It would be interesting to name the counties into which Irish cattle more particularly are imported ?Do you moan where they receive them i

1794 Yes, for feeding purposes ?Very well, I can do that. Wigtownshire, Dumfriesshire, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Dumbartonshire, Clackmannan, Kinross, the three Lothians, Berwick, Roxburgh, Fife, Forfar, Berth, Stilling, Kincardine, Aberdeen, Moray. Bquot;^nffraquo; Inverness, Sutherlandslnre, and Koss-shire and Caithness.

1725 From this and from my own knowledge it would appear that the Irish cattle are a very important element in Scottish agriculture ?-Wc could not do without them.

1726. Then after that, 1 presume, it is not unreasonable to expect that yon would consider that it 18 the absolute duty of the Government to use the most efficient and certain methods of exterminating the disease in Ireland ?Most decidedly.

1727 You assert that the cordons in Ireland were not quite satisfactory. What reason have yon to think that they aro any better or safer 111 England i My information from Ireland has been that the system of the carrying out of the law there is of the most stringent character, that d is nearly imposs.bo to evade it, but it has been evaded, no doubt. Jut in places in this country the system is different; the Irish cattle are run out all the year, and here they are in during the winter months. Of course they are much more easily located.

1728. Would you suggest, then, any increase ot penalties under the Act ?-lf a flagrant breach of the regulations is made knowingly, 1 should fine very laquo;evevely ; but if a man commits a mistake, such aa ^very frequently happens, such as a fanner coming to a store market and taking his purchase into a district where they are obliged to have certificates from the

they paid me all that I asked lor them.

1(592. Om- return shows ouo animal killoü ana ia

remained healthy.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,1 . i i

1693.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) Tin, local authority paid tor (hetwo?They paid for two cattle.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _t, 5

1694.nbsp; (Chairnian.) Why did they not pay for three ?

I do not know.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . j laquo; v,._u

1695.nbsp; (Mr Stirling) Vra^hwioM-Xv*.

1696.nbsp; (Chairman.) But buried by order of the local mithoritv ?I do not know how it was buried.

1097 But you would still have a claim. Do you know whether the two were slaughtered by order of the local authority?-! cannot tell you, but I will Sve you the evidence of it. I know perfectly two came into Edinburgh, because I raised the action and they paid the money before going into court.

1698 Do you think it possible that those three were Slaughtered under the impression that they were diseased, and afterwards they found that only one was diseased ?No, I do not think so, because I was decidedly of opinion that the cattle had the disease, because I wanted them to allow me to send them to the slaughter-house to be killednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , s

1699. You never saw the animal that was buried t

1700nbsp; nbsp;But from the fact that it was buried you fairly assumed that it was a diseased animal ?Yes, and to corroborate that the two came in.

1701nbsp; nbsp;What was there about the carcases that induced you lo think that they were diseased ?-Beeause they were killed by the local authority. ,#9632;-,,

1702.nbsp; You did not see the lungs yourself ?JNo, i

1703.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) You saw the carcases ?

Ko, I did not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_t ,

1704 (Chairman.) You personally cannot, corroborate or say from your observation whether theses were animals that had died from pleuro-pneumoma or ot ?_Only from the fact of the local authority say-

^ln?1705 What you aro very anxious to see naturally in your position as a live stock agent is the cattle trade free of everv possible inconvenience, and the present hamnerinK restrictions removed ?--That is so.

1706nbsp; nbsp;And the sooner some heroic measure were taken to effect that would it not be better for the country at large ?Decidedly.

1707nbsp; nbsp;In the event of slaughtering still being persevered* with, aro you satisfied with the present system upon which the valuations aro made; for compensation ?_It is open to objection, I think.

1708. Could you suggest for the benefit of those in .authoritv any improved system ?Yes.

1709'What would that be?-I would suggest that a man away from the locality where the disease breaks out should be appointed ; that he should be a man of integrity ; that he should lay his valuation before the oaf authority, and that, if the owner dul not huik it lit or fair, he should have the power of calling in somebody else and letting the oversman determine it The present valuation of three quarters of the value sometimes loses on the fed bullocks.

1710 {Chairman.) I think you spoke of what you call the compulsory sale of animals in contact i¹

^1711 Do you think that the country has suffered much financinllv up to the present time by unreasonable compensation; and that it is an unnecessarexpenditure of money to slaughter the animals icontact, as at the present time ?-I do.

1712. How long has that been in operation iA

very short time.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; r i * lt;__

1713nbsp; nbsp;Is it long enough for anyone fairly to formdecisive opinion upon it ?-Ye8,1 think so.

1714nbsp; nbsp;Have you any suggestion to make as to tmodifications of quot;placesquot; or quot;areasquot; as defined in thAct?What is the present area, about two miles,

quot;quot;mo At present it is what the local authori

¹ i

. laquo;1

like to make it. But if breeding counties are more

Ü0MM1TTBB ON PLKUUO-l'NKUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. T. Swan, seiuler and receiver, then of course that is ft mistake

-----nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;und the fine should bo decreased.

27 April 1888 1729. (Mr. Stirling.) You have dealt in Canadian -----------cattle a good deal, I believe ?Yes.

1730.nbsp; nbsp;Do yon consider them to be less or equally or more liublo to contract the disease than our own stock ?I have never known of one taking it.

1731.nbsp; Have you got any reason for that ?No.

1732.nbsp; (JProfessor Brown.) Do you meet with many cases of'tuberculosis in the animals slaughtered?

Yes.

1733.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know that the disease belongs to any particular breed or is it very general?It is mostly amongst dairy stock, but occasionally amongst

bullocks.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;p , n

1734.nbsp; Have you found it in many ot the toreign animals ?Never seen it.

1735.nbsp; Not with Canadian ?Never.

1736.nbsp; Nor American?Nor American. I think I have seen it once or twice in Danish dairy cows.

1737.nbsp; Have you seen it in animals from Scandinavia ?Yes.

1738.nbsp; But, generally speaking, you find it among cows ?Yes.

1739.nbsp; As a man of very large practice, of course you can tell whether an animal is sick or well before it is slaughtered ?I can do that.

1740.nbsp; Is there anything in the tuberculous animal to indicate that it is sick at all?In my opinion you can see a cow when it is thin, you know, and poor, but it is difficult to tell whether it is suffering from pleuro-pneumonia or tuberculosisthat is, to an outsider like myself. A veterinary scientific man might be able to tell you, but so fur as an outsider like myself in regard to signs is concerned he would only think that it was a doubtful case of something.

1741.nbsp; That the animal was simply ill?Have you ever found tuberculosis in perfectly well-fed animals in perfect health ?Yes; I once saw a heifer being fed for Smithfiold Show for which 40/. vm paid, and when it was slaughtered it was covered with tuberculosis from head to foot.

1742.nbsp; nbsp;So that as a practical man, and knowing a great deal about cattle and seeing a groat many postmortem examinations, if you were called upon to say definitely whether a certain fairly fed and good looking animal had tuberculosis or not, you would probably decline to give an opinion until you had seen its lungs ?That is so.

1743.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) Have you known tuberculosis spread through a herd ?Never.

1744.nbsp; Never?-No.

1745.nbsp; Have you ever known tuberculosis in cattle communicated to other animals, to sheep or fowls ?

Never.

1746.nbsp; And you do not know of course whether the milk is injurious ?I do not know whether it is injurious, but I would not drink it if I knew that the animal had tuberculosis.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

1747.nbsp; But you had no personal experience of its doing injury?No.

1748.nbsp; {Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) Do you fand that tuberculosis is increasing ?I do not know that it is, but all these diseases are better understood than they used to be.

1749.nbsp; Do you think they are more detected and more noticed ?Yes.

1750.nbsp; And you do not suppose that it is increasing ? __I do not suppose that it is an infectious disease.

1751.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling) Do you say that it is more on the increase ?I now hear move about it.

1752.nbsp; {Professor Jlordey.) Do you say that it is diagnosed properly now ?Yes, I think so.

The witness withdrew.

Mr.

J. Stenhov.se,

jun.

1753.nbsp; {Mr. StirliCramond ?Yes.

1754.nbsp; How manyand one in East Lot

1755.nbsp; And what600 in one and 400

1756.nbsp; For which__y_eg.

1757.nbsp; How longing?Since 1857 ;

1758.nbsp; nbsp;And youdairy farming ?I

1759.nbsp; Before thaYes, just the comm

1760.nbsp; nbsp;How manhad ?Only one.

1761.nbsp; Would yorience of the outbrehe said that he wbring another proboth had examinedpneumonia.

1762.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. Minspectors ?Mr.Rutherford, from Ethe dairy and poin

1763.nbsp; {Mr. Stirto be slaughteredout before taking t

1764.nbsp; You hadinoculated ?Yes,

1765.nbsp; What ledlatea ?They wou

1766.nbsp; They woThey would have

inoculated.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

1767.nbsp; Had youHad you any reas

Mr. James Stenhouse, jun., Tumhouse, Cramoiid, called and examined.

done two or three weeks before, and his were getting on all right and the disease stopped, and I thought the sooner I had mine done the better.

1768.nbsp; You thought you would have them done in the same way ?Yes, and I got the same practitioner to do it, being the best man.

1769.nbsp; You had 70 stock inoculated?71.

1770.nbsp; nbsp;Then in 56 days afterwards you brought in a fresh stock ?I have a second steading about 300 yards separate from the principal one. I was not allowed to put in the stock at one place, but having^ the second steading I put them in there. I put in eight, and we had a separate staff to milk them, and at the end of 56 days we inoculated the eight and put them with the others.

1771.nbsp; After the 56 days?Yes.

1772.nbsp; nbsp;They stood for 56 days in your steading previous to inoculation ?Yes.

1773.nbsp; None of those ever took the disease ?None of the 71 and none of the eight to the day that they were killed.

1774.nbsp; You have had no disease since then ?

None.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. tt .

1775.nbsp; nbsp;You said in your evidence before the Highland and Agricultural Society that you think that if cattle were about 150 yards from an infected spot they are safe ?I think so.

1776.nbsp; You have no fear of the disease being carried in the clothes of the attendants ?I had cattlenot cows, but cattle50 yards from the dairy.

1777.nbsp; nbsp;You draw a distinction between cattle and cows ?Yes.

1778.nbsp; Why ?Because cows are most sugceptible.

1779.nbsp; Is that your opinion ?Oh, there is no comparison between the two.

1780.nbsp; What distance do you consider cows safe at ?

__1 do not know, but the cattleother than cows

were safe at 30 yards.

father has a dairy to the same extent, and he had his

MINUTES OF BVIDBNOB.

1781.nbsp; But you would not vonturo upon any distance for cows ?I could not say so.

1782.nbsp; You have no experience upon the point .

1,000/. a year each, and supposing that, one oi my

customers heard thatpleuro had brokon out he would

Mr.

Stenhouit,

not deal with me again.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . .i , ' ____

1807.nbsp; If they knew that you had pleuro, but that

raquo;No

1783.nbsp; Do you think that the cows would be equally

you did

had inoculated, wouid they still go on?-lhey ^J'^

they made no difference last time.

safe? With attendants going amongst cows, do you think there would be any risk ?I do not think that the clothes carry it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^_T _T ix

1784.nbsp; You do not think so?No; I used to go from the dairy amongst the cattle.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -, . raquo; ^j

1785 I see you lay stress upon having dismtecteti your byre. Have you any knowledge or experience which leads you to believe that the disease hangs about the old building ?-Well, just the ordinary common-sense knowledge that if you do not disinlect rooms you must have the disease lingering about, ana so I used hot water and hot lime and carbolic acid.

1786.nbsp; And would that be quite necessary s'l es, as a precautionary measureas a piece of cleanliness.

1787.nbsp; You have had uo experience except this one outbreak ?If you had 79 inoculated, and never had the contagion come near the place since, 1 think you would say that inoculation is as good a preventive as

killing.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ...

1788.nbsp; (Chairman.) But your experience is witn reference to one outbreak only?I proved it with

that one.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;tt j ti

1789.nbsp; It is limited to that one though ?Had they all been killed I never would have started another dairyhad they been all slaughtered.

1790 Why would you not?Because the business would have gone to pigs and whistles. Where would my contract for milk have gone ?

1791.nbsp; You would have received compensations-Good God!nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,,

1792.nbsp; Kindly answer the question, yes or no; wouitt you have received compensation or not ?Impossible.

1793.nbsp; Would you have received any compensation ? In what way do you mean ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;* .i

1794.nbsp; Financially ?I would have perhaps got the price of the cows.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; r , v

1795.nbsp; That is compensation so tar iXes.

1796.nbsp; Did the milk fall off from the cows which were in contact and inoculated ?No.

1797.nbsp; Not at all ?No, it increased owing to the cows having to be kept warmer.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

1798.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) It what ?Perhaps 1 misunderstand the question.

1799.nbsp; I did not understand your answer in one way You would have got compensation and money for the animals that were killed ?I expect so.

1800 You would have got three-quarters ot the value before death for the animals that were diseased, and full value for the animals that wore healthy, is not that so?I do not know. I understand that that is the compensation if the present order is earned out that all are to be slaughtered, everything slaughtered in contact; we get full value for the

healthy.

1801.nbsp; You understand that?Yes.

1802.nbsp; But that would enable you to get tresh stock ?What would become of the fresh stock.

1803.nbsp; But you can put the fresh cows in at onceYou cannot get 80 cows at once. I send milthree times a day to Edinburgh. Supposing thewere all killed at night, where am I to get 80 cows bthe morning ? It would be impossible to go on owinto the disturbance in the business.

1804.nbsp; nbsp;That is one of the points that I should like thrina out, because it is rather important to knowhat, in your opinion as a dairyman, is the serioudisadvantage in this order of slaughtering. You sait would bo impossible for you, even supposing yoeot the full price for the healthy cattle, to carry obusiness you would so suffer in your trade by losinyour customers ?Certainly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ., . #9632;

1805.nbsp; nbsp;How long would it take you to bring it badHow long would it take you to replace 80 cows? Perhaps In ft couple of weeks.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , -

1800. You would have lost your trade in that time

1808.nbsp; They would go on taking the milk all the

same ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,, _n n i

1809.nbsp; 1 suppose they heard ot it ?Certainly.

1810.nbsp; There was no doubt that they knew of it ? I think they certainly know of it.

1811.nbsp; But then thoy would run the same risk by transferring their custom to a new man. Thoy could not guarantee that they would not have pleuro there ( Thoy are very fickle people, the milk people, about transferring the custom.

1812nbsp; nbsp; (Jfrofessor Jlordey.) Where did you think you got the disease from ?1 think that it came with a newly-bought-in cow.

1813nbsp; nbsp;Where did it come from .-quot;-I got it from a dealer in Edinburgh, and there is one dealer who sends all the cows that I want. , , , _v ' #9632;

1814.nbsp; You only deal with one dealer ?I es, and he sends one cow or more.

1815.nbsp; And you did not attempt to trace the case

further ?No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , . , .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i '

1816.nbsp; Have you seen cases in which other people s herds have been affected and given the disease ?I have heard of it.

1817.nbsp; You do not know where those cows came

from ?'__No,

1818 {Lord Clonourry.) How did you obtain the virus at the end of 56 days ? Your seven cows wore slaughtered at first and you used the virus then, and you inoculated the remaining 71. Well, then, you told us at the end of 56 days you brought in eight others from the other byre, and when you brought them into the byre with the large lot you had them inoculated ; that was fixed 50 days after the slaughter. Where did that virus come from ?Prom a neighbour who had the pleuro.

1819. A new case of pleuro ?A neighbour within a mile and a half of me.

1820 And from what you told the Committee you are strongly of opinion that dairy cows are far more liable to this disease than any other cattle ?1 think

so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.

1821.nbsp; And cattle other than cows were sate at 30 yards distance?Mine were safe at only 30 yards

distance.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , . . , , .

1822.nbsp; And you suppose that if the dairy stock in your part of Scotland were under restrictions the other cattle with the fresh would be safe P1 think

1823 (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) You say that dairy cows, in your judgment, are more susceptible j is tliat the effect of sex or of the artificial conditions in which thoy are kept?-The drawing ot milk from dairy cows makes them weaker than others, i woufel like to say in regard to compensation that even it we cot the compensation for the cattle slaughtered we have a great many other things besides the cows to take into consideration. I have three horses and three vans and a lot of other things, and contracts tor a year to keep up. We could not bo compensated. quot; 1824 (Professor Brown.) I want to bring out quite clearly the point as to the damage that you as a dairyman would sustain from the system of slaughtering. 1 understand that if you lose the cows your contracts must be broken for a time ; but have you no system in Scotland by which you could obtain the necessary supply of milk from other persons ?I am not sure that the customers would have milk rrom other persons ; if they knew that I was buying from lorn, Dick, and Harry, they would not nave it.

1825.nbsp; But you know that is done in England constantly'?I do not think it.

1826.nbsp; As a matter of fact it is. A dairynmi loses ft lot of his cows; whether they are healthy unimals and are killed or they die his trade is very much interfered

f m

Well, I have got, three or four contracts, perhaps

COMMITTEE ON Pl.EUUO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBKUOULOSISI

Mr.

J Slenhuuse,

jun.

27 April 1888.

with as he loses a veiy large number of UIb aoimals, but ho keeps up his supply by obtaining the milk Iron, the country. Have yon miy such system ot which you could avail yourself? We never had

occasion to adopt the system, because we have never had a case of wholesale slaughter.

1827.nbsp; But if you had that dlffloulty to face, is there any system which would enable you to keep your contracts, because that is most important during tho time that you are replacing your stock ?I would suppose that both my father and myself had 70 cows inoculated, and supposiujj that both stocks should be killed out the demand that he and I would have to meet could not be supplied.

1828.nbsp; That is to say, that in the case ot 140 co\vs being slaughtered in any part of Scotland you could not in any way meet the deficiency ofmilk?1 do not know as to any part of Scotland, but we could not m the immediate neighbourhood of Edinburgh where dairy cows are kept and they send the milk direct to the consumer in the vans. It would be a different thing in Dumfries where they have creameries, yon might got any quantity of milk, but they will not take milk by rail from us.

1829 In your district you could not get compensation in consequence of the deficiency which would have arisen ?No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , j i

1830.nbsp; (Chairman.) Are you aware that during the past two years a system of selling milk to large towns bv sending it to very considerable distances by rail has extended to Ayrshire, Dumfriossbire, ar.d Krrkcud-brightsbire and the west of Scotland ?I understnid

so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632;

1831.nbsp; Not only into Scotland but for long distances into lingland ?---I understand so.

1832.nbsp; Therefore, it would not be a very great inconvenience for the dairyman if driven to get milk from these sources ?1 could not possibly get it.

1833.nbsp; Have you ever tried?It could not be done.

1834.nbsp; Have you ever tried ?I have not.

1835.nbsp; Professor Brown has told you that in the case of any disturbance in the milk trade in London, where they are quite as particular as in other parts, all this has been met and is constantly being met by getting it from very considerable distances ?They get so much milk by railways it would be very easily met in London.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.,

1836.nbsp; Therefore it is possible to get milk by railway which has been refrigerated and which is carried with great precision ?Not in my case.

1837.nbsp; nbsp;I am not asking you that. Do you say that it is possible to get it, and are you aware that it is done ?Certainly I am.

1838nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that any exporiraents are necessary to further develop the information upon plcuro-pneumonia ?-I think that it would be well for the authorities hero to get all the information from, Scotland that we have hud exjwrionce ot.

1839nbsp; nbsp;I am not confining my question to Scotlaml but to all parts of tho world, and I ask you if the whole subject of plcuro-pneumonia should be investigated and every possible information gathered from cxperiinents?Most assuredly.

1810. Do you think that that might be a costly business ?Well it might if you extended it tar, but I do not think it necessary to take in the whole. Our experience is perfectly sufficient without going

further afield.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. o *

1841.nbsp; Do you think that the experience that hcot-land has gathered is sufficient for tho whole of the United Kingdom ? Wo are speaking of the whole nation, for wo have us much interest as you in pleuro-pneumonia ?That is a pity for us.

1842.nbsp; Do you not think that we should have further investigation into the disease ? Do not you think that experiments are of importance ?It the English people wish it, but-we are perfectly convinced.

1843 Your Scotch professors even admit that there is a great deal to be leurued ; do you consider that there is nothing more to be learned ?As far as we are concerned I say that our veterinary practitioners did not believe in inoculation a few years back, but now that it has been so successful they believe in it, and it has been adopted with success, and I do not know what more we want.

1844.nbsp; Now do you say that we learned all that we want?In reference to saving life and tho most economical way of doing it I think wo have.

1845.nbsp; And that experitneuts are not necessary? In England perhaps they are.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; '.

1846.nbsp; lam speaking of the nation at largo?Wo cannot have too much information as far as that

g^0eSgt;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. a i

1847.nbsp; After your outbreak were you quite satisfied with the valuation of the diseased stock that wero slaughtered ?There was no valuation.

1848.nbsp; Of the seven slaughtered ?Yes.

1849 Were you satisfied with the valuation? The value was put on ; the original cost price was taken and so much deducted for the time that (hey were in milk. I was satisfied, that being the system oone upon. There was so much deducted for the time that they had been giving milk from the original cost. They were sold and the salvage given to the local authorities to defray the cost.

Tho witness withdrew.

Mr. J. Biggar.

Mr. James Biggab called and examined.

1859.nbsp; nbsp;What number of cattle do yon keep, as a rule, upon your farms?About 100 head in summer, but we have frequently twice that number

in winter.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; ,nn u i

1860.nbsp; nbsp;Then may we assume that the 1UU neaa represent the breeding herd ?Not entirely.

1861.nbsp; nbsp;A largo portion?We have 25 breeding cows and their produce.

1862.nbsp; Then you purchase in the grazing cattle t

Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

1863.nbsp; I believe you have had some experience in pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes, I have, unfortunately.

1864.nbsp; Have you had more than one outbreak ? No, only one.

1865.nbsp; nbsp;When did that occur ?In June of 1886.

1866.nbsp; Is that the outbreak which is generally known as tho Chupelton outbreak ?Yes.

1867.nbsp; What distances are your farms from each _otl_iel. ?The buildings are about three-quarters of a mile apart. The land is divided by the main road, a public road.

1868.nbsp; Do you keep a definite stock upon each farm and quite separate, so that there is no interchange?

1850. ( Chairman.) I believe you live at Grange, near Dalbeattie, in Kirkcudbrightshire ?Yes.

1861. And you occupy two farms of 650 acres i I am a partner in these with my firm,

1852.nbsp; You are interested in those two tarrns i

Yes.

1853.nbsp; Of 650 acres?Yes.

1854.nbsp; You are a breeder of Galloway cattle i¹

That is so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, e #9830;),

1855.nbsp; You have already given evidence betöre tue Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, I

believe ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,. . . ^

1850. And your evidence is embodied in tue pamphlet I hold in my hand ?Yes.

1857nbsp; nbsp;Does it fairly represent your opinions r'i believe it does; but I was disappointed with the form in which' the report came to me. 1 had to spend considerable pains in the revision ot it. Still i think it is not sufficiently clear on many points.

1858nbsp; nbsp;Then wo understand that some of the points in this report lo not convey quite your opinion as you desire that they should ?I do not think that the facts or the opinions are quite clearly stated.

#9632;

MINUTES O^ KVIDKNOK.

Mr../. lliygar. 27 April 1888.

We have done so since we had that outbreak of (hsease. We have been caroful not to change any stock from Chapelton to Gnmgo, but wo have recruited the stock at Chapelton with aniimls from Grange.

1869. To what do you attribute the outbreak at Chapelton ?-lt can only be a matter 0 ^flaquo; ^quot;t I heard afterwards about a bullock sent amp;r raquo;laughtep that had not been thriving. I was told by the batcher afterwards that bis lungs were bad.

1870nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean to say encysted ?He simply said that the lungs of that animal were in a very baa state I did not see thoni.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

1871nbsp; nbsp; But did ho indicate to you that it was irom pleuro-pneumonia or from some other lung disease? \ do not suppose that he would have ^n a (raquo;seo pleuro-pneumonia in the lungs. I do no think that Kas skilled in such things. He said that the lungs of the bullock were very bad, but it was a considerable time afterwards that he mentioned it at all

1872.nbsp; Did anybody see these lungs ?--Not so tai

as I IcnoWt

1873.nbsp; When did the last outbreak in your county _occur?_üur county has been exceedingly free from outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, during the whole ot Tyrecollection. The last outbreak that we know anvthlnff about was some poorisb Irish cattle some iKrTl years ago, Irish stirks they were, and being one of the local authority my father was appointe^ to superintend the slaughter of these animals. I do no know of another outbreak except that within the last 90 vpais That is the only one.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

7874. What can you say of the health of stock in Dumfries and Ayr and Wigtownshire?! believe Wigtownshire and Dumfriesshire have been free from disease. I do not know about Ayrshire.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ... ,.

1875 Am I right in assuming that Kirkcudbrightshire is a considerable dairy county ?-Yes very considerable; that is the western portion of Kirkcud bright ire^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^^ ^ .. _in _of

this disease, but was there any suspicion of disease liaving existed anywhere near your farm ?-JNone whatever. We ha've never been able to get any laquo;rounds for thinking that the disease existed.

1877 Was therquot; any outbreak on a farm about three miles from you?-That was subsequent to our

⁰T878. Subsequent to yours P-Ours was the first I mean to say that ours was the first that was declaied o^he authorities. At the same time, tins neighbour I believe, had a cow perhaps quite as early as ourraquo; which he had sold for a very small price, thinking Zre was nothing wrong. I could no exacdy gi

1887. Was there any inflammation of the bowels? Not in the case of the animal which was put down n order that they might be satisfied. Wo had a cow

hat died quite suddenly after about an uoor s illness, nd the post-mortem showed that death was due to nflammation of the bowels.

1888nbsp; nbsp;What was discovered by the veterinary sui eon upon the post-mortem of the two first animals ? There was no post-mortem upon the first animal.

1889nbsp; nbsp; There was upon the second ?'I hero was a post-mortem upon the animal slaughtered for mspec-

^UOl[ko Whot was the condition of the lung in the case where the cow died so suddenly from the inflammation of the bowels ?-There was a portion of the lung consolidated, and showed traces of some formet

¹¹¹ mi. I notice that on page 18 of the report of the evidence taken before the Highland Society it is stated quot;Case of enuysted pleuro-pneumonia a year old infecting others.quot; What do you say in respect to that ?-If you are referring to the marginal note I should like to say that I have no responsibility for hat marginal note. I do not know who is responsible for that marginal note and I would take exception

^t0 1892 Was that an animal which yon had purchased frcma breeder and brought on to the larmPXes, two years previously.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

1893 Did that animal always appear to you quite healthy P-I bought the animal from the breeder and

was⁷two yearsquot; old. It had its first ^ laquo;t Jrelaquo; years, and aW calving it was out of laquo;orts without anvthiag very special being required, W¹ Pf^ a little medicine and extra warmth and l^Vraquo; ^l'^ehouse for a fortnight, and it recovered and did per-

^feC18^y94 ^Did you know the history of the herd from which you bought that animal ?Thoroughly.

1895.nbsp; nbsp;Had there ever been an outbreak of plemo-pneuraoaia ?Never.

1896.nbsp; nbsp;Did the veterinary surgeons attach any importance after that post-mortem to the existence of the encysted lung?-One of the veterinary surgeons remaZl that the⁰ piece of encysted lung might have been caused by an attack of pleuro-pneumonia a yeai or more before, but neither of them expressed the opinion that is contained in this marginal note that it had anything to do with our outbreak.

1897.nbsp; Do you attribute your outbreak, on furthei consideration; to the purchase of any laquo;-quot;le brought to the farm ?In endeavouring to account for the outbreak, the only conclusion that 1 could come to was

I i

,1:1 ^

' P

i m

rhequot;datequot;at which he sold that cow, but it would be before our outbreak, or perhaps simultaneously.

1879nbsp; nbsp; What induced him to sell the cow at a very bad price, thinking there was nothing wrong ?-I do noLean that ^0 was nothing wrong He k-w perbaps that she was diseased, but we have cases of cowA down with consumption of the bowels, and they ire parted with at miserable prices.

1880nbsp; nbsp;Was your outbreak among the b.gl.er-brecattle or among the others P-Amongst our purebred stock I may say that we had no other stock otie fam at the time of the outbreak, because thcattle stall-fed had all gone to market.

1881. Did it commence with one animal or wittwo or three ?With only one.

1882 And how long after the first was the seconoutbreak P-I should say it was two weeks before wsaw another case.

1883.nbsp; And how long did that continue ?-Iinmdiately after the second case wo had two or three.

1884.nbsp; Did you in the first instance have a posmortem examination P-Not in the case of the nr

animal.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

1885 Did you afterwards P-Yes ; the seco

animal was put down in order that the vetcnna

surgeon might be witislied.

that this animal that we had purchased m February or March, and which we found it ^cessary to send to the butcher simply because we thought 't was the most profitable way of dealing with an animal that wasiJt making progress, and after its having been reported from the butcher that its luquot;gs were m u bad state, I thought it exceedingiv P^robf¹*^ food refused by tlis animal had been placed before some of the other cows to prevent f''^lquot;^d, tlm. m that way they might have been infected by this

'quot;isi. Now after this outbreak did Professor McCall examine your bend ?Yes.

1899.nbsp; And did he pronounce the others to be infected ?He did.

1900.nbsp; And were they slaughtered PIts.

1901.nbsp; And what did you discover ?-11 at all the animals slaughtered were found to be laquo; with pleuro-pneumonia except one, and that, was a 3f that had been born after the outbreak from a healthy mother, and had never been in contact.

1Ö02. What ago was that calf when it was skugh-tered ?Three weeks.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

1903 Up to that time had you ever attempted inoculation for any disease ?-No, never.

1904. What induced you to begin it ?-A neighbour of ours, a former, who had come from the no.ghbo -hood 0 Glasgow, told us that in his experience mocula-

I*raquo;

\m. What did you lind ?_Plcuro-pnoumonui,

o j1008.

COMMITTEE ON PLEUUO-PNEUMONiA AND TUHKHCULOSIS :

I¹

ÄrtTS .v laquo;1ml to Mr. Bultolori ..bng hiB opinion ns to inoculationnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;xr,,. 1,p

1905. Did Mr. Ruthevfovd come downP-Noi he wired b back that lie would recommend InocuMon, but he was unable to come on the day on which we a ed ton to come, when our cattle wore to be slaughtered, and ho sent a former assistant of his, a Ml

^1906: The result, 1 believe, was that your animals wore inoculated ?_Eleven head were änooulated. 190V. Out of a herd of how many ?-iwcnty-six

were slaughtered,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;t ^u- i s V₀=

1908. This was in Juno, I think i'les. 1909 Were there any other animals beyond thoe _mentioned in. the field at the time -No ^ breedinquot; stockthe cowswere out in the new durinquot; the day, and were brought into milk, and the calves⁰ had access to the cows night and morning, as thev were being suckled. There was a bull, of course, Sng with these particular cows, ^ there wore o yWiing heifers in an adjoining field that had Sen on the premises without being mixed with these animals. These were the stock on the bvuMings at the time they were slaughtered and inoculated.

1910? Sid you consider it necessary to moculate other animals than those which you have mentioned ? ^The cattle that were out at grass I had examined; I had them carefully tested with the thermo.neter three oi four different times. They were young cattle that were grazing. We were not recommended to mocula e Tern, becauL there was nothing in the temperature to indioate anv necessity for it.

1911 Are we to understand that you did not inoculate any cattle which stowed by the thter that the temperature had been raised .-'INo we nocu ated all cattle that had been in contact and did not show an increase of temperature. Those that stowed an increase of temperature were slaughteredbuUhe cattle that were in the fields where ^ye found no iea'e of temperature we did not consider it necessary to inoculatenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ ^ ^ _that _any

an ma? which indicated a'n increased temperature waZmed to be diseased ?-Yes, and slaughtered. TSs But healthy animals in direct contact wer

ⁱⁿmf wÄs the distance, then, between thdiseased animals and the rest of the animals on thJam ?-They had been grazing in an adjoining field but immediatelY we discovered pleuro we removethem to an isolied field at a distance of a quarter o

^a 'llllS⁰¹ InThis first instance did you inoculate upo

^yT.lTⁿWirtf Ei'irpractice of your loc

authority upou that point ?-We intimated that w

tod tS inoculation-that we proposed trying it

1nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; had tried it-and they decided, although they we

recommended by Professor McCall to slaughter th

wS lot, that as we had tried inoculation they wou

Xw the experiment to go on and watch it T

Sis were atisfactory in our case ; and in two ou

breaks n the county-one three miles off or mor

the othe? about ten-the local authority decided up

adopting inoculation on their responsibility, and t

rpsnlts were highly satisfactory.

917 Were your cattle that you experimented up¹nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;examined after inoculation at some considerab

S aSV 0 lÄ ^ four of the inoculacattleTd four of the cattle that had never ben contact, healthy cattle, and to P^hemjxpementally upon isolated premises, and keep th

that they might have an opportunity of oxamming them and watching whether theso moculatod cattle would convey the disease in any form to the others. The local authority accepted our öfter, and it was

carried out.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , , ^ j n.

1918 Were any of those cattle slaughtered atter-wardB ?Yes ; at the end of three rnonihs, after being mixed and interchanged frequently in the same stalls and premises. A committee of the loca authority by invitation came and inspected them. 1 hey brought three of their veterinary inspectors with them, and they pronounced the cattle healthy. We then volun-tecred to send any two animals that thoy might choose to the slaughter-house so that there might bo a postmortem made upon their lungs.

1919 What was the result of that post-mortem t It was 'satisfactory. Two or three veterinary inspectors attended, and they pronounced the lungs of the

animals perfectly sound.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ____

ID^O Did it appear to you that the operation of inoculation was one of a delicate nature or one that anybody could perform ?The operation itself seemed to mc very stople, but I should think that the main point, in which care and judgment would be required, would be the selection of lymph of the proper quality. 1921 If you were asked to undertake the responsibility of clearing the country at large of this disease what process or method do you think you would adopt, irrespective of cost ?-A good deal depends upon whether you can get to the fountain-head of the

^dlS1922 Knowing the difficulties of getting at the fountain-head of the disease, but irrespective of the cost to the country, what would you consxder he most effective means that could be adopted?I do not think it is a question that can be considered irrespec-

^tlV1923^COWhat, in your opinion, would naturally be the most effective means to rid the country of disease at any eost?-If it is established that it can only proceed by contagion, and if you could eradicate every diseased animal by slaughter, irrespective of cost, it might be the most effectual way, that is, if you could be sure of killing every animal that had the disease

1924. Then lhat other means do you think, of a more modified form, would be more desirable ?1 would decidedly, in general circumstances, prefer inoculation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^.^ ^ ^ ^ _of _inoculatiug

an animal in any way impairs its health for Je Mure? -We have seen no symptom whatever of that inoui cattle. We are breeding with four of them they have calves this year, and they have done exceedingly well. Some of the rest were fed off.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,.,-,,,

1926 As a practical man, do you think it desirable, after your success in inoculation, to inoculate the whole of your herd every year ?-I have not formed any dehnte opinion on that point. I do not think it is neces-sarv I spoke to Mr. Butherford on that question, and'he said distinctly that he thought it was not necessary. We very frequently make exports from our herd to America, .and I would not inoculate because there is a prejudice against inoculation there, and they would not take an inoculated animal.

1927 It is not only a prejudice, but there is a law is there not, to prevent the importation of inoculated cattle ?-The law is the result, perhaps, of the preju-

^diC1928 No doubt that is so, but there is a law to that effect, is there not ?-They will not take inocu-

^im Not under two_ years after the inoculation ?

__^rr_Wo years, I think it is.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

1930. Do you think that the present veterinary petitioners arc men whom you can trust wi h so difficult an operation as inoculation ?I do not. 1 think in my own case if we had a necessity for inocu-ktlng again I would be disposed to secure the services of those who have been practising it for some tune wih success. I was consulted by the local authority in Cumberland as to the results of the inoculation that

^;H

tögeiher for a period of three months or longer, so

!^J:lt;.,i #9632;'

MINUTES OP RVIDKNCK.

we had Imd. and I tfodommended In Rome outbrenks that they had that they should adopt Inooulatlon, and I strongly recommended that they should secure the services of Mr. Kuthorford or someone who bad bad the same experience; but instead of doing so the animals wore inoculated by a local veterinary surgeon, and the result was a failure.

1931 And I think a further result of that is that they have abandoned inoculation PThoy have m Cumberland.

1lt;)32 At the same time I behevo you are awau. that although Cumberland was constantly subject to the outbreak ut plcmro-pnenmonia, that county has for some considerable time been frecP-I am aware ot

* ^1933 Do you think it desirable in the interests of stockowners and of the nation at large that further experiments should be undertaken P-Mos ^cu ed y

1934 And I presume you would not limit tnat merely to the practical operations, but that you would Wish to get to the bottom of the question and restard it from a scientific basis as woll?-I think stock upon which inoculation was practised exneri-mentttlly should be under the control of the local authority and the Government inspectors for a time sufficient to satisfy all parties as to the effect oi inoculation, and that, if possible, the cattle Bhoald be watched till they were slaughtered, and a record kept of the appearances in every definite case.

1935nbsp; nbsp;But would you not be very careful to entrust these experiments to scientific men, and to experts ? I think it is essential that, being an experiment, it should be conducted under the best conditions.

1936nbsp; nbsp;Have you any opinion as to the present system adopted by valuers, laquo;r could you suggest any improvement in connexion therewith ?-I think not Incur own case there was considerable doubt as to whether we wore entitled merely to the beef price for our breeding stock, or whether the value of the pedigree of the animal ought to reckon.

1937nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it desirable that an official valuer for each county or each local authority should be appointed?-! do not think the work has been badlv done. There were three members of the ocal authority appointed in our particular case, and 1 think their valuations were satisfactory.

1938. You have only had one outbreak actually, have you?In our own experience.

1939nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Would you think it a Ereat hardship to have the animals shut up after they were inoculated until they were slaughtered, and not to let them move from the shed where they were _kcp_t?__Do you refer to feeding cattle only?

1940nbsp; nbsp;To any inoculated cattle?I think it might

1947 And it was that bull that was said to have taken the disease into the quarantine station at

Mr, J. Biyyat. 27 April 1888,

Canada, was not it VI have no doubt it was.

1948.nbsp; At the same time, when the animal left your place ho was apparently in perfect health? In perfect health. We had not the slightest suspicion until after these cattle had gone that we had anything of the nature of pleuro about the place at all.

1949.nbsp; Was the tuiiinal inspected, do you know, before he was shipped ?No, I do not think he was.

1950.nbsp; Did no one inspect him on your farm f.No, it was not required at tliat time.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . _ti

1951.nbsp; But the animal was allowed to land in tlie quarantine station, was ho not ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . ^ .

1952.nbsp; And, as I understand, nothing was ob.iected to until he had been there for some days?Not until ho had been there for some weeks.

1953.nbsp; How many weeks ?I believe two weeks or

1954.nbsp; Does not that indicate clearly that an animal may have the disease in such a form that it cannot be detected ?Certainly ; the animal may have contracted the disease-caught the infection and carried it for some weeksI should think two or three weeks before it is developed sufficiently to manifest itself.

1955. Under those circumstances, would you look with suspicion upon an animal which had been inoculated ?Certainly, if ail animal had been inoculated because it had been in contact with animals that had

pleuro.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;..nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;o it

195G. You would not know that, would you ( it you were buying animals at a fair, and you found from the appearance that they had been inoculated, would you feel quite comfortable in buying them?I would like, in buying them, to know how long they had been inoculated if I could. If I found they had been inoculated three or four months before, I would not hesitate to

buy them.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. ,

1957nbsp; nbsp;But if you could not find out anything at all about them, what would you do ?I would be shy oi them, of course.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

1958nbsp; nbsp;Would you take them on to your iarm, ana put them with your other stock?I would not put them with my other stock, but I might put them separate for a certain length of time.

1959nbsp; nbsp;Would you give as much money tor them as vou would give for animals which did not show any si-ns of having been inoculated ?I would not give as much money for them if they were exposed under conditions that would not give mo any idea as to the time they wore inoculated, but if it was compulsory, as was suggested, that no animal that had been inoculated should be removed for three months, then i would not hesitate to buy those cattle upon the

#9632; i

market

a law applying

he inconvenient in respect of breeding stock to have them laid under that embargo.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , ,,. .

1911 But if there is any danger in letting inoculated animals go about the country, that would apply to breeding stock as well as to dairy stock, would it _not?_I think that after a period of three or four months there would be no danger whatever.

1942 Then you would not mind shutting them up for that three or four months ?No, certainly not.

1943. And you do not think that would be any very great hardship ?I do not.

1044nbsp; nbsp;In regard to your outbreak, I understand the disease was not detected at first ?-The first animal died and was buried without any post-mortem, and 1 ₍lo not think the veterinary 9^omvUimyms-picion of pleuro. It was hardly likely that he should have, because we had not had a case in the county tor ucrhans 8 or 10 years before.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. . , ,

1045nbsp; nbsp; It was after that cow was buried laquo;mt you sold a bull to go to Canada, was not M~* Jill was not exactly sold to go to Canada. The bull was shipped after that cow died along with ft number o other cattle, but ho happened to be the only animal that went from the farm. He had been purchased on an order from Canada two months before.

1946. Then it remained on your iarm until Otter the cow died ?He did.

1900. That is to say, if there wore

to the whole country that an inoculated animal must bo kept in quarantine for three months, then you would think it might be purchased with perfect safety ?I would think so.

1961.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any particular objection to the slaughter system ; any practical objection I mean ?

Yes.

1962.nbsp; What is it ?1 think it is a most expensive

process for the ratepayers.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

1963.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any other objection ?Again, it i had an outbreak of disease amongst feeding cattle 1 would not object to slaughter, because the loss would be trifling, but if it was amongst breeding stock and the value of these animals exceeded, as it might do, the maximum sura allowed by Government, 1 would bo most unwilling to have them slaughtered.

1964.nbsp; Naturally from the mere fact that you would lose a very large sum of money ?Clearly.

1965.nbsp; Therefore in the case of what are called pedigree stock the hardship would be very considerable ?It was in our case in some few instances.

1960. With regard to dairy stock, do you see any particular difficulty there ?-There is a sacrifice ot money to the community upon all dairy stock. 1 moan that if animals arc slaughtered that arc worth Ul., or

II 2

#9830;i

OOMMmaiä ON PLEUKO-l-NKUMOMA AND iuBBBOuLOSIS I

Mr. J. Higgar.

27 April 1888.

14/., or 201., if Bold as dairy oowb, and tlgt;ey only venllso 5/. or 6/. for the carcase there Is a loss ot the difference to the community.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. ,. m i

1967.nbsp; But there would bo no loss to the individual dairyman ou that ground, would there v^Ho would be Jt advantage perhaps in not be ng able to ooutinue his business. There would be an interruption to Ins business which inoculation does not make. T behove,

Mt present.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _f .,

1968,nbsp; You have no experience, have you, ot tnc ideas of the customersthe consumers of the milk as to the effects of inoculation ?-T have no expor.ence

^0f1969. Do you think it probable that if the people know that they were taking milk from inoculated cattle, they would have any sentimental objeolaquo;laquo;laquo; traquo; it ?-i think that quite likely sentimental ob^ct.ons

^VtoTyou probably know that if there is a hint in the present day that a cow has an eruption on its udder or teats the man's business is stopped at once, have you heard of tliat?-No; I have not heard of Sat particularly, but I know the sort of objections

that vou are alluding to.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , ^ .i * *i,

1971. You laquo;aid just now that you thought that the

inoculated cattle should be watched till they were

slaughtered?-! was only referring to cattle that

were inoculated experimentally.

1972nbsp; nbsp;Then you mean by that cattle which are inoculated merely for the purpose of experiment?-

Oortuinlv

1973nbsp; nbsp;And vou do not consider it a necessary precaution in regard to the possibility of those animals carryingdiseasewiththem?No, Idonot.

1974nbsp; nbsp;And of course you do not apprehend that the inoculation will render the animals 1quot;laquo;laquo;^ '-I believe there is no risk from the 'noculation itself. I ,lo not think the disease could be transmitted in that way ; I believe not, but I do not know.

1075 From vom- own experience it seems that an animal may be quot;inoculated in perfectly good faith by the operator, and that the animal at the ^Ume may be in a diseased condition, the disease quot;ot ^be ng dev-eloped perhaps for some weeks to claquo;⁶ quot;J ^ not in my experience seen any cases of thatkmdthey may have occurred in the experience of others.

1976.nbsp; In the case of this bull which was sent tCanada, if that animal had been inoculated betöre h

eft your premises, would not that have been a_instaice ?-'l would not have considered it at all satif he had been iuocukted on my premises to Inushipped that ball at all until a sufficient tune haÄ to bo a guarantee of health; I would nevehave thought of shipping after inoculation.

1977.nbsp; nbsp;Not after inoculation?Not at nil; ce

tainly not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

1078 Why not?-1 would have thought if hebe a risk, as is stated, that an animal may ^ quot;^quot;^f under a misapprehension that it is healthy androcs not to be healthy-I believe that if a periofXee or four months were allowed to elapse durinwhich that animal was kept in quarantine, as it weithe lapse of that three or four months would shoand prove whether the animal was sound or not.

1Ö79 But in the case of your bull there wassuspicion whatever, was there ?-None whatever.

1980. Presuming that it had been a conditionthe par of the purchaser that it should be inoculawould have been inoculated, but nevcrthelelaquo;,

kept it, theuP-No; there had been no suspicion of

1982 T am talking of your own bull. You ought to know whether there was any suspicion or not in that case ?There was no suspicion at the tiino lie

⁶ 1*983 Then I, will ask you what you would have done after inoculating that bull ?Let him go.

1984. And the bull would have gone to Canada all the same with the disease in the system; do you consider that the inoculation would in such a case be any protection to it ?I suppose not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , ,

1985 (Lord Cloacurry.) With regard to the bullock that you had a suspicion of, I understand you bought him some time in February or March and be was then thriving well, and you sold him. A butcher killed him and he told you afterwards that the lungs

wore bad ?He did.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i u;i

1986. You thought from that that perhaps ho had

brought the disease ?--l think there was ft possibility

⁰ 1987 Do you mean to tell the Committee that that strange bullock you brought in, was actually herded and kept with your pedigree cows ?No.

gt; 988 Then if it is true that pleuro-pneumoma can only pass from one boast lo another by actual contact, that bullock could not have given the disease to your cows, I suppose?-! think it is possible that food which might have been refused by this bullock in his sick or unhealthy condition might have been removed, and, to save waste, put before those cows.

1989nbsp; nbsp;But as a matter of fact he was not kept in the same byre ?-No; but in the same premises.

1990nbsp; nbsp;What sort of distance then was this bullock kept from the pedigree cows, how far oft was Ins place?There is a feeding passage which runs along in front of these bullocks where they are tied. It runs at right angles into a feeding passage which runs in front where the cows are tied.

1991nbsp; nbsp; They were under the same roof?Under the same roof, and a passage along the front of the feeding place runs at right angles into a passage along the front of what we call our herd byre. I he distance might be 30 feet or 35 feet.

1992.nbsp; Is there a partition between these two passages ?There is a door but no partition.

1993.nbsp; Is the door generally kept closed at night and so forth?I cannot say that it is generally kept

1994 Why did you slaughter a healthy calf, he-cause yon had an opinion of the cows that they luul no disease, on of any kind ?-! protested against it, t was ordered by the inspector to bo slaughtered, T had no choice ; I protested that he would find tins calf was

'''S: Then, in fact, do yon say that was a case vvhers the veterinary inspector made a mistake?He did make a mistake.

1996. He thought he recognised pleuro-pnemnoma, and he was wrong ?-He judged simply from the slight increase of temperature; there was a very light increase of the temperature in this animal. The She was passed. I said, quot;If the mother is quot;passed, this calf must he healthy; it was horn m quot; this box and was never in contact with the others. I think the fact of laquo;he calf being so very young would account for the slight increase of temperature.

1997. Do vou think he had noting to guide him except that this three weeks old calf had the high temperature; do you think he had^that nndjo .Hhor

ft!-' ^:

would have carried the disease into another part of 1 . void; do I understand that if your farm were m u perfectly healthy state and I bought some cows of vo a? g, that I never have any cows Drought on L my Inn unless they are inoculated, that ^u vvou hink it necessary to keep the inoculated ^ima ⁸ four months after the purchase before yon would semi them to me VCertainly not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,, , ,

1981 I will suppose that that particular bull bad hoensnt to Canada, the condition being that before you sent it you should inoculate it, would you have

reason

for ordering the slaughter, as far as you know ?

K'ilaquo;

He had no Other reason whatever.

1998.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Do you know what the temperature wa8?108-l or 2,1 believe.

1999.nbsp; (Lord Clomurry) Was the inspector a local mnn, or was he a man you brought down of your own accord to assist in the matter ?-l am not qmte stire quot;n that point; without being perfectly sure, I hink it was Mr. Manuel who found ^e tomporflture higl., and who said he thought it was infected. Ho was

til

MINUTES OP EV1DEN0K.

careful to err on the sale side, and would not pass the slightest incrcaso of temperature.

2000. (Sir G. Maophmon Grant.) With regar.1 to your breeding stock, at all events, 1 do laquo;o under-stand you to recommoml inoculation P^P' quot; ^ of laquo;n outbreak of the disease I think you old laquo; that you did not in buying cattle fö^u'flaquo; raquo;Jquot;! we of your stock ?-No; wo do quot;^ ^^^Vquot;^'^ have never inoculated exoeot In the Instance of this outbreak. We were advised ''7 ^ Bu.hraquo;ford. I consulted him on the point, and he said quot;I do not laquo; think there is any necessity for inoculation.

2001.-You have not given us any reason why you do not recommend inoculation, except the lact that iuocnlation would interfere with fraquo;^1 tJt a America?-Another reason might be stated hat a proportion of the cattle may be disfigured Oy he loss of the tails; in our case it was a sinal proportion. Jome 20 peV cent., which lost their tai s. Besides, iTave this confidence, that if an outbreak of disease we to occur in my herd we could stop 1 now with the loss, perhaps, of two or three animals, and that prompt inoculation would save all the others.

2002. Would the loss of a certain portion of the tail interfere very much with the sale ot your cattle ^ _It would disfigure the animal m Ihe eyes of t e buyer Pedigree cattle do not look well With any shortness of that kind. But if Americans re wi -in- to receive inoculated cattle, there would bo no other disability attaching to the animal except the appearance.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

2003. As regards yourself, am I right in supposing, after vour experience of the inoculation ol your valuable herd, that you are in this position-that you are ^ satisfied as to the value of inoculation that you prefer to run the risk of an outbreak from any cause feeling so sure that you can stamp it ou with the loss of perhaps, two or three diseased animals sooner than put this inoculation in force, as you bring in fresh cattle at any time. If you are so satisfied with the value of inoculation, what is the reason that prevents you employing it annually or regularly ? Is the only reason you can give us the one that you are so saUs-fled that if you get an outbreak you can stamp it out S once and with less loss ?_Another reason is that I have to calculate the chances of an outbreak, ihe chances of our having an outbreak, judging from the past, are exceedingly small. We ^e only hadwi hin the last 10 years these four cases ot outbreaks that occurred in Kirkcudbrightshire.

2004.nbsp; nbsp;In one year?-In one year. ^7 ^b^ad raquo; been controlled. We had not had an outbreak tor 10 vears previously, and during the 50 years experiencKy father there had never been anything ot thkind on our farm.

2005.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Hordey.) Where do you say thabullock came from that you thought was the source oyour outbreak ?-We bought him in the local auctio

mart four miles off.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ....nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

2006 Had you nothing with him; no papeis tshow where he came from?No; that is not th

custom.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . i it o

9007 Then you could not trace him at nut'tool the trouble of going to the auctioneer and founthat he was exposed by a dealer. I went to thdealer and asked him if he could give me from hbooks any information as to where he got the paticular animal. He said, quot; No.quot; I was not abletrace beyond that he came by this man. I may sthat after buying this bullock one of my neighbouremarked what a promising and healthy animalseemed to have got. He said, raquo; That is a very niquot; thriving bullool 51 think that bullock will do wquot; with you quot; He made that special remark abothis particular animal. I maybe quite wrongattributing this outbreak to this animal, but it was tonly thing I could connect with it.

2008 You spoke of a neighbour who had an obreak on his farm approximately about the same t

2009 Do you know whether be bought an animal MrJ^u-about tiie same time that you did ?-I do raquo;Ot thin*JM ^ ₁₈₈₈did I do not think he could account lor his outbreak-----------

through the introduction of laquo;laquo;7 0'^lquot;^le,^to_P(^h,8fc_tf1_fl

ooio Did the same man who looked after the ca lie

in the one byre attend to the pedigree stock In ho

other P-Previous to the outbreak the same party

^off 'You tt no cows, 1 believe, from the inocu-

^^l^lSquot; mi'-nsider the loss of the tails was any practical disadvantage to the cows I me.m u beating off flies and that sort of thing?-No, 1 should

¹ 2018deg; [Mr. SHrling.) From what you have said to Professor Brown and SirGoorgo Macpherson/.raut^you aro clearly in favour of a system * W^}-*?*' I want to put it to you from a business point ol view speaking as a breeder, whether you would lose most hy tour herd being slaughtered out and you receiving tU uU compensation as allowed under the Act for the animals that wore not diseased, or whether you tuld löse most by the loss of your trade to America from inoculation if you had your choice -I piao t cally had my choice when wo had the outbreak. I reS very much with myself whether we wou d slau hter them out or inoculate them. That entirely depends upon how you value certain strains of blood Swl.etf.er you ?hink you ^^P¹^⁶ ^^ thought that I would rather run the risk ot sav ng the animals, if possible, and we succeeded in saving then? A hisstage there is nothing to prevent the produce of these animals after the lapse of two years

^be2tflÄtaB a breeder of pedigree ^ock youare satisfied from ker expevience that you took the ^ht course for yourself ?-Yes, I would not hesitate to

^olfA'same thing occurred ^in, would you act in the same manner?-! would immed.atelj

^^oJrThen I gather from what you say that the real question turns upon the matter of valuation Supposing that it is not pedigree slock bu tat is ordinary Itock, that is to say, store cattle, brought in Ke fed, a flying stock; what would you; answer be thenP-is an individual, as the owner of tins stock t miUt perhaps on the whole be rather beter to have Ihem slaughtered; rather more pro^ble to have them slaughtered and replaced than to have them noculaedt but the money difference would be small recausoldonotthinkthattho efiects of inoculation e very prejudicial to the health of the animals 201? Yo i say, as the owner of the animal, you _WonW prefer that; but do I understand that you wou d prefer that from a sense of greater security, o because yon would feel that you would get yom money value, and that there would be very little bssTn monJy ?-There would be very little loss in

'ToTs Then from that answer apparently as a breeder you would not consider that the closing up o you herd for 50 days on account of the inoculation loul cause you very serious loss?-! would not confer that I serious objection, or hesitate about submitting to it; not in the slightest.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , .

2019. Have you had anything to do with dairy

^am Spiking, then, of flying stock, you jould perhaps consider it best that these should be BlauSred ?-There might be a small advantage. It would not be very considerable I would not very much care which plan was adopted.

2021. Supposing it was left to your dechion ?_I the sfodt were fat, if they were fit for heel, I would say that it would be the most economical way to let laquo;mch cattle go straight to the shambles.

2)22 Then you must know that you cannot always _ffet a Stock with 50 or 00 head of cattle m the same An Vy are in ^s, one lot is ready to seh and the other lot is being fed up?-I would ais

iff

: I

as yon did ?Yes.

(52

OOMMITTBB lt;gt;N I'LEUIIO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEKCUI-OSTS

Jfr.J. Biyyar, 27 April 18*8.

criminato in that case, 1 would think it better to slaughter those that wore fat, and those that were valuable as store cattle or as dairy stock I would say, quot; Inoculate them.quot;

2023.nbsp; That is, you understand that you would get full value for what is slaughtered as healthy ?I understand that. In that pase I say it matters very little to the owner what course is pursued, but it makes considerable difference from another point of view. As owner I have to judge it only for myself, but as ratepayer I have to judge of the best practice.

2024.nbsp; Judging it as a ratepayer, what do you say ? I decidedly prefer inoculation.

2025.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman) In the belief that it is less costly ?Certainly, and probably equally effectual.

202G. {Mr. Stirling.) In the case of these inoculated cattle, would you suggest that there should bo any restrictions upon their movements, supposing, speaking as a ratepayer, that you had decided that these cattle should be inoculated ?I would.

2027.nbsp; For how many days?That is a matter which I would like to see determined by experiment.

2028.nbsp; Then you are not prepared to answer that juestiou altogether ?I should say that it would be proper to impose an embargo of from two to three months until it was proved that a shorter period was sufficient.

2029.nbsp; How would you propose to recognise these cattle that had been inoculated?A certain proportion of them would not lose their tails ?They might be branded with a Government brand. The inspector should prepare a list of those cattle, and they ought to be under the supervision of the local county inspector or the police, until the local authority considered it fit that they should be removed.

2030.nbsp; You would require to put a heavy penalty on the removal of such stock, would not you?Quite right.

2031.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Is there anything you can suggest for the more efficient administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, in Scotland ?Do you refer to the powers that are at present vested in the local authorities ?

2032.nbsp; I speak of the administration of the Act generally ?It is undoubted, I think, that in the present administration of the powers of the Act through the county boards the boards clash very much with each other.

2033.nbsp; Then you desire to see greater uniformity of action ?Yes. Another thing; there are cases where a whole county may be declared and subjected to restrictions, while part of another county is free, although it is practically very much nearer to the outbreak than some parts of the declared county. That I think ought not to be. I think the cordon in the case of pluuro-pneumonia does not require to be large.

2034.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the present system of charging the cost of slaughter and compensation upon the ratepayers, or would you desire to see it placed upon the Exchequer ?At present I understand it is only borne by a section of the ratepayersthe farmer and the landlord.

2036. Do you desire to see these charges transferred from the local authority to the Imperial Exchequer ? Under the present system there may be this anomaly, that cattle might be found in a burgh in a diseased state, supposing it was found in an auction mart. If the whole of the cattle in the auction mart

or any number of thom that had boon in contact wore condemned and had to be paid for at the expense of that burgh, I think that would bo an anomaly. I think a charge upon the general Exchequer would be preferable and fairer.

2036.nbsp; nbsp;You have stated your objection to tho want of uniformity between the various local authorities of different counties. Can you suggest any practical system for producing uniformity ?It might be better, as I understand it has been suggested to you, that a central board should be formed to which every local authority should send a delegate, and that they might have the control of the framing of the rules, and that the local boards would be charged with carrying out those instructions.

2037.nbsp; De you think that suggestion is likely to be of practical value ?Yes, I think it is.

2038.nbsp; Does it not occur to you that the breeding portions of Scotland might suffer by being in a minority upon that board ?By quot; breeding portions quot; I understand you to mean the districts that do not require to import cattle. If they do not require to import cattle they would not run very much risk of disease; if they breed enough cattle without having to buy any they do not run much risk of buying disease.

2039.nbsp; Some people buy bulls. They must get bulls into the country ?Yes ; I think in circumstances of that kind, if it is only a bull that is required, they might take sufficient precaution in the selection themselves.

2040.nbsp; Would you prefer to have a central local authority instead of having the Act administered from the central office in London ?I think I would say that we prefer something of that kind in Scotland by which we would have more control, because the local authorities are not always satisfied with the instructions that they get from the Privy Council.

2041.nbsp; Do yon think it is reasonable that you should administer the Act and ask thö Treasury to pay? Yes, if we could administer the Act any better ; if we are better judges of how it ought to be done it ought to be so.

2042.nbsp; Do you not think it would be fair and reasonable that if you desire to retain the power in your hands, with the modification as suggested, you ought also to retain the disadvantage of payment ?We would always have our share of the payment. Wo are interested in economy as ratepayers, no matter who administers the law.

2043.nbsp; Now I will take you to another point; have you any experience of tuberculosis in cattle ?I have never in my own experience seen one, except in our own case in our herd not very long ago.

2044.nbsp; nbsp;As a matter of fact, it is not frequently observed in a Galloway herd, I believe ?Very rarely indeed; but I believe, notwithstanding, that amongst the Ayrshire stocks dairy herds in the south-west of Scotland there are herds in which there is a considerable amount of tuberculosis.

2045.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) You have spoken of consumption of the bowels as being rather a common thing, I understood you to say, in your herd ?Not by any means a common thing; but we do see occasionally one animal of a lot in which the bowels were evidently suffering fi om what we call quot; rot.quot;

2046.nbsp; You mean inflammation of a bowel ?Yes, it is called quot; rot.quot;

The witness withdrew.

Mr. T. FAUot.

Mr. Thomas Elliot called and examined.

2047.nbsp; {Chairman.) You are a farmer, I believe, in Selkirkshire ?Yes.

2048.nbsp; Can you give the Committee an idea of the extent of your operations on the farm ; what is the area?About 5,000 acres.

2049.nbsp; How many farms have yolaquo; in your occupation ?Four farms.

2050.nbsp; nbsp;What is the character of those farms? Mixed arable and pasture) that is to say, that there is a considerable quantity of arable laud upon it, and

MINUTläS OF EVIDENCE.

n good many slieop kopt; no Imy growing; nil pasture mostly.

2051.nbsp; When did you cominonco farming ?I eom-nienced on my own account; 40 years ago; before that I was farming under my father.

2052.nbsp; Will you tell the Committee what is the class of stock which you have on your farms ?All the arable land is farmed under the fire shift rotation, consequently there are two fifths in grass which we pasture with sheep; two fifths under white crops, und one fifth under a green crop, and we require always a considerable number of cattle for the purpose of consuming that fodder and green crop.

2053.nbsp; Do you breed any cattle ?None.

2054.nbsp; Do you buy all in ?Yes; wo have done so for a long time.

2055.nbsp; nbsp;How many cattle now do you generally have throughout the year upon your farms ?I have for my own self about 200 cattle. I may mention that I have five brothers likewise all farmers in our neighbourhood.

2056.nbsp; nbsp;How many may you and your family have altogether ?About 600 head of cattle, if not more than that.

2057.nbsp; I have no doubt that during your long experience and the length of time you have been farming you have suffered more or less from outbreaks of disease in stock ?We have any disease that is going generally when it is in the country.

2058.nbsp; What disease do you particularly point to; had you cattle plague ?One of my brothers had one case; he had 15 cattle slaughtered for it.

2059.nbsp; Then you probably have also had some experience of foot-and-mouth disease?Very much, we lost more by foot-and-mouth disease than by any other.

2060.nbsp; Was that between the years 1867 and 1873 ? No; it was in the spring of 1866; 1865-66 was the great cattle plague time.

2061.nbsp; In addition to that, have you had any experience of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes; I have had a great deal of experience in that.

2062.nbsp; When do you first remember pleuro-pneumonia appearing in the country ?I think we had pleuro-pneumonia about 45 years ago. I observe that in the report of the evidence I gave at Edinburgh it says quot;50 years.quot; I expect that mistake arose from my being asked if I had had experience of cattle for 50 years, to that I would say quot;Yesquot;; but T think it is about 45 years since pleuro-pneumonia was first known in Scotland.

2063.nbsp; Did you suffer at that time ?Yes; from that time onwards.

2064.nbsp; Have you had experience in pleuro-pneumonia in recent times ?We have not had any pleuro-pneumonia, except one case, for the last 26 years.

2065.nbsp; To what do you attribute that immunity ? I attribute it to not buying Irish cattle in a great measure.

2066.nbsp; What description of stock do you buy now ? The stock that we purchase now is either bred in the north of England or in the west of Scotland.

2067.nbsp; Then you do not buy Irish cattle now? We have not bought them to our knowledge.

2068.nbsp; But you formerly did buy Irish cattle? Not anything else.

2069.nbsp; Why did you give that system up ?We had what is called pleuro-pneumonia so very regularly that I had a consultation with my brothers, and we imputed it to the buying of this Irish cattle. We thought that was inseparable from our having the disease; and we accordingly thought we would buy north of England cattle for a time and see how it turned out. That has been the result of it.

2070.nbsp; From that wo gather that Scotland requires to purchase a considerable number of cattle other than those which it breeds ?Now it does.

2071.nbsp; Therefore I presume you would consider that it is of the highest importance to Scotland that Ireland should be kept quite free from disease ?I

think it is; but I think it is of far moro importance Mr. T. MHiot, to Ireland itself.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ;

2072.nbsp; In addition to Ireland, do you think it is of 27 April 1888. groat importance to both England and Scotland ?I ~

think unless you keep Ireland clean you cannot keep Scotland or England clean.

2073.nbsp; Now in your experience of pleuro-pneumonia, have you come to any conclusion by what means ctis-easo is communicated; is it from one animal to another ? I do not know. My belief is that it cannot oe communicated unless the animals breathe the breath of each other ; unless they come closely in contact.

2074.nbsp; At what distance from a diseased animal do you think another animal would bo safe ?I have had them as close as perhaps 30 yards, the same cattleman attending to them throughout the winter ; that was during the winter season, and there was no harm happening to the cattle that were at that distance, but in a different herd.

2075.nbsp; nbsp;Is it your experience that you can detect pleuro-pneumonia in its earliest stages ?No ; I do not think it is possible until it fairly begins to develop. It lies latent in the animal for a long time, I think.

2070. Since you commenced buying home bred cattle have you had any symptoms of disease ?No; we had the disease amongst a lot of West Highland bullocks one season, which were traced to having been grazed along with a lot of Irish bullocks, and we considered that having traced it that length that was cause enough.

2077.nbsp; Are you able to say generally whether West Highland cattle are as susceptible of disease as other breeds ?I do not know that they would be any more susceptible to take it, but after having taken it it is rather more fatal.

2078.nbsp; Are they less susceptible ?I do not know. I do not think it is found amongst them, because there is little disease in the west of Scotland.

2079.nbsp; Do you find that disease is ever carried by the herdsman ?Not pleuro-pneumonia.

2080.nbsp; In your study of the disease, do you consider it indigenous or not to this country ?Taking my own experience and my father's, and all that I can read of the history of our cattle trade in Scotland and in England, it is not indigenous to either of these countries.

2081.nbsp; nbsp;Do you wish the Committee to understand that Scotland was free from disease until it received it through the medium of Irish cattle?1 have no knowledge or information that I can And from reading the history of the cattle trade, nor from any other information I could get from people older than myself, that such a thing as pleuro-pneumonia existed until cattle were shipped from Ireland.

2082.nbsp; Do you think that it is in any way contracted in the voyage from Ireland ?There is one thing about it. I came across from Ireland twice or thrice with cattle in the steamboats, and I have seen them put down into the hold and packed there closely, and they perspired a great deal. If it is frosty or cold wet weather, I have seen them turned out at Greenock or Glasgow into a cold wind. I think that is enough almost to give them pleuro-pneumonia. You can create the disease, I think.

2083.nbsp; Yon might create an ordinary lung disease, but do you think you could create pleuro-pueumonia ? I cannot tell, but that is the treatment I have seen these animals receive.

2084.nbsp; You would therefore probably suggest some improvement in the means of transit ?I think it would be a great advantage to the people who own the cattle and to every person who received them. I have seen them get a great deal of damage in the transit.

2C85. Are you aware whether the boats winch bring the cattle over do so under a license or not ? I do not know, and 1 have taken no interest in them since I began not to deal in this cattle, but I am talking of what the transit was when I knew it.

2086. Do you think that the present system of inspection is satisfnetovy ?It is po very difficult to

i; \:

i I

j i

quot;lii ¹

raquo;I

1)4

OOimiTTBlä ON I'liKtTBO-l'NKUMONIA AND TUlaquo;BliOULOSI8

Sjll,,

Mr. T. Elliot, detect the disease that. I do hot know how you would

-----nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;improve upon that, but 1 have never yet seen an

;gt;7 Apr;! 1888. inspector that cnuld lell very much about it. The -----------inspection of markets is certainly not worth much.

2087.nbsp; Is it your opinion that the Contngious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878 is on the whole a satisfactory measure ?It did a very great deal of good.

2088.nbsp; Perhaps you may have some objection to somlaquo; of the details in its administration ?I do not recollect at the present moinent whether I have.

2089.nbsp; Do you think that the fact of one county of Scotland being able to issac one form of orders, and another county a different one is satisfactory ?No, I do not think so. I think it is a pity that that should exist.

2090.nbsp; Do you think there is want of uniformity of action ?Yes.

2091.nbsp; Would you recommend some moms by which that could bo obviated ?If that could be altered, and it were made more central, I think it would certainly bo better; it would be, a great convenience to the people who were dealing in cattle and changing them from pastures from one place to another.

2092.nbsp; Do you think the present means of paying compensation is satisfactory ?No, I think it is very far from it.

2093.nbsp; What would you suggest, as a remedy or improvement ?Well, there is an order out to slaughter cattle just now, and I think that entirely wrong with regard to the compensation, because so long as you continue to import the disease into the country, which I say you do just now, so long does slaughter do no good.

2094.nbsp; nbsp;Whence do you think we import that disease ? There is not, a doubt in my belief that we get it from Ireland and occasionally from Holland. I do not know but that Holland is clean now.

2095.nbsp; Arc you aware tiiat you cannot import cattle from Holland now ?I was not aware, but I have had them from Holland, and got the disease, too, from it.

200laquo;. You asked in another place that they should be slaughtered on the other side ?Yes.

2097.nbsp; nbsp;And in lt;lefereiice to your opinion and that of other agriculturists that has been done, has it not ?Yes.

2098.nbsp; You think it comes from Ireland, and therefore you object to the harassing system of the orders in this country ?Yes, I do.

2099.nbsp; And you desire to nip the disease in the bud, at the fountain's head ?Yes.

2100.nbsp; Have you thought whether you could do that by a system of slaughter, and so get rid of it for all time; would not that be the most satisfactory method to adopt for the country at, large ?Yes; unless there should be some reasons why it is created in Ireland.

2101.nbsp; Supposing you could manage to get it focussed in Ireland into very few spots, would not it be the cheapest and best thing, both for tiiis country and for Ireland, that it should be exterminated by means of compulsory slaughter ?Yes.

2102.nbsp; And that one payment, from whatever source it came, would probably meet the whole extent of the cost?Yes.

2103.nbsp; Would you suggest any alteration in the present system of compensation ?Witii regard to the compensation clause, 1 think that very unfair to the Scottish and English proprietors that they have no power to interfere where they buy the stock or how they buy them, or vhether tl.ey are careless or not; but if they bring disease with them they have to be slaughtered, and theiy have to pay half of the loss. Mv own opinion is tliat the cattle are imported there for the benefit of tlie great body of consumers. I think quot;ou must, if you are going to do what is justice, pay that out of the Imperial Exchequer,

2104.nbsp; But along with that payment of compensation from the Exchequer, would you suggest the administration of the Act through the central authorities here, or would you leave it still with the local authorities, an at present ?I think a great improve-

ment would be made in removing it from the local authorities.

2105.nbsp; Would you remove it from the local authorities to the head office in London ?There should perhaps be a head office in Scotland and in England, in both countries.

2106.nbsp; Would you'wish to have a largo central authority ia each country ?I think it would bo more convenient. It is a fact that in our country when we had foot-and-mouth disease two years ago our people who are shifting sheep and holding them are very much harassed by the different restrictions issued by the different local authorities both in burghs and in counties. There is not a doubt that it would be a very great advantage to the people who are holding, those stocks if it was more centralised. I should not like to say how it should be done.

2107.nbsp; But you think it should be done by some means by which you could secure greater uniformity of action ?Yes.

2108.nbsp; Do you consider it would be desirable, in the face of the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in Scotland sind elsewhere, that there should be some further experiments carried on to elicit information connected with the disease both of a scientific and practical nature ?It would do good to try experiments, there is not a doubt about that, but I think the great thing would be to try and make amendments immediately.

2109.nbsp; nbsp;Are you able to make amendments without basing those amendments upon some results gained from experiments ?No, certainly not.

2110.nbsp; nbsp;I take it for granted that you would consider that those experiments ought to be carried out by specialists and experts ?Most distinctly. If you do not do so I would hold that they are not of sutficient value to give the public confidence in it.

2111.nbsp; nbsp;Assuming that some objection was raised on the part of the ratepayers to the charges imposed upon their respective districts, what would ypu think of a special poll tax upon all stock owners, by which a national fund could be raised for the payment of compensation ?I think you would be making the thing a great deal worse instead of better, that is my impression. I complain of an inequality now. I say that the wrong people are paying the tax. I hold that a landlord in paying a shilling tax is a very ill-used man.

2112.nbsp; You maintain then, I presume, that it is the consumer as well as the producer that ought to pay?

__I hold that you never would have that disease in

Scotland or in England if it had not been to benefit the consumer, and it is a very hard case that the people who are trying to; provide that food for them in doing so should be taxed with the sale of these diseasedquot; animals. I say that the consumer ought to pay strongly mto that fund.

2113.nbsp; And that these rates shall not be confined to the landlord and tenant ?lam not aware that it is paid by others, except in burghs, where it would be thrown upon the inhabitants, upon heritages.

2114.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. Macphcrson Grant.) Do railways pay a cattle rate rI am not aware that they do.

2115.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Clonomry.) You mentioned that there was no disease in Scotland until about 45 years ago. Can you tell us of your own knowledge whether England or Ireland had disease when Scotland noraquo; free at that time ?No, I cannot do so, but I have tried to trace all the cattle history of England and Scotland, and I cannot find that there was any disease of this kind.

2116.nbsp; Then, in fact, England, Ireland, and Scotland got the disease about the same time, the one as the other ?We never had that disease in Scotland until we got cattle across from Ireland.

2117.nbsp; Are you able to say that the disease existed in Ireland previous to that?~-No, I had no knowledge of it until wo got the cattle across.

2118.nbsp; Then in reference to the arrangement that you and your brothers came to, that you would no longer purchase any Irish cattle; how many years ago

ii¹

#9632;

MINUTES OF BVIDKNCK.

last

that time, and there was no compensation, and no rules against travelling up and down the country and

Mr. T. Elliot. 27 April 1888,

years

was that arrangement made?It ia 2ft

August.

2119.nbsp; And since that time I understand you have bought no Irish cattle iutentionally ?Not to our knowledge,

2120.nbsp; Then may I take it that all the evidence that you have given to this Committee and to the Highland Society on the subject of Irish cattle relates to matters of more than 25 years ago ?Yes.

2121.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) With respect to that second outbreak of pleuro-pnoumonia that you had among the lot of black Highland bullocks, you say you traced the animals as having been grazed with Irish cattle above Denny ?Yes.

2122.nbsp; When was tbat ?I should think it was 12 years ago, perhaps, 1 am not certain to a year now, but it is about that time.

2123.nbsp; How many of tbose bullocks did you lose ? I lost about 30 of them.

2124.nbsp; Out of how many ?There were more of them, 50 altogether of these black Highland bullocks. They were simply lost, because you had to take away the rest of them, and they were not in a fat state, and sell them to the butcher; consequently you sold them for a mere trifle.

2125.nbsp; Did the whole 50 go in that way ?We did not give the others a chance to go, but they were sent away and slaughtered and they were sold. Being not nearly begun to be in the state they ought to be to go to the butcher, they were simply given away. They did not realise the price at which they were bought at perhaps six or seven months before.

2126.nbsp; When you had the disease 25 years ago, can you remember whether you traced the breaking out again each time to having an animal with the disease in its lungs in an old state; an encysted state ? There were no restrictions against selling them at

showing them in a store market. We used to try and cure them. They were no value to sell or I have no doubt we might have sold them.

2127.nbsp; Then do you think that it might have been carried on in that way by reason of an animal being really diseased, or that you might have kept on bringing in afresh ?We tried to cure them, and we cured a good many of them, and avoided those animalraquo;, and many of them died.

2128.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) I think you said that you preferred to see the Act administered more uniformly. Did you point to a local board for the whole of Scotland, or how many boards would you recommend for Scotland ?I think, perhaps, four. You would work the country easily if you divided Scotland into four different parts and selected the counties. You might make a single order suit each group of counties, and not harass nor annoy any part of them.

2129.nbsp; nbsp;So that in that way you think you could keep breedinfr. counties to themselves and dairy counties to themselves, to a certain extent ?I think that would suit us better a great deal.

2130.nbsp; And yon would then have less friction ?I think so.

2131.nbsp; ( Chairman.) Have you had any experience of tuberculosis ?Very little indeed.

2132.nbsp; Then you are not prepared to say anything special upon that subject ?No.

2133.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think the breeding cattle of the country are deteriorating in constitution ?No; I do not think there would be any difference in that. I should think they would be rather improving as a rule; all classes of them. There is a great deal of care taken in the breeding of them.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. Walter Mitchell Innes called and examined.

Mr. W. M. limes.

2134.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) You are, I believe, in some way connected with the colony of Natal?Yes.

2135.nbsp; Are you the owner of stock out there ?I am not at the present time. I have given up stock. I was an owner of stock while I was out there for some five years.

2136.nbsp; Have you had considerable experience in the general management of stock in the colony ?Yes.

2137.nbsp; Have jou had any opportunity of studying the diseases affecting the stock out there ?Yes; but I have studied them more from my brother's stock farm. He had more cattle than I had, and I have seen a good deal about it in his cattle.

2138.nbsp; What number of cattle have you had direct connexion with through yourself and yonr brother? About 300 or 400 head.

2139.nbsp; Were those breeding as well as feeding cattle ? Yes.

2140.nbsp; Were they in an enclosed district ?No.

2141.nbsp; In the open ?In the open. There was very little fencing.

2142.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had any experience of pleuro-pneu-monia?The disease out there is called lung sickness. Whether it is the same as pleuro-pneumonia I do not know.

2143.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) Is that at the Cape?It is the same disease both in the Cape and Natal.

2144.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Have you seen the diseased lungs yourself?Yes, I have seen the diseased lungs.

2145.nbsp; Can you describe what they look like ?It is some years now since I have had experience with them, but as far as I remember they looked a mattery subject with white veins running through them; a marbly sort of veins.

2146.nbsp; In a marbled condition?Yes,

2147.nbsp; Were they swollen ? Yes, they were swollen; that is, when the disease had gone a good length.

o 64008.

2148.nbsp; Did it occur in both lungs, or only in one ? Sometimes in one, sometimes in both.

2149.nbsp; Do you know which is most common, one or both ?One.

2150.nbsp; Was the disease very common?Yes; it was very common in Natal.

2151.nbsp; How long is it since you were there?I came home a year ago, but I had not been amongst cattle for about two or three years before I came home,

2152.nbsp; Do yon know whether it was an old disease in the colony ?Yes, very old. I should think almost as long as white men have been there,

2153.nbsp; Is there not a lung sickness of horses also at the Cape ?It has never been able to be found out whether it is lung sickness or what the sickness^ is, where it commences, or the reason of it. commencing, or wheru they catch it.

2154.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen any of the lungs of the sick horses ?No.

2155.nbsp; Then you do not know whether they have the earne appearance as those of cattle ?No.

2156.nbsp; nbsp;What measures do they take for the purpose of preventing the disease of lung sickness in cattle ? Inoculation.

2167.nbsp; nbsp;Have yon seen that performed ?Yes, I have.

2168.nbsp; Have you done it yourself?Yes; I have done it on a few occasions myself.

2169.nbsp; nbsp;How is it done ?They take the matter from the lung, and then they soak woollen thread in the matter and cut the hair off at the top of the brush of the tail; they paas a seton, as I suppose it is, underneath the skin, and pass another about 2 inches above il.

2160. Do they put two setons in ?Yes. 2101. Do they puncture the tail transversely ? Yes.

COMMITTEE ON PLETJKO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS;

fw;;

2102. And not in a vertical direction ?No.

2163.nbsp; Do you happen to know at what time after the operation the swelling begins ?As far as I remember I think it is about eight days.

2164.nbsp; nbsp;Does the tail come off at all?On many occasions it does. On some occasions it does not.

2165.nbsp; Have you seen much loss from the extension of the swelling upwards, and the deaths of the animals P I have seen some, but not much.

2166.nbsp; Have you any idea how much per cent. ? I should say a very low per-centage if the animals are properly looked after and taken care of.

2167.nbsp; How do they take care of them ?By constantly watching them, and if you see the virus ascending up we used to cut the tail at the top and pour in paraffin or boiling water.

2168.nbsp; nbsp;Are not the cattle turned out usually? Yes.

2169.nbsp; Running wild? They keep separate the , inoculated cattle from the cattle that have not been

inoculated and have not got the disease.

2170.nbsp; nbsp;Have you means of keeping these cattle enclosed in some way ?Yes; they are either put in an enclosure, or you put Kaffir herds on to keep them away from the other cattle.

2171.nbsp; Does the operation succeed in preventing the disease, in your experience?Yes; decidedly.

2172.nbsp; Have you met with any instances of the inoculated animal being afterwards attacked?No; not that I can remember.

2173.nbsp; Then, I suppose, you do not know of a case where the infection has extended after inoculation has been commenced ?No.

2174.nbsp; nbsp;Do they take any particular precautions as to the time of the year or the time of the tlay when the operations are performed ?Yes, at the beginning of the summer seasdn they like to do it best. They do not like to do it in the very hot weather, and of course the climate is pretty warm there in summer.

2175.nbsp; In a country like the one you are speaking of, where there are enormous herds of cattle, one may take it, I suppose, that slaughter would be out of the question ?#9632;I should think so. You would never get them to slaughter their cattle. The Boers would never slaughter their cattle.

2176.nbsp; It would amount to depopulating the country or the district, would it not ?It would amount to a civil war, I think.

2177.nbsp; In that respect the circumstances are somewhat different from the circumstances which obtain in Great Britain ?Yes, because 1 suppose you can enforce slaughter, and do enforce slaughter.

2178.nbsp; There you do not think it could be done ? I do not think it could be done there. I do not think they would ever think of doing it.

2179.nbsp; Supposing that it could he done, would you think it a wise thing to do it ?No, 1 should not think so at all.

2180.nbsp; If I understand rightly, in the event of an outbreak there may be many hundreds of cattle exposed to the contagion ?Yes, of course there may be and they lose very largely at times.

2181.nbsp; Therefore they prefer to trust to a system #9632;which promises the escape of those animals to one which means the destruction of them at once ?Yes. It might mean the destruction of a thousand head of cattle.

2182.nbsp; Therefore in such a case as that you have no alternative between inoculating animals and leaving them entirely alone ?No, none.

2183.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) These cattle that have been inoculated you say are now kept separate. Will you tell us how long they are kept separate from the others ?About a month after the last beast haraquo; shown signs of getting over the inoculation.

2184.nbsp; After that are they mixed with the other cattle ?After that they are allowed to go where they will.

2186. Do you keep any further watch on them? No,

2186.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) What notice is given of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia ?If you find lung sickness on your farm I believe you are bound to send notice in to the nearest magistrate and to send notice to your neighbours.

2187.nbsp; Is that done? No, not always by any means; the Boers will not do that.

2188.nbsp; Then do you think the disease is concealed in your part of the colony ?Yes.

2189.nbsp; In any outbreak has the origin of the virus been traced to any animal conveying it?It has been traced by other cattle coming amongst them that have had the disease.

2190.nbsp; Has it always been imported into each place from without ?Yes.

2191.nbsp; Do you know whether it is possible to convey the virus on the clothes of an herdsman; perhaps they do not wear much clothes out there ?No ; they do not go in for clothes very much. I should not think it very possible to convey the virus in that way. All their transport is done by bullock-waggons going up, passing through the main road of the colony, which passes through a great lot of farms, and it is generally in that way that the lung sickness is conveyed in that country.

2192.nbsp; How did you know when inoculation was successful ?By the signs of the beast taking it, the swelling of the tail and the general appearance of the beast.

2193.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any evidence in the herds that were under your notice of an inoculated animal taking disease ?No.

2194.nbsp; Never ?It may have done so, but I never knew of any.

2195.nbsp; Did you regard that inoculated animal as capable of giving the disease to a clean animal ?It was generally thought it was so, but I have never known of a case of a healthy beast taking the disease from inoculated animals; but they always do keep them separate.

2196.nbsp; I mean beyond the month that you speak of?No.

2197.nbsp; Did you treat it after the month as a clean animal ?Yes.

2198.nbsp; And had you any hesitation in mixing it with your stock afterwards ?No.

2199.nbsp; Did you lose many animals from the inoculation itself ?No, not many.

2200.nbsp; When you did lose any, to what did you attribute it iThe inflammation getting inside.

2201.nbsp; And the spreading of the virus right up ? Yes ; you can see it when it spreads up to the root of the tail.

2202.nbsp; Did you have any case of an animal that died after it was inoculated, and which you thought had been inoculated with the disease on it ?No; they did not take the inoculation if they were inoculated #9632;with the disease on them.

2203.nbsp; Were there any cases that you know of in which the animals seemed predisposed to take the disease? Yes, I should say so. I have known animals to be in a lung-sick herd, and live through it, and never take the disease. I have known an animal which I thought must be safe from lung-sickness take the disease next year.

2204.nbsp; Would exposure to weather predispose them at all towards it ?Yes, I think so.

2205.nbsp; Did you see facts of that kind?Yes, in very cold rainy weather; if there was any chance lung-sickness about they would be more predisposed to take it.

2206.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) Yon have not mentioned, I think, what class of stock you were dealing with ; what kind of stock were you dealing with chiefly r The breed of them was Afrikander and Zulu oxen.

2207.nbsp; You have very little English stock out there yet, I believe ?Very little ; some bulls were imported, and that sort ofthing, but very few.

2208.nbsp; I understand that these observations are confined really to entirely native cattle ?Entirely.

I?'

MIHUTIS OF ETIDEKOE.

fi7

2209.nbsp; Did you find ft great disadvantage in the cases where you came to sell your cattle from their having been inoculated ?No, a great advantage.

2210.nbsp; nbsp;Why ?If you could say your cattle were inoculated you would get a higher price for them than you would if they were uuinoculated.

2211.nbsp; Why?Because they were supposed to be free from the liability to take the disease.

2212.nbsp; What do you suppose it puts on a head ? In trek oxen it would put on about 21. a head, the usual price being about 6/. ; if you could prove that they wore inoculated, and were what they call quot; salted quot; cattle, you could get SI. for them.

2213.nbsp; Would you say that the inoculation is pretty roughly done there or do you find it a delicate operation to perform ?It was pretty roughly done at the time I did it, but I believe they are doing it nqw by injection.

2214.nbsp; Do you think that equally satisfactory ?I cannot say. I have had no experience of it.

2215.nbsp; I suppose you turn your cattle out as soon as they are inoculated ?Yes.

2216.nbsp; How do you arrive at the average losses if they are turned out into the run; when do you see them again ?You count them once a week.

2217.nbsp; Do you count them as often as that ?Of course, it depends upon the farmers. Some do not count them for a long time.

2218.nbsp; It would depend upon the size of the herd, I suppose ?Yes.

2219.nbsp; Have you no other restrictions than those you have mentioned out there; have you compulsory slaughter or Government restrictions ?No, except those I mentioned about reporting.

2220.nbsp; (Chairman.) Have you any experience with regard to tuberculosis ?No.

2221.nbsp; nbsp;I believe you have no doubt in your mind that the disease to which you refer is similar to the pleuro-pneumonia of this country?I think it

is.

2222.nbsp; Is there any other form of lung disease in the colony ?No, not that I am aware of.

2223.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) With regard to those native cattle, would you think they were a hardier race, taken, as a whole, or more likely to take the disease, or less likely to take the disease, than our own cattle in this country ?I should not think there was much difference.

2224.nbsp; nbsp;Is there anything in the climate to which you would attribute tho'lmig sickness?I cannot attribute it to anything in the climate. The climate is the healthiest climate in the world for human beings, but about the worst for animals.

2225.nbsp; Do you know when they began inoculation in the colony ?No, I do not. I know thoy began before 20 years ago, but I do not know how long before.

2226.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Then this disease has been existing now for more than 20 years there ?Yes.

2227.nbsp; And inoculation has not exterminated it from the colony ?No.

2228.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) How do you account for it not being exterminated?Because everybody does not inoculate.

2229.nbsp; Then it is not a general inoculation ?You are not bound to inoculate by law, and many careless farmers will not inoculate. A farmer will let his cattle go on and get the disease, and then his cattle stray all about and will give it to other cattle which are uninoculated.

2230.nbsp; Then you think that the disease is therefore kept up in the colony by want of uniform inoculation ? Yes, I think so.

2231.nbsp; Do you also think that if everybody inoculated the disease would practically come to an end ? I think so.

2232.nbsp; (Chairman.) That does not appear to be the opinion of the Government of the colony ?No ; they have not passed any law to bring it in; it would be so difficult to do it with the Boers, they own so many cattle.

2233.nbsp; In your experience do you find the disease spreading very much in the inoculated herds ? Yes, I think so.

223*. Have you any definite proof of that?^es. I had 150 head of cattle about two years ago before I left. They were all bought up in an odd sort of way, one beast from here and one beast from there, and they were attacked with lung sickness. It was hot weather and I did not inoculate them, and I lost several of them. From that it spread to several other herds.

2235. {Professor Brown.) Do you remember how many of the 150 died ?About 75.

]\fr

HI. IniiUi

37 April 1888.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till Thursday next at 12 o'clock.

T 2

ill

COMMITTEE ON PLEUEO-PNBUMONIA AND TUBBB0UL08I8!

FIFTH DAY.

Thursday, 3rd May 1888.

PRESENT :

Mr. JACOB WILSON in the Chair.

Lord Cloncurrt.

Sir George Macpherson Grant, Bart.

Mr. Bowen-Joneb.

Mr. Stirling. Professor Brown, C.B. Professoe HoKSLBir, F.R.S.

Mr. Dawson, Secretary.

Mr. A. Mitchell.

3 May 1888.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell called and examined.

2236.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) You live at Alloa, in the county of Clackmannan ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_T , ,.

2237.nbsp; nbsp;A.ud you are an active member, I believe, ot the local authority of that county ?I am, and have been so from the commencement.

2238.nbsp; You are also a member of the Highland Society of Scotland, and have been on two occasions a Director of the Society ?I have.

2239.nbsp; You are at this moment President of the Shorthorn Society of Great Britain and Ireland ?I

2240.nbsp; Are you sent here by the authority of the Society or have you come in your individual capacity ? The Council ot the Shorthorn Society asked me it I would come.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;., . ,

2241.nbsp; Has that Council had under consideration the question of pleuro-pneumonia ?It was talked of and it was fully discussed.

2242.. la addition to your other commercial occupations, are you also a tenant farmer ?--I am.

2243.nbsp; And how much land have you in your occupation ?Between 700 and 800 acres.

2244.nbsp; Can you give the Committee an idea of the proportion of arable and grass land ?From a third to a half in grass.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632;gt;

2245.nbsp; nbsp;Have you a high bred herd of shorthorns r¹ Yes, I call them high bred.

2216. What number may you have ?Between 50

authority with reference to those outbreaks during the past year ?We have killed all those that were ill, and all those that were in contact.

2256.nbsp; nbsp;Would you, for the information of the Committee, tell us how many cattle you thus slaughtered ?-We were very cautious. When an outbreak took place in a byre of 10 or 12 cattle, the animal affected, and one on each side of it were killed, and we then gave the others a chance of going on. When another animal sickened, perhaps, two or three sickened afterwards, these were killed, and laquo;11 the healthy animals were killed afterwards.

2257.nbsp; As a matter of precaution, immediately on the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia you had the diseased animal slaughtered, and also one on each side of it ?

Yes.

2258.nbsp; In the event of no further cases occurring, you slaughtered no more ; but if any further case did occur, you slaughtered the whole ?We found that in every case it extended over ths byre with the exception of one case fully a year ago. It was a place by itself, and the animal was slaughtered ; they were all within walls and we left them standing, and no more disease took place; so we had doubts of that one being pleuro-pneumonia. But all the other byres were cleared out where disease occurred.

2259.nbsp; nbsp;Before we come to anything further with regard to the animals slaughtered, perhaps you would like to put on record the number of animals slaughtered, and the compensation awarded for those slaughtered animals ?Diseased cattle killed, 24.

2260.nbsp; And what was the amount of compensation ? The amount of compensation was 174/. 15s.

2261.nbsp; nbsp;What was the number of animals in contact only?The healthy animals were 23 slaughtered.

2262.nbsp; nbsp;And the compensation paid ?236laquo;. 10laquo;., in

all 411/. 5laquo;.

2263.nbsp; Have you had under your consideration the subject of inoculation as a preventive measure? -I do not think it was ever talked of at the local authority meeting, but I may state that the last outbreak we had------

2264.nbsp; When was that ? In February, the last week in February. We had a byre with eight cows, I think, and another with eight or ten, and another byre near to it with six. The six are all sound; nothing went wrong with them. The disease appeared in the eight. We sent for Mr. McCall from Glasgow, who gave his report, as well as our own quot; vet,,quot; and he ordered two of them to be killed when he came down and pronounced them to be decided cases of pleuro. He ordered all to be killed in the byre. Thlaquo; other six were not killed because they had not been in contact with them. The laquo;vet.quot;

. it #9632;'

That is in addition to the ordinary farm Yes; they are not kept on the same farm. ^,. Have you had personally any outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia among your cattle ?Nothing for

30 years.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,.,-raquo;#9632;

2249.nbsp; Have you had one outbreak?Yes, more than 30 years ago; but that never came near my own

cattle.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;110

2250.nbsp; Could you trace the origin of that outbreak r I bought them at Falkirk Tryst from Messrs. Swan, who were selling for someone belonging to Dumfries; and these cattle were discovered to have disease a few days after they came. I had them kept by themselves all the winter. I lost eight out of the

20.

2251.nbsp; Have you bad any outbreaks in the county of Clackmannan during the past year ?We have had

six outbreaks.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,..,..,

2252.nbsp; In what part of the county then did that ₀₍,_CU1.?_ Solely in the town of Alien.

2253.nbsp; And was that amongst dairy cattle ?Entirely dairy cattleall cows.

2254.nbsp; Then, in your capacity as a member ot the local authority of the county of Clackmannan, were those outbreaks brought before you ?They were.

2255.nbsp; And what has been the raquo;ctioiraquo; of the local

___-

quot;

MINUTES OF EVIOI^NOK.

camo to one or two of the local authorities and asked

2280.nbsp; What is your opinion upon the Contagious

Mr.

A. Mitchell.

if he might be allowed to inoculate them. I said we had no objoctionn, and there would be no harm ü they were kept by themselves. He inoculated them ; they are all alive yet and well. I never went near.

2265.nbsp; Are you aware whether the inoculation took .' I cannot tell; I never went near.

2266.nbsp; Will you tell us whether you are aware that the owners of cows slaughtered ever expressed a desire that those animals should be inoculated instead ot being slaughtered?Never, not to my knowledge; never a hint to my knowledge,

2267.nbsp; Are you aware whether, in consequence of this slaughter of cows in the ease of the six outbreaks during the past year, there was any very great disturbance of the milk supply of your town ?I am not aware of it. The people who get the milk would be disappointed for a day or two, but there is plenty of milk coming from other quartersmilk coming into the town, and they could not oe very ill off so long as they were

etting it in the town.

2268.nbsp; Is the opinion held by the local authority of Clackmannan shared in general by the farmers of Clackmannan ?I have never heard a word against compulsory slaughter, never one word among the farmers.

2269.nbsp; Could you go so far as to say what is the opinion of the general body of farmers in Scotland ? I cannot say that ; I do not know.

2270.nbsp; Have you had any special opportunities of discussing the subject during the past year on any special occasion ?Not much, for ray own opinion was always decided.

2271.nbsp; But had you an opportunity at any of the shows, or anywhere else, of gathering opinions upon the subject ?Yes, I had an opportunity of meeting a number of Aberdeen breeders of high-class cattle at the Glasgow Show, and they came to me and asked what should be done, and I said there was nothing like slaughter; that they had better slaughter at once than slaughter after, for it would come lo that in the end. They asked me to go to Perth to attend a meeting the following day, but it was a coarse day, and I was afraid of getting cold, and did not go.

2272.nbsp; I gather then that your opinion is that it is in the interests of cattle owners at large that compulsory slaughter is the only safe course to adopt in order to stamp oat the disease ?Decidedly.

2273.nbsp; And am I correct in assuming also that that is the opinion of the Council of the Shorthorn Society which you represent ?Yes, quite so.

2274.nbsp; And which opinion you are authorised to state before this Committee, is that so ?Yes.

2275.nbsp; Are you aware whether the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in this country has a prejudicial influence, on the export of high-bred cattle to other countries?It is destroying the export of cattle from Scotland. We cannot send them to America.

2276.nbsp; Can you say anything more specific on that point ?Yes ; I met a gentleman in Glasgow in the month of March, and he arranged to come and see my shorthorns. I saw him again at Kilmarnock two months afterwards, and I said, quot; You have not come quot; down to see my shorthorns ; when are you coming quot; down ? quot; He said, quot; 1 cannot come down this timequot; I cannot take a beast from Scotland; I can from quot; England, but not from Scotland.quot;

2277.nbsp; Did he indicate his reasons ?He said he wanot allowed. He was prohibited from taking them inHe is an American. It is the United States that hrefers to.

2278.nbsp; nbsp;Did you gather that it was his own opiniothat it was dangerous for him to take them, or was ibecause he was prevented bv the law of the UniteStates ?He was prevented by the law; he gave nopinion of his own.

2279.nbsp; nbsp;To which law do'you refer?That no breeding animal should ho received into the States fro

Diseases Animals Act, 1878, as to its general application throughout the country ?How ?nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;g _May _1888-

2281.nbsp; Do you think that, if properly administered---------

by the local authorities, it would be effective in exter-minating the disease?In a short time it would, provided you made it very stringent in Ireland.

2282.nbsp; You would not say that the Act is to blame for tho existence of the disease, but the manner in which it is put in force ?It is entirely that.

2283.nbsp; Do you indicate by that that there is a want of uniform action amongst the local authorities?There is a great want of uniformity among local authorities, and they are very much blamed if they act up strictly to the law by other places where they do not act so strictly.

2284.nbsp; Is there, in your opinion, too much latituüe given to the local authorities ?The orders are not the same and they conflict, and we get the burden of it. We have been very strict in our county ; it is a small county; it could be very soon finished and kept clear. We have done it, and have kept it out of every farmer's byre.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

2285.nbsp; Is the recent order issued by the Privy Council more in the direction which you desire ?Entirely.

2286.nbsp; With regord to compensation, do you consider that that ought to be paid from Imperial or local sources ?I think it should be Imperial, but part from local sources.

2287.nbsp; And for what reason ?For the purpose ot those in the locality keeping down the charge as much as possible. They will keep down the charges if they have themselves to provide the money, and they will not do it for the Government. In everything of that kind something of that kind should be done.

2288.nbsp; Have you considered at any time the possibility of establishing a poll tax upon each animal ? It has never been talked of by us.

2289.nbsp; Would yon regard it with favour ; do you think that the owners of stock only should contribute to the fund, or that it should be imposed upon the community at large ?I would like to take that into consideration for some time. I could not give an answer just now.

2290.nbsp; A moment or two ago I thought you rather indicated that Scotland was suffering from want of proper watchfulness as regarded Ireland?I think we suffer from Ireland; we get the disease from there.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .

2291.nbsp; Therefore you desire that special restrictions should be applied to Ireland ?I think some restrictions should be applied to eradicate the disease from Ireland. Our county has not suffered. We have had no disease except among the dairy cows, and these cows do not come from Ireland; but \ye have prevented lots of people bringing Irish cattle into the county for fear of bringing disease. It is, perhaps, owing to our not being a large county that we owe our immunity from its not being brought in; we arc a small county.

2292.nbsp; Is there any breeding carried on m your county ? Yes, there is a fair amount of small farmers.

2293.nbsp; But a small number of feeding cattle must be purchased from outside sources ?Yes.

2294.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.) Do I understand you to say that the cattle you speak of as being diseased were cases in the Alloa dairies?All cases ia the AUoa dairies.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, t i o

2295.nbsp; And not from cattle coining from Ireland Y

__Not that I am aware of; not one of them came

direct from Ireland that I am aware of.

2296.nbsp; {Mr, Bowen-Jones.) I did not quite understand whether you said that the cattle that were inoculated in the February outbreak had pleuro-pneumonia afterwards ?No, they had not; not that I am aware of. They had no pleuro-pneumonia before they were inoculated, and the veterinary said to mo that they were doing well.

2297.nbsp; Would you prefer running the risk of having your pedigree cattle slaughtered under the slaughtering

Scotland,

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-rNBUMONIA AND TUBEUCULOS1S :

fnquot;.i

Mr. A. Mitchell

a May 188raquo;.

orders to having inoculivtion introduced into Scotland ? I think they were better slaughtered even with the loss. I think that the first loss is the easiest on these occasions.

2298.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) About the Act of 1878,1 think you told us that the principal fault, that you had to find in it was the want of uniformity ? Yes.

2299.nbsp; Would you suggest anything to the Committee ?I think that the Government should issue an order binding upon every county, the same order.

2300.nbsp; That is to say, that you would diminish the power that the local authorities have at present, and place more power in the hands of the Government or the Privy Council ?Yes, for the purpose of having uniformity. For instance, if wo saw we are going to lake cattle from a certain quarter, we should be compelled to say that no disease was there.

2301.nbsp; I was going to ask you whether you would take the power of making the regulations for the local movement of cattle from the present local authorities and give them to a central authority ?I think so.

2302.nbsp; As well as the question of slaughter ?Yes, and I think that it would be a good thing if the Government had an inspector o\\ two to go into the different counties to see if they were keeping up to t.he regulations; to look after the whole of us.

2303.nbsp; We have had a suggestion made here by a previous witness that there might be a sort of parliament, as he described it, of representatives from the different local authorities. Have you considered any scheme of that sort ?-I have not.

2304.nbsp; Therefore, you are not prepared to give an opinion ?That is quite new to me.

2305.nbsp; You are not prepared to agree to a proposal of that kind ?It might be all right, but I have not thought of it.

2306.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) You said that your opinion was decidedly in favour of slaughter as against inoculation ?Yes.

2307.nbsp; But what experience have you had of inoculation of animals ?I have had no personal experience. I never saw a beast inoculated. The only animals inoculated have been those six in our byre.

2308.nbsp; What do you base your opinion upon ? That if you slaughter the diseased animals you get to the bottom of the disease, and if you continue the inoculation it may go on ad infinitum.

2309.nbsp; You prolong the thing if you inoculate ? Yes; and we are never sure. One animal may take the virus, and another animal may not, just in the same way as a man that is vaccinated with the cow poxsometimes it holds, and sometimes it does not hold; and the same way with the virus in pleuro-pneumonia. I have no experience of it; but my opinion is that we will not get clear of it until we kill them out.

2310.nbsp; If wo suppose, for the sake of argument, as you have had no experience, that the slaughter is the basis of the experiments, what restrictions would you propose to put on cattle coming into the country to prevent the breaking out of the disease again ?Do you mean from foreign cattle ?

2311.nbsp; Yes. Take Scotland, for instance; supposing you had some outbreak of disease in Scotland, and you get rid of it by slaughtering, how do you propose to prevent cattle coming from Ireland and the Continent, and bringing it in again ?You must have some good security that those animals have come from sound stock.

2312.nbsp; What measures would you propose to ascertain their soundness?I would have an inspection, and have certificates as well.

2313.nbsp; Do you believe in the present system of certificates ?Perhaps they are not so stringent as tliey should be. I would make them as stringent as you could make them.

2314.nbsp; Do you think then it is possible to rely upon certificates, considering that human nature is what it is ?I think that if you had certificates, and that you

could rely upon them, it would bo good enough ; but it depends very much from whom you get the certificates, 2316. Then you do not rely upon it. Do you think that a plan which was suggested to us of branding the cattle with initial marks indicating the place that they come from would be superior ?It can do no harm. I never heard of it before.

2316.nbsp; It is the system practised in Australia ?It is something new to me.

2317.nbsp; Have you any proof or belief that the disease comes from Ireland ?Well, I have been told a good deal more than I have seen myself. I have told you that I have not had disease for 30 years, and that diseased stock, I think, came from Ireland. They came from a Dumfriesshire man, and I have heard lots of people complain of Irish cattle.

2318.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling) Do you say that yon have come to the conclusion that slaughtering would be best, because you think that it is the best method of stamping out the disease ?It is a sure method.

2319.nbsp; It is a sure method provided you can guarantee the disease is not re-introduced by new stock ?Yes.

2320.nbsp; Would you admit that there would be a great difficulty in getting that guarantee ?It will be very difficult, but it may be done with stringent rules and making them properly.

2321.nbsp; You have no experience of inoculation? None.

2322.nbsp; Then you have no personal knowledge of any case where an inoculated beast has conveyed the disease to another animal ?I have not.

2323.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing that veterinary science was satis-fled that the disease coidd not be carried from an inoculated to an uninoculated beast, would that alter your opinion as to the advisability of slaughtering ? It would depend upon the veterinary surgeons.

2324.nbsp; I did not say surgeons ; I said science ? I do not know.

2325_t Do you mean by that, that if the mass of the veterinary profession of the country took that view you would not agree with them ?I would still have my own views upon that.

2326.nbsp; You would not be prepared to trust to veterinary science ?Not so far as that. We often hear of doctors differing.

2327.nbsp; Yes, that is true; but I put it that if the mass of the profession were of that opinion ?Perhaps two or three were worth all the rest put together,

2328.nbsp; I think you said, in answer to a question by the Chairman, that you had noticed no derangement of the milk supply in your neighbourhood ?I have no doubt whatever' of parties getting milk from certain dairies; they are not very large dairies; 10 or 12 cows at an average in the town, I have no doubt that when these animals were taken away that the people would be inconvenienced for a day or two, until they had arranged for a fresh supply. But I never heard of anyone being very much put about. We have had no complaints.

2329.nbsp; Does not it strike you that, if this order bo carried out, it will mean a very serious loss, not so much to the consumer or the dairyman who has only six or eight cows, but the dairyman who has perhaps 50 or 60, or 100 cows. Will that not mean a very serious loss to such dairymen ?The loss may be far worse if you go on inoculating, and the milk becoming not sound; and, more than that, lots of families, on hearing of dairy stock being inoculated, cease taking the milk at once.

2330.nbsp; That is mere supposition ?I would not do it myself; I would not take milk from a dairy that had a diseased cow.

2331.nbsp; But I am not supposing a place where diseased cows are kept?If they are stamped with inoculation upon them, what can the milk be ?

2332.nbsp; You are under the belief that an inoculated cow must be a diseased cow ?Where the inoculation is it must be diseased. The cow must be diseased to a certain extent, or there would be no use for the inoculation. It would not take in the virus.

:sect;-v

-----nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _w

MTNDTKfi O' EVIDKNOK.

2333.nbsp; Whnt amount of breeding stock have the fkriners iu Clackmannan, wpeaking generally?Six, and eight, and ten cows, the most of the farmers.

2334.nbsp; nbsp;Do thoy breed them, or not ?They breed them, and buy calves.

2335.nbsp; If it could be proved to your satisfaction that by inoculation the county of Stirling saved two or three thousand pounds per annum on the rates, #9632;would you think that, in these hard times, it would be #9632;worth considering whether inoculation could bo safely introduced ?Everything is safe to be considered, bat 1 would be very difficult to satisfy.

2330. In answer to u question put by Sir George Maopherson Grant, you say your local authority was not represented at a meeting in Glasgow some years ago, when the question came up for discussion, as to the formation of a central authority from the Scottish Local Authorities?!, am not sure ; I cannot fix my mind with that just now. I rather think not.

2337.nbsp; nbsp;You have not understood my question; the question was the formation of a central board for the issue of orders regarding the treatment of cattle under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?It has not been thought of yet, but it looks a feasible thing at all events.

2338.nbsp; But the point was not brought directly before your notice ?It was not much discussed with us.

2339.nbsp; You did not think it was a move in the right direction ?No.

2340.nbsp; You would not consider it a move in the right direction ?No. I have always gone, and am still in favour of slaughtering out.

2341.nbsp; I do not think you gave us very distinct information, and though you spoke so particularly about the diseased cattle coming from Ireland; you said that the dairy cows amongst which the disease had broken out were not from Ireland ?No. I do not think they were from Ireland. They certainly were not direct from Ireland. I think that most of them were Ayrshire cows. I mean that breed.

2342.nbsp; And what reason have you for suspecting Ireland ?My reason is more from hearsay than anything else.

2343.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Do you assume that the means through which the disease may be communicated by Irish cattle is through the medium of Scotch fairs ? Well, it is very apt to spread in Scotland through the fairs. But I have seen Irish cattle among the Scotch fairs, and no disease in them.

2344.nbsp; With regard to this question of milk, are you aware that during the last two or three years milk has been carried very considerable distances by railways through Scotland?I know that; but with us we have several farmers in our own neighbourhood that have dairies, and they cart the milk into the towns, sometimes both morning and evening, and I do not think there is any want of milk.

2345.nbsp; Although you have had no personal experience of Inoculation, you are treating it here in your capacity of an administrator of the Act ?Yes.

2346.nbsp; And as a member of a local authority, and also as a large stockowner ?Yes.

2347.nbsp; You have admitted to Professor Horsley that there would be a considerable risk, or some risk, at any

rate, even if you did slaughter, from the importation o£ animals from other countries ?Yes.

2348.nbsp; And you bave also shown that that danger might exist quite independently of the closest inspection ?It might. It could not bo so much with us.

2349.nbsp; How was cattle plague got rid of ia this country?By slaughter. I had an attack of cattle plague. 1 cleared out my farm entirely.

2350.nbsp; How was foot-and-mouth disease got rid of ? Well, I never had foot-and-mouth disease but once, and it was a great many years ago, and I did not slaughter there ; T treated.

2351.nbsp; Are you aware that towards the final close of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease slaughtering was adopted ?I believe it was, but not with us.

2352.nbsp; Are you aware that since that time there has been neither foot-and-mouth disease nor cattle plague in the country ?There has been nothing of the kind for a number of years.

2353.nbsp; Although you have admitted that there may be some risk from the re-introduction of disease after slaughter; ia it your opinion that there would be much greater risk remaining by inoculation ?Certainly.

2354.nbsp; (Mr. Botoen-Jones.) You know that the Act of 1878 provides that a country that is suspected as diseased, or is suspected of having disease, is not allowed to send cattle into this country ?Yes.

2355.nbsp; On that account, that being the case, do you think that there is much risk of disease being imported ?If that was strictly looked after the risk would much lessened.

2356.nbsp; But from ibreign countries ?Even from foreign countries.

2357.nbsp; Ireland is not on the same footing, you are aware ?I know.

2358.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Horsley.) About inoculation, you think that an animal that has been inoculated is tainted, you say ?I think that it must be tainted. I do not see any use of the animal being inoculated unless the taint of the disease is there.

2359.nbsp; nbsp;A.re you aware that milk has been supplied from such so-called tainted animals ?No; but I would not drink it.

2360.nbsp; Of course you do not consider an animal in which the inoculation Las failed is a tainted animal ? Well, it would take some time for me to think of that.

2361.nbsp; Are you aware that the milk supplied from inoculated animals has not been shown to have caused disease ?I am not aware of that, but for myself I would not touch it.

2362.nbsp; That is your only reason ?But I would judge of other people by myself.

2363.nbsp; Are you aware that the other diseases which have been stamped out are not of the same class as this pleuro-pneumonia ?They are different; they show much quicker. The loss by pleuro-pneumonia is so insidious and hangs about the beast so long before it shows, but with the rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease it tells at once.

2364.nbsp; That is what I mean ; the application of remedies is not the same in the two diseases?No, and hence it is a more insidious disease to work upon from the slowness of it.

Mr. A. MitvheU.

3 May 1888.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. G. M. Allender (of Stammerham, Horsham, Sussex) was called and examined.

Mr. 0. M.

Allender

2365.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Yo'i live at Stammerhain, near J lorsham, in the county of Sussex ?1 do.

2366.nbsp; You are a member of Council of the lloyal Agricultural Society of England, and the past President of the London Fanners' Club ?Yes.

2307. I believe you are a life member of the principal agricultural societies of Prance and Germany ? Yes.

2308. For how long have you been a practical 't'armer ?About 30 years.

2369.nbsp; And during that time have you paid special attention to cattle management ?Yes, constantly.

2370.nbsp; Where did you commence farming ?In Buckinghamshire.

2371.nbsp; nbsp;In the dairy districts of Buckinghamshire ? Yes.

f'.'

OOMMITTHB ON Vl.BURO-VNl'IÜMONIA ANü TUBEBOULOSIS

Mr. G. M.

Allimder,

3 Muy 1Ü88.

2372.nbsp; In what year ?In 1869. , , _TT ...

2373.nbsp; And you continued there how long i¹Until 1867, about seven or eight years.

2374.nbsp; nbsp;Whnt was your general system ot tanning t The production of butter.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,_oa.

2375.nbsp; Did the outbreak of the cattle plague in 18bo have any influence on your management ?Yes, I sold every head of cattle I had immediately 1 heard

2370. And did you subsequently give up your farm

there ?I did.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. _ ,,.,..,

2377.nbsp; nbsp;What was your next move rI estabusnea the Aylesbury Dairy Company in the early part of

18G6.

2378.nbsp; And since that time, 22 years or more, you have been the managing director of that company ?

Yes.

2379 How was London supplied with milk previous to this time ?Principally from cows kept in London until they were nearly all destroyed at the timlaquo;; of the cattle plague in 1865.

2380.nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean to convey to the Committee your opinion that the cattle plague in 1865 was the direct cause of London being supplied from the country instead of from cowsheds in the city i¹I es, I do not, however, suppose that London could now be supplied from cowsheds in London, quite apart from any regulations and laws to the contrary, because London is now so very much larger. But that in the first instance caused milk to be brought to London from the country.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. i u

2381.nbsp; From how many cows does the Aylesbury Dairy Company derive its supply of milk ?I should say about 4,000.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;tw i

2382.nbsp; nbsp;That is entirely from the country ?Lntirely from the country, with the exception of about a fortnight in the vear, for the Jews during Passover. They require to have the cows milked in the presence of one of their own people, and at that time we keep a few cows in London because the Chief Eabbi will not permit any Jew to travel during the Passover, so that he could not see the cows mUked at the farm.

2383.nbsp; And they are purchased specially for that purpose, are they ?Specially for that purpose. Every vessel that is used must be newnever used before for any purposeevery tin that is used, milking pails, and everything, are inspected by the official from the Synagogue to see that they are new ; and he sees the cows milkfd, and he has labels with Hebrew characters upon them, with which he seals every can before it is sent to the house of the strict Jews.

2384.nbsp; What becomes of the cows afterwards ?As a rule they are sold; they are simply purchased for that purpose.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

2385.nbsp; From what distance do you receive most ot your milk ?In the winter we go as far as Cheshire, From 70 to 80 miles is about the limit during summer.

2380. In conpequence of taking so much milk from so many different sources, and necessarily over so larquot;e an area, do you exercise any conlrol other than over the actual quality of the milk ?Yes ; we never take milk from any farm until that farm has been inspected by our engineer, and also by the medical officer of health for the district, as to the water supply, condition of buildings, and all sonitary questions connected with the farm; and we refuse, I should say, two out of three farms.

2387.nbsp; With regard to the quality of the milk, have yon a daily check upon that ?Yes. We have our own laboratory, in which last year over 20,000 analyses were made.

2388.nbsp; nbsp;Is it done upon any special system ?Yes.

2389.nbsp; Is it done daily ?It is done daily.

2390.nbsp; From every farm?Yes. Our analyst is solely in our employ, and he is a Vice President of the Society of Public Analysts; he does not work for anyone else ; wo have our own laboratory.

2391.nbsp; Have you observed whether the principle of feeding has any great influence upon the milk supply ?

2392. In quality, of course ?In quality it aftects the fat, but it does not greatly affect the solids not fat.

2393,. But can your analyst detect at once the fat in comparing the milk of one farm with another ? Yes. For instance, if a farmer runs out of cake or other food for a few days we notice a diminution in the per-centago of fat.

2394.nbsp; Have you had any experience of cowkeeping in London ?Yes.

2395.nbsp; For how many years?Prom 1872 until the second outbreak of cattle plague in London, which, I think, was in 1877. When the second outbreak took place in London we stopped, and did not resume for some years until five or six years ago. We found increasing difficulties in supplying the demand for the quantity of milk for our Jewish customers, and we renewed our license for our sheds in London, and kept a few cows, generally about a dozen.

2396.nbsp; Whilst you kept cows in London as a source of supply, had you any experience of outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia ? Yes, very considerable experience.

2397.nbsp; Had you considerable losses thereby ?Yes, in the first instance. We bought the sheds, we took the man's stock and bought other cows, and we had to clear all, or nearly all, out in consequence of pleuro.

2398.nbsp; nbsp;Was your treatment of a curative or preventive character ?After we had pleuro-pneumonia, which was then so prevalent all over London, we placed our sheds and the cows entirely in the hands of the late Mr. Priestman, who had a very large cattle practice amongst the dairy people. He was a great advocate for inoculation, and we allowed him to do just as he pleased. He had merely a note sent to him from the office when cows were purchased, and he used his own discretion as to when he went. He generally went within a fortnight to the sheds to inoculate the cows within a fortnight after we purchased them.

2399.nbsp; What was your first experience, did you clear off your cows?They chiefly died.

2400.nbsp; What happened to the rest ? There was a whole clearance, do you mean?No, we had our sheds entirely cleared but once.

2401.nbsp; And after that Mr. Priestman began to inoculate ? Yes, and as we purchased cows he inoculated them.

2402.nbsp; How many years did that continue? I think, probably between two and three years.

2403.nbsp; Did that inoculation apply to the whole stock, or only to the animals in contact?For all. When we purchased three or four or half-a-dozen cows, Mr. Priestman was notified, and he inoculated them.

2404.nbsp; Had you much loss amongst the cows from inoculation ?quot;We lost animals from the actual operation of inoculation, once or twice, I think. Once I remember, and, I think, more. We lost tails.

2405.nbsp; In spite of inoculation did the disease still continue or diminish?It continued.

2406.nbsp; And what did you do after that, did you persevere in inoculation ?Our experience is a matter of history, because it is referred to in the veterinary reports of the Agricultural Department. Wc had several instances of cows being attacked, so long as a year after inoculation, and frequently three or four months.

2407.nbsp; Did you persevere with the inoculation ? No, we abandoned it entirely.

2408.nbsp; After two years ?Between two and three years.

2409.nbsp; What preventive measures did you then adopt ?We established a system of observing internal temperature.

2410.nbsp; Did you apply this test to all your cows ? Every cow in the place.

2411.nbsp; How frequently?I cannot say whether it was two or three times a week, but it was regular on the same day, it was all tabulated. The cows were numbered and entered in a book, in the left-hand

M 3

#9632;f'!laquo;!

In quality ?

Iquot;

MINUTES OF EVIDKNCK.

columu the numbers of the cows were plaoed, and the temperature as it was taken, so that we could see a cow's temperature for weeks together.

2412.nbsp; You took the tomperaturo of animals quot;raquo; a normal condition ; but in the event of seeing au animal off its food or otherwise In an abnormal condition, did you then take the temperature also ?Yes ; and if we found the temperature rise from 102 to 103, the temperatuio of that animal was taken every two or three hours until it either rose to over 104 or 104^, or returned to its normal condition.

2413.nbsp; What was your action when it arrived at 104 and upwards?We sold instantly.

2414.nbsp; Was the animal sold for slaughter?'Ihat #9632;was no business of ours. We sent for the man with whom we dealt, and he took the cow.

2415.nbsp; And I presume you had a post-mortem ?

No.

2416.nbsp; Do you mean to say you never followed the case further ?Certainly not.

2417.nbsp; Why not ?Because we were perfectly certain that most of the animals whose temperature rose to 104 ^ were in the early stage of pleuro-pneumonia. We also knew, of course, that occasionally an animal would show that temperature from other causes, but I knew it was better policy to run the risk of occasionally selling an animal that might not be in the early stage of pleuro, and so prevent the chance lt; of keeping raquo;n animal until she actually was afifected.

I was not going to have my resolution broken by seeing occasionally a sound lung which I might have done. Our cows being always in high condition, a cow being slaughtered was in good condition; they were beef if not suffering from pleuro. There was no great loss to us in the matter.

2418.nbsp; As a matter of fact, did you lose many after adopting this test ?We occasionally had a cow run up to a high temperature, and we sold her ; but we never had a general outbreak.

2419.nbsp; Had you never another outbreak ?No ; we did not keep them until they became dangerous.

2420.nbsp; I presume that the disease is only communicated by contact by inhaling the exhalations of other diseased animals ?Yes.

2421.nbsp; Am I correct in assuming that your comparative immunity from a large outbreak of disease is due to taking the temperature and never allowing the atmosphere of the cowhouse to become saturated with diseased exhalations ?Certainly.

2422.nbsp; In addition to the farmraquo; in the occupation of others that supply milk to the Aylesbury Dairy Company, you have, 1 believe, a farm which you manage on behalf of your company ?Yes.

2423.nbsp; That is situated, at Stammerham ?Yes ; near Horsham.

2424.nbsp; What size is your estate there ?1,400 acres.

2425.nbsp; How much arable and how much grass have you there?After deducting woods150 acresit is then about half and half.

2426.nbsp; For what great object do you carry on your farming operations ?For the production of milk and cream for the business in London, and the breeding of good stock for sale.

2427.nbsp; How many head of cattle have you there ? 1 think the last week's return was 440 or 450.

2428.nbsp; Are they of any particular breed ?There are four or five principal breeds kept pure and distinct: Shorthorns, Jerseys, Norfolk Polls, Sussex, and Kerries,

2429.nbsp; Out of 450 how many are there of these cows in milk ?We have two sheds for 80 each, and they are generally full, making 160, so that we have about 220 or 230 cows at the present moment.

2430.nbsp; In what form is the produce of these cows disposed of?Principally in the form of cream.

243L And where ?Through our business in London.

2432. Would you describe to the Committee the special system of inanagement of those cows ?With regard to their food ? o 64008.

2433.nbsp; Yes ; and including sanitary and nil arrangements?The sheds have boon very carefully built. I think our cows have about 1,200 cubic feet per cow of space. The drain outlets go only as far as the wall of the building ; that is to say, they discharge immediately they get through the wall, and do not communicate with any underground drainage. They discharge on the top of open gullies. We are very particular about the mangels ; we have water and food in the same mangers, so that the cows after feeding are watered, and the water must be let off before food is given to them again; we thus get absolutely clean mangers. These are made of Staffordshire hard brick and Portland cement.

2434.nbsp; How many cows have you in each shed ? Eighty.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2435.nbsp; How many men do you employ in the management of the cows ?We give a man and a boy for 20 cows; they are in blocks of 20.

2436.nbsp; Do they do any other work on the farm ? No, except to fetch food for the cattle from the depftt.

2437.nbsp; Are they under any special form of regulations ?Yes ; they are under the charge of a foreman and sub-foreman, and they are obliged to wash before milking; and once a week, on any day, our medical inspector goes when he thinks proper, without warning, and they are inspected by him. He comes at any time in the dny, and he does this once a week. He sees every man and boy in the sheds and in the dairy.

2438.nbsp; nbsp;Can other men on the farm or strangers go into that shed ?No, they are locked. The men employed as milkers cannot even get in when they are once cleaned and shut up. There are only three keys about the place, the foreman in charge has one, our farm manager has one, and I have one, and we do not allow an ordinary farm hand to go into the sheds from 1st of January to the 3lst December.

2439.nbsp; nbsp;I gather therefore that you attach very great importance to preserving strict sanitary conditions in connexion with your management ?That is the life and soul of the whole thing.

2440.nbsp; In the event of an ailment in those dairies do you adopt the temperature test ?Yes ; we have a set of loose boxes which are specially used in conjunction with the sheds, and if a cow is in any way ailing or not feeding properly, or affected in any way, she is immediately removed into one of those boxes, and then the cowshed people do not attend to her.

2441.nbsp; Have you ever had an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia on the farm ?No.

2442.nbsp; From your experience of inoculation in your London sheds, have you been induced to attempt inoculation upon your farm ?No ; I should not think ofit.

2443.nbsp; What is the system by which you keep up your stock of cows?We breed. We do not purchase at all.

2441. You never purchase ?We never purchase, except under very extraordinary circumstances, and when we do so we put them in quarantine. We buy bulls occasionally, but they always come to us in a horse-box, and they are kept for a certain length of time in quarantine.

2445.nbsp; What period is your quarantine ?Only about a month,

2446.nbsp; Do you consider that, in the event of a compulsory order for the slaughter of all animals in contact -with diseased animals being carried out, there would be any difficulty in supplying the public with the necessary daily requirements of milk ?Not the slightest.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2447.nbsp; Have you had any great experience of supplying a sudden increased demand ?It would be simply to divert certain milk used for cheese-making and selling it as milk It would he merely a matter

of price.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , /. 1

2448.nbsp; Is there any special period ot tne year in London when milk is in greater demand than at others, and from any special cause?It is always short of supply in the month of November and early

Mr. G. M.

AUenUer.

3 May 18*8,

COMMITTKK ON I'LKUUO-l'NEUMONIA AND TUBBBOULOSIB :

Mr. G. if.

Allender.

raquo; May 1888.

had time in so short a period as over two or three

in December. Of course the demand in tlio London

dSMOU at the West End is greatest. Comparing a

years.

week at the end of Juno with a week at the end of August, the demand is rather less than one half.

2449.nbsp; quot;Would the system of compulsory slaughter tend to increase the price of milk quot;i¹Not to the

public.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ._ffi

2450.nbsp; Have you formed any opinion ot the dim-cultics resulting from slaughter compared with inoculation ?No.

2451.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that compensation lor slaughter should be paid from local or Imperial sources ?Imperial.

2452.nbsp; nbsp;In conjunction with that would you think that the administration of the Act ought to bo Imperial rather than local ?Yes.

2453.nbsp; But you must have some local machinery ? Yes; under headquarters.

2454.nbsp; In addition to your ordinary business have yon any commercial relations with foreign countries with reference to the live stock of the farm?Yes; we export whenever wo can get a chance.

2455.nbsp; What effect do you think the frequent outbreaks of pleiiro-pneumonia have upon the breeders of other countries ?The existence of it is fatal to trade with foreign countries ; and I think that we should have a very great increase in business if foreigners could be sure that the Government would take it in hand and free the country. We have done it with foot-and-mouth disease, and that has encouraged foreigners to come here to a great extent.

2456.nbsp; With what countries have you recently been trading with stock ?France, Germany, India, and, with other stock, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and South America.

2457.nbsp; Are you aware of the objection that foreign importers generally entertain with regard to the inoculation of animals for pleuro-pneumonia ? I believe they have a very strong objection indeed ; in fact, they will not admit them for a very considerable period after inoculation.

2458.nbsp; Do you consider, if by any means the health of cattle in this country could be assured, that not only the home breeder but the consumer also would be very greatly benefited ?Yes, I think so.

2459.nbsp; If that be so, then what, in your opinion, would be the best thing, in the interests of the nation at large, to be done under present circumstances ? To clear out pleuro-pneumoniato stamp it out.

2460.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) You said in one of your early answers that the Aylesbury Dairy Company had 4,000 cows ?No; we have 40 or 50 farms from which we take milk ; and sometimes in some seasons of the year it runs to a greater number.

2461.nbsp; How many farms do you suppose you have had to refuse as not passing the inspection of which you spoke ?I should think two out of three.

2462.nbsp; From what cause? Principally from the water supply.

2463.nbsp; From the badness of the water supply ? Yes.

2464.nbsp; You lay stress on the water supply?We have the water analysed from every source from which they use it, and it is a very rare thing to get a good water supply on a farmto find a safe water supply.

2405.nbsp; In speaking of the time when you tried inoculation for pleuro, how many years ago was that ? It would be in 1872, 1873, and 1874.

2406.nbsp; nbsp; Had Mr. Priestman much experience in inoculation ?A very large one i he did the whole of the work of London.

2467. One of the largest ?The largest.

2168. Did I understand you to say that you once or twice lost cattle from the effects of inoculation ? Yes, 1 have once or twice; the inflammation proceeded so fai

2470.nbsp; Well, the animals that you inoculated m the arlier part of your experiment at the time when you ere trying inoculation, they were with you, I supose, to the extent of a couple of years ?But we ever possessed them so long if we had an attack, he animals would always be cleared out.

2471.nbsp; I thought in 1872, 1873, and 1874 you tried inoculation ?Yes.

2472.nbsp;But what did you do with the cow that was inoculated ?If she was attacked with pleuro-pneumonia she was sold; we never gave her a chance of recovery.

2473.nbsp; Did you ever have a case of a cow that was inoculated being attacked with pleuro-pneumonia ? Severalmany, very many.

2474.nbsp; Then the inoculation had not taken properly ? __Yes; Mr. Priestman considered it had taken properly. Mr. Priestman was perfectly satisfied with his cases, and I think in answering this question before, that I mentioned cases of twelve months to three months and four months.

2475.nbsp; After inoculation ?Yes; we did not control Mr. Priestman's movements in the slightest j he had carte blanche,

2476.nbsp; Then, when you gave up inoculation and took to the system of using the thermometer and registering the temperature of the cows, I understand you sold every beast when the temperature began to rise to 104 ?When the temperature rose to 104 and was maintained at that we sold the animal.

2477.nbsp; Then you virtually sold your animals before you were certain that they had pleuro-pneumonia ? Yes,

2478.nbsp; For that reason you never had another outbreak of the disease ?Certainly.

2479.nbsp; In your experience of the country districts would the dairy farmers not find it very difficult, in the event of their cows being slaughtered, to get a milk supply suddenly ? Individually farmers might be inconvenienced.

2480.nbsp; Therefore if this slaughtering order was carried out throughout the country generally, would it not mean a good deal of inconvenience and loss to the individual dairy farmers throughout the country ? Well, if a man is sending the milk from a given number of cows to London, and these cows are slaughtered by order, of course he could no longer send the milk.

2481.nbsp; It would be a clear loss to him of his whole business?No; he would be compensated^ and he could purchase fresh cows as soon as his premises were clear.

2482.nbsp; But we have been told by a dairyman that he would lose his business because it would go else-#9632;^jre ?_i do not see that. I am only speaking from our own case. If a man's farm was sufficiently well managed it would not be so. We have a clause in our contract that a farmer shall not, under a very heavy penalty, send us any milk from a cow that is ailing in any way or that is under physic. We also have a clause that his contract shall not be put in force against him _kif he is unfortunately unable to supply on account of an outbreak of disease. If it were a well-conducted farm, as soon as he again put himself in a position to send the milk we should not only take it, but we would be bound to take it under our contract.

2483. Then you spoke of the disadvantage that the breeders in this country were under owing to the restrictions of other countries and their dislike to receive inoculated cattle. Do you think that if the animals in dairies were only moved from the dairy to the slaughter-house in consequence of inoculation, do you think that those disabilities would not be removed ?There would be no objection provided that

t I

wo did not send inoculated animals to tlie Colony.

2469. It proceeded upwards. But did you ever know a case where the disease broke

We only have to deal with the animals that we wish

time iu an inoculated animal? No, we scarcely

to send.

MINUTES Or EV1DBN0K.

2484.nbsp; But what I wish to put to you is this: That if tlus Amoricans, for instance, knuw that no inoeulated animal coulil stir from a bjTQ except to the slaughtor-houso, would they then have any objection to roceivo our breeding cattle ?If we did not send those that had boon inoculated, lie would have no objoction. It is the actual act of inoculation to which they object,

2485.nbsp; Quite. Then in the dairy interest it -would bo best not to carry out this extensive slaughter of dairy stock, and if you could frame two sets of rules,

2499.nbsp; Tho direct loss from inoculation you thought amounted to ono or two auiumls ?i 68.

2500.nbsp; Can you give tho Committee an idea ol tho total number of animals in the sheds during six years ? I cannot. I could give it absolutoly correct from books, but I could not give it now.

2501.nbsp; I think that it would bo important to have tho por-contago of loss ?Well, 1 think that you could not have a better evidence than that which

in print with regard to that in tho reports of the

Mr. G. M

Altender.

3 May 188laquo;,

one 'for dairy stock and one for breeding stock, tho objection of foreign dealers would be removed?I cannot imagine any dairyman objecting to the slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia.

2486.nbsp; {Professor Horsleij.) You said that, wheu Sir. Pricstomn was inoculating from 1872 to 1875, he often would inoculate a new animal within 14 days of its arrival ?Yes.

2487.nbsp; Then you had actually introduced into your place an animal that had not been inoculated some-limes for that period ?Well, Mr. Priestman used entirely his own discretion. He had a Tory large practice in London, and the moment cows were purchased an official note was sent to Mr. Triestman, saying that we had purchased ono ov two or half-a-do/,en cows, and Mr. Priestman would, at his convenience, inoculate those cows. There was no reason why he should not go the next day, but I have no information of the days on which he did it. It was a matter entirely as it suited him, sometimes ho may not have had a lung ready, or some other reason.

2488.nbsp; Did he ever refuse to inoculate the cow because he thought that it had the disease ?Not of my own knowledge,

2489.nbsp; Do you know whether any of the outbreaks in the sheds during the inoculation period -were traceable directly to those cows introduced, or was it due to the disease breaking out in the cows tha,t had been in the shed a long time ?I do not quite catch the meaning of your question.

2490.nbsp; Let me put it in this way. If you bought a cow in January it was duly inoculated, and it remained in your sheds until June, and then you brought some more cows, and then you found the cows that you had had pleuro-pneumonia?Yes.

2491.nbsp; Could you ever trace that outbreak, to the most recently bought cows ?We have no record of that.

2492.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee where you think that you got the disease from ? Where did the cow come from ?We bought the disease.

2493.nbsp; But you could not trace tho cows ?No, we bought the disease. In those days the whole of the cows that were supplied to cow-keepers in London came through the hands of a very limited number of dealers ; the dealers' yards and sheds were never free from disease ; in fact, the disease was general.

2494.nbsp; I asked that question because I want to come to that point. Do you think that your own sheds became infected ?1 do not believe in buildings being infected.

2495.nbsp; That is, you do not believe in a shed or byro being infected ?No.

2496.nbsp; nbsp;But that the disease must come in from a living animal ?Yes, I am very clear on that point.

2497.nbsp; When yon had pleuro-pneumonia during that period, had you any evidence as to the mode of infection ?No.

2498.nbsp; You cannot tell whether you got it from the air or from tho food or the clothes of a herdsman ? Our impression was, and I think we were tolerably right, that it was from tho breath of the infected animals. The sheds were old fashioned, and tho animals' heads were within a short distance of tho wall, and when one animal was affected, tho air from it would bo blown along the wall by the opening and shutting of tho doors ; and thus there would be n beautiful current for carrying the disease. In constructing a byre I would never put the animals' heads against the wall.

veterinary department.

2502.nbsp; How long is it since

you began your own

reports ?14 or 15 years.

2503.nbsp; Before those days I suppose they are almost cleared nway ?It might be possible to find them, but I think they will have gone to tho people for waste-paper.

2504.nbsp; You could not give a por-ccntage of loss at present ?No ; I say it is on record, and therefore it can bo got at easily.

2505.nbsp; You state that under certain circumstances yon saw tho disease appear in cows that had been inoculated and kept in the sheds, did you see that tho milk was in any way altered from those cows ?I believe that in some cases it was, but the general result is almost a cessation of milk.

2506.nbsp; When the disease actually appears ?Yes.

2507.nbsp; But you had no evidence whatever that the milk caused disease in the human being ?No.

2508.nbsp; Have you had reason to suppose so ?I mean to say that I should not permit for a minute the milk of an animal suffering from any ailment to bo used for food.

2509.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. Macpherson Grant,') As regards the supply of milk except in cold weather, you do not go beyond 70 or 80 miles?I made the remark about tho winter in my answer to tho Chairman, but it is not so much the weather as that in the winter season of the year the produce of milk of individual farms is less, and therefore one has to go further afield to get the supply; and when I mentioned Cheshire, it is a case of three or four farms on the estate of Lord Tollemacho, great cheese-making farms. In that season of the year they are not making cheese, and they are willing to sell to us when we are short of milk, during the time that the production of milk is small. Therefore we go to these farms just to take the milk at that time when we are most short of the home-producer, and they are willing to sell milk until they have sufficient to make cheese.

2510.nbsp; My question was more in reference to the supply of the public being interfered with by slaughter ; I wanted to ask yon, seeing that you limited your distance to 70 or 80 miles, if you had serious objection to bringing it a much longer distance ?Not the slightest. The only reason is the time; an express train bringing it 80 miles would be as good as a slow train bringing it 20 miles.

2511.nbsp; It is purely a matter of time?The distance does not affect it.

2512.nbsp; And therefore tho supply to the public would not be affected, would it ?It is purely a matter of time between the milking and distributing to tho public.

2513.nbsp; Would it be more expensive coming from a greater distance ?Yes, that is a question of railway rates, live farthings and three halfpence a gallon.

2514.nbsp; As far as the quality of milk is concerned, that would not be affected by tho longer distance ? Not in the slightest.

2515.nbsp; Then with regard to the breeding stock for market, Mr. Stirling has suggested that, if the inoculation were confined to dairy stock, and that the animals were only allowed to leave for the slaughter-house, ho asked if that would remove tho American objection to inoculation ?If I were an American I would answer the question, but I am not.

2510. I want to put it' not as regards the American's objection to inoculation, but do you suppose that it would in any way remove the American's objection to taking the cattle from this country on account of the

K 2

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AMD TUBERCULOSIS!

Mr, G. M.

Allender.

3 May 1388

risk of uleui'oi¹That in not a question which I can answer; it is purely a matter of legislation on the other

side.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . .

2517.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) I want to ascertain it you probably would approve the inoculation ?No, I do

2518.nbsp; (Mr. Botoen-Jones.) You tell the Committee that some of the cows that were properly inoculated contracted pleuro-pneumonia a year after the inocu-lution ?I believe there is one case on record as near us possible one year after inoculation.

2519.nbsp; And from your knowledge of the disease, do you tliink it possible that that animal, or those animals, as the case may be, had contracted the disease betöre thev came into your shed ?No ; I think they con-tracted it afterwards, after being inoculated and being exposed to animals that had it, and therefore took it although inoculated.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;... ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;., ,

2520.nbsp; I suppose you do not wish it tobe considered that yoiir temperature test was a means of ridding you of pleuro-pneumonia ?Decidedly I do.

2521.nbsp; You do?Most certainly.

2522.nbsp; And why do you advocate stronger measures ? Well I think tliis could be donethat a very considerable check could be kept by observing carefully the temperature, but I query whether it would be wise from a practical point of view. For instance, if it were, put to me : quot; You have got pleuro in 'lt; your herd ; we slaughter only the animals actually quot; suffering, and we will put your herd under obser-quot; vation. and we will take the temperature, and quot; merely slaughter the cows as we find their tem-quot; perature becomes high ; we will give you the choice laquo; of doing that or slaughtering at once. I should laquo;ay quot; Slaughter at once, and relieve me from being laquo; under observation.quot; As long as you are under official observation you would be boycotted, and, therefore, from a trader's point of view, I should take it that it would be better to slaughter at once.

2523.nbsp; nbsp;You stated you never had an outbreak ot pleuro after you took the temperature precautions ? I mean a number of animaisan outbreakI do not mean a single animal.

2524.nbsp; That leads up to whnt I was going to ask you What per-centage of the cows were sold that attained a temperature of 104?All that exceeded

104deg;.

2525.nbsp; Did you continue selling at 104 temperature up to the time that you abandoned the dairy in

2532.nbsp; Do you consider there would be any groat waste of meat to the consumers of the country by slaughtering out cattle that had been in contact with those affected by disease ?No, because the difference in value between lenn and fat stock is now not great. Feeding stuffs are so cheap that milking animals are kept in much better condition than formerly.

2533.nbsp; And in your dairy they are always fat ? Yes, anyone of our cows may be sold.

2534.nbsp; And very little loss would arise, would it? Very little.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

2535.nbsp; (Lord Cloncurry.) With respect to those cows which you kept for the use of the Jews. When they have served their purpose do you sell thorn as a matter of fact to the butcher or to other dairymen ? We sell them to a dealer; very probably the dealer from whom we purchased them.

2536.nbsp; And you do not know whether he sells them to another dairyman or a butcher ?No ; in fact, if we could got a man to rent them to us we should hire them.

2537.nbsp; Would there bo any great hardship or any great difficulty in keeping cows once affected with pleuro-pneumonia in a dairy for milking purposes, and never allowing them to go out except for slaughtering purposes ?There would be no loss.

2538.nbsp; No loss to the dairy owner ?No, because they all keep them iu good condition.

2539.nbsp; And therefore the dairyman, if he was required to have his cow killed as soon as she ceased giving milk, would suffer no hardship ?No great hardship.

2540.nbsp; And that law might be passed for the whole country ?I think so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;...

2541.nbsp; Were you able to trace the previous history of any of those cows when they became diseased ? There was not the slightest chance.

2542.nbsp; In the matter of pleuro-pneumonia, have you any experience in cattle other than dairy cows in the case of an outbreak ?No.

2543.nbsp; Only cows ?Only cows.

2544.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) About the outbreak which occurred ill March, 1874, in your cowsheds at Bayswater, do you happen to recollect that at that time when you bought in a fresh animal they were always put in another shed before they were inoculated ?They were.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , j

2545.nbsp; And they were never moved from that shed until Mr. Priestman said that they were fit ?That was so. It held about eight cows.

2546.nbsp; Do you remember also that in one lot of six cows which you bought in November, 1873, that Mr. Priestman suspected that some of them had come from an infected herd ?No, I do not remember.

2547.nbsp; That in the third lot of six cows which you purchased at the end of 1873 and in the early part of February, 1874, one of the lot after inoculationthey were all inoculated and kept apart till the time that they recoveredwas taken ill, but afterwards recovered, and was subsequently put into the shed ?I have not any personal recollection of it, for, of course, having a lot of other work to attend to, and having placed the matter entirely in Mr. Priestman's hands, I left it very much to him and to the people who had charge of it. 1 could not remember so far back the particulars of any individual animal.

2548.nbsp; But you will probably remember that during the whole of that time for some months I was watching the sheds and noting the precautions that were taken for the inoculated animals, and making observations with a thermometer and taking drawings of the animals' tails in difierent conditions ?I do not remember that case. I remember placing the sheds at your disposal.

2549.nbsp; I ask the question in this form to get the matter out. Do you recollect that on the 6th March another animal of the same lot was attacked with illness which afterwards turned out to be pleuro-pneumonia ?I recollect some very interesting circumstances attaching to one or two lots of cows, but I have no mental record of it and I do not know that

i'-

I'-

London ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , ,

2526. And it is fair to assume that you did not stamp out the disease? We did not abandon the dairy in London from fear of keeping cows ; there was not the slightest fear with regard to pleuro-pneumonia. We abandoned the dairy suddenly at a very few hours' notice. There was a second outbreak in

1877.

2627.nbsp; Of cattle plague ?Yes, I heard of it in the forenoon and before night every animal that we possessed in our sheds in London had been sold, and 1 sold them for what I could getfor a lump sum.

2628.nbsp; You made that clear before ?I did not tear of continuing to keep them in London. I considered that if we continued to keep them in London we could check pleuro by continuing the observation of the temperature.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ^r -a

2529.nbsp; Your expression now confarms what i saia before, that you could only keep pleuro in cheek, but not get rid of it, by acting upon the system pursued with regard to the temperature ?Oh, no, only

in check.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2530.nbsp; Do you think there would be any dimcuity in supplying the temporary wants of the public in milk, in case of stamping out by slaughtering?! think not. I have not the slightest doubt that it would be made use of to raise the price, but I see

no difficulty.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , i n . x i

2631. If a dairyman unfortunately had all hm stock slaughtered, would not it be possible to make subcontracts with neighbours to supply any contract he

had entered into ?I think so.

MINUTES OF EVIDBNOfi.

1 have miy written record of it, but I know at the time that it was o thing to which a great deal ot interest was attached.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

256(1. And you do not remember, probably, that this animal, slaughtered by the local authority, was found to have pleuro pneumonia, and laquo;raquo;laquo; ^ln ⁸laquo;raquo;quot; cession eight animals were attacked up to about the middle of May 1874?-tes, I have a very clear recollection of a lot of eight animals being attacked pretty nearly at one time within a month, and that they had been inoculated by Mr. Pnestman at different times whenever they had come into the place.

2551 And among these animals attacked witn pleuro-pneutnonia ill rapid succession there were inoculated cows that had been inoculated at different periods from one year to three months ?1 have a clear recollection of that.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2552.nbsp; Are you aware that the lungs of all those cows were examined by mo when they were slaughtered ?

Yes.

2553.nbsp; After that experience you abandoned inoculation ?--Entirely.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

2554.nbsp; And you took to adopting the process whicü we described at the time as a process of isolation by the use of the thermometer ?Yes, and I think from a suggestion of yours, when you were investigating the effects of inoculation at our sheds one day, you said, laquo; Why do not you observe the temperature ot these laquo; animals ? quot; and I adopted it from that time.

2555.nbsp; Do you remember whether, in making that suggestion, I told you that we had been remarkably successful in checking the disease by that method i' Yes, and we, in a practical form, were equally successful, and from then until 1877 we continued it.

2556.nbsp; You have given up that system now rle⁸. we do not adopt it in the country, because all our animals have been bred, but if we purchased we should adopt it at once if we had any disease.

2557.nbsp; But you purchase bulls occasionally ?We purchase bulls.

2558.nbsp; Do you take any particular precautions in getting them in ?We quarantine them for a month, not for longer.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

2559.nbsp; But as to the districts from which you take them, what, do you do ?They are generally purchased at the private sales of pedigree stock.

2560 Then you run raquo; risk of introducing the disease?We do, but any bull we purchase we always have conveyed in a horse-box, never using a

cattle truck.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;raquo; laquo; laquo;

2561. In answering the question ot Protessor Horsley as to the origin of the outbreak at Bayswater, you said you could not trace it to any particular cows that were brought in ?No, personally I have no record. They were bought from the dealer. We did not go to the farms in the country to purchase cows.

2562 But as a matter of fact did the first case among the animals arise in a lot of six that were bought in some months previously?! believe the first did so.

2563.nbsp; And of that lot one animal had been ill, and was suspected, and recovered, and was afterwards returned to the shed ?I think Mr. Priestman had suspicion of some, but I am not clear at all in my recollection of it, because, as I say, I am a busy manand the matter of one or two cows does not impress itself upon my memory.

2564.nbsp; You do not recollect whether that animal was inoculated or not ?No.

2566. The system you adopted was to have all the animals inoculated ?Mr. Priestman had instructions to inoculate after we came to the conclusion that wo must buy pleuro, which at that time was all over the dealers' yards, and he was put in charge of the sheds.

2566. As a matter of fact he inoculated every _one ?_it was part of his duty to inoculate, and he wapaid by the company and got carte blanche, and hhad the control.

2667. And he never put them into the main shed

was his practice ; there were two main sheds and one ^Jfy**' quarantine shed.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_____i

2568.nbsp; Öo that if you introduced a diseased animal _8MRyi888.

all the animals were inoculated ?No animal ever-----------

came into the sheds until it had been inoculated by Mr. Priestman. After he once got instructions to take charge he inoculated everything.

2569.nbsp; If you were to introduce the disease now into your sheds, what course would you prefer being adopted, if you had your choice ?I should resume an observation of temperature.

2570.nbsp; nbsp;But if you had the choice of resorting to ihe svstem of inoculation, or isolating animals with a high temperature, or the system of slaughter under the direction of the local authority, which of the three systems would you take ?Well, under our own circumstances I should prefer to take the temperature for a little while, because I think we are specially situated, inasmuch as the buildings are, perhaps, better than those in general use, and although the buildings have nothing to do with it, still our cows are easily seen, their heads are not stuck against the wall. We can observe anything early, but if I saw it coming I should resort to slaughter instantly.

2571.nbsp; nbsp;You would take proper restrictions to prevent the disease before you adopted the strong measure of universal slaughter?If I found an individual animal rise in temperature, I should slaughter it instantly ; but I should not slaughter the animal that had been on the right or left of her the moment I found her temperature had risen.

2572.nbsp; If you had a decided case of pleuro-pneu-monia in the herd, rather than kill out the whole of the other animals in the whole of your sheds you would prefer to shut them up, and watch the progress of the development of the disease ?Not if I had a case of decided pleuro-pneumonia.

2573.nbsp; What then would you do ?I should slaughter everything that was in the same line.

2574.nbsp; You would slaughter all the animals in the same shed ?Yes.

2575.nbsp; Would you extend that ito any of the other sheds ?No, not in our case, because our sheds are well divided.

2576.nbsp; You have no fear of the disease being carried by the men, or from fodder ?Not the slightest. There would not be with us, because the same men would not tend the same lots of cows, or go near them, neither would disease be carried by the men.

2577.nbsp; nbsp;Would you object to buy an inoculated cow ? Yes ; I should not think of it.

2578.nbsp; nbsp;Then you would look upon the animal as suspected ?Well, I should look on it as valueless. I should not give a second thought to it. I should not for a moment entertain the matter.

2679. Then you would not buy an animal with a very short tail ?Certainly, I should have strong suspicions.

2580. Whether the tail was lost by inoculation or _not ?I should not ask any question.

2681. Is not it a common thing for inoculated animals to have a short tail ?Very.

2582.nbsp; Not necessarily from the process of sloughing ? No. I think within the last 12 mouths I bought an animal with its tail oft, but I knew how she had lost her tail; she got it fast in a strong hedge and pulled it off. But I would not have bought that animal unless I had proof that she had done it in that way.

2583.nbsp; It is the practice to amputate the tail when the running is proceeding upwards ?I know it is.

2684. You can understand foreign countries objecting to inoculated animals being introduced without knowing anything whatever of the circumstances under which that operation was adopted ?I entirely agree with them.

2686. You say you refused to accept about two out of three farms on account of the water supply ?It is generally the water supply. Sometimes it is bad construction, faulty construction in the dairy, bad draiL-

until the inoculation proved successful ?Yes, that

OOMMITTKE ON PLBUBO-l'NEUMONIA AND TUBBECULOSIS:

Mr. (i. M.

AUenJer.

8 May 1888.

but I think half the cnses in which we refused is

2693. Would you favour the idea of local autho-

l boards in different parts of the country

ago.

owing to the dangerous condition of the watoi.

2586.nbsp; If you lu.ew of ono farmer who ^as in tie habit of inoculating his animals, would you object to it on that accountP-No, I do not think I quot;

2587.nbsp; You do not apprehend that any ill effects would be produced on the milh ?-No, I do not think so? o long as ho obeyed the terms of the coiitract, that he shall not send the milk of an animal that is ailing OT is under physic, I would not object. Ii an animal did Lot ail ho would be within the terms of his contract.

2588.nbsp; With regard to the cost of stomping out aisease among animals, have yon had at ah before you the idea of imposing a tax on the owners of cattle all over the country, as thev do in Ireland for the purpose of getting a sort of cattle disease fund ?.No.

2589 Have you recently ascertained the ideas ot stockownS o/that sublet?-I think they would

^Tln^yo^wn case, living under your present svstem which you consider the best for keeping £ S healthy, would you object to pay a small tax? Yes I should I think that those who keep their ^ttle properly should not he paying for the careless people! I think that it is an imperial quest.on

^illSl!^eit has been suggested by some witness that the stamping out of the diseased animals is quite a m^tÄ tie consumer as well - ^ the producer and therefore the rate should be general ; is that yom view? I think that it should be paid fiom the Exchequer. I think it is a national question.

2592 Then if the Exchequer has to pay the cost, T think vou said iust now, in answer to a question, Jhltyou'consider the Exchequer or the central board ought to have the management ot ^th%^amp;fquot;--^r_ottainly; I think it ought to be a case of quot;must, not

originating and carrying out a system of nispectiou for the adoption of restrictions, including slaughtering on a large scale, and the Exchequer having to pay for the expenditure incurred by those boards?I have a very strong objection to the local people. I think that they muddle it in 99 cases out of 100.

2594.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) With reference to the milk supply, did you lose any business in consequence ot the cows being compulsorily slaughtered in your own _cas0 ?_No, they formed such a small proportion ot the whole of our supply.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

2595.nbsp; In view of the varied opinions which you are aware exist with reference to inoculation as applied to pleuro-pneumonia, do you think it desirable in the interests of the country at large that further experiments ought to be made with reference to it r¹ Not the slightest. I would not have any more experiments at all; I would just clear the whole thing away, the same as Holland did. I want a clean bill

of health.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ..

2596.nbsp; You accept the position that you are dealing with an incurable disease ?-Certainly.

2597 (Loid Clonmrry.) Professor Brown suggested the possibility of putting a tax per head on cattle so as to raise a fund for compensation. Would you consider it just or grossly unjust that the owner cf 20 young stirks out in the field should have to pay as much as the owner of 20 cows kept in a town dairy ?_I should consider it most unjust.

2598.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Have you any knowledge ot tuberculosis ?Not any, definitely. I think that it is a matter that must sooner or later come to the

front.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;..

2599.nbsp; You are not prepared to give any evidence upon the subject ?I am not prepared to give any evidence about it.

quot;may.quot;

The witness withdrew,

'.m

Mr. C. Stephenson, F.E.C.V.S.

Mr. Clement Stephenson, F.R.C.V.S., called in and examined,

had the power under the Act of 1878 ; we have used the permissive power granted by that Act, and stamped it out since then.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2615.nbsp; In those three outbreaks how many diseased animals were there ?Eleven.

2616.nbsp; How many animals did you slaughter^ 102 cattle were slaughtered.

2617.nbsp; What was the cost of compensation tor them ?The net cost was 623/. 14laquo;. tid.

2618.nbsp; Was that after allowing for salvage ?Yes. 2019. Has any particular record been kept of the ,

number of cows that died or have been slaughtered ? A very careful record has been kept of the cows that have died or that have been slaughtered tor disease in the city of Newcastle since the beginning

of 1871.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. #9632; . xw

2G20. Have you any document reterring to that subject which you can put in ?I have. To begin with, the local authority give to the knackcrmen of the district a copy of this document {handing tn same), along with a stamped directed envelope, and in the case of every cow that is taken in either dead or alive in every one of these knacker yards, we get a return whore she comes from, with the date, and the ownership is also filled up in this form and put with the directed envelope and sent to me when I was in practice. It now goes to Mr. Elphick, my successor. A post-mortem is then made, and a record is put on this form. Those forms were carefully filed and tabulated as long as I was in the business. We found it exceedingly useful, and do to this day. It gives us a line as to diseased places that in other ways we would not ßnd.

2021. Have you any statement showing the number of animals that; have been slaughtered for disease or have died since 1871 ?-I can give you the number of cows that have died and been slaughtered tor disease in Newcastle from 1871 to 1887.

2600. (Chairman.) You are, I believe, a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?-

¹ 2601. And reside and practice at Newcastlc-on-

^Ty2ⁿ602rYou^-havc, I believe, retired from general

^Ä 'Iti 5ou^equot;vetennaiy inspector for the city of

^Äo^long have you occupied that position ?

quot;SoT. Are⁰'you also chief veterinary inspector for the county of Northumberland ?I am.

2606. How long have you occupied that position ?

quot;quot;2607! In addition to your professional duties you are also. I believe, a considerable farmer ?i am. 2608 And a breeder of pedigree Aberdeen Angus

^Cat2609quot;witii regard to the city of Newcastle, can vou give the Committee any information as to the number of cows kept within the boundaries of the city ? The number of dairy cows kept in the city is from I 000 to 1,100, that is dairy cows purely, that does not include cows kept by private owners in the

^bO2610.'HoW many more would they represent? Between 100 and 200, in my opinion.

2611. Has pleuro-pneumonia been very prevalent, within your recollection, among the dairies ol the city ?

quot;Slsl'so'at present?-We are quite free, and hat been since 1^83. .In 1883 we had our last outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia.

2613. How many outbreaks were there in that _veav ?There were three outbreaks in that year.

2614 What was the special mode of treatment ol those outbreaks ?-Wc stamped it out ever since we

#9632;'11;:

MINUTES OF JäVIDKNOE.

2622. From ovory cause?From 1871 to 1887 thoy mo carefully tabulated under tlio heads of plouro-pnemnonia, tuberoulosis, foot-and-mouth disease, and uaturnl cmiscs, the natural (sauses, o£ courses, covering all diseases, bar pleuro-pnouinonia, tuberculosis, and foot-and-mouth disease (handing in returns). llt;rom these returns you will Awl where pleuro-pneumoula ceases altogether, and how it decreased from 108 down to nothing at all.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2(523. Have you taken every advantage ot tlio powers granted under the Act for the purposes ot slaughter ?We have taken every advantage, and used all the power that Ave had under the permissive clause to slaughter.

2624. And in consequence you say the city has been absolutely free from contagious and infectious disease siiico 1883 ?We have been absolutely free.

2025. Is it your opinion that the Act ot 1878 embodies everything that is necessary for thelexter-mination of disease from the countryIn my opinion it does where carried out.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

2626.nbsp; Do you mean that where it fails is in the administration of the Act ?The permissive clause was the weak place in it, but, if the authorities would have taken action upon the permissive power, it would have been all right.

2627.nbsp; Now as regardä the county of Northumberland, have you any information which you could give us as to the cattle population of the county ?I take it that the cattle population of the county of Northumberland is about 100,000; it was, I think, 96,000 some odd last year, and 104,000 the year before, as far as I can remember the numbers at the present moment.

2628.nbsp; Does the county derive its cattle from sources other than home breeding ?We are largely dependent upon Ireland.

2629.nbsp; Have you any records or statistics showing the number of outbreaks of disease, say, between 1880 and 1887 ?I have.

2630.nbsp; How many were there ?21 outbreaks.

2631.nbsp; Of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

2632.nbsp; What was the loss in number of cattle ?' 468 were entirely or partially lost; the diseased we buried and the remainder were slaughtered and salvaged at a loss of, perhaps, 50 per cent, upon the value. That return gives the figures {handing m same),

2633.nbsp; Did you trace the origin of these outbreaks ? Yes, I did.

2634.nbsp; When was the last outbreak in the county ? September 1887.

2635.nbsp; Do the returns you put in show the cause or the origin of the outbreaks ?Yes.

263G. At what period of the year did you find these outbreaks most prevalent ?From September to February and March, I think.

2G37. That is during the winter months ?Yes. I always think that when I get over into the spring without an outbreak from autumn to the spring we have a very clean, healthy cattle population.

2038. Can you give the Committee any very special reason for this ?We depend so largely upon Irish cattle, and the Irish cattle are bought in July, Augustand September, and they are turned out then to get them acclimatised for the winter. We get so much pleuro-pneumonia from Ireland that, for the first three months, I am rather suspicious of getting pleuropneumonia ; but if I get over five or six months I think we have got a clean lot of cattle in.

2630. Is it your opinion that pleuro-pneumonia can only be spread through the medium of living animals FThat is my opinion.

2640.nbsp; nbsp;And that it cannot be carried by mediatcontact ?It cannot be carried by mediate contact.

2641.nbsp; Do you consider that the disease lingerlong about a building ?It does not linger about thbuilding at raquo;11 us soon as you get rid of the disease

2642.nbsp; After attending an outbreak and making a Mr. C. post-mortem examination do you ever hesitate to in- fly/^'y^ troduce other cattle ?Never,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;' ' ' ' '

2643.nbsp; Even your own cattle ?I have never Intro- _., _Mtty _188lj_t

duced my own cattle, but I myself go into my own-----------

herd immediately I return from an investigation of pleuro-pneumonia, examining and post-mortem, and doing all the work that is necessary. As soon as I come homo I go unhesitatingly among my own cattle.

2644.nbsp; Then you do not believe that walls and woodwork and litter can retain and transmit or give off the virus of the disease ?I do not believe that. I will put in a letter I received from a gentleman who consulted me about the Chicago yards. In a case there, they put in 900 head of cattle afterwards, and they did not take the disease. They were allthe 900 steersslaughtered under State veterinary inspection. They were put into the stables in which the diseased animals had been ; they were kept from December to the June and July following, and then they were every one, as I have said, slaughtered under the State veterinary inspection, and not a trace of pleuro-pneumonia was found.

2645.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that the susceptibility of cattle for the reception of disease varies ?Very much indeed.

2646.nbsp; nbsp;Do you regard that as an important factor in an investigation of this kind ?Very important.

2647.nbsp; Do you think there are any kind of cattle more susceptible than others_; I do not mean breed of cattle, I mean dairy cows and cattle of that sort ? No, I do not think there are.

2648.nbsp; nbsp;I suppose you sometimes find animals which are proof against pleuro-pneumonia ?That is so.

2649.nbsp; And also against all other diseases?Yes, that is so.

2650.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any very special illustration you could quote to justify that opinion ? I have a return here of the cattle plague outbreak in 1865, which took place in Newcastle. The return gives the names and number of the cattle implicated in every case in the town. I find the total is this : 850 total number at the outbreak; 305 dead; 87 were killed; 398 were slaughtered and passed for food; 35 recovered, and 25 escaped altogether. These 25 were standing alongside the dead and the dying, and it came out then (although I have not it here, I am positive it came out then) that these 25 cows, that were proof against the cattle plague, had already been in all probability perfectly proof against pleuro-pneumonia because they had come out of pleuro-pneumonia infected byres, where cattle had been dying round about them for a long time, yet they had stood and resisted pleuro-pneumonia, and they came into our quarantine and resisted the cattle plague.

2651.nbsp; Have you any other illustrations in regard to the foot-and-mouth disease which bear upon the same question ?I have not.

2652.nbsp; Is there any certainty as to the incubative stage of pleuro-pneumonia?It is very uncertain indeed,

2653.nbsp; At the beginning of an outbreak, I suppose it spreads sometimes more rapidly than at other

times ?__At some outbreaks it is astonishing how

quickly it passes through ; the susceptible animals succumb to the disease quickly, and in others you may have just an isolated case, and wait for a long time before you have another. In the Belsay outbreak in 1883, on my first visit I found 26 cattle, three of which were infected, and one was deaddied just before I got there. The three affected wore slaughtered, of course, and buried. The 23 remaining were salvaged, and in examining these 23 salvaged animals I found eight affected, and one old encysted case. That was 13 out of 26 of the herd which were affected with the disease. That is an unusually large number to be affected within so short a time. Then, on the other hand, at Newton-under-Wood in 1885, on my first visit there were 26 cattle on the place, and one affected; seven were salvaged. They were free from the disease. Neither the owner nor the landlord

#9632; #9632;

cattle that arc in It.

COMMITTEE ON PLEÜBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS

Mr. C.

Slf.phernoraquo;.

vJ.v.v.s.

8 May 1888.

would pemlt of the entire salvage of the who e catlle C fnrH the reiuainder of tta cattle were kept on. At theioloie ^tl e ¹⁰'¹quot;¹;quot; ₅₀ _d j _refu8ed to sign the

cessation order. ^ ^ief J;*_ftrin%_ad _Wolaquo;id not allow about the matter, but i was nuu, uuu laquo; the cattle to bo moved out. On thlaquo; 83rd day there the catti. 10nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _eii _and _lttndi_0|._d

Td rtÄ iere U as keen to slaughter out as I vvlaquo; fand it was done. Eighty-three days elapsed without a sign of the disease in this little herd. ^W2654 Then do you wish to convey to laquo;8 your oninion that 56 days are not enough ?-Not neai enough I would like to add to that that upon the second salvaging out no trace of pleuro-pneumoma

ahlv free from the disease. The case of Belsay was St the oK way. I mention these two as typical just the ^ j _tnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _conle across. In some

cZ hatear toaÜk a good many cattle at the begTnningTd then stop, and in others just one or

^krire' Ays the longest interval you have

quot;Tost C^^givrus^nlstanco of a longer internal P-IhLve known the incubative stage to be as much as 19 weeks. That was at a place ca ed KirSt It was a farm that hedged a place called Swpen doquot;n near Byth. They had an outbreak ot^?pCo-pneuinoma at Cowpen, and the owner ot the farm where the Cowpeu cattle were was called Huntlev he was a member of the local authonty. I Tad ^outbreak there, and I used all the power I had to find out if there had been any contact in the mmedlate neighbourhood, and ^u£ a pohceman lived on the spot, and every care was taken, we haa no reason to thin'k that there W ^ J^^J one else's cattle in the neighbournood. The Oowpen cattle were stamped out, and th^ was an end of it and Mr. Huntley got fresh stock in. On the Uth ot March Huntlcy's place was all cleaned up, and on the r2th of IS I had to visit Robert Simpson, at he Ki Sarm^owpen. I found laquo; ^ cows b^U'ght laquo; days ; Veterinary attending ; left lung SOIW , no laquo; quot;runt- soft cough; mouth open; tongue hanging laquo; out temperature 105deg;; slaughtered; P^o-pnelaquo;-quot; monia left lung ; no fresh cattle on the place for 10 quot; monihs diseaLd one been here two years; form quot; adioins Huntley's; no doubt contact had taken quot; Sr between Wley's and fraquo;^^ ; That is the note written at the time. Two fay⁸ after laquo; u meeting of the sub-committee was held at Bedhng-laquo; quot;laquo;quot;#9632; Huntley, being a member of the laquo;ub-com. raquo; mittee, was there. 1 had sent him word to find quot; S if the Kit Cat cow had been in contact with laquo; S at any time.raquo; I said there ^BtUveJem

contact. A/d at this ^^quot;^t*^ sub-committee at Bedlington Huntleys^id Simpson

cow was in his held 10 weeKa ago. j-laquo;'quot; quot; agoquot; I inquired about. Ilaquo;amp;^how^do P^Ä 19 weeks ? He said, our servant girl has checked !he time off she found the cow in the field, and she knows what the date was.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i._a9

2657 Was that the date she came to the place f Yes That cow-the Kit Cat cow-was quot;raquo; contac with the first cow at Huntley's, at Cowpen. The firscow that had the disease at Cowpen was a cow thacame out of another county in September and wavery ill, attended by two veterinary surgeons, anwas killed on the 20th December 1886, and my firsvisit to Kit Cat was paid on the 12th April 1887That I knew nothing at all about; that was (adone before I got notice of the outbreak, and it wa

10nbsp;weeks there is no doubt. I went very carefull

¹¹nbsp; 26'i8 Did you satisfy yourself that that outbreamust have been caused by the cow which had brokeinto an infected field about 19 weeks before ?I satilaquo;cd myself that that statement was correct.

2659. Was there any other subsequent case ?laquo;oI stamped that out again,and there was no more ot i

believe, in the whole history of my work in Northumberland where it has extended in the slightest way from the original infected place. It was really a continuation of the Cowpen outbreak, and I said so in ray report.

2660. In your large experience have you ever found claims for compensation made and based upon false reports ?No; but I have had a great many reported outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia that upon investigation were not pleuro-pneumonia. This was very common when I first began to work, exceedingly common. All kinds of funny things were reported as pleuro-pneumonia when there was no trace of pleuro-pneumonia, 2661. What did you discover instead of pleuro-pneumonia ?These last four or five years the diseases that are likely to be mistaken for pleuro-pneumonia on your first visit are tuberculosis, traumatic pericarditis, and, strange to say, I have had four or five very suspicious looking cases that were due to disease in the liver, abscess in the liver and flukes in the liver, and enlargement of the liver, generally pressing the diaphragm forward and pressing upon the lungs, so that vou get pressure there.

2662.nbsp; nbsp;Have you met with any cases of hoose ? There was one lot of cattle slaughtered for hoose before I had anything to do for the country; and I was asked to go down to another place where a big lot were ready to be slaughtered ; the valuers were there and everything was ready for slaughtering them. They were all affected with hoose, but they all got better in a very few weeks.

2663.nbsp; Is it your practice on visiting an outbreak, and having any doubt in your mind, to take a test case and operate upon it in any way ?That is so; when I was appointed I asked for power to slaughter an animal as a test case, and you will see from this memorandum for use of sub-committees and officers, which I will put in, that I have that power. Northumberland is a very wide district, and there are many places to which it takes me all day, and a long day too, to get there and back again, and if it is a suspicious case, and I am not quite clear about it, it is a very serious thing to get back again to it, say, within two days. Therefore I agree with the owners to slaughter a test animal, and the owners are always very anxious to have this done.

2664.nbsp; You do that I presume under this order: laquo; That in a case of disease being only suspected to quot; exist in a herd of animals, or upon a farm, the veteri-quot; nary inspector be authorised, with the consent of the quot; owner, to cause one animal to be slaughtered as a quot; test, the owner, in case of disease not being found to quot; exist, to be allowed in compensation the full value quot; of the animal slaughtered, but otherwise to be com-quot; pensated as prescribed by the Actquot; ?That was in 1878, soon after the passing of the Act.

2665.nbsp; I believe you were appointed to carry out this Act ?Yes, that power simplifies the work immensely. It is to meet certain cases where there is a reasonable doubt. Of course, in many cases that I go to, 1 am pretty certain it is pleuro-pneumonia before I say anything at all about it.

2666.nbsp; You have ample power conferred upon you and you exercise it ?I do when required.

2667.nbsp; nbsp;Did I gather rightly that after stamping out by slaughter, you allow cattle to enter almost immediately into an infected place ?As soon as they have cleaned the place to my satisfaction, I give a certificate and new stock are moved in, but of course they cannot move out until the expiration of the 56 days.

2668.nbsp; But they may be moved in ?Yes.

2669.nbsp; And they cannot be moved out ?No.

2670.nbsp; Have you ever found any danger from such a proceeding ?Never,

2671.nbsp; Do you make a rule of having a post-mortem examination made upon all animals slaughtered ? Every one that is slaughtered I either make a postmortem myself, or I get a veterinary surgeon to do it for me if 1 am engaged upon anything else, but as a rule I see all myself. I make a point of making a

there was an end to it. That is the only time, I

MINUTES OP EVIDBNCK.

post-mortem oxamiimtion of every one of the salvaged

quot;quot;S.quot; Could you possibly givo the Ooinmitteo (as a

2688. Can you point lo any specific outbreak that in your opinion was due to an encysted lung? ies ; the Wylam outbreak in 1882 was caused by an encysted ease which had lain dormant for fd'-'bt months. After

Mr.C.

SUplienson,

F.R.C. V.S.

3 May !888.

the disease broke out upon the place, and as soon us I was sure 1 had got plouro-pneumonia, I in my usual way began to look out for the source ol it. 1 could not make it out at first, then I went nuhvulually through every cow and every beast upon the place and said, quot; Where did this cow come from ; whore did you buy'it,quot; and asked for all particulars, and tho very last cow I came to in the byre the owner said ' 1 quot; bought that at Wylam Wood sale a certain time quot; eight monthsbefore.quot; I said in a moment, quot; Then quot; that is the cow that has brought you the disease. I examined her, anil I could detect nothing wrong with her. I had had a frightful outbreak in Newcastle from this very place of Wylam Wood. That was the ease in which I killed off 102 animals, and 1 may say it cost us some 600/. to do that. That outbreak, I say, was due to cattle brought from Wylam Wood sale Here I came upon another animal that had come from the original diseased herd. This cow was kept to the last : she was milking well and apparently perfectly well, but u post-mortem showed encysted pleuro-pnenmonia. I have no doubt she took the

2689. Have you any other case you could quote ? Yes, I had an extraordinary case at Hallington in 1885, caused by an encysted case. This animal had b^en 15 months in the herd. Tho first notice of the disease was that she reinfected herself, and that so violently that she died on tho seventh day. It, is a very unusual thing for an animal to take plenro-pneumonia and die on the seventh day. I may add that there were 57 cattle on the farm. I took uiit 61 and left 20 untouched.

2690.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to inoculation, have you in practice ever performed the operation of inoculation ?

I have not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . , 1 *

2691.nbsp; Is your knowledge of it derived only trom what you have read and heard ?That is right.

2692.nbsp; Then your object and treatment appear to have been by heroic measures to eradicate the disease ?

__That is so. I have always done the best I could

to eradicate the disease entirely.

2693.nbsp; Did you assume therefore that inoculation would not serve your purpose ?It would not, I do not believe in inoculation in eradicating that disease.

2094.nbsp; nbsp;Why ?It never lias done so in any country j it has been tried for many long years, and it never has eradicated the disease. Another dung, from what I can learn by reading, I find that wherever inoculation is carried out there you always find plenty of pleuro-pneumonia about; the ouo seems to run along with the other.

2095.nbsp; On the other hand, do you consider that stamping out is a certain way to eradicate the disease ? That is a certain way.

2696.nbsp; Do you think it is the cheapest?! am

positive it is.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ., r 1

2697.nbsp; nbsp;Do yon think it is the most rational i1 clo,

and the only way.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

2698.nbsp; Can you give us any return or information as to the cost to your county of compulsory slaughter? I can ; I have taken it all out of the published returns. The total cost of stamping out plcnro-pneumonia in Northumberland from the years 1880 to 1887 was 2,990/. 2.v. lid., which, spread over eight years, give about 374/. a year.

2699.nbsp; Do you know what that is upon the rates . I clo ; it comes to about the twentieth of a penny in the £, and we have never stamped out in a mean shabby way ; we have done it well, and paid well for everything that has been taken.

2700.nbsp; On a liberal basis and by liberal valuations ?-Yes- my instructions always were to deal liberally with' the farmers. I will now hand in a return giving the details of tho cost of stamping out pleuro-pneumonia in Northumberland in the yearraquo; I have mentioned {handing in same).

result of the post-mortem examinations) an idea ot the proportion of .liseas.d animals in ihe 'salv^ed cases as vou call them ?-l have not got hem all, but l could give you a few of them. At Bukensu e In imi had a largo outbreak thereof 52 cattle 1 heve were four aft'eote.l upon my ftrst visu, they o course we buried; all the rest wo salvaged and the postmortems showed three affected and five old encysted

^2(373 So that 48 were really salvaged '--Yes.

2674. Of these 18, 8 were diseased ?-~ies.

0675. Then there are 40 which appeared to be without any disease P-Yea. 1 have already given you theBelsay history, in which there was U out ot

26 affected.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . _f

2676.nbsp; Have you any statistics showing the cost ot compensation in the case of the Birkens.de outb^? I have no statistics of the outbreaks by themselves. 1 can give the total cost per year.

2677.nbsp; In the event of an outbreak, is it your practise to slaughter all the animals upon the arm, or only a certain portion of them which you think are 7 closer contact than others ?-I .slaughter those that in my opinion have been submitted to the contagion of the disease by contact. If they have all been mixed up together, moving gt;quot; f^nd J quot; buildings into the Held, herding together, 1 take the lot If they have been, comparatively speaking, isolated, some in buildings, some in fields, the fields beinff separated here and there by plantations or roads publte roads or an arable field ; the w.dtl, of a road is a sufficient protection for me. I take only the cattle that, in my opinion, have been submitted by contact to the disease. I had a case at North Seaton in 1884 There were 79 cattle on the farm; I took out 10 ; onlaquo; was affected, nine salvaged, two encysted, and one had been killed and buried five days belore .y first visit, but I only took out ip. though there were 79 on the farm, and I only made one field and some buildings attached to that field an infected place

2678.nbsp; Of course you satisfied yourself, in the first place, that the field was sufficiently isolated and that there were no other cattle within reasonable distance of it ?That is so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2679.nbsp; Have you formed any opinion as .to the distance at which the disease may be.cominunicated i 1 am quite certain that it is a very short distance

^ 2^C686 Do you carry out the Act in its entirety with regard to the areas and places ?-We have never had an infected area in my district. We have never asked

for one.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;2 _w

2681 Did yon think it was not necessary t'we always found infected places sufficient and that they answered our purpose perfectly.

2682. Your quot;placequot; probably might be as largo as some quot; areas quot; ?If I have any doubt about the thing I take quot; the buildings and farm known as so-aml-so. If the fields are separated from it I take the fields or the buildings of the place, as the case may be.

''683 Then you use your own discretion ?It depends upon how I find the cattle lying, and it also very much depends upon my knowledge of the character othe people that I am dealing with.

2684. Is it a common thing in your practice to find encysted cases of _Bleuro-pneumonia on a post-mortem examination ?Yes, very common indeed.

2686.nbsp; Are they easily detected in life?No;cannot detect them, and I do not know anyone thacan. I do not think it is possible to detect encystepleuro-pnoumonia.

2686 Do you mean to say that some cattle have thdisease in so mild a form that it is not recognizablduring life?I say that.

2687.nbsp; nbsp;Would these animals be still capable otransmitting the disease?A time comes when the

spread the disease.

0 54008.

COMMITTEE ON PLEUUO-PNBÜMONIA AND TUBBUCULOSIS!

Air. C. Slephcnson, FM.CV.S.

3 Muy 1888.

2701.nbsp; 1 lioliovo you caid yon liavo been able to trace an outbreak of ilis*'ase from some encysted cases?1 have mentioned Wylam and Uallington.

2702.nbsp; In those cases did yon examine the animal after it was slauglitored ?t did.

2703.nbsp; nbsp;What did you find?In tno Wylam cases softening of the encysted portion was just beginning ; it was not liquified or completely softened, but there was a little softening between the capsule and the encysted pieeo of lung. In the Uallington case the animal died on the seventh day after it was seen to be ill, and there I found a eyst near broken down, and also a very large mass of recent disease. Ihe whole hinlaquo; was infected, in fact. I had both old encysted and recent disease in that cow.

2704.nbsp; Did you think there had been any other means by which the disease could have been communicated ?I took a great deal of pains, and spent a _Kreat deal of time over it, and 1 could not hnd any other ehannel by which disease cculd have been brought to Uallington. There had never been contact with any other cattle, either diseased or healthy.

2705.nbsp; Do von attribute the fact of the cow having akeu disease a second time to the cyst lieing broken

up ?I do.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,11 i

2706.nbsp; Do you consider that by that means she had

re-infected herself ?Yes.

2707 Going back to the question of inoculation versus slaughter, is it a fact, from what you can gather, that there is a certain amount of slaughter necessary under any circumstances, even in conjunction with inoculation ?That is so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .

2708.nbsp; In the face of all this, are you still of opinion that if a slaughter order be honestly carried out, as it has been done in your county, pleuro-pneuraonia would he a thing of the past in a short time i¹ihat is my opinion.

2709.nbsp; Do you issue any document, called a cessation order, at the termination of an outbreak ?I do.

2710.nbsp; Would you put that in ?Yes {handing in copy of order). The object of that is to prevent cattle, or places being declared free until I am satisfied.

2711 It appears in the first place that it is signed by an inspector ?Yes,

271^. And that it must then receive your endorsement before it goes to the local authority ?--Yes. .Formerly the police used to declare a place free ; they signed the paper, and the first I knew of it was that they were set free. Perhaps I was not sntisfled in cases of foot-and-mouth or swine fever, and 1 would want to inspect the place. If there had been cattle moved into an infected pleuro-pneumoma place I would want to see the cattle and satisfy myself, lo preventftuy more ofthat I got these cessation papers for foot-and-mouth and swine fever, and pleuro-pneumonia, and they have to be countersigned by me. That is the way I held the Newton Underwood cattle. The cessation order was enforced there, and I would not move at the end of 5C days, that is I would not sign that paper, and on the 83rd day there was another outbreak.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . ,

2713 In the event of inoculation being adopted, do you consider that there are any special conditions which ought to accompany it with regard to subsequent treatment?There is only one I know of, and that is life-long quarantinenothing short of lite-long

^llU2714. What would the effect of that bo upon the cattle owner !Ruination upon the owner,

2715nbsp; nbsp;What effect would it have upon the country or the local authority ?Nothing but bad ; the effect

must be bad.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . ^ .i j n

2716nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean to say costly ?Costly to alt parties,'because you nre always liable to fresh outbreaks, and the man who is shut up, who is boycotted, can neither buy cattle in nor keep Jus trade

^g027'l7 But inasmuch ns opinions differ upon this point, do yon think it would not be desirable in the interest of all concerned that there should bo further experiments with inoculation ?I do not.

2718.nbsp; nbsp;What induces you to form such an opinion ? Seeing that wo have had nearly 50 years' experience of the disease, and that it hus already been very carefully investigated both in this country and abroad, and looking at it as a national question, I. think it is the duty of every one to detonnino and do the best they can to annihilate it, to eradicate it altogether no more experiments, they are not needed ; wo know the history and the pecuhaiitios of the disease perfectly well.

2719.nbsp; nbsp;Do you regard plouro-pnenmonia as an incurable disease ?I do.

2720.nbsp; What experiments or investigations in this country do you refer to, and by whom were they conducted ?I am thinking of Trofossor Simmonds, Dr. Yeo, Dr. Burdon Saunderson, Professor Duguid, and the Brown Institute.

2721.nbsp; Are you aware of any country which had adopted compulsory inoculation, and which has subsequently abandoned it in favour of compulsory slaughter ?I am,

2722.nbsp; What country is that ?The Netherlands.

2723.nbsp; Have you any information with reference to _tl_iat p_lt is the only country that has eradicated the disease, and that after trying compulsory inoculation and giving it up as of no avail; then by stamping it out they have got clear.

2724'. Do you regard this continuous outbreak ot pleuro-pneumonia as very serious, and as hampering the trade of the country ?Most serious indeed; serious locally, and serious as a national question.

2725. As a breeder of hisrh bred stock, do you feel

it a great inconvenience with reference to the export

_tKUle ?Personally, I do not, because my district is

healthy and clean, but it is very hard upon districts

where pleuro-pneumonia is prevalent. The United

States will only take cattle from certain districts.

This week I learnt that in America they have made

this order: quot; Cattle imported from either of the fore^

quot; going countries (Great Britain and Ireland) shall

quot; be accompanied by a certificate from the local

laquo; authority of the district in which the said cattle

quot; have been for one year next preceding date of

laquo; shipment, stating that no pleuro-pneumonia has

laquo; existed in said district for the past year. Also by

quot; an affidavit from owner of the cattle, from whom

quot; the importer had purchased them, stating that said

quot; cattle have been in the district where purchased for

' one year preceding date of sale; that no pleuro-

quot; pneumonia has existed among them or among any

quot; cattle with which they have come in contact for one

quot; year past; that no inoculation has been practised

quot; among said cattle for the past two years.quot;

2726.nbsp; nbsp;Can you account for the outbreaks in Northumberland generally ?I have done so.

2727.nbsp; nbsp;And are they in all cases attributable to animals that have been introduced ?Every outbreak wo have bad is due to the introduction of diseased animals or animals out of diseased herds.

2728.nbsp; quot;What is your view as to the source from which compensation ought to be paid ?My view is, that all compensation should be paid from the Imperial Exchequer.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, .

2729.nbsp; In whose hands do you think the administration of stamping out or inoculation ought to he PIn the hands of tho central department, the veterinary department of the Privy Council.

2730.nbsp; Do yon mean to say that you would put pleuro-pneumonia in the same category as cattle plague ?I would, and then we would get rid of it.

2731.nbsp; You indicate, therefore, that you have no faith in the general administration of the local authorities ?1 am sorry to admit that I have little faith in some districts.

2732.nbsp; But there are some I suppose which yon know carry out the Act ?There are some authorities that will do what is right.

2733.nbsp; What you want then is, I presume, prompt and uniform action?Yes; I think until it is carried out from this departnicnt it will never bo accomplished.

MINUTES OF EVIDKNOE.

2734 You appear personally to Imvo had very little difficulty in carrying out compulsory slaughter In Northumborlnnd ?No (lifflsulty at all. , . . ..

2735. Has any obleotlon over been raised oy Uie

its entire eradication by inoculation is an impossi

Wis. (Lord Cloncurrtj.) In one of the returns you have handed in I iind thoro'was one outbreak due to Irish cattle in the year 1886, and ono In the year

Mr. C. Slephenaon, F.li.CV.S.

8 May 1888.

1887 can you rocollecl whether it was a cow or what animal it was that brought in the disease ?They would not be cows, as wo got very few Irish cows; the Irish cuttle which come to us me store cattle, ilie 1886 outbreak was ut Newham Edge, and occurred amongst 12 heifers that had been brought from Dublin. 2749 Have you any record of theso animals, there are only two cases in the last two years, do you know what they were or what part of Ireland they came from?In 1887 I have a note of an outbreak here, but that was due to the home counties, there were 33 cattle in that instance ; that is Cowpen.

quot;750. According to this return in 188G you have one outbreak due to Irish cattle, when 25 were implicated, and in 1887 you had another outbreak, when 51 were implicated. I want to see in what way you traco the animal ?I cannot tell from memory, but lam perfectly certain they were not cows. \\e get a large quantity of two or three year old heifers into the country, and also Irish stores. , , ,, . , 2751 In the last year 1887 you had 51 animals infected by one Irish beast. What were those 51 ; were they cows ?No, they were not cows. 1 do not remember any Irish cows bringing it in.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

''752. Then it was not dairy stock, and the animals that we're slaughtered from being in contact were not cows?No ; I have a note here, quot; Last year. South laquo; Steed Farm, Widdrington, pleuro-pneumoma, one quot; blue prey polled heifer affectedthe whole of the laquo; left Innlaquo;'; 31 cattle on the form diseased, lot quot; bought in Morpeth Market from Carrs, of Bewich laquo; Hall said to be Irish. The whole of the cattle quot; ordered to be slaughtered.quot; That was all that I could make out at that time. The police inspector took it in hand and followed these cattle from Morpeth to Berwick, from Berwick either to Glasgow or Edinburgh, and then we lost trace of them ; but they were a lot of Irish cattle that were moving from fair to fair right along. This is all I can give you

about them.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ ^ *

2753.nbsp; In fact, that is only from hearsay, that is not from your own knowledge ?-No ; I could not folow these cattle. I get the police inspectors to work it out. Sometimes I see the cattle salesmen myse . I know some of the Irish cattle salesmen very well, and they are very good, and they tell me all they know, especially two men called Dolan and Sweeney.

2754.nbsp; But you did trace that particular blue polletl beast, that had been in three markets before she came to you ?Yes.

2755.nbsp; nbsp;Do you believe that a blue poll is a common class of animal in Ireland ?Very uncommon indeed, that I was struck with. I would not take it at first. I said I was not aware there were many blue greys there but I made inquiries and was satisfied it was

owners of cattle ?-Tlio only case llaquo; which there was any objection was the Newton-undet-Wood case who.o some very hard tMnRB were said about mo not freeing them at the end of 56 days. With that excepfon everything goes as pleasantly and as smoothly as can

2736nbsp; nbsp;Would not the people in town dairies have a serious objection to it in some oases ?-Thoy have not in Newcastle ; that last outbreak we had they were all dairy cows.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,,.,

2737nbsp; nbsp;Was that in 1882?-Yes₎ at the Spittle tongues, on the Town Moor edge. There wore three lar deg;e yards all implicated, the cows of each of the yards had been coming out o£ one common entrance and going on to the moor, so we took the bt ot them.

2738. What effect had that upon the salesman in the market in the town ?-Nono at all, at least, no appreciable effect. It was the best thing lor our cow-keepers, and the best thing for everyone concerned all over the country, because you take the man s cattle at the full value, you slaughter them, you give him his money, you give him a license to take cattle m again after the place is clean, and the man's going on all right. It causes the least hardship, and it is the cheapest way.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _e

2739nbsp; nbsp;Do you remember any special case ot voluntary slaughter for foot-and-mouth disease in

Newcastle ?I do.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;  .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, _t * i

2740nbsp; nbsp;Would you tell the Committee what took place ?It was the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease we had. Between December 25th and 28th 1888, 422 animals were slaughtered, that is, cattle, sheep, and pigs, in three days, and without the cost ot one farthing to the city. They were in the hands of owners and cattle salesmen, and upon my advice, backed up by Mr. Baty, a banker, they srt to work and slaughtered the animals. That was a I done in three daysdone pleasantly and satisfactorily.

2741nbsp; nbsp; Do you mean to say that the cost ot that slau-hter fell noon the owners only, without any compensation ?There was no compensation paid ; they were just as anxious to have our town and market with a clean bill of health and with a high character for cleanliness as wo ourselves were, and they are always like that.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2742nbsp; nbsp; You arc aware, I believe, that some evidence has been taken upon this subject before the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland ?I am.

2743. Have yon had an opportunity o£ reading that evidence?I have.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

2744 What induced you to be anxious to see it f- I was curious to know what they could say upon the subiect I am a member of the Highland Society, and when I saw what had been done 1 wrote to the secretary and asked him to kindly send mo a copy.

He sent me this copy. This was long before 1 liad any thought of coining here to-day.

#9632;'745. What conclusions do you draw trom tliat evidence?Taken as a whole, I think it is very strong evidence indeed in favour of stamping out. 2746. In favour of compulsory slaughter?Vcs. 2747 Will yon state to the Committco the points in that evidence which seem to you to prove the efficacy of slaughter as against inoculation .In the first place, taking this as a whole, I hnd that the inoculators do not agree amongst themselves; 1 find that Mr. Rutherford's evidence contradicts itselt, and his evidence as to the value of inoculation is not proved in the Salmond outbreak as related by I ro-fessor McCnll. They all agreed that inoculation must bo preceded by, continued with, and most oheu be followed by slaughter. Seeing tnat the so-called successful inoculation can only be performed at certain times and upon certain animals, and that the virus which will not keep long must be take from diseased animals, it is plain to every ono who is acquainted with the pccularitics of the disease that

2756.nbsp; But that was only from hearsay, you have no proof that the blue poll ever came from Ireland i¹ No, I have not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,, ,i _t

2757.nbsp; Do you think that it is equally probable that she did not come from Ireland ?1 think she did come from Ireland from what I have learned.

quot;758 How long has the Netherlands been cleared completely, bow many years have they been quite free from pleuro ?Three years, you will find it in the

^rCl27öh You mentioned that a certain number of cattle were taken out and the rest were left in the two cases where you slaughtered cattle ?Ycs._

2760.nbsp; Those that were left in you treated, in tact, as if that had always been a healthy place, and had no connexion with disease ?Yes.

2761.nbsp; nbsp;Did yon find any bad results?None whatever, they were not included in an infected place.

27G2. And they remained as if they had been on a healthy farm ?Brcciscly so.

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-rNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS;

2763.nbsp; In roforonco to these town dairies, would thero be any loss to the owner if a law was passed that, onelaquo; ti cow was brought into a town dairy, she should never leave that again except Cor slaughter ?f think a great loss.

2764.nbsp; In what way?In the first place some cows stop giving suflicient milk to pay for their keep before they are fat enough to sell; that is one way. In case of disease, suppose it was pleuro-pnoumonia, and they are in, and netto go out for the remainder of their life, if they go down it is a total loss to the owner ; if they get pleuro-pneumonia they have to be slaughtered.

2765.nbsp; If the dairyman preferred that to immediate slaughter do you see any dnnger to the public or to any person else ?Not to the public; it is financially a very great mistake in my opinion.

2766.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing ho thought differently, would you see any clanger in allowing him to have the option ? If ic was done it would have to be very carefully guarded so that the cattle should not get out, and there should be no fear of contact. If there was no contact I would not be afraid. Guarantee the cattle would be kept in, and I would be satisfied.

2767.nbsp; nbsp;Suppose that was done in Newcastle while you were looking after it you would see no danger to the outside public ?It could not be done in Newcastle. No one would do it in Newcastle, they are all as keen to stamp it out as I am or anyone that is in favour of it, both the Newcastle stockholders and the county stockholders.

2768.nbsp; Supposing a man there wished to keep his cattle that had been in contact with pleuro-pneumonia, on the condition that ho should not bring them out at any time except for slaughter, would you see any dnnger to his neighbours from that cause ?It depends upon how near his neighbours wero to him, and the probability or possibility of contact.

2769.nbsp; nbsp;Of course we assume there should be no contact ?Granted no contact I do not see danger of the disease spreading, but I am perfectly certain when the man had explained to him the financial loss it would bo to him, he would do no such thing. He would want to have a clean bill of health and a new lot of clean healthy cows in ; he would have salvage and freedom in preference to perpetual quarantine.

2770.nbsp; We have bad a great many dairy owners here who take a different view, and I want to ascertain from you whether, supposing those men were allowed to carry out their own view in the financial matter, although you might think them foolish, you would think them dangerous to their neighbours ? Not if perfectly isolated. Along with that I would like to say that they are dangerous to the country, inasmuch as there would still be disease, and therefore we are nationally blocked up, boycotted by all the rest of the world, America, New Zealand, and every other place. I look at it entirely as a national question. 1 think this island ought, to be perfectly free from all contagious diseases. We have no right to have any of them. Once we are free we are then open to the world; all the world must come to us to buy cattle, and at present they cannot get them.

2771.nbsp; nbsp;Then you think a man should not have the option of either being boycotted or slaughtered out, but that he should be slaughtered out without the option ?That is so, and paid full value.

2772.nbsp; You have already said that the payment should fall upon the whole country and the Imperial revenue ?I am strongly of opinion that way, very strongly indeed.

2773.nbsp; nbsp;Then you would not advocate a poll tax on cattle ?No, certainly not; it is a national question.

2774.nbsp; nbsp;[Mr. Botven-Jones.) Doyen consider there would be a great waste of meat to the public and to the country through the slaughter you recommend?No, not a great waste; there would be a certain amount of waste. If cattle were in pretty good condition they would salvage 70 to 80 per cent,; if they were in leaner condition they would

only salvage about 50 per cent. that is, the hides and everything that you could put into the market. Then there are a certain number of cattle that ought to bo buried not salvaged at allexcept ^idesby that 1 mean lean, bad carcases that are not food for man, they are not fit to eatcarcases that ought to be buried.

2775.nbsp; Would the waste in your opinion that would occur from compulsory slaughter bo made good or compensated for by the irainunity that you believe wo should have from disease hereafter ?In a very short time it wouldin a very short time indeed.

2776.nbsp; {Professor Horslet/.) I should like very much to hear from your wide experience a little more about the possibility of infection of places. We have had positive evidence in favour of that, but I have never been able to satisfy myself from such evidence of its possibility. Do you think that it is possible in the slightest degree for a building to become infected with the virus ?I do not believe it is possible.

2777.nbsp; You do not believe that, even where no disinfection has been carried ?Even where no disinfection has been carried.

2778.nbsp; In all cases, then, where you have found an outbreak to occur in a place to which cattle have not recently been brought, you have always found an encysted case, as I understand you ?No, not always.

2779.nbsp; How have you found it ?I have found a disease with a very long incubative stage,and a recent attack without the encysted stage.

2780.nbsp; What would be the longest period of incubation under those circumstances that you have observed without encystment ?19 weeks, that is the longest I have known.

2781.nbsp; Do not you think it would bo well for veterinary science generally that the incubation period of pleuro-pneumonia should be determined accurately ? No, certainly not, we do not want any of it here at all ; wo want no more experiments or any more opinion about it; it wants to go at once and have done with it.

2782.nbsp; You say that that 19 weeks was an incubation period; upon what grounds do you make that statement?I know when the first cow was ill of pleuro-pneumonia upon that adjoining farm at Cow-per. Then I know the time that the. cow at Kit Cat Farm took ill, and I knowat least they found it out for methe length of time that expired between the contact with the two cows.

2783.nbsp; Might it not be that a cow has taken the poison, and that the disease has developed itself in the lung and yet that physical examination for the ordinary signs of illness does not make that evident ? No.

2784.nbsp; Do you think that you can detect the disease during life directly it shows itself as a lesion ?No ; an animal may have encysted pleuro-pneumonia, or even pleuro-pneumonia pretty well advanced, and it is almost an impossibility to say positively that the animal is suffering from pleuro-pneumonia. In certain cases I defy almost anyone to diagnose any disease at all ; you may do as you like you cannot find disease, and yet the animal has it.

2785.nbsp; Theroibro you would not like to say that 19 weeks was an incubation period ?I do say so.

2786.nbsp; How can we reconcile the statements, because you say it is not possible to determine accurately when the disease began ?I made a postmortem in this case, and I am sure that the animal had not been bad more than, say, from a fortnight to three weeks, to put it at the extreme.

2787.nbsp; Do you mean from a naked-eye inspection of the lungs ?Yes.

2788.nbsp; nbsp;I understood you to say of the Hallington cow, which re-infected itself, that you considered the fluid which was between the capsule and the encysted piece contained the virus ?I do, at any rate ; in my opinion when liquefaction or softening takes place in the encysted lung, the disease can then bo spread by that animal. The breath of the animal is then polluted sufficiently to spread the disease,

MINUTES OF imDKNOE.

2789.nbsp; Do you find under those circumstance, in the lungs Bum'oandiug that softening patcli of oncyst-ineut, congestion and ccloma, where tliero is also a recent pleuro-pnouinonia in tho sumo lung ?Yes, I find all tho changes that you find in ordinary pleuralaquo; pneumonia without the cyst.

2790.nbsp; You find those changes outside the softening _Cy_St?Yes. Yon may find another portion of lung recently affected, and the piece of lung with the old cyst not affected,

2791.nbsp; Do you find in Northumberland anything which would lead you to suppose, as has been suggested by other witnesses, that a stamping-out order would lead to concealment of the disease ?No, certainly not; there is no feeling of that kind. I may mention in connexion witli the Newton Underwood outbreak, it was afterwards found that the owner had sold cattle off before ho gave notice of having the disease. That was all hidden from me when T went to the place, but we found it out afterwards. As soon as ever it was known that pleuro-pneumonia existed on that farm, a gentleman called Eobinson came to mehe is a large dealer and a farmer, one of the largest we haveand asked me if it was true. I said, quot; Yes;quot; he said, quot; I bought four cattle at quot; Scott's Gap Mart that were sent there from Newton quot; Underwood.quot; He was very much alarmed and thought he was going to have the disease. To let you see the spirit that is in my district, I may say that he got hold of the cattle, took them from the herd they were inthey were four two year old shorthorn steersand sent them straight lo me with orders to slaughter and examine for pleuro-pneumonia regardless of cost, and I was to report if there was a trace of pleuro-pneumonia. I reported that there was not a trace of pleuro-pneumouia, and he said he was so happy he did not care for the loss of the cattle. That is just the feeling that exists between the authorities and cattle owners in the district.

2792. Suppose the disease were to be stamped out by slaughter here in England, what precautions would vou take for preventing its introduction into this country ?I would not have any cattle from any country where pleuro-pneumonia existed.

2973. Do you yourself believe in certificates ? No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'

2794.nbsp; What risk of spreading disease in England do you think there #9632;would bo from the cattle being landed and killed at the port of landing ?None at all. If they did not come in contact with our live cattle they would not give the disease. The dead carcases or the dead products would not give it.

2795.nbsp; Suppose cattle were brought from a country where pleuro-pneumonia is existing, say, to Deptford and killed, would you allow that ?You see they are coming for slaughter, and I do not think they would do any harm if they are slaughtered.

2796.nbsp; You would not consider that an appreciable risk ?I would not allow them to leave the quarantine yard alive, I would have nothing inside, and if they came alive into that quarantine yard I would have them all slaughtered.

2797.nbsp; But you would not think that it -would be running any appreciable risk to land them bore for slaughter?No; 1 believe the slaughter is n perfect end of it, that is my experience of it; but nothing less than slaughter, mind you, no more than simply landing them for slaughter.

2798.nbsp; (Mr, Stirling?) In reading that evidence given before the Ilighhmd Society, docs not it strike you as very unsatisfactory that there should be such an immense dill'erpricc of opinion amongst the veterinary surgeons appointed to work the Act of 1878 ? It is very unfortunate that it should be so.

2799.nbsp; nbsp;Would not experiments in your mind tend. to remove those differences ?~It would all depend upon the amount of attention that was paid to them by tho veterinary surgeons themselves. Some men #9632;would pay great attention and would learn something, others would not do so.

2800.nbsp; Would it not tend to increase tho knowledge Mr. O, f veterinary soienco generally ?We know sufficient ä'jft?yjj lready about pleuro-pneumonia, and if there is any ' J_^_ ' eterinary surgeon that is anxious to know anything ₈ _May ₁₈g₈.

t all about it, it is all ready for Mm at his hands;-----------

e can have all the information he requires at any time ithout any further investigation. It is thoroughly well understood every way and by everyone who has aken an interest in it.

2801.nbsp; Have you ever known in your experience an inoculated animal spreading the disease ?I have no experience of inoculated animals; it has not been done in my district since before the cattle-plague time.

2802.nbsp; When you come across one of your own profession who has experience of it and strongly recommends it, and asserts that in his hands it has produced certain results, is it not for the benefit of the country that those results should be accurately verified ?No, I cannot see that at all. Before I could follow the inoculating theory right through, I should want myself to investigate the cattle from the beginning to the end and account for them all. I have a very strong opinion that the extreme prevalence of pleuro-pneumonia in Scotland is clue to inoculated cattle getting set free at the end of 56 days.

2803.nbsp; If you have evidence that an outbreak of the disease has never been traced to an inoculated animal, how would you get over that fact ?I take it that all that can be said in favour of inoculation is between those two leaves {pointing to the Report of the Highland Society).

2804.nbsp; You must understand that the answer there would be that is only a digest; you do not get the evidence as fully as it was given ?I also take it that the great apostles of inoculation have here given their evidence, and they have said all they could say. I have read it carefully and analysed and dissected it, and I see no good in it at all. Their most favourable statements do not bear a favourable light, keeping in view the one object of stamping it out an'l eradicating the disease altogether. I say inoculation can never stamp out pleuro-pneumouia. That is what we want to get rid of, we do not want to trifle with it: we have been trifling with it too long and too many experiments have been carried out.

2805.nbsp; nbsp;It seems to me that, never having tried, you

simply say that it cannot be got quit of?I take your

own wortl for it. If you want another proof of that,

they all admit they must have fresh virus from diseased

animals to carry on the inoculation. How are you

going to work it ? You must have disease to get the

virus. As far as I can see the first thing is to kill all

the diseased and suspected animals; and then it is also

advised in some places to slaughter the cattle that do

not take the inoculation, as in all probability they are

diseased. Then there are some to slaughter afterwards

two, three, four, five, six, seven weeks afterwards cases

keep occurring. The whole thing is mixed up with

slaughter right through, and then they are no further

forward when it is all over. I do not know what the

returns are, but as far as I can see, siuco inoculation

has been carried on in Scotland, pleuro-pneumonia has

gone on increasing. That would be proved by the

returns. I know it has been very easily stamped out

with us, and I can only point again to the cost, the

twentieth part of a penny in the pound on the rates.

1 do not think anything can be better done than that,

not cheaper, nor more satisfactorily. Another thing,

as soon as ever we have stamped out a place, and a

man has cleaned it out, ho has got his money in his

pocket and a new stock, and a new start. That must

be very much bettor than a long quarantine and

dribbling on with the disease.

2806. Mr. Bowen-.Tones told you there were some dairy farmers who thought that slaughtering out brought them a large loss pecuniarily. In your answer to that you rather seemed to point a doubt whether the Americans would take pedigree stock from us, even supponing the dairymen were allowed to lock tip their herds ?I think the Americans would not; of course, that is only an opinion. They seem

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEROULOSIS:

Mr. C. Stephenson, F.H.C.V.S.

3 May 1888.

very (letanniiiod not to liavo nny more diseased cattle if tbcy can help it.

2807. Aooovdittf? to your own showing there would bo no risk from those cattle ?I do not think there is any risk from dead animals or from the products of dead animals. That is my experience of it. I believe the disease is only spread by living diseased animals. If the stamping out was carried out in all cases, except where the dairyman objected, and he was to bo put in perpetual quarantine------

1*808. His cattle would be branded so that they would not go out of the dairy except tor slaughter ? He would keep them in. How would you guard them getting out unless you had a policeman and a soldier at the door ?

2809.nbsp; If the cattle were branded would not they be seen after ?They might get away, and once they get away the mischief would be done.

2810.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) In the event of such a permission being granted, say, by the Privy Council, do you not think it would remove much of the prejudice at present existing against compulsory slaughter ?I have never hoard any objection ; I can only speak from what I find.

2811.nbsp; Would you think it likely to remove it? In some cases it would; but I think that when the thing is properly explained to any dairymen that they would stamp out at once. That is my experience.

2812.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) You have told the Committee that there are a great many false reports of pleuro-pneumonia sent in ?That is so.

2813.nbsp; Do you remember a particular case where you were called upon, I think, to examine 43 animals in that one district ?That was soon after my appointment, some years ago, down near Coldstream.

2814.nbsp; Do'you lecollect how many you found to bo diseased out of the 13, or some such number ?

__I do not recollect just now. It is too for back, and

I have not the figures with me.

2815.nbsp; It is recorded in the report of this department, or the refort which your local authority forwarded to this department ?I remember the report is my first report for the county, and at that time it was quite common to be sent for for all kinds of curious diseases.

281G. Professor Horsley nsked you if you thought it desirable to have experiments instituted for the purpose of determining the incubation period. Can you think of any course of experiments which might be useful to ward's that object?No, I cannot.

2817.nbsp; Have yon no means of knowing at what time, in any hundred cases that have come under your notice, the animal was infected ?In that case where I mentioned that 19 weeks elapsed between contact.

2818.nbsp; Jf you take any hundred cases can you speak generally?I have none at all.

2819.nbsp; Not even 1 per cent. ?Yes, I could find you some that I could give.

2820.nbsp; Could you form any idea of the per-ccntage of cases where you could get a clue to the date of infection ?It would be very difficult indeed; I could, I think, perhaps work out where diseased cattle had been brought into new yards, the time that would elapse between the introduction of the now cattle, and of the outbreak of the disease ; but it would be very difficult, and not a large per-centage that could be relied upon.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. ^

2821.nbsp; nbsp;By the use of the term quot;incubation period what do you mean, or what do you suppose to bo meant usually ?1 mean the time that lias elapsed between the reception by contact of the germs of the disease and the development of the disease in the animal.

2822.nbsp; That is so; the development of the disease in such a form that yonld detect it. by the ordinary physical characteristics ?Yes ; that it is visible.

2823.nbsp; I think you have stated, what is undoubtedly n fact, that in many cases the animal may have the disease, and in a very palpable form, on post-mortem examination without showing any sign whatever

during life ?That is so; I have found that over and over again.

2824.nbsp; And that condition of things might exist for some time before the animal was slaughtered ?Yes ; it would depend upon the amount of lung tissue that was implicated; and it. would also depend upon the position of the diseased portion.

2825.nbsp; Does not the fact of the encysted eases, as they are called, suggest that you may have the disease in a very limited part of the lung, and that it may remain in a fixed condition in that part ?That is so.

2820. And during the whole of that time, whatever that time may be, you could not find it out ?I could not find it out.

2827.nbsp; Nevertheloas, the incubative stage would have ceased fromi the very moment that the first spot of pleuro-pneumonia deposit occurred ?That is so.

2828.nbsp; And that might have existed for some weeks ? Or months.

2829.nbsp; Before you had discovered it ?Yes; and then only discovered post-mortem.

2830.nbsp; Then, in order to determine the incubation period, would it not be necessary to expose a number of animals from u perfectly healthy district to contact with the disease then to separate them into separate lots and to kill them at short intervals ?That is so. I thought all this out in respect to whether there was a necessity for trying experiments. I say that, supposing it was determined to carry out further experiments, it would be necessarily a very long, a very expensive, and a very tedious process. I say that, to begin with, there would have to bo a pretty large number of cattle taken ; that you would have to have a life history of every individual animal that you took you should be quite sure that yon do not take any from any infected district; there would have to be no doubt about that. Then everyone of these cattle would have to be kept for the remainder of their life. You could not even slaughter them at the end of 12 months or 18 months if you wanted to find this out.

2831.nbsp; If you wanted to aseeriain at what moment the disease began in the lungs, would you kill them, perhaps, at intervals of a few weeks?Then it is only a quest ion of the number of cattle, if you find cattle enough and accommodation to keep them.

2832.nbsp; nbsp;If you were to select 500 perfectly heal thy cattle from districts in the south of England where pleuro-pneumonia has not existed for many years there is a certain line which we can draw on the map, including a number of free districtswould it be a very serious matter if you had all those cattle in fair butchers' condition to expose them to the infection, and then have them killed at short intervals?Not a serious financial question if the cattle were kept going on in good condition.

2833.nbsp; nbsp;That would be. an experiment, would it not, that might be conducted with comparative safety and modei'htc cost, and would lead to, probably, very interesting results so far as that, point is concerned ? It would bo very interesting, there can be no doubt about that.

2834.nbsp; nbsp;I5ut not in the direction of stamping out.? No.

2833. Yon say that the pleuro-pneumonia does not, in your experience, extend from an infected place? That is my experience.

2830. In that respect, it differs from cattle plague, foot-and-mouth, and swine fever, does it not?Yes; and in my opinion it is not carried by mediate contact. I never hesitate about going amongst my own herd as soon as ever I come back from an outbreak; I have no doubt about that,

2837.nbsp; Have you ever in that way introduced the disease ?Never; and I have never seen any ill-etfects from letting the owner of an infected place have in a new stock within, say, a week of the time of the last animal being slaughtered.

2838.nbsp; In regard to inoculation, your objection to any experiments, I gather, is based entirely on your belief

¥#9632;


	^
	i
	i
	\|m.

^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

rrraquo;

M1NUTKS OF EVIDENOK.

raquo;7

the

veterinary inspector is called in and he says that it is pleuro-pneumonia ho can do no more, everything stands raquo;till then till 1 can get there; they telegraph or send for me as soon us possible, and then 1 take charge of it, and from that day until the cessation order is signed I have tho whole thing in my own hands.

2853, Then you are the chief inspector for the whole county, and you have no district inspectors ? No, none.

2851. You spoke to Professor Ilorsley about uu encysted lung ; may I ask if yon over examined an encysted lung with a microscope?No, 1 have not; it does not require a microscope.

2855.nbsp; It was stated here that, on examination ol an encysted lung, it had been (bund that tho matter was perfectly dead mutter, and contained nothing that could give off poison. You have no oxporienco of that, have you ? Could you contradict that from your own knowledge?My experience of encysted pleuro-pnenmonia is this, that so long as ihe eueysted piece of lung remains hard and firm the animal has not the power to give off the poison, but sooner or later a time comes when some softening or liquelaclion takes place, and then the animal is a most dangerous creature, because she gives oftquot; tho poison and does not give symptoms of the disease herself.

2856.nbsp; Then you have never examined that liquid matter with a microscope ?I have not.

2857.nbsp; {Chairman.) Have you had any personal experience of tuberculosis ?Yes, I have seen a good deal of tuberculosis.

2858.nbsp; Is it very common in your experience ?It is very common.

2859.nbsp; nbsp;Have you found it in all breeds of animals ? No. I have found it in cattle, sheep, and pigs. I never saw it in dogs or in horses.

2860.nbsp; Do you think it is more prevalent now than it was formerly ?I do not think it is more prevalent now.

2861.nbsp; Have you any returns from your own district to show that ?I have taken out the supposed outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia that upon investigation have turned out to be tuberculosis for tho years 1879 to 1887. The cases run from four down to two. This is the return I have prepared {handing in same).

2862.nbsp; quot;Were those diseased animals slaughtered as animals supposed to be suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, or were they apparently healthy animals that had been in contact ?They were animals that were diseased.

2803. Are those returns that you put in based upon the observation of your inspector in the slaughterhouses of Newcastle ?That return that I have given you there is my own investigation in the comity, and it does not refer to the town at all. 1 have made inquiries of Inspector Headlcy, that is the inspector who carries out the examination of markets, byres, and slaughter-houses in Newcastlehe is a very good man indeedand he says lie has seen more tubercular disease recently than he did before ; he says, quot; I think quot; it is because I have more time to look after tho quot; slaughter-houses now.quot; We have no contagious or infectious disease now, and he has plenty of time i-o hunt up all the slaughter-houses and examine tho carcases

2864.nbsp; Is it, more frequently met with, do you think, in some kind of cattle than in others ?Yes, I think i: is most commonly met with in heavy milking breeds.

2865.nbsp; Do you consider it a hereditary disease? Decidedly so, highly hereditary. I have scon it in a calf a month old. I saw the post-mortem of the mother. The mother was slaughtered for dropping after calving. She had tuberculosis, and the cull' was slaughtered, before it was a month old, for veal, and it had tuberculosis, in both cases in the lungs.

2860. Do you often find it after a post-mortom when you can discover it better than during lifo ? That is so. Anyone who attends slaughter-houses will find tubercular disease in some of the primesi, cattle that are slaughtered.

Mr. 0,

StephensoH,

F.n.c.v.s.

3 May 1888.

that tho best tbiog you can do is to get rid of discuso ?That is so.

2839.nbsp; nbsp;But othcrwiso you would have no move objection to uscortain whether inoculation would bo ppno-tised, than you would have to atceitaln what period would elapse from tho moment of infection to tho declaration of the disease in any form of tho lung?1 have no objection to that, but I say that it is not needed, because we have already experiments and experience to go by.

2840.nbsp; It is known, is it not, that inoculation docs protect animals to a certain extent ?8o I believe.

2841.nbsp; For an undetermined time?But it never has stamped out the disease from any country.

2842.nbsp; In the case of a country like Australia, for example, or the Cape, where tiiousands of animals are running loose, would you advocate slaughter there, or would you think inoculation should be practised ?I would slaughter. All would depend, in my opinion, upon what you wanted to do; if you want to eradicate the disease, slaughter; if you want to modify it, or to keep it within bounds, then it is a question for inoculation ; how best to do it is entirely a question as to what you have in view.

2843.nbsp; You spoke of a cow having re-infected herself from a diseased centre ?Yes. I have had two cases of that.

2484. And you have attributed that re-infection to softening of the deposit ?That is the only explanation I can give. I am not sure that I am right about that, but I find encysted pleuro-pneumonia in making post-mortems firm, and at that stage I cannot find that it has spread the disease. Later on, some softening takes place, and then, in my opinion, the animal has the power of giving off the poison again. This is my experience.

2845.nbsp; You said, in answer to a former question, that you objected to permissive orders ?I do.

2846.nbsp; Are you aware that the Privy Council has on many occasions passed compulsory orders, and that local authorities either have not carried them out, or have carried them out in such a perfunctory manner that they have failed of their object ?That is so, and that is my reason for saying that this department ought to take entire hold of the pleuro-pneumonia question and work it out themselves, and not depend upon local authorities.

2847.nbsp; Then, in addition to advising uniform action, you advise that the action should be centralised ?I do. I would have it dealt with just the same as cattle plague was dealt with.

2848.nbsp; In that case of course you would expect the Treasury to pay the cost ?Decidedly.

2849.nbsp;It has been suggested by one or two witnesses that a great improvement in the administration of the Acts would take place if, instead of local antliorities in the counties and boroughs, there were boards to which counties and boroughs should send representatives. For example, I think a witness suggested that there should be one board in Edinburgh or Glasgow for the whole of Scotland. Do you think that plan would bo advisable ?I do not. I would not like to sec any change in my district. Under the past and present arrangements, Northumberland and tho city of Newcastle are simply worked splendidly, harmoniously, easily, and perfectly ; as perfectly as it can be done under tho Act.

2850.nbsp; Notwithstanding that method which you found so successful in the case to which you refer, I under-stand you still advocate the power being taken out of the hands of the local authorities and left in the hands of this department ?I do decidedly. I am very strongly of that opinion.

2851.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling) In reference to tho form of the cessation order which you have put in, I understand that it is countersigned by you ?Yes.

2852.nbsp; Are the local veterinary surgeons employed under the local authority? Are they under you?--Not at all. Tho police inspector has power, if he thinks well, to call in a local veterinary inspector, if it is a simple case, to get an opinion. If the local

(11

f'OMMITTKK ON PLEUBO-rNBüMONIA AND TUBHR0ULO8IS :

Mr. C.

Stephenson, V.k C. V.S.

raquo; May 1888.

2HC)7. Duiiay your visits to tho ctittlo market have you frequently observed animals Buffering from tuberculosis in an advanced stage ?Very often indeed.

2868. Do you think that is a condition in which they Bhouldbe permitted to bo sold in the marker, ? No, \ am sure it. is not a condition in which they ought, to he sold in the market. I would very much like to have the power to iiave them removed, but I have not that power or else I would remove them. I can tell yon whnt happens, if it is a Newcastle salesman or a Newcastle owner, we simply say, quot; I lt;!o not think that animal ought to be here,quot; and off it goes at once.

2860. You do not, I suppose, imply that it is communicable by contact ?No, I do not go that

2870.nbsp; Do you think it has any influence upon the powers of breeding ?I am sure it has.

2871.nbsp; nbsp;By which answer do you mean that non-breeAing is produced by it ?Non-breeding is very often due to tubercular taint.

2872.nbsp; Can you give us any special illustration from your own expensuce ?I know of three cases oi cows that stopped breeding, no end of trouble was taken with them. They were valuable cows, and everything was done that could possibly be done in the treatment of vaginal and uterine disease. One was kept for 12 months, the other two were only kept a shorter time, and upon post-mortem we discovered tuberculosis of the uterup, and a small portion of tho lung, perhaps a piece of lung about the size of the top of that inkstand {pointing to same) hard, perfectly hard, no softening at all; no change had taken place in that respect. The first thing I found was a piece of tubercular deposit at the edge of one of the lungs, or in some of the small lobes of tho lung, and then I go to the uterus, and find tuberculosis in the uterus.

2873.nbsp; What is the worst case you ever saw of tuberculosis in the uterus ? The worst case of tubercular disease of the uterus was a cow of my own.

2874.nbsp; Just describe it?She broke her service after she had been two or three months served, and she became what is known amongst breeders as a bullor, that was, she was bulling all day and every day. She became, from being the most docile, gentle creature that you could lead about, perfectly wild and dangerous; she had to be isolated and kept in a stable by herself. I worked at her for a long time, and got her to go 18 days without breaking. Then she broke worse than ever, and was slaughtered. There we had tuberculosis.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . ,

2875.nbsp; Did you make a post-mortem examination ol

it ?__Yes. I make a post-inortcm whenever I got the

opportunity.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

2876.nbsp; nbsp;Have you retained any specimen ot this case' That specimen is preserved and valued in the College of Medicine at Newcastle. I take some of my specimens to the professors at the College of Medicine there.

2877.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that it has any connexion with tuberculosis in the human being ?Yes, I do.

2878.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that any special conditions should bo attached to the ordinary system of slaughtering animals ?Yes. I think that all cattle that,⁰ are intended for the food of roan should bo slaughtered in public abbattoirs, and 1 think that all cattle should be examined by a properly qualitied inspector, both anterior to death and postmortem. I also think that there should bo a careful record kept of all these examinations in the abattoirs, and of the diseases found, and of their character. That, at any rate, would give us all a lino to go by to see what we were working at, and would give us a true line as to the amount of disease that is in the country.

2879.nbsp; Then do you consider that, there ought (o bo any further regulations attached to the management of dairies or cowsheds?-I think that power should be given to take out tubercular cows from dairies.

2880.nbsp; Do you think breeders are taking more interest in this disease than formerly ?I am sure

tuborculav diKoaso, and they are taking more interest ill it, but they still want to be further educated up to it.

288!.. {Professor Horsletj.) This return of outbreaks of tuberculosis which was supposed to bo pienro-pnoninonla, I take to bu additional to the other casts of tuberculosis ?Yes. 1 never make a salvage, but 1 find two or three cases of tuberculosis. I laid down a law at the tirst,that I would not pass a tubercular carcase, if I found there was the slightest danger of disease spreading. You may liud in examining a car-case a small piece of tubercular deposit, but hard and solid. If there is no attachment to the pleuro, and no softening, I pass the carcase if it is a good earcaso, but destroy all traces of the tubercular portion. But if, on the other side, I find tubercular matter breaking up soft, cheesey, gelatinous, and extensive, I condemn the whole lot, and put the carcase and everything belonging to it under tho ground.

2882.nbsp; nbsp;You spoke just now of a very interesting case of the disease in a calf a month old ?Yes.

2883.nbsp; nbsp;Those are, of course, the most important cases in the question of tuberculosis in cattle. Was the disease in the calf very old; would you say from your experience it was more than a month old ? Decidedly that; as beautifully developed as ever you saw it in your life. You could take it in your hand, and handle it hard and firm, and perfectly developed.

2884.nbsp; Then you think distinctly that the disease in that calf was intra uterum ?Not the slightest doubt about it. Allow me to say that tbe cow was slaughtered for another disease altogether.

2885.nbsp; Have you cases in which the disease was conveyed by the milk ?I have no positive information of it. I have always had a strong belief on the point, but I could give you no reason for n\y belief. 1 would not drink tubercular milk, nor would I eat tubercular meat, if I knew it.

2886.nbsp; Of course, you know if the food, whichever it he, milk or meat, is raised to 100 degrees centigrade that the organism is perfectly destroyed ?Yes, that is a safeguard.

2887.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that the disease, so far as you have seen it, is influenced by climatic changes ?Yes, I think it is.

2888.nbsp; Do you think that you got secondary bronchitis, in cattle with it, as you do in a human being ? Yes, I do.

2889.nbsp; Could you give us any facts concerning the distribution of the disease in the body ; I mean its relative existence in the lungs as compared with other organs?The lungs is the favourite seat in cattle, bii't 1 have found it in almost every organ. 3 have found it in the pericardium, in the heart itself; nearly the whole of the muscular part of the heart. 1 have found it in the liver, in tho spleen, in the kidneys, upon the peritoneum. I have found it causing paralysis from pressure upon the sciatic nerves, small hard granular tubercular deposits upon the sheath of the sciatic nerves, causing complete paralysis of the hind parts. I have found it in glandular structures ; in fact, I have found it pretty nearly all over the body. We do know that it also causes some brain siffcctiou.

2890.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to tho glands, you said just now that you had never seen tuberculosis in horses ?I have not.

2891.nbsp; nbsp;Do you regard strangles in horses as a perfectly distinct condition of a gland from tubercular disease ?1 do. I see no trace of tuberculosis.

2892.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen any case of strangles in which there was any peripheral irritation or inflammation to account for the inflammation in the gland ? No, I think not.

28f)3. Have you ever seen a case of primary strangles?Yes, I have. I have seen all kinds of strangles, but I have never seen anything about strangles that would lead me to believe there was tho slightest connexion between strangles in the horse and tuberculosis.

M':

.m.

they arc. The breeders have found now the pinch of

MINUTES OK BVIUENOE.

2894.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to theso outbreaks given in the return you last handed in, how many animals Mrere ailected In each outbreak ?Each of tliem means one animal, that is, cases of tuboreulosis that I have boon called to, whicii have been reported as plouro-pnou-monia,

2895.nbsp; Those wore the first animals infoeted ? Yes.

289G. Were they test cases ?Sometimes tost cases.

2897.nbsp; In those cases where you have been cnllcd and you have found the animal suffering from obvious lung disease, 1 believe you havu killed it and made a post-mortem ?The owner himself generally kills it.

2898.nbsp; Have you gone on further and killed any other animals of the herd ?Never.

2899.nbsp; Then your experience is distinctly against the possibility of the disease spreading from one adult animal to another ?I have no experience of that, but I have read what is said about it.

2900.nbsp; You have never met with it ?No, never.

2901.nbsp; nbsp;Even in cows where the heads are close together ?I have no experience of it j I could not point to a fact and say, quot; There that was it.quot;

2902.nbsp; Has your attention ever been called to a case in -which the fowls ou a farm have become affected with tuborcule ?No, never.

2903.nbsp; Not even where it was very well marked in one of the bigger animals ?A well-marked single case in a herd of cattle is not a very serious thing. If you had a regular tubercular dairy of cows, a lot of worn-out, tubercular cows with poultry about with them, I think that is a likely place where you might see some ill-effects to the poultry. That is not my position, I do not come across that kind of animal, not the numbers massed together.

2904.nbsp; So far as its persistence is concerned, do you believe that it is due to the breeding ?I do.

2905.nbsp; Entirely ?Yes.

2906.nbsp; {Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Do you think in-breeding influences the disease at all ?I think it does if there is the slightest taint in either parent, but I am inclined to think that, granted both parents are sound, it does not influence it.

2907.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) Have you formed any opinion as to the desirability of legislation on the subject ?I havu thought about it a good deal, and 1 oannot see that any legislation could bo enacted to handle and deal with tubercular disease.

2908.nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean with regard to tlio prevention of the spreading of the disease among the animals ?-Yes.

2909.nbsp; Cannot you think of any regulations which would help you in your district in preventing it from spreading ?The only thing that I would like to have in my district would bo power to prevent, tubercular animals being exposed and sold for food, and power to remove woll-markod tubercular cases from dairies that are supplying milk to the town. I would like to protect the consumers of milk and the consumers of meat.

2910.nbsp; When saying that, you are aware that the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts undei which .wo are proceeding give us no power whatever to deal with the question ?That is so.

2911.nbsp; But we are bound to limit the scope of our orders to the prevention of disease among the animals ? Yes.

2912.nbsp; If we can indirectly in that way protect the consumer we can do it, but you do not think of anything which would enable you to use more precautions than yon now can take for the prevention of the spreading of tubercular disease among the animals ? Nothing but educating the breeders and owners to detect it in sires and in dams, and in not rearing cattle that have it, and to get rid of them to the butcher, if fit for food, as soon as possible.

2913.nbsp; Have you met with cases of perfectly fa,t, well-looking animals showing no signs of disease in which, nevertheless, tuberculosis has been well developed ?That is so; that is a well-known fact.

2914.nbsp; And that constitutes a serious difficulty in the way of dealing with it ?No doubt.

2915.nbsp; {Chairman.) Would you think it desirable that tuberculosis should be added to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?No, certainly not.

Mr. C. Slep/utuon, F.Ii.C.V.S.

3 May 1888.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

(i 154008.

COMM1TTKB ON l'LKUKO-l'NEUMONIA AND TUBEJiCULOSlS;

SIXTH DAY.

Friday, 4th May 1888.

PRESENT :

Mr. JACOB WILSON m the Chair.

Lord Cloncurry.

Sir George Macpherson Grant, Bart.

Mr, Stirling.

Mk. Bowen-Jones. Professor Brown, C.B. PEorassoR Horslky, F.E.S.

Mr. R. Dawson, Secretary.

Mr. J. Dunne.

4 May 1888.quot;

Mr. John Ddnne called and examined.

2916.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) You reside at Moorhouse Hall, nem- Warwick, in the county of Cumberland ?Yes.

2917.nbsp; Are you the chief constable of the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland ?Yes.

2918.nbsp; nbsp;And in that capacity have you had considerable experience in outbreaks of contagious diseases among cattle ?Yes.

2919.nbsp; Has your attention been specially directed to outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia?Yes.

2920.nbsp; Can you give the Committee any statistics as to the number of outbreaks in any recent given number of years ?I beg to state for your information that in the last ten years pleuro-pneumoma broke out on 117 farms in Cumberland; 15 of these were renewed outbreaks ; that is to say, the disease broke out after the restrictions were removed at the expiration of a certain time, and the disease reappeared on the premises that had previously been affected. Westmoreland was quite free from disease.

2921.nbsp; At what interval of time did those renewed outbreaks take place ?One after the expiration of

129 days.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , t.

2922.nbsp; nbsp;Will you kindly state where that was ?it is one of the cases in the neighbourhood of Bewcastle.

2923.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give the name of the farm ? Graham's Onsett.

2924.nbsp; It is in the Whitehaven district, you say i Yes. One was after the expiration of 30Ä days ; that was very nearly a year.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , _ml

2925.nbsp; nbsp; What district was that inr1 hat was in the Wigton district; the restrictions had been kept on those premises for about nine months in consequence of frequent outbreaks.

2926.nbsp; Kindly give me the third one, and then give the individual instances ?One was after the expiration of 100 days ; another after the expiration of 103

days.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,

2927.nbsp; nbsp;Tell us the districts affected by those outbreaks ?1 shall give the districts generally ; the different places in Cumberland where the disease existed ; and 1 shall give the details afterwards, and give the name of each place. There are some more : one at the expiration of 7 days; one at the expiration of 11 days; one at the expiration of 9 days; one at the expiration of 284 days; one at the expiration of 65 days; one at the expiration of 108 days; one at the expiration of 129 days ; and one at the expiration

of 360 clays.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ₀ mi. i. j

2928. Is that another case after 360 days r¹ihat is the same. I want to give the particulars of 15 renewed outbreaks. Subsequent to the removal of the restrictions the disease reappeared at:Grahams Onsett, Bewcastle, after 129 days in 1878. Sillotli Farm, Wigton, after 360 days in 1878. Denn, Coekcrmoutb, after 52 days in 1879. Maryport, after 100 days in

1879. Silloth Farm, third outbreak, after 103 days in 1879. Underwood, Mosser, Cockeimouth, after seven days in 1883. Underwood, Mosser, Cocker-mouth, third outbreak, after 11 days in. 1884. Brac-kenthwaith, Wigton, after 10 days in 1885. New-biesen, Penrith, after 284 days in 1885. Harrington Parks, Whitehaven, after 168 days in 1887. Crosby, Maryport, after 65 days in 1887. The disease again broke out on the farm of Mr. Carr, Silloth, in 1886, when the restrictions were continued for' nine months. The disease was on the infected premisea at Maryport first in 1875. These are not included in the 11 outbreaks. In the 10 years from 1878 to 1887 pjeuro-pneumonia broke out in Cumberland on 117 farms, where 441 diseased cattle were slaughtered, and 191 cattle that were in contact with the diseased animal is were slaughtered. The latter, at the time of slaughter, were not visibly diseased, but on a post-mortem examination, several were found to have the disease upon them in its latent stages. In the previous nine years, from 1869 to 1877, the disease was on 199 farms, where 412 diseased cattle were slaughtered. The expenditure and losses in the 19 years amounts to over

20,000/.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;j xu i a

2929. You have only given 11 renewed outbreaks rquot; As to the other fourthe particulars are not given. Ithink that it exceeded a year for the other four, and I did not think it necessary to take down the particular' time. They traced the renewed outbreaks in the other four cases to other causesthat is, to the introduction of some Irish cattleand I did not want to mix up with these renewed outbreaks those which could not be fairly traceable to the disease having remained on the premises, through bad drainage, or bad buildings, or being in latent stages in the cattle that were in contact with the animals that were previously diseased.

2930. In the 11 cases of reintroduction ot disease, have you any reason to believe that those did not arise from a direct introduction of fresh cattle ?No. We traced every particular connected with these outbreaks, and we could not find that any fresh cattle had been taken on to the farms. The opinion of the veterinarians and my own opinion was that the germs of the disease remained about the premises in old buildings, or in defective drainage, or through places where the disease generally settles itself.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . ,

2931. Now what was the treatment adopted in the earlier partof the 10 years to which you referred ?The treatment then was to slaughter the animals in detail as they became diseased. I reported outbreak ot disease, the veterinary inspector was called in, and certified that the animal was diseased, and it was iinmedintely slaughtered. The local authority delegated certain powers to me, with the object of having immodiato action token when an animal was certihecl to

MINUTES OP EVIDRNOE.

J)l

be tllsoased, and acting uikIoi' thoso instructions I had till diseased animals foi'tbwttli slau^Meml without waiting to call the loeul authority together. Alaquo; infected place was at once formed. JPolicomen wore put on special duty around it, and stringent measures were taken to isolate the same.

2932.nbsp; What treatment did you adopt with reference to the animals in contact hut not actually diseased ? In cases where the veterinary inspector believed that these animals had got the disease, and were suffering from It, the local autliorlty authorised their slaughter. That was in the first portion of the period to winch 1 refer ; but in the three latter years, as soon as the Privy Council had taken the questxoa in hand and circulated instructions to local authorities to use every effort to stamp out the disease and to slaughter nil animals that were directly in contact with diseased cattle, the local fiuthority have adopted that policy of slaughtering.

2933.nbsp; But you say directly in contact; therefore, 1 presume, you would not think it necessary to slaughter :ill the animals upon a large farm so long as they were sufficiently isolated in separate lots ?In the last year we slaughtered all the animals that were on the same farm that had been in contact with the diseased cattle, not only on the same farm but on adjoining farms; that is to say, if six or more cattle were in one field, and that field was divided by a hedge from the field in which the diseased animals were, and they had an opportunity of smelling or licking one another over the hedge or through the hedge, the local authority had them slaughtered. By that means the disease, as I am glad to Lave to report to you, has been successfully prevented. During the last nine months we have not had an outbreak.

2934.nbsp; At what distance from the diseased animals do you consider healthy animals would be safe from infection ?__The local veterinarians contend that there must

be actual contact between the healthy animal and the diseased animal to cause the disease to spread from the diseased animal to the healthy one.

2935.nbsp; Did the action which you have detailed in the earlier part of the 10 years, have the effect of exterminating the disease ?No, it had not.

2936.nbsp; nbsp;Did you after that time attempt preventive measures by inoculation ?Yes.

2937.nbsp; In how many cases ?On three farms.

2938.nbsp; And over what length of time did you adopt inoculation ? The inoculation took place about 19 months ago. On one farm the cattle that were inoculated were certified to he again diseasedthat is, suffering from pleuro-pneumoniasix months from the date of the inoculation.

2939.nbsp; Do you mean that the animals that were afterwards found to be diseased were the same animals which had previously been inoculated ?Yes.

2940.nbsp; Upon what farm did that occur ?That was on the farm of Mr. liothery, of Harrington, near White-haven. The inoculation was carried out under the treatment of Mr. Bell, the bead veterinary inspector in the county; he is a veterinarian of considerable reputation.

2941.nbsp; 1 believe he is the chief inspector of the local authority ?He is the head inspectorthe consulting inspector ; he is always called in in a doubtful case. This inoculation was carried out entirely under his direction. Mr. Biggar, who is a farmer of very considerable reputation, and other Scotch gentlemen appeared before the local authority of Cumberland and made so strong a statement in support of the policy of inoculation that it was finally adopted, after very considerable discussion, on the part of the local authority. They determined to try this experiment, and the experiment, as I have said, was carried out fully under the direction of Mr. Bell, assisted by other local veterinarians, and the cattle thai suffered through the process of Inoculation, suffered very considerably.

2942.nbsp; nbsp;How many of these cattle were inoculated ? About 25. Three died under the operation during the time that they were suffering from the effects oc inoculation. These three died in most excruciating

agony; lumps of considerable si/.o appeared upon their bodies, and their sufferings, according to the

Afr. J. Dunne 4 May 18S8.

description given by the local police and Mr. Bell, wore so serious that the local authority directed them to be slaughtered, but before the order could be carried out the animals had died.

2943.nbsp; What became of the remaining 22 ?Do you mean when the disease reappeared among the cattle that were inoculated ?

2944.nbsp; I think you said the disease reappeared in the lot of 22 ?Yes.

2945.nbsp; nbsp;How long after the expiration of the six months ?The time that bad expired with the 22, was about six months from the inoculation to when the disease reappeared.

2946.nbsp; At any rnte, the disease reappeared at the end of six months among a lot of 22 which had previously been inoculated ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^

2947.nbsp; nbsp;What was the effect upon these 22 ?1 he effect was that, as soon as it was known the disease was pleuro-pneumonia, there was a meeting of the local authority, and they directed that the whole herd of cattle should be forthwith slaughtered, and they were all slaughtered and the disease stamped out.

2948.nbsp; nbsp;Was there a post-mortem examination made of these animals ?Yes, on several of them.

2949.nbsp; And was pleuro-pneumonia pronounced to be present in all ?Yes, it was pronounced to be pleuro-pneumonia.

2950.nbsp; Were they all inoculated cattle ?All inoculated cattle.

2951.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.) Was the disease present in all the lungs ?The post-mortem was made not in all, but in several of those that were slaughtereda post-mortem was made and in them the veterinarian certified the disease to be pleuro-pneumonia.

2952.nbsp; nbsp; {Chairman.) But you say all that were slaughtered were diseased ? Yes; all that were slaughtered were certified to be suffering from the disease, and some of them that were slaughtered were examined post-mortem.

2953.nbsp; That is, all those that were examined indicated disease ?Yes, strongly.

2954.nbsp; nbsp;How many do you suppose of the Z4 slaughtered were examined ?Seven post-mortems.

2955.nbsp; Have you any reason to think that the whole of them were suffering ?The veterinarian had no doubt that they were all suffering from the diseasethe whole lot of them.

2956.nbsp; nbsp; Who was the veterinarian to whom you referred in this case ?Mr. Bell and Mr. Soulsby, the veterinarian at Wbitehaven.

2957.nbsp; nbsp; Had there been in the interval in this particular case an introduction of fresh cattle ? There were no fresh cattle introduced to the farm between the previous outbreak of disease and the renewed outbreak.

2958.nbsp; At what time of the year did this occur ?It occurred between October and April.

2959.nbsp; Therefore the cattle would be in the house ai that time ?Yes.

2960.nbsp; What description were these cattle ?i here were some milk cows and a great many store cattle, two year olds and several stirks about a year old, a mixed lot of cattle, principally shorthorns. I may explain that those cases are not put down in the list which I gave, of renewed outbreaks. I find that they had strong reasons from Mr. Bell's report to believe that the disease was never off the premises, that it continued there all the time,

2961.nbsp; Is it your impression, from your large experience, that pleuro-pneumonia can linger for any length of time about a place ?Yes ; it depends very much upon the sanitary condition of the premises.

2902.nbsp; Have you made any special study of the means by which the disease is communicated ; do you believe that dineose can onlybe communicated through the lungs, by respiration ?That is the opinion of the veterinarians, and I must bow to their decision.

2903.nbsp; But in contradistinction to foot-and-mouth disease, it is not necessarily communicated in the

M 2

laquo;:

#9632;

OOMMIOTBH ON PLKUHO-PNEUMONIA ANlaquo; TUBRUCIII.OSIS:

Mr. J. Dunne.

4 May 1888.

same way ?No; it is totally different, accordiug to the veterinary opinions. They say that In pleuro the place has as iVcquently coinmumcatecl disease as cfiseased animals, by the insanitary state of the premises. In one promises in Cumberland the restrictions wore continued for nine monthsthat was on the premises of Mr. Carr, of Silloth, where the drainage was altogether stopped and in a very insanitary condition. The buildings wore old auquot; toe wood rotten, and, according to the opinion oi Mr. Bell, the veterinary inspector, the germs of the disease were harboured in tiiis place ; and until they were completely pulled down, and the old wood burnt, and the drains all picked up and relaid, he considered that it would not be safe for other animals to go upon those premises. Several outbreaks had previously occurred there, but none since.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; p

2964.nbsp; In addition to the case of Mr. Rothery, ot Harrington, can yon give us an instance of an outbreak after inoculation ?Not in Cumberland. The other cattle that were inoculated were fattened off and sold. They were in a fresh condition at the time of inoculation, and were sold as fat cattle about three, months from the inoculation.

2965.nbsp; Are you aware whether any post-mortem was made ?No ; they were slaughtered as fat cattle and sent away.

2966.nbsp; nbsp;Was there any report made as to the condition of their lungs ?None that I am aware of. The local authority felt so satisfied of the inadequacy of inoculation as being ,a safeguard against the reappearance of the disease, when this case occurred at Harrington, that they determined not to try any more experiments, and instead of experimenting upon animals in the direction of inoculation or doctoring, or anything else, they resorted to the policy of slaughter ; and in all cases where the disease appeared, all the animals on the farm and those on the adjoining farms were forthwith slaughtered. The result ot that has been, as I have said before, that there has not been a case of pleuro-pneumonia in Cumberland for the last nine months.

2967.nbsp; Is that a longer period of immunity from disease than you ever experienced in Cumberland ?#9632; It is the longest period that has been experienced since 1869. The county has not been free from disease since 1869, till the policy of stamping out disease by slaughter of animals had been resorted to.

2968.nbsp; nbsp;Owing to the peculiar geographical position of Cumberland, is it not specially liable to outbreaks of disease?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

'^909 To what is that duo ? - Mamly to the importation' of cattle from Ireland. We have the ports of Silloth and Whitehaven ; these arc the two principal ports at which cattle arrive from Ireland. We have Maryport, Workington, and Millom. Some arrive at each of these places, but nothing like the numbers that arrive, at Silloth and Whitehaven. There is also i very large number that come by Stranracr and other Scotch ports ; also from Harrow, Morecamb, and Fleet-wood.

2970. And from whatever source they may come, Carlisle, appears to be the centre to which they all naturally draw ?Yes ; a very large number go from the ports of debarkation direct into other counties, into Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire, a largenumber went through Silloth to York. The numbers that arquot; brought into the county average about a thousand a week. A very large number of cattle also come from Scotland to the Carlisle market, also from the West Hiding of Yorkshire, and Westmoreland, and other parts. It is a very large central market.

2971.nbsp; So that Carlisle really runs a very great risk of disease generally?Very great.

2972.nbsp; Have you any evidence to show that disease is at present coining from Ireland ?None. I am noaware, of any recent cases of disease having been Imported, certainly not into Cumberland.

2973.nbsp; nbsp; Are yon under the impression that thslaughtering order in Cumberland as carried out s

the exporters from Ireland ?I believe it hae, coupled with inspection at the ports of debarkation.

2974.nbsp; Is that inspection very stringently carried _out ?_It is very carefully carried out. First the vessel is boarded by some of our officers, and they carefully examine the condition which the animals are in, and they also examine them after landing, and it any animal appears to be ill or suffering from disease it quot;is detained under an order of the local authority lor a certain time, until we are satisfied that it la free from disease. Of course, that order has to be carried out with very great discretion.

2975.nbsp; Have you any experience of the system of inspection on the Irish side ?Latterly I understand that the inspection is far more efficient than it was some time ago, and the measures which are now being carried out in Ireland, I believe, have a very great effect upon dealers, in not running the risk of bringing the cattle from the diseased districts in Ireland. 1 sent over to Ireland, under the direction of the local authority, some time ago three of our officers to the principal districts that cattle were brought from, and the result of their inquiries and personal observation was, that the inspection there was of very little use in preventing the importation of cattle from diseased districts. ^ But latterly the whole system has been altered for the better, and I believe that if they could succeed in stamping out the disease in Ireland, it would be the best means that could be adopted in preventing the spread of the disease in England and Scotland.

2976.nbsp; Is it your opinion, then, if disease were exterminated from Ireland, that England and Scotland might be considered practically safe ?If they also stamped out the disease by slaughter in England, Scotland, and Wales, no doubt the disease would be extirpated. There is very little use in one county spending a large sum of money in stamping out disease, whilst neighbouring districts do not adopt a similar

policy.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ..

2977.nbsp; Then what you maintain is, that a uniform system of slaughter should be adopted throughout the country ?Yes, simultaneously and stringently adopted. I am quite satisfied, from personal observation and very strong evidence, that there is no other means by which the dissase can be got rid of. We adopted a similar policy in the time of the cattle

plague.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , _

2978. Did Cumberland and Westmoreland suffer considerably by outbreaks of cattle plague ?Very considerably. One half of Cumberland suffered very considerably. When the outbreaks continued, I recommended that 300 special constables should be appointed, for the purpose of throwing lines of patrols across the two counties where the plague existed. I threw aline of patrols from Alston, on the, border of Northumberland, across the county, to Allonby,on the sea-board of the Sol way. I kept up a patrol night and day. Men were constantly on duty, and I did not allow a living thing to pass that line without being inspected and disinfected. We stopped horses and washed their feet with a mixture of carbolic acid, and tramps werlaquo; fumigated with very strong solutions, and other measures were taken to prevent the possibility of infection from the diseased to the healthy districts. Every means that could be adopted were carried out, and bevond that line, the disease never extended. Westmoreland was the only county in England that was saved. I drew a line from the Dent Mountains, above Kirby Lonsdale, in Westmoreland, to the sea-board at Morecambe Bay, and we adopted a similar plan of campaign along that line to what we did cm the northern frontier, and the disease never got within these lines.

2979.nbsp; Did Cumberland also sutler much from outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease ?Yes, very considerably.

2980.nbsp; And by stringent measures did you succeed in .exterminating it ? Uy a similar policy of slnnghteringslaughtering diseased niiimals and those in contact. ' E'.'.t that in itself would not be enough,

1raquo; I

heroically under your orders has a dcterrcn t effect upon

-r-w -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

MINUTES OF KVIDENCK

There were

r. J. Dunnraquo;,

I contend, without also the measures of isolation ami disinfection being very farelully carried out. I threw a cordon of men all round eaeh infected circle, and kept them on duty day imd night for a period of 15 or'20 days, or longer if any danger existed. We allowed nothing to go into or out of those infected circleraquo; without careful examination and disinfection. Then we carried out a thorough system of disinfection. By that means foot-and-mouth disease was also extirpated in the same way as the cattle plague.

2981.nbsp; Having succeeded in exterminating cattle plague and foot-and-moutii disease, are yon of opinion that you can be equally successtul in absolutely excluding pleuro-pneunionia?1 am.

2982.nbsp; nbsp;You arc probably aware that pleuro-pneu-raonia differs from the other diseases in this respect, that the seeds of infection lie dormant for a longer peri cd ?quot;Ves.

2983.nbsp; nbsp;Do you regard that as introducing greater difficulties than existed in the case of cattle plague and foot-and-mouth disease ?No doubt in some cases that difficulty would present itseif.

2984.nbsp; nbsp;Would it require a longer time for isolation ?

__It would require a longer time than 56 days. That

is why 1 mentioned the renewed outbreaks at the expiration of a certain time from the removal of restrictions. I did that to show that 56 days is not sufficient time for the purpose of getting rid of the disease. Of course when the system of slaughter of cattle in contact with diseased animals is carried out, the danger would be much less. We take them all on the premises and put them down.

2985.nbsp; Having the administration of the Act of 1878 in your hands, would you regard cattle that have been inoculated in Scotland, say, in Dumfriesshire or Kirkcudbrightshire, as dangerous if admitted into Cumberland?! certainly would; I would recommend the local authority not to allow them to be brought in, because I am quite satisfied, from all the information that I have obtained, and from the experience of what took place in the case of Mr. liothery at Harrington, that inoculation is not a safeguard against plenro pneumonia.

2986.nbsp; {Professor Brown.) In regard to thosequot; animals that were inoculated in which pleuro-pneumonia appeared after six months, did you know how the operation was performed ?Yes. Mr. Bell procured lymph, as he considered, of a very pure nature, and introduced it near the end of the tail.

2987.nbsp; Do you know whether he made a cut in the tail or put in a seton ?I think he did both, for the purpose of carrying out what was recommended by a very eminent professor at Edinburgh, who had inoculated Mr. Biggar's cattle. Mr. Biggur described the operation which was performed upon his cattle, and Mr. Bell adopted a similar plan of inoculating the animals on Mr. Rothery's farm.

2988.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know the name of the professor ; was it Mr. Rutherford ?Mr. Rutherford and another gentleman; Mr. Rutherford was one, certainly.

2989.nbsp; nbsp;Did you see the animals during the time that the inoculation was going on ?I went down on one occasion to see them. They were constantly watched by the superintendent of police of the district and the other officers of police who were placed by mo on official duty for that purpose.

2990.nbsp; nbsp;But dici you not watch them ?No, I did not, but the officers on duty did.

2091. Do you happen to recollect whether the weather was very hot during the time?No, the weather was not very hot. The weather was nice autumn weather, the premises of Mr. Rothery are close to the sea-board, and hot weather would not have the effect on his farm that it would have upon other places.

2992.nbsp; Do you know how many of the inoculated animals died from the operation ?Three died under the operation, as I said, in the most excruciating pain. They seemed to suffer terribly.

2993.nbsp; nbsp;How long afterwards was that, do you know P 1 think one was three weeks and another over three

weeks, and one was under three weeks,

two of them ill at the same time.

4 Mnj 188A.

2994.nbsp; You say that of the 22 inoculated cattle among which pleuro-pneumonia broke out at the end of six months only about seven were examined after death ?Yes.

2995.nbsp; You do not know, I suppose, why the others wore not examined ?No; the rule is to examine one, and if they find the disease in one in any doubtful case, they take it for granted that that is enough to establish the fact that quot;they want to ascertain.

2096. Then the object was solely to ascertain the nature of the disease ?Yes.

2997.nbsp; Not to make any particular inquiry ?Not to make any particular inquiries ; it was to ascertain whether it quot;was a fact that those animals had taken the disease at the expiration of six months after being inoculated, because laquo;t that, time there was a very considerable discussion as to the expediency of inoculating cattle instead of slaughtering them. The evidence laid before the Cumberland authority by Mr. Biffgar and other eminent Scotch agriculturists was so quot;very strong, that the authority thought, it advisable to try the experiment. They paid Mr. Rothery for the cattle that ho lost and that died under the operation. They also paid his expenses, and they treated him very generously.

2998.nbsp; Did they proceed any further, or were they satisfied with that one experiment?They did not proceed any further ; the evidence was so strong that the Committee concluded that it would be insanity to go on with inoculation. That was the conclusion to which the Committee came.

2999.nbsp; nbsp;Having found that in this particular case the inoculation failed, they adopted the policy of slaughtering out?Yes; ail animals on the farm and those animals in contact on the adjoining farms ; that is to saj, if the fields of adjoining farms were adjoining the fields in which the diseased animals were, if the cattb in adjoining fields had an opportunity of coming in contact with the diseased cattle, by licking, or smelling, or otherwise over the fence, the Committee concluded that those animals were in contact, and in some instances we found on poft-mortem examination that they were diseased in what is called the latent stages.

3000.nbsp; You say you do not consider 56 days sufficient time to enable you to determine whether the disease has altogether ceased to exist?I do not.

3001.nbsp; Have you met with any cases in which it could be proved that the disease had broken out at a longer period without the introduction of any fresh stock yY_es; there is one case after the expiration of 7 days after the restrictions were removed; in anollior at the expiration of 11 days; and another at the expiration of 9 days ; one at the expiration of 284 days, which is a long time. But we could not trace, in any of those 11 cases that I have described, that the disease, had been re-introduced by any fresh cattle, or by any other means than its having lingered about the premises where the cattle were previously diseased.

3002. Of course it is possible that through this long p_0riodI am not speaking of the short intervals of a few days, but during the 280 days, that the disease might have been going on and yet hidden that animals might have been killed and got out, of the _way?It is possible that that, might have been the case; but I do not think that the farmers generally would conceal this disease now. They are fully alive to the advantages that they derive from reporting the disease and having their cattle slaughtered, especially since they have got the full value of their cattle. They get the full value of all the cattle which are in contact, but which are not visibly suffering from disease.

3003.nbsp; nbsp;Do you refer to the farmers of Cumberland and Westmoreland particularly ?Yes, particularly to them.

3004.nbsp; Not to the farmers all over the whole country ?No.

#9632;

III

OOMMmiB ON VLEUllO-VNEUMONIA AND TUBEUCULOSIS:

3012.

Did you say Dundmm?Yes, Dundrum.

Mr. ./. Dunne, 4 May 1888-

3005. You are Bpoaklng from your oxpevlonoe? Altogether. I have found that in other diBtnets where a immlior of cattle are fit for the market, it the discnso appeal's, they conceal the disease until those cattle are removed und sold. There was one case in Cmuberland whore I trucod a number ot cattle having been sold in that way, and the disease was brought into Cumberland by one of those cattle.

3006.nbsp; nbsp;From your experience of inoculation, and from what you quot;heard in reference to it, would you think it desirable that experiments should he made for the purpose of getting more facts in regard to it ? I would not. think it desirable in Cumberland or Westmoreland. Certainly, I should be very sorry to run the risk of recommending anything that would be the means of re-introducing disease, and, so far as my simple opinion goes, I ara most strongly against recommending any experiment that would not be calculated to have a good effect in preventing the introduction and spread of disease.

3007.nbsp; In fact, having found out that you are getting rid of the disease by the simple process of slaughtering the animals which are exposed to infection, you prefer that to any other method which might involve risk of introducing it or keeping it up in your district ?Certainly. I think it is most economical in the end, and best for the interests of the whole country at large, if we can prevent the introduction and spread of the disease in Cumberland. We protect our neighbours, not only on the Scotch side, but also on the English side. You cannot tell how the cattle removed out of the county come in contact with the disease; but so long as we have the disease in our district, there is no security against its spreading into other districts. On the other hand, I contend that, while the disease is allowed to exist in other districts, equal danger exists of its spreading out of that district into others; and I believe that the cost of stamping out the disease thoroughly would really in the end be less than slaughtering the cattle in detail as they become diseased. I believe that the amount of money which is realised on the healthy cattle, in the shape of salvage, covers the additional cost that would be incurred in allowing the disease to linger. Then, again, there is a very important consideration which seems to be lost sight of altogether in the discussion of this question, and that is the indirect loss that is inflicted upon the farmers and upon the country generally through the stoppage of trade, the loss in milk and butter and young quot;stock, and the depreciation of cattle.

3008. In regard to that point, do you happen to know what the actual cost in the rate per pound to the ratepayers was by your system ?Very small. I do not think that it was more than half a farthing in the pound per quarter. The actual lossthe direct cost during the last three years is about 6,000Z. _

3000. Then I gather that one of your objections to inoculation is that you must, in order to inoculate, have diseased animals from which to obtain the the material ?Exactly. I was going to mention that the effect of pleuro-pneumonia in Cumberland has been to have the trade practically stopped between Cumberland and America; also, J. believeo-enerally between England and America. There are a great many breeders of Galloway cattle in Cumberland. Morton, of Tedder Hill, who breeds black cattle, told me himself, not long ago, that he has lost a areat deal of money from being unable to send cattle to America, in consequence of the prohibition to receive cattle from England by reason of the existence of plcuro-pneumonia

3013. Was it not Dundalk ?I

o; it is a port in

county Down. TheVoome principally from there to wShavcm. They go from Dundalk to Fleetwood, Barrow, and Morecainbe.

8Ö14 I will not ask any more, as it was two years ago. I was anxious to obtain the cause of a great discrepancy in the returns recently issued which show no disease for very many months, except in one place, in the Dublin dairies. But if your experience only goes back to that time, I have not looked into the statistics ?It is two years ago.

3015.nbsp; And you have no knowledge of the districts in Ireland more recently than two years ago PYes, 1 have a case.

3016.nbsp; Have you any recent case?Yes, I ha\e a case 19 months ago.

3017 What is the most recent case that you have attempted to trace outa case of introduction of diseased beasts that you know of-from Ireland ? In September 1886 some cattle were brought trom Dundrum to Whitehaven, there was a herd ot about 16 the day after they arrived at Whitehaven they were moved to Workington, and shown in the streets of Workington for salethe market there is held in the public streetand one of them was taken ill in this market, it was removed to ashed; and on the following day it was so ill that a veterinarian was called in, and he certified that the animal was suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; the animal was forthwith slaughtered and a post-mortem made, and it was found to be badly diseased.

3018nbsp; nbsp;Was that in September 1886?Yes, the veterinarian gave it as his opinion that the animal must have been diseased at the time she was embarked at Dundrum.

3019nbsp; nbsp;That was not a dairy cow ?No, that was a store heifer. Then they went from Workington to Penrith, and were also exhibited there, and one, was taken ill in a similar way, and that animal was also found to be diseased and slaughtered, and on a post-mortem examination it was found to be suflenng from pleuro-pneumonia.

3020nbsp; nbsp;Were those heifers examined by the inspector at the port of landing when they came from Dundrum, on arriving in England ?-No; the system of inspection was not then so carefully carried out as it has been since, because there was always a doubt raised as to whether, in the first instance, there was any disease in these districts in Ireland. When we found that one of the animals that came from Dundrum m this particular case was actually diseased at the time it was debarked at Whitehaven, the local authority adopted very efficient measures ot examination. It is all very well for the Irish dealers, and those gentle-nion connected with Ireland, to contend that there is no disease in Ireland except in the Dublin district, for if the disease does exist in one place, there is no security against its being carried into another part ot the country. Cattle coming through Dublin run the risk of contamination. There is a very large number of cattle now brought through Dub in from the south of Ireland. There was a very large number of cattle at the market at Carlisle recently. Mr. Flanagan, of Hexham, an extensive dealer m insli cattle, told me that he brought his cattle from Kilkenny, and they came through Dublin and he also brought a large number from Queen's County, which also came by the Dublin port. So that there is the risk of those cattle getting the disease on their way through these places where the disease exists. And so, in like manner, where we have the disease in Scot-

Bm*

3010. {Lord Clonvurry.) You mentioned just now

land, or in England, there is no security against its spreading, and that is one of the great reasons why I recommend the policy of simultaneous action, of uniform action, which 1 think should be carried out under the direction of the Privy Council. I would not leave it to the discretion of anyone. So tar as 1 am concerned I should he very happy to act under the direction of a superior authority.

that you sent three of your inspectors to districts in Ireland | what time was that?It is two years ago, in the spring of the year, when very largo numbers of cattle are brought over for feeding purposes.

8011. And do you know what the districts were that they went to?One went to Dublin ; one went to Belfast; and one went to Dundrum. These are the three ports from which the cattle pritici)gt;ally are exported from Ireland into Cumberland.

i ,#9658;.

#9632;

1)5

MINUTES Of EVIDKNOK.

3021.nbsp; But may we take it tlmt the last deflnito case you can relate is 19 months ago ?Yos.

3022.nbsp; Do you think thnt an animal coming in a railway truck on the motals through Dublin, or to the port of Dublin, and not going into stables or byres in other parts of the town, can run any risk of disease ? Not unless diseased cattle had been previously in those railway trucks.

3023.nbsp; Then do you think that the disease can bo communicated through the railway truck even though there is no diseased animal in the truck at the time ? I do ; if the seeds of the disease, by the dropping of the diseased animals, be in the trucks, it leaves disease in the trucks. We have several cases whore the veterinarians have stated that the animals must have got the disease in railway trucks.

3024.nbsp; Do you think that the dirt in the trucks or boats can give the disease when an animal is healthy on coming from the farm ?That is the opinion of the veterinarians, and 1 have no reason to doubt its accuracy. I believe the thorough disinfection of boats and trucks is a great preventive of the spread of disease. I may say that we have had the opinions of several veterinary surgeons, and not only local veterinarians, but I have frequently put myself in communication with Professor Brown. He has taken a great deal of trouble to have inquiries made with a view of ascertaining the truth of any matter submitted to him, and in most cases the opinions of the local veterinarians, especially Mr. Bell, was confirmed by the decision of Professor Brown.

3025.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown) You said just now that you thought the work should be done by a central department ?Certainly, I think so.

3026.nbsp; That the Privy Council should supersede the action of the local authorities in matters relating to the treatment of cattle diseases ?I think if all the regulations and the Orders in Council could be carried out under the direction of the Privy Council, or of the Privy Council inspectors in conjunction with the local authorities, that then the public would have some security against one local authority doing nothing, while the other local authority spent large sums of money to try to stamp out the disease.

3027.nbsp; In fact, do you think that, by that method, you did not secure uniformity of action ?Yes.

3028.nbsp; Do you think that it is possible to obtain uniformity of action when you hove some 500 local authorities all administering the Act ?It is utterly impossible. I have put myself frequently in communication with local authorities, and I find it impossible to induce them to act uniformly.

3029.nbsp; Do you happen to remember the evidence t;iven before the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1872?I cannot call it to mind offhand. I cannot remember any particular evidence on any particular point.

3030.nbsp; Then you do not remember that in commenting on my evidence, part of which was to the effect that what you have just expressed should bo carried into action., and that the central department should administer the Contajjioun Diseases Act. the Committee stated their conviction that the Privy Council could not administer the whole of the Act over the whole country ?I think I remember that that was one of the statements made in the report

3031.nbsp; But from your experience of the administration of this Act you do not agree with it, as I understand ?I do not. I do not see any reason why it should not, especially when the policy of slaughter is now made compulsory. The only point to secure is the carrying out ofthat order simultaneously.

8032. Would you propose that the Privy Council should use the existing machinery, that they should employ the present inspectors all over the country ? I think the public would have a great security in having a Privy Council veterinarian in every district. It would not be probably necessary to have one in every county. You might group a certain number of counties and have a travelling inspector. Just now, when there is not so much disease in the country, he

would l)o able to supervise two or three counties, and I would recommend that he should act in conjunction

Mr. T. Dnntfe,

4 May 1H88.

with local veterinarians, and, as far as possible, with the local authorities. But what you want is to have some evidence, some security that your orders are carried out; and now, when the disease is at a minimum, is the time to take it in hand and got rid of it and keep it out.

3033.nbsp; My proposition was that the whole country should be divided into a certain number of districts, and that each district should be in charge of a chief inspector ?That is practically what I should recommend. That is what I have shadowed forth in saying that three or more counties might bo grouped together and put a chief inspector in that district, and make it largo or small according to the circumstances of each locality.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

3034.nbsp; 1 gather that your proposition substantially amounts to this, that the whole administration should be in the hands of the central department, and that all the costs should be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer ?That is whot I would recommend. I should be very sorry to raise a difficulty as regards costs, because one knows how difficult it is to get anything paid by the central authority and how difficult it is to persuade a local authority to spend money. But the cost would be so small, now that the disease is so confined throughout the country, that I think a great effort should be made really to try and get rid of it, and I am quite satisfied that, if that effort were made, it would be successful.

3035.nbsp; Do you think that the local authority would be satisfied to allow the Privy Council to administer the Act, and to call upon the local authority in each district to pay the cost?I think the majority of them would be, in those districts where the law has been well carried out and where they arc really anxious to get rid of the disease, they would not object to pay the cost, and they would be only too glad to have the uniform system carried out under the direction of the central board.

3036.nbsp; In any case, without reference to the question of who is to pay, do you consider that the greatest advantage would result from the whole thing being carried into effect through a central department ?I do. I think that indirectly it comes to the same thinsr whether it is the local ratepayer or the Imperial taxpayer ; in the end the public have to pay, and I am quite satisfied that you would protect the public from immense loss if you could get rid of the disease.

,3037. {Mr. Boteen-Jones.) Do you think it is possible that, with cattle coming from Ireland through Dublin, animals from the Dublin dairies which are supposed to be free from disease, may become mixed in the manner you have spoken of ?I have been told that it is so, where cattle have been fit for the market, particularly that some cows and heiferssome heifers in calf that have got, perhaps, tour or five months to go, and look in fresh conditionate smuggled away from the dairies and put among a lot of quot;cattle from some other district and imported into England, and by that means the disease is spread.

3038.nbsp; Then, supposing the view that disease may be communicated through bad drainage or through boats that have been used by diseased cattle is untenable, is it not quite possible that disease may bo brought into England through Irish cattle in such a manner ?It is quite possible. In fact, they say it has been done, but there is a difficulty in proving it. It has been stated that it has been brought in in that

way.

3039.nbsp; I gather from your evidence that you approve the recent order that has been put into operation, of killing animals that are in contact with diseased plcuros ?I do. I approve of it for this reason, that it is the only means by which we have succeeded in stamping out the disease in Cumberland since the

year 1869.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , , ,

3040.nbsp; But you arc doubtful that the local authorities throughout Ihe country will carry it out with

til

laquo;

9(j

COMMITTEE ON PLEUUO-PNBUMONIA AND TUBBBCULOSIB:

I '

Mr. J. Dvnnt.

4 May 1888.

sufflolent wJOTgy to olenr the country at once ?I am, and especially in Scotland, where they seem to have great reluctance lately to slaughter animals that have been in contact with diseased cattle.

3041.nbsp; And for that reason do yolaquo; prefer a centra authority stepping in and taking the place of the local authority?Yes, as I consider it would be the only effectual means of getting rid of the disease.

3042.nbsp; Do ) on think, as the local authorities will not now carry out the Act anfticiently to get rid oi the disease at once, that they would work under the Privy Council more efficaciously?! do not think that they would have any option. It would be practically puttina an officer of the Privy Council in each district to see that the law was carried out; and when the local authorities found that they wore under supervision, they could not object to enforcing the law. The groat safeguard would be, that the public would have some security that the law was generally carried

out efficiently.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . , , , i n

3043 And, as a rule, do YOU think the local authorities would work harmoniously under the Privy Council ?I think that the great majority oi them would. I think that they might find some obstinate men in certain districts who would interpose difficulties, but I do not think that this would be insuperable-. I think that the difficulties might be very easily overcome by a policy of conciliation and thorough efficiency, and I believe thai the farmers general y are now most anxious to get rid of the disease. 1 do not think that the objection would come from the farmers or the ratepayers generally.

3044 And do you think that this would be the case if local authorities had to pay compensation as now? If the compensation fell very heavily there might be an outcry aaainst it, but I think that the money paid would be so small that they would not object. We have spent about 6,000/. in the last throe years, and the ratepayers say that the cost falls very heavy upon them. But still they are delighted to pay this money for the purpose of getting rid of the disease, and having found that the disease has been not rid of, of course they see the advantage ot it.

3045nbsp; nbsp;But still you think they would work more harmoniously and cordially if the compensation was paid from the general taxation of the country fi.^esraquo; I do If the money amounted to a large sum, which had to be paid in consequence of the policy of stamping out, 1 think that they would find less difficulty in enforcing that policy if the money was paid out ot the Imperial Exchequer. I think the ratepayers would

be more satisfied.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , .*nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;11

3046nbsp; nbsp;Then you think the local authorities would work under the supervision of the Privy Council, in carrying out the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ? Do you think that they would do so in either case, whether the money was paid by the Government or paid from local taxation ?l think, especially now that the disease is nearly extinct in the country, that they would most cordial y assist and co-operate in using every means they could to get rid of the disease, independently of the question of money

3047 Do you think that there would be any objection on the part of local authorities to do this workeven if they were not interested in the payment one way or the other ? -No, I do not think so ; 1 think that they would be most cordial in assisting to get rid of the disease throughout the country, because they see the tremendous losses inflicted upon the community by the stoppage of foreign trade, by the restrictivregulations that are enforced in connexion with marketand fairs. On every account the farmers arc satisfiedand so are the public generally, at least those whtake an impartial view of the matter have expresseopinions, very strongly to the effect that it would ban immense saving to the community at large, it tindisease could be got rid of and the tremendous losresulting from it prevented.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, raquo; nnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

3018 You have told us about the failure oinoculation in one case in Cumberland and that it wa

inoculation done by him laquo;llaquo;f-Tl^y vvere dotiü undor his direction, assisted by the local vetenuttnan, Mi. Young, of Cockermouth.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ., i v

3049 Did he superintend the details ?Yes; we did everything wo could to carry out the views of Professor llutherford as to the temperature of the buildings, and the means which should be adopted to ensure the successful result of the operation of

quot;'sOSO' Then on the second farm, where the beasts were fattened and sold, was a post-mortem made ot any of the carcases ?Not that I am aware ot. ihey were sold principally to Manchester, Leeds, and Bradford as fat animals, and were slaughtered.

3051 What was the effect of the inoculation on the three farms?At one the disease broke out among the inoculated cattle at the expiration of six months. On the other two the cattle were sold as fat, or immediate slaughter, at the expiration ot three months from the date of inoculation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,.

3052. Was there no examination alter uoatu in those cases?None.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; y a

3053 You have told us that you have cleared Cumberland very successfully of disease. Do you think it is possible that, when you have had a clean bill of health on paper, from your reports, disease has existed in different parts of the countythat U has been latent and not made known, but kept secret j¹I have no reason to think that they conceal the disease ; but it is possible that the disease still existed in its latent stages, especially in these renewed outbreaks. That is one of the reasons why, I think, you have no security against the spread of disease so long as yoii allow cattle to remain alive that were in direct contact with diseased animals. In several of those cases where renewed outbreaks occurred I beheve at the time the restrictions were removed, that they had the disease on them in its latent form, though not visible. The veterinarians say that the appearance of the disease very much depends upon the condition ot the animal. In some animals it will show itself in a very short time, while in others it takes a considerable time to develop itself, perhaps as long as three or four

^m 3054 Now that animals which have been in contact with pleuro-pneumonia cases are slaughtered, do you think that such a chance of the disease lingering will be reduced to a minimum ?Most certainly.

3055 And I presume you have no doubt, it the Act is effectually carried out, that pleuro-pneumonia will be a thing of the past in a year's time ?-Practically,, I am of that opinion. I am quite of opinion that you will get rid of the disease and save the country trom most serious losses which are now caused by the

'3056 (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) With regard to those inoculation cases, are you aware that Mr. Bell was perfectly satisfied with the result of his operation at the time ?He told me himself that he was perfectly satisfied, and he expressed his astonishment in very strong terns when he found that the disease had reappeared at the expiration of six months He thought that the operation was a most successful one, and the Scotch authorities and the Scotch papers referred to our action, as showing the wisdom of our policy in adopting the plan of Professor Rutherford, and that those cattle had been saved from taking the disease. You must understand that the disease was on the farm, and none of those cattle were inoculated which had shown any symptoms of the disease.

3057.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware that Mr. Biggar has been here, and that he has told us he recommended the local authority to employ Professor Rutherford, and that that was not done PNo. , _ , . . .

3058.nbsp; 1 wish to ask you if Mr. Bell has had much experience in inoculation; has he been in the habit ot practising inoculation ?-I do not think he has inoculated cattle for pleuro-pneumonia to any extent, but he had been in constant communication with 1 rofessor Williams, of Edinburgh, and also Professor Euther-ford, and the other Scotch authorities who appeared

carried out by Mr. Bell. Were the two cawraquo; ot

#9632;

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

before the local authority of Cumborlaiul, previously to this decision regarding llothery's cattle, and he recommended very strongly that tho cxporimont ot inoculation should bo tried'.

3059.nbsp; And, as far as you know, was ho satisfied with the conditions of tho operation at the time and the result?He told me himself that he -was perfectly satisfied. We kept up an equal toraperature in the byres, and did every tiling that Mr. Bell directed to be done for the purpose of making it successful.

3060.nbsp; You told us that in youv oxpcrionco in your counties you had not found that farmers desired in any way to conceal tho diseaseto avoid the slaughtering order ?Not generally. We have had some concealments. I have had some suminonod and

fined.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .. ₄ ^

3061.nbsp; And you have no reason to think that tne farmers in other parts ot tho country would not be equally open, under similar circumstances ?No. I think generally, if you could show the farmers that it would be toquot;their advantage to cany out the system, whatever system is found to be successful for preventing tho spread of the diseasethat they would not

object.

3062.nbsp; Do you consider that you have shown them that in your country by this slaughtering order?

3063.nbsp; You say that you have cleared tho county of Cumberland from pleuro for the last nine months at an expense of one eighth of a penny in the rate ? Yes, in each quarter.

3064.nbsp; I think you may congratulate yourselt i

Yes.

3065.nbsp; I am not surprised that you consider that economical. You say that the local authorities in Scotland are reluctant ?Yes. some of them.

3066.nbsp; Is that a general statement ? Have you any particulars of these ?I only know from statements which I have seen in the quot;Scotsmanquot; und other Scotch papers, and from personal communication with some of the Scotch farmers. They hesitate to slaughter, they think that inoculation will still be successful in preventing the spread of the disease, and they raise a great many doubts and difliculties as to where contact begins and where it ends.

3067.nbsp; What I want to ask you more particularly is, will you name any localities in Scotland that you consider are reluctant to put this slaughtering order into effect, or are not carrying out the order ? Forfarshire, I understand, is particularly objecting to it.

3068.nbsp; Do you consider from what you have heard that they are not doing it ?I have considered from what I have hoard that several of them are not. I saw a report of a deputatioa of tho Scotch local authorities and Scotch farmers, which waited not very long ago upon the head of the Privy Council, and very strongly urged that the policy of inoculation should be generally acted upon instead of slaughter.

3069.nbsp; I am not asking whether some of the local authorities in Scotland do or do not believe in inoculation, but what I asked you was, is this a particular or a general statement quot;that in Scotland the local authorities were averse to carrying out the orders of the Privy Council ?Yes, in some districts they are.

3070.nbsp; Have you seen any reports from the county of Aberdeen ?Yes ; in tho county of Aberdeen they are carrying it out; they always acted efficiently.

3071.nbsp; Are you aware that they have incurred an expense of 10,000/. since the issue of that order?-I am not aware of it, but in the county of Aberdeen they have always taken very effectuol measures to get rid ot the disease. They did so in the time othe cattle plague and the foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases.

3072.nbsp; nbsp;[Professor Horsley) Of the animals thawere inoculated, apart from those at Harrington, how many died from the effects of the operation itself? None.

3073.nbsp; Have you records of tho po?t-mortem examinations of tho animals that were slaughtered after

Mr. J. Dunnt, A May 1B88.

being in contact under the present order?Not under the present order.

3074.nbsp; nbsp;Hut that is what 1 mean, under the present _oriler ? Wo have not slaughtered any under the present order; wo acted previously to tho order being issued. Tho local authorities acted under the gonoral power given by tho Act, and had the animals hlaugh-tored that were in contact, as recommended by the Privy Council some time ago.

3075.nbsp; Have you records of the post-inortein examinations of those animals ?Ye.s, we have.

3076.nbsp; In any given outbreak where animals were slaughtered bocauso they had simply been in contact, have you records of any being found affected with the disease ?Yes.

3077.nbsp; Do you know what proportion ?In several cases we found some, probably in the proportion, on an average, of one to ten.

3078.nbsp; nbsp;About 10 per cent.? Yes; some were slightly affected and others badly affected. I ho disease was not visible in those eases.

3079.nbsp; nbsp; With regard to the introduction ot the disease,quot; supposing the stamping-out order was carried out all over England, how would you propose to prevent the introduction of the disease into the country ?_If^,the order was carried out generally throughout the country, in the first place I would recommend that in all cases, where animals were found to be diseased, the place should be kept under restrictions for a period of. three months, and that a stringent code of regulations should be carefully earned out, under the direction of a Privy Council Inspector. I think that with vigilance and care on the part of the local authorities and the Privy Council inspectors, if the order was general, and we adopted stamping out throuehout Great Britain and Ireland, then we would get rid of it and we would have no disease.

3080.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing that you had got rid of this disease in Great Britain and Ireland, how would you propose to prevent the importation of it from foreign countries ?-In the same way that tho foot-and-moutU disease is prevented. Of course there would bo always a risk in pleuro-pneumonia, in consequence ot the disease being dormant for so long a time.

3081.nbsp; nbsp;That is exactly the point ?Well, it would be impossible for the most skilled veterinarians in the country to detect the disease in its latent stages, but if care was taken against the risk of importing animals from infected districts, or from foreign countries where the disease is known to exist, then you would indirectly protect this country from its introduction

8082. You would not allow any animals to be brought into this country alive from countries whore pleuro-pneumonia was known to exist ?The safest way would be to exclude them from the country altogether. That would be the safest way, in the same way that America now excludes England.

3083.nbsp; Do you approve of that ?I do, most certainly, I think, considering the tremendous loss inflicted upon the nation at large by the disease, that the indirect losses that would bo caused from prohibition of the importation of animals from infected countries would be so small that it would not he worth really a moment's consideration.

3084.nbsp; Would you allow animals to be landed m this country to bo slaughtered at the port of debarkation ?Yes, and brought in as dead meat.

3085.nbsp; Do you think it would be wise to incur any risk by way of having a quarantine upon animals broucht in ?No, I think that the cost of quarantine would he so great, and the losses to the owners o cattle, and the risk too, that it would bo a doubitul experiment. We tried that with the Irish cattle, but we found the dlffloultlos so great that really it was almost impossible to carry it out; first ot all, to find a suitable place to put the cattle into, and then to have them taken care of, and then to provide fodder, and to guard against inclement weather, and to put some into sheds. Tho indirect difficulties of

o S40O3.

IKS

COMMITTED ON PLKUKO-PNEUMON1A AND TUBEBCULO8I8:

#9632; !#9632;

Mr. J.Dunne, carrying out the system of quarantmo in pleuro-

-----nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; pneumonia arc so groat, especially remembeying that

4 May 1 laquo;88. f_t _woul(1 _tak(. _g0 long a timo before the disease tlo-

-----------veloped itself, that it would be very difficult to carry

out any efficient system.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -,

3086 You say that Cumberland and Westmoreland have boon now freo for nine months. Can you give the number of outbreaks for each of the last 10 years, in order?Yes, In 1878 there were 13; in 187J, 17 ; in 1880, 4 ; in 1881, 7 ; in 1882, 5 ; in 1888, 4 ; in 1881, 8; in 1885, 10; in 1886, 18; in 1887, 21 j that is, in the early part of 1887, in the first nine months of 1887. Of these, 39 outbreaks were traced directly to Irish cattle. In addition there were 15 renewed outbreaks, 11 of which were traced to the cattle and premises where the disease previously

GXlstGCl

3087.nbsp; nbsp;That is to say, 39 out of 102 ?-Of 102 out-breaks we traced 39 directly to Irish cattle, ihe disease broke out in these 39 cases within a few days after the debarkation of the cattle from Ireland and we found out the disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,5V

3088.nbsp; Was it in 1887 you had 21 outbreaks t¹!es, in the early part of 1887.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

3089.nbsp; What year was it that you tried inoculation t¹__We tried the inoculation in 1886.

3090.nbsp; And then these 21 outbreaks in 1887 must have all occurred within the first nine months #9632;''Yes.

3091nbsp; nbsp; How do you account for the tall in the number of outbreaks from 1879 to 1884-5 PBy the great care with regard to isolation and disinfection, and the prohibition of any animals being taken out of an infected area or taken into an infected area. I have found, as the locality made stringent regulations, and they were efficiently carried out, that the disease decreased, and when those regulations were relaxed the disease increased.

3092nbsp; nbsp;You then do not think it necessary to do more than to declare a single place, a single steading, infected?I think it is necessary to have a certain area around the infected steading.

3093nbsp; nbsp;What would be your limits of an area ri think a radius of about a mile from the premises should be put under restrictions. I think that where you have cattle going about a farm there is no safe-Tuard against the cattle on the adjoining farm catching the disease. I think a radius of about a mile from the infected premises should be put under restrictions for a certain time.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; *.

3094. Can you tell the Committee how you account for the disease reaching to a much greater head from 1884 onwards ?The restrictions up to 1884 were very stringent. We allowed no cattle to come within a radius of five miles from an infected area, and as Ion- as we were stringent the disease kept decreasing, but when that rule was relaxed, then it increased, and, when the restrictions were relaxed in Ireland, the Irish cattle were brought over, and we had more

^dl 3096. Do you think that, of the 39 cases in which you proved the disease to be brought in by Irish cattle, the majority have occurred within the last few _vears '_?_No ; we have had several which have occurred within the last few years, but some of them go back even to 18G9. We traced one animal badly diseaseto Silloth on debarkation.

3096.nbsp; Could you say that more disease had beeintroduced into Westmoreland and Cumberland sinc1884 than before 1884?There were more of the 3cases since 1884 than previously. We traced thes30 outbreaks directly ; I have evidence to provbevond any doubt that those 39 outbreaks werdirectly traceable to Irish cattle that had boon recentldebarked in Cumberland.

3097.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr, Stirlmg.) To take up tins last poinfirst. You refer to the outbreak of February 188

there, one over 56 days, and tney were not put under

restrictions by the local authority. At that time we

had no power. I believe when that case was brought

to the knowledge of the Privy Council, they gave the

local authorities power to make regulations to put

cattle that had been exhibited in any market, or place,

or fair under restrictions, similarly to cattle on a farm

where disease had broken out. Previously to that

time, we had no power to deal with cattle that were

found in contact with diseased animals in a market or

fair. But 1 adopted the plan of sending a policeman

to follow these cattle wherever they went, that was

not an illegal thing to do, and it was the only means

by which the farmers could be made acquainted with

the fact that the disease had broken out among the

cattle, and they looked upon these cattle as affected,

and would not have anything to do with them.

3100.nbsp; What became of the 16?The owner kept them in quarantine at Cockermouth for 56 days. At the expiration of that time they showed no symptoms of disease and they were allowed to be removed.

3101.nbsp; Were'they examined by veterinary surgeons ?

__Yes;' they were examined daily from the time

of their reaching Cockermouth up to the time that they were removed, and at the expiration of 56 days.

3102.nbsp; Are you satisfied that none of the other outbreaks originated with those 16 that had been in contact ?No. We watched them very carefully for a considerable time, and we were unable to trace any outbreak to any of the 16.

3103.nbsp; In that list of 11 cases which you gave us, where the disease reappeared, do I understand that inoculation was not tried on anyone of the cows ? Kone, only in the case of Bothery.

3104 Then these 11 cases were spread over 10 years?Prom 1878 to 1887nine years and a little over.

3105.nbsp; Do you mean us to understand that in the case you gave of disease breaking out after 129 days (answer 2927\ the stock there left had never been in contact?The whole of the cattle on the farm amounted to 47 in the two outbreaks, they were decimated and slaughtered in detail. The disease continued on that farm for a considerable time, and the number of the diseased cattle slaughtered was 47.

3106.nbsp; But there were some in contact with slaughtered animals, were there not ?Yes. They were not slaughtered at the time, but they went on taking the disease from time to time, and they were slaughtered as diseased animals.

3107.nbsp; Then, in the same way, did that answer apply to the case of 360 days ?Yes ; the number of animals slaughtered there as diseased was 115.

3108nbsp; nbsp;Then in the cases of 100 days and 103 _days?_I cannot say that all the animals were diseased at that place, but I can say that none of those that were in contact with diseased cattle were slaughtered until certified to be diseased.

3109nbsp; nbsp;Then it is just possible that the seeds of disease may have been lingering in the renaaining animals that had been in contact with the originally diseased lot?That is the ground why I recommend a longer period than 56 days should be required to elapse before the restrictions are removed. I think that 66 days is not a sufficient security against the reappearance of the disease.

3110.nbsp; Have you had any experience of inoculation or inoculated cattle, other than those in the three outbreaks that you have named ?None for pleuro-pneumonia.

3111.nbsp; Have you seen Mr. Biggar's cattleP-No, I did not.

3112.nbsp; Are you aware that ho has told us that he found the system satisfactory, and never had another

ffli

ouuneitivruvraquo; quot;^ ..laquo;.laquo; ... - ----- -

had appeared here, but it is a fact that he did recommend that Mr. Rutherford's system of inoculation should be employed to carry out the experiment in Cumberland.

which you considered attributable to Irish cattle, that lot of 10 ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;., laquo; i i

3098.nbsp; And you only killed two ?-0nly two.

3099.nbsp; Do you know what became of the rest riOlaquo; rest were taken to Cockermouth and kept in a field

----------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

MINUTES OF BVIDENCK.

3113.nbsp; For what length of period did you try inoculation, I think you said it was for two years ?It is nearly two years ago.

3114.nbsp; Just for the year 188G i'In the latter part

outbreaks of pleuro-pueumonia ?I behevo it did. 1 believe that the restrictions that were earned out regarding foot-and-mouth disease indirectly prevented pleuro-pneunionia

Mr. J. DuntUt

4 May 1888.

3126. quot;With reference to inspection.

I correct

ofl88G.

3115.nbsp; And then you tried the oxponment ot slaughtering out for one year since the end of 1886. Since 1885 we have slaughtered on some farms.

31 IG. And you have only heen nine months clear ?

__We have been only nine months clear, that is since

it was thoroughly carried out hy slaughtering of cattle on adjoining farms which were proved to have been in contact.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .

3117. Do you know at all what is the origin ot the disease; do you think that it is climatic, or that one class of beasts are more liable to disease than the other ?In tuberculosis we have had several. ' 3118. Take pleuro first?Some of the veterinarians contend that the disease is traceable to a low condition of the animals and exposure to weather. Some animals are of a less hardy constitution than others, and with the delicate animal in a low condition of body, it is more liable to become diseased than a strong healthy animal. The origin of disease in the animal and in man in lung disease is very difficult to satisfactorily establish.

3119.nbsp; You spoke about the examination that you make at the ports of debarkation, how is that examination made?The local veterinarian examines each animal, he looks at it, feels it, and a man of common observation and a man of practical knowledge can tell pretty well.

3120.nbsp; There is no thermometer used then ?Yes, in doubtful cases. That is the great test which we have had to apply. In a case of doubt they remove the animal, and make the examination with the thermometer, that is the great test on which the veterinarians rely.

3121.nbsp; How do the inspectors manage when these animals have to go to the trains, and to examine such a large number of animals coming in ?There is generally a sufficient time. It happens sometimes that there is not sufficient time, but generally when the boat comes close to the harbour the inspector goes on board, he has an opportunity of looking at the cattle, and in a case where the animal is not running at the eyes, or having a discharge at the nostrils, or where it has not its back stuck up, or its coat staring, they can say that the animal is not diseased, and it is passed ; but in a case whore it appears to be suffering then they make a closer examination when the cattle are taken from the boats, and the owner submits to a detention for a sufficient time. It is really as much in his interest as in the interest of the public that the examination should be made.

3122. quot;What class of farms have you chiefly in Cumberland ; have you many dairy farms ?A groat many, but principally grazing and arable farms. The farmers of Cumberland get a very large number of Irish heifers at this season of the year for the purpose of putting on their grass fields, they fatten them off in the fields, and in the back end of the year they sell them as fat animals. They breed a very large number of cattle in the county as well, they import very largely in Cumberland and Westmoreland.

3.123. Have you never had any complaint from a dairyman of the loss that they suffer, in contradistinction to the breeders, in carrying out this slaughtering _or(]_er ?I have had no complaints, nor have I heard of any from dairy farmers. I think that they consider the present immunity from loss by slaughter more than covers the loss that would be caused by the disease, if allowed to go on. They seem to be generally agreed that the most economical policy, and the best to adopt, is to slaughter and get rid of it.

3124.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Am 1 correct in supposing that between 1880 and 1884 foot-and-mouth disease was very rife in Cumberland and Westmoreland ?Yes.

3125.nbsp; And that it was the severe restrictions imposed by you at that time for the extinction ot foot-and-mouth disease, that accounted for the very few

also in assuming tliat it is impossible to detect pleuro-pneumonia in its early stages ?That is the opinion of the veterinary inspectors.

3127.nbsp; Therefore, of course, under whatever inspection that may be exercised, diseased cattle are very easily passed, unless they are in an advanced state ot disease?Quite so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,.,,,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;e

3128.nbsp; Are you generally satisfied with the lorm ot certificates given after inspection from Ireland ?No ; the certificate given in Ireland I do not think is worth the paper that it is written upon. First ot all, where the local authority In Ireland has to carry out any re-mlations, it has to be done by the board of guardians, and the board of guardians as a local authority take no trouble, or they take no interest, m trying to prevent the introduction of the disease into England. On the contrary, they encourage the exportation ot diseased cattle, in the hope of getting rid ot the disease. They take no interest in protecting England from any loss, either by disease or anything else.

3129nbsp; nbsp;But surely it would be in the interest ot the Irish farmer that there should be no restrictions, and that there should be every freedom in the cattle trade ?No doubt; but it is very difficult to get them

to see that.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. . , . .j, ,

3130nbsp; nbsp; You have expressed an opinion that, it pleuro-pneumonia could be extirpated from this country, its introduction from foreign countries could bo easily prevented ?I think so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

3131nbsp; nbsp; And do you also think that it would be a wise policy to restrict the importation of animals from countries suffering from pleuro-pneumoma ?i think that that would be the only effectual way of preventing the re-introduction of disease from foreign countries.

3132nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware that, as the law stands at present, no animals can be introduced from countries suffering from pleuro-pneumonia into this country, except for slaughter ?-I am quite aware that there is such a law, but I doubt whether it is carried out.

3133nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware that Scandinavia and Canada are the only two countries that are permitted to land animals indiscriminately in this country ?Yes.

3134nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Therefore, in the face of that law, and assuming that this country was freed from pleuro-pneumouiaby compulsory measures, you would have no fear of its re-introduction ?None whatever, not to any extent; we might have an outbreak occasionally.

3135. Have you any reason to believe that cattle are imported from foreign countries where disease _exi_sts ?_I have heard of one instance ot the importation of cattle, in contravention of the law and regulations which have been made to prevent the introduction of disease.

3130. Is that lately ?N o, not lately.

3137.nbsp; Can you put your finger upon any specific case within recent years, say since 1884?-! heard of a case at Hull where there were some cattle importeil, and that they were moved from Hull inland, and that they introduced the disease ; but I cannot give that as a fact within my own knowledge ; 1 am only speaking from what I have heard.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

3138.nbsp; Your evidence therefore leads to this : mat the only safeguard, you consider, to the stock owners of the country at large is compulsory slaughter, hot i of the diseased animals and animals in contact with them ?That is decidedly my opinion.

3139 And do you believe, in saying that, that you are representing the opinion of the magistrates, ot the faimers, and of the ratepayers of Cumberland and Westmoreland ?That is certainly so, and they have put that in a recommendation to the Privy Council; they have strongly recommended the Privy Council to adopt all these measures.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,

3140. Have you had any experience of tuberculosis i Yes, we have had several cases. I beg to hand in in confirmation of what I have stated regarding

N 2

; *1

lit

100

OOMMITTKE ON PLEUßO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS

Mr t Dunne plcuro-pneumonia, u copy of the report of tho local __ ' authority of Cumberland to the last quarter sessions, 4 May 1888. in which thoy strongly recommonil the policy of ----------- slaughter {handing in report),

3141.nbsp; Have you any other paper to bo put m ?J.he details of these cases are so voluminous that thoy would fill volumes if I were to give the facts and all the details. There are several reports that give tho details in confirmation of what I have stated.

3142.nbsp; Have you anything to put in with special regard to tuberculosis ?There is a report here which is a very short one. Alter I received your request to attend before you upon the subject of pleuro-pneumonia and tuberculosis, I wrote this letter to Mr. Bell, the veterinary inspector. 1 may state generally that we have had several cases of tuberculosis in which the local veterinarian gave it as his opinion that the animal was suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, and upon that I at once sent to Mr. Bell or telegraphed to the superintendent of the district that Mr. Bell would make a further examination with the local inspector, and he did so, and in several of these cases we had the animal suffering from disease slaughtered, and on a post-mortem being made, it was found that the animal was sufiering from tuberculosis and not pleuro-pneumonia. This is shortly what I wrote to Mr. Bell on the 1st May, that is last Monday: quot;Will you quot; kindly let me know how many cases of tuberculosis quot; have come under your notice in the last 10 years,quot; and he said, quot;Several hundred.quot; And then, as a

following question, I asked, laquo;How many animals died quot; of this disease to your knowledge?quot; He said, quot; A great many, but 1 cannot say positively the exact quot; number.quot; quot;Then, if the animals recovered, in laquo; what condition were they subsequently ? quot; He said, quot; None recovered, but a largo number were ted laquo; off fat and sold to the butcher with the disease still laquo; upon them.quot; quot; Will you give your opinion gene-quot; rally as to tho cause of this disease, and its eflect quot; upon the value of cattle ?quot; He gives three causes : quot;Tho first, hereditary; the second, feeding young quot; animals on the milk of diseased cowa; and, thirdly, quot; infection.quot; And the last question is, quot; How many laquo; cases of this disease did the local veterinarian report quot; to be pleuro-pneumonia which, when you were called quot; in, you found to be tuberculosis ?quot; He says, quot; Not quot; having kept any record of those cases, I cannot say quot; what number, but they have been numerous.quot; That I can confirm.

3143.nbsp; Beyond the evidence of Mr. Bell, have you anything further to inform the Committee iquot;No.

3144.nbsp; Then Mr. Bell's evidence embraces your opinion also?Quite; I can only confirm him that we have had several cases, and that in several instances where we had written veterinary certificates of pleuro-pneumonia, when Mr. Bell made post-mortem examinations of the animals that had died or that we had had slaughtered, he found the disease to be tuberculosis and not pleuro-pneumonia.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. A. Dean.

Mr. Arthub Dean called and examined.

3145.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) You live at Dowsby Hall, in Lincoln, I believe ?Yes.

3146.nbsp; Are you a tenant farmer there ?I am.

3147.nbsp; What extent of land have you in your occupation ? About 1,500 acres. It is the firm of Messrs. Dean and Sons.

3148.nbsp; What proportion of arable and of grass have you ?I should say about half and half.

3149.nbsp; Is yours a mixed system of farming ?All kinds of farming.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;] * _tii s

3150.nbsp; Then you have a considerable head ot cattle t About 250 head.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

3151.nbsp; Are they breeding or feeding cattle ?rnn-

cipally feeding.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .,.,.lt;- 5

3152.nbsp; Kow long have you occupied tnat tarra i My father had been a tenant for 44 years, and I succeeded him. I have been in business about six

3153.nbsp; Then you purchase most of the cattle which you feed ?We do.

3154.nbsp; From what source?From various county

3155.nbsp; Of what breed are they generally ?Principally Lincoln cattle, but I may say occasionally that we do buy from all quarters; we buy Welsh and Herefords, and occasionally we get imported Irish.

3156.nbsp; Has the county of Lincoln been subject to outbreaks of disease lately ?No, not at all.

3157.nbsp; Have you personally had an outbreak on your farm ?T have.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; laquo; laquo; t

3158.nbsp; Have you had more than one outbreak r1

3169. When did the first occur ?On January 17th.

3100. Of this year ?This year.

3161.nbsp; When did the second occur?On March

15th.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . . .

3162.nbsp; nbsp;Could you trace the origin of the introduction of disease in the first case ?--Not in any way what-

o,vcr.

3103. Previous to January 17th, when was the last occasion on which you purchased any stock ?I should like, if you will excuse me, to go back a little upon my evidence. Those cattle which fell on January 17th were cattle which had been grazed in my own farm,

and sent away to a farm two miles off to winter. They were sent away in November.

3164.nbsp; When did you purchase those cattle?I he principal part of them were bred on my place ; two, I believe, were purchased in May from a home farmer.

3165.nbsp; Could you now answer my previous question ; what was the last date of the purchase of any cattle whatever ?In November 1887.

3166.nbsp; That was two months, then, before the outbreak ?It was. May I say that the purchased cattle and' the cattle that went away to this farm two miles off, never came in contact.

3167.nbsp; Did you say that yon purchased your cattle in November, two months before the outbreak?I

3168.nbsp; Were those cattle ever in contact afterwards with those that had the disease ?Never.

3169.nbsp; Were they kept on the same farm?No.

3170.nbsp; At what distance from each other were these cattlekept?About 2i miles.

3171.nbsp; Did the same herdsman look after botti f

No.

3172.nbsp; What number of cattle were diseased in the

first outbreak ?Two.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .,0

3173.nbsp; What was your action with reference to them i I reported them to my local veterinary. He told me that he believed it was pleuro-pneumonia.

3174.nbsp; Will you give us his name?Holmes, ot Bourne, Lincolnshire.

3175.nbsp; Did he condemn them ?Yes.

3176.nbsp; Upon his report were they slaughtered ? One died and the other was slaughtered.

3177.nbsp; Was a post-mortem examination made?It

3178.nbsp; nbsp;Did he give you a certificate of disease ?

He did.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ..,..,,

3179.nbsp; How many cattle were there in that lotiquot;

There would be 14 remaining.

3180.nbsp; Then you had 16 in the first instance t What became of the 14 ?They remained in the yard until March.

3181.nbsp; Did you apply any special treatment to them ?-They were sotoned in the ordinary way of raquo;etoned calves.

3182.nbsp; In the dewlap ?Yes.

MINUTES Ol? EVIDEKOE.

101

3183.nbsp; Did none

of thorn show any symptoms of

3223.nbsp; nbsp;And one was slaughtered POne died.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Mr. a. Dean.

3224.nbsp; nbsp;Was a post-mortem examination made

ofnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-----

4 May 1888.

disease ?None.

3184.nbsp; quot;Whs a setou Hie only treatment applied to them ?The only one.

3185.nbsp; Did you ever attempt to inoculate them ? Never.

3186.nbsp; Arc they still alive?No.

3187.nbsp; Have they been slaughtered?They have been slaughtered.

3188.nbsp; Whilst in your possession (lid these eattle remain perfectly healthy ?No,

3189.nbsp; Were they again affected with pleuro-pneu-monia ?They wore.

3190.nbsp; When did that break out ? On March 17th.

3191.nbsp; Were they still upon the same farm ?They were.

3192.nbsp; But these animals were never affected in the first instance; the animals in contact which you setoned never showed any signs of disease in the first instance ?None whatever.

3193.nbsp; So there was no second attack upon tiiose animals, but there was a continuation of the disease ? There wns a continuation.

3194.nbsp; With an interval of two months ?Yes.

3195.nbsp; How many of these were affected ?One.

3196.nbsp; Did it die or was it slaughtered?It was slaughtered.

3197.nbsp; And what was found in that case ?Pleuro-pneumonia.

3198.nbsp; What became of the remaining 13 ?They #9632;were all slaughtered.

3199.nbsp; Was that in consequence of the recent compulsory order of the Privy Council ?It was.

3200.nbsp; Was a post-mortem made of them ?No.

3201.nbsp; Had you no desire to trace the disease further ?

__It was plain that they were all diseased, but, of

course, it was out of my hands. The local authority had taken it into their own hands. Their inspector carried out the seeing them slaughtered, and I really had practically nothing to do with it.

3202.nbsp; Are you aware whether the inspector of the local authority made a post-mortem ?I think not.

3203.nbsp; Have you had any further outbreak than that you mentioned ?I have.

3204.nbsp; Since March 17th ?Yes.

3205.nbsp; On what date was that ?On March 29. 320G. Was that in a second lot of cattle, quite distinct from the others ?Yes.

3207.nbsp; Were they on the same farm ?No.

3208.nbsp; How far apart were these ?2| miles off.

3209.nbsp; Had they never been in contact with the others ?Four of the animals had.

3210.nbsp; What age were these animals ?Varying from three months to four years. The animal that was affected was about three months.

3211.nbsp; Were any of these dairy cattle ?Cows; they Were suckling their own calves.

3212.nbsp; Were they cows in milk ?Yes.

3213.nbsp; Were they of all ages, including calves?-Many of them were feeding cattle; they were various cattle.

3214.nbsp; How do you account for these four coming in contact; was that intentional ?They were in contact in November, not afterwards ; it was before any disease broke out.

3215.nbsp; And never afterwards?And never afterwards.

3216.nbsp; nbsp;How long were they in contact at, that time i

__They had been in contact for three or four months

at least up to November.

3217.nbsp; nbsp;Were they separated in November ?About the lOth November. . 3218. That was prior to the outbreak ?Yes.

3219.nbsp; nbsp;Had these four animals been purciiased, or were they bred on the farm?Two of them were purchased about May 1887 and the others were bred on the farm.

3220.nbsp; nbsp;How many had you disensed in tho last outbreak ?One.

3221.nbsp; How many were there in contact with tha

them ?It was,

3225.nbsp; nbsp;And what did you find ?Pleuro-pneumoma. That was the case of the calf three months old.

3226.nbsp; nbsp;What became of the remainder ?They wore slaughtered.

3227.nbsp; nbsp;Was a post-mortem made of them ?Merely the ordinary local inspector saw them as they wore slaughtered, but there was no post-mortem made by a veterinarian.

3228.nbsp; Are you aware whether any symptoms ot pleuro-pcumonia were discovered in those in contact

only ?__I am. The lungs were affected, and showed

decided symptoms of pleuro-pneumonia.

3229.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) How many?Almost three fourths of them.

3230.nbsp; (Chairman.) Have you had any further outbreak ?None.

3231.nbsp; Did it occur to you as a matter of precaution and prevention to ask permission to inoculate ?No, I placed the thing in the hands of my veterinarian, and he did not recommend anything of the kind. He said that nothing could be done, and I left it in his hands.

3232.nbsp; Did you receive full compensation for those in contact as well as those diseased ?I may say that I have now a case of appeal from the magistrate's decision.

3233.nbsp; But as a matter of fact did you receive com pensation ?Yes.

3234.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling) What do you suppose your loss has been with these 63 animals ?Do you mean loss personally ?

3235.nbsp; Counting what you had received for compensation, what would be your loss?I should say that it was a loss impossible to estimate, for this retison that these would be cattle which I had bought in with the express purpose of grazing; J. have these cattle slaughtered in Marchabout the middle of March and I have to replace these cattle now. Of course, if I could have gone into the market immediately and replaced the cattle, the loss would have been nothing, but as the case stands now I could not re-stock that yard. I could not make any use of it, and therefore I had no place to put that cattle. I had to be without stock whilst the grass was growing. There is un-' doubtedly a loss, say, of 100/, to 200/. There ought not to have been a loss, not necessarily so.

3236.nbsp; You think you had a loss of between 100/. and 200/. ?Yes. 'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

3237.nbsp; Why were you not able to bring in cattle immediately ?Because if I had bought cattle, I could not have put them into the infected yard.

3238.nbsp; Why ?Because the order declares the yard an infected place.

3239.nbsp; Can you produce the order ?It is an order from the local authority declaring it to be an infected

3240.nbsp; Was that after the slaughter of the 63? Yes,

3241.nbsp; Were there then no more cattle left ? There were then no more cattle left.

3242.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Are you aware that you could bring tiiem in after disinfection of the premises, but could not take them out ?I was not aware. I was told that I could not bring them in.

3243.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) If you had been able to bring your fresh stock directly into this yard, your loss would have been nil, would not it?It would, I may say, bar some small expenses.

3244.nbsp; At any rate, it would have been a trifling expense compared with the 200/. that you are now talking of ?It would.

3245.nbsp; Do you remember where you purchased those two cattle in May 1887 ?At a country market close to my own home.

3246.nbsp; Have you any record or knowledge where they came from ?The man that 1 bought them of

told me, quot;I had them on my farm six months, and they were bred in the neighbourhood.quot;

one ?62.

3222.nbsp; I think this occurred in a lot of 03 ?Yes.

102

COMMITtM ON PLBURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS !

Mr. A. Dean. 4 Muy 1888.

3247nbsp; nbsp;l-Iuvo you any reason to doubt that statement being substantially correct ?None whatever.

3248nbsp; nbsp; Was there any disease In the market oi in the neighbourhood to your knowledge ?None to my

knowledge ^ _Horsk^ Do _yoll think it possible that a herdsman may have taken the disease from one farm to another ?I think not.

3250nbsp; nbsp;Why do you think not ?No herdsmen went from one yard to the other; the only person who would do that would bo myself.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;ü .i f

3251nbsp; nbsp; I think you said that about three fourths ot the 63 animals which had been slaughtered had been in contact with those diseased ?I ^dld-

3252. You examined them all, then ?I could not say that I examined everyone, but I saw several. When I occasionally went up there I saw many ot them myself, and I asked the butchers how they found them, and they answered that three fourths ot

them were diseased.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ m .

3253 Then you do not know whether the disease, as you found it then in the lungs, was old or recent i

3270.nbsp; (Professor Brotvn.) Aro you aware that there has been no reported outbreak in Lmcolnshjre since 1881 until yours ?-I was not aware that it had been so long; I knew that I had not heard of a case.

3271.nbsp; Is the inspector that you mention. Mi. Holmes, a young man ?~Ye9.

3272.nbsp; There are two gentlemen of that name, aie there not ?Yes ; it is the young one.

3273.nbsp; Did you see any of the diseased lungs yourself ?_Not from the really infected cattle that were slaughtered.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , ..

3274.nbsp; I thought you said that you went to the butchers and saw some ?Yes.

3275.nbsp; Did you see any of the diseased lungs tüere t

3276.nbsp; Can you give any idea to the Committee what they looked like ?-They had a kind of abscess on their lungs, and one side would appear whiter than the other, and in many the lungs had grown to their sides.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; laquo;.

3277.nbsp; Were the lungs on the one side larger than on the other ?They were.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,, ,,

3278.nbsp; And softer than usual ?That I could not

I should say that it had not fully developed,

3254.nbsp; (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Had you any other cattle purchased on your farm besides this first lot in which the outbreak occurred ?None in which the first outbreak occurred, but several m the second

vurd

3255.nbsp; None in the first outbreak ?None.

3256.nbsp; Then the only foreign cattle that had not been bred on your farm were those two that you purchased C Yes, out of the 16.

3257.nbsp; But is not it possible that some of your other cattle might have got in contact with them in the fields?They might have, been in contact at oaa times during the summer, hut there were no newly bought cattle, I know, ever came in contact with these.

3258 Where would your fresh stock be purchased

from?I purchased cattle from Northampton and

Stamford, and Peterborough, and various fairs.

3259. In large centres ?In large centres

3260 Is it possible that some of the other cattle

might have communicated the disease to that lot.

No, not to the 16.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. ₁₃ vr.

3261. If they might have been in contact ?JNo ,

' the 16 were never in contact with any of the later

^ale^But you said they might be in the same field ? In the summer time they might go with other cattle, but not with any cattle purchased in the

autumn.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; i,i. u

3263. But other cattle on your farm might have been in contact with the purchased cattle i- JNo, because the summer time was the time that I was not purchasing cattle. These cattle had gone away to this farm before I brought any purchased cattle home on to it. The 16 cattle that went away to this oil farm were kept to the field, and kept away from any other purchased cattle; and they had clearly gone away before I brought any fresh purchased cattle on in November.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; e

3264.nbsp; Then you cannot account for the origin ot the outbreak in any way ?I cannot.

3265.nbsp; nbsp;(Lord Cloncurry.) What were these original 16 ; were they mixed, or cows, or what ?Three-year-old bullocks.

3266.nbsp; Then the calf in the last outbreak ; was that calf born on an outlying farm ?It was born on the farm.

3267nbsp; nbsp;Where it died ?I believe I have made one mistake in giving my evidence. There were three cattle in those 16 that were purchased from a local farm. They were cattle that came from a tarm close

to my own.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. _t _t

3268nbsp; nbsp;Had any of your neighbours within a district of 10 miles round had an outbreak of pleuro-pneu-raonia?No.

3269. As far as you yourself know, were these cattle known to have been in contact during the pas

^Sa33279. Did you see the lung cut open ?No, I did not; it is a thing that I do not understmd Of course I could see that they were not quot;ght, but i do not understand veterinary science sufficiently to be able to say more than that they were not healthy, and not what they should be.

3280.nbsp; Did the butchers say anything about the disease ?The butchers said about three fourths ot them were diseased.

3281.nbsp; Did they give it any name ?Mo.

3282.nbsp; When they said that they were affected, did they say with what disease ?-They merely alluded to the disease of pleuro-pneumonianbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,.

3283.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Did they call it lung msease i No, they did not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,,

3284 (Professor Brown.) And they did not talk about any quot;old lungersquot; amamp;ng them ?-I may say that Holmes in bad cases sends the lungs to London to be examined under the microscope, and he got answers by telegram. I saw the telegram myself, and the last telegram merely said laquo;Pleuro-pneu-

monia.quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i i. inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;s t

3285. Do you know who sent the telegram t-J.

3286nbsp; nbsp;They were sent to London ; what part of London?I cannot say; my veterinary inspector sent to have them examined under the microscope.

3287nbsp; nbsp;I gather that the great part of your losses arise from your not being able to put cattle into your sheds, after clearing out the diseased and healthy

^S Wemtiie sheds disinfected ?They were.

3289nbsp; nbsp; By whose directions ?An order was issued to me from the local authority to disinfect my sheds

3290nbsp; nbsp;Did the inspector see them atterwards tL do not know that he has seen them. I said to him, quot; I will disinfect them, and I shall be very glad it laquo; you will come over after they are done, and it quot; there is anything else to be done, if you tell mo laquo; what it is, I shall be glad to do it. I want you to quot; know that, but tell me that it is satisfactorily done quot; before it is finished.quot; He told me that he would, but he has not been over, to my knowledge.

3291.nbsp; How long ago is that ?Lately-a fortnight. 1 slaughtered on the 9th April, and I believe we disinfected that week, and to my knowledge the inspector has not been there up to this time.

3292.nbsp; nbsp;Did you ask him or write and tell him r No; I have not written to tell him that I was ready

for him.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i, t, laquo;*

3293 Then under these circumstances he has not

given aquot;certificate that the place has been cleansed?

He has not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;... ..

3204 Are you aware that there is a provision mtho Order of Council, the precise object of which is to avoid any intentional delay and damage to stock owners by keeping their sheds empty after being properly

twelvemonths with any diseased beast ?No.

#9632;

MINUTES OF BVIDENOE.

108

diBint'octed ?I was not; my impression was that I could not ro-stock those yards for eight weeks. {Professor Brown read the order which permuted cattle to come in after disinfection.)

3205. (Chairman.) If you had been awaro of that provision in tho. Order of Council would you have purchased more stock and placed them in your yards ? I should have first ascertained from a veterinarian that I should bo perfectly safe, and if I thought there was no danger 1 should at once have purchased more

3296.nbsp; You are on different ground now altogether. What would enable you to know when you were safe and when not ?I should be guided by ray veterinarian on that point.

3297.nbsp; Suppose your veterinarian was aware of the existence of this rule which indicates that there would be safety after disinfection (otherwise probably it would not have been in the order), would not that have satisfied you ?I think I should have thought it prudent to wait some two or three weeks.

3298.nbsp; Although your veterinarian advised you to put thom in you would not have taken his advice ?I am hardly prepared to answer that on the spur of the moment. I consider that is a point that would require consideration.

3299.nbsp; That is a very proper answer. In your answer to Mr. Stirling you said that it would be a loss of about 200/. because you could not have put fresh stock in. Now that you know that you might have put them in, do you still maintain that you are put to raquo; loss of about 200/. ?I do.

3300.nbsp; But it is by your own act ?The fact of the disease still makes the loss.

3301.nbsp; But the cost of replacement and the loss of time, that is removed ?Yes; but the fact of the disease making this place not desirable to stock makes the loss in the value.

3302.nbsp; Are you aware that there is more than one form of lung disease ?I am.

3303.nbsp; Have you sufficient scientific knowledge to distinguish one from the other ?I have not.

3304.nbsp; Not when you see the lung ?No.

3305.nbsp; Did it occur to you when you saw this lung that it might be tuberculosis ?I have never seen a case of tuberculosis.

3306.nbsp; Are you aware of the principle upon which compensation is awarded ?I thought I was.

3307.nbsp; Is it satisfactory to you ?No, it is not.

3308.nbsp; lu what way do you indicate that there might be alteration or improvement?I think the Act, according to the way our local authorities interpret it, is not sufficiently explanatory. In my herd of cattle which I slaughtered I had three pure bred shorthorns, which have a value, I may say, outside the ordinary market value, and my idea is that I might claim upon the value of these animals up to 40Z. each, what their value is, what they would fetch in the market to-day as pedigree animals. Our local authorities say, quot; No, you are not entitled to that, you are simply laquo; entitled to what they are worth if they had no quot; pedigree whatever, and were perfectly ordinary quot; stock.quot;

3309.nbsp; Who was the valuer in your particular case ?

Mr. Saul.

3310.nbsp; nbsp;By whom was he appointed?By the

Bench.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.,-,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

3311.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) What is he ?He is a valuer; a local land agent and valuer.

3312.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) I presume you have an appeal tI have an appeaK

3313.nbsp; Have you exercised your powers of appeal r I have appealed.

3314.nbsp; {Professor Brown.) Are you aware that you have power to get it referred to arbitration ? I am.

3315.nbsp; nbsp;You cannot go much beyond that ?All thaI ask is this, in such a case it is a very serious mattefor an individual farmer to commence an action with local authorities. I think that, as far as I road the Actit is clearly wished that the farmer should receive hi

it should be expressed so that tho local authorities Mr. A

Dean

could have no doubt, and so that they should not put

4 May 1888.

an individual farmer to the expense of appealing. Naturally, when ho appeals he has all his witnesses to bring and the case to get up; ono knows that the remedy is as bad as the disease. I may say the money ho has to spend in working out the case is as bad to him almost as going without his money.

3316.nbsp; nbsp;You would not probably question the yulua-tion unless you have a very good case ?I consider I' have a good case; but I am not a lawyer.

3317.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Is it because the animal has a pedigree that you think it has a higher value necessarily ?Certaiuly.

3318.nbsp; Independent of its own qualifications as a beast per se ?It has a somewhat greater value with the pedigree.

3319.nbsp; Take the case of a fat cow, fat tor the butcher, and taking tiie disease, would that animal with a pedigree have any higher value ?Certainly not, if she was not a breeding cow.

3320.nbsp; I want to get at the effect of having a pedigree or not when it is slaughtered ; therefore, it must be loft to the discretion of the valuer, must it not ? I may say this, that tho valuer had his instructions from one of the local authority, not from the Bench, but from one of the local authority, to take the value of these animals, as though they had been ordinary stock, without any pedigree.

3321.nbsp; Has he that in writing?He has not; I may as well go further : I told the valuer that it was an absurd idea to take his valuation in that way, a,nd that I should recommend him to send in the valuation with the pedigree. He sent it in with a letter, stating why he had included the valuation of the pedigree, and they refused to allow their own valuer's valuation.

3322.nbsp; Are you aware how much more he put upon the animals with the pedigree ?About double.

3323.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) Were they slaughtered ? They were ordered, to be slaughtered.

3324.nbsp; When ordered to be slaughtered for the butcher were they worth more because they had a pedigree ?It is what an animal is worth before it is ordered to be slaughtered; what the value of that animal is if sent into the market as an undiseased animal ; what it would fetch in the market.

3325.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Supposing the animal had to be slaughtered because it was diseased, what then would have been your opinion ?It would have been worth no more than an ordinary animal. But may I go on to say this: if you had a lot of ordinary grazing stock ordered to be slaughtered, they may only be worth to the butcher some'8/. or 9/. as butcher's meat, but as grazing stock they would be worth some 16/. or 17/. as stock to grass, because they had no meat on them at that time. In all cases where they have had an allowance, they have been allowed as grazing stock, not what they are worth to the butcher, because in that case then! would bo no net value in compensation : the farmer might slaughter and make what ho could from the butcher out of them. Then there would be no loss to the local authorities at all if valued at what they were worth as butcher's meat.

3326.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) You said that a farmer would not care to incur the expense of arbitration ? I said that as a rule the farmer would object to incur the expense of arbitration.

3327.nbsp; I)o you know the order provides that if the value as the result of arbitration is higher than that of the local authority they have to pay all the expense ?I do.

3328.nbsp; And if the valuation is sustained and tne farmer practically loses his case, he then has to pay _half?_I do; but I think that all gentlemen agree with mo that, even though you win a case at law you are a pecuniary loser.

3329.nbsp; You lose by it ?You are not always a

8330. (Chairman.) Do you consider that it would he better that the Act should be carried out direct

value, whatever the value may be, up to 40/. I think

104

(iOMMITTKB ON PIJGUUO-l'NBUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. A. Veav. from the contval office in London, or througU the local

------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;authority?-! consider that it would be decidedly

4 May 1888. _bett6I. jj' _t|_ie Act were carried out directly from Lonlaquo;

-----------don, with simply a cattle inspector to give notice ot

pleüro-pnonmonia, and that they should at once order tiles slaughter from London, without corning to the local authority in any way whatever.

3881. DW I gather that you still approve ol Blaugüter in preference to any preventive measures?Most certainly. I may say that lusr. January I to d one ot our local magistrates, that if I had not the disease, it it were upon other people's farms, I should be an active mover for slaughter, but I would rather pay the extra rates as a cattle dealer or farmer than 1 would have the risk of disease being spread all over the country. I believe my evidence and advice was

The witness

taken more to mean that I wished to laquo;et out of my having diseased cattle, und get myself compensated, instead of giving advice for their benefit, and I WUB looked upon as a man who advised for mysolf and not for the benefit of the country.

3332 As a large farmer and stock owner and consequently as a ratepayer, do you think 1* fes^Wo that compensation should be paid iron, local funds oi from the Imperial Exchequer ?From an Imperial fund, but iu every case I may say that I advise slaughter.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.

3333. (Lord Cloncurry) About the three pedigree cows, if there had been no pleuro-pneumouia 1 suppose you would have kept these three animals lor breeding, and not have sent them to the butcher at the time ?It was so.

withdrew.

Mr. J. W. Sell.

Mr. John Williams Bei.

3334.nbsp; You live at Gillingham, in Dorsetshire, I

believe ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

3335.nbsp; And in conjunction with your brother own and hold a considerable quantity of land ?Yes.

3336.nbsp; How many acres have you in hand at present ?-It is made up of several lots, and 1 cannot tell you very accurately, but there are about 1,000.

3337.nbsp; Are these chiefly mixed farms .'--X cs; mixed as to the pasture and arable, about halt and

half.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , _v

3338.nbsp; Are they contiguous ?Yes

3339.nbsp; How many cattle may you have upon tiiose farms?About 200 of all ages.

3340.nbsp; And are many of these ^8 ?-We milk eenerally 130 cows, varying a little from about 130.

3341nbsp; nbsp; Are these cows purchased or bred upon the farm generally ?The larger proportion of them are bred upon the farm, but a certain number purchased.

3342nbsp; nbsp;Are they of anv particular breed.''Ihey are mostly cross-bred short horns, with some Ayrshires.

3343nbsp; nbsp;Do you frequently purchase cattle ?--X es.

3344nbsp; nbsp;With so large a stock of cattle upon your farms, have you ever been subject to an outbreak ot disease ?We have had foot-and-mouth disease.

3345.nbsp; Have you over had an outbreak ot pleuro-

pneumonia ?Yes, certainly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,

3346.nbsp; Have you had any disease in your herd within

the last two years ?Certainly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . _T ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_A

3347.nbsp; When did you first observe it ?-I observed disease about the middle of May 1887.

3348 What did you consider the character ot the disease?We thought it was inflammation of the

^1UI3349 Did you treat it as such ?We called in the local veterinary surgeon, and he thought it was inflammation of the lungs,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i V MVv

3350.nbsp; Did you call in any further advice ?Wo.

3351.nbsp; Are you aware whether any further advice went in uncalled for ?No.

3352.nbsp; How many animals were attacked in tlielirst

^OUt3353. How brig did it remain alive ?Twoor three

called and examined.

attacked was a Guernsey, bought at the Bath and West of England Show at Dorchester, and she, alter lingering many weeks, also died.

3363. And was this in the interval ?Yes.

3364nbsp; nbsp;What did they discover on the lungs at the post-mortem ?That I have no knowledge of. I was not present at any of those post-mortem examinations and I cannot tell you, but our general bellet was that they were suffering from inflammation oi the lungs.

3365nbsp; nbsp;Was there anything special in your system of management in November and December ?Yes, the beasts came in and were housed.

3366.nbsp; nbsp;At that period the cattle were brought into the houses ?Yes.

3367.nbsp; nbsp;What did you observe then .^ ihe cases became more numerous.

3368.nbsp; nbsp;Still breaking out at intervals ?Still DieaK-ing out at intervals.

3369.nbsp; nbsp;At intervals of how long ?Well, every now and again a beast fell in the same way.

3370 Do you mean six weeks or a month or what t I can hardly tell you that now. I should say, as far as I can remember, at an interval of 10 days or a fortnight.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; r it, . 3.37) Did you then begin to exercise any turthei or more stringent regulations ?I had better tell you exactly what happened. I think it was about the middle of December ; I was breakfasting with my brother and he said, laquo; this is very odd this sort ot quot; complaint amongst the cows, it seems to be quot; infectious.quot; He described to me how one ^and another were taken, and I said laquo;let me see them. 1 should tell you, about 25 years ago we had pleuro-pneutnonia in the village of Buckhorn-Weston At, that time we got Professor Simmonds to come down and examine these beasts. I was ^yith him when he examined them, and saw how he dealt with them, and observed their symptoms. I looked at these beasts of ours, and remembering what I had observed when Professor Simmonds came down 25 years ago I said, quot; I will be hanged if I do not believe that raquo;these beasts have got pleuro-pneumonia; it is quot; exactly the same sort of thing.quot; I tapped their ribs

as he had done, and they were very solid. I said, laquo; I believe this; they have got the same complaint as laquo; I remember seeing at Buckhorn-Weston, and you quot; had better report this to the local authority, whicli he did They at once took the matter m hand, and a man from the clerk of the peace came up with the veterinary surgeon, and we telegraphed to the Veterinary College here to send down some man to meet this gentleman. It was Professor Penberthy whom

3372. Was this nine months after the first animal had died ?About seven months.

3373 What did Professor Penberthy say?Well, we said here are the beasts, and we told him all that we knew, and said quot; if you like to kill one or two you can quot; He killed one or twoI believe he killed two

Did it recover ?No.

Did it die?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_B u-gt; ts *

öaoo-8. Was a post-mortem made ot iti-JNo; it died on a Sunday morning, and was immediately buried without examination.

3359 After that when had you any further indication of disease ?-Well, one after ^Jlaquo; of our cows bccBme ailing, and between the middle of May and the middle of December six or seven died.

33G0. But how many had been ailing in that m-_tc)._val ?_One or two apparently recovered.

3361 And probably about eight or ten were affected P-As nearly as I can remember eight or ton

were affected.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ii.. laquo;w

33(52 Did you make a post-mortem of those tho

died ?-Of some of them we did. The next to be

MINUTK8 OV BVlDläNCR.

105

tnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ]

and he came to tho conclusion (I was not present myself, mind you, at this, but I get this from the report of ray brother) that it was not pleuro-pneumonia, but that it was suspicious. There was suspicion, tho symptoms were suspicious, and ho instructed the veterinary surgeon who had come with the representative of the clerk of the peace, to observe the animals, and take charge of them and report to him.

#9632;'(374. Did any further outbreak take place ?-They

3392.nbsp; Then after Professor Penberthy came down in tho first instance, did he repeat his visit ?No, ho only came once.

3393.nbsp; In spite of his treatment, outbreaks still continued to occur ?Yes.

3394.nbsp; And did you take any further action ?No ; the matter is usually in tho hands of the local authority and the clerk of the peace, and they communicated with the Privy Council.

Mr.

J. W. Belt

4Miiy 1888.

3395.nbsp; nbsp;What further action was then taken ?Then Mr. Cope cama down from the Privy Council OIHce, and he killed two, I think, and he said it was undoubted and beyond all questionI think be used the words quot;virulent quot;pleuro-pneumonia.

3396.nbsp; Is that a professional termis that Mr, Cope's term ?He saw my brother. 1 must say that we were favourably impressed with Mr. Cope.

3397.nbsp; At any rate, he condemned two cattle ?He ' killed two cattle, and he said one was suffering from tuberculosis, I think.

3398.nbsp; Are you aware of the result, of the postmortem examination of those two carcases ?Yes ; 1 believe Mr. Cope was present when they wore examined.

3399.nbsp; Are you aware what he reported ?I have seen his report.

3400.nbsp; nbsp; Did he indicate that pleuro-pneumonia existed?Certainly, and I believe he said virulent.

3401.nbsp; How many of the animals were in contact with these two?At that time about five or six of them had been in contact; they had been removed from a larger numberthey had been in contact with a larger number.

3402.nbsp; What became of the animals in contact with tl_iese ?They remained where they were until they were ultimately slaughtered by direction of the local authority.

3403.nbsp; Was a post-mort.em made on any of thorn i A post-mortem was made on all of them.

3404.nbsp; Are you aware of what was discovered with reference to the animals in contact?All those which were in contacta largo per-centagewere affected with pleuro-pneumonia.

3405.nbsp; After all your experience with this outbreak have you ever attempted inoculation ? No.

3406.nbsp; Have you any suggestions to make as to treatment in the case of an outbreak ?I have no knowledge as to the efficucy of inoculation.

3407.nbsp; I am not speaking of inoculation, but generally in reference to any measures of a sanitary nature ?We felt, whether rightly or wrongly, that, by a careful dealing and consideration of those cases, a very large number of the animals were needlessly slaughtered; that was our conclusion, whether rightly or wrongly, and tho result proved we were right. We could see what animals were likely to show symptoms of tho disease and what were not. In order to save any, (we did save a few) we were asked to assure the local authority that they had not been in contact during the last six months, and that, with a mixed holding, it was very difficult to do.

3408.nbsp; Did you attempt to discover the existence of disease by the use of the thermometer ?The moment we knew the value of the thermometer we were constantly examining.

3409.nbsp; nbsp;When did you discover the value of the thermometer ?I think after the visit of Mr. Cope and Mr. Penberthy. We knew nothing about the use of the thermometer until then.

3410.nbsp; After you began to use the thermometer did you also accompany that treatment by more stringent isolation and separation ?Well, they were isolated at that time ; all the beasts that were in the yard or in the stalls were isolated, and we allowed them to remain after that; we did not bring any in contact which had not previously been in contact.

3411.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) You said just now that you thought a large number of your animals were unnecessarily slaughtered?Yes.

3412.nbsp; What would you suggest, supposing it had been left lo vou, to avoid such unnecessary slaughter ?

^!i*

went one and another dropping ill.

3375.nbsp; Although they were specially treated ?Yes. I think he gave some directions for their treatment, which were observed.

3376.nbsp; And did that, treatment apply to all the animals in the oow-houae, or only to the cows affected ? Only to the cows affected. As soon as tho cows were affectedthey were only affected at that time at one centrewe moved them down to another homestead.

3377.nbsp; How many animals might yon have in one homestead in which those that were previously affected were standing ? I will not. say positively, but at that time perhaps 20.

3378.nbsp; Did you exercise any preventive measures in the form of isolation ?Yes; we allowed no fresh beasts to be brought in and no beasts to be removed from that suspicious centre, further than tho point allowed by Professor Penberthy, which was 300 yards away.

337f). Knowing the antecedent history of the stock, were you able in any measure to trace the origin of this outbreak ?Yes. We have no doubt about it now.

3380.nbsp; Will you kindly tell the Committee what conclusions you arrived at?The conclusion we arrived at, beyond doubt, was that the disease was brought to ulaquo; by an animal which we moved down to one homestead in Dorsetshire from Balham about the middle of April last.

3381.nbsp; What sort of an animal was that, was it a _cow pYes ; a cow of no particular breed, a heavy, deep milker, a delicate looking cow, and we thought ufter she had come down, having been in a warm cowshed at Balham, she was turned out in a very rough stormy night, and we thought she had taken cold.

3382.nbsp; nbsp;Have you since discovered that she had been in contact, with any diseased animals ?No ; so far as we have been able to trace tho history of the cow, she had been bought by the person, from whom we bought the milk business at Balham, from the neighbourhood of Crovdou, and she had been lent by the person, from whom we purchased the Balham business, to a customer there whose own was dry. They have some acres of ground and keep a cow or two, and the custom was to lend the cow for their convenience.

.5383. Did that cow take the disease ?We have no doubt that she had the disease when she came to us.

3384.nbsp; Was she under treatment at any time after she came to you ?As soon as she showed symptoms of disease we put her under treatment.

3385.nbsp; She was herself diseased you say ?After she came to us; within 10 days after coming to us she showed symptoms of ailing.

3386.nbsp; Did she continue to live loug ?Yes ; she continued to live, and lingered on for some considerable time.

3387.nbsp; Is she living now ?No ; she ultimately died after lingering, perhaps, three weeks.

3388.nbsp; Was she one of those you examined ?Yes.

3389.nbsp; And which you described as supposed to be suffering from inflammation of the lungs ?Yes.

3390.nbsp; Are you still of opinion that these animals were suffering from inflammation of the lungs ?Wo have no doubt now that they were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia.

3391.nbsp; What has induced you to change your opinion?llie reports to us of those who were skilled those who have knowledge of such diseasesMr. Cope, we have his report.

o r)4003.

OOMMITWJB ON PLEUKO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS

106

Mr. J. W. BeU.

4 May 18S8.

That those, which in our opinion woro free from suspicion, should have been held over for a time to see if they developed the disease.

34.13 What do you think would have been a fair length of time to hold them over ?-The period of incubation. Our own observation was, tiom tUib particular case, that the period of incubation was no a long one, so far as our observation went, ihat condition of diseased animal produced the disease in the infected lung within a month.

3414. Then a couple, of months would not satisty you?We should not have thought them free trom

^3U3415^n,Would you not, as a farmer, consider that you suffer a loss by having cattle shut up for a period like that ?Of course.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

3416 You know you would not be allowed to sell them during that period or to move them?-In our particular ctse it would not have affected us material y, because our stock consisted of dairy cows in milk, calved and calving, and of young stock coming to th-,

^e34l7 But the whole of the farmers of the country are not'in the same position ?-I say in our f^uUr case it would not have affected us. ^^e laquo;laughter rf the animals at this particular time did affect us, with regard to our milk contracts and milk supply.

3418. Therefore, you admit that in the case of other farmers who are not exclusively dairymen, the loss from having their stock shut up in that manner would probably be very considerable ?-No doubt it would, if Ihey were farmers whose habit was to be buying and selline. and taking out stock and moving in.

341^g9 Will you explain to the Committee how you suffered a loss as a dairyman ?-Because we were under contract to supply milk to our shops n London. Not under contract, we have a dozen mi k customers, but I mean we were obliged to supply milk

^da3420. What is about the quantity that you supply ? -It varies, but our shops would be 150 gallons per day; at that time we were sending the Alliance Company 150 gallons.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

3421. That would be 300 gallons altogether .'

Yesnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; u

S422. Would it not be possible for you to obtain that supply from your neighbours ?Not in the middle of December ; it would be easy in the middle

⁰ amT take it that it was the time of year that prevented you obtaining an additional supply i you wished it?-Not altogether that, because, at whatever period of the year it happened the^ milk producer would have made his arrangements for the disposal of the milk; he would be under contract to tffwholesale milk buyer in the district, or he would have his machinery for making cheese or butter, as the case might be. At any lime it would be an inconvenience to have your supply of milk suddenly stopped and then in the winter the inconvenience is, ot courseverv much aggravated.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

3424 Then in your opinion the compulsory ordefor slaughtering cows affected or in contact woulcause a very considerable loss to the dairyman ?-

^e8426. Would you consider that loss to be as greaif. in place of isolation, as you suggest, you werallowed to bring the new cows into your own farm^mediately on Their being cleansed ?-That we havdone, that we were advised we could do, and we hav

done it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , _n n l #9632; t

3426 And still there is a loss ?Certainly.

3427.nbsp; Have you been compensated for those slaug

tcrcd cows ?Yos.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

3428.nbsp; Did you get full value ?According to themarket value.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, u- -i s Th

3429.nbsp; What do you think there was behind?imherd of dairy cows, 130, or whatever they might bwo have been building them up for the last 40 yeaftjd they have been specially selected for their m

families of milky cows, and you cannot replace those SI market Unediately and buy tbem; however careful you are, there are a certain number of failures naS known cows that you buy. These have been weeded out and selected for dairy purposes for the last

^raWhen you got the value of these animals then, did you simply get the butcher vahie ?-No; we think that we, as compensation, got the full market value of the animals if they had been driven into the market; wo think that we were allowed by the authority full value, but that does not compensate us.

3431. I understand that, if you get the market value, you can go at once and fill their place ?Yes; but you cannot, whatever judgment you ma,y bring to belaquo;,be sure of the animals that you buy in the market, that they would be equal to the specially selected animals

^0r3432.'Then the treatment that you would recommend for dairy farmers, at any rate, would be that ot isolation and careful watching of suspected a.mmals i Yes; that must be taken with some qualification, because if you had a farm within a ring fence, with all the animals coming to one centre, and some ot these animals were affected, then I should say you had better stamp out the centre and kill all upon that form; but ^PI am only speaking for the par leuW holding which is made up of many separate holdings but all contiguous.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

3433.nbsp; I understand by that, that you have many separate buildings in which the cows are, but are they underoneroof?Oh, dearno.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;/

3434.nbsp; How many have you, for instance ?About

half-a-dozen.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. ^ *

3435.nbsp; At what distances apart ?From east to west, I think, our holding extends over three miles, and from north to south a mile and a half.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _

3436.nbsp; What is the greatest number ot aminals that you have under one shed or byre ?In one shed I should say about 30.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .,- , a _t j

343'7. From what you have said I understand you are pretty well satisfied with the valuation ; who made it?A local farmer and dealer nominated by the

local authority.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_t s -\rlaquo;

3438. Does he value for the whole county #9632;'#9632;laquo;?. the local authority suggested him to us, and asked it we would accept his valuation or whether we would prefer someone to meet him in our interest. We said we should be content with his valuation, and accepted

^lt'3439. Eeferring to that cow which you mentioned as coming from Balham, had you any prev.ous knowledge of her history ?-None, except that which I have given you. As far as we could trace her history she was bought some months previously in the Strict of cfoydon, either at Croydon or near Croydon.

3440nbsp; nbsp;And you are not aware whether there was any disease in the district ?-No, I am not; there has been a good deal of disease off and on at Balham.

3441nbsp; nbsp; (Sir G. Macpherson Grant:) I suppose you cannot Expect to have an outbreak of pleuro-pueumoma in a dairy holding without a considerable loss ?^⁰-

3442nbsp; nbsp;Do you wish the Committee to understand that you think your loss would have been ^s if the cattle had not be'en slaughtered out, but you had gone on with a system of isolation, and so, P^aps, spread the disease over a very much longer period ?-IJ*mk that our individual loss would have been less, 1 indicated to the local authority the suspected animak which should be slaughtered; I think the result would have justified our view.

3443.nbsp; In your experience is it easy to detect pleuro-pneumonia in its encysted form ?-Not except by the thermometer.

3444.nbsp; How ?By the thermometer, but not other-

^W 3445. Without feeling ?-If the thermometer shows the temperature to be abnormal, laquo;^thing like 103, for instance, I think then you may be pretty aure-

Ill

producing qualities. We have stuck to certain

MINUTKS OP EVIDENCK.

107

3450. I am afraid lie did not give much for the

Mr. J. W. Bell.

that is our experiencethat if the animal is elaughterod it is almost certain to have signs of disease.

8446. How do you reconcile that mode of treating the disease with the answer you gave just now, that if ail the cattle had been surrounded in a ring lenco and constantly mixing, you would prefer to kill them out. if you could detect pleuro-pneumonia so easily : I will not say; what I meant to convey to Mr. Stilling was, that if you had one compact holding as a centre and your beasts were concentrated, all there in the middle, the safer plan is to kill them all.

3447.nbsp; But I do not quite understand why i Because they are open to suspicion as having been hi contact with animals proved to be diseased. With regard to our holdings, we have two holdings in one place and another at another, and so on.

3448.nbsp; But all those cattle were more or less in contact, as I understand your evidence, at the different points?We were asked by the local authority, quot; Can you assure us that the animals here have not laquo; during the last six months been in contact with laquo; this point, and I said we could not.quot;

3449.nbsp; I want to know why, because you have tour separate points on which you cannot say they have not been in contactthey probably have,why is not it equally safe to slaughter them out; where is the greater loss in the one case than in the other?In the central point they would more certainly have been in contact tlan in these widely scattered points.

3450.nbsp; In slaughtering out there must be a great deal of contact, or at all events frequent contact ? Our experience was that these animals, which were undoubtedly diseased and which were in contact with pound animals, conveyed the disease to the sound

animals.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _T

3451.nbsp; As regards the compensation, may 1 assume that you put father a higher value upon your dairy stock than is common ?No.

3452.nbsp; Is it your experience that dairy stock is generally so carefully selected for generations, and bred so particularly as milk producers ?Certainly, where milk-selling and milk production is the main object.

3453.nbsp; They are bred for generations on the farm ?

Yes.

3454.nbsp; I admit your case; but do you think that that is usual or common ?It is not unusual.

3455.nbsp; You have a sort of pedigree dairy stock ? We have a stock specially selected for their milk-producing qualities. If they do not give a certain per-centage of milk we grass them down.

3456.nbsp; nbsp;In the case of dairy stock which is not bred or selected with so much care, the actual loss would not be so great ?Yes ; the collateral loss would be the same. If you have your arrangements made tor the season, whether it is butter producing ; whether your customers provide it; or cheese making, or Whether it is milk-selling, if that supply is suddenly stopped at any time of the year you are put to considerable inconvenience, and certainly loss.

3457. But we start with the admission that you cannot have an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia without considerable loss, disturbing the ordinary operations of the farm. I wanted to find out what your opinion was as to the best mode generally for the country in dealing with it, and I ask you this question about the dairy stock, as I assume, from what you said to Mr. Stirling, that these dairy cows had been bred with greater care and greater selection than perhaps the ordinary dairy stock. That being so, I ask whether you do not consider the loss would bo heavier in a case of that sort, than in cases of an ordinary dairy stock, on which you did not bestow the same care and attention that you have done ?Thawould be so.

3458. Therefore in your case there was a ratheunusual collateral loss ?What was in my mind iwhether the valuer in valuing it, seeing that theswere good milking beasts, had taken that into consideration.

pedigree?Wo have no reason to complain of the

valuation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; laquo; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;n lt; ^MaJ^r ^,8f8

3460.nbsp; Do you say the compensation is fair as tar-----------

as the valuing ?The system of compensation is fair and right. We were quite satisfied. Where there was any in question we were allowed something ; for instance, for a bull, which would have been worth to the butcher without any pedigree 20/., ho allowed us

30/.

3461.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.') Do you buy bulls without pedigree ?No ; we generally bought our bulls from Booth, and ordinarily we buy them at Birmingham. We had Old Flukes amongst the Guernsey herd ; she was killed, but he allowed us a price beyond what she would have had without a pedigree.

3462.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloncurry.) You have referred to the question of milking cattle, that is, cattle for making milk, butter, or cheese ?Yes.

3463.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that the present regulations would be satisfactory so iar as they apply to other classes of stock, that is to say the slaughter of the beasts that are affected and the beasts that are in actual contact ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

3464.nbsp; And do you think if there were special provisions for dairy stock that would meet all the requirements of the present time?No system of valuation would save you from the consequential loss of being deprived of your supply at any period of the

8465. But I am not talking of 'anything connected with milk. I am talking of cattle, not cows, but other classes than cows; bullocks, for instance?

Yes.

3466.nbsp; And maiden heifers never bulled ?The loss in that case would certainly be less.

3467.nbsp; And you would approve of the present system of compulsory slaughter if some special provision were made for the question of milk ?Undoubtedly it is a most effectual way of stamping out

3468.nbsp; About any alteration of the limit of the infected area, should it be made larger or confined to a small district?I am hardly prepared to answer that off-hand.

3469.nbsp; Because 1 gather that one of your objections is that witli your 1,000 acres the six different steadings were not treated as separate areas, but were treated as if it were one place ?Yes.

3470.nbsp; Would you suggest that it should have been a smaller place, and divided for the purposes of the

^_ct ?__In our case we considered that some of those

steadings were free from suspicion, and might have been spared.

3471.nbsp; Therefore you think in that case that too large an area was included in the infected place ?In our particular case a steading of Guernseys was saved, and that is now declared free from disease.

3472.nbsp; {Chairman.) Are you aware that in milk contracts there is frequently a special clause exempting milk-sellers from penalties, in the event of an outbreak of contagious or infectious disease ?There is no such stipulation in our contract, and that would not affect the supply to our shops.

3473.nbsp; I did not ask with reference to your contract, but are you aware that it is so in many contracts ? I cannot say to my own knowledge that I am aware of it.

3474.nbsp; Do not you think that it is a proper clause to insert?-1 do, certainly.

3475.nbsp; And that it would, therefore, in some measure mitigate the difficulty which you anticipate as to the disturbance and loss of your trade?Yes, certainly ; that does not apply to shops, however.

3470. Wo are speaking of milk supply generally. Do you mean to say that yours is wholesale only ? No; we are retail deliverers; wo are retailers here.

3477. But why would not it apply to shops? Because at that time wo should have very great difficulty In obtaining a supply from any other source.

O 2

108

OOMMITTBK ON VbKUUO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBKUCUL08IS;

From the middle of December to the middle of

January ia the scarce time for milk.

3478* Thou it was about that timein the middle ot winter and springthat you had your outbreak?

Yes.

3479.nbsp; Did you find any practical inoonveiiience in furnishing the supply of milk to London at that time ? Well we rubbed through it somehow; but at the same time we had to pay in rubbing through it somehow. We had to pay more for our milk, and instead ot sending our own milk.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . ,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

3480.nbsp; Had you to buy your milk ? Do you buy milk in anv case to supply your contracts ?We buy a certain small portion of milk, and we are now altering our system. Hitherto about a dozen of us have contributed to one common centre, and have made the most we can and divided the proceeds.

3481.nbsp; Your contracts then embrace more than the milk produced by the stock under your own control ?

3482.nbsp; Then the loss you anticipate would apply really to others as well as yourself, is that so or not? No, it is not quite so ; it involves some explanation.

3483.nbsp; In the event of disease breaking out m the dairy under your own management, and seeing that you are receiving milk from some other half-a-dozen farms, would it not be possible to quot; rub through quot; by a little larger quantity being received from your friends r¹They send us all they can, and at that time ot the year there is a short supply.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

3484.nbsp; Then in the event of disease breaking out in the middle of summer you would not anticipate the same difficulty?In the middle, of summer it would be easier to replace or to got substituted milk because the

supply is greater.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

3485.nbsp; Then do we come to this, that you do not suggest inoculation as a suitable treatment for pleuro-pneiunonia?1 know nothing of it.

3486.nbsp; Is it your intention, in the case oi another outbreak, to attempt it, or would you persevere with the system of slaughter and isolation ?-With regard to inoculation, I know nothing about it. I should call in skilled aid in such a case.

3487.nbsp; So far as you know you would simply tollow what you did before?Certainly.

3488.nbsp; Have you had any experience of tuberculosis ? __Some of our animals had tuberculosis.

3480. Do you think that it is on the increase ?Wo were surprised to find it. There were several of our cows that we slaughtered proved to have tuberculosis.

3490.nbsp; And these cows you previously thought were suffering from inflammation of the lungs?Or that they had nothing the matter with them. We were not aware of the existence of it.

3491.nbsp; (SirO, Macphersm Grant.) It is not so easy to discover ?It surprises us that they had it.

3492.nbsp; {Chairman.) What is your system of supplying milk to London ?We have three modes of deahng with our milk. We have what wo call a factory, and we supply our shops first with 150 gallons a day, and we place as much milk as we can wholesale at the price, which leaves a small margin for dealing with it at the factory. Whatever surplus there is over that we deal with it as best we can by sending cream to London when we can, by making butter when butter is dear, or by making it into cheese.

3493.nbsp; At certain times of the year have you more than you require for the supply of the shops?Certainly ; beyond that we place all that we can sell.

3494.nbsp; During the winter months you have a scarcity of milk ?Certainly; in the depth of winter we have a hard matter to keep up the supply.

3495.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) Is it for the shops ?No, not for the shops. We always provide enough for the shops. We are under a contract to supply the Alliance Dairy Company with a considerable quantity daily. In the winter, after providing for the shops, it is a hard matter to keep our contract with the Alliance or the Aylesbury Company. For many years we have sent our milk to the Aylesbury Dairy Company.

3496.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Do you send it now ?We have not done so for some years.

3497.nbsp; Do you think that the Aylesbury or Alliance Company would have any difficulty in getting the equivalent from some other source in the event of a failing in your supply ?They would in the depth of winter. At one time we were sending to the Aylesbury Company a sixth of their whole supply. Supposing our supply had failed to them, they would have had a great difficulty in supplying it. We deal with our surpluses as best we can.

3498. Have you great confidence in the temperature test as a means of detecting disease in cattle ?Yes, we have so far as our experience goes.

Mr. J. W.ßell.

t May 1888.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till Monday next at 12 o'clock.

*%!

MINUTES OF BVIDBNOK.

109

SEVENTH DAY.

Monday, 7th May 1888.

PRESENT :

Mr. JACOB WILSON in tue Chair.

Lord Cloncukby.

Mb. Stiklino.

Mk. R. DAWSON, Secretary.

The Hon. William MoCulloch (of Melbourne, Victoria) called in and examined

i/olaquo;. W. McCuttock.

7 May 1888.

#9632;

3499.nbsp; nbsp;{Cha

large

3514.nbsp; In the case of your ranch cattle do you breed or purchase ?We breed ; we do not purchase.

3515.nbsp; nbsp;Then the risk you run of introducing disease arises not from purchasing animals from other places, but from the privilege that other herds have of being driven through your ranches ?That is the risk. That is the only risk we run.

3516.nbsp; Could you give the Committee an idea of the value of a three-year-old bullock on the ranch ?A three to flve-year-old would be about 4J. each. I am speaking away back 2,000 miles, on the Queensland runs.

3517.nbsp; Are the laws in various parts of Australia uniform with reference to cattle disease ?Well, they vary a little, but not much ; they are pretty well the same.

3518.nbsp; In the event of an outbreak of disease amongst your herd, what is your usual system of treatment ?The particular case of the shorthorns. I mentioned this cow ; 1 took her on ; she had pleuro, though we did not observe it, and my man did not think much of it at the time; so little did he think of this that he tied the cow up in the same shed with the shorthorns, and the result was that this cow had the pleuro and communicated it to the other shorthorns.

3519.nbsp; After how long an interval was it that the disease appeared among the three after the first, outbreak ?It was not very long. Speaking from memory, it was about three weeks, but I would not be positive about that. It might be from two to four weeks. It is some years ago now.

3520.nbsp; Have you had any recent outbreak ?No, not amongst my shorthorns, but we have had a great deal of it among the fat bullocks coming down from the station, and we lost quite a number last year and the year before.

3521.nbsp; What was your further treatment with veference to the rest of the shorthorns ?As soon as I discovered that it was pleuro, I first called in a veterinary surgeon, and he said it was not pleuro. At that time we had three of them sick. I called in a second veterinary surgeon a few days afterwards as I was not satisfied, and the other veterinary said it was pleuro, and no doubt about it. Wc destroyed her, and it was a clear case of pleuro.

3522.nbsp; Could you tell us in what year that occurred ? No, 1 could not exactly. It would bo about six years ago.

3523.nbsp; Please, then, to continue your description of your treatment ?Well, then, another young heifer about 18 months old, a pure-bred shorthorn from an important cow, took the pleuro, and wo destroyed the others, and we took this one to an out farm and kept it by itself, so that wc could keop it until the proper stage to destroy it, in order to got the virus. We got the virus and inoculated the whole herd, both common and shorthorns. |!ut one of the milk-cows took it in

herd of cattle in Australia ?Yes.

3500.nbsp; How long have you been a resident in Melbourne ?36 years past.

3501.nbsp; You have, 1 believe, a considerable number of high-bred sliortliorns?Yes.

3502.nbsp; Could you give the Committee an idea ot the number of that herd ?I have got over 200 shorthorns, imported and bred from imported stock.

3503.nbsp; And what does the rest of the herd consist

₀f?__About 200 head of other cattle. But I am a

partner in another station where we have 12,000 head of cattle.

3504.nbsp; Then you have 400 on one farm, and upon another station, in another part of the country, 12,000 cattle ?Yes ; that is in Queensland. 1 have got others, 200 and 300 cattle in different places.

3505.nbsp; Then you have, besides, others in different parts of the colony ?Yes. The others are sheep stations, and there are only a few cattle there.

3506.nbsp; Bid the frequent outbreaks of pleuro-pneu-monia in your herd occur amongst the shorthorns, or .he general stock ?It occurred in an ordinary milk cowa foster mother not bred on the place.

3507.nbsp; Was that in your shorthorn herd?Yes; it broke out three or four weeks after I bought her : after getting her she sickened, and we did not think it was anything but a cold; she was in low condition, and -we did not think much of it.

3508.nbsp; Are your shorthorns in enclosed paddocks? Yes ; the same as they are hero in England, small paddocks.

3509.nbsp; The rest of your herd run at large over ranches ?Yes ; that is, a way back up the country they run over large tracts.

3510.nbsp; Have you had, in addition to the case amongst your shorthorns, any disease in the rest of your herd ? Yes, frequently.

3511.nbsp; Bo you attribute that greater frequency ot outbreaks to the difficulty of isolation, as compared with the shorthorns ?Yes; there is no fencing and the cattle get mixed, and we generally get it from cattle being driven through the quot; run.quot; We call the runs quot; stations quot;ranches they call them in America A man coming along with a drove of cattle, if they have pleuro they are apt to drop one or two ot them, and if they get mixed with the cattle on the run they spread pleuro.

3512.nbsp; Therefore your answer' to my question would be in the affirmative ?Yes.

3613. Inasmuch as you cannot isolate them in the muches as yon do amongst the shorthorn cattle, the risk of disease is greater ?Verv much greater. I do not think thnt there is any risk as I do now with iny shorthorns. I would not buy a strange boast now and put it into the same place, forfwir of bringing nlenrOi

110

COMMITTEE ON PLEÜRO-PNEÜMONIA AND TUBEUOULOSIS:

Horaquo;. W. McCulloch.

7 May 1888.

the meantime, and it broke out amongst the other milkers, and we destroyed all those with symptoms ot pleuro, about eight, wo then inoculated all the sound ones, and the thing disappeared entirely.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_,

3524.nbsp; Did you lose any from inoculation ?Yes, 1 lost two valuable imported cows.

3525.nbsp; Did any ot'tlioso inoculated still live ?Yes, and they have been doing well ever since.

3526.nbsp; After this inoculation and after the eight animals died, did the disease disappear ? Entirely. We killed the animals; only two died.

3527.nbsp; Did you kill the diseased animals ?All the diseased animals.

3528.nbsp; And after that you saw no more disease i¹ Wo never had a case afterwards. I may say here that the inoculation was very severe upon the milk cows. Two of the cows died, but it was partly due to not understanding it. We did it with a sailor s needle, what the sailors use for sewing canvas, and wo used a bit of worsted. We put the virus in a saucer and draw the worsted through, and put the needle through the skin at the end of the tail, taking care not to touch the bone and leaving about an inch and a half altogether outside each end. It affected the bulls very little; there was a little inflammation, but nothing to do them any harm, and the same thing with the young bulls and heifers. But some of the milk cows got their tads mortified and became as black as ink. At first we did not understand it and the mortification went up the tail into the body. We cut the tail away above the mortified part and it stopped the mortification,

3529.nbsp; You have been good enough to give us a description of your treatment in the case of an outbreak among your shorthorns. Will you kindly give us the details of the treatment in the case of an outbreak on the Queensland ranch ?Wo never inoculated. There is a very large herd and they are scattered over the run, and they are seldom troubled on the station. They suffer more iu driving them to market. We have it less or more on the station.

3530.nbsp; Always ?Yes ; but never so seriously as to o-o to the expense and trouble of inoculating. ⁰ 3531. What is the area of your Queensland ranch ? It is about 2,400 square miles. We shall carry a large number of sheep by-and-by, in the next few years. We expect to carry a million and a-hali sheep.

3532.nbsp; In your particular case you adopt no special preventive treatment against pleuro-pneumonia ? No ; because we have not suffered much there.

3533.nbsp; May I assume that this partial neglect-intentional neglectis due to the comparatively small value of the animal ?It is due partly to that, and partly to the difficulty in doing it on such a large

^P 3534. Up to the present time, I believe, the laws of Australia have prevented the importation of stock from the United Kingdom ?Yes.

3535.nbsp; And that was due to the fear of introducing disease generally ?Yes; foot-and-mouth disease.

3536.nbsp; Is foot-and-mouth disease the only one you are afraid of ?Wo have got more pleuro than you have got, so that we were not afraid of that.

3537.nbsp; Have you any reason to believe that the disease of pleuro-pneumonia in Australia is of a similar typo to that known in this country ?I have no knowledge, but I know that it was an imported cow from which we got it first.

3538.nbsp; Do you know what year this was in (Nobut it is 25 to 30 years ago.

3539 Is it the case that these restrictions are now boinquot; removed, and that cattle may be admitted under certain conditions ?They have been removed

3540.nbsp; But is there not a condition of quarantine o120 days ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .,...!

3541.nbsp; Does that period of 120 days indicate thathey nre afraid of something more than foot-andmouth disease ?No; it is foot-and-mouth diseasi hat they are afraid of. If you had rinderpest wshould be afraid of that, but the reason the restrictionare removed is, because there is little or no foot-and

3542.nbsp; Pray do not say quot; little or none,quot; but absolutely none?Yes ; that is the reason.

3543.nbsp; As to the quarantine of 120 days, what is the reason of that restriction ?It is not on account of pleuro, because we have got it less or more all over the colonies.

3544.nbsp; Have you any uniform system ot inoculation throughout the colony ?It is not compulsory. We have our own notions of doing it.

3545.nbsp; I presume that you calculate more or less on always having pleuro-pneumonia m your herds ?Yes, in the large herds ; less or more.

3546.nbsp; And is that due to the practical impossibility of handling so large a head without the means of isolation ?Yes ; last year a great many thousand cattle came from Queensland, and with the exception of one quot;mobquot; (a mob may consist of from 1,000 to 4,000 head) of 1,000 bullocks, everyone of the mobs had a large per-centage of pleuro. This one mob was, I believe, the only one vaccinated, and they had not a single case in this lot, as I was informed.

3547.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.) Had this lot all been vaccinated?Yes.

3548.nbsp; {Chairman.) Can you say how long betöre that this was done ?I could not tell you that. We ourselves had 1,000, and lost 250 on the way. Buyers are not much afraid of the pleuro, as immediately they inoculate the disease is stopped.

3549.nbsp; Is there any attempt at compulsory slaughter in the colony ?Nothing of the kind.

3550.nbsp; And therefore there is no compensation tor animals slaughtered ?There is no compensation, but if you have pleuro on your place you have to give notice to the Crown Inspector, and immediately your place is quarantined.

3551.nbsp; You are pretty well acquainted, I believe, with the conditions under which cattle are kept in Great Britain ?Yes.

3552.nbsp; And would you be prepared to say that the conditions are entirely different from those in Australia ?

__No doubt, because you have got them in smaller

lots, and yours are more valuable.

3553.nbsp; They are in smaller lots, and the power ot isolation is more certain ?Yes.

3554.nbsp; nbsp;Assuming, with your great knowledge ot both couctries, that if in this country the disease was reduced to a very few infected places, and in those places there were comparatively a mere handful of cattle, what system would you recommend as the most prompt and efficient means of getting rid of it ? Decidedly slaughter.

3555.nbsp; With the power of compensation ?Oh, yes.

3556.nbsp; One could hardly assume that you would ever have any conditions, under which you could compare Australia with this country ; but if the disease were to be reduced to two or three isolated places with two or three cattle would you recommend the same treatment in Australia as in England ?Yes, slaughter them at once ; but I have no hesitation in saying that I have great faith in inoculation; if the cattle had not taken the disease, and if they were properly treated with proper virus, I do not think that they would take pleuro. That is my experience.

3557. Then you believe that inoculation, at any rate for Australia, is the only treatment feasible and possible ?Yes, you could not slaughter all the herds.

.'3558. And, further, you think that inoculation is u good system of treatment ?I am certain of it; and that it is a preventive measure.

3559. As a matter of administration, and in order to exterminate pleuro-pneumonia from this country, and in the interest of the colonies, which import our high-bred cattle, as well as of this country, you would decidedly approve of compulsory slaughter with compensation ?Decidedly; because it is a very serious matter for this country, for it you have only two or three cows diseased you may prevent the exportation of cattle to other countries. The most effectual way of treating it is to stamp it out, and especially when you get compensation. It would be very hard to do it without.

M^!!

kiv

mouth disease in your country.

Hon. W. McCulMt.



		n
		1
		' quot;i
	1	i

UIKUTUa OP BV1DKN0K.

3560. (Aolaquo;/ Cloncm-ri/) In referoiiee to the mor-

not

think so. 1 can toll it very soon after they get

3572.nbsp; Is there not an Incipient and incubative stage ₇ ₁₈₈₈

when you cannot deteet it from the outward appear-----------

ance?There would be, but it is astonishing how soon you would observe it.

3573.nbsp; nbsp;The auimal you mentioned that was encysted and that broke out in disease somo time afterwards, that animal might contarniimfc any herd ?It would spread the disease all round to anything in contact

^witllit-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . _T, i i r

3574.nbsp; There would bo a danger in England trom

such a cause, would not there ?That is not a case in point. That is a case of recovering from pleuro. Very few reco ver from pleuro, and I have never had much to do with such. There is always that danger of its spreading by the breaking out in the animal again.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

3575.nbsp; There may be a case where there is a slight amount of disease in the animal when it is being operated upon and inoculated, and in that case the old original disease would break out ?If it is inoculated with the disease in the first stage it would likely make it worse.

3576.nbsp; nbsp;It would still have the encysted place In the lungs?I think that the pleuro would run on the same as a child being inoculated which had small-pox ; I think that it might make it worse.

3577.nbsp; There would be no certainty then?I do not think that it would have the slightest effect, any more than vaccinating a person with small-pox in the system would prevent small-pox going out.

3578.nbsp; The animal might break out at the end ot two years after it escaped so long?Yes, if it recovered from pleuro.

3579.nbsp; nbsp;You think it would after the beast recovered from pleuro ?Yes, that is the risk. I would destroy them all. Very few get better of it.

3580.nbsp; But still one case would do a great deal of harm?Yes; I think in England the best thing would be to destroy them, and stamp it right out. But I maintain that in pleuro you can protect them

from that by inoculating your sound cattle. I will give you a case of a friend of mine in Queensland who did not believe in inoculation, and the pleuro had spread all round his neighbourhood. He had a herd of 7,000 or 8,000 cattle. A man was going round every station inoculating cattle and charging 2s. lt;Scl. per head, and my friend said he did no; believe in it, and would not have his cattle inoculated . After my friend had had his dinner with this man, he said to him quot; you can try it on my dairy herd oi 23 or 24 cows.quot; ' Tl\py caught these cows, there was no trouble in getting at them, and they inoculated 20 out of the 23 or 24, and the man went on. A month or two afterwards pleuro broke out in my friend's herd, and the three or four that were not inoculated took pleuro and died ; the others never took it. There arc similar cases that I know about, but there is no better test than that one.

35£1. {Mr. Stirling) I understand that you arc of opinion that if the animal had disease on it, in however slight a form, at the time the herd wore inoculated, that on that particular animal the inoculation would have no effect at all ?I do not think that it would have a beneficial effect if it had got pleuro in the system.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

3582.nbsp; It might have no effect or it might make it a great deal worse ?Yes, I think that the chances are that it would be worse; hut that is a question more for an expert than myself.

3583.nbsp; You have no experience ?No, that is only

my opinion.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .- v *i *

3584.nbsp; You laid stress upon the virus ?Xes, that is the principal thing; that is the main thing, in having proper virus.

3585.nbsp; You spoke about taking fluid from the animnl and having it properly slaughtered, would you have any objection to taking the virus from an animal that die,! ?_l think if you did you would do a great deal of harm to the herd.

titication running up the tail, did you over know oi any case of a bullock or maiden heifer suttonng trom it ?_lt will do it in bullocks and maiden heifers too, but that is not my experience in this particular herd of shorthorns, it did not affect them except very

slightly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

3561. As far as your experience goes, the amputation would certainly prevent it going further?! never knew it to fail, and I have known friends who have done it over and over again. I can toll you cases that would, perhaps, astonish you.

3562nbsp; nbsp;Is there any risk in universal amputation. As soon as you see the virus has affected the tail why did not you always amputate so as to protect the animal ?-L would; but if you have a lot of wild cattle it would harm them more by puUing them into a quot;crush quot; for you have to flog them in. !sup-posino- you have 1,000 bullocks, it would be better to leavothem out than knock them through a crush and knock the condition oS them.

3563nbsp; nbsp;But if you inoculate the animals you would amputate the tail es a precaution ?Only in the case of mortification setting in. I would cut above the mortified part of the tail. One part of the tail would be quite black, and there would not be a drop ot blood and it would be quite dead, but if you cut it further up, above the mortification, the blood will run through it, if you do that it will stop the mortification.

3564. Did you ever know in your experience an inoculated beast subsequently take the disease?-I never knew of one, none of mine ever did, and 1 never heard of one ; it is just possible. It depends upon having it properly done. If you get a man who does not understand it and he used bad virus, it might be so. The thing is getting it done with virus taken from the animal at the proper stage. 1 he virus should be bright sherry colour, a shade darker than pale sherry, golden sherry colour, and as pure as that

to look at.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , , ^u ..

3565 Then with reference to the bullocks that are brought down from Queensland, how soon after they arrive in Melbourne are they converted into beef ? There are a great many of them come down iat, and they are killed immediately. Others perhaps, in a quot;mobquot; of 1,000 head, will draw 500 or 000 and send them to the market for slaughter, and the balance are sold for stores and taken on to good pastures, where they remain for 6 or 12 months before they are sold to the butchers.

3566 Have you ever been able to trace those inoculated animals into the butcher's hands, so as to know the condition of the animals at the time ot the slaughter ?No.

3567. Has that been done by veterinary surgeons in your district ?No, not that I am aware of.

3568 Can you say whether inoculated beasts have shown signs of drying up the encysted part of the l_un_s ?_It is no use inoculating a beast that lias got plcuro. It must be sound to start with, and then it will not affect the lungs. It would not affect them any more than a child vaccinated for small-pox would take the small-pox. It causes a fever which is on the beasts about a fortnight before it begins to get inflamed and swollen, and then it takes about another fortnight, as far as I recollect, before that goes oft.

3569. We have heard that it is possible that the disease might in a slight degree affect some part o the lung, and then become encysted and absolutely dried up, and perhaps break out years afterwards?YesI know of cases where a beast has recovered irom ..leuro, and some time afterwards the lung broke ouami it infected cattle. But that is where a beast harecovered from the pleuro, not from inoculution.

3570 But supposing that beast in the interim had been among diseased cattle, would the inoculution have been any protection VI cannot say, but I wouldestroy any beast with the pleuro. 1 would noinoculate them, I would kill them.

8571. Might not a beast have plcuro so slightl

that you might not be able to notice it?No. I do

___,___^

112

COMMITTKE ON PLKUKO-VNBUMONIA AN1gt; TUBUBOULOSISI

lion, W. MeCullock

7 May 1888.

3586, Probably it would result in blood poisoning ? Yes, probably it would result in blood poisoning. That would never do. Another great thing is to got them at the proper stage. I have known three or four bullocks killed to get one at the proper stage. There must be that bright clear colour, as bright and clem' as sherry.

;)587. {Chairman.) You refer to the proper state ot

the virus ?Yes.

3588. Not to the proper state and condition of the recipient ?No.

;i589. {Mr. Stirling.) Can you give us any description as to the condition of the lungs when you destroy them at that proper stage ?Weil, the virus is all around the lung; the lung is very large and heavy, you can always tell whether it has got pleuro. There is a bucket full of fluid around the lung. You take a piece of lung and put it in a bucket of water, and if the animal has pleuro it will go down to the bottom liks, a stone. But all around the lung it is lying in large quantities, perhaps a bucket full around each lung, and this is n bright clear sherry looking stuff,

3590.nbsp; You have told us that a fluid was around the lung?Yes.

3591.nbsp; nbsp;When you used the virus for inoculation did you take it from the exterior or interior of the lung ?

__You mean inside the body ; inside the chest around

the lung. It is not inside the lung. You must be careful not to get any blood or any matter of that kind.

3592.nbsp; Did you cut into the lung in order to get to it ?No. I would not touch the lung.

3593.nbsp; You speak of mobs going through your Queensland run ?Yes, that is the risk we run of getting pleuro.

3594.nbsp; Who is your inspector in Queensland ? Is it Mr. Gordon ?No, Mr. Bruce is the inspector of New South Wales, and Mr. Curr is the inspector of Melbourne. Those are the district inspectors. We are thousands of miles away. I do not know the local inspector.

35Ö5. In your run on the road to Burke ?No, it is much further away than Burke. It is about 300 miles from Burketown ; but that is a different place from Burke. Burke is a town on the Darling River.

3586. You are on the track on which all the cattle

going over. He sees them when they uro mustered to be branded.

3605.nbsp; Then, except at the time that they are rounded up for branding, you practically never see your cattle ?You selaquo; little mobs of 20 or 30; but never altogether.

3606.nbsp; Are you aware whether an inoculated beast will fetch any higher price than an uninoculated ? Yes, a shade more.

3607.nbsp; Say a two or throe-year-old bullock? They are selling at about öl. store bullocks. You would perhaps get 10s. a head more.

3608.nbsp; nbsp;I think you said 4/.?That is 4/. on thr, station on the ruu,

3609.nbsp; You said in reply to a question by the Chairman that 41. was the value ?That was on the run. When they got down to the market about 6/.

3610.nbsp; 6/, in the market ?Yes, for stores. They ran high last year, 6/. 10laquo;, up to 71. 10laquo;, We got very good prices, say an average of 6/. Sometimes we do not get more than 51.

3611.nbsp; And if any of these animals are inoculated they will fetch 10s. a head more ?Yes, that is supposing 6/. a head be the average. Those are the store beasts.

3612.nbsp; Then if sold fat, does the fact of their being inoculated add to or deduct anything from their _val_ue ?It does not affect them at all.

3613.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any knowledge how that is ?I #9632; will explain this; a mob of cattle coming down

to Melbourne yards, if they discover them diseased they would not send them off with pleuro-pneumonia, because there is an inspector who watches all the cattle coming into the yards, and they would be condemned. We have had no case of pleuro-pneunionia. They are bought in the market and taken out and slaughtered at once.

3614.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen any inoculated fat cattle in the market ?Yes.

3615.nbsp; Have you any knowledge as to whether inoculation affects their fattening; do they fatten less readily ?Mr. Watt will be able to answer that. He buys store cattle and fattens them, and he has had more experience and will be able to tell you what they do afterwards.

3616.nbsp; Did you attend, or had you any representative at the Stock Owners' Conference in 1884 or 1885 in Sydney ?We were represented by the chief inspector of stock, Mr. Curr.

3617.nbsp; nbsp;What was the objection to compulsory inoculation ?It was suggested, I believe, but I forget now. I always have been strongly in favour of compulsion. If we can get the colonies to unite and stamp it out we should do it in a couple of years by inoculation. There might be a little difficulty in getting the virus.

3618.nbsp; But I understood you just now to recommend that for ibis country you would propose to slaughter, not to inoculate rYes, because the chairman said that the cases were confined to a few places in this country, but then here they are in small lots and in small paddocks. If you slaughter them in Australia, for instance, my run' has 12,000 head of cattle, and if you found a case of pleuro you would destroy the whole lot, and if you did that you would destroy the whole herds of the country.

3619.nbsp; Do you believe it possible, provided you could get united action on the part of the colonists, to eradicate pleuro ?I do.

3620.nbsp; By compulsory inoculation?Yes, I have advocated that in Parliament, but we cannot get all

HI¹! M

are taken ?No, we are well out of that. We are too far away from them. We are not much troubled with travelling stock. Stations on the truck most travelling mobs take are much worse off than we are.

3597.nbsp; Could you say what per-centage of deaths occur with the'mobs driving through ?Sometimes very heavy. Lust year was a V|ry severe year. We lost 260 odd, I think, out of a mob of 1,000. That is a very extreme loss ; sometimes they come down with very kittle.

3598.nbsp; You spoko of en inoculated mob without any pleuro-pneumonia ?-Yes.

3599.nbsp; Have you had more than one instance? Only one instance this year I believe. All the mobs have got less or more.

3600.nbsp; Do you know who owned that mob ?I would not be positive; I forget just for a moment. It belonged to people who had inoculated their cattle,

3(501. You spoke of inoculating the cattle on your run ; but is there not a great diliiculty in seeing so many properly done ?Yes, you must have proper vards and proper conveniences.

3602.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any idea of the deaths on account

of pleuro-pneumonia on the run ?Very little just now ; vei'V little pleuro indeed.

3603.nbsp; You do not know the per-centage?No; it is very little we have. It is when they start to travel that they begin to suffer. But last year they did not show any pleuro-pneumonia, and we lost quot;between 20O and 300; but they started after some mobs that had pleuro-pneumonia,

36C4. How o'.ten does your overseer or bead man glaquo; there ?Not very often; he cannot see them often. Yon can fancy 2,400 square miles would lake some

the colonies to agree to it.

3621.nbsp; Would not the difficulty that you have in carrying out slaughter, on account of the large si/.e of the herds, be exactly the same if you were to attempt compulsory inoculation, would it not bo almost impossible to inoculate ?It would be impossible to destroy them all. How would yon replace them f

3622.nbsp; Is it possible to inoculate such large herds ? Quite possible. It would simply mean the fitting up of yards; if it was law it would have to be done,

#9632;#9632;#9632;^#9632;^- #9632;. #9632; .....v? #9632; -.

:'^:l

MINUTKS OF EVIDENCE.

113

it is only a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, but if you destroy it it would be the best tiring for this country, whore you have small hords and small pad-

uOOKS

3623. Has isolation been tried either in Queensland, or New South Wales, or South Australia; isohmng the diseased stock ?Yes, we isolate them, but they will die if they get pleuro. Very few will recover. If pleuro breaks out in Victoria, for instance, according to the law, you have to give the nearest stock inspector notice, and you are immediately put into quarantine and you are isolated. But the first thing would be to inoculate and destroy all tho sick ones.

3G24. When put in quarantine what area is named, the whole run ?The whole run, or the whole farm. But in Victoria, where that is the law, they are small properties ; it is nearly all purchase land now.

3025. I am asking you with regard to Queensland ? It does not apply there.

3626. Then the quarantine of which you spoke would only apply to the more settled districts of Victoria, where the country is divided into small farms ?I do not know whether you call 20,000 or 30,000 acres a small farm. There are farms from 100 acres up to 50,000 acres.

3G27. Do yon think that such a system is possible, effectually to put a quarantine on 50,000 acres ?It would be possible, for the neighbours would look out for themselves. Those places arc as well fenced there as they are here, and they are subdivided as in this country. The neighbours would look out for themselves ; they would keep it isolated.

3628.nbsp; {Chairman.) Are you very particular in the selection of your bulls for the ranches ?~Yes.

3629.nbsp; And do you frequently change your bulls ? Most of the stations buy fresh bulls every now and

again.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, j., anbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;lt;

3630.nbsp; From whom are they purchased?borne ot the stations have stud herds. They breed their own bulls, but they buy what they call herd bulls, and they buy some stud bulls from breeders, and they put them to their stock. Then small men on smaller stations breed and sell to the larger ones.

3631.nbsp; Is there any other form of lung disease which has been observed in your herds ?Yes, tuberculosis ; that is very bad all over the colonies.

3632.nbsp; Do you think it possible that the one disease is sometimes mistaken for the other ?No doubt. I luelieve so, but not by any one who is a judge, and who can tell the difference.

3633.nbsp; Do you know whether tuberculosis is on the increase ?I am afraid so.

3634.nbsp; To what do you attribute that ?I do not know. I do not think that it is contagious. I think that it is hereditary.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. i. u

3635.nbsp; I presume that inoculation in Australia holds the same position as in other countries ; that is, that there are advocates of it, and also opponents ? Yes, there are opponents of it; but 1 never knew a practical man say so who gained any experience.

3636.nbsp; Who are the opponents ?Well, tho agriculture editor cf the quot; Australasian.quot; I know ho does not believe in it, but I believe he has had no practical experience.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; #9632;

3637.nbsp; Are you under the impression that the majority of stock owners of the country arc in favour of inoculation ?They are in favour of it when they have the pleuro,

3638.nbsp; Do you think that they are in favour ot inoculation for pleuro-pneuinonia in the case of outbreaks only ?Yes, if they had it in their herd, no doubt they would.

3639.nbsp; Are you aware of the returns that have been made on that point from Australia ?I knew that they had a lot of returns, and Mr. Bruce of New South Wales got returns; but a great many did not reply at all.

3640.nbsp; Are you aware that there are returns given by Mr. Bruce in his report from New South Wales to show that the number of owners in favour of inoculation is given us 3,111; against inoculation 844;

known ?Yes, I have seen that return before ; but the pleuro has increased very much since that time. It is very prevalent now.

3641.nbsp; nbsp;I ask you now whether you laquo;re aware tliat tho number of owners in favour of compulsory inoculation in the case of infected herds is given as follows i 2,544 in favour of it; against it 1,383 ; undecided 1,990; and 4,933 whoso opinions are not known? There are more in favour of compulsory inoculation than believe in inoculation at all.

3642.nbsp; No, all those who are put against and lor would be as 9,000 to 3,000 whoso opinions are not known. There are 12,000 people, and of those 3,111 say they are in favour of inoculation, but not compulsory ?These circulars were sent out to Crown tenants, and perhaps many of these tenants own sheep, and do not own any cattle.

3642laquo;. How long a time does it take to drive a mob of cattle from a Queensland ranch down to Melbourne? Ours started in the beginning of May and arrived in September, that is five months.

3643.nbsp; How many miles a day may they travel ?#9632; The year before last they had to travel 60 miles one day to get water; there was not a drop of water for

60 miles.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^

3644.nbsp; And during the whole of that journey they are practically feeding and laying on flesh ?They do not lay on flesh ; they are fat on leaving, but in a good season, with a very careful drover, and when thev are pretty sound, they will come down tat. ^

3645- Whilst they may not lay much flesh on, tuey do not generally lose much; is that so ?If it is a good season; sometimes they leave fat, and come down quite poor.

3646.nbsp; During the journey, I presume you lose some from other causes than pleuro ?A very small per-centage; outside pleuro, I do not know that we lose 2 per cent.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

3647.nbsp; Do the diseased pleuro animals sometimes disappear into the scrub and die? They drop behind.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, _., ,.

3648.nbsp; And there they are left?ihey die or recover; they do the best they can. And then there is the danger of sound cattle getting it from those

3649.nbsp; Is it possible that a great many may have the disease in so trivial a form that it is not easily detected ?I think that it is possible that a beast may be very healthy and sound and not take it at all.

3650.nbsp; But I meant that the animal itself might be so trivially aflected that you might not detect it ? That may be.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i

3651.nbsp; In a large herd like that, a robust animal naturally would not show the first symptoms of disease so readily as a weaker animal, and it might succeed m throwing it off?Well, I suppose it is very likely that they would, but not in driving them. That is a thing that brings it out.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , i n *

3652.nbsp; nbsp;But I imagine that it is not improbable tliat a great many animals have the disease which really are not detected at all ?Yes.

3653 Those animals inicht or might not be dangerous in the future ?That is so ; if they had it once and recovered.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; laquo; i laquo; 11

3654.nbsp; Do you regard them as what are called old rogues quot; ?I would be doubtful about them ; if I knew it, I would not like them in the herd.

3655.nbsp; Is there any prejudice at the present moment on the part of tho colonists, against getting cattle from Enodand and Scotland, in consequence of pleuro-pneumonia ?Not in consequence of pleuro, but there arc some old-fashioned people who sny that we should not import any, and we had better stock of all kinds SO years ago.

3656.nbsp; The reason why there is no prejudice against importing cattle from this country is that pleuro always exists in Australia, and therefore you are only importing that which you have already rYes.

3657.nbsp; And you do not regard it at all as dangerous ? Well, we have got it; but foot-and-mouth disease would be a most serious thing in Australia. It would

lion. iY.

McCullocu,

7 May 1888

| quot;I

undecided 1,899; and 4,997 whose opinions are not

o MOOS.

114.

COMMITTEK ON VLEUKO-PNEUMONIA. AND TOBKRCULOSIS :

Hon. VT. MvCuUoch.

7 May 1888.

bo a very different thing from this country, because there the cattle very often have to go 10 imleB iur water, and if they had toot-and-mouth disease they would lie down and die.

3638. Do I gather, therefore, that the colonists generally regard the passing of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in England as a very henoücial measure?Yes, they do; and if foot-and-mouth disease were to break out here wo should soou have the ports closed again. We would not think much ot pleuro, but we would not have foot-and-mouth disease.

3059. {Mr. Stirling.) I suppose you are aware that there has been a movement started in Queensland to establish a laboratory for the cultivation of the virus ? There is a veterinary surgeon in Melbourne that does that and what he calls preserves it, he bottles it up.

36G0. But you have seen the report of the chief inspector of 1887 ?No, I have not.

3661.nbsp; nbsp;You are not aware that he does report that that is so?Mr. Graham Mitchell, veterinary surgeon in Melbourne, has been doing that for some time, but I have not much faith in that; I think you want it direct from the animal.

3662.nbsp; nbsp;quot;Would it not be a great advantage to agriculturists to establish one uniform system of action, on the outbreak of any disease amongst cattle ?Yes. I am perfectly convinced that we cannot go on as we have done, because the disease has spread so much during the past two years that something must be done ; it is being spread all over the country.

3663.nbsp; nbsp;In your own case, in the colony do you look for action by the Government or by local bodies ? By the Government of the country ; they will have to take action.

3664.nbsp; Do you think that there would be disadvantage in having district management ?In the first instance the Government will have to take action, and then pass an Act of Parliament, and then have local boards. That is the best thing.

3665.nbsp; Your idea is that the chief control should be in the hands of the Government ?Yes.

3666.nbsp; Do you find that the outbreaks are more numerous at one particular time of the year than at another ; are you more troubled with it in the winter time, or the spring, or the autumn ?No, I do not think that it makes much difference ; but we find in driving cattle, if you drive a quot; mob quot; of cattle and get them very much heated, if they have pleuro in them at all it will show very quickly.

3667.nbsp; Then practically pleuro is on the increase

at that season of the year when you are driving

cattle to the market?That is the time that it shows.

Of course you can understand that in a large station,

as I told you, of 2,400 square miles that a beast might

be 50 miles away with pleuro and not come near the

herd, but when you have so many in one close

quot; mob,quot; and they have any disease amongst them, they

come in contact with it, and then they are in a heated

state, most susceptible for taking the disease, and they

are not going about in a quiet and healthy state, as

on the station. But I would say this, that I am

perfectly aware that there are many cases of cattle

dying from lung disease that is not pleuro, and it i

often put down for pleuro.

3668.nbsp; {Chairman.) You admitted that before? But there arc cases of driving wild bullocks onheated day when it is very cold or wet at night, anwhen they get a severe cold the lungs get affectedand it becomes like consumption in a human being.

3669.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) It is then non-contagioupleuro?Yes ; and people who do not understanpleuro put that down for pleuro.

3670.nbsp; In the figures regarding those who are foand those who are against inoculation, what class othe population do they represent ?They represen

cattle. They represent the whole of the settlers of the country.

3671.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) The whole of the stockowners of every kind ?Yes.

3672.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) Then in those numbers there would be a great many men included whose opinions are given who are not interested in cattle at all ?Yes, they have no experience at all; there are men who do not care and would not trouble to answer, and they do not know anything about it. But I say this : perhaps I come in contact with as many breeders of cattle as anybody, because when they come to Melbourne they come to see my shorthorns, as a rule, and I have never met an owner of cattle from New South Wales or Queensland, who has had any experience of pleuro, but who believes in inoculation strongly, ns strongly as I do myself, and 1 have such faith in it that, if it was not for the fact of selling cattle and that people would he alarmed, I would not be much alarmed at the disease, I would get virus and inoculate at once.

3673.nbsp; Do you find pleuro breaks out in any class of stock more frequently or more easily than in any other ?But you must come in contact with diseased animals, I think there is not the danger where the animals affected with pleuro have been on one side and the sound cattle on the other. The sound cattle seldom take it. As a rule an animal affected with pleuro will keep away by itself and hang its head down. The sound healthy cattle, if not penned up with the beast infected, will be perfectly safe if not in the same paddock.

3674.nbsp; nbsp;One question about tuberculosis. Do you think that in-breeding has increased the tuberculosis ? I do not think if the animals are sound that that will be the case.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . .

3676. Have you had any experience of the dairies in Melbourne ?There is a great deal amongst the dairies, I believe. I know it from the reports made to Parliament that there is a great deal amongst the dairies.

3676.nbsp; I understand that your inspectors have no power of slaughter in the case of tuberculosis ?They have no power.

3677.nbsp; It is only in pleuro eases that they have the p_0wer ?And then there is no power to slaughter. They quarantine the place, that is all.

3678.nbsp; {Chairman.) Just to clear up a question about those statistics you have given 19. You say that they represent the opinions of all kinds of stock owners, both of sheep and cattle ?-quot;Yes.

3679.nbsp; Does not it occur to you that those who have no experience of cattle are probably included in the large number of 4,000 odd who have given no opinion ? No doubi.

3680.nbsp; You said that you thought that compulsory inoculation is a desirable thing for a colony ?I do.

3681.nbsp; Do you desire to apply that answer to all animals, or only to animals in infected herds ?No ; I think that to stamp it out it should be compulsory upon the whole of the animals in the colony, and it should be done at a certain age, the same as with children in vaccination for small-pox.

3682.nbsp; And you think that it is quite practicable ?

I do.

3683.nbsp; How do you account for the great decrease in your cattle population during the last few years in New South Wales ?The severe drought that we had for something like five years.

3084.nbsp; There was a loss of 2,000,000 cattle in New South Wales?Yes, I know one station in Queensland where they lost 30,000.

3085.nbsp; Is it due to any change of system of agriculture, or greater delicacy of the animals, and a greater susceptibility to disease ?No ; the cause is from drought principally.

3686. You do not attribute any of the decrease to the outbreak of disease ?No, that is very small.

II:

i^;

mon who are largo shecpowners und owning very few

The witnesa withdrew.

gt;

MINUTES OF EVIDKNOE.

u a

Mi*. Gkorge Watt, of Urana, New South Wales, called and examined.

Mr. G. Wall.

3687.(CAalaquo;malaquo;.)You are, I believe, a member of the firm of Messrs. Watt and Thompson, of Melbourne? No; of New South Wales, in the Murrumbidgee

district.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;e ,ti a

3688. You are very considorablo owners ot cattle f Wo have a small station of 1,500 to 2,000 head, wo have generally that number.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,,,laquo;* i, *

3089. What is the extent of your holding .#9632;'About 70,000 acres altogether.

3690 How do you hold that ; is it from the Crown, Of do you own the freehold?We did hold it from the Crown, but it is nearly all purchased within the last 15 years; it is nearly all purchased land now.

3691. Have you any high-bred cattle i¹We had, but we disposed of them a few years ago ; we have a

3*692. Your herd then consists of the ordinary cattle of the country. Is your practise that of breeding or feeding ?We had a small breeding herd, and wo buy store cattle and fatten them for market.

3693.nbsp; nbsp;At what age ?Three or four years old is the best age to buy stores.

3694.nbsp; How long do you keep them betöre sending to the market?In a good season in 12 months we might get them off.

3695.nbsp; Do you drive those cattle down to Melbourne iraquo; We used formerly to travel by road, but now we send them by train.

3696.nbsp; As owners of so large a herd have you frequently had outbreaks of disease ?Yes, very often.

3697.nbsp; Have you had any outbreaks of plouro-pneu-monia?Yes.

3698.nbsp; Frequently ?Yes, frequently.

3699.nbsp; When had you the last ?We have now gone into the sheep line more than cattle. We have not a great many cattle. It is probably five or six years ago we had pleuro-pneumonia.

3700.nbsp; What is your usual practice of treatment in case of'an outbreak ?When we buy a quot;mobquot; of titore cattle we might drive them 300 or 400 miles from the place they were bought, and very often, after travelling on the road, when they arrived at the station they showed signs of pleuro, and if so we immediately inoculated them. I may state a case that happened ahout 12 years ago: I bought 600 or 700 head of cattle, and 600 of them were carefully inoculated, and I bought 100 head that were not inoculated, and they travelled down 100 miles to our place together. After they had gone down to the station pleuro broke out, and it was entirely confined to those not inoculated, and out of those not inoculated we lost 50 or 60 from pleuro, and out of those inoculated I scarcely lost a beast. I do not know that 1

lost any.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , raquo;u

3701.nbsp; Is it your practice to inocuUite animals otherwise than on an outbreak of disease ?No, I have very seldom had to inoculate the home herd. We kept them in a puddock by themselves, and we have rarely seen pleuro amongst them.

3702.nbsp; The risk, therefore, to your home cattle m consequence of being able to isolate them is considerably diminished-as compared with your ranches ? __y_es. ytill they get it amongst them sometimes.

3703.nbsp; nbsp;Does your experience go to show that inoculation as practised by you has had a good effect ?Certainly. As soon as we got a fresh draft we were glad that pleuro showed itself, because we could inoculate at once, before the cattle got much condition on themas it injures very much fat or half-fat cattle to puthem through the yard and crush.

3704.nbsp; Did you lose many ?No, very few.

3705.nbsp; Every now and again, out of so large a herdI presume some few might escape without beindetected ?Certainly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ laquo;.

3706.nbsp; From the disease being so light rxes.

3707.nbsp; What was your mode of treatment as regardthe diseased animals themselves ?Wo turned them out; we did not separate the diseased from the sound

diseased boast ; we never expected that, but we inoeu- 7 May 1888. lated as a preventive.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-----------

3708.nbsp; Did you inoculate the diseased cattle ?No, because there would be a difflonlty in getting them into the stock yard.

3709.nbsp; Can you remembev having inoculated diseased animals, and if so, could you Jell us the result ?No, I cannot. Those that were badly affected with pleuro we did not attempt to inoculate.

3710.nbsp; What did you do with them?Very often shot them.

8711. And when you did not shoot them, what then ?They lingered on, but very seldom did any good.

3712.nbsp; You did not adopt any uniform system of slaughter in the case of diseased animals ?--Never.

3713.nbsp; Then did yon not regard the disease as a very serious matter ?No; as soon us we got inoculated we considered we were safe, and in this opinion all our neighbours agreed.

3714.nbsp; nbsp;You have shown that isolation can only be naturally applied to your home cattle ?Yes.

3715.nbsp; And that it diminished the risk of disease ? We very seldom had plenro amongst them.

3716.nbsp; Then it goes without saying that the conditions of England and Australia are exceedingly different ?Certainly.

3717.nbsp; Whereas in one case it is impossible to isolate on ranches ; in England it is possible to separate the animals ?Quite so.

3718.nbsp; Do you think that'there is any great danger in having animals very close to each other ?I should say so, the diseased and the sound cattle.

3719.nbsp; What distance would you consider your herd safe from a diseased animal ?I would like to have them as far apart as possible.

3720.nbsp; But I want the shortest interval which you would think safe ?I would say a mile or two apart, if possible.

3721.nbsp; You are therefore, from your experience, a great advocate for inoculation ?Certainly, as far as my knowledge goes.

3722.nbsp; Are you an importer of cattle from England or Scotland ?No.

3723.nbsp; Of course I presume that you consider it is of great importance that the united Kingdom should be kept clear of disease, if possible ?Certainly.

3724.nbsp; Hot only for those interested at home, but for the interest of importers and the colonies?Yes.

3725.nbsp; And therefore you think it a desirable thing for the colonies as well as for this country, that the latter should be rid of disease ?Certainly.

3726.nbsp; As I understand, you are a great advocate for inoculation in a general way on a large scale, which I think you said is the only possible treatment you can adopt ?Yes.

3727.nbsp; nbsp;Seeing that in the first place you have no means of isolation; secondly, no compensation for slaughter? We have no compensation for slaughter.

3728.nbsp; And, thirdly, that your animals are not of great value as compared with animals iu this country ? That is so.

3729.nbsp; And supposing that, in England or Scotland, the disease wore reduced to a very few infected spots and a mere handful of cattle at each place, would you think it best, in the interest of all parlies concerned, and with compensation paid for the slaughtered animals, to run the risk of inoculation or stamping it out and being done with it ?That is a question that I have not given much consideration to, as I have been very little in this country for 35 years, but I should say that if there were only a small number, I should attempt to stamp it out by destroying the diseased cattle.

3730.nbsp; I am assuming that compensation is to be paid ?I understand that.

3731.nbsp; And you admit that there is no other course of treatment feasible ?Just so.

We did not think that inoculating would cure a

P 2

Uli

COMMITTEE ON fLEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS i

Mr. G. Walt. 3732. Have you any experience of tuberculosis ?

7Mquot;^quot;j888. ⁰3733 (Mr. Stirling) How have you performed quot; this operation of Inoculation ?-Wo gonerally Blauahtered an animal that was not too far laquo;one with the pleurd and wo have got the virus. Wo do not like to have it too dark, but tho colour of pale sherry or orange colour ; and wo are obliged to put the cattle into crush, and we take the hair off their tails bv a pair of sheep shears, and wo inoculate with virus, and in that way we are careful not to touch tho bone to cause any bleeding, lest mortification should come on. We do it very carefully. OJ course with quiet cuttle we can do it much more nicely than

with wild ones.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i.,-raquo;laquo; s

3734.nbsp; What was the appearance ot the lungs t Wo did not like it if it was too dark ; we give the lung

3735.nbsp; To get this virus did you make any incision into tho lungs ?-We sometimes did when we opened the animal, and we found the liquid around the

lung.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_v

3736.nbsp; Did you use that ?Yes.

3737.nbsp; You did not cut the lung ?Yes, we did to inoculate the thousand head of cattle; there was a auantity wasted and lost.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; j

3738 Was there no risk of the blood getting mixed with the virus ?We were very careful, and tried to

^Pr 3739 You wore careful not to let the blood mix withthe virus?-Yes, we have killed two deg;r three animals befoie we have got the right colour oi the

^V1 3740. Did you lose many animals from mortification?Very few indeed.

3741.nbsp; nbsp;Or from tho inflammation spreading upwards ?We have lost very few. _r . ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

3742.nbsp; No practical per-centage ?_Certamly not ; but it. will require to be carefully done.

3743.nbsp; Did you do this yourselt ? - Yes, I have

a laquo;ireat many.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , j o

3744 How many do you suppose you have done i I daresay I have done 2,000 or 3,000.

3746 You said it was an operation that required to be performed carefully ?-If you are not careful in putting in the eedle-if you put in the needle too Seep-mortification would set in, and swelling, and

⁸⁰ 3746. It is not an operation that you would entrust to everybody ?Yes, to careful men.

3747.nbsp; To ordinary careful men ?Lertainly.

3748.nbsp; Do you ever use the virus taken trom a beast that had died ?Never.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , Wa

3749.nbsp; Would you consider that dangerous ?We do not think it a good thing to do, and we did not do it ; I would not take it from a dead animal.

3750.nbsp; What was your fear in using virus rom the animal that died ?-We never tried laquo;*. ^ t^hf^G ^walaquo; an impression that it was not a safe thing, and we never attempted it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,, ,

3751 Were you afraid that it might cause blood poisoning ?-Wc did not do it with an animal too far Jon with pleuro. We did not like to Jake them too far gone. I have not any particular knowledge, but we did not do it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ o t i

3752. Do you deal largely in store cattle ?I clo not deal in them, but we bought them to fatten.

3753 You buy a large number of store cattle ? We are not cattle, but principally sheep, farmers now

3764 Did you find inoculation had any cflect upotheir feeding ? -No. After a time we often find them bS and Äe about for a week or two, but this di

Melbourne market. Ours is a very good grazing country, and they got fat and very good.

3757.nbsp; 1 understood you to say, in answer to tue Chairman, that you sometimes shot diseased animals, but did not always slaughter them ?Whore wo saw there was no chance of recovery, and sometimes they were often dangerous, standing under trees, they might make a rush at you, and therefore we shot

3758.nbsp; Does it not occur to you that there would bo a great risk in allowing those diseased animals to go about ?We had perfect faith, after inoculation, that there would be no further risk, and wo have put in other live stock with no fear of further risk.

3759nbsp; nbsp;You thought that, once inoculated, there was no further risk?lam not saying in our own case only, but the whole of our neighbours believe that once having inoculated their stock they are safe.

3760nbsp; nbsp; You did not mind whether tho diseased cattle went amongst them or not ?Well, from choice we would not like to see a diseased cattle amongst them, but we felt secure all the same.

3761. Did you find that these cattle were more liable to disease at any particular season of the year ? No, but we found that cattle travelling long distances, and receiving rough treatment, usually showed pleuro afterwards, and although we were satisfied with cattle that had been inoculated, yet when pleuro broke out we re-inoculated, for this reason, that these store cattle came from a large herd, and numbers had been missed, and wo could not say whether it was the re-introduction of inoculated cattle or not I have often found in inoculating that the thread is already in the tail. They might not have been diseased, they might have been perfectly secure, but we went through the lot r.gain.

3762nbsp; nbsp;When you went through the lot again and you found the piece of the thread in, did you re-inoculate

3763nbsp; nbsp;Did it take a second time ?The signs of it taking are very slight; it shows itself by the cattle being a little quieter and not feeding so freely, but with 5,000 or 6,000 cattle you do not notice it much.

3764.nbsp; nbsp;Ton did not notice at the second re-inocu-latinlaquo; that the tail was swollen ?I cannot say that 1 did, because we could not distinguish those tak.ng it

and not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;..

3765.nbsp; (Chairman.) With regard to your system ot examination, how near do you generally get to the cattle?We could not have an examination till they came into the stockyard. It would be a very serious thing to do it otherwise.

3766.nbsp; Therefore you could not tell whether they had taken it or not?Certainly not.

3767.nbsp; Have you ^any idea of the of per-centage ot the cattle that did take the inoculation ?I could not say, because the cattle were turned out in a large paddock, and you could not get near them.

3768.nbsp; And, naturally, out of so large a number, some few probably would not take it ?I daresay.

3769 Would you regard them as an element of danger' hereafter ?We did not find it so. After the cattle had been inoculated and turned out, and while they were not wild, but those that had not taken, you could not approach them except you round up the whole herd, and you could not make any observation.

3770.nbsp; Have there been any elaborate experiments with regard to inoculation ever tried in the colony ? 1 am not aware.

3771.nbsp; How long have you been in the habit of inoculating ?About 25 years.

3772 You are feeders of cattle stock ; do you ever slaughter animals yourselves as well and send them to

market ?No.

3773. You have always sold them ?We sent them to Melbourne or Sidney.

3774 Have you had opportunities of making a postmortem examination ?Except the animals that we slaughtered to get the virus. I did not make any examination.

not prevent them from fattening.

3755.nbsp; But it had no injurious effect on their condition when brought finally into the marketP-Certainly

not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . -rraquo;.j

3756.nbsp; nbsp;Had it any effect upon the sale i Did you gst any less, or more ?-No, it made no difTeronce, because nearly all tho cattle bad been inoculated. Wo Isavo got laquo;sraquo; good ft price as anyone going into the

.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -rrnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .-, ,

MINUTES OP BVIOKNCK.

117

3775.nbsp; nbsp;Has it boon within your power to obseivo animals, supposed to bo healthy, slaughtered m Mel-bouvno, after sale ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i-,.u :

3776.nbsp; nbsp;Have you there discovered any pocuhai ity in

3785. (Mr. Stirling.) Have yon over found that Mr. G^Watt. any one class of stock wero more subject to disease ₇ _Muy _l8g8|

than others ?-We have generally had shorthorns-----------

3780. Are they pure or cross ?-They are mixed but they are principally shorthorns, sometimes crossed with Hereford.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , .

3787. Did you find that the disease attacked stoio cattle more rapidly than those that were halt tat lt;'-No I do not know that I did; but in our case, speak-ing from our own knowledge, we were always anxious to inoculate the cattle as soon as we put them on the station, before they got condition on at all. In that case we had very seldom fat cattle attacked at all.

3788. Have you had any experience of milch cows i

No, none whatever.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. * i,

J789 Yon are not aware whether they would take

it quot;more readily than others ?-I do not know much

about dairy cattle at all.

3790.nbsp; Have you any idea of your own what is the origin of the disease V In answer to the Chairman, von rather led mo to believe that treatment had a great deal to do with it-bad treatment in dnymg -I understood that it was originally brought into the country by a man named Boadle, at Melbourne, and that pleuro was imported by a cow from England.

3791.nbsp; How many years ago is that?-30 years ago. 3792 And the whole of the disease is from that

poor cow?I do not say that it was. but that is the

^K^You are not aware of the effects of bad treatment in driving ?-I think that it has a tendency

^t0 S794 Have you ever found, on examination of any of'these beasts that you had to kill, any other disease of the lung which was not plenro-pneumonia ?1 cannot say that I have.

3795 You have not found that, utter slaughtering an animal, on examination that it has turned out to be tuberculosis ?I do not know anything about tuber-

^CU3796. Have you had no experience of tuberculosis ? No, I have not.

the lung

in some cases.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;., #9632;,,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i ,j

3777.nbsp; Is it an encystment?Ties, I have observed

3778.nbsp; Do you assume from that the animal had had pleuro 11 thought so.

3779.nbsp; Could you say whether that animal had over been inoculated ?1 could not say.

3780.nbsp; In fact, yon say that the majority of atumals you had were inoculated ?Yes.

3781 How do you account for the regular recurrence of disease in your colony ?-It is never absent 'n the colony. We drive those store cattle perhaps from Queensland very long distances, where there are herds of 40,000 head. Allowing that they bad inoculated their cattle, they never knew whether they had done so in the whole herd.

3782nbsp; nbsp;Is that due to the want of an universal system ofquot;inoculation in the same herd, or is it due to the want of an uniform system of inoculation throughout the country ?I cannot say. It is a very dithcult matter to inoculate a large herd.

3783nbsp; nbsp;Would you think it desirable to pass a law in vour colony to deal with the disease by compulsory inoculation ?Well, the colony is so large, and the different districts are so different, that it might be a great hardship to those people that have very large stations and very large herds. In a case where there is only a couple of thousand it does not so much matter, but where you have 20,000 or 40,000 cattle to make it compulsory might be a very great hardship.

3784. Do you think, whilst it is desirable in certain circumstances to inoculate, that as a large compuhorv measure it would be practically impossible?Yes, i think so, at least it would be very difficult to carry

it out.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. Kobebt Bruce, of Great Smeaton, Northallertou, called and examined

Mr. R- Bruce.

3797.nbsp; {Chairman.) You live, I believe, at Great Smeaton, near Northailerton ?I do.

3798.nbsp; And you are there a tenant farmer i*les.

3799.nbsp; How many years have you been living there ?

quot;quot;3800. Previous to that were you living in Scotland ? __y_es.

3801.nbsp; In what part ?In Moraysbire.

3802.nbsp; In addition to your occupation as a tenant farmer, you are also a live-stock agent ?Yes.

3803.nbsp; And as such you export a considerable number of high-bred cattle to Canada and other parts ot the world ?Yes, I do.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_t. .u i

3804.nbsp; Have you had any experience ot outbreaks of disease in your own stock ?Never.

3805.nbsp; Neither in England nor Scotland r'JNo. 3806 But you have had, no doubt, under your

observation many outbreaks that have taken place in the stock of other people ?Yes.

3807.nbsp; Have you had any occasion to observe an outbreak of pleuro-pneuraonia ?^cs-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , , ,

3808.nbsp; nbsp;Has that been both In England and Scotland i Both in England and Scotland.

3809.nbsp; What treatment havo you generally advocated in cases of pleuro-pneumonia ?I havo always advocated stamping out.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

3810.nbsp; By compulsory slaughter ?By compulsory

slaughter.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; i ,

3811.nbsp; Does that apply both to diseased animals as well as to animals in contact with disease ?To both.

3812 I believe that at the present time there is a considerable feeling in many parts of Scotland in favour of inoculation ?T know .there is.

3813. Do you consider that a feasible or a dangerous treatment ?A very dangerous thing.

3814 And why?I should not look upon it as any certain means of getting quit of this disease.

3815.nbsp; Therefore, you would regard it with teeiingä of distrust ?Yes.

3816.nbsp; And of want of security ?Yes.

3817.nbsp; Are you aware, as an exporter ot high-bred cattle to other countries, of a strong feeling existing in those countries with reference to the outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in Scotland ?-Yes; I know hat this country is practically scheduled by the whole world, with the exception of South America and the Elver Plate The country is almost shut out from any other place. When I say that it is shut out, the prohibitory quarantine regulations have such an ettect alaquo; to almost stop the trade altogether.

3818. Have you found that in your own practice the prohibitory regulations havo lessened the demand for stock ?Very much so, indeed. I may say that there is one feature in this that, perhaps, some would not observe, and that is that the qiiarantino regulations practically exclude small men from im-norting stock into several countries ; and the trade is going Into the hands of the large men. lor Instance, a man from the States or Canada having a wish to imnoit four or five or a dozen or fifteen cattle, cannot practically do so. He has all the difficulties in arrangements and the expenses of quarantine to put upon a

small number.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. . .,

3819. Therefore, the only possibility of importation

of stock into a foreign country rests in the hands ot

men of large capital, who practically form an insurance

118

COMMITTEE ON PIEUEO-PNEUMONIA AND TÜHBB0ULO8IS:

Mr.li.liruce.

7 May 1888.

office within their own moans ?Just so. A farmer in Canada ov the United States cannot go in for importing pure-bred stock ; it is far too expensive and far too much risk,

3820.nbsp; So that it is in the interest of the farmers of Canada, as much as it is in the interests of the farmers of the United Kingdom, that disease should bo exterminated from this country ?Most certainly it is.

3821.nbsp; Have you had any personal experience of inoculation ?None, whatever.

3822.nbsp; Have you ever purchased an animal that has been inoculated ?Not to my knowledge.

3823.nbsp; Would yon knowingly purchase an animal that has been inoculated ?No, I would not.

3824.nbsp; nbsp; Have you ever purchased an animal for export without a tail ?No. I should look upon it with grave suspicion.

3825.nbsp; Have yon hod opportunities of examining the lungs of an inoculated animal after slaughter ? No. '

3820. You are aware of the feelings of the farmers of Morayshire as well as anybody ; what is their feeling with regard to this question ?They go straight for stamping out.

3827.nbsp; And is it your experience, and that of others also, that this desire for inoculation is conflned very much to the dairies of large towns in Scotland ? That is so.

3828.nbsp; Do you consider that there is any particular breed or variety of animals more subject to, or susceptible of, pleuro-pneumonia than others ?No, I do not think that there is. I should think that cattle that are in a poor state are more susceptible to any sort of disease.

3829.nbsp; And cows in a state of milk, are they equally so ?Yes.

3830.nbsp; You have had a good deal of experience with the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878. Do yon believe that the Act itself provides everything that is necessary for the health of the cattle in this country ?Yes, I do.

3831.nbsp; But do you consider that the administration of the Act is altogether satisfactory ?No.

3832.nbsp; And does that answer indicate that you think there is a want of uniformity ot action throughout the country ?Yes.

3833.nbsp; Have you any suggestion to offer to the Committee by which you would amend that system ? Yes; I should very strongly recommend that the working of the Act be put entirely into the hands of the Privy Council Department, and all worked from one common head, as it were.

3834.nbsp; nbsp;Have you ever heard of a desire in Scotland of establishing a central board with representatives from each local authority ?I have not.

3835.nbsp; If such an idea was suggested would you think it as practical a system as that you suggest ? I should not.

3836.nbsp; You consider, therefore, that the most certain and prompt action would be that which comes direct from the Privy Council ?I would, most decidedly.

3837.nbsp; nbsp;And from whom do you consider that compensation ought to come, from a local fund or from the National Exchequer?I should say most distinctly from the National Exchequer.

3838.nbsp; Therefore, you regard the whole question as one of national importance ?I do.

3839.nbsp; And you would consider that the consumer has as much interest in this question as the producer ? Most distinctly, I do. I think that the Cattle Plague Bill of 1878 proves that most distinctly, and 1 think (without interfering with those who are professional experts) that the Cattle Plague Bill of 1878 proves that this disease is different altogether from an infectious disease. We know that, during the foot-and-mouth epidemic, pure-bred herds were very much stricken with the disease all over the country, whorens it is a very rare thing to find that any pure-bred herd has ever suffered from pleuro-pneumonia.

3840. To what, particular animals do you refer as being pure bred ?To a herd of pedigree cattle ; it is a very rare thing to have it in any pedigree herd of cattle whatever.

3811. How do you account forthat?I account for it simply on account of its being a contagious disease, and in the men who are breeding pure-bred stock being careful not to introduce anything that is at all doubtful into their herds.

3842.nbsp; Therefore, you indicate that animals which have an opportunity of mixing at fairs and markets are more liable to disease than those kept at home ? Yes; during the time that the foot-and-mouth disease was raging, pure-bred herds suffered very much from the foot-and-mouth disease, simply because it was a highly infectious disease; and I then argued that pleuro-pneumonia is not an infectious but a contagious disease, on the score that people who are at all careful never suffer from it directly.

3843.nbsp; Have you any means of knowing the source from which Scotland has recently derived the disease ? Yes ; Ireland is to blame for a great proportion of the disease that is in Scotland. The very unfortunate position of Aberdeenshire is owing, in a great measure, to an owner of cattle sending the cattle to different sales and markets when they were diseased. He was before the sheriff and was fined.

3844.nbsp; nbsp;Does your experience enable you to say whether the disease brought from Ireland was communicated direct to the farm by animals coming straight from Ireland, or did they send them to fairs in Scotland in the interval ?Very few of the cattle go direct to the farms from Ireland for the north of Scotland. They are generally shown at fairs.

3845.nbsp; Do you desire the Committee to understand that the disease is lying in a dormant condition when they leave Ireland, or do they acquire it in the markets and fairs of Scotland?I think that they bring it from Ireland.

3846.nbsp; Have you any knowledge of the system of inspection at the ports ?Yes, I know how they are inspected.

3847.nbsp; nbsp;To your mind is that of a preventive nature? Not at all.

3848.nbsp; Do you regard with any confidence the forms of certificate that are issued ?Not at all.

3849.nbsp; Am I correctly gathering from your evidence that when Scotland shall be free from disease, every effort must be made to clear Ireland also, as a source from which disease is directly communicated ?Yes.

3850.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the system upon which compensation is awarded for slaughter ?In many counties it has been very unsatisfactory. There has been a strong intention of keeping down the rates, to the loss of the cattle owners, which I think is a very deadly thing.

3851.nbsp; Do you consider that a liberal treatment is a desirable policy in order that disease shall not bo concealed ?Most certainly I do.

3852.nbsp; Have yon any experience of the dairies of large towns ?Not much ; very little I may say.

3853.nbsp; nbsp;You never inoculated animals yourself? No.

3854.nbsp; And, although statements are made with reference to inoculation as a safeguard, you, speaking on behalf of the farmers of Morayshire, consider that it is not a system to which you could safely entrust

the herds of this country to be secure from disease ?__

Not at all.

3855.nbsp; Do you think that apart from the dairy farms of Scotland, that is the general opinion ?I am certain that it is,

3856.nbsp; And as an exporter of cattle you have found

that your clients regard it with great distrust?__

They do,

3857.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.) You mentioned the quarantine in Canada and the United States ; do you know what is the period of time of the quarantine ?90 days from the time that they land.

:^;

gt;

MINUTES OF ET1DBNOE.

lift

3858.nbsp; Can you tell us what the cost per head or per score is ?It costs about 2s. a clay per head each benst.

3859.nbsp; With reference to this disease that Tn-oklaquo; out iu Aberdeonshiro, how long ago is it since it broke out ?Since July last year, they found that this aian had been hiding the disease.

3860.nbsp; Is tins mau a farmer also 'I thiak be was a cowkeepw or a dairyman.

3861.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any reason to think that be got most of his cows from Ireland ?I do not know that.

3862.nbsp; nbsp;Because when yon say that disease was brought to Scotland to n great extent from Ireland, have you any definite facts to go upon ?Tes. I should think, with the exception of these cattle traced from this man's possession, most of the outbreaks from young cattle from Ireland.

3863.nbsp; Have they been traced to Ireland?They have been traced to Ireland.

3864.nbsp; Do you know at all within what period of leaving Ireland the outbreaks occurred ? Was it immediately, or had they travelled about Scotland a great deal in the interval ?I could not give you any definite information.

3865.nbsp; Or you could not tell what part of Ireland they came from ?No, I could not.

3866.nbsp; Are you aware that the local authorities have certified that there is no pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland excepting among the dairy cows in Dublin ?Yes, and I think that Aberdeenshire and the north suffer from pleuro-pneumonia from Ireland more than any other district in the kingdom almost, seeing that they get calves, a great proportion of those taken over are but calves.

3867.nbsp; Do they come from Dublin ?Yes, from six to eight months old, I would judge that they came originally from the dairies of Dublin.

3868.nbsp; You have heard that that is so, but you do not know of your own knowledge ?I have heard it is so, but I do not know of my own knowledge.

3869.nbsp; Then you are disposed to think that the statement that there is no disease, except in the case of this one place, is not a correct statement ?I have no reason to doubt that it is, as a rule, clear of disease, except iu that particular place near Dublin.

3870.nbsp; And you think that that agrees with the opinion of the Aberdeenshire people, that the disease mainly comes from Ireland ?Yes.

3871.nbsp; Tell me why you think that dairymen sulFcr more than any other class of fanning people from the outbreak of disease and the slaughtering out system. Do you think that a dairyman suffers more than the feeder ?I do not know that they need to suffer more.

3872.nbsp; There is the stoppage of their supply and the loss of their business and the loss orquot; their milk contracts, does not that make them suffer more ?It has been managed in the north of England. There has been no stoppage of their business to any extent. I know that the loss, in some parts of the country, has been such as to entirely shut a man out from the milk trade for a eertain time, but that has not been the way in the north of England.

3873.nbsp; Do you thing that regulations should be applied to dairies, so as to impose no hardships upon the dairyowner, and at the same time to save his neighbours from the risk of spreading the disease ? I see no reason why it should be done.

3874.nbsp; nbsp;Do you see any objection to giving compensation to dairymen on a more liberal scale than the owners of lean stock or store stock ?No. 1 should take the value of the dairyman's stock in the same way as I should do the ordinary stock.

3875.nbsp; Would you value the milk trade in addition to the value of his animals, Would yon ta,ke the trade loss ?I would take the cow at the full market value in the market the day the disease took hold of her.

3876.nbsp; And you would not make any extra allow- Mr. U, JBruee,

ance for the loss of business ?I do not see any reasonnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;------

for that, because if the law has been administered as it ⁷ ^May ^lö88 is in the north of England there is no necessity for ' quot;quot; stopping his business at all.

3877.nbsp; You think that in some parts of Scotland they do not administer the law as carefully as they might ?I am sure they do not. In talking of inoculation you put the question of quarantine. I may make a statement, that in 1880 I shipped 50 cattle to Quebec, and they laid quarantine, upon them for close upon 12 months, from an outbreak of disease taking place in the quarantine yards while those cattle wore there.

3878.nbsp; Was that where the bull was killed that came from Dumfriesshire?Yes, a Galloway bull.

3879.nbsp; Do you know the expense of that 12 months' keep ?I would be frightened to calculate what it is. I know that it was a very enormous expense, and I know that it stopped the gentleman from exporting more. He was doing very extensively.

3880.nbsp; It came to more than 30/. per head on each of those beasts ?I should think so.

3881.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) Take the last subject first. From what you said to Lord Cloncurry I gather that you would not put any trade valuation upon a dairyman's stock ?1 would see no reason for doing it.

3882.nbsp; Would you propose to put any pedigree valuation on a breeder's stock ?A pedigree stock 1 would most certainly. They have a fixed valuation in the market the same as a fat beast.

3883.nbsp; Would not that be treating the two classes of men rather unfairly if you give the preference to the breeder by paying him for his pedigree stock, which is really his business, and you do not pay the dairyman for the loss of his business ?I would pay the value of the cattle in each case, but I should not propose at all to pay the pedigree breeder for the loss of his business, that might accrue from the cattle being slaughtered, any more than the dairyman.

3884.nbsp; You spoke about the rates. You are aware that the local authorities who administer this Act, being largely elected by the ratepayers, probably consider it their bounden duty to do their best to keep down the rates, is not that so ?I should not think that the local authorities as constituted with the members that are elected are, as a rule, most anxious to keep down the rates. I should think that it is the other portion, the county gentlemen, who have to pay a large proportion of the rates.

3885.nbsp; What I wanted to get out was this, that you think that the Act would bo better administered if taken out of the hands of such a body, and leaving compensation to be paid by the Privy Council and settled by the G-overnment?Yes, settled by the Government.

3886.nbsp; You think that that would be a more satisfactory way ?I talked of it more in connexion with the management and inspection, and the whole management being under the control of the Privy Council as being, what I consider, a more satisfactory way of dealing with it. Then I said that I would certainly advocate that the compensation ought to conic from a national and not a local source.

3887.nbsp; Have you found the system of valuing animals work successfully ?It has been very satisfactory in Northumberland.

3888.nbsp; nbsp;In some districts has it been satisfactory rgt; Very satisfactory.

3889.nbsp; Are you aware that it has not been in others?I know that there has been a great ineliua-tion to undervalue the people's cattle, which is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with this disease.

3890.nbsp; nbsp;It is rather an invidious thing, is it not, to be asked to go and value your neighbour's cattle today and ho may have to do the same for you to-morrow would not it bo better to have a paid valuator for the same cattle ?Most certainly. It is worked in Northumberland in that way and worked satisfactorily.

120

COMMITTKK ON PLKURO-l'NEUJIONlA AND TUBHRCULOSIS;

Mr 7

. It. Bruce. Mav 1888.

3891. Your knowledge of wlioro that svstom hm been tried is tliut it has been most satisfactory ? Most distinctly.

;i892. Then you spoke about these certificates that were brought over by Irish dealers when roinoviuj; cattle, why do you think they are not satisfactory?I do not think that the eertifieates are satisfactory in any part of the country.

3893. Are you afraid of their being interchanged ? Well, I know, from my experience of the cattle-trade, that the certificates are not at all to bo depended upon.

3891. That is to say, you think that the lots of cattle that are supposed to he represented on the certificates are often not the same lot as those offered for sale ?They may or may not. It is a very difficult thing to manage certificates.

3895.nbsp; Do you think that the examination on embarkation and debarkation is satisfactory, the examination made by the veterinary surgeon ?I do not think it would be at all satisfactory for pleuro-pneu-monia.

3896.nbsp; On what ground ?Simply because pleuro-pneumonia might be in the system for weeks and weeks before it showed itself, and no amount of inspection would show it.

3897.nbsp; Then the fault does not lie with the system, does it?Not with the examination. I believe that the inspectors would examine them as honestly and as fairly as they could. But it is utterly impossible to state whether the animals carry pleuro-pneumonia or not.

3898.nbsp; You spoke of the expense of quarantine, and you came to 9Z. a head, I think. You said that it was none but large importers that, could afford the quarantine. Surely 9/. a heaö is almost prohibitory upon any import ?Certainly i is, and you could understand that the farmer having a wish to import one or two cattle, could never undertake to do so under the present circumstances.

3899.nbsp; I think you said, in answer to the Chairman, that yon had absolutely no personal experience of pleuro-pneumonia ?None whatever. I never had it in my own stock.

3900.nbsp; On what is your opinion formed, then, that inoculation is valueless ? I beg your pardon; I should not like to give any opinion as to the value of inoculation. I simply make a statement, that stamping out, in my opinion, is the system to get quit of it, in preference to all others.

3901.nbsp; But if yon have no experience of inoculation, why do you prefer stamping out ?Because it is a certain way of getting quit of it, and 1 may say that I travel all over the country and come in contact with people interested in cattle, from one end of the country to the other, and I hear a great deal said about tlie uncertainty of inoculation. I have no personal experience of it; 1 know, on the other hand, there is one safe and sure way, and that is the stamping of it out.

3902.nbsp; Supposing it is stamped out once, have you any fear of its re-introduction ?None whatever.

3903.nbsp; Have you any experience of dairy stock at all ?Not a great deal of experience.

3904.nbsp; Have you found that this disease exists in one class of stock more than any other ?No ; I do not know it.

3905.nbsp; You are not aware whether dairy stock is more liable to the disease ?I should think that any class of stock that is in poor condition, and, as I would say, working hard, as a dairy cow is, is more apt to take the disease than one kept in a better condition, that is my impression.

3906.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) You mentioned to Mr. Stirling the impossibility of detecting the disease by veterinary inspection ?Yes; the veterinary inspection at present, at the port of embarkation.

3907.nbsp; You are aware also that the disease is of a nature which lurks in the animal for a considerable

ime before it developes ?Yes.

3908.nbsp; nbsp;Therefore, under these circumstances, you dread any further treatment than that which is of a prompt and certain character ?Yes.

3909.nbsp; And the only certain treatment in your mind is that of compulsory slaughter ?Yes.

3910.nbsp; Would you prefer, as an owner of stock, that your animals should have a life-long quarantine after inoculation, or would you have them compulsorily slaughtered ?Slaughtered, most certainly.

3911.nbsp; Comparing the principle of valuation of dairy cattle with high-bred cattle, you are aware, I presume, that the maximum value is at present fixed at 40/.? Yes.

3912.nbsp; Is it not possible that a cow which you could not value at more than 40A, and which possibly you might only value at 30/., might produce a ctdf worth 100/. ?It is quite possible.

3913.nbsp; But you would not be permitted to give any special compensation in consequence of that ?No.

3914.nbsp; Your brother is, I believe, chief inspector of stock for New South Wales ?Yes.

3915.nbsp; Do you happen to know his private opinion upon those two methods of treating pleuro-pneumonia ?I believe that he believes in inoculation for New South Wales.

3916.nbsp; And do you know what his opinion is as regards this country ?I do not.

3917.nbsp; Have you had any experience of tuberculosis in your own stock ?Yes, I have lost animals by tuberculosis.

3918.nbsp; To what do you attribute it ?I do not know to what to attribute it; simply that it was in the system.

3919.nbsp; nbsp;Were those high-bred stock ?Y'es.

3920.nbsp; Do you think that any breed of stock is more susceptible to tuberculosis than others ?I do not know that they are.

3921.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen many cases of tuberculosis after slaughter ?A great many.

3922.nbsp; nbsp;Does that lead you to observe that it is not in one breed more than another?No, I do not think it is.

3923.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that tuberculosis has any influence upon breeding animals ?Yes, I should think that it is quite likely to seize upon the breeding organs.

3924.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling) Have you any knowledge of tuberculosis rNone, professionally.

3925.nbsp; nbsp;Have you ever seen it?Yes.

3926.nbsp; Have you ever examined the lungs of any animal that has died from tuberculosis or was killed ? Yes.

3927.nbsp; Do you know whether it is on the increase in this country, from your experience ?I think it is.

3928.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give the Committee any reason why it should be so ?I consider that a great many pedigree stock are over-bred.

3929.nbsp; You say pedigree stock ; do you think pedigree stock are more liable to tuberculosis than dairy stock?No, I think that tuberculosis is to be found in many dairy stocks.

3930.nbsp; nbsp;But that it is also very common in pedigree stock ?It is too common.

3931.nbsp; And you attribute it to in-breeding?To a great extent.

3932.nbsp; nbsp;Would there be any risk of tuberculosis from in-breeding if you were perfectly satisfied that animals on either side were sound?By in-breeding you can produce tuberculosis.

3933.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry) You look upon tuberculosis as quite hereditary ?Yes,

3934.nbsp; And that it cannot be caused by contagion or infection ?I have no reason to suppose that it is infectious or contagious.

3935.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Are there any other points which you would desire to put before the Committee ? I should think with regard to this tuberculosis

Il^l

yiii

MINUTES OF EVIDEXOE.

121

uostion that it should ho left to tho common souse ofnbsp; nbsp; nbsp;any legihlativo measure ?I do not, I think that the iff. R. Bruct.

o people. I do not holiove that it is contagious ornbsp; nbsp; nbsp;poopio arlaquo; becoming alive to it und see the necessity wquot;quot;*quot;quot;

feclious disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; of taking care in breeding.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^y '

3936. Therefore, do I understand that you do notnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;3937. Is there any other point that you wish to

eem it necessary to include it in tho operation ofnbsp; nbsp; nbsp;mention ?No, I do not think sn.

Tho witness withdrew. Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock,

EIGHTH DAY.

Tuesday, 8th May 1888,

PRESENT :

Mr. JACOB WILSON m tre Chair.

Lord Cloncurry.

Sir George Macpherson Grant.

Mr. Stirling (of Kippendavie).

Mr. Bowen-Jones. Professor Horsley, F.R.S. Professor Brown, C.B.

Mr. R. Davvson, Secreturt/.

Professor McCalf,, of tho Veterinary College, Glasgow, called and examined.

Pmf. McCalt. S May 1S88.

;#9632;#9632;#9632;laquo;

3938.nbsp; {Chairman.) I believe yon are a member of the Glasgow Veterinary College ?I am.

3939.nbsp; You are also a fellow of tho Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?I am.

3940.nbsp; nbsp;And you have been teacher at the Veterinary College of Glasgow for the past 30 years ?First in Edinburgh and then in Glasgow.

3941.nbsp; You have been a teacher of veterinary science for 30 years ?Yes.

3942.nbsp; You are also insoector of the local authority of the city of G lasgow ?I am.

3943.nbsp; And inspector of the Privy Council ?I am.

3944.nbsp; In addition to those duties have you also 8 considerable practice throughout Scotland ?I have.

3945.nbsp; And with so large an experience and practice, have you had special opportunities of inspecting cases of pleuro-pnenmonia ?I have.

3946.nbsp; nbsp;When do you first remember pleuro-pneumonia in the country ?I remember it before I went to college.

3947.nbsp; From your earliest youth, then ?Y'es.

3948.nbsp; Have all the outbreaks in the city of Glasgow, since the Act of 1878, heen under your supervision ?Every one.

3949.nbsp; And what effect has the Act had upon the comparative amount of disease in Glasgow?Before the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act came into operation, the Ixml Provost and magistrates of Glasgow asked me to take statistics of the losses that had been sustained by the dairymen in Glasgow from pleuro-pneumonia, because at that time pleuro-pneuinonia was ulmost in every byre. There was scarcely a byre that you would not get one or more animals suffering under it.

3950.nbsp; Can you tell ua the number of cows at that time supposed to be in the city of Glasgow ?This is the table that I compiled. It is very brief. quot; Con-quot; tagious pleuro-pneumonia from 1854 to 1880,quot; table showing the average number of cows kept in Glasgow for 12 yeais, from 1854 to 1866, the deaths from pleuro-pneumonia, and the pecuniary loss, itc, number of dairymen, 221. I moan by that number

o £4003.

the parties who kept cows, not. parties who sold milk, but persons who kept cows.

3951.nbsp; nbsp;You mean cow owners ?Yes, 224; that is the average number. Average period in business, 12 years; average number of cows, 1,527; died and buried, 3,759.

3952.nbsp; That extends over the whole period of 12 years ?Yes. Then slaughtered on account of being affected with pleuro-pneumonia, 1,594 realised from the sale of carcases 5,929/., actual and direct loss 54,677/. The average annual loss 4,556/. 8laquo;. Ad. Now I should like to explain that. I went to each of those dairymen myself, inspected their premises, and took down the particulars in writing, so that this is not a compilation from one or two_y but it is a compilation as the result of each individual's experience, and it shows that the loss for 12 years is the annual average loss of 4,556/. 6laquo;. 8rf.

3953.nbsp; Can you give us a compiirative statement of a more modern date ?Yes, I can. This table shows the total number of cattle that have been attacked, killed, and recovered from pleuro-pnenmonia from the passing of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in August 1869 until the 31st December 1872.

3954.nbsp; Cannot we get anything more recent than that?I will come down to 1887.

3955.nbsp; From what date do you commence?This table is from August 1869 till the 31st December 1872, three years and four months. The average number of cows was 1,800; outbreaks, 32; cattle on premises, 480 ; attacked, 258 ; killed, 13S ; died, 28; recovered, 91 ; computed value of cattle killed, 521/. 5*.; computed value of cattle recovered, 341/. 5s.; computed actual and direct loss, 2,169/.; computed annual loss, 650/. 14laquo;., that is the average annual loss during that period. That brings us down to 1872. I can give tho statistics in a tabuluted form from August 1873 till January 1887.

3956.nbsp; There is rather a hiatus here. Could you have given us from 1S73 to 1878, and then from 1878 to 1887?I can give it so as to draw a distinction between the time when the amended Act came into

122

COMMITTEE ON PLBUttO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS I

1,1

Prof. mCM.

8 Muy 18Ü8.

opoiuiion. TIgt;is is the number from August 1873 to August 1874: outbreaks, 201 cattle slaughtered, 8081 amountol' oomponsation paid to owners 1,011/. 10s. Qd., rate on half vuluo.

3957.nbsp; nbsp;How many outbreaks were there from 1873 to 1887 ?68 outbreaks.

3958.nbsp; And how many cattle were then aftVctod ? This table does not give thoni ; the cattle slaughtered would come to the same thing728. Then the mnount of compensation paid the owners at first; yon are aware that they had one half and then it became three-quarters. It is detailed in this table. The amount of compensation paid to the owners for that period of time, viz., from 1873 to 1878, was 5,802/. 11s, 10e?. The average annual loss was 450/.

3959.nbsp; That is the average up to January 1887? Yes ; that is from August 1873 to January 1887. !My reason for bringing it out so was that I was delivering a, lecture upon the subject.

3960.nbsp; We want to get the fact in our own way. Let us be quite clear, the figures you have given us arc all from 1873 to 1887?From August 1873 to January 1887.

3961.nbsp; Now we have got the -whole return inclusive ; so please separate the last item ?There are three years -where there is no compensation at all.

3962.nbsp; nbsp;Begin at 1878 and give it up to the present time ; give us the outbreaks in 1878 ?In 1878, from August 1878 to August 1879, six outbreaks; cattle slaughtered, 54; compensation paid to the owners 481/.; that is the compensation at the rate of three-quarters.

3963.nbsp; Can you tell us now the number of recovered animals?It is not in this table.

39G4. Then in 1879?From August 1879 to August 1880, two outbreaks : cattle slaughtered, 39; compensation, 381/. From 1880 to 1881 no outbreaks, no animals slaughtered, no compensation. From 1881 to 1882 the same; and from 1882 to 1883 the same. From 1883 to 1884, one outbreak ; cattle slaughtered, 15; compensation, 168/. Is. (id. From 1884 to 1885 seven outbreaks ; 96 cattle slaughtered ; compensation, 1,154/. IS.?. From 1885 to 1886 one outhrenk; 19 cattle slaughtered ; compensation,219/. , from August 1886 to January 1887I cannot go any further than that, one outbreak, 14 cattle slaughtered, 200/. paid, That is as far as I can go. I could go further if I had my books here.

3965. Therefore we gather that since 1878 there has been a very great diminution in the number of outbreaks ?Oh, yes, and that is the case also since 1873.

396Ö. Is that due to the special conditions contained in the Act of 1878 ?I think so.

3967.nbsp; nbsp;Is that in any way due to the policy of compulsory slaughter combined with compensation ? Undoubtedly.

3968.nbsp; At this moment have you any disease in the City of Glasgow ?None.

3969.nbsp; Had you a great amount of disease when the Act came into operation in 1878?We had a considerable number of cases, but not nearly so many as #9632;we had before.

3970.nbsp; There were six outbreaks in 1878, and 54 cattle were affected, I see ?Yes.

3971.nbsp; nbsp;What was your immediate action upon the Act coming into operation ?We slaughtered all affected animals.

3972.nbsp; nbsp; And what treatment did you adopt with reference to the animals in contact ?In Glasgow we have no facility for segregating the animals, because, as a rule, the dairyman keeps as many animals as his byre will hold, and there is no second place.

3973.nbsp; nbsp;Did you adopt any special treatment whatever with reference to animals in contact with the diseased animals ?No, we did not, except disinfecting the byres to keep them clean.

3974.nbsp; What was the condition of the other towns of Scotland, at the time the Act came Into operation, us compared with Glasgow ?Well, I understood, \)M I may be wrong, that there were more cases in

Glasgow than anywhere else in Scotland at that time. I know as a fact that it was in every soeond byre.

3975. Have you personally practised the operation of inoculation ? I have not.

3076. Then have you had opportunities of observing the eflbcts produced by it ?Not many, but I have had opportunities.

3977.nbsp; At any rate you have observed it ?Yes, I have.

3978.nbsp; Have you had any opportunities of personally testing the effect of inoculation ?I have.

3979.nbsp; Can you give us any special illustration of such a case ?I can in one dairy,

3980.nbsp; Where was that ?In Glasgow, at 207, North Woodside Bond.

3981.nbsp; What was the name of the cowkeeper ?Mr. Salmon d.

3982.nbsp; Is that the same Mr. Sahnond who is mentioned in the evidence before the Highland Society ? The same.

3983.nbsp; Did you give evidence before the Committee of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland ? I did.

3984.nbsp; Was this operation performed at the request of Mr. Salmond ?It was,

3985.nbsp; Then, perhaps, you could give a detailed account of it. I should like to have your version of it ?I cannot give it more accurately than it is stated in this pamphlet.

3986.nbsp; Is your evidence contained in this pamphlet ? It is.

3987.nbsp; Does that evidence express your opinion generally ?It does. I can read it. On the 8th February Mr. Salmond reported that he thought that lie had got pleuro in his stock, and on examination it was evident that one of the animals was affected with a chest disease, and it was my opinion that it was pleuro-pneumonia. I did with Mr. Salmond what I do with all the dairymen. I explained to him the exact position in which dairymen are placed, and gave him my opinion, but I did not insist upon the animal being there and then slaughtered. My advice always is to have the animal slaughtered, and if it he pleuro-pneumonia of course compensation will be granted. If it is not pleuro-pneumonia, then of course 1 cannot grant compensation; but it will be to the advantage of the party himself if it should turn out not to be pleuro-pneumonia, because he will get so much more for the carcase and he will have his mind relieved. On the other hand, if it is pleuro-pneumonia, the sooner that I get hold of the animal it will be better for all concerned, because that carcass may be fit for humaii food if it is slaughtered early in the disease ; whereas if the, disease is allowed to go on it would be unfit for human food. Besides, the disease would spread with greater rapidity, and the probability is that it would bscome more virulent the longer the affected animals are amongst the sound ones. Therefore I find that dairymen, as a rule, have always agreed to the animal being slaughtered, Mr. Salmond agreed to this animal being slaughtered. I killed the animal in the usual way. The local authorities of Glasgow keep a float for the purpose of lifting diseased animals wherever found, not allowing them to travel in the street. We conveyed this animal in the usual way to the slaughter-house and had it killed, and on a post-mortem I found both the lungs affected. A well-marked structural change had been produced on the lungs. The next day, the 9th February, I removed other two animals, and they were killed ; post-mortem examination was made and they were also found to be affected with the disease. It was at this time that Mr. Salmond proposed to have the remnant of his herd inoculated, He asked me if I would be agreeable that they should be inoculated, I said that if we could come to an understanding, he might be allowed to inoculate them, and the understanding that we came to was this, that the animals if inoculated (it was reduced to writing, which my letter-book will show), thereafter showed symptoms of being affected with pleuro-pneumonia, they would

MINUTES OF BVIDENOB.

123

roquiro to bo removed to the slaughter-houao and dealt with in the usual way, and it would bo a question for the local authority whether ho would receive com-ponsation or not, under those circumstances. I said that I did not think that ho was entitled to compensation, and it was arranged in that way; and it was further arranged that Mr. Rutherford from Edinburgh should inoculate the animals, I said I would not inoculate the animals nor would I allow anyone connected with the college to inoculate them, because if I did inoculate the animals, or my assistants were to do it, and I were to charge them for doing it, as I was paid by the local authorities of Glasgow for what I did on a fixed salary, it would leave me open to the remark that there was a dripping at both ends of the candle. I was very glad also that Mr. Rutherford should do it, because I looked upon him as the person who had inoculated more cattle in Scotland than any other veterinary surgeon, and if there were any value in the method of doing it, it would be all the bettor for Mr. Salmond. It was arranged by Mr. Sahnond that Mr. Rutherford should come. I also agreed that the lung of one of the animals affected on being slaughtered, should bo kept for Mr. Rutherford, in order that he might have the lymph. That lung was brought to the college. The night before Mr. Rutherford was to inoculate the animals, I thought I should like to institute an experiment on sound animals, and I accordingly selected a cow that I had bred on my farm, a seven-year-old Ayrshire cow, and she was within six weeks of calving. She had always beeu a healthy cow. I selected that animal to be taken into college to bo inoculated. I also selected three yearlings, two heifers, and a bull, which I had bred, and I know that they were also sound animals, and they were taken into the college. They were in the college when Mr. Rutherford arrived from Edinburgh, and the lungs of one of the slaughtered animals were there. I said to Mr. Rutherford I wanted the cow and the two heifers inoculated, but not the bull. My reason for not wanting the bull to be inoculated was, that I wished the three of them to congregate together in the same box, so that if the two heifers could convey any infection by inoculation the bull would get it. Mr. Rutherford said that he would rather not inoculate the cow, she was so near her calving, because it sometimes causes death. Well, I said that it did not matter very much, she would have to take her risk, and I was anxious that she should be inoculated, and if it proved fatal I would not blame him. And so he agreed, and he did inoculate the cow in the presence of my students. Ho also inoculated the two heifers at the same time. He took the lymph from the lung himself. The lung was never touched by anyone; he made the excavations in the lungs for the lymph and he took it himself. After he had inoculated the animals in the college, he and I drove to Mr. Salmond's dairy. I probably did not mention that there were 37 cows originally in Mr. Salmond's byre, and at the period I speak of three had been taken out and slaughtered, so that that left 34 animals to be dealt with. That was on the 9th February. quot;When Mr. Rutherford went into Mr, Salmond's byre, the first thing he did was to take the temperature of all the animals. There was no one but Mr. Rutherford and myself and the parties connected with the dairy there. Naturally enough ray students were very much interested in what was going to take place, and I said to them I would not allow any of them to go into the byre, because, while I did not believe in infection being carried about on clothes, yet I did not think that it was a proper thing, acting for the local authority, to allow them. I told them that they would not be allowed to go in, but I promised faithfully that, whatever the result was, that they would hear of it. If any animal contracted the disease ttnd required to be slaughtered, that I would put the lungs of that animal upon the lecture table and explain the changes which had taken place, before I commenced my lecture. During the time that Mr. Ruthert'ord

was taking the temperature of the animals in this long Prof. MeCatL

double byre, I walked up and down, looking at tho

8 May 1888.

animals, and one cow at the extreme end of the byre I observed was disturbed in her breathing. I applied my ear to her ehest, and I was sensible that she httd diseased lungs. After Mr. Rutherford had taken the temperature of all tho animals ho then said to me, quot; There is only one atiimal in the byro whoso quot; temperature is above the normal, and it is this animal quot; standing up in the eoriiei\quot; Ho said that her temperature was 102^, but ho thought raquo;lie might safely bu inoculated as well as tho others. I said that I wanted to give him a fair chance, and I thought it a pity to inoculate this animal, as she appeared to me to have lung disease. Mrs. Salmond rather objected to this animal being killed, because she was milking well and feeding well. However, it was agreed that she should be slaughtered, and she was slaughtered on the following day. Mr, Rutherford inoculated the bulk of the animals there and then. Some of the animals hud calved lately, and others were near calving, und he said ho would not inoculate those animals just now, so they were not inoculated that da}'. The anima that was slaughteredthat is, the animal with increase of temperatureon post-mortem was found to have an old encysted portion in tho left lung.

3988.nbsp; We want to hear tho cause and the results of this Salmond outbreak?That animal had an encysted portion of the left lung, and that animal came from Wishaw, and it is my opinion that that was the animal that brought the disease into the byre,

3989.nbsp; Then that is practically the history of the Salmond outbreak ?No, that is only tho commonco-ment of it. At this time Mr. Salmond said he -would like very much, if I would allow him, to purchase some animals to have them inoculated to prevent them taking the disease, and at the same time to supply the milk as he had a considerable demand for it, I agreed to this also, and letters passed betwixt us. On the 9th February he bought three cows at tho Wishaw sale. On the 14th he bought five cows at Paisley sale for the purpose of being inoculated. On the 17th February I visited the byre, and I found a cow showing symptoms of pleuro. This animal was inoculated on the 9th. She was taken to the slaughterhouse and it was found that both her lungs were atfected. Mr Rutherford was in the byre along with me at this first case. He went around and examined all the animals that had been inoculated in the tails on the 9th, and thp.y had all taken, except this one animal showing symptoms of pleuro. That was eight days afterwards. I looked at tho tail along with him, and I saw scarcely any effect had been produced by the insertion of the seton. He explained to mo as the reason why this animal had not taken the inoculation, that she was labouring under tho disease at the time of inoculation. On March 1st I required to take away another cow. This animal had also been inoculated on the 9th February. She had her tail amputated, and I understood Mr. Rutherford that all those that had got their tails amputated were considered to be inoculated, and were, as he termed it, safe. This cow then fell a victim to the disease, and apparently the inoculation had taken, because eight days after the operation, when he went back, he docked her tail, as well as the tails of the other animals, and yet when we opened her and made a post-mortem, both her lungs were bad. I have noted that the tail was amputated on the 16th. On the 28th the animal showed symptoms of disease, and she was killed on the 1st March. On the 3rd March other two cows showed symptoms of lung affection. They had also been inoculated on the 9th, and tho lungs were both affected on post-mortem, and the carcase of one was condemned. Then, on the 7th March, other two animals were taken away showing lung affection. They wore inoculated on the 17tli February (not on the 9th February), and it was also found that their lungs were affected. Then on the 15th, on post-mortem, another animal was removed also atfected, and it was inoculated on tho 9tli Feb-

Q 2

124

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEUMt)NIA AND TÜBEBCUL08IS:

Prof. MeCall. ruary. Then there was another animal removed on ------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;the 22nd, and it was inoculated on tho 16th Fobruarv.

' ⁸ ^^ay ¹⁸⁸⁸' Then, on April 4, there was laquo;nother animal removed ; ~ it was one of tho eight that were bought for so-called preventive inoculntion, and this anininl was inoculated three times ; on the IGtli, on tho 24th, and the 29th February, As I have just said, she whs removed on the 4th April, and she entered the byre apparently a healthy cow on February 9th, Seven days after entrance she was inoenlated and remained apparently healthy till March 2Ist, in all two days less than six weeks. The inference is, that, as six weeks is the incubation stage, this cow was sound when she entered the byre, but the seven days' delay in inoculating allowed the animal to contract the disease by the natural method (infection), and therefore she was diseased when inoculated. The other animals remained sound.

3990.nbsp; nbsp; How many remained alive ? Originally there were 37, three taken away, that made 34, five bought, nine altogether taken away and slaughtered after they had been inoculated, and three before that, making 12 out of 35. There were three slaughtered without being inoculated, and then nine after, having been inoculated. I should have mentioned that my brown cow that was inoculated in the college was put into Mr. Salmond's byre on the 9th March ; she was inoculated on the 9th February and put into Mr. Salmond's byre on the 9th March, and she remained there till the new jear, when she was killed.

3991.nbsp; That refers to the brown cow ?Yes.

3992.nbsp; Did you make a post-mortem examination ? I did not get a chance, but I am told that her lungs were perfectly healthy.

3993.nbsp; Were there no signs of encystment ?I did not see the lungs.

3994.nbsp; What became of the others ?They were killed just as they came to the butcher Mr. Salmnod was to let me know when his cows went out, but he failed to do so in many instances. He did in some instances, and we found that the animals had sound lungs.

3995.nbsp; Do you make a post-mortem in every case ? Every animal that goes from a byre has a postmortem made on it.

3996.nbsp; What are the conclusions that you have drawn from this post-mortem examination ? Have you found, as a rule, that in an infected herd some animals resist disease or tukc it in such a mild form that frequently it could not bo detected ?Yeraquo;; I should like to mention two outbreaks bearing on this point.

3997.nbsp; When did they occur PIn April 1887. Mr. Inglis, of Iioniford IStreet, in Glasgow, had an outbreak of pleuro. He had 23 animals at the time. Out of those 23 animals, 9 showed the symptoms of disease, and were slaughtered, and a post-mortem made, and all were affected with the complaint, and the remainder of the stock never showed any active symptoms of disease, so they were allowed to remain where they were. That was in na outbreak of 23 animals, 9 were slaughtered, and 14 remained apparently healthy.

3998.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee anything further with reference to the history of those 14 ?Nothing more of these animals. Of course, they remained where they were till the 50 days, and then the restrictions were taken off; but how many of the 14 of those might have shown evidences on a post-mortem I do not know.

3999.nbsp; Would you regard those 14 as an element of danger in the future ?Most decidedly.

4000.nbsp; And, therefore, if full compensation was awarded for such animals, do you think that it would have been a desirable thing in the interests of the country that they should have been hlanghtered ?I do.

4001.nbsp; Is it your experience that plouro-pneumonia is very erratic in the way in whicli it shows itself? Very.

4002.nbsp; Can you give any illustration?--Well, tho statistics and tho returns in tho hands of tho Privy Council will show some outbreaks in Glasgow where there was pcarceiy an animal left after the disease had run its course. In others, again, one half the animals were left. I should say that, on an average, one third are left on an outbreak. I aaid I should mention tho last outbreak that we had.

4003.nbsp; At what time was that ?January 23, 1888 ; that is the last outbreak.

4004.nbsp; Give us the details of it ?There were nine cows in the byre of Mr. Mackie, Gloucester Street. I killed the first animal on the 23rd of January, and it was badly affected. I traced this cow to have come from Flemington Farm, Cambuslang, the centre of numerous outbreaks. On February 4t.h I killed tho other five, and on February 11th I killed the remaining three, and out of these nine animals only one animal had sound lungs. We killed those animals within little more than a fortnight. Out of the nine animals only one sound animal remained, so that if these animals had been inoculated wo should have been inoculating eight unsound animals. We should have had only one animal sound inoculated.

4005.nbsp; Then the disease could not be detected. I understand that you mean that you could not detect it ? What I mean is, after you had killed the first animal you would have inoculated the eight before the disease was visible, and you would thus have inoculated seven infected animals?If these animals had livedthey had the diseaseand if they were sent anywhere else, they would have spread tho disease.

4006.nbsp; Do you mean whether inoculated or not ? Yes; in the previous outbreak nine were atfected and 14 apparently escaped. In this outbreak eight succumbed to the disease, and only one escaped.

4007.nbsp; Now, I gather from your previous answer, that, the period of incubation in the case of plenro-pneumonia is stich, that it is quite possible to inoculate an animal that has the disease actually, when it is not visible?Quite.

4008.nbsp; nbsp;Would not such an operation be exceedingly risky and dangerous ?Undoubtedly.

4009.nbsp; And likely to produce a further outbreak hereafter ?Yes ; you would be treating those animals as sound that had been inoculated,

4010.nbsp; Am I correct in assuming that inoculation has not been practised as a rule in Glasgow ?It has not.

4011.nbsp; But although inoculation has not been practised in Glasgow, you have been able to reduce the annual average loss from pleuro-pneumonia from 4,550/. to 450/. ?That is the case.

4012.nbsp; Are you a practical farmer and professor as well ?Yes.

4013.nbsp; And therefore you feel an interest beyond that of a scientific man ?Yes.

4014.nbsp; Do I gather that you have had opportunities of seeing and of reading all about inoculation, and that you do not regard it as a panacea for pleuro-pneumonia ?I do not.

4015.nbsp; But, whilst on the one hand you believe it does give partial immunity, it does not give absolute security ?My opinion is so from what I have seen, but of course it wants further corroboration. My own feeling in the matter is this, that if you inoculate a perfectly sound animal, and allow it to recover from the inoculation before you allow it to cohabit with an animal having the disease, it will remain sound, but for how long I do not know.

4010. But, seeing tho insidious nature of the disease and the lengtii of period of incubation, do you think #9632; that inoculation is attended with great danger and risk ?No doubt.

4017. As a tenant farmer and a scientific man, do yon consider that compulsory slaughter with ample compensation wotdd in the interest of the nation and of the stock breeders in this country, as well as of the consumers and producers, be the best method of eradicating the disease ?I would have most faith in that.

m gt; '

pi '

MINUTES OF EVIDBNCK.

126

4018.nbsp; As a ratttter of practice, do you apply the temperature test ?Always.

4019.nbsp; nbsp;Have you paid special attention to the importation of Irish cattle into Glasgow ?I have.

4020.nbsp; And you have professionally, I believe, visited Ireland In order to investigate the system of actual transit ?I have ; three or four different times I have had to go there.

4021.nbsp; Do you think that there is much disease coming from Ireland at this moment ?No, I do not

think so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . t i i

4022.nbsp; Do you think that the disease in Ireland is pretty well concentrated in the dairies of Dublin ?I think that, except around Dublin, Ireland is very free from disease ; but pleuro-pneumonia always exists in the Dublin dairies, at least it has existed for many

prietors they are less incliuod to report. Irish dealers will do anything to further their own ends, forging certificates right and left, and altering dates.

4033. You have some experience of certificates that are given with cattle removed from Ireland?Yes. Last week I detained in Glasgow five hundred animais with forged certificates. I communicated with the portal authorities in Ireland and also laid the matter before the local authorities of Perth and Fife and Stirling. There was one case in particular that occurred last Thursday, where the party said that the animals belonged to him, and the herd said that he gave a certificate to my inspector for so many animals. The party that the animals belonged to said he saw the certiticate given to my inspector. My inspector told me that he never got the certificate. quot;I am perfectly positive.quot; Well, but I said here is the

Pro/. McCatl. 8 May 1888.

._,.. {Lord Cloncurry.) You did not tell us how long previous to the 9th February that cow had come from the Wishaw sale ?I think it is stated here in this pamphlet. I think Mr. Salmond said it was about eight weeks that the animal had been in the byre.

4024.nbsp; About eight weeks. You did not test it personally; you made no inquiries except through Mr. Salmond ?No, not except through him, but I knew that many outbreaks were traceable to the same source.

4025.nbsp; Do you think that this disease is more serious and more liable to re-occur in dairy cows than in other classes of stock ? I do.

4026.nbsp; And that dairy cows are more susceptible to the influence of the disease ?I do.

4027.nbsp; Do you think that if there were special restrictions to prevent the disease in dairies would it be an easy matter to free the whole of the country from pleuro ?~I think that it would materially assist.

4028.nbsp; You think that the greatest, difficulty in freeing the United Kingdom is the town dairies ?Undoubtedly.

4029.nbsp; nbsp;Would you see any objection to give more liberal compensation in the case of a dairyman whose trade was destroyed by slaughter than of an ordinary farmer who has fattened his beasts ?Probably he ought to receive more, but at the same time there would be a greater tendency to laxity on his part.

4030.nbsp; Or would it not have a greater tendency to laxity if his animals were slaughtered, and he did not get full compensation ?Speaking from my own experience, I have never known a dairyman not to communicate the fact of having the disease in his byre.

4031.nbsp; nbsp;You, in your official capacity, can always detect and have a knowledge of every outbreak ? The best answer to that is that there has not been a local authority in Scotland who has ever communicated with the local authority of Glasgow, and said that they had got pleuro-pneumonia from an animal that had come from a dairy in Glasgow. The facility that I have for detection is very great. We have three public slaughter-houses in Glasgow, and it is illegal to kill an animal in any other place except in one of those slaughter-houses, and in each of these three slaughter-houses there is a police inspector, whose duty it is the moment that he sees an animal whose lungs are affected on being killed, to detain that carcase and communicate wilh me so that I go there, and in that way get to know where the animal came from, and if a dairyman not knowing that he has pleuro in his slock, or who attempts to get rid of it, he is not able to do so. There is no imlucetnont for the dairyman to semi the animals out of Glasgow. Dairy cows sell at as high prices in Glasgow as anywhere else.

4032. From your official visits to Ireland, do you think that the inspectors there would have any chance of being able to give the same satisfactory evidence on the quot;question that you have given? Can they ascertain every case of disease with the same facility that you have ascertained it in Glasgow ?I do not

position,two against one. I dare not detain those animals, but what I will do is this : I will have a deposition from these men. I asked one party, quot; Did quot; you get delivery of the animals at the ship's berth quot; in Glasgow, and did you bring the animals -with quot; the certificate to the railway station ?quot; and the other party, quot; Did you see the certificate placed in the hands laquo; of my inspector ? quot; Both replied in the affirmative. I wrote that out and made them sign it and sent it over to the portal authorities in Ireland, and the whole thing turns out to be a tissue of lies, and I have the documents to prove this. I have a certificate altered from one animal to 100 animals, and I have a date altered from 6th May to the 16th and a 6 made into 00, and so on. They will do anything. I have all the documents in my possession. I stopped the animals, and if i had done anything wrong these men would certainly have been on my track; no one has laid a complaint yet.

4034.nbsp; Therefore, in order to free Scotland, do you think that the restrictions in Ireland should be enforced more strictly than they have hitherto been ? Undoubtedly, there is one great defect i_n the Irish system of surveillance, and it is this that a g^at many of the inspectors are not professional men and know little, if anything, about the disease.

4035.nbsp; Do you think that there is any possibil ity of animals, that leave a farm in Ireland in a healthy state, contracting disease in the course of transit on account of the condition of the boats and of the railway trucks ? Do you believe in that ?I think that there is very little in that.

4036.nbsp; nbsp;They arc not sufficiently long exposed to run the risk of contracting disease ?The greatest objection to the steamers is the want of ventilation under all circumstances, and secure standing, and sleeping, space.

4037.nbsp; That would not produce pleuro-pneumonia ?

__It would not. In that last byre that I mentioned

there was scarcely any ventilation, the ventilators being closed up to keep the cows warm, and if you have pleuro-pneumonia under these conditions it is much more active and more fatal.

4038.nbsp; nbsp;With your knowledge of Irish cattle and the Irish cattle trade, do you approve of the present proceedings in Dublin under order?I do, indeed.

4039.nbsp; nbsp; {Mr. Bmcen-Jones.) I gather from your evidenceand I want to be clear in my mindthat you are of opinion that animals suffering from pleuro-pneumonia will take inoculation ?Yes.

4010. And without it further developing that pleuro-pneumonia?I do not think that it will in the least assist the progress of development.

4041.nbsp; 1 want to know, will it develop the disease in a virulent or active form when the inoculation has taken place?I should think it, would not ; but I am not prepared to prove that, you have two sources of disease undoubtedly.

4042.nbsp; Were the original animals that were inoculated in Salmond's herds the same nnimalu that had pleuro-pneumonia afterwards ?Undoubtedly.

4043.nbsp; In that case how is it that pleuro-pnounionia was not developed by inoculation at once ? You

slated that it might further develop it ?No ; I enter-

think

from my experience of Irish stock pro-

126

COMMITTKB ON PLEUUO-rNBUMONIA ANraquo; TUBEBCULOSIS !

Pro/. McCall. 8 May 1888.

tain thfl opinion that, if you hnvo the disease by tho natural method, that inoculation will not stay the ravngos of the natural disease, nor do I think that it will intensify it.

4044. You said that it would intensify it ?I would reason in this way, that having now two seats of disease, it should intensify it a little, but at the same time I am not prepared to say that it does intensify it. I am of opinion that if the animal has tho disease by tho natural method, inoculation will have no effect in staying the ravages of tho disease.

^045. Neither do you think that it will so intensify it that you cannot mistake finding tho disease as soon as you find tho inoculation is beginning to work ? I do not.

404(5. Then, inoculation would not be a means of protecting animals from pleuro-pneumonia when in a latent form ?I am certain that it would not.

4047.nbsp; Therefore, it would not be a safeguard from tho spread of the disease if it never developed in a form that it could be seen ?No.

4048.nbsp; You know, perhaps, that wo have had evidence here showing that inoculation will produce the disease so virulently that there can be no mistake about its presence after inoculation ?Yes.

4049.nbsp; You do not think that that is tho case ?I do not think so.

4050.nbsp; You said that 14 animals out of the herd of 23 in an outbreak of April 1887 remained apparently healthy. Of course from your answers you think that those animals would be dangerous in the future ? Decidedly so.

4051.nbsp; But for what period ? Supposing they were kept 56 days on the farm, do you think that they would be dangerous after that?Decidedly so. I think that that was the weak point of the regulations, before this compulsory slaughter order was passed.

4052.nbsp; Then what length of time do you think would render them safe to be mixed with other herds ?I do not think that it is possible for anyone to say when.

4053.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. Macphersm Grant.) From,what you have told ns, you have dealt principally with the question of the disease in dairy stocks. Would you apply the same treatment of compulsory slaughter and liberal compensation to the breeding stocks of the country? I think it is equally desirable.

4054.nbsp; Will you say why you would suggest or approve of a more liberal treatment to the owners of dairy stocks in the towns than to the owners of breeding stocks in the country ?They have more frequent attacks of the disease, and their business is upset more, I think, by outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia. You have to take the animals out of the byre, and it becomes known in the neighbourhood, and purchasers do not take the milk from that dairy, they go to someone else.

4055.nbsp; Is it, in your opinion, a reason for more liberal treatment, that from the condition or otherwise of their business and of their byres, they have more frequent disease ?There is another reason.

4056.nbsp; As to the first. We will come to the other reason afterwards ?Yes, I think that they should bo fully and liberally dealt with.

4057.nbsp; I admit that you have said that they ought to have more liberal treatment; do I understand one of those reasons to be because they have disease more frequently ?Yes, and then there is another reason ; a greater loss accrues to the dairyman than to the fat stock proprietor.

4058.nbsp; On what ground do you say that the dairyman incurs greater loss by interference with his business than the owner of valuable breeding stock does? I did not say quot; the breeder of disease,quot; but quot; the proprietor of fat stock.quot; 1 do not know if he will suffer a greater loss than the owner of a valuable breeding stock, because the value of some of this stock is great.

4059.nbsp; We will not talk of anything very great. Take the ordinary operations of a feeding farmer,

Do you not consider that tho owner will have his business very much interfered with and very much destroyed?Not so much as the other, but at the same time I would require to have time to work that out. It would be necessary to go into tho question as to why one person should receive greater compensation than another.

4060.nbsp; nbsp;You are not very strong on that opinion then ?Certainly not.

4061.nbsp; nbsp;I think you have already said that to deal with tho disease, you would treat both breeding stocks or general agricultural stocks and tho dairy stocks in a similar manner ?Much In the same way.

4062.nbsp; You have said that, in your experience in Glasgow, there is no tendency on the part of owners of dairies to conceal the existence of disease ?No, I do not think there is any groat tendency ; but probably owing to the fact that there would be a great difficulty indeed to escape if they attempted it.

4063.nbsp; Do you think that the ordinary farmer in Scotland would be more likely to attempt to conceal disease than the dairyman ?Well, I have not had much experience of the farmers beyond tho city bounds; my duties are confined to the police bounds.

4064.nbsp; I do not think that I need trouble you about the breeding stock then ?But there is one point that I should like to mention. A dairyman loses a considerable amount in this way, he pays for a cow pro-bably 20/. and she has just dropped a calf. She is very valuable for giving milk, but if she is to bo slaughtered she is of very little value in the fat market; she will be only worth 7/. or 8/., and she cost him 20/.

4065.nbsp; She will be worth more as a dairy cow than as a fat cow ?But he is not allowed to vend her as a dairy cow.

4066.nbsp; But then the breeding cow would be only in the same position, it would be only valued as a dairy _cow ?yhe has a much higher value in calf.

4067.nbsp; Has a dairyman much difficulty in replacing his cows ?I do not think so.

4068.nbsp; nbsp;Has he no difficulty in filling up a byre with cows ?Not much.

4009. Would there not be a considerable difficulty in filling a breeding stock with fresh cattle ?Undoubtedly. raquo;

4070.nbsp; And therefore the loss to the breeding owners in Scotland in that way alone would be very serious ? In some cases it would be greater than to the dairyman.

4071.nbsp; Would not he have more difficulty in replacing his stock?Undoubtedly, and getting the same blood too.

4072.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) Do you think that if the disease were stamped out in Scotland by any plan, and if we had strong restrictive measures passed on the importation of cattle, the disease would not break out ?I think not. It is not indigenous to this country. If all the animals were killed then we could only get it by importation, so that we should have to watch the ports. But I do not think that nowadays we get pleuro-pneumonia by impoitation. I have been an inspector for the Privy Council since the Veterinary Department had an existence, and before that for the Customs, and I have never yet had an animal arriving from Canada or America with lung disease.

4073.nbsp; And then, as to importation, you said just now that you thought that the disease was imported from Ireland ?Yes.

4074.nbsp; Do you mean not from the Continent, or not from foreign counties ?No.

4075.nbsp; The reason that I asked you the first question was this. Are you aware that in former timeraquo; tho disease did come from Holland ?Yes, but we have no traffic in cattle in Glasgow from that country.

4076.nbsp; I want to know whether it is your opinion that a byre can become infectedthe building itself, I moan p1 have always acted upon the principle that a byre might be infected, and have caused byres to bo cleansed and disinfected.

4077.nbsp; But have you tiny fact to load you to offer the Committee evidence that a building itself becomes

127

MINUTES OF KVIDBNOE.

infected ?No. My opinion and bentof mind is In the opposite direction. I Imvo carried Ibot-aiul-moiUh disease to my own stock, and no doubt I have carried it to others too, but I have never carried pleuro-pnou-monia to my own stock nor any other. I have boon in the habit of coming from byres and going straight home amongst my own stock.

4078.nbsp; You do not think that the disease can have a spontaneous origin, it must be by contact of one living animal with another ?I believe that it must be by cohabitation.

4079.nbsp; Do you believe that the poison is always carried in the air ?Yes, the affected animal exhales the organisms of infection in its breath, and there are very few sound animals which will resist the infection if they have not been inoculated.

4080.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee whether the outbreak of the i2th of April 1887, in which 14 animals remained sound out of 23, whether in that outbreak the byre was better ventilated than in the outbreak of January 23rd, 1888 ?Greatly better; well ventilated. Mr. Inglis's byres were well ventilated.

4081.nbsp; Those two outbreaks stand as direct experiments bearing upon that point ?Yes. Mr. Inglis had a byre adjoining bis largo byre, and the disease never went into it, and the same parties were attending to both stocks, the dairywomen. I have never known, in all my experience, of a second outbreak in a byre, where it had been cleansed and disinfected, unless after a period of time, say, a year or so. I never could trace that the first stock slaughtered out had anything to do with the second outbreak.

4082.nbsp; The first stock being absolutely killed out ? Yes.

4083.nbsp; Then you have never known of a smouldering case in which the disease has re-appeared at an interval of a year without any fresh cattle being imparted ?No. You see in the (lairies in our city the cattle may be said to change every 12 months.

4084.nbsp; Then you have had no experience outside ? Not much.

4085.nbsp; nbsp;So far as I uiuiers'iuo yon in those inoculations carried out by Mr. Rutherford in Mr. Salmond's stock, there was no loss from inoculation itself, no animals died from the effects of inoculation, is that so?.None were badly affected by their inoculation.

4086.nbsp; Have you seen inoculation practised elsewhere ?I have seen it in Edinburgh.

4087.nbsp; But lately ?Not very long since.

4088.nbsp; Could you give thlaquo;¹ Committee any figures bearing upon that point ?None.

4089.nbsp; Blit you have had no personal experience of inoculation yourself, have you?None. That is to say, I have not inoculated animals with the virus of pleuro, but I have inoculated animals frequently. The operation, as an operation, is a simple one, and certainly any and all veterinarians are competent to perform it.

4090.nbsp; You have told the Committee that the dairy owners in Glasgow are practically prevented from concealing disease. I mean that it is not to their advantage to do so?Not much to their advantage, I would say, if they could even do it; but if they send an animal to any slaughter-house in the city it would be discovered, and sometimes we have been able to trace eases from a slaughter-house instead of from the byre, but not often.

4091.nbsp; nbsp;How often do you suppose that it does occur?Very seldom indeed.

4092.nbsp; Not once a year ?No.

4093.nbsp; Have you any experience what would bo done by country fanners in small places?They send their diseased animals to Glasgow.

4094.nbsp; Then concealment is largely practised in the country ?Sometimes it is. The outbreaks in Aberdeen and Dundee, and round about there, where there has been so much money paid in compensation for animals slaughtered by order of the local authority, the party that was first guilty was traced home from Glasgow. He sent four cows in one truck to Glasgow

and six in another, in the truck with the four animals Prtf, McCall three wore badly affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and

8 May 1888.

the other six were sound; ho consigned them to different salesmen. I wrote informing the local authority of Stonehavon of what I had discovered in Glasgow, and thoy put the police on his trail, and it was found that ho was sending cattle to Aberdeen and Dundee as well as to Glasgow; he was fined 46/.

4095.nbsp; From what yon have just stated, do you think that that sort of' thing is commonly done ?It has been done frequently in my experience in Glasgow, for I have had to bring oH'emlers before the court.

4096.nbsp; This case that you are referring to no\(' was since the compulsory slaughter order?No, it was before ; but the trial only came on within the last fortnight. 1 was cited as a witness.

4097.nbsp; Have you any knowledge of such a case since the order ?No, I do not think that I have.

4098.nbsp; Do you think it would be likely to happen now so frequently as before ? Do you think that the order would make any difference ?I think that it would. It is full compensation up to a certain point.

4099.nbsp; nbsp;You said just now that the loss, as a rule, to the dairymen in a town would bo considerably greater than to the ordinary breeder, and you thought possibly a dairyman might be given more compensation. Do you think that you might have two systems in the country, the slaughter for the breeder and inoculation for the dairyman ?Speaking for Glasgow, I think it would cost the local authority of Glasgow less money to deal with the animals by slaughtering those that are affected and inoculating the others.

4100.nbsp; That is just the point I wanted to know; it would cost less money. But are there any disadvantages that you see in such a plan ?If that system were adopted there would be no safety unless every animal inoculated was kepi; in the byre, and went straight from there to the slaughter-house. Mow that is the practice in Glasgow.

4101.nbsp; Do you think that it would be dlifiemt to confine those animals in the dairyman's premises ?I do not think so in large towns. I would have no difficulty in doing so in Glasgow. The police on the bea know the number of animals in each dairy, and they go in and make a monthly inspection and report to mo, and if a party attempted to take an animal out of the byre, the police on the beat would stop him unless he presented my licence.

4102.nbsp; You do not consider, then, that an animal that has been inoculated is an infected animal?If that animal was perfectly sound at the time of the inoculation, from the little experience that I have had, it would seem to point to this, that that animal does not carry the infection, neither after inoculation, nor during the time, because in the case of the two heifers, inoculated in the college, the bull slept and ate with them, and he was never in the least affected, he was neither up nor down. I have the animals at the present moment, and they have been pastured and housed with my other live stock.

4103.nbsp; Have you any facts to give us relative to the incubation period of disease?My experience in this disease is that the average period of time is six weeks. One of the eight animals brought in for the prevention by inoculation was just two day less than six weeks after it entered the byre before it showed the symptoms of disease.

4104.nbsp; Do you believe in the encysted cases being virulent after an interval of six months ?Yes.

4105.nbsp; What limit would you put to them, because I take it that there is a limit ?Well, 1 do not think that it is possible to put a limit to them. There can be no doubt if an animal has an attack of pleuro by the natural method, and the lung is not much damaged thereby, that the animal recovers and is no more a source of infection than the animal that has had simply inflammation of the lungs, because I have had in my own stock animals that have recovered from pleuro-pneumonia, and they were no source of infection.

laquo;

128

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEÜMONIA AND TUBEBCITLOSI8 :

Prof. McCaU. 4106. In these animals thai have recovered from

------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;pleuro-pMoumoniu that you found wore not infecting

8 May 1888 _ti_ie _rest ₀£ _ti,₀ _stock, what was the condition of the lesion in the lung ?It was an ordinary partial con-solidulion of the lung, with considerable increase in the growth of connectivo tissue in the affected lobelaquo;.

4107.nbsp; nbsp;Was it veiy fibroid ?Yes ; very fibroid.

4108.nbsp; nbsp;Was the capsule perfect ?That is a difterent thing altogether. When an animal hns an encysted portion of lung you do not know when that animal will give off infection. When the lung does not bcco.iio encysted, then time takes away the infection altogether.

4109.nbsp; nbsp;But I was asking as to the state of the lesion ; it is very fibroid ?Yes, but you may have scarcely any change upon the lung if the attack is very slight.

4110.nbsp; nbsp;In this case how do you distinguish between the fibroid changes in contagious pleuro-pneumonia and those of simple pneumonia ?You cannot. You must have the history of the animals. For instance, I can give the history of one animal.

4111.nbsp; nbsp;Will you give it to the Committee?Shortly before we had rinderpest in G-lasgow, Mr. Henderson, in Belgrove Street, had pleuro-pneumonia in his stock, and I had taken away a considerable number of animals ; one animal, a particularly well-bred Ayrshire cow, was attacked by the disease, but made a good recovery. Shortly after pleuro-pneutnonia ceased in this byre, rinderpest broke out, and that animal and some others were taken to the sanitorium and treated there for rinderpest. That animal had rinderpest, hut in an extremely mild form ; we would not have known it unless by using the thermometer; and to prove that it had it, or that it had the power to resist it, it stood in the sanitorium for the whole time it was openfor nearly three months. I made it a point every day to stall it with the worst animal in the sanitorium, and I put it alongside affected cows, and fed it on the food that all those other animals had refused ; it stood till the sanitorium was shut. I knew that this cow had recovered from the attack of pleuro, and I knew that she had nassed through rinderpest, and I bought her and I took her to my farm, and kept her several years, and bred with her. She never spread disease to any animal, and on the advent of an outbreak of pleuro on my farm, and which proved deadly to a large number of my stock, this cow rcnained unaflected.

#9632; 4112. Did you kill that cow ?Yes, and she had the slightest pleuro-pneumonia change, just as we often find in an animal that we know two or three years before has had an attack of non-contagious lung disease, there was no encystment. In an encystment we have a distinct fibrous capsule ; and when that is the lesion, we do not know when any animal will cease giving off infection.

4113.nbsp; nbsp;Have you found that the lung around the capsule is in an oedematous condition ?That is the condition if it be a recent case.

4114.nbsp; I find very lew instances In looking through the records. Can you give the Committee an instance ? We have not been paying so much attention to this, speaking for myself, this capsulation of lung recently.

4115.nbsp; Do you think that the contents of a capsule in an encapsulated lesion, the infScted matter, is just outside the capsule VI think that the microbes are inside the encapsuled mass, and when once the atmosphere penetrates the capsule they are liberated. When we inoculate an animal we do not produce a lung lesion, but we produce the preventive action, probably by the excretions of the microbes. I hold that If the microbes (virus contaginm), inoculated to the tail, were carried by the lymph or blood streams to the lungs, then they would breed there, and structural disease of the lungs and infection of other animals, as a result, follows; but the microbes do not gain the lungs, and, consequently, structural disease of these organs and the power of infection is an unknown effect, when inoculation is practised on a cow with healthy lungs, and which has not been allowed to breathe in an atmosphere when contagious pleuro-pneumonia exists. It. is of great importance to our profession to work

this matter out. I would not recommend that slaughter should bo stopped in order to get this matter decided, but I wish very much indeed that it should ho threshed out.

4116.nbsp; nbsp; {Chairman.) That is from the scientific point of view ?Yes, as a professional man.

4117.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Ilorsley.) Are there any predisposing causes that you know of for the production of disease besides the ordinary ones ?I do not think that anything can produce it except the microbo; it is a specific disease.

4118.nbsp; As regards the importation of cattle, supposing we had to stamp it out in Great Britain and Ireland, what would you admit as not involving any risk ? Would you admit that one might import cattle to any part of England and keep them in quarantine there for a certain time ?If the cattle came a long distance. If they were on board ship for a period of two months, I think we might very safely allow these animals to come in, because I suspect that if they had the disease they would have developed it so that we would ho able to make it out when they landed.

4119.nbsp; nbsp;And how long would you keep them in quarantine when they lauded ?Well, if they had spent six weeks or two months on board ; that would be sufficient.

4120.nbsp; You would not keep them at all in that case ? You would not require to keep them long; but you would never be safe.

4121.nbsp; nbsp;Not even with quarantine?No, because you might have an animal with an encapsuled mass. I would be very much guided by the condition of the country they were brought from, if they could show a clean bill of health that would do.

4122.nbsp; {Chairman.') Are you aware of any pleuro-pneumonia in Scandinavia ?No.

4123.nbsp; Are you aware of any pleuro-pneumonia ever having been imported from Canada ?I have never seen any animal imported into this country with pleuro-pneumonia from Canada.

4124.nbsp; Then all other countries are scheduled ?As I have said, I would be largely guided by the health of the country. If there were no pleuro-pneumonia, why would you refuse to admit the animals ? There can be no greater safety than the absence of disease at the fountain-head.

4125.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) Supposing we admit that for the present that you take cattle from the countries not scheduled, would you admit any certificate that came with such cattle ?I think that there should be certificates accompanying the cattle.

4126.nbsp; nbsp;Would that be sufficient ?Yes, if they really were honest certificates in every sense of the word.

4127.nbsp; nbsp;Do you believe in certificates ?Well, if they are like the Irish certificates, I do not.

4128.nbsp; Do not you think that the certificates might bo faulty in coming from countries which did not happen to be scheduled ?Yes.

4129.nbsp; Then you do admit that there is a certain risk in moving cattle under such restrictions from non-scheduled countries ?Yes, but I do not think that the risk is so great as to warrant you in excluding the cattle.

4130.nbsp; Do you think that marking the cattle by branding would be a superior means of knowing where they come from ?Well, if the brand were effectual and specific it ought to be.

4131.nbsp; It would be protected by law of course. Then, do you think that inspection as carried on at present in the transit between Ireland and England is of any use ?I would not say that it is of no use, but it is not of the use that we would like it.

4132.nbsp; Is it 50 per cent, of use ?Yes, the deterrent part is to a large extent of great use.

4133.nbsp; Do you still think that a great deal of the disease is imported into Scotland from Ireland, although you have this deterrent effect ?I do not think that there is so much imported as is really said. I think just now if you drew a circle round Dublin you

#9632;iH

-------------

MIVUTKS OF BVIDBNOBi

129

might wit.li great safbtv Import the stock bcyoml it. But tlmy do not keep within the circle.

4134.nbsp; nbsp;Butwohavo bad eviilencc before us showing that it is imported from other ports in Ireland besides Dublin?I think I have as lurgo opportunities ot knowing about the Irish cattle trade as anyone, and I do not mean to say that disease has never been traced to other ports than Dublin, but I think that it is exceptional. Even then the probability is that the animals that were traced, cmne originally from the port of Dublin, that is what they do, they bring the animals by rail to another port, say Belfast, and then ship them as Belfast cattle, when really they are Dublin cattle. I know that as a fact,

4135.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling) I want to refer just for a moment to that outbreak where you said there were nine animals, I think, and only one sound ?Yes.

4136.nbsp; You said that if inoculation had been practised it would have meant that eight diseased animals would have been inoculated ?Yes.

4137.nbsp; You also said that your opinion was that inoculation would not arrest the disease, it would probably have the etfect of bringing it out, is that correct ? It will not arrest the disease. It may have some effect upon intensifying it, but I am not prepared to say that it will intensify it.

41.38. But are you aware that the experience of those who have practised inoculation is that the inoculation does bring out the disease. Are you aware that that statement has been made ?I am aware of that.

4139.nbsp; If that be the case, supposing their experience be correct, docs it not seem to you that in that case you would have immediately discovered the diseased animals and they would have been slaughtered?

__If it were the case that inoculation does intensify

the disease and develop it more rapidlyif that is the factit is a fact.

4140.nbsp; And the animals would be seen to be diseased and would be slaughtered at once?Yes, if it, is a fact that the disease is intensified to that extent.

4141.nbsp; Then that would remove one of the causes that you thought was a danger of disease spreading ? But it is still to be proven to be a fact.

4142.nbsp; nbsp;You are not prepared to accept the experience of those who have inoculated 4,000 or 5,000 animals ?The bias of my own mind is in the opposite way. I do not think that it has any effect.

4143.nbsp; nbsp;But you never have inoculated an animal ? No, but I have seen then, inoculated, und am prepared to operate, if necessary.

4144.nbsp; I think from the figures that you have given you have had experience of 50 outbreaks of pleuro-pnemnonia?I have had far more experience than 50 outbreaks, I have had 100 directly to deal with, and many more indirectly in consultation.

4145.nbsp; nbsp;You have had the experience of about 100 outbreaks ?Yes, 1 suppose so.

4146.nbsp; nbsp;In how many cases have you had what you call an encysted case, or an quot; old rogue quot;?Well, I could not give you an answer to that for this reason, that 1 have not been taking much interest, in the matter of encysted portions of lungs, for the last two or three years. We slaughter all the animals affected, and those that do not, take the disease remain where they are until they go to the slaughter-house, and as the restrictions are taken off, I have not an opportunity of making a post-niortem in many cases.

4147.nbsp; nbsp;Was I correct in understanding you to say, in answer to a question by Professor Horsley, quot;I quot; think that very few animals will resist the disease quot; if not inoculated quot; ?Yes, I believe so.

4148.nbsp; I suppose you are aware of the schedule containing questions that were sent round to all local authorities and veterinary surgeons by the Highland Society ?I think that 1 answered that document.

4149.nbsp; You laquo;re aware of the great divergency of opinion shown in the answers ?No, I am not, because I had no opportunity of seeing them.

4150.nbsp; nbsp;You spoke of the desirability of inst.it'iting experiments in the interest, of '.vhntot veterinary

0 54008.

science only or the public generally iIt would bo 111 the iiiter.'-a of both, but, at tlie same time, as a pro

Vmf. MiiCall. laquo; May 188S.

fessional man, no doubt it would be of more interest to me than it would he to the general public.

4151.nbsp; Have you formed any estimate in your mind as to what those experiments should be ?No, I have not.

4152.nbsp; Or what the cost, to the country would be ? No.

4153.nbsp; Nor how long it would be necessary to continue this ?No, because it has not been put to me to answer.

4154 As to the dairy stock in Glasgow, what should be put as the lifetime of a cow ?1 should say that the average lifetime would be about nine months.

4155.nbsp; Would you consider such experiments as you have indicated satisfactory if they were carried on merely for the lifetime of an ordinary dairy cow ? They would not be so satisfactory as carried ovei-a longer period of time.

4156.nbsp; To what period you are not prepared to say ? I have not given sufficient thought to answer that question.

4157.nbsp; nbsp;Could you turn your attention to that subject and put in a report to the Committee as to what you consider necessary in the way of experiment and as to the cost ?Yes. There are some points that may bo solved within a twelvemonth without any great amount of expenditure, but there are others that could not without spending money and time.

4158.nbsp; I want yon to recommend us some experiments ?Yes, and I shall do so.

4159.nbsp; Nobody has told us what the experiments are to bo or how long they are to last, and we want to know the lines to go upon ?I should be pleased to contribute my opinion.

4160.nbsp; nbsp;Do you happen to know what quantity of milk is supplied to Glasgow ?I do not know the proportion of milk supplied to Glasgow. The dairies of Glasgow in proportion to the whole is a very small one ; it is infinitesimal.

4161.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Can you tell us the total daily supply of Glasgow ?No, I cannot.

4162.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling) You do not know what the internal supply of Glasgow is ?I could get at it by taking the number of cows in the dairies.

4.163. Have you any idea what it is?I have not, but I have no doubt I could get all that. Our medical officer would be able to give it.

4164.nbsp; The object of my question is regarding the disturbance of trade to the dairyman r Supposing this compulsory slaughter order is carried out, and the cows in contact are slaughtered, I want to know whether it would be possible for the dairyman to obtain the necessary supply of milk ?It would. When I used the word dairyman, I intended to include the parties having cows in the city and parties having cows outside the city for milking purposes.

4165.nbsp; nbsp;You do not speak of the town dairies only ? No, I do not, because the farmer who is supplying the salesman has his business upset.

4166.nbsp; You are aware that there is a large sour milk trade from Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire?Yes.

4167.nbsp; nbsp;Arc you aware of the quantity of it?No. It is not in my department.

4168.nbsp; nbsp;quot;What would be the effect of the slanglitering order upon that; would that bo completely upset ?It would be disturbed, at all events.

1169. But from your knowledge of the farms in Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire round Glasgow, do yon think that it would be possible for those dairylaquo; men to get the supplies from neighbouring farms to compensate for the slight disturbance, until the byres could be filled again?I believe so, but not, readily, because the party who is able to supply the milk generally contracts with the other party for a twelvemonth.

4170. But have you seen any of those contracts ? I have seen contraquot;ts.

i-:

130

COJIMITTEE ON riiEUKO-l'NKUMONIA AND TUKKUCULOSIS:

Frof. McCnlt. 4171. Do you know if there is any clausu in the

------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;contract whereby o penalty is not exacted if there is

8 MiiyJlSSS. _(li8ease _in _the Dyro ?_I am not mvare of that.

4172. Can you give the Committee any information as to the system upon which the valuation is made? I ask you that question -with reference to the answer you gave to Sir George Macplierson Grant regarding the valuing of cows ?I can only speak of the system that I adopt myself. I do not know what, system is adopted by others, but when 1 go into a byre where we have the disease, the lirst thing is to lake the number of animals and the individual value of the animals, because there are some animals that we recently calved and of considerable value, and other animals that have been a long time calved and very loan, and others ready to go to the butcher ; generally there are three grades In each byre, and according to the number of animals atfected belonging to one or other of those grades; that is the method that 1 adopt.

4173. Then you attach no special value to a cow that is a specially good milker ?That is according to the quantity she gives ? In one sense I do ; I take into consideration the time that she has been in the byre, because a cow gives a far larger quantity of milk for the first three months than after, and in that way I form my opinion. If the cow has becMi recently bought 1 have a pretty good idea of its value, because they come under my notice every day. I should value such a cow at her full worth. I very often say to the party, quot; Well, what did you give for this cow when quot; you bought her ?quot; He -will say, perhaps, 16/. Then I say, quot; Well, I think she is worth that, and 1 think quot; that she is good value quot; ; or I say that quot; I think quot; you have given too much for her.quot;

4174.nbsp; nbsp;Are you the sole valuator for Glasgow ? Yes, the solo valuator appointed by the local authority; and there has never been a complaint to the local authority that my valuation was too little or too great.

4175.nbsp; nbsp;Can you tell the Committee whether it is usual in Scotland to appoint a veterinary inspector as a valuator ?I believe it is not usual.

417C. Presumably your appointment was made because you are also a practical farmer?Well, I do not know if it was so, but I have no doubt that my local authority knew that I was aware of the value of animals.

4177.nbsp; Have you ever acted in Renfrewshire or Lanarkshire ?No, for no other local authority.

4178.nbsp; Are you aware at all whether the system adopted of appointing those valuators is altogether satisfactory in Scotland ?I have heard complaints.

4179.nbsp; As to the difficulty of getting fair value ? Yes.

4180.nbsp; Generally speaking, do you consider the provisions of the Act of 1878 satisfactory?Yes, as far as they go.

4181.nbsp; Is there any particular portion of them that you would wish to see amended ?The 56 days for the liberation of all the animals that remain alive on the farm steading, and the liberty of their diffusion wherever the individual feels inclined to take them. 1 think that is a weak point in the Act.

4182.nbsp; You consider 56 days is not a sufficiently long quarantine ?I have a difficulty in saying when I would be satisfied as to the safe time for liberating animals that have had plcuro-pneumonia, or been with stock where pleuro-pneumonia has existed.

4183.nbsp; Would you like to say a life-long quarantine; that is to say, that they should not be removed until taken to the slaughter-house ?That is what I should like.

4184.nbsp; Is that what you would prefer ?Yes.

4185.nbsp; Is there any other point in the provisions of the Act that you would wish to see changed?Well, I have a decided objection to an infected area. I do not think that we need anything more than an infected place in dealing with plcuro-pncnmonin. If the animals are kept within the walls of the cow-shed and not allowed to mix with any other animals, or if they go out into the fields and they cannol come

in contact with any other animal, or inhale the breath of an animal, I see no need for an infected area.

418(.^:. Then you object to a farm being made an infected area, you mean the steading, the farm itself ? If the cattle'go out I would make the farm an infected area, so that the animals cannot go off it, and they must remain on it ; and 1 would make it as though part and parcel of the byre.

4187. Does not that become then an infected place, the field or those fields become an infected place ? What I would point out is that infected areas are sometimes a small district, and sometimes a whole county; that is what I object to.

1188. Have yon an instance of a whole county having been an infected area?The county of Lanarkshire has been locked up, and there has been no free traffic in Lanarkshire for two years.

4189.nbsp; nbsp;As one area, or as a series of areas?One area for a long time.

4190.nbsp; You were sent over to Inland in 188,'i by the magistrates of Glasgow to report upon foot-and-mouth disease ?Yes.

4191.nbsp; In that report it was then recommended thai there should be infected areas, and cordons thrown around infected districts?Yes. In foot-and-mouth it is a necessary measure.

4192.nbsp; Y^res ?That is quite a different thing.

4193.nbsp; Was your experience at that time such, under the foot-and-mouth disease, as to make you distrust those infected areas ?Yes. There were individuals who ran the blockade into Ireland. Of course when that is the case there is no confidence to be placed in^ an infected area; I think that infected areas are of great use in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, but not with pleuro-pneumonia.

4194.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any other point that you wish to see changed in the Act besides the alterations you have named ?Well, 1 have not thought the subject out sufficiently.

4195.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the administration of the Act ?No, I am not ; I am far from being satisfied. I think that there are too many local authorities, or if not too many, at all events there is a want of reciprocity in what they are doing. They do not consult one another, or try to act in unison.

4196.nbsp; Do you mean there is a want of uniformity ? Quite.

4197.nbsp; nbsp;What would you suggest to correct the want of uniformity and obviate it?Either the local authorities themselves appointing one or two of their number to act on a board, composed of all the local authorities of the country, or the Privy Council taking the matter into their own hands.

4198.nbsp; You have had experience of a central committee already ?I have.

4199.nbsp; Is that experience such as to lead you to think that it would be desirable to continue such a committee ?A central committee is better than no committee, but I have formed the opinion that, if the local interests may be furthered by refusing to assent to a general measure, that refusal may be given.

4200.nbsp; Your experience is that it would be infinitely better to have the whole control and management in the hands of the department of the Privy Council ? That is my opinion.

4201.nbsp; In that case where would you suggest that the funds should be raised for paying the compensation ? If the Department are to take entire control, would you suggest that the money should still come from the local rates?! have never thought over that.

4202.nbsp; Would yon suggest that it should come from the Treasury ?1 would require to think over it, and what would be the result of the two methods of levying it.

4203.nbsp; Do you think it likely that the local authorities would consent to give up the whole control and yet be called upon to pay for whatever compensation the Central Department might think necessary? They would not do it willingly ; I do not think they would do it voluntarily either,

-----------

-----

MINUTES OF KVlDJiNCK.

131

4204.nbsp; Tho Cliainuan asked you whother you paid any attention to temporatuiv as a tost, and you an-sweredyes?Yes; [always uae the thermometer i 1 never go anywhere without it, I liavo it beside me just now.

4205.nbsp; But I think I understood you to say In your evidence before the Highlaud Society that you did not consider that reliable ? Neither is it. It is reliable in this way, that if an animal has a normal temperature it is likely to bo in health, and if it haraquo; an abnormal temperature there must bo some reason for it; but because it has got a certain range of temperature therefore it has a specific disease, and therefore that it is pleuro-pnemnonia, 1 do not. think that it is so. I think that it is fully as reliable in many other diseases as in plouro-pneumonia. I would not like to take that view, but from what I have seen, I think that it is the living and affected animal that spreads tho disease by cohabitation. I hope this will not be taken by the railway companies as an indication that they may relax their cleansing of the trucks.

4206.nbsp; nbsp; {Chairman.) May we gather from that answer, then, that you consider that the disease is conveyed by a healthy animal inhaling tho exhaled breath of the diseased animal ?Yes.

4207.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that it might arise even from an animal inhaling the effluvia of fresh excreted dung ?There have been many experiments in that direction, but they have all failed as far as I understand, and it is my opinion that they will fail.

4208.nbsp; As regards the question of temperature and the use of the thermometer, if you discovered an animal with a temperature of 105 degrees, would you consider that animal was the subject of some disease ? Undoubtedly.

4209.nbsp; But that would not necessarily indicate pleuro-pneumonia ?Not necessarily.

4210.nbsp; But if the surroundings were such as to lead you to think that there was a probability of pleuro-pneumouia being about, would that make you suspicious of pleuro-pneumonia ?Undoubtedly, and it would bo a valuable assistance to me.

4211.nbsp; And without any further consideration would you think it desirable to slaughter that animal ?No, until I had come to an understanding with the party.

4212.nbsp; nbsp;What party ?With the party that the animal belonged to.

4213.nbsp; Why should you consider that man at all, if you were under the impression that it was diseased ? Well, I would order slaughter if he did not consent; but I never met the man who would not consent. I do not wish to cause the animal to be slaughtered there and then, in direct opposition to the wish of the proprietor, and as he caunot move the animal it cannot contaminate anything. Of course, if it was in transit T would stop it.

4214.nbsp; Then temperature in an animal suffering from pleuro-pneumonia does not rise beyond that of an animal suffering from any other fever ?No ; you have the temperature frequently higher than 105 from other diseases.

4215.nbsp; Therefore temperature alone would not indicate pleuro-pneumonia?No; I have known almost a normal ternporaturc in pleuro-pneumonia.

4216.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.') Is it not the fact that some veterinary surgeons in Scotland have hesitated to slaughter on the first outbreak, because if it should turn out not to be a case of pleuro-pneumonia they would be liable ?I think that they wore quite right to hesitate, but certainly it would be their duty to see i hat those animals do not move to contaminate any other stock.

4217.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) You would therefore regard with suspicion and distrust any animal that was so affected with a high temperature ?Yes, and then, of course, 1 would lake into consideration the other circumstances.

4218.nbsp; Docs your objection tf the existence of areas apply to the extent of n whole farm or to the whole county ?More to a whole county than a whole farm.

1219. At what distanco do you consider an animal Prof. McCall.

safe from disease ?When it cannot come in contact,

8 May 1888.

nor inhale tho breath. In Glasgow wo are peculiarly situated. As a rule, our cow byres or cow-sheds are till isolated. They do not cluster together, and wo have never declared an infected area but simply an infected place.

4220.nbsp; nbsp;Your quot; place,quot; therefore, which you declare as an infected place would be one byre out of a number of byres ?Yes,

4221.nbsp; Now you said also that you consider tho peiiod of ö(! days too short an interval for safety ? Yes.

4222.nbsp; nbsp;What is the greatest length of time in your recollection or knowledge that has existed between recurrent outbreaks ?Not less than one year. In my experience, as I have said before, when wo have had an outbreak, many animals lived after the expiry of 50 clays. The individual Ulis up his byre and we have never bail a second outbreak in that byre under one year.

422,'gt;. Why do you consider 66 days too short an interval ?Because it is safe in Glasgow where it would not bo safe in other places. The cattle in Glasgow are all slaughtered, but in the country, after 30 days are up, the individual may, and, as a rule, very frequently does sell his animals.

4224.nbsp; Do you consider that the Privy Council in fixing upon that number of days, took the experience and opinion of the people of Glasgow only?No, certainly not.

4225.nbsp; What period would you suggest as an alternative?I do not know that I can fix any period when it would be safe.

4226.nbsp; (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) To follow that up a little further. Practically, you see nothing but a life-long . quarantine that will make animals safe ?Yes, to make them perfectly safe.

4227.nbsp; Yon complain of the Act as not providing a snflicient guarantee of safety with only 56 days. Do you think that a life quarantine is necessary ?Yes, but practically it could not work.

4228.nbsp; Would you recommend a life quarantine being put in the Act instead of 56 days ?It would rot work.

4229.nbsp; It would not work with breeding stock ?It #9632;would not. You must run the risk.

4230.nbsp; As it will not work with the breeding stoct, what alternative would you suggest instead of inoculation ?I do not know that I could suggest any.

4231.nbsp; nbsp;Nothing but slaughter ?Not anything else for safety.

4232.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Have you had in your large practice any experience of tuberculosis ?Considerable experience.

4233.nbsp; Do you consider that that is a disease on the increase or decrease ?Largely on the increase.

4234.nbsp; Have you observed it more in dairy cattle than in other animals ?Yes, in dairy cattle.

4235.nbsp; nbsp;Have you observed it in any one particular breed more than in others ?I think that I may say so. Of course, my experience is almost entirely amongst the Ayrshire breed of cattle; we have very few shorthorns or polled Angus, or other breeds.

4236.nbsp; nbsp;Therefore you have observed it in the Ayrshire breed of cattle ?Yes; but it affects all breeds, and probably the shorthorn breed more than any other.

4237.nbsp; To what do you attribute that increase ? Well, it is an hereditary disease, although it does not always spread from heredity; being an hereditary disease, if individuals use the members of their herd to breed with, it must become more prevalent.

4238.nbsp; But do you think it arises in any way whatever from in-and-in breeding ?I do.

4239.nbsp; Would that necessarily apply to whether the parents were diseased or not diseased ?T think so. When you breed in and in the proof is in the direction that you weaken the stamina. You may not if the animals are sound, but if there is the slightest taint you will aggravate it.

R 2

' I

132

COMMITTKE ON PLKUUO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBKUOULOSIS :

Prof. McCalt ⁴²⁴⁽⁾' ^Aie X⁰quot; j^ustiflelt;l ⁱⁿ ^thut ⁰P^illioa ^ ft know-

''____ ' l_e(Jge of what takes place umougst wild herds ?W ell,

8 May 1888. tuburculosis is almost uukiiowu in animals iu a wild

------'- state.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;laquo; i #9632; i

4241.nbsp; Cim you account for that '#9632;'In our Zoological (iurdeus, tuberculosis kills more wild animals than almost any other disuase; so that the want of proper ventilation, the want of physical exercise, and the want of natural food ; probably all these tend to the development ol tuberculosis, And the fact that (own dairy cows, that arc allowed no walking exorcise, are much more frequently affected with tuberculosis than dairy tows in the country, also shows that confinement is a powerful predisposing cause.

4242.nbsp; To what do you attribute this susceptibility ?

__To confinement and the stimulating food, and the

large drain that is made upon the system of the animal giving milk.

4243.nbsp; Is it your opinion that any particular system of feeding produces tuberculosis?Whatever system of feeding largely increases the lacteal secretion weakens the body of the animal, more particularly the organs and the muscles, and must tend to produce disease; and although I look upon the disease as being hereditary, yet I do not think the disease, as a disease is transmitted from the parent to tlie oft'spring. It is the habit of body that is transmitteda tubercular habit of body.

4214. Does your experience point to tuberculosis being the means of interfering with the powers of breeding animals ? Tubercular disease, when it attacks the udder or the genital organs, which it sometimes does, renders animals bad breeders.

4245. Do you think it would be of such importance that it would be necessary to include it in (he Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?1 do.

42iü. Would you feel justified in going into a market and seizing for the purpose of slaughter any animals that you assumed were suffering from tuberculosis ?1 would.

4247.nbsp; Is it a disease that is easily defected in contradistinction to other lung diseases ?In a certain stage it is cuäily detected and in others it is difficult.

4248.nbsp; nbsp;Is that stage in the early stage?--It is very difficult in the early stages, if the animal is a sound animal in other respects. I have a specimen of the effect on the muscles and bones. {The witness here showed parts of the sirloin of a shorthorn hnlloch, in. which, toith the naked eye, tubercles cunld be seen in the fibres of the flesh round a tubercular abscess, and within the marrow of the bones.)

4249.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman) This illustration which you have brought before the Committee is, 1 presume, an extreme case ?It is not.

4250.nbsp; And must have gone on for a very considerable period of time ?Probably it had ; but it is interesting in this respect, that the animal was driven lo a sale yard in Perth, a distance of six miles ; and it did not seem to be distressed by the driving. It was sold in open competition for 23/.

4251.nbsp; What weight might be the animal from which this specimen is taken ?1 could not tell that.

4252.nbsp; Would it bo 55 or 56 stone ?I suppose it would be 3/. a hundredweight of dead meatabout 7 cwt.

4253.nbsp; nbsp;But that is taken from the sirloin ?Yes.

4254.nbsp; Therefore, may we assume that the lungs would be in a very advanced stage of disease ?Not necessarily. I do not see that the lungs could be extensively diseased except in the stage of hard tubercle. They had not undergone sof(eiiiiig. The greater portion of this animal was sent to (ilasgow for the inhabitants to eat. That is no uncommon thing.

4255.nbsp; nbsp;I presume that these would not be the Jewish portion ol the inhabitants ?No, the Jews are very particular with regard to the flesh they eat.

425'). Is It yotir opinion as a urofessiorilaquo;! man that tuberculosis can be communicated to (be human being by the medium of meat consumed ?Kcasoning from

the experiments that have taken place, I think there can be not doubt about it.

4257.nbsp; Do yon consider also that it is equally, or even more, dangerous iu the case of milk ?It is more dangerous in the case of milk, unless you boil the milk.

4258.nbsp; [Mr. Stirling.) Whiah of the two diseases do you consider the most difficult to discover, tuberculosis or pleuro-pneumonia?They tire both difficult in certain stages, both equally so. You might confound the one with the other in the living animal in the early stages.

4259.nbsp; nbsp;They are both very easily confounded the one with the other ?Yes; 1 would schedule both diseases, so that it would not matter whether we confounded one with the other or not.

4260.nbsp; Is there any other disease of the joint that might be mistaken for tuberculosis ?I do not think so.

4261.nbsp; nbsp;So that if the veterinary surgeons had the power to seize and slaughter animals for tuberculosis, you do not think there is any other disease they might confound with it and needlessly slaughter animals?I do not think so. it is much more infectious in the lower animal than in the human subject.

4262.nbsp; Can you give an instance of that ?Yes ; in the month of May last a farmer in the neighbourhood of Glasgow turned on to his fields, 1 think, 25 milk cows and some young stock. I examined the same stock about the New Year, and at that time he had only 12 milk cows, the others all died from tuberculosis.

4263.nbsp; Between January and May ?Between May and January ; I was to have gone on the Saturday, but I could not get there until the Monday. There was one cow lying dead, there was another cow ready to die, and on looking through the herd there were several others exhibinng tuberculosis. I am giving you his own statistics of the animals.

4264.nbsp; Had you these animals examined ?Not the animals that died before I had been on the farm ; but I have no reason to doubt what the man said was perfectly right, and I can easily understand why it is much more infectious than in the human subject, because those cattle are tied up so close to one another that they are bound to inhale the breath, and I have no doubt if we were so placed, that we were obliged to inhale the breath of each other in badly ventilated roomsj that we should also succumb to the disease as rapidly as the lower animals.

4265.nbsp; Then you think the disease is spread by inhalation ? Yes, and Ingestion ; eating the food mouthed by affected animals.

4266.nbsp; Although it is not necessary that the lungs should be affected?You have tuberculosis disease affecting the bowels. You have tuberculosis disease affecting all the individual organs of the body, but it more treqnentiy affects the lungs than any other organ.

4267.nbsp; In your experience, do you say that tuberraquo; culosis would affect the breeding powers of any animals, for instance, bullshow would it affect the male animal ?It affects the genital organs of the female markedly, but in the malt!, the lungs of the animal are more frequently affected.

4268.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) You say it would affect the breeding powerwould it affect the genital organs ?Yes ; it weakens the general stamina of the animal, and after you weaken it, it will prove fatal to the animal, but ill n considerable per-ccntiige the testicles also suffer,

4269.nbsp; nbsp;You cannot say whether a bull would be affected in the same manner ?I suppose it is generally acknowledged that a man may transmit the disease to his progeny, if not by actual transmission of the disease, conveying the disease by habit of body ; and if the disease is in a byre, and there is a predisposition of body of an animal, it, will sttccuinh very readily to it, and more particularly if that animal has a lung affection. In a consumptive hospital the medical

MINUTES oir kvidkncj:.

l,3S

attendants and nurses, if healthy, do not suffer, but

45i86. Have you any proof that the disease beginning Prof. MeOall,

in one animal in a herd has spread through the herdnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-----

as soon as any of them begin to suffer from bronohitis

8 May 1S88.

or other chest diseases, thoy are very liable to succuml) to tuberculosis.

4270.nbsp; Do you keep a record at the slaughter-house of the distribution of the tubercular disease of the animals killed?The only record that is kept is this, that the meat inspector, when he detects the carcase of an animal showing the symptoms of tubercular disease/if it is sutHciently developed In his opinion to be projudici.il to health, coniiscates .the

carcase.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , , ,...nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_t laquo;

4271.nbsp; Is there no entry in the books of the parts ot the body which are the seats of disease ?No, but I think that it is wrong.

4272.nbsp; Is the kind of animal entered ?Sometimes.

4273.nbsp; nbsp;Can you furnish this Committee with a list showing in what animal the disease occurlaquo; most commonly i¹Most commonly in milk cows.

4274.nbsp; But I mean more than most commonlyto give us returns to show the per-centage recurrence the relative recurrence ?I could give the number of carcases that have been condemned in the slaughterhouses of Glasgow affected with the disease, but I could not give you the class of animals. If you could come to Glasgow any Wednesday, I could show you numbers of cattle that are being sold with the disease in open market.

4276. In the slaughter-houses one would get them in that way, and that would include horned cattle, and sheep, and pigs, anl so on ?#9632;-Scarcely ; we have American cattle, but we have never yet seen tuberculosis in them; there is an enormous number of Canadian cattle sold in Glasgow Market.

4276.nbsp; Could you get a return out and send it to the Committee showing the relative occurrence of the disease as shown by the records of the slaughter-house in different animals ?1 could give you statistics of what have been condemned, but otherwise I could

not.

4277.nbsp; (Chairman.) But I understood you to say that you made a poot-mortem of every animal that was condemned ?Yes. Of every animal that enters the slaughter-houses affected with lung disease, and other diseases enumerated in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, but, as tuberculosis is not included, it is left to the meat inspector.

4278.nbsp; Then did that answer apply to anything but pleuro-pneumonia i'Only to pleuro-pneumonia and other scheduled diseases.

4279.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Hordey.) Have you any proof of the tubercular poison being conveyed in the milk in the lower animals ?We have a great many cases recorded.

4280.nbsp; Have you any experience of that ?No, not personally. I have offered to conduct experiments in that line, and sent in a report to the Lord Provost and magistrates of Glasgow tlt; that efhet, which i should be glad to put in ; but we have no power to do it, we cannot do it without permission.

from that animal ?I have known the disease spread for years in the same stock.

4286.nbsp; nbsp;That would be breeding stock?Yes, and where the party had brought them in to take the place of those that died.

4287.nbsp; nbsp;And it spread among the incomers ?Yes.

4288.nbsp; nbsp;You could not give that out in figures ?1 think that 1 could give the details of one case. The Dalmellington Iron Company gave a farmer a certain amount of compensation for the loss that he had sus-tained. Previous to this Company semling their water from the Shale Pits through this farni, tuberculosis was unknown in his stock, and the fanner had been there for a long period of time. After the Shale Pita were opened and the water allowed to run through the pasture fields in open spaces, these cuses of tuberculosis commenced, and it continued up to the lime that I saw the animals, and although we could not prove that this water was the cause of originating the disease, we thought that the drinking of bad wafer might undermine the constitution of the animals.

4289.nbsp; But still, in that particular outbreak, you bad evidence of the spread of disease from one animal to the other?Yes.

4290.nbsp; Can you give us the figures ?Yes, I could do it this week by a reference to my letter book.

4291.nbsp; Passing away from the possibility of the disease spreading in herds, have you seen tuberculosis begin among one kind of animal, and be communicated to another. Have you seen tuberculosis occurring among dairy cows, and other animals on the farm getting it from them ?No, I never had ray attention particularly directed to that.

4292.nbsp; You know that it is very common ?Yes.

4293.nbsp; But you have never seen an instance of its being transferred ?No, but in the Health Journal we have a case authenticated, where a considerable number of poultry fell victims to tuberculosis, by picking and swallowing the spittle of a consumptive woman, and another woman contracted tuberculosis by eating the flesh of the affected fowls.

4294.nbsp; Do you believe in the existence of tuberculosis in horses ?We have tuberculous disease in all animals.

4295.nbsp; Do you personally believe that some forms of strangles in a horse are really tubercle ?No, I do not; it is a specific disease, no doubt.

4296.nbsp; nbsp;So far as your experience takes you the disease is much more common in town animals than in country animals ?Very much more.

4297.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give the Committee any figures showing the relative occurrence of the disease in different parts of the body in cattle?No, I could not.

4298.nbsp; Lastly, I wish to ask you where do ycu think that the cattle usually come from with tubercular disease to Glasgow?We receive them from all parts of Scotland, especially Wigtonshire, but the largest number come from Ireland.

4281.nbsp; I understand that you have the opportunity of conducting the experiments witji every hope of success, but you are prevented by legislation ?Yes ; and you are required to tell what you are going to do, you do not know exactly what you are going to do, because one thing leads on to another.

4282.nbsp; Have you tried to get the license for experiments ?The College i8 licensed as an institution for conducting experiments in it.

4283.nbsp; What has been your experience of your attempts to get a certificate ?The last time that we made application, I never made applicati i. myself, but I have in connexion with the College ior a party who is very much interested in microscopic observations, and he wanted something, 1 forget what it wa but he was to give the detail of what he was going t do, and he did not know what, because his experiments would load from one thing to another.

4284.nbsp; Did ho get the cortilicate ?1 do not think that he did.

4299.nbsp; Can you clearly trace them beyond that ?-^ Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

4300.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) That is not quite in conformity with the answer you gave mo, when you said Ayrshire f But you have a great many cross-brod Ayrshires in all parts of Scotland and Ireland.

4301.nbsp; Then the Ayrshire cows to which you allude came from Ireland?Some of them. Speaking of the prevalence of disease in the dairies of Glasgow, it is principally in Ayrshires. Speaking of the disease in animals that arc sold and slaughtered, it is in Irish. These animals are landed from the steamer and taken up direct to the cattle market.

4302.nbsp; (Professor fforsky.) Those are animals landed for slaughter ?Yos. They urn called quot; mincers,quot; worth 30s. to 3/., detestable creatures, they should not bo allowed to come in, They arc to mix up iv ith the flesh of bettor animals for sausages. Wo have 50 quot; mincers quot; a week.

.u.

__,_.___.

l\H

OOMMiTTKK ON PLKURO-PNiaUMONIA AND TUUKKCULOSIS

Prof. .UoCall. 8 Mny 1888.

4303.nbsp; nbsp;You said just now that you liavo no evidence of tuberculosis coming from the United States. Is it the same thing with Canada?Well, all the united States animals are slaughtered in Glasgow when they land. The bulk of tiie Canadians go on, but from inspectionwo make an inspection of them all live stock inspection would indicnto that they are all sound.

4304.nbsp; nbsp;You have no evidence of tuberculosis? No.

4305.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir George Macpherson Grant.) Apartfrom ^hose dairy cattle, do you think that tuberculosis is generally on the increase in Scotland ?I do.

4300.quot; In the herds generally apart from the dairies ? Yes.

4307.nbsp; nbsp;( Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Do you think it feasible and probable that compulsory slaughter and compensation would stamp out tuberculosis ? [ do.

4308.nbsp; nbsp;(Lord Cloncurry.) You mentioned that boiling the milk would make it safe for human use. Would boiling or thoroughly cooking meat have the same effect ?When I say boiling the milk would make it safe for use, I believe it would. The heat to which wo could sidijoct the organisms in the milk would destroy, and if you cook the flesh of the animal very

effectually you might destroy them, but as joints are generally cooked, I think there is a possibility of a great many organisms not being killed.

4309.nbsp; If thoroughly cooked do you think that the germs of the disease would be destroyed ?It would require thorough cooking to do so.

4310.nbsp; Could you detect tuberculosis in the living animal by your inspection ?When the animal is emaciated, then you can auscultate well, I think in the bulk of cases we can make out tuberculosis. But in a fat animal, unless the disease has gone on for a length of time, there is a difficulty undoubtedly.

4311.nbsp; You mention the disease being only in the joint and not in the lung, but in that case would you detect it with certainty ?Tubercular disease is seldom confined to a joint in the lower animal.

4312.nbsp; You said, I think, that it might be in the joint only ?Yes, it might, but what I wish to add is that it eventually affects the flesh, bone?, glands, lungs, bowels, and kidneys.

4313.nbsp; As a general rule can you detect it in life? If the disease has gone on and has thoroughly developed, but in a big fat animal, such as that 23/. ox, it is ihfficult to detect.

i #9632;

The witness withdrew.

//.

Mr. Wooilroof.

Mr. Henry Woodboof called and examined.

4314.nbsp; nbsp;[Chairman.) You are. I believe, a veterinary surgeon living in Caledonian Road, Holloway, London ?Yes.

4315.nbsp; nbsp;May I ask how long you have been in practice ?17 years.

4316.nbsp; Has your practice brought you specially to study cattle pathology ?Yes.

4317.nbsp; nbsp;During that period have yon had any special experience with reference to pleuro-pneumonia ?I have.

4318.nbsp; Is that experience limited to the London dairies or to country practice as well ?London cowsheds and a few suburban dairies.

4319.nbsp; How many outbreaks have you had the treatment of?It is almost impossible for me to say, but a considerable number. I have a long list here to which I will call your attention.

4320.nbsp; nbsp;What has been your usual mode of treatment in the case of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia ?To recommend the slaughter of the animals that are affected, and the inoculation of the rest, of the herd.

4321.nbsp; Has that been your general practice ?It has.

4322.nbsp; How long have you practised inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia?I myself individually for 9 or 10 years. With my uncle, the late Mr. Henry Priestman, I have seen itquot; for longer periods. Of course the whole of my time was spent with him until his death, and since his death the business has been carried on entirely by myself.

4323.nbsp; Is your practice at the present date similar to that carried on by your uncle, Mr. Priestman ?It is.

4324.nbsp; Have you observed within the last few years any great increase in pleuro-pneumonia in the metropolis?No.

4325.nbsp; Do you consider that the Contagious Diseases Animals Act, 1878, has had any influence upon it? I cannot sec any difference in the number of cases or outbreaks that wo have had in the metropolis.

4326.nbsp; Do I understand that you have seen no difference subsequent to 1878, as compared with the previous period ?No, I have not.

4327.nbsp; Do you think that the virus of the disease is conveyed in any way by herdsmen or veterinary surgeons ?No.

4328.nbsp; nbsp;May it be accepted, then, as your opinion that the disease is communicated through the breath only ? I?y actual contact,.

1329. Is it a disease which is easily detected in its earlier stages ?Not always.

4330.nbsp; Therefore we may naturally assume from that, that diseased animals in a mild form frequently escape detection ?Very frequently.

4331.nbsp; And are necessarily elements of danger for the future ?Yes.

4332.nbsp; Have you made many post-mortems ? A considerable number. I may say some thousands. It is a practice always to see the animal after death.

4333.nbsp; But does that apply to the a'nimal in contact as well as the diseased animal ?We have not the means of making post-mortems. We have seen animals in contact after a time sent into the market, to be sold to the butcher who will buy them, and you do not know where they will go to.

4334.nbsp; Have you had any experience of slaughtering since the recent order of compulsory slaughter of animals in contact ?Yes.

4335.nbsp; Have you made any post-mortems of these animals ?I had permission to see one lately slaughtered under this last order, and I think there were 47 slaughtered.

4336.nbsp; What are your details with reference to that case ?One of those animals had suffered from pleuro-pneumonia some time during her lifetime, and recovered.

4337.nbsp; Can you in any way indicate how long ago ? Some months ago.

4338.nbsp; A question of months fYes. A portion of the lung was thoroughly encysted. It was a verj' good instance of a recovered case of pleuro-pneumonia.

4339.nbsp; Had that animal been inoculated ?No.

4340.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that inoculation is the most efficient means of getting rid of the disease in the country?I do in London dairies or in large towns.

4341.nbsp; nbsp;Then do you limit your answer to the dairies in large towns ?Yes.

4342.nbsp; nbsp;What would you say then with reference to the country outbreaks?It is very often that there may be an outbreak in the country, and it is reported, so many animals may be killed inconsequence of being affected with the disease, and a lapse of time will go onthe 56 days which has hitherto been the time and the furnier be free. That man might, perhaps, have some animals that he might like to sellin calf cows ; he sells them, and we get them into the towns and they fall within a short period with pleuro-pneumonia.

4343.nbsp; Could that take place under the present order ? Not if they enforced the order in the country,

'1344. Have you any doubt of the enforcement of that order in the country ?No; 1 am not aware of

MINUTKS OF KVIDKNCK.

138

bused

Mr. II. Woodmtf.

8 May 1888.

imy tnstauco where Iho order lias not boon enforced in the country.

4345.nbsp; Why do you limit the treatment you suggest to the town dairies only ?The consideration of the business that the town dairyman has to carry on.

4346.nbsp; Is it entirely in the commercial interest ot the dairyman that you are nowofforins suggestions?

Yes.

4347.nbsp; nbsp;Your suggestion of treating the country in one way and the towns in another, i.e., the towns by means of inoculation, is not with the special object of getting rid of the disease out of the country ?1 should recommend inoculation in the country just the

4348.nbsp; But you did not say so ?1 should always recommend inoculation on a farm directly there is an outbreak amongst the animals.

4349.nbsp; Do I understand that you consider inoculation the most efficient means of getting rid of the disease out of the country ?Yes.

4350.nbsp; Do you think that inoculation will got rid ot the disease out of the country ?If properly performed.

4351.nbsp; nbsp;But you still seem to have recurrent cases in London?Yes.

4366.nbsp; Is tho nnswer you have just given upon your own experience ?Yes.

4367.nbsp; And relates to work done by your own hands ?Yes. ( Witness then handed in return.)

4368.nbsp; I suppose that you do not consider that inoculation is a safeguard if animals are moved into the country amongst tho uninfeetod herds ?Inoculation is a safeguard if animals are moved into an infected herd. There are so few animals over go out oi a London dairy, except for slaughtoring purposes j but we do not get any uf them.

4369.nbsp; nbsp;Have you ever known a ease where an animal that had boon suffering from pleuro-pneumonia hod a recurrence ofthat disease ?No.

4370.nbsp; nbsp;You said that animals that had been inoculated and mixed with afresh herd might convey pleuro-pneumonia to that herd for some time afterhow l_ong sNot animals Unit had been inoculated for pleuro-pneumonia.

4371.nbsp; You said that inoculated animals might got the disease ?I said that tho cow might fall with disease some time after inoculation.

4372.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Does that refer to your 7 or 8 per cent. ?Yes.

4373.nbsp; nbsp;(Lord Cloncmry.) And might give it to the others ?No, it would not. Tho cow would bo a

healthy cow, and go into an infected herd, and then fall from being in contact with animals in that case.

4374.nbsp; (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) She would take the disease, and therefore, in your opinion, inoculation is not an immunity from pleuro-pneumonia, is that it ? Not totally so. We lose from 7 per cent, to 8 per cent, that have been inoculated.

4375.nbsp; Can an inoculated animal that had contracted the disease after inoculation, convey pleuro-pneumonia to another herd?It the animal was the subject of a disease and recovered from tho disease, it would be a means of spreading the disease.

4376.nbsp; But, supposing the disease was latent in an inoculated animal that hail been turned out of a London dairy into the country, could it communicate that disease then ?If the disease was in the system,

4377.nbsp; Inoculation will not prevent the animal taking the disease, and will not prevent tho animal spreading the disease ; is that what you say ?If tho animal is infected and goes into a herd, whether the animal is to all appearance healthy or not, if the disease is in the system it will spread.

4378.nbsp; How do you reckon that inoculation would free the country from disease, when it may be conveyed in the way you said by inoculated animals r That is a thing that we have never found out that we have had. 1 could never trace the animal coming away from the place, that has taken the disease to another place like that. From my experience, I have had animals free, perfectly healthy, from the country, and they have been inoculated within a week or 10 days or 14 days after arriving on the premises, and within six weeks to three months after their arrival they hiivo fallen with the disease, and then wo have had other ones in the shod where they have been inoculated. That is where wo get the 7 or 8 per cent, loss from inoculntions that have been in contact.

4379.nbsp; Have you had much experience of countiy ]_iel.,l_s yX have not had experience with country herds, but it is with town dairies. We have had a lot of dairies in London. I got these statistics from the books.

4380.nbsp; (Chairman.) Is your experience limited to milk cows ?It is.

'raquo;381. (Professor Horsley.) I understand you ^ to say that yoiir'7 to 8 per cent, loss among cattle which have been inoculated, is due to the fact that you have included Inoculated cattle, which have been exposed within the ordinary incubation period ?Yes.

4382. So that actually the moment you inpciilatc them they may have within them the virus of the disease?Yes, and that aniiiml may raquo;tand in the shed.

4352.nbsp; nbsp;Even in the same byres where inoculation is applied ?Yes, fresh animals.

4353.nbsp; Do I understand that in tho early süiges of the disease the animal may escape very easily ? Very easily.

4354.nbsp; And will be an element of danger tor tho

future?Yes.

4355.nbsp; Therefore you appear to have little hope ot getting rid of it absolutely ?I am afraid from what we have seen for a good many years past with the different outbreaks that we have had, that we cannot trace them beyond. Of course with animals coming fresh in, we do not know where they have come from. Unless there are some means devised for the inoculation of animals in the country, it will be hopeless to think that we will get rid of the disease in London or other towns.

#9632; 4356. Are you aware of any country in the world where there is no pleuro-pneumonia ?The only one that we have any information about is Holland. We have been informed that Holland is free.

4357.nbsp; Do you know by what means Holland was rendered free from disease ?By slaughtering, I was informed.

4358.nbsp; Are you aware whether they have inoculated animals there ?I am not in a position to say.

4359.nbsp; Are you not aware that for years they pursued inoculation, and afterwards had to abandon it and adopt slaughter?I am not in a position to say.

4360.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the present position by which compensation is awarded ?Yes.

4361.nbsp; Do you consider that the system of compensation for London dairymen is in every way satisfactory ?_It is three-quarters for the affected animals, and full value for those they come in contact with.

4362.nbsp; I believe that arrangement does not cause any grumbling on the part of the dairymen ?No ; they are perfectly satisfied with the compensation.

4363.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr, Bowen-Jones.) 1 want to ask whether you think that inoculation will render an animal free from taking the disease in the future ?No ; I have brought some statistics for you, for the years from 1879 down to the present time, of the number of animals inoculated, and the number fallen after inoculation, and the number killed in consequence of the swelling in the tail, and whether disease was on the premises at the time of inoculation or not.

4364.nbsp; Then I understand you to say that animals that have been inoculated, have contracted pleuro-pneumonia after inoculation 'i,Some have, to the extent, according to my papers, of from 7 to 8 per cent, of the number operated upon.

4365.nbsp; Would you like to put those figures in ? Yes.

13laquo;

COMMITTEE ON PLMOnO-VNUÜMONTA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. H. Woodruvf.

8 May 1888.

#9632;1883. Supposiiig yoa have inoculated an animal, midit jjoes Iroui tliu ilivlriea into tliu t'onntrv tmiong an iulocteil hüid. havu .yon any fm'ti .showing that such mi imimal will comi'act the dispuse?J have not liciird ol'ii; 1 Uaw had no expei'ionce.

438). Voiir tiiiswor on that point wns siiii)dv ti ffeiibi'fll aiiBwer that you oannot expuct tm-.h n thing to bo done?Yes.

4886, Do yvw think that if a cow was a cleun cow, tlmt if you inoculated that cow and then sent her into the country, she might either convey the disease or lake the disense?No.

4408.nbsp; nbsp;It is not dun to the excess of virus ?You caimot keep it free IVoin injury, the animal may be struck or kicked.

4409,nbsp; nbsp;That is aftai' the pleuro virus is in it ; you may know that some veterinary surgeons think the virus develops at the point of Injury ? Yes.

1410, Do you also tell whether (lie inoculation is successful, by obsotving eonstitutioiial Symptoms ?; None whatever; 1 never found any effect upon the animals.

4411.nbsp; nbsp;What do you take to be the duration of life of an inoculated animal?In the London sheds, as a rule, tliev stop in for 12 months; it is exceptional to stop in longer, sometimes a cow will milk 18 months or two years after.

4412.nbsp; Have you seen the protection last that time ? Yes.

4413.nbsp; Then two years would be the case in your experience ?It would be an exceptional case for tv cow to remain for two years, except that she calved again in the shed.

4414.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that there are many practical disadvantages connected with the method of inoculation ?No.

4415.nbsp; Do you think that the cowkeepers have any objection ?None whatever.

4416.nbsp; Do they think favourably of it as contrasted with slaughter ?Decidedly so.

4417.nbsp; Is that because they think it is more economical in direct expenditure on cattle killed or destroyed or is it because it is more economical by way of their business not being interfered with ?Because of their business not being interfered with. If their cattle are taken away wholesale their business is gone.

4418.nbsp; Is it possible for a dairyman, if he has his whole dairy cleared out, readily to accommodate himself to that by getting milk from the country ?He could get milk from the country, but the customers would very quickly find it out. If a cowkeeper had disease on his premises, and the public knew of it, they would not take the milk. They would think, at the present time when there is diphtherisv and scarlatina about, that they are going to get something the matter with them in consequence of having the milk,

4419.nbsp; And that would be ruin ?It would. Take the case of a dairy of 100 gallons of milk, and the next week the owner should have pleuro-pneumonia, and was going to kill all his cows, and take them away from the place, it would make no difference if it could be done secretly. That would get amongst the customers, and in less than a fortnight the bulk of that man's trade would be gone.

4420.nbsp; In what time would he recover it ?He never would recover it. Under the old regulations, when they took one animal away which was affected, at the time nobody would know anything about that, the cow would go and be killed, and the customers would not know anything about that, or half-a-dozen uoing singly ; but who.n you come to a wholesale slaughter of a number of animals within a short period of time, they get to know of it, and they do know of it, and the consequence is that their business is gone from them.

4421.nbsp; Do yon think that this slaughtering order has led to the concealment of disease ?Yes.

4422.nbsp; Of course 1 understand that your remarks apply to London dairies only ?Yes.

4423.nbsp; In regard to inoculation, I believe you do not think that the inoculated animal, if previously clean, is capable ofconimnnicaling the disease ?No.

4424.nbsp; In the outbreaks that you have seen, what would be the average number of animals that would , have to be killed under the slaughter order, roughly speakingwhat would be the size of the average herd that yon were dealing with ?40.

4425.nbsp; Now you have said that in one herd you have seen 47 slaughtered at the same time, one was found to have recovered from pleuro-pneumonia for some months ; what whh the laquo;täte of the lungs of the other 46 ?Healthy, ahsoluiely healthy.

the othor ?Xot if suceesK-

438(5. Neither one nor I'nllv inoculated.

1387. What do you take to be the failures of inoculation ? About 6 per cent, The loss half.

4388.nbsp; nbsp;The loss is another thing ?The failureii and the Ijsscs.

4389.nbsp; I mean how many animals do you consider do not take ; have you any facts upon that point ? As a rule, if they do not show sufficiently they require to be done again, and we are not satisfied unless the animals have the symptoms. If they do not take they are re-inoculated

4390.nbsp; nbsp;What do you regard to be the indication that the inoculation has taken successfully ?The swelling in the tail.

4391.nbsp; nbsp;When ought that swelling to arise ?From 10 days to a month after the inoculation.

4392.nbsp; nbsp;What number of animals do you find resist inoculation and re-inoculation, or do you not find any ?Very few.

4393.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give it in a percentage?About 5 per cent.

4394.nbsp; nbsp;Then you think 5 per cent, are not inoculated ?They do not show the swelling of the tail.

4395.nbsp; nbsp;Would you expect these o per cent, to be liable to the risk of taking the disease ?Yes.

4396.nbsp; In all these cases cannot you trace the disease to iis original source ?No.

4397.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any evidence that the cow-houses become infected ?No.

4398.nbsp; nbsp;Do yon think that they do ?No.

4.399. Have you any evidence that the virus is conveyed in any other way than through the airthe breath ?No, through actual contact.

4400.nbsp; nbsp;Do you always inoculate in the same way, by the seton ? Nc, by the incision.

4401.nbsp; Do you rub in the virus?No, drop it into the incision in the tail.

4402.nbsp; nbsp;Do you pour it into the incision ?The incision is made, and the man then holds the tail between the finger and the thumb and stops the blood from tlowing ; the blood is drawn from the incision, and the point of the tail is held by my left hand, to hold the incision, and with the right hand 1 hold the bottle.

1403. How much would you pour in, a drachm ? A few drops, and the man will hold the tail until that is set, and nothing more is done. There are men, of course, in Londoncowmenwho are doing this more than veterinary surgeons, and they are doing it by the seton. This is a thing done by cowmen; they can do as they like, and they cut them to pieces and hack them about, and 1 have been called in to attend to them, when swollen, where these men do them.

4404.nbsp; Why did you give up the seton ?It has never been done ; 1 followed in the same way as my uncle. He was the first to inoculate animals, from 1850. Here is a letter to the quot; Farmers' Chronicle quot; in 1857, when he commenced inoculating.

4405.nbsp; Do you keep the lymph at all?Mo.

4406.nbsp; nbsp;Do you always use it fresh from the lung ? Yes ; on animal killed to-day, the lymph is used to-niorrnw.

4407.nbsp; Bui )ou do keep it 24 liouis ?Ill the winter for three days, but in ihe summer lime I have had an animal killed in the morning and used the lymph in the afternoon ; in those cases the parts surroiinding the roots of the tail ; it is due lo llic excels of pleuro virus or the incipient poison.

l':

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

137

4426.nbsp; Have you ever traced the outbreak to an en-capsuled mass, where the lesion was encapsuled la the lung ?We have suspected that it was so.

4427.nbsp; But not proved by post-mortem cxaminution ?

__No. I will give you an instance that baa happened

#9632;within tho last two months to me. A friend of mine had about 40 cows in his own shed ; I was called four weeks last Sunday to a fat cow. The cow had tailed two or three days. He suspected she had plouro-pneumonia. I saw the cow and told him to have the cow killed; and she weighed 103 stone; she was killed that day. He had a cow in his possession that had never given him any milk, he had bought her in the country, because he thought that ho might get her in calf, and she was perfectly dry, he never could get her in calf. She was taken into that shed last Christinas. He had said he had a doubt about this cow, and he noticed her coughing a great deal. The following day after the affected cow was killed, this cow was killedit was a fat cow weighing 118 store. She was a recovered case of pleuro-pneumonia. That man had been in possession of that cow eight months, but not on those premises. She had been in a field previously. We cannot trace the disease into a shed or any other source. He had one cow that was queer; he thought that she might have been the subject of the disease, and we had her killed to satisfy ourselves that she was all right. She was perfectly heallliy, and she was killed the same day as the suspectei cow, and up to the present time the herd is, to all appearance, apparently healthy, and remains healthy. But four weeks last Sunday the cow was killed, affected the recovered case was brought into the shed at Christmas.

4428.nbsp; What do you imagine to be the usual incubation course of disease ?From one to four months.

4429.nbsp; In the case of the incubation period from so long as four months did you get the post-mortem examination of the virus ?Yes.

4430.nbsp; What was the condition of the lesion?The ordinary case of pleuro-pneumonia.

4431.nbsp; No encystment ?None whatever.

4432.nbsp; Have you ever seen, in one of those cases of long incubation, encystment?Yes, well I know I can give you the period. 1 have seen a case of encystment that we know the animal tailed at a certain time. It was the case of a bull and wo had him killed ; that was three months afterwards.

4433.nbsp; nbsp;But that is the first time, and it failed. You would not consider the average period to be midway between one week and four months; what is the average incubation period ?A month or two months.

4434.nbsp; nbsp;Should we say six weeks ?Six weeks to two months.

4435.nbsp; Do you think that, if an animal has had the disease in it, the inoculation will exaggerate it and bring it out quickly ?Yes.

4436.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling) I suppose you admit that the great object is to get rid of pleuro-pneumonia?I do.

4437.nbsp; nbsp;You are aware that it is doing a great deal of damage to the trade of the country ?It is, and the trade in London as well; it is doing a great deal of damage to the trade generally.

4438.nbsp; Then, if the matter was left in your hands entirely, and yon wore told to take such means as you thought necessary, what would you do ?I should compel the animals to be inoculated.

4439.nbsp; Do you mean compulsory inoculation ?Yes; but to be done by persons capable of doing it, not to

4441.nbsp; Do I understand you to mean that you mustnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Mr. not only compulsorily inoculate, but you must have a ^nr- ^raquo;^quot;⁰⁰/-continuous inoculution ?Yes. _ 8 May 1888.

4442.nbsp; Then you would have to go on inoculating_______

calves year hy year ?Yes.

4443.nbsp; nbsp;And may I ask you what per-centage of animals did you see lose their tails from inflammation ? Lost their life really, half per cent.

4444.nbsp; nbsp;Doos not it strike you that it would be a very serious matter for breeders of pedigree stock ?No.

4445.nbsp; That they are to run the risk of their animals being slaughtered. I suppose you admit that an animal wanting his tail will lose a great deal of value to the importer ?Yes, it would, but the loss is so trifling that I do not think it ought to be considered.

4446.nbsp; You laid great stress on fresh virus ?Yes.

4447.nbsp; nbsp;Does not it occur to you that your system of perpetual inoculation must mean also that, you must have continual disease in order to obtain fresh virus ? You must have the disease or you cannot inoculate.

4448.nbsp; Then you will not get rid of disease in the country. You 'admit that you must have fresh virus ? Yes.

4449.nbsp; nbsp;You admit that you cannot have fresh virus without tho diseased animal ?Yes.

44c0. How do you propose to get tho virus clear ? Do you believe that it is possible to propagate the virus ?No.

4451.nbsp; Have yon read of any experiments taking that direction in other countries ?I have read it, because I saw a letter the other day from Queensland, showing that they intended to establish a place there.

4452.nbsp; But you are not aware that that has been done successfully ?No, I am not.

4453.nbsp; It seems to me that you fail to get rid of the disease ?We get rid of the disease in places in London where we have an outbreak by the inoculation. We have an outbreak and we lose a few of the animals.

4454.nbsp; Then the following year when you get a fresh lot of calves born, it is clear, by your process of inoculation, that you must get the virus to inoculate the calves ?If the country was rid of disease we should not require to do it.

4455.nbsp; You have said thai it must be carried on always, or it would not be satisfactory. It must be perpetual inoculation. Then I think you admitted to the Chairman that the disease was not easy to detect in its early stages ?Not in the early stage.

4456.nbsp; 1 think you said that those attacked in a mild form might escape detection ?They might.

4457.nbsp; And that therefore those would bean element of danger?They would.

4458.nbsp; They would spread disease throughout the country ?Yes.

4459.nbsp; nbsp;How would you hope iu your endeavour to rid the country of the disease to get quit of that element of danger?The only thing is to place restriction on the movement of animals from one place to another.

4460.nbsp; nbsp;To what length would you propose to carry

that ?__To close certain districts where you had those

periodical outbreaks of the disease, and do not allow anything to he moved from that district to another.

4461.nbsp; nbsp;For what period?According to the period of incubation. You would have to go beyond the four months.

*gt;raquo;#9632;

be left in the hands of every cowman, as it is done at the present time.

4440.nbsp; But to be successful it must be compulsory and universal, is that so?Yes; I will give you my reason for that. A man may have an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia and will inoculate and get all light with a certain amount of trouble. There is a great amount of trouble, and directly he has gone on right he will leave off. Ho laquo;ill not take the trouble to inoculate until there is another outbreak, and than he will fly to the inoculation as the means to get straight again, the same as he 1ms done previously.

o S40U3.

4462.nbsp; nbsp;Does not it occur to you that such a system would be a more serious upset to trade than even the present arrangement ?It would cause a great disturbance in trade.

4463.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any experience of pedigree breeding stock ?No.

4464.nbsp; nbsp;You said in your answer to one of my questions, that the loss would he so small. But are you aware that with regard to animals losing their tails in high pedigree stock, such a thing would ruin their chance of exportation to foreign countries ?Yes.

;

138

OOMMITTKK OK I'LEUKO-l'NKUMONIA. AND TUBERCULOSIS:

^ff^

Mr.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 4465. But oven with that knowledge you would bo

H. Woodroof. prepared to recommond compulsory inoculation ?

----- Yes.

8 May 1888.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^g (_Chai_rmnn^ d₀ y_0U regard the health of

the cattle in the London dairies as of tho first importance to the country ?Not tho London dairies only, but all the dairies of largo towns.

4467.nbsp; Do you think that town dailies are of more importance than tho general stock of the country ?I do not say that they are of more importance.

4468.nbsp; nbsp;But that they require tho first consideration ? They have my consideration of course.

4469.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any experience of tuberculosis ? Yes.

44V0. And is it your opinion that it is on the increase or decrease?I do not see any increase whatever. Not for some 3'ears past.

4471.nbsp; To what do you attribute it ?It is hereditary.

4472.nbsp; nbsp;Is it a disease which is easily detected ? Yes.

4473.nbsp; In all its stages ?No.

4474.nbsp; Not in its early stages ?No.

4475.nbsp; Is it frequently confounded with pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

4470.nbsp; Do you liiink it is of great iniportancc to the health of the nation ?I should object myself to eat any portion of an animal affected, if I knew it.

4477.nbsp; nbsp;Is it likely to comnmuicato diseaso to a human being through the medium of the milk ?1 am not in a position to say. I have not had experience of: it individually.

4478.nbsp; Do you think it is of so much importance that you would propose to recommend it as being included in the Contagious Diseases Animals Act ? No.

4479.nbsp; Therefore you consider it of quite secondary importance compared witli pleuro-pnoumouiu. ?Yes.

4480.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) Have you any knowledge of tuberculosis in one animal in a herd going through that herd ?No-

4481.nbsp; Have you any knowledge of any other animals on an establishment, where there are tubercular cows, becoming laquo;fleeted ?No. I have known a ease going from a mother to a daughter and a son. We have certain cases, but we do not got any more.

4482.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Is it your desire to put in this paper ?You are quite at liberty to take that. Those are the dairies where we have bad outbreaks of disease. That is, we inoculate when perfectly healthy, and a fresh animal was introduced into the shed and has fallen a short time afterwards. We have had a case or two in consequence. I will give from 1879 down to 1887, the dfferent years.

Tho witness withdrew.

Mr. A. L. Alexander,

Mr. Albert Lewis Alexander called and examined.

4483. I believe you are a cowkenper, residing at Stepney, in the county of Middlesex ?Yes.

4481. II ow long have you been there ? Since 1859.

4485.nbsp; How many cows have you in your cowsheds ? At the present time, I think, 100.

4486.nbsp; Docs that represent your usual number ? Thereabouts.

4487.nbsp; Have you since 1859 had many outbreaks of cattle diseaso ?I experienced the cattle plague in 1865, 1806, and 1877.

4488.nbsp; Since 1869 have you had any outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes, several times.

4489.nbsp; How many times ?I could not tell you.

4490.nbsp; nbsp;Up to 1865 you were more frequently subject to it than since ?Yes.

4491.nbsp; To what do you attribute tliat ?Well, I really could not say.

4492.nbsp; nbsp;Do you ascribe it to inoculation ?Well, I suppose it is due to inoculation.

4493.nbsp; nbsp;Have you continued tho inoculating in every case of outbreak since 1865 ?Yes.

4494.nbsp; nbsp;And were your losses very great previous to 1865?I should, say we might have lost 30 to 40 cows a year with pleuro or lung disease; that is what we used to call it previous to 18G5; 30 or 40 cows a year.

4495.nbsp; What has been your loss since 1865 per annum?Considerably less than that. T should say 0 or 7 per cent.

4490. Do you inoculate every animal that comes into your byre ?Every one.

4497.nbsp; How long do you keep the cows in your shed ? I seldom keep cows in ; I feed them off, so that the duration of time they remain with me is 12 to 15 or 16 months.

4498.nbsp; I suppose they are always in a condition, more or less, to go to the butcher. When was the last case of outbreak with you ?In 1882,

4499.nbsp; In the last six years, I think you said, you have not had a case ?I have not. I rebuilt my premises in 1880, and built some very large airy sheds. I attribute their increased health to the fact of their having these good sheds instead of the old ones, which were very old and low-pitched, and that sort of thing.

4500.nbsp; Have you also devoted greater attention and care to the purcbaso of animals ?I generally buy them at markets.

4501. l)y your

Is it your practice own hand ?-My

to inoculate your animals : on docs it at present; I

used to do it, or my foreman.

4502.nbsp; Is it a very delicate operation ?I think not.

4503.nbsp; You do not think it is an operation so delicate but that any ordinary careful man could perform it ? No doubt.

4504.nbsp; nbsp;Had you many losses from inoculation ?I should say our losses averaged two or three a year.

4505.nbsp; nbsp;As 1 understood, you inoculate your cows when they coinc into tho sheds, or you would have an outbreak of disease every year ?Probably.

4500. I also gather that you attribute your immunity from diseaso more to improved buildings than to any other thing ?Well, I cannot say that; I should say both combined. I have not given up inoculation because I have the better sheds, I have still kept it on, and I think I derive benefit from it.

4507.nbsp; nbsp;But you, however, inoculated before 1882, and with the altered sheds and inoculation you have had a less amount of deaths ?I certainly had.

4508.nbsp; nbsp;What per-centage of animals did not take inoculation ?That varies very considerably. Sometimes we had half-a-dozen cows, and they might all, as we call it, take, by swelling at the tail; sometimes one or two will take very slightly, but as a rule they take.

4509.nbsp; You never keep an animal sufliciently long to enable you to know whether it could take the disease twicea second time ?I never keep them more than 15 tn 18 months, us the extreme.

4510.nbsp; During that period have you over known an instance occurring a second time with one animal ? Never.

4511.nbsp; Have you ever known an instance where an animal took the diseaso after inoculation ?Yes.

4512.nbsp; Very frequently ?I will not say if the tail swelled and tho animal took, but if it did not take I have known them to go away witli pleuro, but where they took I have never seen any cases whore they had to go away.

4513.nbsp; Do you think that one of the causes of not taking the disease was that the disease was in existence at the time ?We could not say that at the time,

4514.nbsp; nbsp;Would you think it a dangerous animal diat did not take and was allowed to go away?Not at all; I should only regard her as dangerousas being open to infection if she was exposed to it.

_____

MVNUTKS OK KVlDimCK.

180

4515. Not as likoly to impart it, would it ?No; I should not consider tlio iiioculiition any protection unless it took.

451G. Are you satisfied with your present system of compensution ?Yes.

4517.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) I do not think you said how many cows you kept?120 cows; sometimes more, sometimes less.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; an.

4518.nbsp; nbsp;And what do you do with the milk ?Sell it to dealers wholesale.

4619. If you have an outbreak of pleuro again in your byro, under the present regulations 1 suppose you are aware that all animals in contact will need to bo killed ?I am aware of that.

4520.nbsp; Do you think thai that would cause you auy great loss ?I am sure it would.

4521.nbsp; I think you said that you were satisfied with the system of compensation ?So, 1 am so far as regards the amount per head, but we are not compensated for imy loss that might otherwise arise.

4522.nbsp; What would be that loss ?I should lose the trade, and my dealers would go elsewhere, and probably I should not get tliciu back. I should have large grain contracts thrown on my hands, and I should not know what to do with my grains.

4523.nbsp; nbsp;You say in the first place that the dealers would not have your milk?They would not get it because I should not have cows.

4524.nbsp; Would it not be perfectly possible to supply them with milk from other sources ?It would be a different article altogother.

4525.nbsp; Not as good as your own ?Our dealers prefer to see our cows milked.

4526.nbsp; They would not bo satisfied with milk that you could get elsewhere ?No.

4527.nbsp; But as a matter of fact you could get it else-whore ?I could get it, but they would not take it from mo ; they might got it direct from the country, but they would not have it throngli me.

4528.nbsp; You have no written contracts with the brewers for the grains ?No written contracts.

4529.nbsp; Have you any contract as regards the milk supply ?Not at present.

4530.nbsp; Are yon aware that it is customary to have contracts with a clause stating that in the event of an outbreak of disease in the byre you should not be held liable ?If I made contracts with anybody I should undoubtedly wish to have such a clause inserted.

4531.nbsp; Why do you prefer to work without a contract ?__Well, we are old established and people come

to us and ask us to supply them, and if it is convenient wo do so ; and if we hear that they are good men and that they pay we take them on, and there is no contract on either side.

4532.nbsp; Hut in view of the present regulations being carried out and continued you would consider _ it necessary to protect yourself with regard to the milk contract'?Well, the man of course could not get the milk if the cows were killed, and he would not take country milk for the reason that I stated just now.

4533.nbsp; The man would have to go to some other pbicc for it. You say that he would not take country miik. If he took country milk he would go direct to the country dealers. There are large country dealers at all the railway stations.

4534.nbsp; The man in the country would be the gainer by your loss ?No doubt about it. I may say that we have contracted for the supply of grains with Messrs. Taylor, Walker amp; Co. since 1859, and Ciiar-rington's since 1868, and J have not been asked at cither brewery to outer into a contract, and I have cleared them of a proportion of their grains. I have recently contracted with Mann, Grossman amp; Co. and have signed to clear them of a certain proportion of their grainraquo;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

4535.nbsp; (ProfmorH'oraley,') In the cases in which you say inoculation did not take, and in which the animals suffered from pleuro-pneumonia afterwards. I presume you mean that those were animals that you had inoculated directly you bought them ?We always inoculated thorn within a short time.

453(5. And wore they animals that you could trace at all ?No.

4537.nbsp; nbsp;So that of courso tiioy may have got the disease before they were inoculated ?That may have been so.

4538.nbsp; From your experience of the disease, what do you consider to be the usual incubation time of the disoaso, the time of the poison getting into the cow before it shows itself?! really could not give an opinion upon that subject.

4539.nbsp; nbsp;What per-centagc of animals do you lose from inoculation ?About 2 or 3 per cent.

4540.nbsp; Is that usually from the swelling going up to the tail and reaching the body ?Yes, and stopping the passages.

4541.nbsp; nbsp;Where do you get your virus from, the lymph ?From slaughter-houses.

4542.nbsp; You are always careful to choose the transparent and the clear ?The only care that wo exercise is to got the pieces of lungs as fresh as possible, so that the stuff that runs from it has no disagreeable smell and is not at all decomposed.

4543.nbsp; But the stuff that runs is a watery fluid, it is not like matter at all ?No, it is transparent.

4544.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir George Macphersow Grant.) You say that your customers would not take country milk ? They would have to do it if they could not get town milk.

4645. You say they would not take it from you ? From choice they would not.

4546.nbsp; Is that a common feeling among London customers ?I think so ; there is a very largo trade, especially at the Wost-oiul of London, where dealers prefer shed milk to country milk.

4547.nbsp; {Chairman.) Are you aware what the speci-fic gravity ofycur milk is?I am not at all a scientific man.

4548.nbsp; I want to get at the reason. Is it an impression that the milk from London is more honestly distributed than that from the country ?I suppose it is. They pay a higher price for it, and where men pay a higher price for an article it is only fair to assume that they esteem it more highly.

4549.nbsp; Do the retail customers pay a higher price for the town milk than they do for the country ?I do not think that there is any difference in the retail price, only the wholesale price.

4550.nbsp; How far is your place of business from Westminster ?We are just within the four-mile radius from Charing Cross.

4551.nbsp; nbsp;Is there anything in the nature of the food that renders your milk more valuable than if you had lived 20 miles from Charing Cross ?Not a I all. If I fed exactly on the same foods it would be the same.

4552.nbsp; Then it comes to this, that it is probably a matter of prejudice and custom and habit on the part of the milk dealer to use your milk ill preference to country milk ?I think that the dealer prefers that milk where ho could see the cows milked before his eyes, and also so that he can sell it while it is almost

warm.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.#9632;,,lt;. , .

4553.nbsp; How does he see the cows milked before his eyes, seeing that you sent it in to the wholesale dealer?No, theyquot;come with their ponies and carts and fetch it mostly ; some we send out.

4554.nbsp; They come in time to see it milked, do they ? They take care of that, and they see it milked, and carry it from the milker themselves up to the measuring place in many instances.

4555.nbsp; And you consider that if you lived at ft greater distance from London, beyond the reach of the wholesale dealer, and he could not come with his cart to your place, that would be a disadvantage ?I should be selling cold milk instead of warm.

4556.nbsp; Now, then, we arc coming to another point. Is the clement of value in your milk the fact of its being warm ?Well, its freshness. It is new milk.

4557.nbsp; Have you any experience of tuberculosis among your cows ?Is that what we call grapey ?

1558. Yes ?Wc call cows grapey.

a 2

Mr. A. L.

Alexander.

8 May 1888.

#9632;';1

140

OOMMITTEK ON PLEURO-I'NEUMONIA AND TUBEROUIiOSIS!

Mr. A. L.

Alexander.

8 May 1888.

4550. Have you found a greater number of these grapey cows recently than formerly ?No, I have not seen any for a long timenot amongst mine.

4560. But you have not any reason to think that this disease is on the increase ?Not at all.

4561.nbsp; Is there any prejudice amongst your customers if they thought that you had grapey cows ?I should think that there would be.

4562.nbsp; It has never been brought before you in u tangible form ?No.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till Thursday next at 12 o'clock.

NINTH DAY.

Thursday, ICth May 1888.

PRESENT :

Mk. JACOB WILSON in the Chaih.

Loud Cloncuebt.

Sin G borge Macphkkhon Grant.

Mr. Stirling (ot Kippendavie).

Mr. Bowbn-Jones. Professor Brown, C.B. Professor Horslbt, F.R.S.

Mr. Dawson, Secretary.

lit

Mr. W. Duthie.

10 May 1888.

Mr. William Dothie, of Collynie, Aberdeenshire.

4563.nbsp; (Chairman.) You live at Collynie, in Aberdeenshire?I live at the village of Tarves.

4564.nbsp; And you are a farmer on a large scale ? Yes.

4565.nbsp; Will you kindly describe to the Committee the number of acres in your occupation ?About 500 acres.

4566.nbsp; You are also a shorthorn breeder ?Yes.

4567.nbsp; nbsp;What is the extent of your shorthorn herd ? Upwards of 200.

4568.nbsp; And in addition to your shorthorn herd, do you annually feed a certain number of other cattle ? Yes.

4569.nbsp; How long have you occupied your present farm ?Since my father's death, about 16 years ago.

4570.nbsp; And during that interval have you had any outbreaks of cattle disease in your stock ?No.

4571.nbsp; Of no description ?Well, I may mention, that I had some supervision of the farm of Tillyeye, Udny, where the stock were crosses and feeding cattle; and two years ago this stock had a severe attack of pleuro-pneumonia, so that my attention was called particularly to it in that way.

4572.nbsp; Then your personal experience of pleuro-pneumonia is limited to the one outbreak you mention at Tillyeve, Aberdeenshire ?---That is so.

4573.nbsp; In addition to your personal knowledge of this, you are also familiar with other outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in your immediate neighbourhood ? Yes.

4574.nbsp; Have there been many serious outbreaks in Aberdeenshire lately?About 5056 within the county since Whitsuntide 1887, nnd I think 51 just recently.

4675.nbsp; Are you aware how many cattle have been affected in those outbreaks ?There have been slaughtered altogether, since Whitsuntide 1887, since the 26th May 1887, 1,403 cattle, and in this recent attack 1 think that the numbers would be about 1,200, of those slaughtered since the recent order.

4676.nbsp; Of these 1,403 can you tell us how many nave been slaughtered under the recent order of com-

pulsory slaughter?I think nearly 1,100, more than 1,000 at any rate.

4577.nbsp; nbsp;Can you tell us out of that number how many were slaughtered without actual disease?I cannot tell you that.

4578.nbsp; You cannot tell us the number of actually diseased animals and the number of animals in contact which were slaughtered ?No. I might say that a good many of those animals showed no symptoms of disease until they were slaughtered. A good many of the cattle had no appearance whatever of disease until they were actually slaughtered.

4579.nbsp; nbsp;Have you, personally, seen the carcases after slaughtering ?home of them.

4580.nbsp; And did you yourself observe indications of disease ?Yes.

4581.nbsp; Was that disease, which you observed, in the animals which had not developed the disease but which were supposed to be healthy though in contact ? Yes.

4582.nbsp; Did you observe any case of an encysted lung ?No, I have not seen that.

4583.nbsp; Do you approve of the policy of the last order for compulsory slaughter?Yes, thoroughly.

4584.nbsp; Would you consider that the Act of 1878 as hitherto adopted was too permissive in its character ? Oh, yes, much too permissive.

4585.nbsp; nbsp;And in what respect ?Simply because you could find one local authority acting rightly and fairly, and half-a-dozen within a small radius acting altogether differently.

4586.nbsp; nbsp;You consider, therefore, that the uniform action which is now being attempted by the compulsory slaughter order is likely to rid the country of disease ?Yes, I do.

4587.nbsp; Do yon think it would be good policy on the part of the Privy Council after a certain time to relax the slaughter order which is now in operation ?-I think that it would be the very worst policy, and in such cases where it has been thoroughly carried out by the authorities I think that it would be very unjust to them to relax in the least.

^;(r

MINUTES OF KVIDKNCK.

141

4588.nbsp; nbsp;Of course you arc aware that pleurn-pnou-

ordinary attack. Therefore, in fairness, Kincardine-

Mr. W. Duthie.

shire ought to pay to sonio ü*tent. I laquo;to not want Kincardineshiri) to pay the whole, but I say that this ₁₀ _May _1888iis an unequal bunion upon Aberdeonshire.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;------_

4603.nbsp; Then tho only way to put them on an equal footing would be by payments from the Imperial fund ? Undoubtedly.

4604.nbsp; Is it your opinion that plouro-pneumoma is indigenous to this country ?No.

4605.nbsp; Do you consider that it is an imported disease ? Yes.

4606.nbsp; And being an imported disease you consider it more likely to be capable of suppression ?Quite so.

4607.nbsp; By what means do you consider that the disease is communicated from one animal to another ? I think that generally it is communicated by the breath of the living animal. I would not go as far as to say that it was not capable of being communicated in a place where diseased animals had been and fresh animals put in without the place being disinfected. I am very doubtful about that, but I believe in most of our cases that the disease has been communicated by the breath of the living animal.

4608.nbsp; Was I correct in understanding that you recommended that the present order should be a permanent order ?Certainly.

4609.nbsp; Would not that eventually entail much expense upon the country ?No, it would entail very little expense. It might at the present entail a good deal, but comparatively little afterwards.

4610.nbsp; Have you personally exercised or performed the operation of inoculation ?No.

4611.nbsp; Has such treatment been much attempted in Aberdeenshire ?I do not think so.

4612.nbsp; Has it been attempted at all ?I think it has, but I do not know tho particulars.

4613.nbsp; Is it your opinion that it is at all suited to the immediate purpose of exterminating the disease from the country ?Not to a great extent.

4614.nbsp; Do you consider that the only efficient means at your disposal of effecting that object is to stamp it out by compulsory slaughter ?Undoubtedly.

4615.nbsp; Do you consider that the cheapest as well as the most efficient way ?Yes.

4616.nbsp; Is the disease in your experience difficult to detect ?Very difficult sometimes.

4617.nbsp; And even in the hands of the most expert veterinary surgeon a diseased animal might pass undetected ?Yes.

4618.nbsp; Can you give us any instance in proof of such an assertion?In no fewer than 10 of the recently slaughtered herds in Aberdeenshire, the disease was communicated by animals which, while alive, presented no symptoms of being affected. These animals were suspected of having been the means by which the disease had been brought to tho farms. Two or three veterinarians of great eminence, such as Mr. Thompson, of Aberdeen, one of our very best men, examined these animals with the greatest care, and were unable to detect it in the cattle while alive. But when they were killed the disease was found in the encysted form, thus proving that these animals, which they had suspected, had really brought the disease to the herds. In such cases what good could inoculation have done ?

4619.nbsp; Does the description which yon gave us a short while ago, in connexion with the cattle from the Orkneys or Caithness, indicate your opinion of the means by which pleuro-pneumonia was imported and spread in Aberdeenshire ?That is my opinion, so far araquo; I can gather, and I paid a great deal of attention to it.

4620.nbsp; Might I take it that the opinion which you have expressed with reference to inoculation, as compared with stamping out by compulsory slaughter, iraquo; shared by the general body of the farmers of Aberdeonshire ?Assuredly. I have had very good opportunities of ascertaining the feeling, having attended several representative meetings, such as one held on the occasion of the Royal Northern Show at Aberdeen last July; it was a very large meeting, in fact, the

IP ' f i

monia sometimes exists for a oonstdernble time before it is discovered ?Yos,

4589.nbsp; And you do not regard that as ivny great impediment to the succossful carrying out of this measure ?No ; I feel this, that oven wlien _ the country is fairly cleared we shall have occasional outbreaks for some time, but I think that it will bo comparatively trifling if we can only make this order a standing law.

4590.nbsp; Is there any modification that you would suggest which might render the present order less onerous ?I think that 10 days is too short a period to enforce the slaughter of a condemned herd.

4591.nbsp; What extension would you suggest ?Not less than 30 days.

4592.nbsp; Why do you consider that such extension ot time is necessary ?Because when we have to slaughter and turn a herd into money within such a short time we cannot do it very profitably. It is difficult to turn over profitably a great number of cattle in such a short time; it is troublesome to the farmer, and very difficult for the authority to realise it profitably. In the case of dairies it is a great hardship for the dairyman. A great many of his cows may be healthy enough and giving milk, and when they have to be destroyed to oust the disease then he has not a supply of milk for his customers, and it is a loss to him, because his customers go away to the other dairymen.

4593.nbsp; Therefore, the difficulties of the dairymen would be considerably diminished if the number of days were extended to 30 ?I have no doubt.

4594.nbsp; Do you consider that the present system of granting compensation for animals slaughtered a satisfactory one?I think that it is right when there is full compensation.

4595.nbsp; Is it your opinion that the funds for the purpose of compensation should come from local or Imperial sources ?Imperial sources, undoubtedly.

4596.nbsp; And you express that opinion from a belief that the consumer is equally interested with the producer ?I have no doubt about it.

4597.nbsp; And you regard this as a large national question?Quite so; that is the light in which I regard it.

4598.nbsp; Do you think there would be the same care and attention devoted to the detection of disease and carrying out of the Act if all the orders came from a central authority rather than the local authority ? __I think that both must co-operate in that case.

4599.nbsp; You probably assume that the orders of the central authority would be carried out by the local authority ?Yes.

4600.nbsp; Do you think that it would be desirable that the local authority should contribute any portion of that so as to give it a greater interest in the matter ?I am not quite sure about that.

4601.nbsp; This has boon suggested by an eminent Scotch witness, and I should like to have your opinion upon if, ?Well, I have not thought that out.

4602.nbsp; What is your reason for considering that it

would be more desirable that the payment should come

from the Imperial rather than a local fund ?

Principally because certain local authorities and boards

of guardians are just now hesitating and unwilling

to really carry out the recent order. They are afraid

of incurring unpopularity by such a serious increase

of the rates. Then there is another thing; it falls

rather unequally on certain parts of the country and on

certain districts. I might point to such a case as the

county of Aberdeen. Not that proprietors or tenants

there would grudge even heavy rates, if others did

their share. But the last outbreak was imported from

a neighbouring county, when Aberdeonshire had been

cleared. Two cows wore brought to an auction mart

at Aberdeen, and were penned there for several days

with clean cattle from Orkney and CaithnPSS. Some

of these cattle remained for a week in this auction

mart, and the result was that they spread disease

throughout the whole county, and we had this extro

I' |

1*2

OOMMITTJBB ON I'T.KUUO-I'NKIIMONIA ANraquo; TUHEHCUIiOSIS :

Mr. II'. Vuthü.

10 May 1888.

pliice was crowded with farmors, breoders, and feeders ; und a resolution was passed unanimously in favour o(' slaughter. There was not a voice raised thoro laquo;gainst it. I happened to bo chairman.

4G21. {M?: Stirling.) quot;Wero you not a member of the local authority of Aberdeen ?No.

4G22. But from your experience in Abenloenshire, I suppose you are pretty well satisfied that the local authorities in the country generally have never worked entirely harmoniously ?They have not. In some parts thoy have not done it, In Abordoon I must say that thoy have thoroughly.

4623. You stated it, as your opinion, that it would be desirable that the compensation should be paid from the Imperial Treasury ?Yes.

4G24. Do you not, think it would be better then that on the Imperial Treasury should be thrown the whole responsibility of making the orders and seeing them carried out ?I would undoubtedly say so. In fact, it is absolutely necessary that the Treasury should sen to it, as all local authorities are not to bo relied on.

4623. I mean that the order should be given by the central authority and not left to the discretion of the local authorities, do you say that ?Most certainly.

4626.nbsp; nbsp;Do you suggest that the time should be extended from 10 to 30 days ?Not less than 30 days.

4627.nbsp; nbsp;That is with a view of obtaining better prices ?That is so in part.; making the ineonve-nionce rather less.

4628.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that 30 days would be sufficient to allow the animals to bo fattened and got into an appreciably better condition for the market?It is not so much for the purposes of fattening, they might bo improved a little in that time, but that would not be of much consequence. But buyers of this class of cattle are not numerous, and such a short time is inconvenient for the farmers and the authorities. It is necessary to allow more time to make a fair bargain and get the cattle turned to good account.

4629.nbsp; nbsp;That was the object of my question in asking whether 30 days was long enough to allow you to do it ?I do not know that it is, but 30 days, I think, would be about the right time. It is objectionable to give too long a time to hang the disease on.

4630.nbsp; nbsp;You would think 60 days too long ?Yes ; I would think 00 days too long.

4631.nbsp; Even provided that no beast was allowed to leave the byre except for slaughter ?The order does provide for that. I think 60 days would be rather long.

4632.nbsp; nbsp;Speaking now more particularly in regard to dairy cows, where there is no stock except dairy stock, would you have any objection to their being allowed to remain alive, provided that they never left those premises except to go to the slaughter-house, would there be any danger to the neighbourhood ?There is always this danger ; there is the danger from calves. VVc have had several eases in Aberdeenshire where calves coming from dairies have brought the disease to the farms.

4633.nbsp; You say that there is a danger from calves. Have you, in your experience, ever known a case where disease has been brought to a farm by a calf coming from a dairy?Yes.

4634.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give us that instance?On the farm of Tillymaud, In that case it could be traced only to some calves bought from the Aberdeen dairies,

4635.nbsp; nbsp;In the case of Tillymaud, can you tell mo what steps were taken : wero the calves slaughtered ? It is some time ago, and this order was not in force, but I think that the calves were slaughtered.

4636.nbsp; nbsp;How are you satisfied it was the calves that brought the disease ?I am only speaking from the opinion of Mr. Walker, who is the farmer, and the opinion that prevailed in the district, I was not at Tillymaud, nor did I see the cattle at all. T am giving you the opinion of the owner and the in-niiccfnr.

4637.nbsp; nbsp;Then you are not awaro yourself whether the calves were slaughtered, and if slaughtered, whether their lungs were examined ?No, I do not know that.

4638.nbsp; Speaking generally, as far as you are aware, are you satisfied with the valuations under the Act ? Yes, quite satisfied with the valuations that have been made in our district. They have been thoroughly and well done.

4639.nbsp; How do you value them in your district? The local authority has one man, a salesman in Abcr-neen, Mr. Reith ; he values for the local authority.

4640.nbsp; For the whole county ?Yes ; and then tho farmer nominates another farmer to value with Mr. Reith. Failing agreement between those two men, they appoint an oversman, who settles any dispute.

4641.nbsp; Is that a new system in Aberdeenshire, or has it been carried out for some time ?That has been carried on before. I have myself valued for farmers along with Mr. Reith.

4642.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) You said that the disease in tho last outbreak was brought in from Kincardineshire ?Yes.

4643.nbsp; Do you know where those cattle came from before coining to Kincardineshire ?No, I do not, Tho man who sent us the trouble has a dairying stock for supplying milk to Stonehaven and Aberdeen. The disease had been about his premises for a good long time. And yet, between the owner and a very indifferent veterinariancither indifferent in point of knowledge or in point of charactertho disease was never pronounced plouro. But there is no doubt about the case, because the owner has been prosecuted, and the veterinarian, and both have had to pay smartly for it. They must have suspected it when thoy got away the cattle.

4644.nbsp; nbsp;Is it known where they got the disease from originally ?No, I do not know that. It would be difficult. He would be getting stock from England, Ireland, and other parts.

4645.nbsp; What is the general opinion in previous outbreaks in Aberdeen as to the disease being imported ? It has been generally thought that it has como from Ireland.

4646.nbsp; That is the general opinion. What are the facts upon which it has been based ? Have cattle been traced ?Yes. We have had outbreaks in lots of Irish cattle.

4647.nbsp; Can you give the Committee the ports from which those cattle came ?I do not know the ports. They were generally brought to Aberdeenshire from the southgenerally from Glasgowand sold either at the sales or in the open markets in lots.

4648.nbsp; You do not know whether they came more from Dublin ?Dublin is considered the most dangerous place.

4649.nbsp; You do not think it possible that the disease could arise spontaneously ?I do not think that it could.

4650.nbsp; How do you think that the poison is conveyed from animal to animal ? You said just now it was through the breath ?Yes, I believe so.

4651.nbsp; Is there any other way ?Well, 1 do not think that there is any other way, but I would not like to put healthy stock into a byre from which diseased stock were removed without having it thoroughly disinfected.

4652.nbsp; Have you any facts showing that a byre could be infected in that way ?No, I do not know that I have.

4653.nbsp; nbsp; It is only a belief. You would not like to state it as your opinion ?No.

4654.nbsp; Do you believe that the virus could be carried on the clothes of anybody ?1 do not think so.

4655.nbsp; From your experience what has boon the length of time for animals coming in contact and developing the disease ?Well, in ordinary eases, from 80 to 40 days.

4656.nbsp; Have yon known a case where R much longer time has elapsed ?Yes.

11 *

MINUTES OP HVIDIONCK.

143

4057. WhiU is tho longest time you have known ? We have had a case of a laquo;ovv being brought to a farm in tho month of October, and there was no appearance of anything wrong in the stock until the beginning of March.

405laquo;. Was there no movement of cattle during that time ?Not a beast.

. 4659. When that cow was slaughtered what was tho condition of the lungs ?She had pleuro in the encysted form.

4000.nbsp; Do you know of any other case such as that of such a long period elapsing ?I do not know of any other so long. We have had cases longer than what I stated30 to 40 daysa good deal longer than that. In the most recent case in the county of Aberdeen, of Mr. Hay's, of Ythsie. In this case tho animal that is thought to have brought it to the farm came there about November. At any rate it was there before December, and when the animal was slaughtered, although there was no appearance to cause suspicion before slaughtering, it was found to be a very peculiar case of this encysted lung.

4001.nbsp; In what month was tiiat animal slaughtered? It was slaughtered at the end of April or beginning of this month. It is within a fortnight.

4002.nbsp; Then practically it is as long a case as the other. There was no other animal brought m during that period was there ?Yes, some black polled Orkney cattle in January.

4003.nbsp; Were they brought straight in from Orkney ? Yes.

4004.nbsp; There was no suspicion of disease about them ?Not any.

4605. In those cases where the animal had appeared to be healthy for such a long period was the examination conducted with the thermometer and driving tost, and so on ?Yes.

4000. Are you quite sure that the thermometer was used ?I cannot say that, although it is likely, for Mr. Thompson, the veterinary inspector of Aberdeen, is most thorough, and very particular in his esamina-tions, a.nd very well acquainted with the disease.

4007. Has it been brought to your notice at all that this stamping order has led to the concealment of the disease ?No, I do not know since the stamping out order has come into operation with us that the disease has been concealed. There was occasional concealment before, but certainly not since.

4608. Why?Because they got but a poor pittance for their losses.

4009. But now in tho improved scheme there would be no concealment ?No. I think it cures that.

4070. Do you think that there will bo any difference between brooding farmers and dairy keepers in that ? Do you tliink that both are likely to be satisfied with the compensation ?-Well, 1 suppose both would have sometimes to suffer loss.

4671. But on tho average the loss of a dairy keeper would be greater than that of a breeder. I mean an ordinary breeder ?Undoubtedly.

4072. Do you think that it would be more just to put in a special compensation for a dairy keeper who would lose tho whole of his business ?In the case of dairy cows they are not valued at what they are worth to slaughter. They are valued at what they are worth for dairy purposes.

4673.nbsp; nbsp;What is tho difference in value between a cow as an ordinary cow and as fit for the butcher ? At least 50 per cent. There wotdd be a loss of 50 per cent. I moan to say, that the loss from the slaughtering of a cow and the turning it into beef would bo n loss of 50 per cent, to the local authority.

4674,nbsp; You said before, and of course wo know, that the principal loss to a dairy keeper would be the double loss of his business ?Yes,

4075. Do you think that it would be just to charge upon the rates a special compensation to dairy keepers for such loss ?I do not think so.

4070. If it was paid for from tho Imperial Treasury, would you consider it right ?I do not think myself

qualified to give a right answer to (hat, for this reason, thftt I have not Bufflolently considered it. I have had little experience of the condition of dairymen and of their business, I have not thought it nocossary as far as I have considered it.

4077. In answer to Mr. Stirling, yon said that the dunger of leaving cows in dairies under quarantine and under rigid inspection would be that sometimes we should have the disease brought out of a dairy through a calf ?Yes.

4678.nbsp; Do you think that there would be that risk by leaving the cows in ?I believe that if no cow was allowed to get away from the placo at all, and no calfif the supervision was most thoroughI do not think there would be so much objection to it.

4679.nbsp; But what rules would you propose to prevent such bringing out of a cow ?They would require to be very stringent, and it would be very difficult to carry them out. I am afraid they would be too difficult to carry out.

4680.nbsp; Do you think it would bo possible to mark tho cows in a dairy in a manner to prevent it, that directly they would be brought out they would bo recognised ?I suppose that that could be done.

4681.nbsp; If they had a large letter quot;Pquot; on them, which is a recognised mark, or quot; P.P.,quot; would that do ?Of course they could be marked, and some arrangement may bo necessary in order to help the dairyman, but it seems very objectionable to leave any trace or root of this destroyer.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

1682. Have you had any experience of tne importation of disease at the port of debarkation ?None.

4683.nbsp; Then you have nothing to suggest to the Committee as to the best means of preventing it being brought into the country from foreign parts ?If we can clear Ireland, England, and Scotland, and continue the present arrangement, we will not have the disease. That is my idea.

4684.nbsp; (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) Although you are not a member of the local authority of Aberdeen-shire, you have a very largo acquaintance with the farmers of the county ?Yes.

4685.nbsp; And you are justified in expressing their opinion as your own ?Yes. I was one of a deputation of a large meeting of breeders this spring to wait upon the local authority of Aberdeen shire, and to bring under their notice the opinion of that meeting as to pleuro.

4680. You have as a breeder of shorthorns considerable experience of the foreign trade ?Yes.

4687. Is that very much interfered with at present ? Very seriously interfered with.

4088. Do the breeders of Aberdocnshire feel that inconvenience ?Yes, very much.

#9632;1(589. And the loss ?And the loss.

4090. Is it a fact that your exportation of breeding animals to America is at present at a standstill altogether ?The Americans have passed a law which actually prevents us sending. We cannot get them in unless we clear the country of disease.

4691.nbsp; But if your district of Aberdeenshire was cleared of pleuro-pneumonia, do you anticipate that you would reap great benefit from the renewal of exportation of breeding animals to the united States ? A very great benefit.

4692.nbsp; Your experience is principally derived from the landward part of the county of Aberdeenshire ? Yes.

4093, At the same time you have a general knowledge of the Aberdeen dairies ?To some extent.

1694. Have there been any recent outbreaks in tho Aberdeen dairies ?Yes, I think there have been several cases ; there was at least one in Causeway End.

4695, Is that since the passimraquo; of the slaughter order ?Yes.

4690. Wore those animals all slaughtcird ?Yes; 21,

4097, Have you any knowledge as to the loss and inconvenience to which that owner was subjected ? I do not know the dnirymaii.

Mr. W. Dutln't,

10 May 188S

iraquo;

144

OOMMITTBE ON PLEURO-PMBUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS;

Mr. W. Duthie.

10 May 1888

4698.nbsp; But you know that if the cattle are all slaugh-tored and the pi-emises disinfected lie can immedintely fill up the byre again with fresh cuttle?Yes.

4699.nbsp; nbsp; You have been asked svoral questions by Professor Horsloy as to the alternative treatment in the case of dairies; do I understand you to think that you can work two sots of rules or regulations in the county of Aberdeen ?I think that they are very objectionable.

4700.nbsp; nbsp; Would you prefer uniformity ?Undoubtedly.

4701.nbsp; Both for breeders and dairies ?For everybody ; the hardship would only be temporary to the dairyman.

4702.nbsp; Have you ever heard the dairyman speaking of it as quot; total ruin quot; ?No.

4703.nbsp; Have yon ever heard him talk of absolute destruction to his business ?No.

4704.nbsp; And you do not consider that if it were practicable under proper supervision to make rules to prevent any cattle, either cows' or calves, leaving the dairies, that that would be satisfactory to the large farmers and stock-breeders in Aberdeenshire ?I do not think that if; would be satisfactory; it may be necessary to do something of the kind, bat it will be a misfortune

4705.nbsp; Will you say why you think it might be necessary ?Well, I would not like to ruin the poor dairyman if he could really show that it meant ruin to him.

4706.nbsp; But even with the best supervision, in your judgment it would be extremely difficult to carry out an exception in the case of town dairies ?Undoubtedly.

4707.nbsp; Does the town of Aberdeen obtain the whole milk supply from the dairies of the town ?No.

4708.nbsp; Is a large quantity sent from the surrounding district ?Yes.

4709.nbsp; Do you think it would be practicable to draw a line and to decide where a farm ceases to be a dairy farm if we had separate rules and regulations ?It would be very difficult to do so.

4710.nbsp; Is it not the case among the small tenant farmers of Aberdeen, that many of them to make a certain portion of their income, at all events, by the disposing of dairy produce ?They do, and some large farmers do so now.

4711.nbsp; And that is not a farm that you would strictly call a dairy farm ?No. From several large farms, 18 miles out from Aberdeen, they send milk to Aberdeen regularly.

4712.nbsp; And there are other farmn where a considerable portion of the rent of the farm inny be derived from the dairy without sending to Aberdeen, and those would not be considered dairy farms ?That is so.

4713.nbsp; nbsp; And, therefore, there would be very great difficulty to distinguish between them ?Very great difficulty.

4714.nbsp; nbsp;Do you recommend, for the sake of uniformity, that it is desirable that more power should be put in the hands of the Privy Council and less left in the hands of the local authority ?This is most desirable.

4715.nbsp; But you have not found since the passing of this slaughter order any objection, or any greater objection, to slaughter on the part of the farmers ? No.

4716.nbsp; And giving the greater power to the Privy Council, do you think it just that the expense of the slaughter order should fall upon the Imperial funds ? Yes.

4717.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that the farmers and stock-owners in Aberdeenshire would object to the rate for this slaughter ?I am afraid that they will. It will become very heavy. There is a loss of above 5,0001. already.

4718.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know roughly what, the present loss against the county is since the passing of that order? -Roughly the loss will be about 6,000/. T nm speaking within limits.

4719.nbsp; nbsp;And you cannot say what rate per £ that ia likely to cost?Well, I really forget how it stands as to the rate.

4720.nbsp; At all events it will be very heavy?It is very heavy.

4721.nbsp; nbsp;One of your objects in putting the expense on the Imperial funds will be to arrive at greater justice and equality between the dift'erent districts? Yes.

4722.nbsp; nbsp;And you consider that Aberdeenshire has suffered very seriously from the action of Kincardine-shire as regards carrying out the cattle plague orders ? Yes.

4723.nbsp; Aberdeenshire has had some experience in the imposition of rates and paying rates for cattle purposes, I believe ?Considerable experience.

4724.nbsp; nbsp;And yot with all that experience in the rinderpest time the local authority of Aberdeenshire, with the approval of the siockowners and farmers, have not hesitated to put tiiis order in force. Is that so ? They have been thoroughly willing.

4725.nbsp; And while they have been thoroughly willing to do it have they put it thoroughly in force? They have put it thoroughly in force. There has been no shirking of this job at all,

4726.nbsp; Are tliey likely to shirk in the future ? I think not. All that the county of Aberdeenshire desires is that there shall be thorough uniformity in carrying out the order. They will carry it out to the utmost, whatever it costs, but they do expect and demand that the Order in Council be thoroughly carried out in other parts of the country, because, though we clear Aberdeen, we have so many cattle coming into the county from other places, we cannot keep our stock clean unless it is thoroughly stamped out in other parts as well.

4727.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) But are you aware that this order is compulsory throughout the country ?Yes.

4728.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) Do you consider that other counties in Scotland generally are putting this Act into force as thoroughly as Aberdeen ?There is a distinct impression with us that some other counties and districts are doing it very indifferently.

4729.nbsp; nbsp;And you desire in Aberdeenshire that they should follow your example?We desire fair play, and that means universal stamping out.

4730.nbsp; nbsp;And you believe that until action is put into the hands of the Privy Council you will not succeed in getting fair play ?It is very unlikely.

4731.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it is impossible ?I think so.

4732.nbsp; nbsp;You explained very carefully the way in which valuations are carried out, and you said that generally they gave satisfaction. You do not value your animals for slaughter only ?No.

4733.nbsp; nbsp;In the case of pedigree animals, have you had occasion to slaughter any of those ?Not at this time, but there have been cases in the past. I have known of them being valued, but under the operation of this new order I do not think that any pedigree animals have been slaughtered.

4734.nbsp; nbsp;When you slaughtered pedigree animals before did you allow for the pedigree ?Yes.

4735.nbsp; nbsp;You took the cost of the living atdmal and not the butcher value ? We never valued them extravagantly, but pedigree was always considered in the value.

4736.nbsp; nbsp;It was taken into consideration ?Yes.

4737.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Are you uware of the maximum ?Yes, 40/. I think that it is quite right.

4738.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) You have not had experience of inoculation in your part of Aberdeen ?No.

4739.nbsp; nbsp;Is there a strong feeling on inoculation in the landward part of the county ?There is a very strong feeling against it.

47-10. On what is that founded ?That we shall be left in doubt and danger.

4741. Can you speak as to any feeling for or ngiiinst inoculiition in the case of the dairy farmers or dairies?No, 1 do not know how it is regarded

MINUTES OF EVTDENOK.

145

there. In this connoxion I may stato that buyers of pedigl'OO eallle iioiu America and Canada will have no Inooultltod aniuiuls.

4742.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know how inoeulated animals lU'ü viewed in America? They raquo;ro viewed with the greatest suspicion.

4743.nbsp; Supposing that the county was i'roo of pleuro-pneumonia, would your corrospomleuts in America take your young bulls if they had been inoculated ? They would not.

4744.nbsp; nbsp;You are sure oi¹ that ?1 am sure of that.

4745.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know that it is against the law to take inoculated animals until two years alter the operation ?Yes.

4746.nbsp; nbsp;You are quite conversHiit with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 ?Rather.

4747.nbsp; Are you generally satisfied with it ?No.

4748.nbsp; nbsp;Will^ou state to the Committee what your reasons are for not being satistted with it ?Well, in article 2, section 20, of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, 1 think it should not apply in cases where the whole stock of the farm has been slaughtered, but after a certificate has been deemed satisfactory by our local authorities as to the cleanliness of the premises, the owner might have full power to sell or dispose of his stock the same as he had before the disease visited the farm.

4749.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Are you referring to pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

4750.nbsp; (Sir G. Maopherson Grant.) Do you mean to get rid of the quarantine of 56 days ?#9632;Yes.

4751.nbsp; Would you name a time for quarantine ?I would just have the farms carried on the very same as if there had been no disease about it. The same rules would apply to the fresh stock after the inspector has been thoroughly sntisfied. I would then have the farm regarded as if there had been no disease at all,

4752.nbsp; {Mr. Stbiiuy.) Would you regard it as a clean farm ?Yes.

4753.nbsp; {Chairman.) May I assume that you are assuming that this should come into operation after the compulsory slaughter has cleared the country of disease, or would you wish it to come into operation at once ?At once.

4754.nbsp; Therefore, we may gather that the period of 56 days is inconsistent with the compulsory slaughter order ?I think so.

4755.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) You have complained also of a certain amount of want of uniformity in the action of local authorities under the Act of 1878?Yes.

4756.nbsp; It has been suggested that Scotland might have either one or two boards or more to take the place of the local authorities, elected boards, composed of delegates elected by the present local authorities. Have you considered any scheme of that sort ? No, I have never had it under consideration.

4757.nbsp; Are you prepared to express an opinion upon that ?No.

4758.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Botoen-Jotm.) You have told the committee that you think that when the new order is brought into operation, there will not be any evasion of the law ?1 thiuk not.

4759.nbsp; Then why should not uniformity of slaughtering all animals in contact with diseased animals at once clear the country of disease?Uniformity of slaughtering would, no doubt, clear the country if carried out und persevered in, but local authorities may evade the carrying out of the order for fear that they bring on a heavy rate. That is what 1 mean.

4760.nbsp; Then you think individuals will obey the law, but some of the local authorities will evade it if they can ?I think they are very likely to do so.

4761.nbsp; nbsp;If strictly carried out, do you think that the disease would he extirpated at once by this order being put into force ?Not altogether.

4762.nbsp; nbsp;Why?Because there would be occasional cases of encysted plcuro, and this might create centres of disease which would have to be stamped out afterwards.

o 54003.

4703, The disease might bo latent now and not diseovered and break out at some other period further OH you think r-YVs.

1761. But do yon think that by carrying out the new regulations that the disease could be cleared from the country in due course of time?Undoubtodly.

4765. What length of time do you think it would take to do it fI cannot toll that, but much less than by tinkering.

' 4766. But you have no doubt that these encysted or old cases that break out occasionally would be stamped out ultimately ?None whatever.

4767.nbsp; nbsp;Then you state in reference to slaughter you would extend the period from 10 to 30 days, 1 think on the grounds that that 10 days was too short a time to allow animals being properly marketed. Could you not at once send any quantity of carcases that were not wanted in the locality for the London market ?Yes, but not profitably.

4768.nbsp; Would there be any loss in that ?We could do it, but there might be greater loss in that way,

4769.nbsp; Would not that loss be better than running the risk which you say does exist by extending the time?I^-would not extend the time to a very loug period, as 1 explained to, say, 60 days. I think it would give more convenience for farmers, and really enable them to make a better market of otlal and that sort of thing.

4770.nbsp; nbsp;But you admit that the extension of time gives a greater chance of the disease being spread ? Whenever the disease is announced or known at a farm it is most carefully guarded ; in our county at any rate.

4771.nbsp; But you object to 60 days because there is greater risk of disease getting away from the premises ? Well, I think that 60 days would be rather too long. It would make the watching machinery too complicated.

4772.nbsp; nbsp;If you object to 60, on what grounds can you approve of extending it to 30 ?Just for the advantage to the owner, and the facility of turning the beef and oft'al to account.

4773.nbsp; You do not think that the risk would be very great by extending it to 30 days ?I do not think so. The advantage would compensate.

4774.nbsp; Do you think that if a dairy were killed out at once, a dairyman could not got milk from some other source of supply for customers ?He has to buy cows in such a case as that at a. very high price.

4775.nbsp; nbsp;That applies to a town dairy ?Yes.

4776.nbsp; But in a country district, where people send in milk to towns from either a few cows or from a large country dairy, can these dairyman get a supply of milk to send to their customers without much trouble ? They would have trouble.

4777.nbsp; But it could be done ?It could be done, but they would have a great deal of trouble and expense becausö we have all a limited number of dairy cows. It is quite common in our county to have only the number that we require, and there is nothing more difficult to got than a good dairy cow.

1778. And practically their business would be damaged by the law being put into force?Undoubtedly. K;;tcnsioii of time would make up somewhat.

4779. Would yon think it preferable to allow dairies to be excepted from the new order, or pay out of the rates, we will say, the consequential damages for loss of business to dairymen ?Well, I have not considered the idea of consequential damages. I really cannot give an opinion upon that. I would certainly be more in favour of giving dairyman consideration than have the dairies treated on a different footing from the general order.

1780.nbsp; nbsp;I suppose for the reason that you have expressed before, that you do not think that we shall be free from the disease as lon^ as animals that have been in contact with those; affected with pleuro arc left alhe for any length of time?I do not think that.

1781.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing inoculation was carried out araquo; recommended by some of the witnesses to this Committee, with a quarantine of one year on all breeding

Mr.

W, Duthie.

10 May 1888.

__.___

146

COMMITTEE ON n.KUEO-rNKUMONIA ANT) XUBBBOULOSISi

Mr.

W. Dutkie.

10 May 1888.

farms, to ensure, ns they soy, immunity from disoase, do yon think flint the (iirmers in the brooding districts could submit to snoh a proceeding ?I do not think that nt all.

4782.nbsp; nbsp;You do not. think it possible that they could ? It is impracticable.

4783.nbsp; Why?It would very seriously hamper them altogether.

4784.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing a breeding stock was suffioicntly largo for a farm at the time of an outbreak of disease occurring, would it bo possible tu continue that stock in the same holding for a year ?Certainly not.

4785.nbsp; nbsp;Would it be utterly impossible?It would be utterly impossible.

4786.nbsp; Therefore the suggestion is impracticable? It is impracticable.

4787.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.} In your pedigree herd of about 200 shorthorns, how many animals do you bring in, such as bulls for renewing the blood, in a year? From four to ten.

4788.nbsp; A dairyman with 200 cows, how many now cows would he bring in in a year ?I cannot tell.

4789.nbsp; Probably the whole quot;200. Ho would sell his 200 to the butcher and bring in newly calved cows in their place ?I should think not.

4790.nbsp; At any rate, he would bring in far more than four ?Far more.

4791.nbsp; Then ho must incur a far greater risk of disease than an owner of a pedigree herd would ? Yes.

4792.nbsp; Is there any difficulty in an owner of pedigree stock making certain that he cannot bring in the disease ? Could not you put. your four bulls into long quarantine of your own accord, to make certiiin that your herd would be safe?It would be very difficult to do that.

4793.nbsp; Why ?I think that the quarantine would require to be of very great length. However, I do not regard it as impossible to keep a herd free from disease, with great care.

4794.nbsp; nbsp;But if you had a dairy of 200 cows it would be impossible to keep yourself free?So long as disease exists as it does that would be so, and it will continue until the country is clear.

4795.nbsp; Then a large town dairy lias a greater difficulty than a pedigree hcrdowner?Yes.

4796.nbsp; And if he has greater difficulty, ought he not to have greater assistance from the country ?I have no objection to the country giving him assistance.

4797.nbsp; nbsp; Supposing the ratepayers of the United Kingdom objected to being charged this compensation, #9632;would you see any objection to limiting the charge to the counties where the disease exists ? For instance, there are many counties where there is no disease. Why should they pay anything towards a general rate ?I say that if the country were thoroughly clear of this disease it would be of immense value, not only to all the agriculturists of the country but to the general business of the country ; and I am quite sure it would be a great beueflt to the business centre, as well as to the country districts.

4798.nbsp; That seems an objection when there is a large number of cattle in a small county where the rate is very heavy, but. if your rate was spread through out the counties where the disease exists, would not that meet the difficulty ?I do not know that it would. It would be always difficult to settle, 1 think. You would have to set in order a sort of new machinery altogether.

4799.nbsp; Why should owners of town property and manufacturers and so forth pay towards a general rate for cattle purposes?Because for all Imperial purposes we all pay. I am paying for that a good deal. We have to pay for each other, just OS members of a family have to do little odds and ends for the rest.

4800.nbsp; There were some questions on the subject of calves going out of dairies. Surely there could be no possible loss to the dairyman if ho were to fatten his calf and sell it as veal ?Yes, that does not suit his arrangements.

4801.nbsp; But in reality would lie sud'er pecuniarily if forced to do it ?lie would have to keep a greater number of cows or give out less milk if ho fattened his calves.

4802.nbsp; That would be a small loss ?It would bo comparatively small.

4803.nbsp; nbsp;And that would overcome all danger as to calves bringing out disease ?Yes ; central direction and control.

4804'. (Professor Brown.) I understand that you are rather in favour of central action in place of the action of the local authorities ?Yes.

480.5. And that you do not object to levying a general rate in order to defray expense ?No.

4806.nbsp; Do you happen to know how the general rate raquo;s levied in Ireland ?No, I do not know.

4807.nbsp; Well it is taken out of the cattle disease fund. It is put in this way, quot; The Chief Secretary may from quot; time to time, as and when ho thinks fit, cenify to quot; the effect that a cerlain equivalent or a certain quot; poundage of the net annual value of the property quot; in all the unions is required for the purpose of this quot; Act. Thereupon the Local Government Board quot; shall, by order under their seal, assess that sum on quot; the several unions in proportion of the net annual quot; value of the property therein.quot; Is it something of that system that you would recommend to be adopted in this country ?I suppose that would meet the difficulty.

4808.nbsp; And under such a system all the manufacturing interests and other industries would have to contribute ?Yes, but it would bo so trifling that I do not think that they would know any difference.

4809.nbsp; It is provided that quot; no larger sum under quot; this Act at any one time snail be levied, hut that it quot; should be equivalent to a poundage of a W. in thb quot; pound.quot; Would that be too much ?It would never come to that or anything like it.

J810. There is a difference, is there not, in the positioi). of the manufacturer as compared with the position of the agriculturist in regard to compensation for losses ?Yes, the compensation comes more near to the latter, it more closely concerns the agriculturist that is quite true.

4811.nbsp; In short, that it is in reference to the agriculturists alone that compensation for loss is paid out of any fund?Yes, but ultimately it would be a benefit to the manufacturers.

4812.nbsp; Could you suggest in any particular direction how the manufacturer would benefit ?Because tho farmer does not keep his money generally, a good deal of it finds its way. to the tradesman and merchant and manufacturer, and the benefit is general.

481.'!. Then you consider compensation for having diseased animals slaughtered a necessity of the farmer's requirements ?(Jiidoubtedly.

4814.nbsp; And in the absence of which he would not be able to contribute to the support of the manufacturer ?Ho would not. With compensation ho would have more money to give away, and he would bo very willing to give it.

4815.nbsp; You say, in reference to section 20 of tho Act, that you do not think the provision relating to infected places should bo enforced after all tho animals on the farm bad been slaughtered ?Yes, that is to say, if they have all been slaughtered and the place properly disinfected and pronounced right by the inspector. Then I would have that place regarded as if no disease had been about it.

4816.nbsp; Yon ore aware that there is a provision under which, if all the cattle had been slaughtered and the premises disinfected, a man can move into it a fresh stock as soon as he likes?Yes, but not out of any of it when he likes.

4817.nbsp; I understand that in addition to that you would have it provided that under such circumstances the place should bo declared free ?Quite so.

4818.nbsp; What would ho the particular advantage of it ?Well, inany farmers would buy cattle, say, for a couple of months' keep or less. At present, when a herd is slaughtered, a farmer will have a large quan-

ill

is i

minutes of BYIDBMOB,

147

(ity of turnips to bis oatcm. Ho tokos in a nuiiiliw ol¹laquo;iiltlo 1ü cüiisiirao his keep, dud may want thorn to soll in n month agnin.

481raquo;. Ho could not do it till the bxptratlon ov the 56 days?Yes, Iw might havo a fortnight's koop, and it hampers him unjustly.

4820.nbsp; nbsp;A ml your solo object is that you wish under the circumstances, the farmer having got rid of his stock, and every portion being taken, that ho should be able to carry on his business without any interruption?That is my solo intention.

4821.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the risk of the disease being carried by calves, do you mean that in the event of calves hoing bom while the aniinala are being detained in a shed previously to slaughter, that those young calves may be moved out and carry the disease with them ?Yes, I have no doubt about it.

4822.nbsp; nbsp;Do you happen to know of any cases in which the disease has been found in very young calves ? Yes, I know of several eases, the Tillyeve case, for instance.

4823.nbsp; nbsp;At what age were those calves ?Some ot them about a month old.

4824.nbsp; nbsp;Were they killed ?Yes, we had to slaughter a good many of the calves.

4825.nbsp; nbsp;And were they found to bo diseased ?tes.

4826.nbsp; nbsp;Did they show any disease before they were slaughtered ?Yes.

4827.nbsp; nbsp;They were known to be diseased when slaughtered ?Yes, we saw the symptoms of disease.

4828.nbsp; nbsp;Do I understand you to say that you that you saw thai condition of things in calves one month old ?_Yes, I could not say exactly for the time, but they were quite young calves. It was in the spring of the year that this trouble was at this farm, during the time that the calves were quite young.

4829.nbsp; It was undrstood in your reply to Mr. Stirling that you bad only heard of those cases of calves introducing the disease ?That was about calves coming from dairies, but we are now speaking of calves in a herd; in that case I was asked about their coming from Aberdeen dairies.

4830.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Which you supposed were free from the disease ?Yes. But this case ot Tillyeve was quite a different case.

4831.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) I understand, as a fact, in your own 'experience, that you have known calves of six weeks of age to have plouro-pneumonia and to have gone with the disease into a shed among other animals ?Yes.

4832.nbsp; And these calves having previously been in contact with diseased animals on another farm ?On the same farmthe farm that I referred to as having the disease on it.

4833.nbsp; Was it on another part of the same farm ? Yes.

4834.nbsp; That is to say, they took the disease from one part of the same farm to another part of the farm? Yes.

4835.nbsp; You were asked a question in reference to the possibility of a man protecting his dairy stock from all risk of pleuro-pneumonia by breeding his animals insteud of buying them, would that have the effect of keeping the disease out of the sheds ?In the case of dairymen, I think if you have a healthy stock and raise the cows instead of buying you are perfectly safe.

4836.nbsp; But that is only practicable when the dairyman is in the country ?It is not practicable for a dairyman in the towns.

4837.nbsp; It would not be practicable for dairymen in largo towns ?It could not be done.

4838.nbsp; Do you know that it was done at one time ? No, I was not aware of that.

4839.nbsp; Are not you aware that a number of I^ndon dairymen regularly kept a bull ?Yes, but I thought it was just to satisfy the cows and to keep them quiet and in good sctison.

4840.nbsp; That was the case really. Do you know what became of the calves when tiiey were born ?I suppose they sent them for beef, did ihcy ?

4841.nbsp; No, I believe thoy were largely shipped to

Ireland to be brought up. Would you think that that system if it were carried out in any part of the country now would involve a risk of pleuro-pneurnonia being convoyed ?1 doubt its practicability.

4842.nbsp; nbsp;If done, would there be any risk by the movement of calves, say a week old ?Well, I do not know; if there were no animals coming into this dairy I presume there would bo little danger.

4843.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman,) Have you anything further to communicate with reference to pleuro-pneumonia that you think you may have omitted ?I do not think I have omitted anything.

4841. You have referred especially to the want of uniformity of action throughout the various counties of Scotland ?Yes.

4845.nbsp; nbsp;Would you consider that the skughter order recently put into operation would be satisfactory unless a similar order were applied to Ireland ?Undoubtedly not, it is practically useless without Ireland being included.

4846.nbsp; Do you, therefore, desire to state, as your opinion, that under all conditions of cattle management Ireland must bo placed on the same footing as England and Scotland?I am strongly of that opinion ; I am satisfied of that.

4847.nbsp; Have you any experience of tuberculosis ? I have had a little.

4848.nbsp; Do you think that it is on the increase? Yes, I believe it is.

4849.nbsp; Do you consider it of sufficient importance to be included in the1?ontagiouB Diseases (Animals) Act? I think it is very difficult to include it.

4850.nbsp; nbsp;May I ask you how you would propose to treat such a case ?I think it would be a very difficult thing to treat it by law, I have always regarded it as a disease, which had to be handled by the individual breeder.

4851.nbsp; nbsp; Therefore, in the tuberculosis disease, in your opinion, it ought to he treated by permissive action of the individual owner ?Yes.

4852.nbsp; Would you consider that a pronounced case of tuberculosis ought to be dealt with by slaughter ? I think that the breeder is very unwise if he does not; the difficulty about tuberculosis seems to me to be this, that it is principally carried into a herd and conducted by heredity ; my experience is that if amp; cow has tuberculosis, she is almost sure to give it to her offspring ; a bull will spoil a whole herd very soon, I know that, if he is retained long.

4853.nbsp; Do you consider that tuberculosis like pleuro-pneumonia can be effectually got rid of by compulsory slaughter ?No, I do not think it.

4854.nbsp; nbsp;What reason have you for thinking that it cannot ?I think, that if you were going to slaughter you would have to slaughter whole families. If you found an animal affected by tuberculosis, though you slaughtered this animal, unless you kill out its progeny you are very likely to be no better off.

4855.nbsp; nbsp;Then the distinction you draw I take i* is this, that whereas on the one hand tuberculosis is both hereditary and contagious, pleuro-pneumonia on the other hand is only communicated by direct contact ?Quite so.

4856.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) Have you reason to think that tuberculosis is more frequent in any one class of animal than in any other?i do not know ; my experience has not extended very much to other breeds of cattle, but I know that in the case of animals that are light in flesh and milk well, tuberculosis is very much more common with them than in heavier fleshed cattle.

4857.nbsp; nbsp;And what class of animalsdo you refer to shorthorns especially ?No, but to some of all breeds. I know some herds of poll cattle addicted to tuberculosis, as well as some shorthorns too.

4858.nbsp; Do you put that as a matter of breed at all, or do you think it is affected by in-breeding ?Yes, I think it is.

4859.nbsp; nbsp;In a herd where there is a great deal of inbreeding, do you think that tuberculosis exists more than in another herd?I think so j I havo no doubt that in-and-in breeding does weaken the constitution.

T 2

Mr.

W. Vulhie.

1(1 May 1888.

148

COMMITTEE ON Pl/KUltO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBRRCULOSIS:

Mr. W. Duthie.

10 May 1886.

4HÖÜ. Is tuberculosis spread I'rom weukuess of the eonstitutiou tI iliink thut is tlie origin of it.

4861. Do you think thut this disouso is on the in-creuse of latu years ?Yes, 1 think so.

'1862. But, owing to the ditticulty of discovery, it would be imposeibie to alauglitec it out ?1 am sure it would bu impOBsible unless it were in the case of u herd. 1 believe that a herd having tnbereulosis, und being known to be very niueli permeated by tuberculosis, perhaps the stamping out in such a ease might be the only and best remedy.

I8ü;!. Have you, in your experience, come across a case where tuberculosis has been ulistaken for pleuro-pucumullia, where an animal slaughtered lias been Killed as suffering from one disease, and where it lias been found to be suffering from another ?I believe they are often mistaken; but there is no doubt when the animal is slaughtered; but they may be very easily mistaken in the living animal.

^(54. Do you think that they may be easily mis-taken P1 think so.

4865. (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Do you think that individuals are likely to get rid of tuberculosis more efficiently than the compulsory slaughter order would do it ? Well, the compulsory slaughter order seems to me to be impracticable, i do not see how it could be done, as far as 1 have had experience and considered the question, the only way for a breeder that has the least care for himself and others is to stamp it out as it appears, and to be most careful in the selection ol bulls and the introduction of females, that they are all of a thoroughly sound constitution. 1 think that is the first thing, soundness of constitution, not only in the male but in the female.

48(50. But do you think that it is not, practicable to have it stamped out by slaughter because it cannot be detected ?1 think that it is impracticable.

4867.nbsp; Because it cannot be detected. Is there any difficulty iu detecting tuberculosis in a herd ?If jou began to stamp it out you would have to destroy, perhaps, a whole herd, you could not know what to kill, or where to stop.

4868.nbsp; Do you say you recommend individuals to do that ?Yes ; I would recommend a breeder to do it.

4869.nbsp; nbsp;Why do you object to its being done through other means ?Because I doubt the efficiency of the other means.

4870.nbsp; nbsp;Even under a system of full compensation ? Yes.

4871.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) I want to be quite clear about your views about breeding in and in. Is it your impression that the mere act of breeding in and in will produce the disease in an animal or only make it susceptible ?Only susceptible.

4872.nbsp; nbsp;You do not think that with perfectly healthy animals you can produce tuberculosis ?It is not likely, if you are sure of the perfect soundness of the males and females used.

4873.nbsp; Do you think that it is possible to produce it at all so long as the sire and the dam arc free from the disease ?I presume that k is possible, by gradual weakening of constitution.

4874.nbsp; nbsp;(Projessor Horsley.) Y'ou said that you would not slaughter any animal that you suspected of the disease except in a private manner?That is the view that 1 have taken of it.

4875.nbsp; And then you said that you did not think there would be any hope of getting rid of the disease in that way because you would have to slaughter the whole progeny ?Yes.

4876.nbsp; nbsp;But are not yon aware that in many cases only a few of the progeny are affected by the disease?Yes, but these are very apt to reprodnec the disease in their calves.

4877.nbsp; nbsp;Then you think that will be a reason why you would not advise general slaughter, because you would be slaughtering healthy animals on a large scale ? 1 believe so, and yon also leave a number ol'animals that are very lightly affected which you cnniiol discover.

4878. 1 presume that as tu the slaughter of the animals, your objection is that you would be slaughtering thereby a number of henlthy animals ?~ Yes,

4870. I understood you to say that you would shmghtor every animal that was suspicions rYes.

4880. Would you object to that being put into law?The difficulty that I see about it is, how to handle the business satisfactorily; of course if a farmer or a breeder say, quot; I have got tuberculosis in my herd quot; and I want you to come and slaughter them out ' and pay mequot;; I am afraid it would be rather a difficult thing sometimes.

1881. I referred before to individuals, because yon admit that an individual would do this, that he would slaughter an animal that he suspected ?Some of themthe wise breederwould do it.

4882.nbsp; Then fur the good of the country would not you recommend that everybody should do itI am not saying the slaughter of progeny, but slaughtering the suspected animal ?Yes.

4883.nbsp; Would it not be for the good of the country ? I have no doubt about it.

4884.nbsp; It would aid in the diminution of disease, but still you object to putting it into law ?That is the difficulty. It seems to me to be impracticable. If it could be put into law and carried out it would be certainly an advantage.

4885.nbsp; nbsp;Hut I do not know why you say impracticable, because of the disease. Take the case of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia ; a man suspects that he has got it, and he calls in a veterinary surgeon, why should you object to that ?I have no objection if the man gives notice.

4886.nbsp; nbsp;Would you have any objection to its being made penal if a notice was not given ?I think that would not be a bad thing. I am quite agreeable to it. I am prepared to make it penal for a man to sell an animal, either bull, heifer, or cow, that has tuberculosis or has come from parents so affected.

4887.nbsp; nbsp;Yes, of course that is very strict, but would you carry that out ?I am fairly prepared for that.

4888.nbsp; Then you would not object to its being made a penal oft'ence, and that you think he ought to give notice of tuberculosis?1 do not think that it would be objectionable.

4889.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that tuberculosis is more rife in one part of the country than another ?T am not raquo;ware of it.

4890.nbsp; Have you been able to trace the disease, or have you obtained it from anywhere in particular ? Yes. .

4891.nbsp; nbsp;From what parts?Well, I could not say from any particular part, but I have got tuberculosis more than once with shorthorns that 1 have bought, not only from the south, but from other parts. 1 had a case in which a cow, affected with tuberculosis, looked healthy enough when I bought hera valuable cowand not only had to die herself, but her progeny also, which I had very quickly killed. This cow, having tubercle in her womb, affected a stock bull, and did a deal of mischief.

4892.nbsp; Are you quite positive that this bull which became infected by that cow had no taint whatever ? Do you know his previous history?Perfectly, he had no taint.

4893.nbsp; Do you think that the disease is much more common in the towns than in the country ?That is what I am not aware of.

4894.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any proof that adult animals tied up together in a byre can communicate disease to one another?I know that can be done. When the disease comes to a certain stage animals will very quickly take it from other animals, especially cows.

4895.nbsp; Yon believe that disease is common not only by heredity, but also by inhalation ?Yes, and by the saliva. Whatever the animal throws off, other animals coining into contact with it will very quickly be affected by it.

1896. Yon havo actual experience with that in vour own county ?Yes, 1 have known that.

l\\

i'¹

j #9632;#9632;laquo;

l!'

MINUTES OF KV IDENOK.

149

4897.nbsp; nbsp;Have you always found that it has been the cow standing next the diseased one that becomes uffeoted ?Yes, or in the imr neighbourhood, cora-moniy in the same stall, i have known of u cow suffering trom tubercle taken from the stall, and the stall not being projierly cleaned, another animal became affected in the same stall.

4898.nbsp; nbsp;You think that it it quite possible that a byre has been infected with the poison ?There is no doubt about it.

4899.nbsp; nbsp;Have you proof that the disease was conveyed by waterthe same water supplied to a number of cattle ?I have had no experience of it.

4900.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that there is any possibility of its being conveyed through the excrement?Well, I should not think it. You mean the dung, and so on ?

4901.nbsp; Yes?I should not think that.

4902.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen much consumption of the bowels due to tuberculosis ?Yes, I have seen it occasionally.

4903.nbsp; nbsp;Do not you think it would be possible under those circumstances ?I scarcely think so.

4Ö04. You have no facts to support it ?I have no facts, bnt I would not be inclined to blame that as a source of infection.

4905.nbsp; Have you ever seen milk taken from tuberculous cows given to calves of a perfectly healthy strain ? No.

4906.nbsp; nbsp;You have no evidence to show that milk is infected ?When I have a cow affected that way she goes to the shambles. 1 do not experiment with her milk.

4907.nbsp; Have you any proof of other animals on a farm getting infected, not only on your own farm, but others ?No.

4908.nbsp; You have not heard of pigs ?I have heard of them.

4909.nbsp; Have you heard of a case in which pigs have got tho disease from cattle ?Yes, I have heard of that, where cows were very bad with tuberculosis, and where the milk was found to affect young pigs.

4910.nbsp; Do you remember the name of the plnee ? No, I cannot give the name of any place.

4911.nbsp; Have you ever heard of disease being conveyed through fowls ?No.

4912.nbsp; Have you ever seen the disease in fowls ? No.

4913.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Are you aware that there is a vast difference of opinion existing amongst pi'ofes-sioual men both in Scotland and England upon the subject of pleuro-pneumonia ?So I understand,

4914.nbsp; And cio you know that there ore some advocates for inoculation and some who are against it?I understand that.

4915.nbsp; Do you think, then, that it is in the interest of the nation, as well as of the stockholders individually, that further experiments ought to be made with reference to it?I have no objection to experiments properly conducted, but I regard inoculation as unreliable.

4916.nbsp; Then do I gather from that, that so far as being the means of getting rid of the disease from the country, you do not regard experiments as of any value ?I would not like to say that, but we know a better and surer method.

4917.nbsp; Then would you say that they are not of sufficient value to be undertaken by the Government? --I do not think that it is necessary.

4918.nbsp; But in the interests of science you, perhaps, consider that they would be desirable ?I have no objection certainly to it. I should like to know the result.

4919.nbsp; nbsp;And, therefore, if such experiments were inaugurated, you think that they ought to be placed in the hands of experts and scientific men ?Certainly.

Mr. W. Dutliie.

10 May 1888.

The witness withdrew.

Professor McFadyean, of Edinburgh, called and examined.

Prof. McFadytan.

4920.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) I believe you are a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?Yes.

4921.nbsp; And also a graduate in medicine and science in the Edinburgh University ?Yes.

4922.nbsp; nbsp;And you lecture at the Royal Veterinary College in Edinburgh ?Yes, I have done so for 12 years.

4923.nbsp; nbsp;Does that include anatomy and cattle pathology ?1 have lectured for 12 years on anatomy, and for three years I have been the demonstrator of morbid anatomy.

4924.nbsp; nbsp;Your attention has been specially directed to cattle pathology during the past 12 years ?Yes.

4925.nbsp; And have you had considerable experience in the various diseases to which cattle are subject ? Yes; I am bound to pay attention to that.

4926.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had any experience of pleuro-pneumonia since you have been at the college ?I have seen a great many outbreaks in Edinburgh.

4927.nbsp; nbsp;And have you paid special attention to the study of the pathology of this disease ?Yes.

4928.nbsp; nbsp;Have you yourself seen many cases of pleuro-pneumonia, both in living and dead animals ?Yes; I have seen a great many.

4929.nbsp; nbsp;Has it been your duty to demonstrate to the class under your charge specimens of plouro-pneumonia as well as of other diseases connected with cattle? Yes, I have had to do that annually,

4930.nbsp; As part of your duty have you made it your business to collect morbid specimens ?1 have to do that.

4931.nbsp; From what source do yon collect them?I get a great many sent from practitioners, and 1 collect a good many from the abattoir in Edinburgh,

4932.nbsp; Then you have frequent occasion to inspect the animals in the abattoir ?Ye.*.

4033. Have you had nuy personal practice in inoculation ?No.

4934.nbsp; Have you seen inoculation practised ?Yes, I have seen it practised.

4935.nbsp; And have you watched its course in animals thus treated ?Yes.

4936.nbsp; Is it your experience that many animals die from the operation ?Well, not a very great proportion, but there is a certain proportion, I think, in the hands of every operator.

4937.nbsp; I believe Mr. Rutherford is one of the most export operators of the day ?1 believe he operates more frequently thau any other.

4938.nbsp; Have you seen cattle inoculated by Mr. Rutherford and afterwards slaughtered ?Yes.

4939.nbsp; Have you seen any instance of lung lesion and inoculation lesion in the same animal ?Yes. I have in my possession the organs from three animals, in which tail and lung lesion were present at the same time.

4940.nbsp; Is it your opinion that pleuro-pneumonia is a chronic disease, but of slow progress, and not seriously interfering with the general health of animals ?I think that it is so sometimes.

4941.nbsp; Is it a disease easily detected ?I think that in some cases it is impossible to detect it.

4942.nbsp; Then do you mean to indicate that in this case even the most experienced veterinary surgeon may pass over the aifeeted animals although evidence of disease has been discovered after death?Yes. I have known such eases.

4943.nbsp; Have you known many such cases ?Not of many such cases.

4944.nbsp; nbsp;Have you known many instances in which more than one experienced veterinary surgeon , has inspected a herd and failed to discover the disease? Vcs, 1 have instances in which at least two veterinary surgeons were visiting the animals, and in which both

______

150

OOMMITTBB ON l'liKÜKO-l'NUUMONU AND TUUKUOULOSIS:

AlrKiilycmi. 10 Ma^ 1888.

liail lailed to disoovor thlaquo; (^xistoiico ol' disoiis'j |)ro\'elt;.l to huvo beep there after slaughter of tho nnimals.

4JM5. Give ns an instance of one of them ?1 can reoaÜ to my mind one instaneo in which an outbreak was reported, and the voferinavy inspector of the local authority visited the premises in his capacity of veterinary inspector. Another veterinary surgeon was called in to inoculate, and they were both there the same day. Presumably tho inspector did not leave any animal that ho thought aft'ectod, while the inocu-iator would not inoculate any animal known to be already attacked. Nevertheless, a cow died on that same night, and its carcase was brought to Edinburgh abattoir, and it was found to have well marked pleuro-pueurnonia.

4946.nbsp; nbsp;Had you an opportunity of seeing that animal ?No. I did not see that animal.

4947.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it is possible for an animal which is tho subject of pleuro-pneumonia being capable of faking inoculation on the tail?I am not quite sure, because the facts that I have stated are capable of one of two interpretations, namely, that an animal already affected with pleuro-pneumonia will lake the inoculation, or that an inoculated animal will subsequently take pleuro. I am positive that both lesions may be found co-existing.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

4948.nbsp; nbsp;You have told us that inoculation in a considerable proportion of cases causes death ?In a certain proportion of cases.

4949.nbsp; And you told us why this occurs in some eases and not in others ?So far as I have been able to observe the proportion of deaths is very uncertain and very difficult to account forthat is, in the bands of the same inoculator. Upon one occasio/i he may inoculate a large number and not have a single death ; upon another occasion, when^- so far as he knows, he inoculated in exactly the same way he may have a largo proportion of deaths.

4950.nbsp; nbsp;What, in your opinion, is the most certain means of getting rid of the disease ?I should think that the most certain method would be to kill every animal found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and every animal that is known to have been in contact with it.

4951.nbsp; If the disease be not got rid of by stamping out, to what must this be due ?I should think that .stamping out might fail if there were not what I might call honest reporting on the part of stock owners, and this dishonesty on the part of even one individual might be the source of a great many outbreaks, and thus interfere with the process of stamping out.

4952.nbsp; But from your observations of the only other remedy suggestedthat is, inoculationhave you come to any fixed opinion as to what mode of treatment you would recommend to be adopted by the Government for getting rid of the disease from the country ? Yes, I should unhesitatingly say that the process generally known as stamping out is the process that is most likely to be the best in the end. I cannot conceive of any other method that is likely to eradicate the disease, and I think that in the end it .will be the cheapest as well as tiic only successful one.

4953.nbsp; Are you aware that evidence has been taken on this subject before the Highland Agricultural Society of Scotland ?Yes.

4954.nbsp; Have you seen the report or the epitome of that evidence ?Yes, I iiave gone over it carefully.

4955.nbsp; And, in your opinion, is that evidence conclusive in favour of inoculation ?Not at all. 1 think that the great bulk of the evidence did not touch at all upon the question as to whether inoculation or stamping out is the most advisable.

4950. Is it your opinion that pleuro-pneumonia is a disease indigenous to this country or an imported disease ?I consider it an imported disease.

4957.nbsp; Uy what means do you think it is usually communicated ?I think that every case of pleuro-pneumonia implies an antecedent case and direct or indirect contact with it.

4958.nbsp; What do you mean by direct contact ?I

should call it direct contact whoro animals were housed together or whore they actually came into contact with one another, or respired the same air in a confined space.

4959.nbsp; But it is through the respiratory organs only by which it is communicated, I presume ?I do not think that we have any very exact evidence as to how it is communicated, but there is generally a history of cohabitation when the attempt to trace tho outbreak is made.

4960.nbsp; Will you define, for the benefit of the Committee, what you mean by indirect contact ?A man who had been handling an animal affected with pleuro-pneumonia going to another herd I would suppose might bo the bearer indirectly of the contagion.

4961.nbsp; Ho you thereby desire to indicate that pleuro-pneumonia may be communicated in the same manner as foot-and-mouth disease ?No. I would not commit myself to the opinion that it would, I think that it is possible, but it is extremely difficultI might say, from the observation of cases as they occur naturally it is impossibleto make out whether it may or may not be in certain cases transmitted indirectly.

4962.nbsp; Although you say that in your opinion it is possible to communicate the disease by direct as well as indirect contact, still it is more probably communicated by direct contact ?Yes, I think so ; but it appears to me that it must be possible to transmit by indirect contagion.

4963.nbsp; Have you bad any recent experience of diseased lungs ?Well, I have seen diseased lungs within the past two months.

4964.nbsp; Have you frequently discovered an encysted lung ?Not frequently.

4965.nbsp; Do you think an animal with an encysted lung is capable of communicating disease ?I should think it is very possible.

1966. In the case of inoculation where the animal did not take the virus would you consider it a dangerous animal ?Would I consider that evidence that it had pleuro ?

4967.nbsp; Would you consider an animal that resisted inoculation an element of danger for the future ? If you mean by that to ascertain my opinion as to whether, if an animal refuses inoculation, it ought to be interpreted as meaning that it has pleuro, I would say that the failure to inoculate may be due to quite a variety of things. It may be due to the fault of tho operator, and I can hardly reply to the question in a single sentence.

4968.nbsp; Will you consider it necessary to slaughter an animal that does not take inoculation ?I should consider it necessary to slaughter the animal in any case, if it, had been in contact.

4969.nbsp; {Professor Brown.) We have been told that inoculation brings out the disease, if it happens to bo in the lungs, in a limited form ?Yes.

4970.nbsp; Have you any experience which would enable you to give an opinion upon the subject ?No, I have no evidence that would support that.

4971.nbsp; You understand the proposition is that if the animal has pleuro-pneumonia, as you know it may, in such a form that you cannot detect it, if you inoculate that animal it will very soon manifest the disease ?Yes. I have information to the effect that that at any rate cannot be in all cases, because I have in my possession lungs of an animal in which pleuro 'was only discovered one month after inoculation.

4972.nbsp; And was that such a case as you would consider must have been in existence before inoculation ? I should not like to express an opinion upon that, because I think that it is impossible to say with any approach to accuracy from an examination of a lung whether the disease is of four or six weeks' standing.

4973.nbsp; That, in fact, it is practically impossible to decide from any subsequent post-mortem examination as to whether or not an animal had the disease at the time of inoculation ?Yea, that is my opinion.^

4074. Wo have also been told that inoculation is so far protect! ve that, in the event of the inoculated animal

ill

IS '

in'

HU ' ir

MINUTES OF EVIDENCJä.

151

haviiif; disease at the time of inoculation, the intm-duced virus will pasg into tho diseased portion of the lung and render it non-effeßtivo. Have you any experience in tho course of your investigations which will enable you to form any opinion upon that point ? No, I do not know of anything that would support that, either in connexion with pleuro or in connexion with any other specific disease.

4975.nbsp; Have you seen any organisms as to tho virus of pleuro-pneuraonia which would in any way show how it was connected with tho causation of the disease ? I have cultivated more organisms than one myself from the lung lesion or from the exudate. I should think that it is more than likely that several organisms are present in the lung.

4976.nbsp; Have you cultivated any virus which you have subsequently used ou animals ?Yos ; I have isolated several organisms from plouro-pneumonia, and I gave one of these, tho one that occurred in greatest numbers, to an iuocutator to use it instead of lymph on one particular cow, and he told me subsequently that it did not exercise any eifect.

4977.nbsp; nbsp;So far as your experiments have gone you have not found any virus which can be used in the place of the ordinary exudate from the lung ?No.

4978.nbsp; Under these circumstances it seeras to follow that in order to inoculate you must have pleuro-pneu-mouia in a living animal to start with ?Well, I believe that some store the lymph, preserve it for a considerable time, but that is always using what we may call the natural virus.

4979.nbsp; Have you any idea as to how long the lymph may be preserved and still be active ?I think that it can be preserved for months. I am not sure, but speaking from analogy, reasoning with reference to the vaccine lymph, I think it might be preserved in glycerine for perhaps a month.

4980.nbsp; Are you aware that in the vaccine establishment they do not accept as effective any lymph which is more than 36 hours old ?I am not aware of what the exact regulations are with reference to vaccination here ; but 1 know that glycerine has been used to preserve vaccine lymph, and that an ordinary result has been obtained with it a considerable time afterwards, at least that is what my memory tells me at the present moment.

4981.nbsp; But supposing you can preserve the lymph for four months would not it be necessary in such a case to keep a certain amount of pleuro-pneumonia in the country in order to keep up inoculation, or would you get enough lymph stored up to last as long as the disease would last ?I cannot conceive of tho disease being eradicated at all under a system of inoculation.

4982.nbsp; Why would you come to that conclusion ? Because I think that the important point in the question is this, that it is impossible in every case to diagnose all the affected animals, and that if you take a certain number of outbreaks, there is always certain to be in one of these outbreaks an animal which will escape detection. When the period during which the owner is prevented from dispersing his herd has elapsed that animal may be sold, and it may form the focus of a new centre. In short, it appears to me that if it is admitted that every case cannot bo diagnosed directly, the only certain way of eradicating tho disease is to kill every animal that is known to have been in contact.

4983.nbsp; You consider then that the inoculation of that diseased animal would not prevent it carrying the disease to other herds ?I do not think we have any evidence of that.

4984.nbsp; Do you think that the subject, is in such a state that it would be desirable to carry on further experiments ?To discover what, might I ask ?

4985.nbsp; To discover the efficacy of inoculation as a prcventative ?I should think it would be unfortunate to carry on experiments if it is to interfere with the stamping out process.

4986.nbsp; But suppose you could carry on the stamping out process, which would probably occupy some time, under any ciicumstanccs, would you think it

(1 .-irablo to find out, if vou could, meanwhile, whether or not inoculntion protects an infected herd ?Yos ; 1 should think it experiments cai bo devised that will give results not admitting of a dubious Interpretation that it would bo advisable to institute thoso experiments.

4987.nbsp; Have you formed any ideas as to what kinds of experiments you wovdd institute?1 think that it-is extremely difficult to experiment rigidly upon that question, nmoli more so than in the case of any other disease, owing to the fact that we cannot excite pleuro-pneumonia at will.

4988.nbsp; nbsp;But if yon were simply charged with the duty of getting rid of the disease in any way that you thought fit without reference to cost or convenience, what method would you adopt ?Stamping out.

4989.nbsp; nbsp;By slaughtering ?#9632;Yes.

4990.nbsp; nbsp;But you do not object to the continuation of scientific inquiry merely io the interests of science ? I think a great many points, perhaps, of indirect benefit might bo discovered in carrying out such an inquiry. 1 might say that it is not impossible that the organism of pleuro-pneumonia might bo discovered and cultivated.

4991.nbsp; Do you know of any organism which has yet been discovered which can be shown to have a direct, relation to any disease ?Anthrax.

4992.nbsp; Any other ?Tubercle, blackquartcr, fowl-cholera, glanders.

4993.nbsp; Would you say swine fever ?I should bo very doubtful about swine fever; but Mai Rouge of the French.

4994.nbsp; You arc aware that experiments in reference to the oignnism of vaccinia even under the stimulus of a reward of 25,000/. have not yet been successful ? Yes.

499Ö. And that the organism has not yet been discovered. Have yon soon any organisms in vaccine ? No, I have not examined the lymph. I did not say that I was sanguine that the organism would bo discovered. I think it possible that it might bo discovered. I do not think that the attempt to isolate the organism of pleuro-pneumonia has been carried out to tho same extent as in the case of the organism of vaccinia. For example, so far as I am aware, attempts have not been made to grow it out of contact with the air.

4996.nbsp; You think, in reference to the possible discovery of the organism of pleuro-pneuraonia, it would be advantageous to have experiments set ou foot ? No, I do not see that, more than that an indirect interest might attach to it. No great beneiit. would result from a knowledge of the specific organism of pleuro-pneumonia if inoculation cannot be used as a means of eradicating the disease.

4997.nbsp; If you got rid of the disease yon would not care about the organism ?Well, as a matter of pathological curiosity I should like to possess as many specific organisms as possible.

4998.nbsp; But on no other ground ?No.

4999.nbsp; (Lord Cloncnrry.) Do you think it would be possible to carry on a series of exhaustive experiments in the Edinburgh district, and at the same time incur no risk of spreading the disease elsewhere? No, I think that is impossible.

5000.nbsp; If you were allowed yourself to carry on experiments in Edinburgh your neighbours would run some risks?I think that they would.

5001.nbsp; And you do not know any circumstances in which yon could carry on experiments in Edinburgh without some risk ?Not unless they were of a very restricted naturenot any wide series of expcnineiils. I think that it would be humanly impossible to raquo;void risk of disseminating tho disease.

5002.nbsp; If the cxperinionts were ou a scale; to be of any practical value they would necessarily inour risk to the rest of the country ?Yes.

5003.nbsp; {Mr. liowen-Joiics.) 1 want to ask you whether, in the instance in which you found pleuro existing after inoculation,you were perfectly certain that inoculation had been properly carried out-that is, that

I'rof. Mcl'\uli/..iuh

HI May 1B8Q.

162

COMMITTEE OX PLEURO-PNEÜMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Prof.

Mc.Fadyean.

10 May 1888.

tlio nnimal had talsen the inoculation ?Yes, 1 saw that it had thu tail lesion and the lung lesion.

5004. It had tho two oxistiiilt;i; at tho fanui timo ? Yea.

öOOö. Thoro was no fear of thecasi! being iiloutical, that is lo sny, the oamp;m that was inoculated or the case that you saw lung disease?The lungs and tail were taken from the same animal.

5006. After death ?Yes.

0007.nbsp; How many cases of that sort did you see? Throe.

0008.nbsp; Have you over heard of any more ?Yes, 1 think I have, but of course I have not token notes of them. I wus anxious to accumulate evidence myself upon the question.

500!). Your practical experience leads you to the conclusion that those who have given evidence in an opposite direction are wrong ?I would not say so. I would say that they must be wrong if they deny the accuracy of my statements. May I say that that refers to a tail lesion and a lung lesion in the same animal.

5010.nbsp; Have you any practical knowledge of pleuro-pneumonia being given to an animal by mediate contagion ?No.

5011.nbsp; It is only your opinion?It is ray opinion by comparison with other diseases.

5012.nbsp; Supposing an animal resisted inoculation do you think that that same beast would bo impervious to taking the disease of pneumonia naturally ?I should not conclude that.

5013.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) I suppose you regard inoculation as giving protection when it is successfully performed, I mean adequately performed ?I cannot say that I have made up my mind upon the point at all, because we have not had any rigid experimentations such as we have had with regard to anthrax, the obstacle being that we cannot test the inoculated case, inasmuch as we cannot in a healthy animal at will set up pleuro-pneutnonia.

5014.nbsp; Then you would not give a positive opinion as to its possible efficacy ?I think that it is possible.

5015.nbsp; nbsp;But not more than that ?No.

5016.nbsp; Have you had any experience of the accidents that occur in the performance of the operation ? That is, of death resulting ?

5017.nbsp; Yes, the septic infection ?I would not call it septic infection unless you refer to the pleuro-pneumonia lesion.

5018.nbsp; No, I am not referring to that?In my experience the deaths from the inoculation in the hands of different inoculators are of the same nature.

5019.nbsp; nbsp;What is that?An extension of the lesion, which is wilfully excited in the end of the tail, to the trunk, and to the pelvic organs. I have seen it excite the mammary glands and the muscles along the back.

5020.nbsp; And the death has been always duo to the extension of pleuro inflammation ?Yes ; all that I have seen wore of that nature.

5021.nbsp; Do you think that the loss of a tail occurs from any other cause; can you excite local gangrene from another organism?I should think it is possible to excite gangrene. One must, of course, in nearly all cases have to use more organisms than one, but I have not seen ordinary gangrene, and never seen suppuration occur.

5022.nbsp; Of course you might have inflammation leading tol gangrene without suppuration ?Yes, from its intensity.

5023.nbsp; I gather that in those three casen in vvhieh you got loss of tail, and at the same time pleuro-lesion in the lung, that you made yourself sure that tne loss of the tail was not due to any extraneous process as that which we have just discussed ?The tail was not lost; it simply had the usual swollen appearance at the end, what is regarded as a characteristic appearance, and what I think is a very characteristic appearance, occurring after the insertion of the virusswelling in the, tail, and an exudate of a straw-coloured or

amber fluid, which dries up as a sort of scurf, and in severe oases there is a swelling in tho buttocks, In one of tho cases to which 1 referred evideneo was present, showing that tlio inoculation had not only taken, but taken severely.

5024.nbsp; Will you teli us when was the inoculation performed in those three eases; I mean to say, what interval of time elapsed between inoculation and your post-mortem examination of the lungs ?four weeks was tho longest.

5025.nbsp; nbsp;Did you in the longest case exclude the possibility of an animal having the disease before tho inoculation ?No, I think it is impossible to settle that; I have already said that it admits of a dubious interpretation, either that the animal had pleuro at tho date of inoculation and still took tho usual lesion in the tail, or that it took the lesion in the tail and subsequently contracted pleuro-pneumonia.

5026.nbsp; Then you would wish to leave those cases entirely undecided?Yes, I should bo disposed to that opinion. I might be allowed to say that they are simply important as proving one of two things, either that an inoculated animal may contract pleuro-pneumonia, or that inoculation itself will not point out to the veterinary surgeon every affected animal.

5027.nbsp; Your opinion is also quite undecided as to whether the inoculation can or cannot accelerate tho development of disease, is it not ?Yes.

5028.nbsp; You would not like to express yourself positively ?No ; but I should be disposed to doubt, from comparing it with other pathological processes, that inoculation of the tail will aggravate the lung lesion. I should have a difficulty in explaining it.

5029.nbsp; You say that you have not yourself cultivated any pathogenic organisms of the disease rNot a specific pathogenic organism ; they may have been pathogenic, but only one of them was inoculated, and in that case it produced no effect in the tail.

5030.nbsp; It would not be pathogenic ?It was not pathogenic to the cow.

5031.nbsp; Are you aware of the researches of Perls, who states that he has isolated a microbe ?Yes, about a year ago; I read an account of the experiments.

5032.nbsp; Are you aware whether any experiments have been made to control this ?I do not think that they were at all conclusive.

5033.nbsp; Have any experiments been made to control them in Edinburgh ?I am not aware of any.

5034.nbsp; nbsp;You have seen the organism which Professor Williams isolated ?I cannot say whether I have seen that one or not; I think I have seen an organism that Professor Williams has cultivated.

5035.nbsp; nbsp;You have not seen an organism cultivated by Professor Williams which has produced the disease when inoculated into a healthy animal ?No.

5036.nbsp; You do think, however, that it would be quite possible to isolate and cultivate the organism of disease ?I think attempts have not been made to grow it, excluding the air.

5037.nbsp; And if it were possible to obtain this by culture we should not require cows to produce material for inoculation ?It might be possible, as with the organism of quarter evil, and not possible to propagate it through many generations.

503S. You could propagate the quarter evil in small animals like guinea pigs ?Yes.

5039.nbsp; And you could do the same with splenic fever and tuberculosis ?But I am not aware that we can produce the speciflc pleuro lesion in other than bovine animals.

5040.nbsp; nbsp;I am not aware that anyone has produced the organism to try that with. Are you aware of any experiments upon small animals with the exudate of pleuro ?Yes, I am aware of the dog being inoculated, and sheep.

6041. But the dog is well known to be very resistant to the organisms which attacks herbivoru. But are you aware whether pleuro is virulent to the rodents ?No, 1 could not say. ,

MINUTES OF imDENOE.

153

5042.nbsp; Then it is possible that it might be kept

more prevalent now in bovine animals than it was

Prof,

MeFaayeun.

going in these animals if repeated cultivation in artificial niedin failed ?I think that is possildo.

5043.nbsp; Have you made rasearoh into the sources ol pleuro in Scotland as to where it comes from ?Not at nil.

5041. Have you any facts which would enable us to form an accurate idea of what the incubation period of disease is ?I think that it would be necessary to specify what is meant by the incubaiion period.

5045.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing we put it in this way. The interval between the liino that an animal has been exposed to the danger and the first symptom exhibited by that animal ?1 should be disposed to say that is so variable that it would be almost impossible to strike an average.

5046.nbsp; Do you know whether the lesion in the lung ever becomes encysted within the incubation period ? __I have not any first-hand evidence on that head.

5047.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any evidence to show that a byre can become infected with the virus, the woodwork, and so on ?No.

5048.nbsp; nbsp;You said to the Committee that you had no personal experience of inoculation ?None.

5049.nbsp; Can you give us at all the per-centage of accidents that happened from what you have heard ?

__Well, flora what I have heard I should think that,

even with selecting the cases, the per-centage of deaths in the hands ol' those practising inoculation in Scotland at the present time would be, perhaps, 3 per cent.

5050.nbsp; Although you have had no personal experience after the operations, have you observed animals after inoculation ?Yes.

5051.nbsp; nbsp;Have you found that the animal is disturbed constitutionally by the operation in the case, where the swelling does not spread to the trunk ?Well, I have not observed the animals very closely on that point. I have simply watched the lesion in the tail, and to answer the question one would require to see the animals almost constantly during the day, and discover whether their temperature, appetite, or yield of milk was affected. I have no evidence upon that.

5052.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) You are not prepared to say whether pleuro-pneumouia was indigenous to ibis country or not ?I have no direct information on the point.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

5053.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;There was one other point. You were rather uncertain as to whether the disease could be carried by men coming from diseased herds into a healthy one ?Yes, I am uncertain about that.

5054.nbsp; If, therefore, the disease can be carried upon clothing, you think that it would be more possible still that it might be carried by excrement and litter ?Yes.

5055.nbsp; Are you are aware that experiments were carried on with the view of proving the impossibility of such a thing ?No, 1 cannot say with certainty ; but I have some recollection of it.

5050. {Chairman.) Have you had any experience with reference to tuberculosis ?Yes.

5057.nbsp; nbsp;Is it your opinion that it is not an uncommon disease amongst domestic animals ?That is my opinion.

5058.nbsp; Does it appear in any particular kinds ot animals more than in others ?It is most common in bovine animnlx, and in poultry next in my experience, and I have seen two cases in the horse spontaneously, and one in a cat.

5059.nbsp; is there miy similarity, in your opinion, between the disease in the human subject and that in the bovine subject 'I think there is a great similarity ; I think that there is a very possible identity.

5000.nbsp; Have yon investigated this question very closely ?Well, some particular points of It} I have been interesied in and working at it for some time.

5001.nbsp; Have you observed any impurtant difference between the germs of the bovine and human tubercle? No, none.

50li2. Uo you think that the disoiise has beeome moie prcvnlent limn it was formerly?1 think it is

some years ago.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ----

6063. Do you observe it more in dairy cows than ^May 1888. other kinds of cattle?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -----------

50(51. Have you frequently observed it in the udder of milk cowraquo;?Well, not very frequently; 1 have collected a number of cases whore the udder was diseased, and examined a number of others that 1 had not the opportunity of examining after death ; that is to say, I examined them during life.

5065.nbsp; Did yon ever discover the specific germs of disease in the milk ? Yes, in some cases I have dis-ocvered it in the milk. Perhaps I might be allowed to say that my investigations on that point were carried out in conjunction with Dr. Woodhend, who was the pathologist of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, and who holds a research scholarship on the question of tuberculosis ; and it was in conjunction with him that I visited the Edinburgh dairies.

5066.nbsp; Would you regard the consumption of milk from tuberculous animals as dangerous to the human being ?Yes, I should think it would be highly dangerous, and particularly to certain individuals.

5067.nbsp; But to some individuals more than others ? Yes, 1 should think it would be much more dangerous to children, and to those who have what is called the tubercular diathesis ; that, is, a particular type of constitution which renders them more liable to consumption.

506f.. Do you consider a similar danger would arise fromthe consumption of imperfectly cooked tuberculous meat?A similar danger, but not quite oo great, 1

think.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , i , i

5069.nbsp; Which danger is probably diminished by the effect of cooking ?Yes, and by the fact that the bacilli are seldom so numerously present in ordinary meat as in milk.

5070.nbsp; In what part of the animal have you generally discovered tuberculosis ?In the lung, the liver, the lining membranes of the chest, abdomen, the lymphatic glands, and in the udder.

5071.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) Do you think there is any danger in the use of milk from tuberculous cows if the udder is not aftected; have you any evidence upon that point ?No, 1 have no evidence upon that point.

5072.nbsp; But generally you would object to use the milk from an animal which you knew to have tubercle even if the udder were healthy ?Yes, 1 should think there was always an element of danger.

5073.nbsp; Have you met. with any ease where the tubercle deposit has been in the muscles ?No, none.

5074.nbsp; Have you formed any opinion as to the desirability of Orders of Council for dealing with tuberculous animals ?-Yes, I think that it is highly desirable in the interests of stockowners themselves as well as in the interest of the public health that au attempt should be made to prevent the spread of the disease.

5075.nbsp; Have you anything to suggest as to the line which an order should take, hearing in mind that an order emanating from the Privy Council under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act must not have any direct reference to the public health, but must refer to the prevention and spreading of the disease amongst the lower animals ?Yes, I think cattle that are known to be tubercular ought to be slaughtered invariably in the interests of the stockowners themselves.

5076.nbsp; nbsp;Would you make notice compulsory as in the ease of other diseases ?Yes, I should be disposed to advise that.

5077.nbsp; nbsp; And to give compensation for animals slaughtered ?I think it would be necessary to do that as a measure of justice.

5078.nbsp; Do you think any ditliculty would arise in the case of pedigree stock ?Yes, 1 think that there would be a very great difliculty.

507!). When a cow of great value or n bull of great value is known to be tuberculous there would be some dilliculty in insisling on its slaughter with thlaquo; present rate of compensation ?Bnt I think that a bull that is tubercular is not of great value,

M 1

o 51003.

154

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TITBEUCULOSIS :

Prof. McFadi/ean,

10 May 1888.

5080.nbsp; But are you awaro that heifers anil bulls frora infected families are sold at great prices ?Well, 1 am awaro that some of the very best pedigree herds are largely tubercular.

5081.nbsp; And fetch very high prices ?Yes, 1 know that.

6082. {Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Do you think it practicable to stamp out tuberculosis by legislation ?It is perhaps just possible. It would require very stringent regulations to stamp it out, 1 hardly think it is likely to be stamped out.

.5083. Do you think it is likely that legislation for tuberculosis would stamp it out, as legislation would stamp out pleuro-pnemnonia ?No, there is a very great difference. We would never bo able to exclude the possibility of the infection of bovine animals frora human beings; and we cannot apply the stamping out to human beings. Both bovine animals and human beings are liable to tuberculosis.

5084.nbsp; I, of course, only speak of the bovine race. We should not naturally include human beings in the legislation, because it would be too ntopianan idea to kill off the public. Will you kindly apply it only to cattle ? It would be impossible, because there is every reason to believe that not only are human beings affected from cattle, but cattle are affected from human beings occasionally, and you could never expect to stamp it out unless you stamped it out from human beings.

5085.nbsp; There would' be always an element of danger from contagion ?Yes, of the thing starting again,

5086.nbsp; {Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) If it is impossible to stamp it out, why do you so strongly recommend the slaughter of all animals affected with tuberculosis ?To keep it under control.

5087.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) Are you aware of any facts definitely ascertained in which the tubercular virus has been traced from a man to the bovine animal ?No, none.

5088.nbsp; It is only theory ?Only theory.

5089.nbsp; nbsp;But I suppose you are well aware of the experiments that have been made in which the virus has been traced from man to fowls ?I am aware, if I am allowed to refer to experiments, that the disease has been excited in the lower animals by using virus of human origin.

6090. I was speaking before with reference, not to an experimental case in the laboratory, but to one in which it has been excited in the bovine animal, and you said you did not know. Do you know of an experiment in the laboratory in which it has been conveyed from a man to a bovine animal ?No, I do not recollect one at present.

5091.nbsp; From the facts at our disposal, the risk of inefficiency in slaughtering out tuberculosis would be very small frora that cause, would it not ?It would not be great, I think.

5092.nbsp; You have a very interesting case of transmission of the disease to a cat, have you not ?I have a rather puzzling case.

6093. Will you tell the Committee what it was. I thought it was rather demonstrative ?On the contrary, it is one in which the source of infection cannot be made out.

5094. But as the disease is comparatively rare in the cat, will you tell us the details of it?The cat belonged to one of my colleagues in the veterinary college. It was a cat, I think, about a year old, a little under, and it had been healthy until within a short time of its death, a week or two, I think. Professor Baird, the owner, did not care about treating the cat, seeing that it was falling away, and he had it poisoned; and I made a post-mortem of it. I found that all its organs appeared to be healthy, except the lungs and the bronchial lymphatic glands; and although the lungs did not exhibit a typical tuber-sular structure it struck methat it might bo tubercle. As soon as the lungs were ready 1 cut and stained them, and I was surprised to find that they contained the tubercle bacilli in enormous numbers. I brought a specimen with me.

5095.nbsp; I suppose it is possible that the cat got the (liseaae from tubercular milk ? I made particular inquiries, and I was told that no milk was taken into the family except cream for tea, and that the cat got no uncooked meat and never was out of doors. The fact of the disease being primarily in the lung seemed to exclude the infection from the alimentary canal, as it and the abdominal glands were auite healthy.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;⁴

5096.nbsp; nbsp;How do you suppose that the disease is conveyed among bovine animals ?By cohabitation,

5097.nbsp; nbsp;By cohabitation as well as heredity ?I think it is very exceptionally convoyed by heredity, I think there is only one positive case recorded.

5098.nbsp; nbsp;Of course that is a very difficult subject for investigation, but have you any direct facts to give the Committee of the spread of the disease from one adult animal of the herd to another by cohabitation ? I have been able to get something from a stock-owner to whom I was not putting any leading questions at all. He said he was troubled with tubercle in his cows, that he had observed that when a cow died or was put out of the herd from tubercle, that the cow put into that stall was particularly liable to contract disease from the medium of eating from the same trough and standing in the same place.

5099.nbsp; nbsp;Was that the case of Mr. Duthie ?No, the Committee has no information about it,

5100.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any facts of the conveyance of the disease through the yard where the cows are tied up close together ?They nearly always are tied up together.

5101.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any facts in which the disease spreads down through the herd from an infected animal ?No, I have not any direct evidence,

5102.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any evidence of specimens illustrating the conveyance of the disease by sexual intercourse ?No.

5103.nbsp; Have you any facts in which tubercular milk was shown to produce the disease on healthy animals?No, I have not experimented on that point at all. I have simply observed the bacilli in the milk.

5104.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know of any case of a very strong suspicion of its having been communicated in that way ?Yes.

5105.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give the details ?This, I may say again, was a case that came out in connexion with the work carried oij jointly by Dr. Woodhead and myself. We went to examine the cows in a particular public institution and found there what I took to be very decided evidence of tuberculosis in the udder of three cows out of I think 12 or 13 cows kept to supply milk to the establishment, and on inquiry we elicited also that they had pigs which got refuse milk and which had been very unhealthy, and that some of them had died from lung disease. Of course I did not have an opportunity of making a post-mortem of any of them. Further, we were told that complaints bad been made by the butcher who got the fat cattle, the surplus stock sold from this dairy, that there was disease in the animals; we found also that the proportion of deaths from phthisis among the inhabitants of this institution had been in one year 30 per cent, of all the deaths, and in another year 40 per cent.

5106.nbsp; nbsp;Were there any other circumstances connectea with the institution which would lead you to suppose that phthisis would be more common from climatic or other reasons? No, there was absolutely nothing to account for it so far as I am aware, except that,

5107.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware that the lung disease in the pigs was examined carefully by anyone ?No, it was not examined,

5108.nbsp; nbsp;Were there any pigs suffering when you made your visit ?No, there were no pigs that appeared at that time to be Buffering from the disease, but there wore evidences of tubercle in three cows,

5109.nbsp; nbsp;Was there any evidence of tubercular disease among the fowls in the institution ?I do not remember whether they had fowls at that place.

ml'

#9632;.

_____

HINUTES or läVXDBNOBi

155

5110.nbsp; Have you any experience as to whether disease is more common in town diaries or in the country breeding farms ?It is very common in the country in particular dairies and in particular districts and it is very common in cities, but I should be inclined to think that taking the whole country and our largo cities, that it is more common in mr great

cities.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . ,,

5111.nbsp; Have you any idea as to where the disease is obtained from. Is it simply bred in foci and then distributed, or comes into the country from the outside ?I think these tubercular cases in our dairies are always, or nearly always, tubercular when brought

in.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,

5112.nbsp; Do I understand you to mean that those cows are imported into Scotland ?They are brought from country districts in Scotland to supply the town market.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

5113.nbsp; You do not know whether they are bred in Scotland ?In most cases. Well, speaking of Edinburgh, many of them are bred in Scotland, and a great many are bred in England.

5114.nbsp; You have no evidence to show that the virus can be conveyed by drinking water ?Yes, I have, I know the history of one case.

5115.nbsp; Could you give us the details?I cannot give the details further than that it was extremely prevalent in this herd. I got specimens of the organs sent to me, and the veterinary surgeon in attendance was under the belief that it was disseminated by the drinking water.

6116. Could you give the name of the place ? Yes, Mr. Menzios, of .St. Austcll, Cornwall.

5117, Do you say that much of the tubercular

disease is tubercular intestinal disease in the cow ? I think it is decidedly more frequent in the lung.

6118. You have seen tubercular disease in a horse ? In two cases.

5119.nbsp; What parts of the body did it affect ?There was chronic tubercle of the spleen and abdominal lymphatics, and an acute tuberde in the lung in both cases, the latter being the cause of death.

5120.nbsp; Do you know that many authorities deny the possibility of that ?I am aware that these are tiie only two cases recorded in this country,

5121.nbsp; Do you consider that the disease in those animals might have been mistaken for any other ?I think that this would have by almost all general practitioners been set down as lymph osarcoma. They were sent to me as such.

5122.nbsp; Did you prove that they were tubercular by demonstrating the bacilli ? Yes.

5128. Do you believe that strangles that occurs in the horse may be primarily tubercular in the cervical glands?That never struck me as being at all likely.

5121. Did you never examine that point?No, never.

5125.nbsp; In these two cases of the horse, as they are so important, I should like to ask another questjon. Could you find any evidence as to where the virus came from ?No, I made particular im.uiry and could not find it.

5126.nbsp; Were they both in the same stable?No, one was in the north of England, and the other was in Kirkcudbrightshire.

5127.nbsp; nbsp;Were they in a shod with other cattle? They were not associated with cows,

5128.nbsp; nbsp;Not at all ?No.

I'rof.

MöFaayean,

10 May 1888.

The witness withdrew.

John Spkib, Newton Farm, Glasgow, called and examined.

Mr, J. Speir.

6129. (Chairman.) You live, I believe, at Newton Farm, in Lanarkshire ?Yes.

5130. And are you a tenant farmer there?Yes.

6131. How much land have you in your occupation ?Ä.bout 400 acres.

5132.nbsp; Is it of a mixed character ?No, it is what is considered the best class of land in that particular district.

5133.nbsp; Is it partially arable and partially grass? It is all arable, the pastures are in rotation.

5134.nbsp; You are a member and director of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland ?Yes.

5136. And also a member of the local authority of Lanarkshire ?Yes.

5136.nbsp; And you come here authorised to speak on behalf of that body ?Yes.

5137.nbsp; How many head of stock do you keep on your farm generally ?About 100 cowraquo;, sometimes more, sometimes less.

5138.nbsp; Is your stock principally cows ?All cows.

5139.nbsp; And what is the system by which you replenish your stock ?By purchase.

5140.nbsp; Immediately after calving or before ?Before calving generally.

5141.nbsp; Does your business then consist in the sale of milk, or the manufacture of dairy produce? Entirely of milk, as far as the cows arc concerned.

5112. Where does that milk go for sale ?About three-quarters to Glasgow, and the remainder to a shop which I have at a colliery close to the farm.

5143.nbsp; In conjunction with your cow keeping and ordinary farming, do you also grow vegetables, fruit, and flowers ?Yes.

5144.nbsp; nbsp;How long have you been adopting this system of farming ?For about six or seven years.

5145.nbsp; Where does the produce of the flower garden go ?Entirely to Glasgow, in foot, everything goes from the farm to Glasgow.

6146. With such a largo herd on your occupation, have you had any cases of cattle disease ?No, I have never had any of the infectious diseases at all personally in my own stock.

5147.nbsp; And, therefore, your experience of pleuro-pneuraonia is derived from other sources than your own farm ?Yes.

5148.nbsp; Have you had frequent opportunities of inspecting pleuro-pueutnonia in the case of outbreaks on your neighbours' farms ?Yes ; I have seen laquo;tock at home, and when they were being sent into the slaughter-house, and I have gone in and seen them killed, and opened and examined the lungs of several of these.

5149.nbsp; nbsp;And I gather from that that you have paid more than ordinary attention to this subject ?More than the ordinary farmer has paid to the subject.

5150.nbsp; What has been the general system of treatment in your neighbourhood in the case of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia ?Our county all along has immediately slaughtered those that were affected, and generally within 10 days or a fortnight slaughtered all that were in contact.

5151.nbsp; nbsp;That practice I presume was only since the last order came into operation ?No, before thatat all times.

6152. Voluntarily ?Yes.

5153.nbsp; Then, so important did they consider slaughter and slaughtering that they voluntarily, before the compulsory Act came into operation, slaughtered animals that were in contact as well as those that were affected with the disease ?Yes.

5154.nbsp; Does that system still operate ?Yes.

5155.nbsp; Has any other system been adopted ?There are one or else two cases which we had during the last two years ; where the animals were supposed to have been in contact, but it was not very positive whether they had or not, and the owners wished those that were allowed to remain to be inoculated; bm. it turned out afterwards that disease did break out, and then they were slaughtered.

6156. Was that in both cases?I think so, in both cases. I am not very positive.

5157. DO I gather correctly that the only cases where inoculation has been adopted arc in ihe above

II 2

____

15fi

COMMITTEE ON PLEUKO-l'NEUMONIA AND TUHliROULOSIS :

il/c. J. Spur, ID May 1888.

two cases which have spread over u ponod of Uvu years ?Yos.

0158. dud so Car as tlio äxperienü(* oif Lanai'kshli'o is concerned, inooulation lias not had the desired effect of stopping the disease ?They never gave it any very extended trial, but so far as that went it did not do what it was intended to do.

51.'59. Yon have told us that you made it your business frequently to follow those animals to the slaughter-house ?Yes.

5160.nbsp; Did you over seu an animal, supposed to have been diseased, in which the lungs did not indicate disease afterwards ?Well, not exactly in the way that you put it. There is one case which 1 remember quite distinctly, when the inspector came out at first he thought the cow should be taken away, and he said quot; I will wait until to-morrow before 1 say any-quot; thing about itquot; : next day, however, he said quot; I quot; must have been mistaken, there is nothing wrong quot; with this cowquot;; but the local veterinary surgeon said, quot; I have seen the cow longer than you have and quot; it is rr.y opinion that this cow is probably worse quot; than those that have gone before,quot; and his suggestion was taken, and it turned out that that cow was the worst of the whole lot.

5161.nbsp; Then I gather that in these particular cows the external symptoms were very light, but that the disease existed in a very advanced state ?Yes.

5162.nbsp; nbsp;Would you, therefore, consider that in a largo herd, if slaughter whs not adopted, diseased animals might frequently escape, but which could not bo detected?! have not the least doubt about that. This cow that 1 referred lo had not only pleuro-pneumonia but tuberculosis, which was one reason for misleading the inspector at that time.

5163.nbsp; nbsp; In the ease of animals supposed to be healthy, but which were in contact and afterwards slaughtered, did you discover any, and, if so, how many instances of disease?Not very many. It depended altogether how long the animals were slaughtered after the first outbreak began. On one or two oocasions, when an outbreak happened immediately after a meeting of the executive committee, there was probably a fortnisrht, or in some cases, three weeks before another meeting was held so as to order their slaughter, and I he inspector never on his own responsibility ordered the stock to be slaughtered. He always waited for the first meeting of the executive, and then he got instructions to slaughter those in contact; he only slaughtered those actually diseased until the meeting gave him instructions.

5164.nbsp; nbsp;Was there a special meeting of the executive summoned ?Grenerally. After every outbreak, or if after two or three outbreaks, it might be delayed a little.

5165.nbsp; nbsp;How long after the outbreak ?Sometimes a week and sometimes a fortnight, and it might blaquo; three weeks ; there was one case which was at least three weeks.

510(5. Then in the case you mentioned an ii ierval of three weeks occurred after the outbreak befr. e the local authority thought it necessary to meet ?--Yes ; they had just met, if I remember aright, a day or so before this place was declared infected, and they did not meet again for two or three weeks. I cannot say particularly.

5167.nbsp; nbsp;T)id you discover any case of an encysted lung ?I never came across one of them at all.

5168.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen any other case of inoculation beyond the two cases that you refer to ?I have never seen any of the animals killed. 1 have soon any number of animals on several other farms.

5169.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen any other animals inoculated and not killed ?Yes.

5170.nbsp; Did many of those animals die ?Just an odd one now and again, not very many.

5171.nbsp; Can yon give the per-centage ?-#9632; As far as I could get it from the farmers in the cases I have known it did not appear to bo more than from one-half to one-and-a-half per cent. We generally look

upon it as being very little. 1 did not huar of it in many cases.

5172.nbsp; nbsp;Did you find many instances of loss of tails ? Yes ; there are any number of tails lost.

5173.nbsp; nbsp;What opinion have you generally formed from what you have seen and read of inoculation as a means of extirpating pleuro-pnoumonia ?I have come to the conclusion that there must bo some virtue in it, but how much we have no authority to say. It never has been definitely proved.

5174.nbsp; But if you were asked to take the responsibility of ridding the country of disease generally would you think inoculation a most effective means of doing so ? No.

5175.nbsp; Would you suggest to the Committee any other means by which you would be more likely to carry your point, whilst admitting, of course, the value of inoculation ?I have nothing more to suggest. My view is that if each veterinary surgeon -was an inspector, there would be any number of cases at once brought to light which at present are smothered over and never heard of at all and assist, as I know myself, in spreading the disease. I think the best reason I know for saying that is that the late outbreaks in Lanarkshire were altogether caused from one to three or four cases which were kept in the dark.

5176.nbsp; Therefore the recent outbreaks in Lanarkshire are due to a want of prompt publication of the outbreaks ?Yes.

5177.nbsp; Would you think that compulsory slaughter for the moment would be an effective means of getting rid of the disease ? I have not the least doubt thai if the different local authorities were acting upon the same footing it would be so.

5178.nbsp; Are you aware that an order has gone forth recently which compels all local authorities to act as yon indicate ?Yes, I am.

5179.nbsp; nbsp;And in the face of such an order do you think that it is likely to succeed ?It will succeed when carried out; what I referred to was this case of Lanarkshire being concealed.

5180.nbsp; Would you regard an animal with an encysted lung, however small, as an element of danger? Consolidated lung yon mean ?

5181.nbsp; nbsp;Yes?Certainly I would, no matter how small the encysted part; it would be just as dangerous as if it was large.

5182.nbsp; Are there any special conditions in which inoculation is likely to be more successful than others ? Well, I think inoculation would be fairly successful if done before the disease breaks out in the stock at all.

5183.nbsp; Would you think it a desirable thing to have a compulsory law inoculating all animals ?No, I would not. I was asked, I may say, by one of the very largest owners of stock in the county previous to the last outbreak in Lanark to inoculate my stock. He suggested that he wished to inoculate his, and he said, quot;yon might do yours because the public won't quot; talk so much about yours, whereas they will imme-quot; diately say that I had pleuro.quot; I had a suspicion that ho had pleuro at that time, and it turned out that he did have it a few months later.

5184.nbsp; nbsp;With so largo a byre as 100 cows, do you use any special precautions in the purchase of your animals in the first instance, and in the subsequent management of them ?1 used no particular precautions until disease had broken out in the county. From the time that it did break out I have never bought another animal in the county until last Tuesday.

5185.nbsp; nbsp;Have you over attempted to use the thermometer as a test of temperature in the case of cows in disease''Yes, repeatedly.

6186. Do you attach considerable value to this test ?Yes; and not only in pleuro but in many other diseases. It is one of the most certain modes of pointing out the disease and guiding you in coming to a more just conclusion.

11 If

la''

---------------^

MINUTE8 01' KVIDflNCE.

157

.^r)llaquo;7. Ai'u you aware that there is quot; eouslilorabllaquo; difference of opinion among Hio veterinary profession witli reference to inouulntion ?.....Vlaquo;s, 1 um.

Ö188. And to clear up this doubt, do you think it desirable that further experiments ought to bo triod ? Yes. I think thoy oii^ht.

5189.nbsp; nbsp;Would you allow these experiments to interfere with the present system adopted by the Government to exterminate tho disease, or would it rather lie to discover from a scientific point of view something that may be of future service?There would bo no necessity to interfere with the present arrangements until they were found to bo wrong, or some other ones were found to bo bettor.

5190.nbsp; Do I gather from your answer that your opinion is that tho recent order for compulsory slaughter is correct in its general lines?It is quite correct.

5191.nbsp; Ought the experiments, which you think necessary, to be carried out on an extensive scale in order to be quite satisfactory?! do not think that they can be satisfactory without being at least fairly largo.

5192.nbsp; And to embrace the whole history of the disease and the life of the animal ?Yes.

5193.nbsp; nbsp;Would you think, that the persons who conduct those experiments should be scientidc men and experts ?Most certainly.

5104. Have, you given any consideration to liio number of animals that might be fairly required for the experiments?I do not think that it could bo treated with loss than 100, and as many more as you think tit after that.

5195.nbsp; And who ought to be responsible for those experiments?I have the idea that tho Imperial Government should bu responsible.

5196.nbsp; Do you think that, the opinion in favour of inoculation is gaining ground in Scotland ?Most certainly; it lias been gaining ground vevy quickly in Scotland.

5197.nbsp; Is that shown very particularly with reference to town dairies ?The town dairies, as a rule, are already nearly all in favour of it; but they are not alone, for some even of the breeding districts are asking for it now.

5198.nbsp; What is your opinion as to the present system of quot; places quot; or '' areas quot; as defined by the Act ?I think that the infected area should only be a farm where the outbreak occurs, unless there is another farm ill the immediate proximity with stock, say, within 100 or 200 yards, or something of that kind; but these remarks would apply to buildings not to stock in the field.

5199.nbsp; Therefore, in souk; instances, on a large farm, it would not be necessary to declare the whole of that farm infected ?No, provided there were several steadings on the farm.

5200.nbsp; nbsp;During your observations have you come to any conclusion as to what distance from the diseased animal you would consider your animals safe ?I have never come across any of the cases where disease was supposed so to have spread in the ordinary way, through the air, without actual contact at all.

5201.nbsp; Do you think that it is possible at all? Well, I have seen enough to lead me to believe that it is possible. It may be, but I do not know it, and in Lanarkshire I do not think that a case has come before the executive where the animals could not be traced to actual contact.

5202.nbsp; nbsp;Is it your opinion that disease of all kinds has spread throughout the country owing, in some measure, to a want of uniformity between the various local authorities ?There is not tho least doubt about that.

5203.nbsp; nbsp;And whilst you consider that the Imperial Exchequer ought to be charged with the cost of experiments, upon what fund do you consider compensation ought to charged for slaughter?Upon the Imperial fund, most certainly.

.gt;.i0J. In üüUJUUOtioil with th.U, would you desire Mr.J.Speir.

that all the orders should ernannte from and bo carriednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;------

out by the Imperial authority ?Ye*.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^lü ^May ¹⁸⁸⁸'

520Ä. Have ypu anything to suggest ns lu regula-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;quot;

tions of fairs or markets ?Well, in a county, \v\\m once disease has broken out, and where the source cannot be dotinitely traced, I would at once stop those altogether for at leust a limited time after the outbreak. In our own county these auction marts have certainly been a great means of spreading the disease.

5206.nbsp; nbsp;Have they been more so than open fairs ? I do not think that any of the sources of infection ever had any contact at all with the fairs. They never were tiaced to the fairs at any time.

5207.nbsp; Has it occurred to you that so heroic a treatment as you suggest might have a very detrimental effect upon the Highland farmers ?No.

5208.nbsp; You are familiar with the case of Perth and other places, and the large and important auction marts in which an enormous number of cattle are sold ?Yes.

5209.nbsp; nbsp;What would be the effect upon the county of those being closed ?Well, in Lanarkshire wo have two marts which are not so large as the Perth ones, but tho second largest in Scotland Lanark and Wishaw. At Lanark on Monday there would be between 200 and 300 head of cattle, and on Tuesday something similar, and at Wishaw there were from 100 to 150 calving cows besides the fat cattle.

5210.nbsp; Have you any reason to impute any motive to veterinary surgeons, who are not inspectors, who do not publish an outbreak ?Well, tbey consider this private information, and by doing so they would be raising a stone to break their own head, as the saying is. I know as a fact that they would.

5211.nbsp; And, therefore, to meet such a possibility you would advocate that every veterinary surgeon in the district and in public practice should be a licensed inspector?Yes; he should be compelled to report every case that came before him, or at least every suspicious case.

5212.nbsp; nbsp;Would you go further and give him a reward for reporting pleuro?Certainly, I would.

5213.nbsp; nbsp;In contradistinction to other diseases ? Yes.

5214.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) You ended by saying to the Chairman that if ea!cli veterinary surgeon laquo;ere an inspector under the Act it would be better. How many inspectors have you in Lanarkshire ?One.

5215.nbsp; nbsp;Is that for the whole county ?For the whole

* {

county.

-Wc have

5216.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any district inspectors ? no district inspectors.

5217.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware if you are the only county in Scotland so acting ?I cannot say.

5218.nbsp; nbsp;Do you not think that your conivy is at a disadvantage compared with other counties where there are 8 to 10 district inspectors?Yes ; I have always considered that they have been blundering in that'way, because the county is very large and the inspector resides in one corner of it, and it takes almost a day to go to the further end if a case broke out.

5219.nbsp; nbsp;Then it is quite possible that in Lanark, where there is only one inspector, 48 hours may elapse before he visits a farm which is suspected of an outbreak ?Well. I believe it would be that in some cases, at any rate, or it might have been if tho outbreaks had turned out in the upper ward that would be, but, as it so happened, they had been almost in the immediate vicinity of where the inspector lives.

5220.nbsp; nbsp;If you have an outbreak in the upper ward, there are many places there where it would be impossible to get the information down to the inspector mid get him up again to the farm under 48 hours ? In 48 hours, unless by telegram.

6221. You spoke of experiments; do you. think that those who are in favour of inoculation would be satisfied with such experiments as you suggest ?I would expect that they would. I do not see any

158

tOMMlTTKIi ON l'LKUKO-l'MOUMONIA AN1gt; TUJtKUOULOSIS:

Mr. ./, Speir, 10 May 1888.

reaaou why they sUould nut, It' tlioy luivu fuitli in their way they surely can stand by it and givo it a thorough trial.

5222.nbsp; And do you suggest, that these experiments should bo carried out if the Imperial Government, would bear the expense ?Yes,

5223.nbsp; You said in one answer that even some breeding farmers were now beginning to advocate inoculation ?Yes.

5224.nbsp; May I nsk by that, do you mean breeders of pedigree stock, or just breeders in contradistinction to dairymen ?Well, it was breeders in contradistinction to dairymen that I referred to.

5225.nbsp; Do yon mean breeders of mixed stock ?1 mean breeders of mixed stock.

5226.nbsp; For what reason would you advocate that the compensation for slaughter should be paid by the Imperial Treasury. Is it that you view this as a national question ?Principally as a national question.

5227.nbsp; And of great importance both to the producer as well as the consumer?Of importance to all concerned.

5228.nbsp; You spoke of stopping the fairs and auction marts, do you not think that that would disorganise the trade of the country even more than any wholesale slaughter would, or inoculation ?Wo have had both the wholesale slaughter and the markets stopped too, ar.d we have got on without them for a considerable time, for over a year,

5229.nbsp; But as it happens the outbreak did not take place at the time of the market sales of sheep ?Well, the sales of sheep were not interfered with.

5230.nbsp; They stopped the cattle markets only ?The cattle markets only.

5231.nbsp; I think you indicated to the Chairman that you thought there was a disadvantage through the want of uniformity in the working of the Act of 1878 ? Yes.

5232.nbsp; Have you anything to suggest by way of amending that want of uniformity ?I suggested already that all the orders should come at least from one central authority, either here or for that part of it, it might be in Edinburgh.

5233.nbsp; In Edinburgh. Are you aware at the time of the foot-and-mouth disease there was an attempt made to form a central board of Scotch local authorities ?Yes.

5234.nbsp; I think Lanarkshire was represented on that board?Well, I had nothing to do with Lanarkshire then, so I cannot speak for it.

5235.nbsp; Are you satisfied that such a system would be workable as a central board for Scotland ?I think it would be more workable than for the whole of Britain, or Great Britain.

5236.nbsp; You think that a central board for Scotland would be more workable for Scotland than one for the whole of Scotland, England, and Ireland combined ? Yes, if they worked on the same lines.

5237.nbsp; How would you suggest that the central board should be composed, would you have it an elected board, elected from the various local authorities ?Yes, it might represent one from each county, or one from a certain population. Take it according to the number of stock that each county held, and the interest each had, or something of that kind. I have not thought the matter definitely over, and I am not prepared to give any explicit statement about it.

523laquo;. But in answer to the Chairman you rather indicated that you wanted it administered through a central office in London by the Government ?Well, it was because it was administered from there just now; but I put it back to the same point, that all orders should come from the one source and be all the same, and not as before, that each county pleased itself.

5230. Would it not he more reasonable, if you asked the Imperial authority to pay the compensation, that you should entrust them with the entire and sole management, of the Act, all over Scotland, England, and Ireland?1 think you are probably right, but if

you went for a Scotch dopartment it would bo quite easy for it to be paid by Scotland, if they chose to exorcise it in such a lax way that they courted disease to come there in preference to any part of the country.

5240. Is there any part of the Act of 1878 that you would desire to see amended ?Nothing more that I remember just now.

5210laquo;. Are you satisfied with the period of 56 days ?No, that is too short I may say ; 56 days if everything is cleared out is probably quite good enough, but if you adopt, inoculation I do not see that 56 days would be anything like enough.

5S4I. But that is supposing that we were adopting inoculation ?Yes.

5242.nbsp; But supposing that we were not adopting inoculation, and supposing the order for compulsory slaughter is carried out, do you see any reason for continuing any number of days, and if so how many ? I think you might start immediately, provided disinfection was done in a thorough manner.

5243.nbsp; nbsp;Have you from your experience any reason o believe that infection hangs about a byre or building ?

I know of no case where such has ever been, none of those eases have come to my knowledge.

5244.nbsp; Then I suppose the loss would be much less if you were allowed to fill the byre immediately after its being cleansed and disinfected than by placing the premises in quarantine ?Yes, if it were thoroughly done,

5245.nbsp; nbsp;Would you be prepared to recommend that, if the byre passed an inspector's certificate as having been thoroughly cleansed, the owner should be at liberty to refill them as soon as the old stock had been killed ?Yes, after a reasonable time to have the place thoroughly cleansed out and disinfected ; say a fortnight, or something like that.

5246.nbsp; Are'you satisfied with your system of valuation and valuators in Lanarkshire ?No, I cannot say that I am exactly.

5247.nbsp; That is another point of the Act of 1878. What is the Lanarkshire system ?One valuator does the valuing for both the county and the owner of the cattle.

5248.nbsp; nbsp;You do not appoint one man on behalf of the owner and another for the county in order to come to terms ?If the tenant within 24 hours, or 48 hours, I forget which, after the outbreak has occurred notifies to the county that he wishes another gentleman to represent him, they allow such in that case as a matter of courtesy, but if it is not done in that time they compel the cattle owner to abide by the decision of the county's valuator.

5249.nbsp; But as a matter of fact, if it is to be done within 24 hours I suppose the farmer has to communicate with the clerk of supply ?Yes.

5250.nbsp; And has the clerk of supply to call a meeting of the executive committee, or has ho power to accept the gentleman whom the farmer nominates ? Yes, only as far as the farmer. The county do not bind themselves by the valuation of the nominee, they send their own valuator and the farmer sends his, and if the two cannot agree they appoint a third.

5251.nbsp; They appoint an oversman ?Yes.

5252.nbsp; Would you suggest anything as a better mode of valuing?They may work on as they do it just now, but I think that they ought to give a longer time than what they have been in the habit of doing, than the 24 or 48 iiours, or else take one gentleman independent of the county, either of farmers or county authorities.

5253.nbsp; May I ask you, do you value in Lanarkshire a cow as fit for the butcher, that is to say, at a butcher's price, or is there a value put upon her as a milking cow ?#9632;That will be rather a ditlicult question for me to answer. It is an utter impossibility to do it; the valuator only knows that himself. I may tell you what has been done in certain viduations that have been made, and how the valuator has apparently gone about it. Ho has put the value according to the fatness of the cow, irrespective of valueas milking animals nt all, bccituse in a certain number of farms Id my own

.______.

MINUTEraquo; OP KV1DENCK.

169

immediate neighbourhood I know that the stocks which were in the fattest eonditioii were always valued highest, leaving every other thing out of account, and he has apparently gone alone upon that lino and left the milking properties dormant as it were.

Ö254. Then if the milking properties are not taken into consideration, and valuations made upon the basis you have indicated, speaking as a dairy fanner, do you consider that you have suffered very considerable loss, or any loss, if your cows are all slaughtered ?Yes ; if valuation was made where a larger proportion of cows had recently calved it would certainly be a large loss, and if they had calved from five to seven or eight months, it might be a comparative gain, or at least it might be a full valuation ; in the other case it might not come to over three-quarters.

5253. Therefore, in the event of disease breaking out in your byre, and of your stock having to be slaughtered out, under those circumstances you would not receive proper compensation ?Certainly not.

5256.nbsp; Would you put j our loss at 20 or 30 or 40 per cent. ?It would not be so much as either; from 15 to 20 might cover it. Supposing I lost 25 per cent, of cows which had recently calved, if there were a large number of them, or the average number of them, which were getting dry of milk and fat, these would be at their proper value ; there would be no loss, they would be average.

5257.nbsp; nbsp;Under the recent order you are allowed 10 days, I think, for the slaughtering. Would you think it a great improvement if that time were extended so as to allow you to get your animal into better condition ?I do not think that that would be any improvement at all.

5258.nbsp; You do not think it would ?As a dairy farmer I cannot see where any man could gain at all, because dairy cattle fatten very slowly, instead of days it takes months to make any appreciable difference.

5259.nbsp; Then if you were obliged to have them slaughtered, you would rather have them cleared out at once, and so enable you to fill the byre again ? Most certainly.

5260.nbsp; You said just now that cows take so long to feed upfeed up so slowlyare you aware that the large dairy farmers in Edinburgh start and feed the cows on, from the very first ?I am quite aware that they are feeding, but it takes us about four or five months before we can get a quarter of a hundredweight on, and probably they are heavier the day they calve then they are three months afterwards. I know it for a positive fact, and I have known them for three ur four months, to have less rather than more flesh upon them than what they had for the first three months.

5261.nbsp; nbsp;You spoke of the per-contage of loss; have you thought out what you would suffer by such valuation of your cows. Would 3011 suffer any loss of business, do you think ?The loss of business to most of the farmers in my immediate neighbourhood has often been more than the loss of the stock, that is, between the business and the disarrangement of the cropping of the farm and produce lying on hand, and other matters of the same kind.

5262.nbsp; That would be obviated by the proposal that we are discussing, that you should bring in stock immediately after the farm was disinfected ?Yes.

5203.nbsp; If you were permitted to do that, would your loss of business be so very heavy ?No, it might be very little; at least, it would be much less than at present. There would still be this, that with the bulk of farmers their milk is generally supplied on a yearly contract. Whether the fanner would be entitled to break that contract on its being stopped for a fortnight or three weeksit would depend upon that whether he lost much.

5204.nbsp; Are your contracts written contracts ?They are all written contracts.

5265. Have they no clause regarding the outbreak of disease?JMone, whatever, that I know of.

5206. Do you know that that is the case in England? Mr. J. Spfi; I am not aware of it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

5267.nbsp; But it is not common in your district?I lOMaylH88. have never hoard of any.)nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;~~~

5268.nbsp; What quantity of milk do you Ssupply to Glasgow daily ?The lowest that I nm allowed to take in winter time is generally 100 gallons, from that to 150.

5260. Would you have any diffleulty in obtaining that quantity from another source for a week just to keep yourself going?I could not got it.

5270.nbsp; Do you mean to say that you could not get it youi'selC, or do you mean that your customers could not got, it?Well, 1 could not get it, the customers might bo able to or not according to the market, and the time of year. In mid-winter it would be almost an utter impossibility for the customers to get it. Just now, in all probability, they would get double what they wanted.

5271.nbsp; nbsp;But you would not be able to get it from any of your neighbours, would you ?No, because they are all bound to fulfil their own contracts.

5272.nbsp; And the contracts are full for the time being ? Yes.

5273.nbsp; nbsp;Could not you get it from a distance ?As far as I am concerned it would be an utter impossibility there too, because we have to deliver very early in the morning. My milk has to be in Glasgow at 6 o'clock in the morning. We have to start before that, that means 5 o'clock, and it would be an utter impossibility for my horse to go any distance and to deliver it there at that time.

5274.nbsp; I do not mean that it should be sent to your farm, could you not contract and get it sent in by train to Glasgow ?It would not be in in time enough for the same early customers that I am supplying. The farmers within the radius of six or seven miles around Glasgow have from 10 to 20 per cent, higher prices than those farther out, simply because it is got in earlier in the morning.

5275.nbsp; nbsp;Then if your farm was, as you say, further out from Glasgow, do you think that such an arrangement would then be possible ?There would be much less difficulty in doing it.

5276.nbsp; Are you about six miles out ?Yes.

5277.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) About this question of compensation, you say that the indirect loss would be very considerable owing to the disturbance of your milk contracts ?Yes.

5278.nbsp; nbsp;And you have no clause in your contract which would get you over that difficulty ? No, nothing just now, and I almost fear that, owing to the plentiful supply of milk which we have had of recent years, if you insisted upon it you would not get. a contract at all.

5279.nbsp; Do you go so far as to say that compulsory slaughter put in operation in your byre would mean absolute ruin to your business ?Not absolute ruin, I would not put it so strong as that. It means a very heavy loss.

5280.nbsp; In fact, we do not expect pleuro-pneumonia in the herd without very heavy loss I am afraid ? No, we do not.

5281.nbsp; About the central board you spoke of, am T right in understanding this, that you would prefer the Privy Council to put these orders in force ?I would prefer the Privy Council or any othor central board other than a local authority. By that I mean a burgh or county authority.

5282.nbsp; I start with this, that you are not satisfied with the action of the present local authoritieu ?I am not.

5283.nbsp; But what I want to arrive at in your judgment is this : which would you prefer, the action of the Privy Council here or the action of a central board or boards in Scotland ?A Scotch board.

6284. How would you be disposed to compose this Scotch board ; how would you get them to work ? As I said before, a certain number of represenlativeH for each number of head of cattle) take 1,000 or

160

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEK0ÜLO8IS:

Mr. J. Speir, 10 May 1888.

3,000 if you like, anil put them in proportion to that from each country.

5285. According to the nuniber of cattle in the respeotive counties thoy should send a delegate to this board ?Yes.

5280. In -whose hands would you place the election of the delegates? You are rather puzzling me.

5287.nbsp; nbsp;It' yon are going to recommend another authority in preference to the Privy Council, as is suggested, how are you going to work it?It depends upon who is to pay.

5288.nbsp; nbsp;You have not thought out the constitution of such a hoard ?No.

5289.nbsp; nbsp;Before leaving this central hoard T should like to press yon upon this point, do yon think that one board in Scotland would be sufficient?1 think so.

5290.nbsp; nbsp;I think you will admit that there arc two great interests, the dairy interest and also the general stock breeder's interest?1 admit that.

5201. Do you think that it would be altogether fair to the districts in the north of Scotland, where the disease is not prevalent, that they should run the risk of being overruled by the largo dinry interests in the vicinity of great cities like Glasgow, mid others, who have different views in dealing with this question of pleuro ?You are taking rather a wrong view of the opinion in the south-west. There are there only a comparatively small number of dairymen round Glasgow and Edinburgh. After 10 or 12 miles out of these places the interest of the dairymen ceases. It would be very much the same as your interest in the north of Scotland, because you are breeders and they are breeders too, and breed probably more than you do.

5292.nbsp; nbsp;In the south and west of Scotland many of them are breeders of course I know ?They all breed 12 miles out from Glasgow, and even shorter distances.

5293.nbsp; nbsp;Is your own opinion in favour of the compulsory clauses as at present?Yes.

5294.nbsp; nbsp;But I think you told the Committee that that is not the opinion of the dairymen in and about Glasgow ?I was not asked that question.

5295.nbsp; nbsp;Y on say that breeders now in some cases, if not in many cases, wanted inoculation ?Yes; I admit so.

5296.nbsp; nbsp;Your feeling being the other way, if you resided in a part of the country where there was no disease, and you held the view that this compulsory slaughter was the best way of preserving your part of the country from disease, would it be fair that you should be overruled by this growing feeling in other parts of Scotland in favour of inoculation ?My opinion is that you will not be overruled for a long time ; 1 think there will he far too many of your opinion.

5297.nbsp; nbsp;I asked if it would be fair ?There would be just the same fairness that you should be overruled in that as that they should be overruled as at present.

5298.nbsp; nbsp;Is the local authority in Lanarkshire over-ruled by any central board of Scotch local authorities at the present moment?Inoculators ; those who were in favour of inoculation.

5209. By whom were they overruled ?By the majority of the county. We have slaughtered none since the present order has been in force.

5300.nbsp; nbsp;You consider that the conipeusaiion should be paid from Imperial funds ?I think so.

5301.nbsp; nbsp;If your view was carried out, of having one central board in Scotland elected in some shape or another by the different local authorities, would you anticipate that the Government arc likely to give such n board the power of charging the Imperial fund for slaughtering purposes ?I would expect, so.

5302.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any reason for supposing so except hope ?No,

5303.nbsp; nbsp;But you would admit that if the Privy Council had the power, the Government would ho more likely to pay from Imperial funds than if the

power were in the hands of such a board ?There would bo much less difficulty with the Privy Council than with raquo;ueh a central hoard, and as far as the carrying out of the order was concerned there would not be much diU'erence,

5304.nbsp; nbsp;As regards the carrying out of the order, you do not think there would be much difficulty in the administration of a central board or boards in Scotland ?i. do not think so.

5305.nbsp; But the order might more properly come from the Privy Council ?It- would have to go from the Privy Council.

5300. With the view of getting money from the Imperial funds ?Yes.

5307.nbsp; nbsp;( Mr. Bowen-Jones.) 1 should like to ask you whether those inoculated animals that broke out with pleuro-pneuinonia after being quot;inoculated had been in contact with the diseased herd before ?Yes.

5308.nbsp; nbsp;Then they may have acquired the disease before they were inoculated ?Yes ; they were not satisfied whether the inoculated cows had been in contact with the diseased ones or not. It was more as a precaution, and as a half test to see whether inoculation would have any effect or not.

5309.nbsp; nbsp;You have told us that, although it would not be ruinous, an outbreak in your herd of 100 dairy cows would cause yon very serious loss, and more particularly indirect loss. Would you think it fair for the ratepayers to be charged for this consequential loss, and the dairy farmer to be compensated to a larger extent than simply the value of the animals ? No, I should scarcely say that 1 would give him that amount of compensation.

5310.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that under the present regulations, where full compensation is given for the animals slaughtered, that the existence of the disease will be concealed ?It is being concealed ; it has been already concealed ; and I expect it will be in the future.

5311.nbsp; Why should it be when the owners of cattle are fully compensated ?I am scarcely prepared to answer that.

5312.nbsp; But is it not the interest of the stockowners to get rid of pleuro ?But they do not do it. There is one tiling which I might mention, that, if I as a cattle dealer had pleuro, there is another interest that comes in there of which you have taken no notice at all, and in Lanarkshire that is the thing that we have the most difficulty in dealing with.

5313.nbsp; nbsp;Then you think that farmers, as a rule, would make known the existence of disease, and it is their interest to do jo whether they do it or not ? It. is their interest to do so on the very first possible opportunity to get the compensation.

5314.nbsp; nbsp;But you think that some do not do it ? Dealing men do not.

5315.nbsp; Do you mean sellers of stock or farmers ? Farmers, as a rule, have given notice with all due speed.

5316.nbsp; nbsp;Then those cattle owners who conceal the existence of the disease are the cattle dealing branch ? They are principally cattle dealers. In our own parish there is one cattle dealer, who had somewhere about 60 cows, and, 1 think, nearly half of those were diseased when notice was given. His next neighbour had 60 or 70, and there was only one case of disease, and several others in the same proportion, so that points to the moral.

5317.nbsp; nbsp;Could you suggest any means by which these men could be checked to any greater extent than they are now ?I would suggest that they pay far heavier penalties than have ever been imposed up to the present time ; whether they could be enforced is another thing, and in Lanarkshire where those auction marts and fairs are so very common, within the last three months we have adopted the system of branding every animal which has been once exposed, so that it should not be again exposed in any market for at least 56 days.

5318.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that a strict administration of the law would be suflicicnt to check this wrong prucgt;

;;

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

161

tico ?Yos, it is want of proper administration winch lias beon tho diiliculty with us.

5319.nbsp; Then with a strict administration of tho law and the slaiishtorinfj; powers now given under the rocont order of tlio Privy Comicil do you think that wo could clear the disease out of tho country ?I havo answered that.

5320.nbsp; In order to do that you recommend that there should be more centralisation ?Yes.

5321.nbsp; Do you think that if the Imperial Exchequer provided funds as you proposed, and issued orders as to dealing with cattle disease in localities, that tho localities would carry out those orders ?-I think so.

5322.nbsp; You. think there would bo no difficulty in that ?There would not bo any difficulty.

5323.nbsp; They would not say as we havo nothing to do with the givinlaquo; of tho orders wo will not see to their being carried out. They would not feel that as they were not tho masters to give tho orders that they would not help to curvy them out ?That is a difficulty I have never anticipated Avould happen.

5324.nbsp; Do you think that it is not probable that they would take that view ?I would consider that it is very improbable.

5325.nbsp; Because otherwise another point arises, that is, a new body of inspectors would have to be paid for in addition to those tliat exist under the local autho-ritics ?__Yes.

5326.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.) You were a member of the local executive committee last year ?I am not a member of the executive committee, only of the county local authority.

6327. Can you tell me anything about the outbreak, or supposed outbreak, at Maulslie, near Carluke, in Lanarkshire ?Yes.

5328.nbsp; Were you aware of the experiments on inoculation ?Yes, some experiments were made there.

5329.nbsp; Can you tell us of your own knowledge whether really there was a case of pleuro in the Maulslie byre ?No, I cannot; it was only said that it was so. I had not an opportunity of seeing the animals myself, and it is utterly impossible for me to say whether it was so or not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

6330. But as a member of the local authority, is in your impression that there might have been a mistake in that, and, perhaps, there was no pleuro there? Well, there will be always the fear that there was a mistake. I think there have been several cases of the same kind where mistakes havo arisen before.

5331. Can you tell us whether tiie immediate locality has been completely and perfectly free from disease ever since the inoculation, that ever since the inoculation there has been no outbreak ?None close

at hand.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;* x.. i

6332. I mean in this particular place ^it lias

been always free since.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , . i _t-ii

5333. And are some of the inoeulated animals still in Lanarkshire ?They are still on that farm. I understand they have never been allowed, or that permission has ever been asked, to let them leave that

place.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

6334. You cannot draw any distinct conclusion from the experiment taken there ?If it was an actual case of pleuro, then of course certainly it has done good; if It was not a case of pleuro of course, as a test, it has been useless. That is just one of the cases that I was referring to when I said that, if you were going to experiment further, you must start with a very large number.

5335. Do you happen to know how many animals were killed at that reported outbreak, or were not killed ?_One, I think, at Mr. Hosier's.

533G. Did your county inspector examine its lung?

__I cannot say ; not being on the executive 1 cannot

go into the details of those outbreaks. 1 only know them as being reported to me at a meeting held after an interval of three months.

5337. But it is the duty of your inspector to examine the lungs in cases of that sort ?Yes, and I have seen him examine them on u great many occasions myself.

O 54003.

5338.nbsp; Does ho make a written report to the board ? Mr. J. Speir. Yos.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; #9632;-----

5339.nbsp; And aro those reports filed and preserved ? 10 May 188S. Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.-----------

5310.nbsp; I understood that you had not yourself seen any written report of thu Maulslio outbreak by the inspector?No, I havo not.

5311.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr, Stirling.) I want to know wliethor you think it would bo sufficient to put a stop to such practices as wore carried out in certain places in the district of Wishaw, that the penalty you propose should be imposed on any farmer or dealer found concealing tho disease, coupled with the foe that you propose should be paid to the veterinary inspector for informing them that there was a place diseased ?It would, certainly, if there were a heavier penalty. It might not deter all those men, because with us they are an eternal source of bother, owing to their attempts to conceal the disease, we could not keep them in order, and they defied the law at every possible opportunity.

5342.nbsp; nbsp;In your experience have you not found that neighbours for their own protection and safety will give information of such cases?We have had no difficulty with the ordinary farmer at all. There were one or two cases whore it was discovered that they were considered a little slack in reporting, but it was simply from the people not having seen pleuro, and they did not know it. Probably tho cows had recently calved, and they fancied that they had taken indigestion, and it was only after a day or two, perhaps, that they got alive to the danger.

5343.nbsp; Then it is chiofiy to the dealers that you attribute this ?That is where the biggest danger is.

5344.nbsp; Have you experience of cattle from Ireland ? None whatever.

6345. You do not deal with any of tho Irish dealers ?Not with any of the Irish dealers.

5346. You have no knowledge as to the value of the certificates given ?No, I cannot say anything about them.

6347. (Chairman.) Have you any experience of tuberculosis ?Yes, I have had more experience with tuberculosis than pleuro, personal experience at any rate.

5348.nbsp; And that experience is limited to Ayrshire cattle ?Entirely to Ayrshire cattle.

5349.nbsp; Do you think that it is on the increase in Ayrshire cattle?It appears to be on the increase, or more noticed by us now, whether it is or not.

5350.nbsp; Is there anything in the condition of your climate, or in the constitution or form of the Ayrshire breed, which you think likely to render it more susceptible of tuberculosis than other animals?The whole of the south-west of Scotland is very dam p, which is always considered favourable for the spread of that tlisease; and the Ayrshire cow above every other form of animal has a particularly small narrow chest, so that both of these circumstances may be considered as having to do with tho spread of that disease.

5351.nbsp; It is among milk cows that you find the greatest amount of tuberculosis ?Well, I have always been among milk stock, and I have never handled any other class of cattle.

5352.nbsp; Do you consider that the increase of tuberculosis is in any way attributable to tho increased winter milk trade?I havo looked upon tho largo increase of winter dairying as having contributed to the spread of that disease. Since thu demand for winter milk became so great, cows have been kept much more in tho house during the winter time; and in small byres with low roofs, and badly ventilated, the disease has undoubtedly been considerably aggravated,

5353.nbsp; Do you consider it a hereditary disease? Yes, 1 have always looked upon it as being very much in that way. In fact, I can point, to almost any number of cases where it apparently is so. There was one case which came within my notice within the las two or three weeks, where a neighbour of mine had U cow, he sold it two years ago, and the local butcher

162

OOMMITTEK ON I'LEUBO-I'NEUMONIA AND TUBEK0ÜLO8IS;

Mr. J. Speir. 10 May 1888.

told Mm it was very badly diseased. Three weeks ago ho had a calf, a grandchild of that cow, and ho said quot; I will sell this calf to the same man, and go quot; and seo if there is any tuboirulosis in tho calf;quot; ho did so, he wont and saw it, and it was in a very bad condition with tuberculosis. That calf was between two and three weeks old.

5354.nbsp; Do you consider that by in-and-in brooding you produce or aggravate tho disease ? It would aggravate it. I do not say that it would produce it.

5355.nbsp; Do you observe it among the high bred stocks of Ayrshire cattle ?It exists very badly in ono or two prize-taking stocks, and those stocks have been very closely inbred, but whether that is the cause I am not prepared to say.

5356.nbsp; Do you observe it in calves and young cattle as much as in old ones ?In one or two of the stocks, where it is worst, in some of thorn the death rate is very heavy. Up to tliT'oo years old.

5357.nbsp; Do you think that tho public at largo really appreciate the extent to which tuberculosis exists ? My idea is that they have no idea of its extent, or measures would have been taken long before this to put a stop to it,

5358.nbsp; Have you suffered much loss personally from it ?Yes, it has cost mo more than almost all the other cattle diseases put together.

5359.nbsp; To what extent have you been a loser ? About 50 per cent, of tho total loss which generally happens may be directly or indirectly traced to it.

5360.nbsp; nbsp;What might be the per-ceutage on the stock ? My losses run from three to five per cent, on the total number every year.

5361.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any experience to show whether or not it is communicable to the human being from tho animal ?I have no particular cases.

5362.nbsp; Would you be disposed to think that it is possible that it might be spread through the milk or flesh ?I think it is very probable that it is spread by both, but more particularly from the milk, seeing that it is used uncooked as a rule at any rate.

5363.nbsp; Are you aware whether it is frequently found in pigs ?It is very prevalent in pigs in certain districts and certain stocks.

5364.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had any experience of this ?I know several cases where large pig breeders have purchased a boar without being thoroughly cognisant of its history, and found that thoy had bought an animal with tuberculosis. That animal communicated it to every one of its progeny. There is one case which happened last year where a farmer keeps 30 breeding sows, and he bought two boars out of the same stock, and he lost every young pig for the following season, and he had to kill even the old ones.

5365.nbsp; nbsp;What breed of pigs were they ?They were the breed that are most prevalent in the south of Scotland, large white pigs.

5366.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any reason to believe that it is found in poultry to any extent ?It exists very extensively in poultry too.

5367.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any reason to believe that it could be communicated from poultry to tho human being ? Yes. There is another case that came before me about a year ago, when a certain gentleman for the purpose ct raising pheasants brought over about a dozen Irish hens, as being smaller than his own were, to sit on the pheasant's eggs, where his daughter worked principally with the poultry herself. Unfortunately these hens had tuberculosis, and after they had brought out the pheasants they were herded along with some turkeys, and some other poultry. At last nearly all the, hens died, then tho turkeys died too, and the veterinary surgeon, when called in, pointed out that tuberculosis was the cause of it. About that time the daughter got unwell and died of consumption ' later on. The family in that case were not known in any way to be connected with consumptive parents ; and whether the disease had been contracted directly from the poultry or from some other source of course remains unknown,

0868._Well, in view of the very startling state-

ment which you have just made do you consider that tuberculosis is of sufficient importance to necessitate its being placed under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?I have no hesitation in saying that it ought to have been placed there long before this. It is my opinion, as a farmer, and it is the opinion of a great many veterinary surgeons, who arc moving more among Ayrshire stock than I am doing, that there is more loss arising from tho difficulty of distinguishing that disease in combination with others than all tho rest put together.

5369.nbsp; nbsp;What treatment would you suggest for an animal suffering from aggravated tuberculosis ? Actual extinction.

5370.nbsp; nbsp;Do I understand you that that means compulsory slaughter with compensation ?Yes, compulsory slaughter with compensation and destruction. In pleuro-pneumonia you can use the animals ; but I should say that you should not use the animals suffering from tuberculosis.

5371.nbsp; Would you be disposed to give local authorities power to kill all such animals and destroy their flesh; and prevent the sale of milk from them ? Certainly. Two local authorities in our neighbourhood have asked for that power, namely, Paisley and Glasgow. They both asked for it, and asked for it very strongly, and after examination of all the herds in Paisley and Glasgow they came to some rather startling conclusions, namely, that about 30 per cent, of the cattle kept in Paisley and Glasgow were found more or less affected with tuberculosis.

5372.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) What happened to those cows ?They are still there.

5373.nbsp; Was there nothing done ?They had not power to do anything but grumble, and go on. I may mention that the Paisley local authorities in one case stopped the sale of milk of a particular individual and put the matter into court, but they found that thev had overstepped their duty, and that they could do nothing.

5374.nbsp; But you recommend slaughtering of those animals. Do you think that this is a disease that is easily discoverable ?It is not easily discoverable at tho very first, but after it has gone a certain length it is not at all difficult to discover.

5375.nbsp; Then you do not think it a contagious disease ?I am not prepared to say so.

itlaquo;

5376.nbsp; You are not prepared to say I am rather inclined to think that it is. got a susceptible subject with healthy

it is not? If you have animals, and

where thoy arc in the open air, I think that the risk of contagion would be very little, but with the same animals in a confined byre for five or six months during the winter. I am inclined to think that it is contagious, and in many cases I have had animals die standing close together at the end of the byre where I only fancied there was one had that sort of thing slightly, whore latterly I found that I had two.

5377.nbsp; nbsp;You said that it was brought to you by inbreeding to a certain extent ?I did not say so,

5378.nbsp; I understood you to say that ?No.

5379.nbsp; Do you think that it is hereditary ?I say that it is hereditary.

5380.nbsp; Then in case of a breeding herd you would have to destroy the whole herd ? Yes ; there is one particular herd to which my mind has been reverting since you have put this question to me, and I know that the owner of that, even from a pecuniary point of view, would have done better to have killed his herd 10 years ago than meet with tho losses he has done and started with a new one.

5381.nbsp; nbsp; {Sir G, Macphcrson Grant.) Ahoui Aosiroy ing tho whole herd, do I understand you that In the event of tuberculosis being discovered in a brooding herd, you would recommend the destruction of the whole herd ?I did not mean the whole herd ; that is, of healthy animals.

5382.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) I understood you to mean the family group ?I mean the affected animals.

5383.nbsp; (Sir G. Macphersoa Grant.) Do you think that could bo carried out ?It could bo carried out.

MINUTES OP BVinENOR.

163

,5384. Take a man with a breeding herd; Uo has u

sale, and tuberculosis is discovered in one of the male animals six or seven months afterwards, or many years afterwards, how can you follow the descendants *#9632; I do not think that it would be even advisable to kill the descendants of what might have been a diseased animal, if thoy were healthy.

5385. Let us understand, you consider the disease to bo hereditary, but although hereditary you would not kill the offspring of the diseased animal tn they wore healthy.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;  ^

538G. That is a different thing from destroying the whole herd ?That is my meaning.

5387.nbsp; You have no absolute evidence as to one healthy animal taking it from a diseased one by contact ?Whoro you have heredity and contagion coming together it is almost impossible to say where the one begins and the other ends.

5388.nbsp; nbsp;If yon had a case of tuberculosis in your byre, and then move-.¹ that cow and had hor slaughtered and replaced hor by' a fresh animal, and that fresh animal became affected with tuberculosis, what

would you do ?I have had animals do so in cases [Mr. /. Spttr,

similai- to what you say, but that does not prove eon- ^ _M |_888gt;

tugion. The second uniuml might have it by heredity_______

too,

5389.nbsp; You said something about in-and-in breedina, you did not attribute it to igt;ny in-and-in breeding in itself?Not at nil.

5390.nbsp; nbsp;But do yoa consider iu-and-in breeding weakens the constitution and renders an animal more susceptible to the disease?Yes.

53t)l. And that is your experience amongst the Ayrshire stock ?Yes.

5302. (Mr. Bo wen-Jones.) Do you think that by stringent legislation that tuberculosis could be stamped out and become a thing of the past, as much as rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease has boon in this country ?I do not think that wo could manage it to the same extent, but wo could reduce it to a great extent.

5393. Sufficiently and materially enough to warrant legislation on the subject ?Yes.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned to to-morrow at 10.30 o'clock.

TENTH DAY.

Friday, Uth May 1888.

PRESENT:

Mr. JACOB WILSON in the Chair.

Lord Cloncurrt.

Sir (tEORGe Macpiierson Grant.

Mr. Stirling (of Kippendavie).

Mr. Bowen-Jones. Professor Brown, C.B. Propessok Horsley, E.F.S.

Mr. Dawson, Secretary.

Hon. William Irving Win

i/oraquo;. W. I- Winter.

5401.nbsp; Tliereforo you have 2,000 head on the 7,000nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ----.

acres, and originally had 8,000 head upon the 30,000 11 May 1888.

acres?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; #9632;,#9632;gt;gt; e

5402.nbsp; Have you frequently experienced outbreaks ot

cattle disease ?Yes.

5403.nbsp; Was that, disease generally in the form ol plouro-pncumonia ?#9632;Yes, it was.

5404.nbsp; I presume you regarded the disease as an incurable disease ?Yes.

5405.nbsp; nbsp;And that you did not attempt any methods of cure ?No.

6406. Consequently your treatment would bo of a preventive nature VJust, so.

5407.nbsp; nbsp;What was the form of that treatment as a rule ?Tnoonlntion.

5408.nbsp; Over how many years have you practised the system of inoculation ?25 years.

5409.nbsp; nbsp;Was inoculation in your case attended with general success or failure?It WHS attended with general success,

6410, Has it been your habit to follow animals very closely after inoculation to the slaughter-house ? -Yes,

X 2

5394.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) You are, I believe, a member of the Legislative Council of Victoria ?Yes.

5395.nbsp; And you are also President of the Northeastern Agricultural and Pastoral Society ?Yes, I am.

539G. How long have you hold those honourable positions ?I have been a member of the Legislative Council between three and four years, and I have been for seven years President of the North-Eastern Agricultural and Pastoral Society.

5397.nbsp; You arc also, I presume, a considerable owner of land in the north-eastern part of Victoria ? I have 30,000 acres in the north-eastern district, and 7,000 in the western district.

5398.nbsp; And I believe you are there the owner of considerable herds of cattle ?Yes.

_Bi 5399. Arc you also interested in sheep ?Yes. ' 5400. What number of cattle do you calculate that, you possess?I have about 2,000 head now. My 30,000 acres of land in the north-eastern district is leased. The 2,000 bead of cattle are on the 7,000 acres in the western district. At the time that my experience dates from, that was in 1865, I had 8,000 head of cattle grazing over the north-eastern district.

164

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA ANK TUBERCULOSIS

Hon. W. J. Winter.

11 May 1888.

i)4l 1, Did yoraquo; inoculato animals at various ages ? Yes.

5412.nbsp; Did inoculation tako place annually, or only in case of an outbreak?Only in case of an outbreak.

5413.nbsp; Did you oxporicnco many lossies from tho operation ?I think we might calculate a loss of one or two per cent., probably two per cent.

Ö414, That, you consider, was in consequenco of inoculatioi ?Yes, from having blood poisoninquot;, I should think.

lt;5415. Was that from unconsciously inoculating diseased animals ?No.

6410. Did you intentionally inoculate diseased animals ?We inoculated overything that came into tho herd.

5417.nbsp; Did you generally inoculato diseased as well as healthy animals?Yes.

5418.nbsp; Did you follow your observations to the period of tho animals' death ?Yes.

5419.nbsp; nbsp;Did you subsequently make post-mortem examinations ? Yes, they were killed on the property.

5420.nbsp; nbsp;Have you frequently known cases of encysted lung from pleuro-pneumonia after inoculation ?No, I have not seen such cases.

6421. Is it your opinion that pleuro-pneumonia is on the increase ih your colony rNo, it is not so malignant as it was.

5422. Have you any experience of it in this country ?No, 1 have none at all.

5423._ Have you any reason to suppose that the disease in the colony is identical in typo with that in England ?Only from the experience of veterinary surgeonsof course T have not soon it here.

5424. I presume that the cattle you refer to were the ordinary cattle of the country ?Yes.

6'12ö. Did you iind that milking cows were more susceptible than others ?No ; I think tho younger cattle are more susceptible than others.

5420. At what time of year do you generally find the greatest number of cases?During the cold weather.

5427.nbsp; Have you any difficulty in procuring virus for inoculating ?It is generally obtained by killing one of the cattle infected and taking it from the lung.

5428.nbsp; I presume, under the very special conditions under which you arc situated, that no other form of treatment suggests itself ?No other form of treatment does.

5429.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any convenient opportunities for isolation rNo.

5430.nbsp; nbsp;Therefore your conditions in Victoria as compared with those in this country are entirely dift'erent ?They are different, but not so different now as they were at the date I speak of25 years since.

5431.nbsp; nbsp;Does Victoria offer greater facilities for isolation than laquo;ny other colony ?Yes ; very much better facilities.

5432.nbsp; nbsp;If it were possible to isolate animals and to reduce the disease to a comparatively few outbreaks where very few cattle were attacked, would you not think that as a means of exterminating it absolutely from the colony, slaughter might be the most eifectual way of treating it ?In a very small degree.

5433.nbsp; nbsp;Take a country like England where you can reduce it to a small area; and knowing that the disease is not indigenous to the country, would you not consider compulsory slaughter a practical and desirable form of treatment ?Yes.

5434.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) How long have you been out in the colony ?46 years.

5435.nbsp; nbsp;You say you practised inoculation for 25 years, but that you only inoculato when there is an

outbreakyou do not inoculate every year ?__I only

inoculate when there is an outbreak.

5436.nbsp; nbsp;How many outbreaks have there been in those 25 years?The disease has broken out frequently in different districts, not all over tho colony nt one time, but there have been small outbreaks such

as farmers' cattle getting the disease, when of course they are put in quarantine by the stock inspector.

5437.nbsp; nbsp;How many outbreaks have you had in your own herd ?The largest outbreak was in 1805.

5438.nbsp; Have yon had nothing since?Yes; tho last one was about two years ago.

5 139. Have you had a dozen outbreaks in your own herd ?No, not a dozen, live or six would be tho outside.

5440.nbsp; nbsp;That is in the 25 years ?Yes.

5441.nbsp; Then it is not so virulent as I imagined it to bo ?It was at first. Out of the 8,000 head of cattle we lost over 2,000.

5442.nbsp; Was that before you commenced inoculation ? Yes.

5443.nbsp; Did you find a practical difficulty in performing the operation on so many cattle ?I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that our convenience was very small indeed for tho largo number of cattle we had. There is where I place my dependence in inoculation. We brought in perhaps 500 at a time, and after they were operated upon, their tails were banged, that is, we cut across the hair on them, and they were merely put out amongst the other cattle. Then another draft was cut out by the horseman and taken in and served the same way. After they came down to about 500 or 250, we thought it was not worth while knocking the cattle about to take out tho 250, and the deaths that occurred afterwards were in the long-tailed cattle. I was very anxious to draw tho Committee's attention to that, because it shows distinctly that there is somethinlaquo;' in inoculation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ⁰

5444.nbsp; Is it from that experience, that the principal deaths were amongst cattle which were not inoculated, that you have formed your favourable opinion of that system ?Yes.

5445.nbsp; How long did it take von to cut out the cattle and go through the mob ?About 10 days.

5446.nbsp; Did the cattle not suffer in condition very much from being knocked about ?They would suffer somewhat by being confined to the yard.

5447.nbsp; Did you make any attempt to trace the outbreakswhere they came from ?That was difficult. It seemed to attack the northern district of the colony, and there it was no doubt brought from New South Wales in the first instance. I would like to add here, that the first introduction of pleuro-pneumonia into Australia was by the importation of a cow from England into Victoria by the late Mr. Boadle. She was kept on a property near Melbourne for some time before the disease was discovered, and, during this lime, wool teamsters, who passed the place on their way to Eiverina (New South Wales) for the season's casting, surreptitiously placed their bullocks in the paddock with the cattle she had been running with. Consequently the disease was carried on to New Sontli Wales, and the largo lots of infected stock taken from that colony to the Melbourne market for the purpose of immediate slaughter, when disease was observed, were the means of disseminating it generally on their way.

5448.nbsp; In your own particular district could you trace how you got it, or how it came into your own herd ?No, we could not.

5449.nbsp; Are you anywhere near the driving-line ? Yes.

5450.nbsp; Does that pass through your run ?A portion of it does, along the river frontage.

5451.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any suspicion that the disease might have been brought by a mob of cattle from the north ?Yes.

5452.nbsp; I do not think you have told the Committee the position of your run ?The 30,000 acres is in the north-cast district, but at the time 1 am speaking of we had 270,000 acres of land, Crown land and purchased land ; but now it is confined only to purchased land.

5453.nbsp; I understand you to say tho main road for cattle coming down from the north goes through your run ?Yes, through a portion of it.

MINUTES OP EVIDENCK,

105

5454.nbsp; And in all probabilily the disease would bo brougbt in by mobs on tliat road ?Yos.

5455.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know what the stock-owners gone-rally do ? Do they generally practice iuoculutiou ?

They do.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , .

5456.nbsp; nbsp;What is tho pei-centago of deaths trom pleuro in mobs travelling down?In my own ease, two years ago, I lost 27 out of 400; that was alter they arrived on my station.

5457.nbsp; nbsp;Wore they inoculated cattle? No, they became infected while crossing a common where pleuro was known to bo. It was not known at the time my cattle crossed, but afterwards I knew it was from there the cattle became infected.

5458.nbsp; nbsp;Were there cattle on the common ?Yes.

5459.nbsp; Did the cattle come in contact ?They did not come in contact with tho diseased cattle, but they came across the common where tho cattle had been

we had the chanco of it because they wore out in the run with tho other cattle.

5476. Did you know them by any particular mark r Wo knew the diseased ones.

6477. Did thoy all die?I could not say; some of them died, but in a very largo lot like that wo did not have time to discern ono from the other very strictly.

5478. What do you imagine was your general saving by inoculation ?1 think wo saved 50 per cent., perhaps more than that. They wore dying very rapidly at the time wo inoculated them.

5470. Can you give the Comraitteo any notion as to the rate at which they wero dying before you began inoculating, and the rate at which they died after that?Very few died afterwards, except those that were uninoculated.

6480. How many a day would be dying before you began inoculating ?20 to 25 a day.

5481.nbsp; Then how many would be dying a day after you began your inoculating ?Six or seven perhaps for the first week, then it reduced down considerably, to three or four.

5482.nbsp; nbsp;How soon after you began inoculating did the outbreak finally cease, judging from the cessation of deaths due to pleuro ?Within three weeks.

5483.nbsp; nbsp;You stated that you considered that you got the disease from the north ?Yes.

5484.nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean from New South Wales? Yes.

Hon. W. 1. Winter

11 May 1888,

^;i

grazing.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

5460. Wore there any dead ?Some few were dead but they came across whore the infected cattle hud been grazing.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

54G1. Do you believe that the disease is capable ot being communicated in any other way than by actual contact of diseased cattle with healthy ?My opinion is that they must come in contact with each other, but of course I could not state positively that those cattle had not been with my own, because it was merely a drover who had charge of them.

m #9632; r

5462.nbsp; In regard to the mobs of cattle that were driven along the road, I think you said the custom was to inoculate them ?Yes.

5463.nbsp; Are you aware if tho uninoculated cattle suffered very much more than those that were inoculated on the road travelling down ?Those that were not inoculated suffered most.

5464.nbsp; Have you found that the process of inoculation takes away from the value of tho animals ?Not at all, so far as my own experience goes.

5t65. Have you found that, from the fact of their being inoculated, they possess any higher value ? They do possess a higher value, that is, the inoculated cattle are safer. Cattle selling as inoculated cattle bring higher prices than those that are not inoculated.

5466.nbsp; What does it put upon the value, say of a two-year old or a three-year old ?Cattle bringing 4/. a head without inoculation would bring 4/. 5s. and 4/. 6s. with inoculaliou ; that in very large herds of 500 or 1,000 head makes a great difference.

5467.nbsp; Would they fetch that higher price simply on the ground that they were considered so much safer?Yes.

54G8. Do you know any case where the inoculated cattle have suffered from pleuro-pneumonia a second time ?No, I do not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ tvt t

5469.nbsp; Have you ever heard of such a case ?No, i have never heard of such a case.

5470.nbsp; Do I understand that you inoculate cattle even though you see the disease on them ?Yes.

5471.nbsp; Did you never kill those that were badly diseased ?No.

6472. Why ? Did you think that tho inoculation would stop the disease ?No.

5473.nbsp; Did you think they would recover from it? Not from that, but they stood just the same chance if you did not inoculate them, they would probably die. Some of those that wero diseased of course died, even although they were inoculated ; but wo did not attempt to choose or pick out the cattle that were thought to be diseased. We just ran them in together because we were losing them. We lost periiaps 300 or 400 before we started.

5474.nbsp; nbsp;I believe you slated that you never came across a 'jase of an encysted lung? No, except through tuberculosis.

5476. {Professor Horsley.) You said just now that you inoculated the diseased animals because they had the same chance as those you did not; did von have an opportunity of following up those animals that were inoculated when they had tho disease on them ?Yes,

5485.nbsp; nbsp;In your former outbreaks, in fact in all the other outbreaks, could you trace tho origin of the disease ?No.

-Fr

5486.nbsp; nbsp;Where do you think you get it from ?-travelling stock.

6487. You mean from those that travelled on that track through your run ?Yes ; thoy disseminated the disease the whole way, because they left behind them the cattle which were not able to travel with the disease upon them.

5488.nbsp; nbsp;You stated that in your belief the disease was only conveyed by contact ?Yes.

5489.nbsp; Have you any facts whatever to show that the disease might be conveyed on the food ?No.

5490.nbsp; Or from the dung ?No, I have not.

5491.nbsp; In inoculating what fluid did you use? The virus from the last portion of the lung that was Infected.

5492.nbsp; You mean the most recent infected portion ? Yes, the pink-coloured, rejecting the dark coloured lung, and taking the virus from that which was much like red currant jelly.

5493.nbsp; The congested part?Yes.

5494.nbsp; I suppose you never took the fluid that you got from it unless it was quite clear ?Perfectly clear.

5495.nbsp; nbsp;Did jou ever use the fluid in the chest surrounding the lung ?No.

6496.nbsp; Did you always take it from the lung itself? Yes.

6497.nbsp; I suppose you did not keep the cattle in the yard to see whether inoculation was successful or not, but just turned them out ?Turned them out.

5498.nbsp; You say you lost about 1 or 2 per cent, from blood poisoning ?Yes.

5499.nbsp; Do I understand you to mean by that, that it was a spreading of pleuro inflammation up the tail to the body ?Yes.

6500. Was it always of the same character ?Yes.

5501.nbsp; nbsp;Did the tail become black ?Yes, and quite stiff, and then they broke out all about the posterior.

5502.nbsp; nbsp;Did you cut the tails off?No they dropped off generally.

5503.nbsp; nbsp;You say that the animals that you have inoculated never took pleuro ?That is so.

6504, How long did you have those inoculated animals under observation ?Twelve months.

5505. Twelve months on the average VYes.

6506. Did you keep them any longer than that ? Yes, I kept the younger ones longer.

166

COMMITTKK ON PLETOO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEHOULOSIS:

lion.

W. I Wiutci

8607. Wlmt wns Hie longest time ?li'rom

,#9632; yeara

11 May 188laquo;

(o .quot;gt; yoars.

.5.^r){)K. So tlmt from your own porsounl experiönoe you cart¹ testify to itiooulfttion acting protectively for three yours ?Yes.

5509.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider there is any prnoticftl dis-advantagos in inoeulation ?I do not find any.

5510.nbsp; nbsp;Thwo is the loss of the tails ?Tlmt is duo to the inoculation not being perfectly performed, they nave been inooulatetl too deeply.

5511.nbsp; nbsp;I believe you do not regard an animal that Jias been inoeulatod as a tainted animal ?Not at all.

5512.nbsp; nbsp;And that you do not regard that animal as capable of conveying the disease to other animals ? Not at all.

5513.nbsp; nbsp;You gave us a very interesting example in which your cattle had crossed a common on which infected cattle had been grazing, and on aceount of which your cattle became infected; I think you stated to the Committee that the disease did not break out in your cattle on their transit from this common to the place that they were going to, but that it did break out when they arrived at that place ?Yes some time afterwards.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; *nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'

5514.nbsp; nbsp;What time was that?About a fortnight.

5515.nbsp; Do you know how soon the first boast was attacked after its arrival ?About a fortnight after I think.

5516.nbsp; nbsp;How long would it take to get from that common to the place?Two days.

5517.nbsp; That would give the incubation period of the disease as about 10 days ?_Yes. The fortnight elapsed beiore it was observed, but the disease may have been on the beast a week before. My manager observed it at the end of the fortnight, but he had no experience in plcuro-pncumonia. He wrote to me immediately that the disease had broken out among the cattle, and then I sent down the instruments for inoculating them.

5518.nbsp; Is it common in your experience that the disease should have an incubation period as short as 10 days ?I could not say so.

5519.nbsp; Do not any facts occur to you on that point ? No.

5520.nbsp; Did you (ind any example in which, when you inoculated the diseased animal, the inoculation seemed to hurry the disease ?No, I did not.

5521.nbsp; nbsp;You said that yon had never seen an encysted lung from pleuro-pneumcnia ?No I have not.

5522.nbsp; Do you mean that you have never seen the post-mortem of an animal that had recovered from pleuro .quot;Yes, I know cases where they have recovered Irom pleuro, and been killed afterwards.

5523.nbsp; Did you find any fibroid patches in the lung ?Not in the lung ; on the ribs 1 have noticed it.

5524.nbsp; nbsp;Binding the lung to the ribs ?Yes. _ 5525. Have you found no solid or semi-solid patches in the lung itself ?Yes, I have seen that also.

552Ö. Have you seen it with softening in the middle?Hard, I think, in many cases.

5527.nbsp; nbsp;I am not speaking of tuberculosis, simply of plemohave you seen many cases of that kind? v cry few cases.

5528.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen more of these cases lately or did you sec more of them in the earlier period ?--harlier.

5529.nbsp; nbsp;Do you fear the introduction of pleuro into Australia ?No, I do not,

_ 5530. Would you pass any restrictions on cattle in every place where they have pleuro ?If they wore inoculated I would not have the .slightest hesitation to introduce them.

5581. Are you aware that in America there is a restriction of two years on inoculated cattle PYes I have heard of it, lately.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ''

6532, Then you do agree with that ?No, I do not. _ 5533. Why not ?From the oxperience that I have given you just; now.

5534. Do you consider that an inoeulatod beast cannot cüininunicato the disease ?ft cannot com-inunicate the disease.

ßflSÖ. Actually, it is a general opinion in Australia that an inoculated animal is more valuable than an uninoeulatod animal ?Yes.

5536.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Boiven-Jones.) I suppose compulsory slaughrer m an unfencod country like yours, where the herds are largo and intermixed, would mean decimation or extermination of the cattle of the country if it was pursued ?Yes ; and a very large cost to the Crown.

5537.nbsp; nbsp; Therefore it would not bo practicable to carry that out ?I think not.

5538.nbsp; nbsp;You say that you think inoculation the best means that you have adopted for lessenina the disease ?Y^res, certainly.

5539.nbsp; nbsp;Still, under inoculation you do not expect to get rid of the disease entirely throughout the country do you?No; it has broken out in several places iii an unmoculated stock, but I have not the slightest doubt that if the whole stock was compulsoriiy inoculated, that would stamp out tho disease.

5539a. Asa large stock-owner and a member of tho Legislature, have you recommended a system of compulsory inoculation ?Yes, but of course there are people who do not agree with inoculationit does not matter how you might bring it before them, they object; they have held that opinion some time and they stick to it.

55396. Then the Legislative Assembly has not yet had sufficient evidence put before it to enforce a law for compulsory inoculation ?No, it has not been brought before them.

5540.nbsp; And there is a difference of opinion, I suppose on the subject whether inoculation would cause the extinction of the disease even in the colonies ?Many people do not take sufficient interest in the subiect others have peculiar ideas and think that inoculation is not sufficient. The majority are perfectly sensible of the fact that it is.

5541.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) How do you perform the operation of inoculation ?We use a spaying needle which has the back flat and two sharp sides, and we also use the ordinary twine, and dip it in the virus, and pass it through the tail just below tho hair the thickness of a threepenny piece below the skin. 1 have proved to my satisfaction, that inoculating below the skin produced blood poisoning, caused by entering the tissue between the skin and flesh ; this membrane conducting the virus and contaminating the system of the animal thereby.

5542.nbsp; Do you clip the hair off before you insert it ? No.

5543.nbsp; Is there any particular care taken in selecting the matter ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;⁰

5544.nbsp; How do you get it ?By killing a beast, a cow or a bullock, and taking the last affected portion of the lung.

5545.nbsp; Do you cut into that part ?Yes, and take it out in lumps or pieces like Sienna marble or perhaps lighter than that.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^r

5546.nbsp; Do you put that in a vessel and allow the mud to drain from it?Yes.

5547.nbsp; How long do you keep the matter before you consider it spoiled ?It depends upon the weather, you can preserve it longer with glycerine than you can with anything else.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'

5548.nbsp; Is it customary to use matter with glycerine ? It is nowat that time we did not.

5549.nbsp; Have you had any opportunity of notiiur whether there is any difference in the effects of the matter pure from the lung, and tho matter mixed with glycerine?No, I have not; I have used it merely as it camo from the lung.

5550.nbsp; nbsp;Do you watch the animals after inoculation ?

Yes.

_ 5551, Can you tell the Committee roughly at -what time the swelling of the (ail begins ?Within between

two or three daysthree days I should say

___.__.

MINUTK8 OF KVIDKIfCJO.

167

5552.nbsp; Does it cxtoml very oi'ten up tho tail to tho trunk?It does not very often, soklomly, but in hoiuo cases it does.

5553.nbsp; Do }'cu amputate the tail when you see it extending i'No, wo allow tho beast to lake its chance.

5554.nbsp; I gather that you look upon inoculrttion as you practise it i\s a moans of checking the disease rather than of extinguishing it ?Yes, of checking it.

5555.nbsp; Do you happen to have noticed whether or not inoculation takes in tho diseased animals in tho same way that it does in the healthy ?I think it does, but whether it is a cure I could not say; I know that some have recovered from pleuio-pneumonia.

5556.nbsp; I mean does tho inoculated part show the same conditions in the diseased animal and in the healthy ? It does.

6557. You said that the deaths decreased directly the operation was performed ?When I said directly, I meant that they decreased materially within a fortnight.

5558.nbsp; I understood you to say that ii^ the first week after inoculution the deaths would bo from seven a day instead of 20 or 25 ?Yes.

5559.nbsp; That would rather suggest, would not it, that inoculation has a very immediate efleet ?Yes ; it has an immediate effect.

5560.nbsp; And that, in short, it is not necessary to wait for any period of incubation?I should think not.

5561.nbsp; But the action occurs almost as soon as the matter is introduced ?Yes.

5562.nbsp; If animals died alter inoculation, had you any examination which would enable you to decide whether they died from the inoculation or from the disease of tho lungs ?They died from the disease of the lungsthey had been diseased before they were inoculated.

5563.nbsp; Did you make any post-mortom examinations ?I did.

5564.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any experience of death occurring irom an extension of the inflammatory process from the inoculated part ?I have seen them die from that alsonot in the lung, but over the body.

5565.nbsp; Would that occur in the healthy animals? It would occur in the healthy animals from inoculation.

5566.nbsp; Have you any idea of the number per cent. ? Ihave seen two per cent. I should think.

5567.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Can you say that an uniform opinion is held in the various colonies of Australia upon this subject ?No, there is a division of opinion upon it.

5568.nbsp; Did you take part in the stock-owners' conference that was held some time ago ?No.

5569.nbsp; Is there anything in the geographical position of any colony of Australia which causes the ditlerenee in opinion to which you refer ?I think that in the wet and cold country tho disease is much more malignant than it is in tho drier country.

5570.nbsp; In which colonies do you indicate that it is most virulent in its form and character ?I should think in Victoria. That colony is colder and wetter.

5571.nbsp; Have you in your large experience had any experience of tuberculosis ?I have.

5572.nbsp; Do you consider that it is on the increase in Australia ?Considerably.

5573.nbsp; nbsp;Can you in any way account for that?No, 1 cannot. I should think breeding from diseased animals ; but where it first commenced I cannot say. It is very much on the increase, and I think it is very much more serious than pleuro-pneumonia.

5574.nbsp; In your eyes is it easily distinguishable from' pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

5575.nbsp; In what way can you easily distinguish it? We find the pus and tubercles running in many instances through the whole system.

5576.nbsp; Can you distinguish it in tho living animal going at largo in a wild state, as it were ?Yes, they have quite a different appearance; to beasts affected with pleuro-pneumonia; they arc dry,and there is pus running from the nose, and they just waste away.

5577.nbsp; Have you examined any of them by a post-inortein ?Yes.

5578.nbsp; In what part of tho animal do you find it most allected?I found it about the throat principally, and sometimes the lungs; I have also found pus bags in tho lungs and in the meat.

5579.nbsp; Are you very particular in your selection of bulls ?Yes, very.

5580.nbsp; Do you make it a special consideration not to take a bull knowingly from a herd in which tuberculosis has been discovered ?Certainly.

5581.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that it is hereditary ?I think it is hereditary. 1 have known calves die from it when they have been throe weeks old.

5582.nbsp; nbsp; {Professor JIvrdey.) How many beasts, roughly speaking, have you seen affected with tubercle ?I have seen four or five per cent, of cattle.

5583.nbsp; Is that recently, or do you mean some time ago ?Recently.

5584.nbsp; When was your attention first drawn to tubercle?About five years since.

5585.nbsp; Yet you have had stock for 25 years ?Yes. 0586. Do you think it did not exist in your part of

the colony before ?I am positive it did not.

5587.nbsp; Have you heard from other stock-owners in the colony of its recently occurring in the same way ? Yes.

5588.nbsp; Has attention only been drawn to it in Australia within the last ten years, then ?I think within less than that.

5589.nbsp; Within what period should you say ?Six or seven years at the outside.

5590.nbsp; Have you ever heard in Victoria that it has been imported in any particular strain ?It has been imported originally, I believe, from Queensland.

5591.nbsp; Are you aware whether researches were made in Queensland to find out where it came from ?I do not think any were made ; they term it there dry rot. That is the name by which the disease is known amongst the employes of largo station holders.

6592. Did it come from New South Wales before you got it ?Yes.

5593.nbsp; Can you trace it distinctly down ?Yes.

5594.nbsp; Has it got all through Victoria?Yes, I think so, but there are cases where cattle are perfectly free from it.

5595.nbsp; Then it is scattered over the colony ?Yes. 5696. With the animals running free as yours do,

I suppose it would be impossible to find out whether any adult animal could give it to another by mere contact?I have never known that.

5597.nbsp; In the colony there is no cohabitation in the ordinary sense of the word ?No.

5598.nbsp; Arc you aware whether it is more common in cases where cattle are kept in paddocks ?No, 1 could not say that. I believe that those who deal in cattle, those who were buying store cattle from Queensland, were the greatest sufferers in any ease, whether grazed in the ordinary way or not. There is very little outside grazing in Victoria; it is all in fields the same as here, but of course in larger fields.

5509. In the larger towns, where I suppose they have dairies as we have here, are you aware whether cows are kept in sheds for dairy purposes ?No, they are kept in fields.

5600.nbsp; They arc all kept in fields?Yes.

5601.nbsp; Then there are no dairies such its we are accustomed to, in which cows are tied up by the heads (dose together ?No, they arc; kept in the field. There! is an isolated case here and there where a householder may keep a couple of cows in n shed, but dairies certainly are kept in largo paddocks.

5G02. Then, as I understand, you have no evidence as to the disease being communicated from one animal to another ?--No.

5003. Could you give the Committee any facts concerning the spread of disease by means of a single bull ?I could not trace it. to the very eoinmeneo-niont, but a few years ago 1 bought u bull and ho suffered from tuberculosis, and his stock suffered from tuberculosis.

Hon. W. I. Winter. 11 May 1888.

quot;

1G8

OOMMITTKK ON rLEUKO-l'NEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

/ion.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 5604. Have you killed all hiraquo; progeny ?No.

W, I. Winter. 5605. Arc you breeding from tliom ?No, I am

not. 11 May 1888. ₆₆₀₆ _Aro _fatti_ng _thera ₀ffp_Ye8. .

5607.nbsp; Wo\ild you consider it not salb to bread from thorn ?It would bo unsafe.

5608.nbsp; nbsp;Would you recommend, that where it could bo discovered, the owner of turbercnlous cattle should report tho samo to the authority ?I think it would bo very necessary, but it would bo a very largo (juostion,

5609.nbsp; nbsp;And very difficult to carry out ?Yes.

5610.nbsp; ])ut still, do you think it would be the right thing to do ?I ihink so.

5611.nbsp; Do you think it would bo right, where possible, to order the slaughter of all sneb animals ? I do.

5612.nbsp; Do you thiidc it would be just to compensate tho owner in the same way as wc do in cases of other diseases ?That is a very large question to go into. Of course it might be merely communicated by breeding, and in that case they deserve no compensation.

5613.nbsp; But is that tho only qualification you would put upon it ?Yes.

5614.nbsp; Otherwise if it could bo shown that it was a pure accident, would you compensate in the same way as with other diseases?Yes.

5615.nbsp; 1 suppose you would not go quite so far as to make it a penal offence, or at any rate a punishable effence, to brood from tubercular iiuimals ?No, I think not.

5616.nbsp; Do you think that would bo practicable ?I do not think so.

5617.nbsp; Still you do think that tho authorities ought to be informed of tho occurrence of the disease ? Yes.

5618.nbsp; And that where it is possible to discover it, it ought to be stamped out by slaughter ?Certainly.

5619.nbsp; Have you seen tuberculosis in other animals than bovine animals ?No, I have not.

5620.nbsp; Have you not soon it in pigs or sheep ?No.

5621.nbsp; Have you seen it in birds or fowls \I have not.

5622.nbsp; Do you know whether it is a common thing in poultry in Australia ?ü do not think so.

5623.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any evidence to offer tho Committee as to its possible transmission in any way than hereditarily ?1 have not.

6624. You told us of tho general distribution of tho disease in the body of the animal and you finished by saying that it was in the meat. Could you give the Committee any proportion of cases in which you found the tubercular pus in the meat?I have seen it in more than a dozen instances extending over three or four years.

5625.nbsp; nbsp;What pcr-centagc would that bo probably of the whole?They happened to be killed on the properties. I could not give you an idea. They were killed by mistake in many instances, killed for pigs, and to be burnt out of tho way and all that sort of thing. I have only seen them in my own stock.

5626.nbsp; Killed to bo burnt did you say iYes, to be destroyed.

5627.nbsp; Because they were obviously diseased ?Yes.

5628.nbsp; Have you seen the pus in the joints as well as iu the flesh ?Yes, I have.

5629.nbsp; In all those dozen that you speak of?Yes, in a dozen cases.

5630.nbsp; Where you had it in the flesh did you also have it in the joints?Yes, and on the inside of the ribs particularly.

The witness withdrew.

Prof.

W. Duguid.

Professor William Dcguid called and examined.

5631.nbsp; {Chairman.) You are, I believe, a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?Yes.

5632.nbsp; And an examiner also of that college ?Yes.

5633.nbsp; You arc further, 1 believe, assistant inspector of the Agricultural Department of the Trivy Council? Yes.

5634.nbsp; For how many years have you been a member o'' your profession ?25 years.

5635.nbsp; I believe you have had experience in the teaching of your profession ^vYes.

5636.nbsp; What experience havr. you had in teaching ? I had five years' experience in teaching anatomy and physiology'in the college established in Edinburgh by Professor John Gamgce, afterwards removed to London in 1865.

5637.nbsp; Have you made tlio contagious diseases of animals a special study ?Yes, I may say I have. My attention was drawn to it particularly during the time of the cattle plague in this country, when I assisted Dr. Burdon-Sanderson.

5638.nbsp; In what year was that?1S65.

5639.nbsp; nbsp;In what way was your attention specially directed to this subject?I assisted Dr. Burdon-Sanderson in the work that he conducted for the lioynl Commission on Cattle Plague. His inquiry was into the nature of the disease, its symptoms and the modes of propagation.

5640.nbsp; nbsp;Subsequently to that did you hold any special appointment at the Brown Institution ?Yes. I was appointed at the Brown Institution as veterinary surgeon when it was first opened.

5641.nbsp; In what year was that ?That was in 1871.

5642.nbsp; How many years have you held your present appointment as assistant inspector of the Agricultural Department?Since 1878; very nearly 10 years.

5643.nbsp; When did yon first become acquainted with the disease of pleuro-pneumonia ?The first cases of the disease I saw were in Edinburgh in 1861 and 1862, and up to 1865 until I left Edinburgh cases of the disease were common there.

5644.nbsp; Have you had any special opportunities of making experiments with reference to pleuro-pneumonia ?I had at the Brown Institution when Dr. Burdon-Sanderson was carrying out investigations for the Koyal Agricultural Society.

5645.nbsp; When was that ?The experiments were begun in 1876 and finished in September 1878.

5646.nbsp; I believe these experiments are duly recorded in the Koyal Agricultural Society's Journal?Yes.

5647.nbsp; What are tho principal objects for which those experiments were commenced?There were three principal objects: first to ascertain by what means animals might become infected by the disease; secondly, to test the methods of inoculation; and lastly, to find whether inoculation was of practical value or not.

5648.nbsp; nbsp;With reference to the first part of the work which you set out for yourselves, namely: to ascertain by experiment by what means a healthy animal can be infected; what was the result of that portion of your experiment ?After exposing a number of animals to the emanations from the lungs of diseased animals we could not produce the disease. There were 10 animals exposed at different times to tho emanations from the lungs while they were still warm. You will find it recorded in Appendix I. of the Report on page 165 of the Journal of tho Eoyal Agricultural Society of England, No. XXIX. In several cases the lungs lay in the mangers before these animalraquo; from 12 to 24 hours without producing any result.

5640. With regard to the second part of your experiments, which was to ascertain whether inoculation is practically useful, what can you tell the Commitieo upon that point ?A number of animals were inoculated in dill'ereut ways; in some the exudation from the lungs of the diseased animals was injected into the blood ; in others it was injected simply under the skin on tho side of the neck, and in one animal the ordinary method of injecting it under the skin of

___


			1 i
	Prof. W. Duyuid.		i #9632;i

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

169

the tutl was adopted. The result was ihut tlie iiijcc-tiou into tho veins caused tlie death of one animal out of the munber. 1 think there were some 12 or 14 ultogethov Inooulntod in that way, but it was doubtful if that one deatli whh really the result of the inoculation, beeauso there were other diseased conditions of the organs found after death. Of the five animals inoculated under the skin on the side of the nock two died from blood poisoning. quot;With regard to the animal that was inoculated in the ordinary way in the tail, there was a portion of the tail dropped off after about six or seven weeks.

5650.nbsp; Are wo to gather from that, then, that the locality in which tlie inoculation took place was a direct cause of disease ?Yes. I think that the swelling produced at the seat of inoculation spread. It was uncontrollable. If it had been injected in the usual way in the tail amputation could have been performed, and the swelling stopped.

5651.nbsp; nbsp;Then on the face of that your third proposition appears, which was to discover a way of inoculating the animal without risk ?The most successful method of inoculating without risk seemed to be injection into the blood.

5652.nbsp; Had yon any deaths from that ?As 1 have said, only one out of 12 or 14 animals operated upon, and it was doubtful whether that was due to the injection into the blood or other causes.

5653.nbsp; Has it been part of your duty to make postmortem examinations of animals suffering from disease ?Yes, it has for the last ten years. I have been engaged often on that duty.

5654.nbsp; Have you also made postmortem examinations of supposed healthy animals which have been in contact ?Yes, I have.

5655.nbsp; Both inoculated and uninoculated?I cannot say much about the inoculation, because with regard to our work in this department we never know whether animals are inoculated or not; it is not required by the inspectors to give it on the returns.

5656.nbsp; nbsp;Following that up, do you consider that it is desirable that the returns from the inspectors ought to indicate the treatment which has been applied to every animal ?No; I do not think it would be, because the law requires that as soon as the animal is discovered to be diseased it should be slaughtered.

5657.nbsp; I take it for granted that inspectors have to report, whether animals are diseased or in contact ? Yes.

5658.nbsp; nbsp;Whilst doing that, if any treatment has taken place, ought that not to be mentioned ?-I think there is so little inoculation conducted throughout the country, so far as my experience is concerned, that it would be of comparatively little value.

5659.nbsp; Have you frequently met with cases of encystment in the lung of an animal that has been in contact ?Very frequently.

5660.nbsp; Would you regard that animal under such conditions to bo an element of danger among healthy animals ?During a portion of the time that the encysting process was going on it would be; but after all commnnication with the bronchial tubes had been cut off by the formation of the solid fibrous tismie round the diseased lung, I should say not.

56G1. Ami correct in assuming that, this encystment has taken place ns a consequence of disease which has net been detected ?Quite so.

5662. Therefore it appears that many mild cases of pleuro-pneumonia may exist which are not capable of detection ?A great many ; in almost, every herd of which we have tho record of their being slaughtered out, we find that a few are discovered that have never been suspected of diseasi'.

5603. Is it within your knowledge that eneystmcut is discovered in inoculated cases?I cannot say that it Is within my own personal knowledge.

5064. I presume then since you have been connected with this deportment you have had opportunities of seeing the returns of nil the outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in this country ?Yes, I have seen the a 5400,1.

lüturnsot' the laquo;hole of tho outbreaks during tho time 1 have been in the office, and Mr. Copo and mysidf have kept for the last nine years a private record of every outbreak.

5665. Have you hud frequent opportunities of visiting and reporting upon outbreaks ? Very frequent.

0666. Have you made special inquiries into their origin and other matters connected with them ?It is always a part of our duties, if we are sent to investigate any outbreak, to discover if possible tho source from which the disease has been brought to the farm.

5667.nbsp; Have you come to a satisfactory conclusion in your own mind whether it is a disease indigenous or not to this country ?No, I think it is not indigenous to this country. We have a correct history of its importation into this country.

5668.nbsp; Therefore as an imported disease it would be more likely to be exterminated by heroic measures than if it had been a disease indigenous to the country ? Certainly.

5669.nbsp; Have you observed that town dairies are more frequently the seat of the disease than farms ?

__It is generally so. We have little chance of

separating the outbreaks in the town dairies from the outbreaks in the counties, because every county is grouped with the boroughs within it, in our returns. Taking the counties which have the greatest number of boroughs where you would have town dairies, you always find the greatest number of outbreaks of disease reported.

5670.nbsp; You have, I presume, a greater difficulty of isolation in town dairies ?There might in many of them be difficulties of isolation because in many of the town cowsheds a man has only one shed for the whole of his cows, which may amount to from two or three up to 50 or 60.

5671.nbsp; Have you satisfied yourself araquo; to the means by which this disease is communicated from one animal to another ?I think it is only by the contact of the diseased animal with the healthy.

5672.nbsp; And through the medium of the respiratory organs ?Yes.

5673.nbsp; Have you come to any conclusion as to what distance of one animal from another would render it safe from the risk of disease ?No ; I think if they were under the same roof, whatever size the shed might be, there would be risk, but I have never personally known of an outbreak occurring on the opposite side of a roadway, when there is a roadway between two sheds or a farm courtyard.

5674.nbsp; That might be a question of 10 yards ? Quite, so.

5675.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any possibility of disease being communicated by the attendant ?I think not.

5676.nbsp; The results of your experiments at the Brown Institution, I take it, as a whole, were negative ? Quite so ; we failed to produce the disease.

5677.nbsp; nbsp;Until you brought them iuto direct contact ? Wo did not attempt to bring in diseased animals amongst the cattle we had for experiment, but we placed those cattle out afterwards in sheds where the infection had been for some time; the regulations would not allow us to move diseased animals.

5678.nbsp; What was the result of placing these animals in the infected sheds ?The result was that not one of them took the disease; but I may tell you in addition to that that there were other animals which had not been inoculated which resisted the disease in those very sheds ; so that the result of the experiment was negative, to a great extent, in that way.

5079. Do you find as a result of your visits that the system of inspection pursued in this country and in Ireland is satisfactory and dependable ?-In some districts only in this country. I have very little knowledge of the inspection in Ireland.

5680. Do you attach great volue and faith to the. certificates of health which are issued ?--VVith regard to movement I do not, for during the past year we gquot;' returns frequently of infected animals which had been moved into districts with those certificates of health.

l! May i88s.

170

COMMITTEE ON Pl-RUKO-J'MCUJIONI/V AND XÜBBBOUI1O8IB1

W .'Juyuid. 11 May 1888.

tho animals fulling with dUeftse within a period of irom 30 to SO days.

6681, Have you any reason for thinking that 11 period of ilfty-six days is not ample for all the purposes for which it was intended ?Yos, I^iave reason for believing so. During the past year, oti a farm in Aberdcenshire, there was, I think, something like 112 days between two consecutive cases on tlio same farm, thai is to say, two obviously diseased cases on the same farm. There are numbers of cases in which we have had 70, 80, and up to 120 days even, elapse after the purchase of fresh cattle before the disease was discovered.

5682.nbsp; If the recent order of tho Privy Council, requiring compulsory slaughter, were continued, it would matter very little what number of days wore fixed?Very little then, if tho slaughter order was carried out.

5683.nbsp; nbsp;Is it your opinion that that slaughter order would have the desired effect of exterminating the disease, if properly and judiciously carried out? Yes, it is decidedly my opinion that it would.

5684.nbsp; nbsp;Although pleuro-pnenmonia is of a more insidious nature, and the germs of disease lie dormant longer than in the case of cattle plague and foot-and-mouth disease ; at the, same time, by a judicious application of this order, you expect that the country would, in time, he rid of this disease ?Yes, in the course of time ; it would take a longer time, than if the disease had a shorter period of incubation.

5685.nbsp; nbsp; Have you any reason to believe that reports of the outbreaks of disease arc frequently not promptly sent in ?Wo have evidence of that in our returns when we find sometimes 10 reported as diseased on the inspector's first visit. There is no doubt there must have been negligence on tho part of someone.

568G. Or ignorance ?Negligence or ignorance.

5687.nbsp; To which do you attribute it ?I think in many cases it is negligence really.

5688.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it arises in any measure from tho very few qualified inspectors that are appointed ? No, I do not think it would occur through that. It is simply in the case of owners who are more or less dilatory. They put it off from day to day instead of sending at once; they wait until a favourable opportunity occurs to tell a policeman when they meet him.

5689.nbsp; Do you think that might probably be met by constituting tho general veterinary practitioners of the country as a body, inspectors ?No; I do not think it would be met in that way very readily.

5690.nbsp; Do you think it would in any way bo met by offering a reward for reporting cases of outbreaks ? Offering rewards for reports of that kind becomes dangerous, I think. It becomes a premium to a man the other way.

5691.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) What was the general result of the attempts at the Brown Institution to induce pleuro-pnenmonia without the introduction of diseased animals ?They were a failure. Not a single case was produced.

5692.nbsp; Do you remember what was done ?Yes, 1 remember distinctly what was done. With regard to about 10 animals at least, th^re wore the fresh lungs of diseased animals brought from the slaughter-house and put in their mangers, left there from twelve to twenty-four hours, and the mangers were neither cleansed nor disinfected except in the ordinary usual way of cleansing out; and nothing resulted from it. The man who brought the lungs at the different times from the slaughter-house went amongst the experimental animals and fed them in the usual way, and 1 myself after having been to see cases of disease with Mr. Cope, Mr. Ingersoll, and others, often went amongst these animals.

5693.nbsp; And in no case you say did disease result ? No.

5694.nbsp; Is there any evidence of a general opinion in favour of the idea that pleuro-pneumonia may be communicated by mediate contagion ?No ; 1 think

the evidence is in tho opposite direction, that it cannot be communicated by mediate contagion.

5695. A certain number of the members of the veterinary profession do hold the belief that such things as manure, and uiino, litter, and contaminated food, hides, and morbid parts generally, will carry the infection?My answer to that would ho that, no country has ever got tho disease except from the importation of live cattle, and then the statistics of this department for tho last 10 years show that in almost every case where tho disease has recurred upon a farm, there still remained some of the old stock.

569G. So that you would conclude, would you not, that the weight of evidence is entirely in favour of tho idea that the disease; is only cominunieable by cohabitation ?Quite so. The weight of evidence is entirely in favour of that view.

5697.nbsp; Do you happen to have noticed whether the infection always spreads from one animal to the immediate next one ?No, it does not. It frequently misses several in the shed. You may find an animal in one end of the shed suffering from tho disease, und tho next animal attacked would be three or four away from it, or even at the otlier end of the shed almost.

5698.nbsp; nbsp;In your experience of the other infections--cattle plague notably, and foot-and-mouth disease have you noticed the same thing or not ?Quito tlio reverse. They usually spread to the animal that is next to the diseased one. That has been my experience with cattle plague from the experiments conducted by Dr. Burdon-Sanderson, and also in regard to cattle, tied up with foot-and-mouth disease.

5699.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any way of explaining that ?As regards explaining it, the expired air from the diseaselaquo;! animal in the case of pleuro-pneumonia seems to bo tho only means of communicating the disease ; but, with foot-and-mouth disease you have the saliva from the animal, which will be spread over the food of the animal standing next it,; in the case of cattle plague you have the discharge from tho eyes and nose.

5700.nbsp; Probably the question of susceptibility in the case of pleuro-pneumonia nrght have some influence, might it not ?Certidnly it would, because in town dairies, and in dairy herds, where the disease is common, yon will find that newly-calved cows arc more susceptible than others.

5701.nbsp; Is it a fact in the history of the disease that pleuro-pneumonia spreads through the entire herd r The statistics which we have had in this ofiico for the, past 10 years raquo;how that there are very few instances indeed (I do not think there are above one or two instances a year), in which tho whole herd has been attacked.

5702.nbsp; nbsp;So that it you were to pursue a system of inoculation in all those cases, there would be some reason to believe that the conclusions which you drew as to the efficacy of the operation would be based on false premises ?Quite so. There are a certain number of animals which always resist tho infection.

5703.nbsp; Have you any experience of the method which we adopted some years ago, of moving the animals which indicated infection by a rise of temperature ?Yes, I have had some experience in that.

5704.nbsp; nbsp;What, was the general result of that system ? The general result was that the disease was stopped in a very short time, with the loss of a few animals. By careful temperature observations you can take the animals out before they have time to infect the others.

5705.nbsp; Do you happen to remember, in reference to cases which went on for some years, whether it was a common remark, that if those animals had been inocu -lated there would have then been some more evidence in favour of inoculation ?Yes, it has often been remarked that it would be taken as evidence.

5706.nbsp; nbsp;So that the fact of pleuro-pneumonia not being so eminently contagious or infectious as cattle plague and foot-and-mouth diaeuse, rather disturbs the experiments in regard to the efficacy of any preventive measures ?Quite so, and in addition to that, the fact that no one has ever produced pleuro-pnoumotiia

____

MINUTES OF KVrDENOE.

171

laquo;728. Would it bo likely, do you think, that the

Prqf. W. VuyiiiJ.

except by the introduction of a living animal would disturb any sorica oi' experitnonta.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

5707. In referenOQ to the period of incubation ot tlio inoculatod disease, to begin with, about whftt interval elapses from the moment of performing the cperation to the oommenoeraent of the signs of some definite action ? -A period of several days, raquo;ooovding to the amount of fluid injected, or the depth at winch the seton has been inserted.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. .

5708 What is the minimum period?Ino minimum period, 1 should say, would bo three or four

days.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

5709. What would you take to be the average i¹

In the eases 1 have seen it lias occurred usually

between the fourth and the tenth day.

5710 Do you happen to have any record ot a

maximum period ?No, I do not remember anything

of a maximum period with regard to the appearance.

5711.nbsp; nbsp;Do not you remember any cases in whicb the tail has remained apparently unaffected for 20 days?No, never.

5712.nbsp; In regard to the period of incubation ot the disease in the lungs, is there any groat difficulty in determining that question ?There is a very great difficulty in determining it. In the first place we have hitherto failed in producing the disease at will, and therefore we cannot fix a date at which the animal has been exposed to the infection. Another difficulty in determining the period of incubation is that frequently when fresh cattle are brought into a herd although they infect others, they show _ no symptoms of the disease themselves for some tune. The animals that have been for several months on the farm may be the first to show the disease.

5713.nbsp; Do you think it important that experiments should be tried to settle that point?No, I do not think it important to have experiments conducted to settle the period of incubation.

5714.nbsp; That is from a practical point of view? Yes; and there would be a very great difficulty in settling it. I do not see exactly how experiments could bo conducted that would settle it.

5715 Have you noticed, in performing experimental inoculation, that if the matter gets into the tissue beneath the skin you have serious swelling ?You usually have either serious swelling or a localised abscess, which would prevent any beneficial effect from the inoculation.

5716.nbsp; nbsp;And for that reason 1 believe the tail was selected in order that, the swollen part might bo excised when the action was going on to prevent its spreading ?_Yes, I think that must have been the reason that the tail was selected for the purpose.

5717.nbsp; What test did you apply to your inoculated animals in order to show whether they gained any immunity ?They were placed in infected sheds where the disease had existed for some time previously, and in all the sheds at least one case of disease occurred afterwards. But in the same sheds there were unin-oculated animals as well as the inoculated which did not take the disease.

5718.nbsp; Were your animals destroyed afterwards? They were all destroyed that had been inoculated and afterwards exposed in infected sheds. There warsome that never were exposed in infected sheds buwere disposed of otherwise.

5719.nbsp; Those which were exposed in the infectesheds were also in contact with diseased animals,believe ?Yes.

5720.nbsp; And none of them took the disease ?Nonof them took the disease.

5721.nbsp; At the same time other animals that wernot inoculated also resisted it in the ordinary coursof things ?Yes.

5722.nbsp; In regard to the question that has been askens to a record of inoculation being sent by inspectorthere would bo no difficulty I suppose in adding thto the list of questions which wo send out with th

forms?__No, I do not think there would ha an

difficulty about it.

inspectors in every caso would he able to ascertainnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ___

whether or not the animals hud been iiiDculated ? u May 1888.

Yes I think they would in most cases, hut in soino-----------

districts, for instimw within the metropolitan district, the greater number of inooulfttlons are performed by the owners of the oattle themselves. 'Iho dairymen themselves inoculate their own cuttle.

5724. Therefore in the metropolis a record ot the cases which had occurred in inoculated animals would be extremely interesting?Yes. On recently going through tho Londoii cowsheds I found that there wore very few of the dairymen who inoculated the whole of their cattle, that is to say you would find that they had cattle in their sheds that never had been inoculated, and others that were inoculated. There are certain seasons of the year in which they will not, inoculate when they buy in fresh stock, and it those cows stop in the sheds for two or three months without showing anything amiss they are left without being

inoculatednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,., .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

5725. Then the inspector might readily, in making his return, state whether or not the diseased animals reported by him had been inoculated ?Yes, he might be able to obtain that information.

5720. He probably could obtain the date at which the inoculation had taken place ?He probably could obtain the date where anything like correct books were kept as to the dates of purchase, because the inoculation is usually done soon after the cattle are

purchased.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;v

5727. In the different questions which have beeu asked tho witnesses the term quot; encysted cases quot; has eonstar.tly been used. By that term I understand those limited cases of pleuro-pnoumoma in which a very small portion of the lung becomes infected with the disease and remains in that condition for a considerable time before it becomes encysted. I understand you to say that it is only at the period which is anterior to the completion of the encysting process that those animals are dangerous?1 hat is my

5728! When the disease is practically cut off by a dense fibrous cyst then no harm is likely to happen? _I do not think it is possible.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

5729.nbsp; nbsp;Some of the witnesses have expressed their conviction that when the contained material becomes softened and the cyst is actually broken through, the matter which thus escapes is infected ?I have never seen a cyst broken through. I have seen the contents of the cyst perfectly liquid, but I have never seen the cyst wall ruptured.

5730.nbsp; Do you think it, is likely that by any amount of fluid pressure the thick fibrous cyst would ever be broken?No ; I think not.

5731.nbsp; What do you take to be the principal causes ot the spreading of pleuro-pneumonia ?The movemeat of infected cattle ; our returns of the past year, which we received from the inspectors, show that premises on which newly-purchased cattle had been taken, gave 89 percent, of the total outbreaks in the country.

5732.nbsp; From what, centres are those cattle removed ? __From markets and sale yards.

5733.nbsp; Then it is hardly necessary to ask you how they got to the markets and sale yards ?The owners of the infected herds must dispose of them as soon as they are at liberty to elo so.

5734.nbsp; We had pretty clear evidence during the inquiry which was made in Ireland, that, the dairymen were in the habit of sending for a butcher by night to kill diseased cattle and get rid of them in that way, and then sell the rest in the market. Do you think that practice is confined to the Irish dairyman ?I do not think it is confined to Irish dairymen; but wo have no proof, in tho returns of the past, year, and for several years, every now and again wo get a return showing that a diseased animal has been found in some of our slaughter-houses. During tho past year on 16 different occasions records ot anunals sutforlng from pleuro-pneumonia were found in Pliuightor-honses. Of these five occurred In Mngland,

Y Lraquo;

172

COMMUTER ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEBCULOSIS ;

Prof. W Vuguid.

11 May 1888.

via., three in Liverpool, one in Preston, and cue in tho metiopolia, while 11 were found in Scotland, of which four wore in Edinburgh, four in Glasgow, ono in Dundee, one in Grecnock, and one in Paisley. Through tracing where those carcases of diseased animals came from, wo discovered what places were infected.

5735. Have you any personal knowledge of concealment of disease by the daryineii in London, and the removal of tho diseased animal ?No, I have no personal knowledge of the amount of diseased animals removed hy the dairymen in London. I think it would bo rather difficult for them to smuggle away their cases in London readily.

5786. Do you know that tor a Jong period of time it was not unusual for a veterinary attendant to advise the owners to get rid of a certain animal without saying what the disease was ?Yes, it was so done I believe for some time.

5737.nbsp; Are you also aware tliat at any moment, when there is no report of disease in the metropolis, we can obtain any number of specimens of diseased lungs from the metropolitan slaughter-houses ?I am not aware of that; I was asked frequently while visiting the cowsheds, by the men who inoculated, whether I could put them in the way of getting material to inoculate their cattle. The practice you refer to seems to be dying out in London.

5738.nbsp; The result of your inquiries over a series of years I believe is that disease is communicated to healthy districts by the movement of infected cattle ? Entirely soby nothing else.

5739.nbsp; And that these cattle must come from places where the disease has previously existed ?In some way they have come in contact with diseased animals.

5740.nbsp; And from places where the disease has broken out and has been concealed? In all probability it is so; otherwise how could the dealers obtain the cattle ?

5741.nbsp; If the disease had not been concealed it must necessarily of course have been reported ?Of course, and then the infecced animals could not have been moved until after the lapse of 56 days from the last case.

5742.nbsp; nbsp;Then it comes finally to this, does not it: that if every outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia were reported, or every suspicion of an outbreak were reported, by the stock-owner, the disease must necessarily be limited to a curtain number of definite centres, out of which it could not possibly escape ? That is so.

5743.nbsp; I)o you think that an addition to the number of inspectors would render the concealment of the disease more difficult ?If ylaquo;¹¹ ^were to add to tho inspectors you would require to see that they were men that knew the disease.

5744.nbsp; Do you mean by that that some of the inspectors do not detect the disease ?Quite so. We have frequently had to make inquiries because we could see evidence on the face of the returns that the disease did not exist, and we have had animals dug up and examined and found that they had been killed and buried, although they were not affected with pleuro-pneumonia as reported.

5745.nbsp; Have you met with any cases where, after digging out a number of carcases, you found the lungs free from any disease ?No, I cannot say that I have seen the lungs free from disease, except on one occasion.

5746.nbsp; nbsp;What disease have you found in the eases which have been condemned for pleuro-pneumonia ? The disease I have found has usually been the ordinary husk or hooseparasites in the bronchial tubes.

5747.nbsp; nbsp;It has been suggested by one witness that it would be desirable to make every veterinary surgeon in the country an inspector?! do not think that would be desirable, unless he could iirst of all show you that he understood something about the disease. We have, in our last year's returns, and frequently in previous years, had cases reported where a veteri-

nary surgeon has attended an animal for 10 days, or a fortnight, and only discovered that it was affected with pleuro-pneumonia after it died.

5748.nbsp; Has that ever happened in the case of an inspector ?Yes, several times.

5749.nbsp; nbsp;Are they still inspectors ?Yes.

5750.nbsp; The idea of the witness in making the suggestion was, that if every veterinary surgeon were an inspector, he would be bound to report the disease which he is not bound to report now. Do you think that would work in that direction ?I do not think it would, because these cases would still ooour; the treatment of the animals would go on. The veterinary surgeon did not think it was pleuro-pneumonia, but if a farmer reports a ease of illness which he considers similar in symptoms to pleuro-pneuniünia, ho tells a policeman, who calls in the inspector of the local authority, who probably does know something about the disease.

5751.nbsp; Do you think that a qualified veterinary surgeon should be competent to distinguish pleuro-pneumonia on a post-mortem examination ?Yes, on a post-mortem examination ho should.

5752.nbsp; Is it. the case that the disease is distinguished by very well-marked characters ?! think the characters are unmistakeable ; the post-mortem appearance of the disease I think unmistakeable.

5753.nbsp; In saying that, are you aware of any cases in which inspectors have sent to this department specimens of pleuro-pneumonia in which there was no evidence at all of the existence of that disease?Yes, we have had lungs brought here from animals that had not sutfered from pleuro-pneumonia, tubercular deposits were found in the lungs, lungs have been sent here which had not been cut; instead of examining the lungs properly they simply looked at the surface and sent them here as specimens of pleuro-pneumonia.

5754.nbsp; nbsp;Do you happen to know of any instances in which a veterinary surgeon, not an inspector, has reported cases of contagious disease ?No, I cannot say that I remember a case of that kind.

5755.nbsp; Do you think it is a common practice ?No, I do not think so.

5756.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it would be at all injurious to the interests of the individual who did it?No, I do not see that it would be.

6757. Do you think that the farmer would ever send for him again ?I do not know that ; the farmer very likely, if he were a sensible man, would think all the more of a veterinary surgeon who told him the truth about the case.

5758. 1 refer to those stock-owners who send infected animals to the dealers, the sale yards and markets, after getting rid of the actually diseased cattle in the most convenient way ?If the veterinary surgeons were to report their cases no doubt their services would be dispensed with, but it is questionable whether these men do employ veterinary surgeons in the first instance.

5750. Do you happen to recollect that an attempt has been made, indeed more than once, to insist upon veterinary surgeons reporting cases of contagious disease ?Yes.

5760.nbsp; nbsp;Do you happen to know how that has been met by the profession generally ?The profession objected to it.

5761.nbsp; In the experiments which you carried on at the Brown Institution was it necessary to have a license ?Not at that time.

5762.nbsp; The Act of 1876 was not then pwsed?I believe the whole of the inoculations were done prior to that Act coming in force.

5763.nbsp; At the present time in order to settle the questions of the period of incubation and of the efficacy of inoculation, would it not be necessary to have a license ?Yes. it would come under the head of experiments within the meaning of the Act.

5764.nbsp; nbsp;Would that throw any dillienlty in tho way of carrying the,-e experiments on ?Of course it would throw this difficulty in the way, that, even when the

___ 

r-r-^------i-----____r^_r^_^,.-^_I_v..,. _T,..

MINUTES OF KVIDKNCE.

173

licence ifraquo; obtained, you -would have to congregate the #9632;whole of your animals within some special place that #9632;waraquo; licensed. It is not only the operator that lias to obtain a licence, but he has to do his experiments on licensed |)i'e in ises.

5704laquo;. Id any case it would necessitate the appointment of a certain number of experts, who should be licensed to go about the country, fix themselves in certain positions, get certain premises registered and stay througliout the whole course of the experiments?Yes.

6765. Would that be an expensive process ?A very expensive process indeed.

5766.nbsp; nbsp;Js there any difficulty likely to arise in the way of delay in obtaininj!; the licence ?I have never personally applied for a licence, but I have understood that several people who have applied for licences have had to wait months before they obtained them.

5767.nbsp; nbsp;Do you happen to know how long I had to wait before 1 got mine ?I think it was something like six months or over.

5768.nbsp; nbsp;So that during the period which might probably be occupied in obtaining a licence, the opportunity for trying a certain set of experiments in a particular district might altogether have ceased ? Quite so, especially under the slaughter order.

57G9. Do you think that any advantage from a scientific point of view would attend the trying of experiments in reference to the value of inoculation ? __No; 1 do not see that it would.

5770.nbsp; nbsp;Do not you think it important to ascertain whether or not inoculation does protect ?No ; for this reason, that inoculation has never succeeded in stamping the disease out of any country. If inoculation had succeeded in getting rid of the disease in any country, then it would be worth a prolonged trial; but as it never has succeeded I do not think it

is worth it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . .

5771.nbsp; You conclude, I apprehend then, that it is more desirable to get rid of the disease than to make any further inquiry into its nature, and the means of preventing it ?Certainly much more important for this country ; let other people who cannot get rid of the disease carry out the experiments.

5772.nbsp; Then in the interests of the agriculturists and stock-owners in this country, your view is that it would he better to stamp out the disease in a way that has been proved to be successful, rather than to spend any more time in finding a possible palliative ? Decidedly so.

5773.nbsp; {Lord Cloncwry.) Do you think a greater liberality in the treatment of the owner whose cattle arc slaughtered by order would facilitate the discovery of disease in country places ?It might in some cases ; but it would lead to dishonesty in others.

5774.nbsp; Do you think that there is a danger that it might lead to fraud ?Quite so; a danger of men seeing the amount of compensation given and having animals of little value trying to get one or two infected and so obtaining the large compensation which would give them a handsome profit possibly.

5775.nbsp; Then would you prefer not to increase the present scale of compensation ?Decidedly.

5776.nbsp; Can you suggest any method to obtain information more readily in the out-of-the-way parts of the country ?No, I do not know any way of obtaining information more readily. I should certainly in every case where animals out of an infected herd had been sent, make inquiries, and if there is any wilful neglect on the part of owners, punish them severely.

5777.nbsp; Then would you suggest an increase of the penal clauses ?Certainly ; the laxity in instituting proceedings has in many eases induced people to try and evade the law.

5778.nbsp; I suppose it is the fact that some caseremain undetected, but Is not that the only fact thacan interfere with the satisfactory working of thpresent rule?It is so,

5779.nbsp; nbsp;If that was got over the country could certainly bo cleurod by Hie present rule, could it not?

suflicient powers to have stamped out the disease, provided unanimous action had been taken by the local authorities throughout the country.

Prof. W Mmjuid.

l\ May 1888.

5780.nbsp; Do you think that it would still have that eifect if the local authorities adopted simultaneouH treatment now ?Yes, I think so.

5781.nbsp; {Mr. Bowen-limes.) With lespcct to the ox-poriments you nuulo regarding mediate contagion, what were the animals that were exposed to the iniluence of this virus, and what was their condition ?There were several cows; there were two two-year-old bullocks, two yearlings, and two calves; besides several yearlings which that had been used for other experiments at the Brown Institute in connexion with the vaccine lymph. As they were being kept on premises they were used for these experiments, and I may say that they were in very poor condition; but with regard to the others, the generality of them were

in fairly good condition.

5782! Were any of them brought straight from the country in a normal condition from the farm, in what I should call the ordinary farm stock condition ? Yes, there were six brought from the north of Englandfrom Northumberland.

5783.nbsp; Are you satisfied that these animals were not, so to speak, impervious to taking any disease before you tried them with the pleuro ?No; they were not impervious to taking disease, because during the time that we were keeping them to see whether they were infected with pleuro-pneumonia or not, we submitted them to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease and produced it in two or three or them. They were used in the interval for foot-and-mouth experiments.

5784.nbsp; Do you think that the fact of having another disease like foot-and-mouth would rentier animals more sensitive to taking a further disease such as pleuro-pneumonia ?I have no doubt it would ; anything that would in the least debilitate the system would render them more susceptible.

5785.nbsp; nbsp;Then do you think that, although your proofs were, so to speak, negative, they are themselves sufficiently strong to show that pleuro-pneumonia cannot be communicated by mediate contagion? With regard to one of the animals, there is this note in the appendix to the report:quot; It should be noted quot; that in the case of No. 5, he had barely recovered quot; from an attack of foot-and-mouth disease, com-quot; municated by means of saliva obtained from diseased quot; animals at the Metropolitan Cattle Market.quot; He was just recovering, but had scarcely recovered; his mouth had not healed up.

5786. Then you also told the Committee that you thought that an animal having an encysted lung would not be able to communicate the disease to another animal ?Yes, that is my opinion, and 1 base it on the fact that where you get a portion of the lung encysted, the bronchial tubes which have led into it while it was in a normal and healthy condition are completely closed, so that there is no communication between it and the external air.

6787. Do you think such an animal would become liable to infection a second time ?Quite so ; 1 have seen fresh infection in the same lung in which a portion of encysted lung has been found.

5788.nbsp; Could you account for the origin of that disease?I could not prove what was the origin of that disease, but I should say it was secondary infection from an external source, not infection from the old eucysted poition of lung.

5789.nbsp; If so long an interval as you speak of intervenes between one outbreak and anotherL think you mentioned a case of u 120 daysis it not possible, under the present Act of 1878, lor pleuro-pneumonia to escape and contaminate other herds PIt was so under the Act of 1878, but not now, under the slaughter order the whole of the animals in contact must be slaughtered.

5790.nbsp; Therefore in that respect the \ßt would fail to clear the country of pleuro-pneumoniaVIt would fml lor u time, but there are only few ol' these protracted cases occur; they are comparatively few.

think it could ; in fact 1 think the Act of 1878 gave

174

0OMMITTBI1 ON I'LKUUO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBEBCULOSIS :

t'rqf. W, Duijuid,

U May 1888.

.'J791. I gather ft'om your evidence that your opinion is that corapulsoiy inooulatloa througbont the

country would not extirpate ihetlisettso?Quito so; it failed in Holland, it has failed in Fniuce, und also in Belgium.

6792. Would you consider that the rigid enforcement of Iho present Order in Council would have that desirable effect?It would; the only country that 1ms ever been thorouglily infected with pleuro-pneumonia and got rid of it is Holland, und the jneans by which Holland did stamp it out was slaughter; the inoculation failed.

5793.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) Whence do you think pleuro comes into the United Kingdom ?I am not aware that we have had any fresh introduction of the disease into the country for several years, because from all countries in which the disease exists, cattle imported are slaughtered at the ports of landing in this country.

5794.nbsp; Do you think the disease is imported into Scotland from Ireland ?I do not think so to any extent.

5795.nbsp; Has your attention been directed to it specially ?It has certainly been directed to it; it seems very strange that the whole of the infected cattle from the north of Ireland should go into Scotland, wo find that Edinburgh alone has as many outbreaks as the whole of the following counties put together: Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Durham, the North and East Riding, and Lancashire. They do not number in outbreaks all told so many as there were in Edinburgh last year. And tlielt;e comities import large numbers of Irish cattle, and actually from the same districts in Ireland from which the cattle are imported into Glasgow and the ports in the south of Scotland.

5796.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee anything with regard to the evidence we have had laid before us, namely, that disease did come from the north of Ireland direct although it was supposed not to have done so ? We have only hud two instances during the past year in which diseased animals from Ireland were known to bo landed in this country, and those two were found two days after landing in the slaughter-houses in Liverpool; they are the only two instances in which we have proved that diseased animals came from Ireland. vVo have had reports of outbreaks attributed to Irish cattle, but we have had no proof that they really were of Irish origin ; the statement has simply been that they looked like Irish cattle, we could get no date of shipment from Ireland, cr of landing in this country ; we could only get the dale of purchase in some market in Great Britain.

5797. It has been stated that the disease exists in a large extent in the county of Lublin, that means in Dublin itself and just close around, but not in the north ; then on the other hand we have had conflicting evidence against that; what is your opinion?I cannot give any decided opinion on the matter, because I only see the statistics as they are published, and that would lead us to believe that the disease is only located in and around Dublin.

5798.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any special knowledge concerning the shipment of cattle froniDublin to one of the northern ports that you can give the Committee ?No.

5799.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the mode of infection, do you think it is entirely by the contact of one animal with iinother, through the breath?Quite so.

5800.nbsp; And that it is absolutely impossible for a shed to be infected or for the virus to he carried on the clothes ?I think it is quite impossible for it to bo so, at least that is my experience.

5801.nbsp; nbsp;In the whole of your wide experience have yon never met with a single instance of either thing üc/'.urcing ?No.

5802.nbsp; lit those cases where the disease has broken out. in those very long periods (one you gave us was 112 days), #9632; and where there is no history of fresh cattle being moved into the place, what do you consider to be the explanation ?Thar, probably there was one of those limited cases in which a small portion

of lung was attacked, the animal never seemed to bo ill ; mid formed an intervening case which was unobserved.

580.'!. How long do you think cows might go on remaining infectious and be capable of eommunicating the disease before the fibroid encystment would occur ? I cunnot give an opinion as to the length of time.

5804.nbsp; nbsp;You would not like to give an opinion, do you mean ? I would not like to give an opinion.

5805.nbsp; Are you aware of any such case in which the animal has been killed and you have examined the lung ?Yes, there are several cases of the kind.

5806.nbsp; nbsp;Would you tell the Committee exactly what lesion you found?The first case of the kind I remember distinctly was in 1876.

5807.nbsp; nbsp;Would you give us now the interval in that case ?Eleven months.

5808.nbsp; Would you please tell us what you found in the diseased animal?In the diseased animal there was a portion of lung rather larger than an egg completely encysted, and in it, when cut into, there was still the marbled appearance of the pleuro-pneumonia lesions.

5809.nbsp; Was there any thick fibroid capsule in that case ?Yes, there was a thick fibroid capsule round it.

5810.nbsp; nbsp;I understood you to say before that when you had a thick fibroid capsule those cases were not infective ?I do not consider them infective.

5811.nbsp; Then I thought you meant that, when these outbreaks occurred in these long periods, it was this animal that produced the disease?When an animal has the disease and is not observed, it communicates it to others while this encysting process is going on.

5812.nbsp; Do you mean that in these cases where the disease is smouldering on for very long incubation periods, it does not break out in this animal ?No.

5813.nbsp; But it breaks out in other animals ?Yes.

5814.nbsp; And that in them the incubation period may probably be as long as five or six months ?Yes.

5815.nbsp; It would not be always that, but would he about some intervening period ?Yes.

5816.nbsp; What would you regard to be the average periodof course I do not ask you for anything exact ?It would blaquo; very difficult to arrive at what you would call an average incubation period. In looking over the returns that we have had I find various periods. For instance, in the report of this department for 1883, page 30, there are periods quoted varying from 06 to 117 days. In the report for 1886 the periods vary from 5 to 146 days after the purchase of fresh stock. During the past year we have met with cases ranging from 9 days up to 164, the 164 days quoted is rather doubtful. In some of the others, where there was 112 days, they occurred on the same farm without an introduction of fresh stock.

5817.nbsp; Then you would not like to strike an average ? No, you would require to get a very large number of cases before you can strike anything like a reasonable or fair average.

5818.nbsp; Do you think that the ordinarily received notion that it is about six weeks is too short ? Certainly it is too short. We find that on infected premises, where they have been declared free immediately after the 56 days have expired, cases occur within the following week or fortnight after they have been declared free. That is not at ail uncoinmon.

5819.nbsp; Have you had personally experience of inoculation ; have you conducted it yourself, besides these experiments of the Brown Institute?I have seen a little of it, but not much. My appointmontM have always been of such a nature that I never engaged in private practice, and have therefore never carried out inoculation.

5820.nbsp; nbsp;in animals that were successfully inoculated, have you observed what constitutional symptoms there were besides the local lesion ?I saw no constitutional symptoms in the animnls at the Brown Institution where a daily record of the temperature, respirations, and pulsations was kept.

__._

___

MINÜTK8 OV KVinKNOK

5821.nbsp; And you raquo;ay nbsüliitcly nouo bot'oro ? Absolutely none before.

5822.nbsp; nbsp;And you do not fegnrd an Inooulttted iuiimal as a tainted animal ?It' I saw m inoculated animal, I would immediately come to the conclusion that it came out of an infected herd.

5823.nbsp; nbsp;And the herd that wore left behind, of course, would bo diseased, but the animal itself you would not regard as boing injured ?No, the animal itself I would not regard us dangerous if it had not come out of an infected herd.

5824.nbsp; You understand, of course, that every animal that has been inoculated in the present way of inoculating must have been in an infected herd ?I should take it as evidence that it had been.

5825.nbsp; nbsp;But of itself you do not consider it to be in any way injured ?laquo;No, I should say not,

5820. What do you regard to bo the duration of protection from an operation?! cannot give any opinion at all on it, because I um very sceptical on the whole question of inocwlation,

5827.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had facts to show that inoculation is any good at all ?No, I cannot say that I have.

5828.nbsp; nbsp;Have you never received any evidence to show you that it protects ?No, I have seen no cases in which inoculation has been performed, in which the disease has been arrested more readily than it might have been by careful examination of the animals.

5829.nbsp; And isolation?Yes, removal from the herd.

5830.nbsp; In these cases where it has been asserted to be good there lias been no removal from the infected animals ?I do not think that is so, because with all these inoculators the first thing they do is to carefully exclude and remove all the infected animals. Inoculation has never been tried by itself on its own merits, it has always been tried with slaughter.

5831.nbsp; That is so in Scotland, but we have had evidence from Australia of cases of very large experiments of inoculation, according to which inoculation certainly seems to arrest the disease ?Stock-owners are not agreed in Australia, as you will see if you read the reports of inspectors of stock in the Australian colonies.

5832.nbsp; You do not know of any experiment which has been conducted in that manner ?No.

5833.nbsp; What do you regard to be the practical disadvantages of inoculation?In the first place, inoculation is not based on any sound principle like the inoculation of Pastenr for anthrax or for rabies, because in those you commence with a material which will produce the disease. In pleuropneumonia we use a material which it is extremely doubtful if it does contain the virus of the disease. In fact the evidence goes to show that it does not, because there has never been a case of pleuro-pneumonia induced by inoculation with the exudation liquid from the lung tissue, even when it has been inoculated direct into the lung or into the air passages of a healthy animal.

5834.nbsp; nbsp;Therefore you do not believe yourself that the lymph from a pleuro lung contains any of the virus of the disease ?The inter-lobnlar exudation does not seem to contain the virus.

5835.nbsp; Then I suppose you think that in the lesion in the lung itself, the exudation in the alveoli of the lung contains the virus ?Yes, I think the virus will bo more likely to bo found there.

5836.nbsp; nbsp;Of course you must have that belief, because that is the only way in which wo could account for its convoyanco by the breath ?Yes.

5837.nbsp; Then under those circumstances it seems likely, does not it, that it would be also in the inter-lobular lymph ?It does not necessarily follow that it will be there.

5838.nbsp; It dees not necessarily follow, but in. most other cases, as in anthrax, for example, we find it owurs in all the exudation liquids and also in the urine, where it has to pass through the capillaries of the kidneys ? -Yes.

5839.nbsp; Judging from your wide cxpftrionce, do you think that the slaughter order would lend to any more

concealment of disease thuu exists at the present time ?It probably would for a time, especinlly amongst the dairy liirmors and town dairymen.

/'/#9632;(;/:

ir. iJiii/uiu.

II May 1888.

5840. But not among the ordinary breeders, I suppose ?..-No, I think net among the ordinary breeders. ' 5841. It would be only urnong the dairy fanners in the town dairies ?Looking at it us a practical man that would ho so. because the loss to the dairyman would be more.

5842.nbsp; Disproportionately greater than to the ordinary breeder ?-Yes.

5843.nbsp; The actual monetary and business loss?--Yes; a dairyman's business is worth a groat deal more to him than the actual cattle forming his stock.

5844.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it would be just to include in regulations any moans whereby a dairyman should receive a greater compensation ?No ; 1 do not think that it would be fair to do that.

5845.nbsp; nbsp;If you submit him to a greater loss than the ordinary breeder, are you not treating him a little harshly ?Yes ; but other means might bo devised that would obviate that.

5846.nbsp; What would you propose?To allow his cattle to remain alive quot;under certain restrictions and conditions of isolation, so that they shonld be known and not bo removed or allowed to come in contact with any healthy cattle.

5847.nbsp; nbsp;What would be the longest period that you would increase the time of slaughter to, for a dairyman, so that he should not lose his business ?Every case would have to bo dealt with on its own merits, according to the number of stock on the place.

5848.nbsp; We have had it stated to us that such permission to keep animals should not, be extended beyond 60 days, because there would be a risk; but you, 1 take it, would allow a still longer period if you considered it. necessary?Quito so, with thorough isolation ; so that, there was no chance of the animals being moved.

5849.nbsp; To whom would you entrust that isolation, because it all turns upon that ?Yes, it does. Under present circumstances it would have to be entrusted to the local authority, probably, or at the discretion of an inspector of the Privy Council.

5850.nbsp; Do you think that it would be safe to entrust it to the local authority ?In many cases J doubt whether it would.

5851.nbsp; Therefore, on the whole, it would make it much simpler and better to put it entirely under the Privy Conncil ?T think that would make it safer.

5852.nbsp; Do you think that if one adopted a system of branding with quot; P.P.quot; for example, in large letters, on the animal that that would also aid in preventing the animal being taken out, because then it would bn recognised at once ?It would. It would be recognised at once, and people would not purchase it if offered for sale.

5853.nbsp; nbsp;And they would be also punished for bringing it out?Yes.

5854.nbsp; On the whole is it your opinion that it would be perfectly possible to conflue animals in that manner ?I think it would bo.

585Ö. Without any appreciable risk?I think it would be possible to isolate them.

5856.nbsp; What wo want is to stamp out the disease, and if there was a risk in it perhaps it would bo more economical to slaughter the animal ?I think it would be possible with regard to town dairies, and dairy stock on, strictly speaking, dairy farms : the latter are not numerous.

5857.nbsp; Must you not have u special provision to introduce fresh cattle?There is no necessity. A man might find other premises to introduce his cattle into, and so carry on bis business. Ho could not take them in while any of those animals wore alive.

5858.nbsp; nbsp;What special provision would you introduce to meet that? You do not think it would be, necessary because you say you think a man could get new premises and other sheds ?Yes, in many cases it

#9632; #9632; m

176

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-rNBUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Prof. II. Duijuid.

11 Muy 188K.

wuuld bo so. There is no necessity for including the whole of a man's promises within the infected place, simply include the shed in which the disease exists.

5859. Supposing we assume the case which is so common, of a man only having one place, do you think it would bo right to put hiui to the extra expense (hccmiso 1 am comparing him with the breeder so as to make it i'nir to all parties); would it be just to put him lo the extra expense of getting other premises ? Let him choose between the two diiliculties he is in,

quot;)86(). That cannot be. At least I should suppose so?-As the order at present stands a man can slaughter out his own stock within an infected place, lie can take and slaughter them out at any moment that ho thinks fit, and the fact of the matter is that a man can very soon got his stock in snch a condition that ho will get more for thorn from the butcher than the local authority would pay for them. He would fat and slaughter out himself, and get his premises free.

5861.nbsp; He would lose a considerable amount of time in doing that, would he not ?Then he would be carrying on his milk trade still, and that is of more importance to him than the stock.

5862.nbsp; Wo have had evidence from practical milk dealers to say that that could not bo done?It is the opinion of some whom I have seen that it could be done.

5863.nbsp; nbsp;And you give us that as your opinion also ? Yes. I visited promises only a week ago in which over 100 cows belonging to a dairyman had been slaughtered, under the slaughter order, by the local authority. He said the loss to him incurred would have been less by 400/. if they had given him three months to do it in, without the movement of a single animal. He had to find a supply of milk to take the place of the milk he was deriving from over 100 head of cattle, and he had to pay for it at such a price that lie was actually receiving no profit upon the milk. He had to pay for it almost the full price that he was obtaining for it.

6864. In that particular case, can you tell the Committee with what ease he filled up his stock again ? Ho lias not got it filled up now.

5865.nbsp; nbsp;How long is that since ?I was there a week ago. The premises were then cleansed and disinfected. I do not think his stock is filled up now. They had been all slaughtered a fortnight prior to my visit.

5866.nbsp; Then do you think a man could get his stock in again in about a month ?No, he could not !/ot them in again in a month.

5867.nbsp; Could he within six weeks ?No, not in six weeks; probably not under six ibonths; that is, stock that would suit his purpose. The difficulty in buying good dairy cows is so great now that you may buy cows that would give a certain amount of milk, but they arc not what you call good dairy cows for town dairymen.

5868.nbsp; nbsp;Then there certainly ought to be a provision of some kind to meet the case of the dairymen ?1 think there, ought to be something done to meet the case of the dairymen.

5869.nbsp; nbsp;Would there not be a great difficulty iu defining a dairy farm ?There are farms in the country where they keep no other stock than dairy cows.

5870.nbsp; nbsp;Do you define a dairy farm as a farm upon which no cows are kept except for the sale of milk ? Yes.

5871.nbsp; Regarding the importation of animals, do you think the present regulations are quite sufficient to prevent the importation of disease?They are quite sufficient to prevent the introduction of disease into the country. Although wo may get cases of plouro-pneumonia into the foreign animals' wharves, the animals arc all slaughtered there, and therefore I think there is no danger under the present system.

5872.nbsp; {Mr. Stir/in;/.) In one of your answers to Professor Horsley you have admitted the; difficulty of the dairyman's position, and the loss he would be

likely to sustain by the carrying out of this slaughter order ?Yes, I did admit it.

5873.nbsp; What system would you suggest to obviate that difficulty ?Allowing a longer period for the slaughter of his cattle, so that he might provide means of obtaining a supply of milk.

5874.nbsp; nbsp;How long would you allow?With strict isolation I think he might be allowed a period of three months instead of slaughtering off in ten days.

5875.nbsp; Do you not imagine that the moment the news got abroad that that man had an inflicted dairy he would lose his customers altogether ?No doubt it would affect it, hut not so much as if the shed was empty, without cows. Many people will go and see the milk drawn from the cows themselves, and when a man has got empty sheds thoy will have no milk supply from him.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

5876.nbsp; I understand by that, that you refer more especially to town dairies ?More particularly to town dairies, where a man has got a retell trade and sells milk supplied by his own cows.

5877.nbsp; nbsp;Then the Committee are not to take you just now as speaking in regard to country dairies, and to dairy farms in the country at a distance from town ? No. I am speaking more particularly with regard to town dairies.

5878.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing that a town dairyman slaughtered out the whole of his stock, what length of time do you suppose he would need to fill up the byre again ?It would take him several weeks to obtain them, if he had a large stock of cows to replace. Say a man had 100 cows to replace, it would probably take him a couple of months at least to do that.

5879.nbsp; During that interval of two months would you allow him to bring in stock ?Not in an infected place, certainly not.

5880.nbsp; Surely you must be aware that the town dairies a^e of no very large size. He has not a large command of shedding into which he could put stock ? In speaking of London cow-sheds I think that most London dairymen could do it, for a large amount of the shed accommodation in London is unoccupied at the present time. A great number of licensed sheds are unoccupied altogether and might be easily hired.

5881.nbsp; nbsp;Really ?Yes, that is so at the present time.

5882.nbsp; Do you give that piece of evidence from your own personal knowledge ? I have recently visited almost every licensed cow-shed in the London district, and many of the cow-keepers have empty sheds, and few of them have their sheds filled with the full number of cows they are licensed for.

5883.nbsp; The Committee in making their recommendations are bound to take into consideration other towns besides London. Have you any reason to think that that state of matters is general in other towns throughout the country ?I think that since the Dailies and Milk Shops Order was passed a great many cow-sheds have been abolished in towns, and the; arc gradually diminishing on account of the regulations.

5884.nbsp; Is there no system of branding that you would suggest, by which you might allow animals to be brought into the same sheds as the others ?No, certainly not; if you propose to bring animals into the samo shed, I should say, quot; Do not allow it.quot;

5885.nbsp; Not even if they were branded ?Not even if they were branded. Keep the animals which are reserved for slaughter separate from any others. Never allow the others to go anywhere near, or to come in contact with any animals that are going for slaughter.

5886.nbsp; I ought, perhaps, to have said that, in addition to the branding, I would presume that these animals are not to be moved out again except for slaughter ?You would simply keep up a continuation of the disease. My impression would be that you would never got rid of the disease in that case, unless you stopped movement into the sheds.

5887.nbsp; You state that your impression is that you would never, under those circumstances, get quit of the disease, and that you wonld be keeping it up.

___

MINUTÜ8 OF EV1DBN0B.

177

pensation being given, because it would load to fraud ?

Proj. W Duguid.

Supposing that those animals when moved in were inoculutod ?We have proof positive that inoculated animals do tuko the disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,. , , , n o

5888.nbsp; Will you toll me where to find that proot C Wo have proof in some of our statisticlaquo;, where wo have had mention from individual inspectors that this animal was inoculated ; and I can show you from the returns that I keep that animals have been inoculated, and taken the disease. It is admitted on all hands

Yes, I did answer in that way.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-----

590Ü. In what direction ?In this dt cction, that if u May 1888.

increased compensation were given.if would induce-----------

men that buy a poor or low-priced class of cows, to get a few of them infected with the disease, and so obtain a high compensation.

5901. Does it not occur to you that it would rest with the valuator, and that the valuator, if a man of experience, must be perfectly able to judge whether it

is a low class or a high class cow ?--As valuations are conducted very frequently in England, at any rate the valuers are not men that are conversant with the buying and selling of stock.

5902.nbsp; What reason have you for making that statement with regard to valuators ?In many cases the valuer is a veterinary surgeon who has no knowledge of the value of dairy stock in any particular district ho has to value. You will find young men who have only been six or eight months from college inspectors and valuers in their district.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, j a traquo;

5903.nbsp; Is that within your official knowledge i¹It

is so.

5904.nbsp; Then perhaps you would suggest an improvement on the appointment of valuators ?I think it would be much better in many districts if the valuation was taken altogether out of the hands of the veterinary inspectors, and put into the hands ot men who know the value of cattle generally.

5905.nbsp; And appoint one man for a county or tor a parish or district ?That would bo according to the size of the county or district, and the amount ot disease that exists in it. In some cases it would be impossible for one man to do the valuation tor a whole county. Take for instance the West Biding of Yorkshire, the extent of the country there is so great that one man could scarcely do it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . ,

5906. Are you aware that where that plan has been followed, objections have been taken to the unpleasantness of one farmer having to value his neighbour s _stocl_c ?__I_S it necessary to get the farmer to do it i-

ö!)07. I gathered that you meant that ?Certainly not necessarily a farmer. In many cases, where they have appointed a valuer in that way for a county, they have appointed a man as their valuer who has an auction sale regularly of different kinds of stocks.

5908. Do you know of any cases where that system has been followed ?I know of one casean outbreak that occurred on Sir John Bennett Lawes' farm about four or five years ago. The local authority took over the whole of his stock that had been in contact, and they sent an auctioneer, I believe, or a cattle salesman, to value the stock, and Sir John found somebody else to meet him, and an umpire waste be appointed it they could not agree. In such a case now, under the slaughter order, an auctioneer if called in to value would not have to value a single animal, but it would be the value of the stock on the farm that had been in contact.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_

590P. To return for a moment to dairy farms, in

further answer to my last question on the subject of

dairy farms, would you recommend that same system

to be carried out in country dairies that you are now

speaking of for town dairies ?It would apply to dairy

farms in the country as well, because clifiiculties

would arise there just the same as in the towns.

quot;Very often a dairy farmer in the country has a contract

to supply milk for a certain number of months

for a certain price, then breach of contract becomes

a serious matter. He is engaged to supply a milk

seller in London with so many gallons of milk per

day for so many months a year, at a certain price, and

the slaughter of his cows means that he cannot; and

a breach of contract immediately occurs.

6910. Then I presume that under those circumstances you would insist upon slaughter being carried out on the farm ? Decidedly insist upon the slaughter of the diseased on the farm. It would be bettor in most cases to have them slaughtered m a slaughter-house if possible, but in many parts ot the country no man who has a slaughter-house would

that a certain number of inoculated animals will take the disease afterwards. Take, for instance, the case of the cowshed in Glasgow, in which Mr. llutherford inoculated animals. That is a case in point.

5889.nbsp; That is one isolated case out ot -i,OUU, ana Mr. Rutherford, as you are aware, denies that it is the same animal, if as, I suppose, you arc alluding to Salmond's outbreak ?Yes; but we have record ot case after case occurring in that shed.

5890.nbsp; Then yoa are very doubtful of the protective influence, or the protective power of inoculation ?

I certainly am.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , ^t,

5891nbsp; nbsp; Then you do not quite agree with the conclusions that Professor Burdon-Sanderson came to, as the result of his experiments ?The experiments were too few in number to draw any conclusions trom. To make experiments on inoculation from which you could draw any conclusions you would require a large number of animals.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; #9632;,. _t .i

5892nbsp; nbsp;But are you aware that according to tlie wording of his report it is open to be read that he rather recommends inoculation ?-That may be true but the inoculated animals were placed in infected sheds, and stood alongside other animals, which were not inoculated, and neither took the disease.

5893nbsp; nbsp; I suppose you are aware of this paragrapfi on page 164 of Dr. Burdon-Sanderson's report: laquo; I hese lt;laquo; results are sufficiently favourable to justify us in laquo; recommending further trial of the practice of venous laquo; infusion quot; ?Yes, I am.

5894nbsp; nbsp;If the animals that are brought into a town dairy are not allowed to leave the dairy except for slaughter, and you admit that it is possible that mocu-lation will prevent a certain number taking the disease, will you explain to mo where the danger will be { Because a certain number of your animals that you bring in will take the disease, you keep up the infection of the shed, and as you require fresh animals in, you would keep continuously bringing in fresh animals, a number of which would be susceptible to the infection.

5895.nbsp; Would you state if you can by the statistics what per-centage of animals after inoculation have taken the disease?I cannot, because I have got no statistics of the number inoculated. If you can fand me any of the outbreaks which are recorded or reported, and give me the dates of inoculation I can tell you the numbers that have become afiected atter-wards.

5896.nbsp; We have had it given us in evidence here that out of 2,000 animals there have been none found takinraquo;- the disease a second time, that is after inoculation pl-That is not within my knowledge at all. I do not know the outbreaks referred to in which the inoculation has been practised.

5897.nbsp; Then except the purchasing of fresh cattle and putting them in another shed altogether, and allowing the dairyman three months in which to slaughter the original herd, you have nothing else to recommend by which to improve his condition!! do not see anything else that could be done for himbut to allow him more time.

5898.nbsp; nbsp;What is the average life of a dairy cow iLondon ?The average is from nine to ten monthssome of them not more than six months. Others mapo on to 12, but the average would be about ninmonths. Taking the dairyman's stock in London,he hud a stock of uny size, ho would be changing cowevery month.

5899.nbsp; nbsp;I think in answer to a question by LorCloneurry, you rather objected to any increased com

0 54003.

178

COMMITTEE ON l'LEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS :

Prof. W. Duguid.

11 May 1888.

have tliom brought in. A caso occun-cd in December last at Ore, near Hastings. A herd of dairy cattle were slaughtered out there, and they could not get any butcher in Hastings to admit them into his slaughtor-houso, they simply killed and buried everything on the farm. They killed 30 cows, four of which I think wore affected at the time that I saw them on Saturday the 31st December. 1 spoke to the clerk of the Committee about it, they had obviously done something of the same kind, and they said quot; We quot; cannot got a butcher to allow them to go into his quot; slaughter-house. The nearest available slaughter-quot; house here is in the town of Hastings, but no butcher quot; there would allow them to go into his place to be quot; slaughtered, simply because lie would be tabooed, quot; and the people would say, ' Oh, that man deals in quot; ' diseased meat.' quot;

5911.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) Could not they be sent to London ?They could of course bo sent to London, but when people see diseased cattle brought into a slaughter-house, it is diflicult to get them to believe that the cattle are brought there to be merely slaughtered and that the carcases are to be disposed of elsewhere.

5912.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) You also spoke of keeping a registration of the temperature, I believe ?Yes, I did.

5913.nbsp; You are aware I suppose of one large concern where an accurate registration is taken every few days ?Yes, I am.

5914.nbsp; If that system was carried out generally by the dairy farmers, do you think that that would reduce the disease to a minimumI mean taking the registration of temperature and then selling the animal for slaughter, the moment it had reached a certain degree of temperature, say 104deg; ?The temperature simply is an indication that there is something wrong ; it is no indication that it is a case of pleuro-pneumonia.

5915.nbsp; But as you said before, it would be erring on the safe side ?It would; but then you Lave got to educate your people up to the use of the thermometer.

5916.nbsp; In one answer you said that one of your objections to inoculation was that it had never succeeded in ridding the country of disease where it had been tried ?Yes.

5917.nbsp; Where do you get that evidence from ?The whole history of the disease in every country where inoculation has been tried. It has been tried in Belgium, and is practised largely in Belgium now, but the disease still prevails in that country. The inoculation of all herds in which the disease appears is in France compulsory at the present time, and they had 1,800 cases of pleuro-pneumonia last year.

5918.nbsp; Yet the French Committee reported very favourably on it ?Yes; but the experiments of the first French Commission were only conducted for six months, and that period is far too short to carry out any proper investigation of pleuro-pneumonia.

5919.nbsp;Was inoculation in Belgium compulsory?No, I think not; but it has always been practised amongst those large cattle owners that food on distillery refuse, and is largely practised now.

5920.nbsp; But it is not compulsory ?I think not.

5921.nbsp; Therefore is it fair to charge inoculation with the fact that the disease is not stamped out of the country, when you admit that it was not compulsory throughout the whole country, and therefore those who did not practise it might always have the disease in their herds ?Yes ; but we have certain statistics, the reports of the Belgium Government, showing that where animals have been inoculated they have afterwards become diseased.

5922.nbsp; Did that appear in the Belgian statistics ? Yes.

5923.nbsp; Now iu the case of Holland ; was inoculation compulsory there ?-It was compulsory, and the inoculations were carried out by Qoveriiment-appointed veterinary surgeons.

5924.nbsp; nbsp;Was it compulsory over the whole country ? It was compulsory in every herd where disease appeared.

5925.nbsp; But the disease might be latent in animals you have said without being seen ?In that caso it would only be in perhaps an occasional animal; it would not always occur that you had latent cases.

5926.nbsp; No. But what about those animals moving about the country ?There is very little movement there that cannot bo recorded.

5927.nbsp; laquo;Cannot be,quot; or laquo; is not;quot; which do you mean ?-I think in most cases quot; cannot bo.quot; In all the districts where the disease prevailed, inoculation was compulsory in every herd where the disease existed, and those animals that were inoculated were branded and not allowed to be moved without the license of the burgomaster. The result was that, after three years' experience of inoculation, they had reduced the disease very little below what it was previous to the inoculation being commenced.

5928.nbsp; In what year was that ?I do not romombor the date; we have got it in our annual report.

5929.nbsp; Was it two or three years ago?It was more than that; they gave up inoculation altogether, and resorted to compulsory slaughter, not only of diseased animals but of all that had been in contact.

5930.nbsp; Is that recently or is it 10 or 12 years ago ? No, it is quite recently, because it is only three years since they exterminated the disease by slaughter, and they went on immediately after they stopped the inoculation to slaughter.

5931.nbsp; How many years ago is it since they gave up inoculation ? I think they began inoculation in 1876, I am not sure about the date.

5932.nbsp; Do the reports show the way in which the inoculation was performed ?We have had recent correspondence with the veterinary surgeon under whoso direction the work was conducted. Mr. Cope had a letter the other day from the gentleman who had the general direction of the whole inoculation. I see in one of our reports it is stated quot; They conducted quot; the slaughter of diseased, and continued the com-quot; pulsory inoculation of all suspected, animals from quot; 1874 to 1876.quot;

6933. Then as far as you can see, there is nothing in the way in which the inoculation was performed in Holland which would lead you to imagine that any mistake had been made in the experiment or in the operation ?No.

5934.nbsp; Or that the failure resulted from any carelessness on the operator's part ?No, I should say not, because they select qualified veterinary surgeons to carry out the work, and from the number of losses which were reported at the time as the direct result of inoculation, I should say that there was no carelessness at all exhibited.

5935.nbsp; In the matter of the movement of animals you do not think that the disease was spread about the country in that way ?No, there is no reason to believe it was.

5036. You alluded to the Highland Society's evidence; have you noticed the series of questions which were asked of the veterinary surgeons who were employed by the local authorities ?Yes.

5937.nbsp; Did the extraordinary differences of opinion that were shown in their answers strike you as very satisfactory ?I think that on almost any subject you will find differences of opinion between members of the profession,

5938.nbsp; So great ?Quite as great I think as on the question of inoculation.

5939.nbsp; I think the questions went much further than that; I think the questions went to contact, and tho transmission of the disease ?In regard to the transmission of the disease I think there is quite room for very great difference of opinion there. I do not believe the virus of the disease can remain so as to affect animals in tho buildings. I do not think it can hang about tho buildings as some of them state ; but others hold quite a different opinion.

5940.nbsp; And, knowing experiments have been strongly advocated by some, are you of opinion that these experiments would be desirable ?No; I do not think that thoy would.

______

MINUTES OP KVIDENCK.

119

5941.nbsp; Do you consider that you have learned everything about the disease that there is to learn ?No, I do not think that wo have learned everything about the disease that there is to learn ; but I think what we have got to do is to get rid of the disease.

5942.nbsp; It is not a question of getting rid of the disease. I want to put that aside for the moment. Suppose you could conduct experiments without dealing with that point, would you then consider exporimonts desirable in the interests of veterinary science ?No, 1 do not think they would advance veterinary science very much; there mny be some pathological points and microscopic appearances upon which interesting details might come out, but nothing of much interest to the practical veterinary surgeon.

5943.nbsp; That is to say you think that the veterinary profession at the present moment are so thoroughly up in all points connected with this disease that further experiments arc unnecessary?So far as the symptoms of the disease and the post-mortem appearances are concerned, the greater part of the men ought to bo sufficiently well up in it.

5944.nbsp; Has it come witidn your knowledge that, in any reports sent in to the Privy Council, this disease has been frequently mistaken for tuberculosis ?Cases of that kind have occurred.

5945.nbsp; And that we have been informed that the reported outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia are often nothing else but outbreaks of tuberculosis ?We have had cases of the kind reported, but that depends to a great extent upon the selection of the veterinary inspector by the local authority.

5946.nbsp; But the veterinary inspector of the local authority is generally a certificated man, is not he ? That may be, but he is often not the most experienced man in the district; very often he is the youngest man in the district, a man that has newly passed an examination at college, and has only jnst entered practice.

5947.nbsp; Is that also within your personal knowledge ? It is so.

5948.nbsp; That is very different to the system we arc pursuing in Scotland, is not it?So much so is that the case, that we frequently find changes of address of young men that have recently left college, through the information that we obtain of appointments by local authorities, and we send them to the registrar at Eed Lion Square. These young men leave college, go into the country, and within a few weeks they often get appointments as veterinary inspectors to local authorities.

5949.nbsp; Is it not possible that the local authorities may be under the impression that being fresh from college, they ought to know even more about it ?I do not think that is the case. I think it is usually the case that the local authorities take the man who will do the work for the least money; that is my experience.

5950.nbsp; Then that would be another reason for appointing a central authority who should appoint the inspectors under the Act; would you say iti that case it would be more efficiently done ?There are several counties in which they have consulting veterinary surgeons, and there, no animals are slaughtered on account of pleuro-pnenmonia, unless the consulting veterinary surgeon lias seen them and sanctioned the slaughter, in those counties the Act is very well carried out.

5951.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir G. Mctcpherson Grant.) Could you explain to the Committee how you would draw the line for a dairy farm ; you talk of exceptional treatment as regards the slaughter for London dairies and also dairy farms in the country ; how would you define a dairy farm ?What I mean by a dairy farm is one where simply cows for dairy purposes are kept and no other kind of stock; not a mixed farm at all, there are many farms in the south of England on which they have nothing but dairy cows, they dispose of their calves as soon as they are born. The only difference between them and a London cowshed is that the man grows on his own farm the food to feed his stock with.

5952.nbsp; Then do you not think it would be wise to extend the advantage beyond a farm of that description ?No, I do not think it would, unless there were some exceptional circumstances in the case which the local authority could point out. Of course in granting an extension of time every case must bo considered on its own merits.

5953.nbsp; I understand you to say that that is where you would draw the broad line?Yes, the broad line decidedly.

6954:' (Chairman.) You have had in your large practice, I have no doubt, considerable experience with reference to tuberculosis ?I have not had very much experience with regard to tuberculosis ; I have seen more tuberculosis in the last four years than I had seen before.

Ö955. Have the opportunities you have had of investigating pleuro-pneumonia given you many occasions also of seeing tuberculosis where you did not expect it ?No, they have not; the most cases of tuberculosis 1 have seen have been in the slaughterhouse of Edinburgh, on recent visits to Edinburgh during the past four or five years.

5956.nbsp; Then may we gather from that, that so far as you have seen it it has been confined to dairy cases ?No, it is not so. I have seen it in others besides dairy cows.

5957.nbsp; Are you aware of what breed of cattle those were which you saw affected ?I have seen it in shorthorns, and I have seen it in Jersey cattle, and I have seen cases in black-polled cattle.

5958.nbsp; Have you formed any opinion as to how this disease is communicated from one animal to another ? There are several ways in which it might be : what has been most commonly spoken of is hereditary transmission, and next to that is the infection of the calf through the milk of the cow.

5959.nbsp; If the calf can be infected from the milk of the cow, have yon reason to believe that the human being may be also equally easily thus affected ?Yes; from experiments that have been conducted, I should say that human beings might also be infected, mure particularly children.

5960.nbsp; In what part of the body do you generally discover the existence of this disease ?I have seen the disease in almost every organ in the body. It is most commonly seen in old animals in the lungs, and after appearing in the lungs it may be conveyed through the lymphatic system to any other organ in the body. In young animals you more frequently find it, if they get infected through Ingestion of milk from diseased cows, they get it in the mesenteric glandsa form of disease called tabes mesenterica, but once you get an invasion of either the lungs or the mesenteric glands, an invasion of any other organ in the body may occur afterwards. I have seen one or two cases in which there were nodules of it in the udder of the cow.

5961.nbsp; I think you said you regarded it as a hereditary disease ?It has been always stated as such.

5962.nbsp; Do you think it is likely to be produced by in-and-in breeding ?No, unless you are breeding from tainted stock ; if you are breeding from perfectly healthy stock in-and-in breeding will not produce it; it is only when you are dealing with infected stock, and then you intensify the mischief.

59G3. Do you think that in-and-in breeding might possibly render an animal more susceptible ?Speaking from experience, I cannot say it would.

5964. {Professor Brown.) From the experience you have had in respect to the progress of the disease, is there any suggestion you can make as to legislation for the purpose of preventing its extension among animals ?I think there would be great diflieulties in the way of legislating for it.

5905. Do you happen to be aware that numerous applications have been made; by the different local authorities ?I know that numerous applications have been made by different local authorities to have it included, and by others as well as the local authorities.

Z 2

Prof. W. Duyuid.

II May Um.

#9632; #9632; #9632;

rp^

180

COMMITTEE ON PLEüRO-PNBÜMONIA AND TUBEBCULOSI8 :

Pro/.

IV. Duuuid.

II May 18R8.

5966.nbsp; Is thore any common ground on which they base theiiquot; application ?The ground generally, I think, lias been protection of the human subject more than the protection of animals.

5967.nbsp; nbsp;lluvo wo had any practical suggestion for dealing with the disease simply in reference to its prevention among the animals ?Not that I am aware of.

5968.nbsp; nbsp;Is it likely, from what we have heard, and what we know of its character, that the milk of a tuberculous cow would bo infective provided that the udder remains free from the disease ?No, I should think not, if the uddor remains free from disease.

5969.nbsp; nbsp;But where there is evidence of the animal being infected with tubercle there would of course be a possibility of the uddor being affected ?There would be, and it might bo difficult to diagnose the existence of the disease in the udder.

5970.nbsp; nbsp;Therefore it would not be unreasonable to say that the milk of a tuberculous animal is unfit for human food ?No, 1 do not think that would be unreasonable.

5971.nbsp; nbsp;But that is a question on which this department has actually nothing to say ?No, and the difficulty is in diagnosing the cows that are affected with it.

5972.nbsp; That is to #9632;say that are affected with it in various parts of the body, not merely in the udder ? Yes.

5973.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had any personal experience of that difficulty ?Yes, I have seen animals slaughtered that had not the slightest sppearance of being tuberculous, that is to say, animallaquo; in good condition; and some carcases I have seen in the Edinburgh slaughterhouses were carcases tor which butchers had paid no doubt a very fair price, judging from the condition in which they were ; they were not carcases of old cows, but rather carcases of fair conditioned meat.

5974.nbsp; nbsp;Such as would ordinarily pass as butchers' stock ?Yes, animals that would fetch from 14/. and 15/. up to 20/.

5975.nbsp; Do you say that those animals on being slaughtered were found to be diseased ?They were found to be tuberculous ; there were extensive tuberculous deposits in the lungs.

5976.nbsp; That fact seems to interpose a very serious barrier against the efficacy of every measure which might be attempted to exterminate the disease ?It does.

5977.nbsp; Do you think it possible, from what you know of the history of the malady in this and other countries, that it can be exterwinatcd by any legislative action ?I am not a-ftare of any country having been able to do any good, or even attempting to legislate for it; the difficulties have always been so great.

5978.nbsp; In some Europeailaquo; countries, in fact in most European countries, there are laws in force relating to tuberculosis, are there not?There are laws in force, but it is questionable how far they prevent the spread of disease among the cattle

6979. Do you know what the general provisions are ?No, I am not sufficiently acquainted with them to say what they really are.

5980.nbsp; Are you not aware then that in every case their object is to prevent the use of meat and milk from tuberculous animals ?I have always understood that that was more their object than the prevention of the extension of the disease amongst animals.

5981.nbsp; I think you are not prepared with any suggestions for dealing with the disease under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?No, I do not gee the way to include it under that Act.

5982.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horslei/.) Have you any personal experience of the infectivity of milk ?No, I cannot say that I have; but, judging from the French experiments with the organs of tuberculous animals, and reasoning from that, I should say it is dangerous.

5983.nbsp; Have you, in the course of your wide experience, seen the disease spread from one adult animal to another in a herd ?No, I cannot say that I have seen that, I have seen two or more tuberculous

animals in the same cowshed; but there was no proof that I he disease was communicated from the one to the other.

5984.nbsp; nbsp;One was not side by side with the other ? No, certainly not; they were purchased at dilferont times and from different sources.

5985.nbsp; Have you ever seen it transmitted apparently from one kind of animal to another kindsuch as cows to pigs ?No, I cannot say that I have.

5986.nbsp; Or fowls ?No, I cannot say that I have seen that.

5987.nbsp; I think you say that most of the disease that you have seen lately has been in Edinburgh ?Yes.

5⁽J8S. Ciin you tell the Committee whether it is more prevalent in town animals or in country animals; or have you no figures upon that point 'r¹^I do not think that we have any statistics to show, because a large number of the animals slaughtered in the towns come out of the country; and there is a difficulty in distinguishing which were town animals and which were country animals. I do not think we have any record or any statistics which will show that.

5989.nbsp; With reference to legislation, you say it would be very difficult to include this point under the 1878 Act. But as a general principle, do you see any real difficulty in compelling the owners to give notice in the beginning of tubercular disease ?No; the great difficulty is the diagnosis of the disease until you come to the very last stages of the disease. I have seen animals slaughtered that had not the slightest appearance. You would have been positive that they were in perfect health, and yet tubercular deposit has been found in the lungs when you examined them after death. Those cases would be impossible to diagnose. In other cases I have seen old, worn-out, thin, poor cows that had every appearance of being tuberculous, and yet when they were slaughtered no trace of tubercle was to be found in them.

5990.nbsp; If a farmer has an emaciated animal which ho kills because it is obviously going down hill, and calls in a veterinary surgeon and they find that it is tubercular, do you see any reason why the farmer should not give notice to the authority ?Not at all, if he kills an animal in that condition, and it is found tuberculous.

5991.nbsp; Then do you think it is likely that the veterinary surgeon, if he inspected the rest of the stock, might find some other animals which he might diagnose to bo tubercular ?He might, and he might not.

5992.nbsp; And if he did, would you be prepared to say that legislation should permit him to order the slaughter of these animals, and that compensation should be granted in the usual way ?When you come to the question of compensation, then the question arises of very high priced and valuable animals, for instance, in a herd of pedigree shorthorns, or stock of that class, if you find an animal is becoming emaciated ar.d is killed in the way you mention by the owner, and is found to be tubercular, what about the compensation for animals that are suspected ?

5993.nbsp; There is a limit already for the compensation for pedigree stock, is there not ?Yes.

5994.nbsp; nbsp;I suppose the same limit would apply, would not it ?If you put it that the highest compensation is not to exceed 40/., I do not think it ought to apply in the case of cattle which, if turned out and publicly sold, might bring some thousands of pounds.

5995.nbsp; But it would be perfectly possible of course to arrange compensation of that kind ?Every case would have to be dealt with on its own merits, but general legislation could not be effected in that way. It would have to be a permissive sort of order, granting special powers to act in certain cases.

5996.nbsp; It could be altered by the Privy Council, because 1 hope we shall come to that ultimately, to work from the central authority, and that would meet the difficulty, would not it ?Yes.

5997.nbsp; Ifthatwasthe case, I suppose there would be no reason why it should not be considered a penal thing or an offence against the law, for anyone know-

MINUTES OP EVIDENCE.

181

ingly to breed from tubercular ivniraals if it could be proved PYos but yoa aro. interfering there with the liberty of the sulijeet. You cuiiuot limit a man to the use of his own stock with regnrd to breeding purposes.

5998. That is not the case quite. Ol course no one supposes but, be would got rid of some of his stock us the numbers increased ; ami the cases I am retemng to are those in which the cattle would leave his establishment tubercular ?Then you would prevent him from breeding from cattle that were supposed to be tuberculous.

5909. Of course there would bo a distinct examination ?-There would be the difficulty of proving that they were tuberculous.

6000.nbsp; I am aware of that, and I said ui my first question, quot; if it were provedquot;You would have great difficulty in obtaining ccrtiiicates.

6001.nbsp; nbsp;I am aware of all that, and that is the reason why I said quot; if it were proved.quot; I want a direct

answer, yes or no ?It it wore distinctly proved I think it might be so, hut the dilHculty would bo in the proof. Jt would be done with extreme difficulty.

6002. From your knowledge of the nature of the disease, it is obvious tluit if we could slaughter out, I do not say all, but a considerable number of tuber-ciilur animals, we should go a good deal towards reducing the amount of disease, should wo not ? Probably there would bo a good deal done, but there are a great, many tuberculous animals, especially cows on dairy farms, that are never bred from. They are simply used for their milk as long as they will give a fair quantity of milk, and pay for their food; then they are sent otf directly to the butcher. They are not bred from again by the dairy fanner.

G003. Still what I meant to say was that it would bo better to do something than to do nothing ?Yes, it would be better to do something than to do nothing, certainly.

Ptof. W. Uuguid.

II May 1888.

The witness withdrew.

Mr, William Stkatton called and examined.

Mr. W. Sirattm.

0004. {Chairman.) You live at Kingston Devenll, near Warminster, in Wiltshire, I believe ?f do.

6005. And are there a tenant farmer ?I am.

C006. Will you toll the Committee the extent of the land in your occupation ?About 3,000 acres.

6007.nbsp; Do you farm that in the ordinary system of what is called mixed agriculture ?I do.

6008.nbsp; As such you have no doubt a considerable number of cattle in your possession ?Yes, I have about 300 in the summerhorned cattle.

6009.nbsp; nbsp;You have been, I believe, a member of the executive committee for the county of Wilts since the passing of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act ? I have.

6010.nbsp; Therefore all matters connected with cattle disease in that county would be brought to your notice ? I have taken an active part on that committee since ils formation, and I believe it was formed about the year 1865 when the cattle plague first broke out.

6011.nbsp; 1 think you are also a member of the Central Chamber of Agriculture ?Yes, I am.

6012.nbsp; nbsp;And chairman of the cattle disease committee of that chamber PY'es, the cattle disease committee was formed by that chamber at my suggestion, and I have been its chairman since its formation, excepting a period when I was unable to attend and Mr. Chaplin acted.

6013.nbsp; 1 believe it was formed in the year 1873 ?I believe so, it was when Sir Michael Hicks Beach was chairman of the chamber.

6014.nbsp; Have you had any experience of contagious disease amongst your cattle stock ?I have had many outbreaks of foot ami-month disease.

6015.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had any experience of pleuro-pneumonia ?Personally I have bad none.

6016.nbsp; Have you had opportunities of observing it on other farms ?We have had two or three outbreaks in the county of Wilts, one outbreak especially came under my particular attention.

6017.nbsp; Can you give some further detail with respect to that outbreak ?It occurred in a herd of agistcd stock taken ill by my landlord, the Marquis of Bath. One or two animals died before the cause was suspected. As soon as we discovered it was pleuro-pneuraonia, wo slaughtered all the affected animals testing them by the thermometer ; we continued to got an occasional outbreak for the space of three or four weeks ; we then lost about 20 per cent, of the herd and the committee decided we would slaughter the whole.

6018.nbsp; In what year was that?I cannot speak positively. 1 believe it was about 10 or 12 years ago.

6019.nbsp; Did you attempt any system of isolation then ?Yes, we did, we isolated them, but notwithstanding that wo got an occasional outbreak, and we

ultimately decided the best policy was to slaughter all That was done under my personal superintendeneo and we made what we could of the carcases and the cost to the county was not very heavy.

6020.nbsp; Has there been any recent outbreak in Wiltshire ?I believe there has been no outbreak in Wiltshire since that case 10 years ago.

6021.nbsp; Has there been any attempt to inoculate animals as a preventive measure against pleuro-pneumonia ?None whatever.

6022.nbsp; Are you aware that such treatment has been adopted in other parts of the kingdom ?Yes, I am aware of that.

6023.nbsp; Did the outbreak to which you refer occur in the dairy stock or among the grazing cattle ?No, among agisled cattletwo or three year old cattle.

(5024. Did you make it part of your business to have a post-mortem of those animals which were in contact as well as the diseased animals ?Yes, I myself saw a great many of them opened, and I had a report of all.

6025.nbsp; Did you find many symptoms of disease ? I think so long as we continued to kill only such as had risen in temperature, we found post-mortem symptoms that showed lhat we, were correct.

6026.nbsp; In every case ?Yes.

0027. With regard to the others, what did you do ? With regard to the others, when slaughtered there were some symptoms of disease in about a third of them, as far as I can recollect.

6028.nbsp; That showed then that the disease was of a character which could not necessarily be detected by external symptoms in its earlier stages ?Yes, it proved that.

6029.nbsp; Therefore I gather that you regard it as of a very insidious and dangerous nature?I do. I may mention that one or two of the animals showed signs that they had the disease apparently a long time before.

6030.nbsp; But were those symptoms indicated by an encystment in the lungs ?Yes, they were.

0031. Itegarding the question from a national point of view, what do you consider the most effectual, prompt, and economical means of getting rid of this disease from the country ?I have no doubt whatever that the proper thing, and by far the most desirable system, is to slaughter immediately everything that has been in contact with pleuro-pneumonia affected animals.

6032.nbsp; nbsp;By such means do you think it would be possible to clear the country of such disease ?Undoubtedly, and at small expense.

6033.nbsp; Are you aware that such measures have already been successful when applied to cattle plague and foot-and-mouth disease ?Yes.

'Ilaquo;

182

COMMITTEE ON rLEUUO-I'NEUMONIA AND TUBEHCOLOSIS :

IF, Stratton.

CO.'H. But oooBldering that the period of incubation

Dorset. The herd belonged to a friend of mine) ho

of plouro-piieuinonin extends over a longer time, 11 May 1888. ^nl'gJ't }'ou not liavo greater difficulty in effecting your

-----------puvposo by slaughter than there would be with cattle

plague nnd foot-and-mouth disease ?Possibly wo might, as plouro-pneumonia is so insidioua.

0035.nbsp; nbsp;May 1 ask ii' that is generally the opinion of the agricultural interest with which you are so dosuly connected ?When the cattle diseases committee of the Central Chamber was first formed, we had a low members who objected to the carrying out of slaughter to the extent which wo now recommend, but for the lost flvo years I think the Chamber has been unanimously in favour of most stringent measures with regard topleuro-pueumonia, and a very great majority of our members are also in favour of slaughter in uny fresh outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

0036.nbsp; nbsp;Are you satisfied with the present principle upon which compensation is awarded?I am not satisfied with that. I think that as the disease was brought from foreign countries, and by cattle imported to satisfy the national demand for cheap meat, that the national finance ought to bear the cost of compensation.

6ü.'37. Then in conjunction with the demand that the national exchequer should pay the expenses of compulsory slaughter, would you desire that the control of that slaughter should remain as at present in the hands of local authorities or in those of a central authority ?Let it emanate from a central authority by all means. We of the Chamber of Agriculture liavo always recommended that cattle diseases should be treated from a central authority. We are perfectly willing to give up our local control ; in fact we asked and have repeatedly petitioned that the Privy Council should take the matter into their own hands and deal with it systematically.

6038. Peyondthat is it your opinion that the Contagious Diseases Animals Act of 1878 generally meets the requirements of the country?-As amended in 1884,1 think it does, provided the Privy Council will exercise strongly the powers which are given them.

G039. Yon are aware that a recent order has been issued by the Privy Council compelling compulsory slaughter ?I am very glad to see that such has been the case.

6040.nbsp; You tlicrcfore approve of such a measure ? Most highly and cordially.

6041.nbsp; nbsp;Will you tell us upon what principle veterinary inspectors are appointed in Wiltshire? We select in each district the best qualified man we can find, and he acts on getting instructions from the police who are our primary inspectorsthe information I mean is given to the police and they send to the veterinary inspector.

6042.nbsp; nbsp;So far as Wiltshire is concerned, has that system worked satisfactorily ?Yes, quite.

6043.nbsp; An objection has been taken in some instances to the system of compensation as applied to dairy cattle, hy which it is thought that whilst compensation ia given for the animals only, that is not suflicient for the purpose, as it does not represent compensation for the loss of trade. What have you to say to that ?As a tenant-farmer my sympathies arc of coarse with the owner of the animals, but I feel that it would be far better that his cows should be slaughtered and that he should get compensation on the present scale, than that he should be in the position that ho would have been placed in, had there been an outbreak prior to the passing of the Act, #9632;when he would have lost his cattle and got no compensation at all.

6014. Do you think it is necessary to give any special compensation in the case of a town dairyman ? No. I do not see why it should be. If ho lost his cows he can get, rnilk from the country.

6045. How do you account for the satisfactory immunity from disease which Wiltshire has enjoyed? lly the stringency with which it suppresses any out-brctk. I may say that within 10 miles of mc there has man u, very severe outbreak in the county of

had about 140 cows, mostly dairy cows; they wore all slaughtered hy the county authorities, and although my friend is the loser ho is very well satisfied that things have not been worse.

6046. Do you consider that the outbreaks of disease which have been constantly occurring during the last few years, are in any measure due to the want of uniformity of action on the part of the various local authorities in the different counties ?I think in our case that we were unable to trace the origin of the outbreak.

0047. Are the numerous outbreaks which are constantly occurring in some measure due to a want of uniformity of action on the part of the various authorities, so that whilst Wiltshire is very strict in its regulations other counties may not be so ?1 think it has been a great deal due to the want of action in Ireland. We have had it brought very mucli from Dublin, I believe. Undoubtedly, with swine fever, ioot-and-mouth disease, and eases of that kind, the outbreaks have been very much due to the confliotino-orders of local authorities.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ⁰

6048.nbsp; Then, so far as the south of England is concerned, do you think that the disease has been brouo-ht from Ireland by way of Bristol ?Yes, constantly.⁰

6049.nbsp; nbsp;Does that apply to pleuro-pneumonia or to foot-and-mouth disease?To foot-and-mouth disease it used to apply very much, but to pleuro-pneumonia I have no doubt it always has.

6050.nbsp; But you have no specific cases of it ?No, I could not trace it.

6051.nbsp; Do you wish, therefore, to sum up what you say to this effect: that, in the opinion of yourself individually and of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, representing the chambers of the whole of England, stringent measures in the form of compulsory slaughter are the most probable means of ridding the country of this disease? Decidedly.

_ 6052. Can you tell us what the cost to your county in the rate has been for the purposes of compensation ? We have had no cases within the last 10 years, and the expenses of that outbreak, which I had under my own observation, were something less, I believe, than

6053.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) How many inspectors have you for the county of Wilts ?I am unable to tell you without referring to the clerk of the peace but we have one inspector for each petty sessional division.

6054.nbsp; Have you any one man who is at the head, over all ?Yes, the chief constable.

_ 6055. How do you manage with respect to valuations then? Have you one valuer for the whole county ?No, that member of the local authority who is nearest the spot uses his discretion, and in fact generally values them himself.

6056.nbsp; nbsp;Has that system of valuation been found satisfactory ?I think so.

6057.nbsp; Hut you have only had the experience of one outbreak?--We have had experience constantly with regard to swine fever.

6058.nbsp; Has there been any difficulty found in gettinquot; men to value their neighbours' stock?No, where there is any difficulty or any difference of opinion we call in a licensed valuer; we have power to do that if we think proper.

6059.nbsp; nbsp;Have you ever exercised that power? Never in my own case, because 1 gave satisfaction.

60ÖO. It baa been suggested to the Committee that

a Gcovernment valuator would be more satisfactory ?__

I do not think so at all, local circumstances would be of importance, which a Government valuator would not be able to appreciate.

6061. I am speaking of a county valuer who

would presumably know such local circumstances ?__

I think the better way of settling that question of ompensation would be, in case the valuer be objected o, or his valuation was objected to by the owner of

MINUTES OF MVIDENCE.

183

tlio stock, to let himcall in another, and in caseofthoii' not agreeing, call in a third man us an ovorsman.

6062.nbsp; In appointing these inspectors do yon require any particular qualiflcutions ? Do you require a certificate ?They must bo members of the Royal Veterinary College.

6063.nbsp; Is your opinion based upon your largo experience ; do you believe them to be really good men and able to detect plouro-pneumonia ?They are able to detect it when it is considerably developed; but they are not able to detect it in its incipient stages.

6064.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any reason to think that from want of skill or from want of knowledge they have failed to detect pleuro-pneumonia. That is tosay that thoy have attributed a disease to pleuro-pneumonia when it has been some other disease ?I believe some eases have arisen in which disease has been attributed to pleuro-pneumonia when it was really some other lung disease. It is very possible that that may have been the case.

6065.nbsp; nbsp;Say tuberculosis ?Yes, but I think it is muuh better to err on that side than on the other,

6006. You spoke of cases where you have seen encystment in the lung. Did you trace the outbreak to that?We were unable to trace the outbreak at all.

6067.nbsp; Then it was at the post-mortem examination afterwards that you discovered this encystment ? Yes.

6068.nbsp; Have you any idea of its standing, how long it had existed ?The veterinary inspector was of opinion that it might have been there 12 months.

6069.nbsp; I think you admitted that the dairy interests are severe losers by slaughtering ?Undoubtedly, but you should remember that I qualified that by saying they would have been heavier losers without the slaughter compensation.

6070.nbsp; Have you any reason to think that the loss which they suffer has led to any concealment of the disease ?I think there has been no concealment of the disease, because any man who practically understood the disease would feel that it was not to his interest to conceal it; but I think that sometimes the disease has existed for a considerable period before it has been discovered. I have no doubt that in town dairies there would be some concealment of the disease, perhaps because of the difRculty about milk. They would be afraid of there being a back set up about the milk.

6071.nbsp; Supposingwe will not say through what authority at the present momentbut supposing it were possible to offer them a handsome compensation ; do you think that would lead to the more prompt reporting of outbreaks?I think you would then require a very sharp veterinary inspector, or else you would get reports of pleuro-pneumonia which was simply bad breathing.

6072.nbsp; But that would rest with the veterinary inspector ?Quite so.

607.3. And it docs rest with him iu any case, does it not ?Yes, in a case of pleuro pneumonia it does ; but you must remember our veterinary inspectors are men who are employed by the farmers in the neighbourhood, and they would try to please their clients if they could.

6074. Can you give me any idea what the percentage of loss would be to the dairy farmer in having his stock slaughtered ?Assuming that the whole of the stock on his farm has been in contact, the one cow with the other, what would the loss be, provided he had them all slaughtered, and that compensation were given him by the county authority ? I say to that, that a great deal would depend on the season of the year at which the outbreak occurrcrl. I think he would lose less than he would under the old system, where the place would have been declared infected for a very long period, and it would have been a long time before he could have got the fresh stock in ; whereas now, after killing them all down and thoroughly disinfecting, he would soon be free to start again. It is difäcult to put a money loss upon

it, but I should think it might be kept undor 2/. a head.

6075. Wo have been informed that it would bo a varying loss, sometimes almost up to ruinatkm on account of the loss of business, because he could not carry out his contracts and supply his customers with milk ?As soon as a man had to kill his cattle, supposing ho were a dairy man retailing milk in a town, he could telegraph to an agent who would supply him with milk to-morrow to any quantity,

()076. Are you saying to that from your own personal knowledge?I am,

6077.nbsp; Do you know that that lias boon done or coidd be done in Wiltshire?If you like I will give you a test now. We could telegraph to a man whose name I could give you, and ho will send you up tomorrow morning any quantity of milk you like to ask him.

6078.nbsp; Do you mean that a man whose name you could give us would undertake to supply the milk ? Yes, this agent to whom I have referred lives in Wiltshire, and has the milk of perhaps 5,000 cows in Wiltshire. His principal depot is at Nino Elnis. The milk is sent up from Wiltshire, but this man will send it down to Bristol or Plymouth, or anywhere else, if he is asked.

6079.nbsp; The answer given to us by one of the witnesses who spoke on this subject was, that he could not supply the milk in the event of his slock being killed out. He could not get a supply from his neighbours, because they arc all engiigcil in the same trade, and their contracts were full ?These contracts are taken by big men, who drain a whole district of milk and then they pass it through certain offices that they have, and they are working by telegram constantly sending it here, there, and everywhere. There is no difficulty whatever in spotting a man of that sort in every district who could supply any quantity you want.

6080.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) The point of your evidence is that there are such centres at other points besides London ?Yes, there is one in Wiltshire, and there are others in the other counties.

6081.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.') These men, I understand, make contracts with the dairymen ?Yes.

6082.nbsp; In these contracts is there any clause releasing a dairyman from his obligation in the event of an outbreak ?I have not seen tliem, I never had to do with them practically, so that I cannot speak to that.

6083.nbsp; Do you happen to know it by hearsay?I know this, that in case of an outbreak of disease, the dairymen at once refuse to take the milk, and I know that there is a special clause inserted in the agreements that in any case of scarlet fever breaking out in the parish even, they refuse to take the miik of the cows from that parish, and it presses very hardly upon the farmer there.

6084.nbsp; nbsp;If scarlet fever is in the parish, do you say ? Yes, some of them are so particular as that.

6085.nbsp; You said in your answer to the Chairman, that you are entirely in favour of this Act being administered by a central authority ?I am.

6086.nbsp; Would you suggest that that central authority should administer the Act in England, Scotland, and Ireland ?Yes.

6087.nbsp; Under such administration are you of opinion that there would be a perfect protection from a recurrence of the disease ?I should be satisfied that the authorities, if they did their duty, could do it properly.

6088.nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean by that that the local authorities would be the machinery ?1 presume the loca authorities would bo the machinery for executing it.

6089.nbsp; Do you not see that that would involve placing Ireland undor the direct control of the Privy Council ?No, I do not see that that would necessarily follow, provided the head of the Irish Privy Council were carrying out the same principles as I lie English Privy Council and acting under the same

Mr. Stratton

11 May 1888

184

COMMITTEE ON PLEUKO-rNBUMONIA AND TUBEUCULOSIS:

Mr.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; llaquo;ws. I do not see that thoro need bo any Interlaquo;

IF. Strallon. forenco ono with the other.

------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;6000. Of course you know they are distinct

U May 1888. ,i_Utl₁₀₁-itioR ?They are distinct now I know.

-----------6091. What gtmrantoe hiivo you for thinking that

' there would be no interforenoe ono witli the oilier? Why, that tlie head of tlio Irish Privy Council would be answerablo to the head of the Govenuaent.

6092.nbsp; nbsp;You have snid that yolaquo; are aware that at the present moment the two laquo;utborities are distinct ?I am aware of it.

6093.nbsp; nbsp;And that they arc only acting just now in concert because it pleases them ?Yes, but I believe wc are to have an agricultural department with a responsible minister at the head of it. When we get that I hope things will bo a liltle different to what they have been.

6094.nbsp; nbsp;I understand you really mean this, that you hope, by the creation of this agricultural department, that we shall get the administration of the three countries under one direct control?Yes; and in the meanwhile there can be no difficulty in obtaining parallel action in the Duhlin Privy Council of Ireland. I cannot understand how it can be otherwise.

6095.nbsp; Are you aware tlint Avhen a deputation was sent from Scotland to Ireland requesting more stringent measures regarding the foot-and-mouth disease, the virtual answer to that deputation was that the two departments were distinct, and that the English department had no control over tliR Irish department, and could not force them to do anything ?I know that is the case, but that was a very lame excuse.

6096.nbsp; nbsp; {Sir G. Macpherson Grant) I gathered from your answers to Mr. Stirling that you are not in favour of a higher compensation being paid to the dairymen on account ot their losses ?The compensation paid, I think, is the value of the animal before it became diseased.

6097.nbsp; nbsp;Would not you put the dairyman, on account of his indirect losses and risk of business, in a more favourable position tbuo the average farmer of the country?1 do not think it would be safe to give more than the value of the animal.

6098.nbsp; You do not consider, I gathei also, that the supply of milk to the public would be seriously interfered with under this slaughter order?Certainly not.

6099.nbsp; nbsp;rutting aside the question of higher compensation for town dailies or dairy farms, would you view any system of slaughtering in their cases in a different way to slaughtering in referonco to the general stock of the country?I see no reason for departing from the general procedure with regard to that.

6100.nbsp; nbsp;Arc you in favour of ono uniform rule? One uniform system throughout, because the value of the dairy cow is greater than the value of the other cow, and a man is supposed to be paid its value before it is attacked.

6101.nbsp; nbsp;We have been told that there is a special hardship in relation to dairy cattle, on account of the man having to kill them all off at once, whereas if there was a longer period given he would bo able to dispose of them to more benefit to himself?I do not think it is so. I think it telllaquo; just the other way, that the moment he has slaughtered he can get a clean bill of health so much sooner and he can start afresh. If the thing were kept open for a week, and then slaughter 10 cows, and 10 nnother week, it would bo so long before they started afresh, and besides, immediately there is mi outbreak ofplouro pneumonia in his herd, his milk will no longer pass the inspector, and he dare not send it up here.

6102.nbsp; nbsp;Then is it the case that no milk from a herd in which there is a case of plciiro-pnuumonia can be put, into use ?Perhaps 1 am n little rash in making that statement. I know that foot-and-mouth disease is barred, and I presume plpiiro-pneumonia is also by these wholesale dealers in milk. I am not sure now as to pleuro-pnenmonia whether that would be considered unhealthy, but I think it would be very risky to send it up to London.

G103. Would you use it yourself?Yes ; I should not ho a bit afraid of it.

6104.nbsp; Do not you think there is soinethiug in the argument that, if a longer period of slaughter was ghon to the dairyman, ho could, by feeding his animals, put them in a better selling condition for the butcher? Decidedly not. I think that would be u most pernicious practice.

6105.nbsp; We have been told also that many of the London dairymen, or at all events dairymen in largo towns, consider that this compulsory wholesale slaughter is absolute ruin to their business ; not only to the extent that they are unable to fulfil their contract to supply their customers with a certain quantity of milk, but also from the fact that on its becoming known that the whole of their dairy stock was slaughtered, they would be unable to command that trade ; or at all events for the future they would have very great difficulty in getting it back again, from the knowledge of the fact that they had slaughtered their cattle ?That statement is perfectly absurd. I believe nine-tenths of the milk now consumed in London is brought, beyond a radius of 20 miles from London. I have no statistics on that point, and I do not know whether there are any available, but the trade in milk from every railway coming into London is something prodigious, and the quantity produced in London is infinitesimally small.

6106.nbsp; Then you do not yourself give any weight to that argument as regards the indirect losses to the dairyman ?I am sure there is no weight in it. I am sure it is worth nothing, it is only an excuse for delaying proper action.

6107.nbsp; {Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Prom your evidence it is clear you do not think that town dairies will suffer consequential damages to the extent that has been represented to us; that is to the ruin of their business ?It is perfect nonsense.

6108.nbsp; Supposing they suffer some indirect loss, would you approve of a larger compensation being given to them ?No, I do not think 1 would, because I am not sure that there is any need of their Buffering any indirect loss. I think that nine-tenths of those who retail milk and keep cows in the neighbourhood of London supplement the milk that they get from their own cows by purchase in the country.

6109.nbsp; Supposing it was proved to the satisfaction of this Committee that they suffer 50 per cent, loss more than an ordinary farmer, would you approve of an extra amount of compensation being given to them under those circumstances?On the condition that the farmer who could prove the same should get also extra compensation. I. mean provided the same measure were meted out to all.

6110.nbsp; Would you rather that extra compensation was given than that town dairies should bo exempted from the operation of the last Order in Council ?1 think that if they were exempted from the operation of the last Order in Council, it would be necessary lo draw a cordon round them to prevent their sending any cattle out.

6111.nbsp; I am putting the other question. Would you rather let them bo compensated to an extra degree, but not so far as to induce ihem to avoid the law in the way you have described, than have those dailies exempted from the last Order in Council ?I am not quite sure. They could not prove any extra loss more than other stock-owners.

6112.nbsp; Do you think that such a case cannot fairly arise ?I am certain such a case could not be proved to the satisfaction of a practical man who understood the facts of the case.

6113.nbsp; Do you think the local authorities would work under the Privy Council in the event of further powers being given to the Privy Council to supervise cattle?Undoubtedly they would.

0114. Even if the ratepayers paid the compensation as now ?Yes, there would be no difficulty about that. There would be no opposition.

6115. If imperial taxation was charged with the

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

J85

compousation thoy would bo still more willing to do so ?They would bo still more willing to do so.

(illlaquo;. Do you think that the new slaughter order, worked by the locul authorities, would clear the country of pkuro-pnomnonia ?Yes.

0117.nbsp; Do you think it would be done ns oxpedi-tiously ns if it was worked by the central authority ? I do not think it would be done so, certainly, as if it #9632;was worked by the central authority.

0118.nbsp; Therefore do you recommend that further powers should lie given to the central authority ?1 do, or rather 1 think they have the power, but I should recommend their exercising it.

6119.nbsp; {Professor Brown.) I want to make out what your opinion is as to the central action which was spoken of. You say the local authomies may still be continued to be used as the machinery ?Yes.

6120.nbsp; How would that state of things differ from the present state ?The law is at present administered by the local authorities, but under the instructions of the central authority in regard to pleuro-pneumonia. That I believe is an absolute order, and I approve of it as it is.

6121.nbsp; Then what you mean is that the Privy Council should issuequot; all their orders compulsory instead of permissive?Yes.

6122.nbsp; But you do not go beyond that. You do not mean that the central department should not only pass orders but should see to their administration ? If they had any doubt as to the action of the executive in the counties they should supersede it. I would go as far as that.

6123.nbsp; Are you aware that they have now all the powers which would enable them to do that ?I think they have, with regard to pleuro-pneumonia.

6124.nbsp; With regard to all parts of the Act they have power, in the event of a local authority not enforcing an order, to appoint a commissioner to go down and enforce the order, charging the expense to the local authority. What do you think of that ?I highly approve of that.

6125.nbsp; So that, as a matter of fact, to cany out your views it is not necessary that the Privy Council should have more powers than they have now ?No.

6126.nbsp; In regard to compensation, do you happen to remember that when the Bill of 1878 was in committee, it was proposed by several agriculturists that the compensation should be three-fourths of the loss, and not three-fourths of the value of a diseased animal ?I do not recollect that.

6127.nbsp; Would you approve of any such principle being adopted ? I mean that the compensation paid should be a proportion of the whole loss sustained, and not merely a proportion or the total value of the animal ?That would include consequential damages as well as the absolute loss. I do not think it would be safe to pay more than the whole value. It was with regard to the slaughter of animals in contact which were healthy that my remarks previously referred.

6128.nbsp; Then your remarks do not refer to the slaughter of diseased animals ?No.

6129.nbsp; Would you suggest any alteration in regard to the amount of compensation paid in these cases ? No, because I think the information of the disease ought to be at once given to the local authorities, and that then the greater part would be slaughtered before they were diseased.

6130.nbsp; I understood you to say that you would not object to the London dairyman being allowed to keep His animals shut up, if a cordon were drawn round the metropolis to prevent the escape of those animals ? No, that is not what I said. What I said was that rather than pay consequential damages, it was a question whether or not in some cases within the town animals might not be isolated with a cordon.

6131.nbsp; Would you object, in any case where a dairy-

man wished to keep his cows at his own risk, that thoso animals should be branded in some way, and should bo kept in a shod in which they then stood, on the condition that thoy were never moved except for purposes of slaughter ? 1 should object to that altogether.

6132.nbsp; Why would you ?I think there is no hardship whatever in his being compelled to slaughter oil'; he should be treated the same as other owners of stock in the country.

6133.nbsp; Would you object to any owner of stock keeping his animals alive on those terms ?Yes, I should.

6134.nbsp; On what, ground would you object?Why, that the disease might be communicated by some accident, they would be a source of danger.

6135.nbsp; Do'you apprehend any danger, except from the movement of infected animals ?An animal might break its chain and get out.

6136.nbsp; Do you mean that an animal might escape and might carry the infection ?Yes.

6137.nbsp; Therefore, you would insist upon slaughter as the readiest means of getting rid of the disease ? Uniformly.

6138.nbsp; Is the office of milk agent to which you refer one of recent institution ?-Yes, I think it is of comparatively recent institution.

6139.nbsp; That is, I suppose, since the cattle plague which induced a greater quantity of milk being sent to London ?Yes, I believe that the custom of sending milk up from the country grew very largely then.

6140.nbsp; Is this a special business of these men, or are they farmers in addition?In some cases it is a special business, and in others it is combined with farming. It arises a great deal from the dilficulty dairy farmers have in meeting with respectable men in London to take their milk ; an infinite set of scamps exists here, and no end of robbery has been perpetrated on the poor farmers. This has made them very cautious, and they now much prefer selling to a middleman who is a responsible man and whom they know.

6141.nbsp; Do I understand that they sell the milk to the middleman, or is he only the agent through whom it is sold ?The middleman makes the contract with the farmer.

6142.nbsp; And he distributes it as he thinks proper?

Mr. W. Slratton.

11 May 188H.

Yes.

Then he does not necessarily require the be delivered to his premises, but it is disaccording to the instructions conveyed, probably daily or weekly, or at certain definite times to his customers, and the milk is sent direct to the various stations ?He has an agent in the country in direct communication with the farmer ; he also has a cheese factory at one of the railway stations, and there is always a surplus in the summer which he is unable to dispose of, which is made up into goods at the station. He could send a thousand gallons extra daily from now to August, I have no doubt, to anybody in any direction.

6144.nbsp; Is there a greater development of milk supply in the country in the winter than there used to be ? Very much so.

6145.nbsp; Has this been developed in a great measure by the system to which yon refer ?Yes.

6146.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) Is there any way of getting at the number of these men ?1 think that mightIjo difficult to do. The manifest utility of such men points to their being very general.

6147.nbsp; nbsp;Is one of the requirements of sending milk such a distance that of being refrigerated ?Yes.

6148.nbsp; nbsp;After which of course there is no ditliculty in sending the milk to any distance ?No, and beyond refrigerating it they might pack it in ice to suarl it a long distance if necessary.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till Monday at half-past 10 o'clock.

laquo; 84008,

A a

Tr^

186

COMMITTKR ON PLEUBO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSrS

ELEVENTH DAY.

Monday, 14th May 1888.

PRESENT :

Mr. JACOB WILSON in the Chair.

Lord Ci.oncurry.

Sir Gtko. Macphbbson Grant, Bnrt.

Mr. Stiüxino (of Kippondavie).

Mr. Bowen-.Tones. Professor Buoavn, C.B. Professor Hobsley, F.E.S.

Mr. Dawson, Secretary.

Mr. A. 2gt;. Forhei.

14 May 1888

Mr. Arthur Drummond Forbes called and examined.

6149. (C/iairman.) I beliove you live at Millearne, Auchterarder, Perthshire ?Yes.

G150. And that yon are there the proprietor of the estate on which you live ?Yes.

6151.nbsp; Have you also in your occupation a home arm ?Yes.

6152.nbsp; Of what extent is that farm ?About 220 or 225 acres.

6153.nbsp; In addition to your own property have you also had the management of other estates ?Yes, I have.

6154.nbsp; Are you a member of the local authority in Perthshire ?I am a member of the executive committee of the local authority.

6155.nbsp; nbsp;Have you been so for some years ?Since the year 1882.

6156.nbsp; nbsp;Since you have been a member of the local authority have there been frequent outbreaks of disease amongst cattle in Perthshire ?There have been a very considerable number.

6157.nbsp; And of those have there been many outbreaks in the form of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

6158.nbsp; Have some of those outbreaks been of recent date ?#9632;Yes.

6159.nbsp; What has been the usual treatment of cattle in the case of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in Perthshire ?It has varied. In some cases it has been thought necessary to slaughter, and in other cases, latterly particularly, we have tried inoculation.

6160.nbsp; nbsp;Then there has been no uniform action taken ?Latterly in every case, with but one or two exceptions whore the stock was a very small one, we have inoculated.

6161.nbsp; What treatment do you adopt with reference to animals actually diseased ?They are immediately slaughtered.

6162.nbsp; nbsp;With reference, then, to the animals in contact do you adopt inoculation ?Latterly we have adopted inoculation.

6163.nbsp; When did you first commence to inoculate for pleuro-pneumonia?The outbreak that I have mentioned on my papers here as occurring in November 1886, when seven cattle were inoculated, was the first case of inoculation.

6164.nbsp; Have you had brought before you what is known as the Drumkilbo case ?Yes, I have.

6165.nbsp; Have you any special or detailed report with reference to the treatment adopted in that case ?Yes, I havs, and I will put in the report and a plan of the farm. {Sec Appendix, documents handed in hy Mr. A. Drum,nondForbes.)

6166.nbsp; nbsp;Will you kindly give us a short description of the case?On the 4th February 1888 there were 85 head of cattle on the farm. On that day the lirst miimal, a sow, was found diseased and slaughtered,

Up to and including the 11th February there were six animals slaughtered, inclusive of that one. On that date 32 head of cattle were inoculated with the virus obtained from these. At the time of the inoculation three of those animals that were inoculated were suspected, but the temperature did not warrant their being killed. On the 13th February, and again on the 23rd of February, one of those suspected animals was found to be diseased, and was killed. On the 13th March the third of these said animals that were suspected was killed,

0167. Was a post-mortem examination made of any of the three animals ?Yes.

6168. Were all three examined?They were all three examined.

0169.nbsp; What was the result?The first two were found to have been suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, with respect to the third there was a difference of opinion. One veterinary surgeon believed it to be suffering from pleuro-pneumonia and the other one, Dr. Clark, certified that it was suffering from fever, it was a cow just going to calf.

0170.nbsp; Can you give us more in detail Dr. Clark's opinion of the case ?Mr. Martin, clerk to the local authority, writes as follows: quot; The third inoculated quot; animal was not killed till the 13th of March, it was quot; killed by Mr. Lornie before Mr. Clark saw it, but quot; the latter examined the lungs and contends that quot; there was no trace of pleuro about them, and that quot; the animal was only affected with inoculative fever. quot; If Mr. Clark is right, and most probably he is, it quot; gets out of the difficulty of an inoculated animal '#9632;* becoming affected so long as a month after the ' operation was performed.quot;

0171.nbsp; Have you anything further to report upon the Drumkilbo case ?The other 29 animals have remained healthy and are healthy at present, in spite of several outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia among the uninoculated cattle since. The animals have all been in the same buildings, the divisions in which did not go up to the roof.

0172.nbsp; Would you kindly state what breed of cattle these were ?They were crossed cattle.

0173.nbsp; And of what ages ?They were all ages from one to 2| years, I believe.

0174.nbsp; nbsp;Were they the mixed stock of a farm ? Yes.

0175.nbsp; The animals now remaining olive are permitted to do so under a special permission of the Privy Council, are they not ?That is so, 1 believe.

0176.nbsp; What became of the balance of the cattle other than those you have mentioned ?The cattle now remaining arc 29 inoculated and 10 uninoculated. Two calves and the 30 cattle that had been in contact with diseased laquo;nhmls were slaughtered on the 13th,

MINUTBS OH' KVIDENOE.

187

Kith, und 17th April 1888. Tlioso were all uninocu-latod, and of them, nix were found to bo diseased and the roraainder healthy. The two calvos had been born in tho interim.

Ö177. Are the 10 uninoculated animals wliicii laquo;ro still surviving under very caruful supervision ?They raquo;re.

6178. Are you aware what the local nuthority propose to do with reference to these ciUtlo ?They propose that none of them shall leave the farm alive.

6170. Are you aware when thoy contemplate their slaughter ?No ; I am not aware of that.

0180. Are you aware whether any special application was made by tho local authority to the Privy Council with reference to tho treatment of the surviving animals?I understood that the Privy Council had given the surviving animals leave to live in the meantime subject to that permission being retracted by tho Privy Council at any time they choose.

6181.nbsp; For any special object, do you remember? With a view to a post-mortem, I understood.

6182.nbsp; Can you inform the Committee as to tho amount of compensation granted in this particular case ?Tho compensation paid in this case has been 755/. 6s. Sd.

6183.nbsp; Have you any statistics showing the comparative cost to the county of Perth of inoculation and of compulsory slaughter ?I have. Here is a statement showing tho loss which would have probably been sustained by the slaughter of .'337 animals in contact with animals affected with pleuro, but which animals were inoculated and remained healthy. {Handing in the same, see Appendix, documents handed in by Mr, A. Drummond Forbes.)

6184.nbsp; May I ask over how long a time that statement extends ?It is between November 6th, 1806, and September 29th, 1887.

6185.nbsp; What is the nature of the returns that you propose to put in with reference to those dates ?It is a return showing the number of animals slaughtered in each case, the loss per animal slaughtered, the number of inoculated stock preserved, and the estimated loss according to the loss of those slaughtered ammals in each separate case; the average loss of each slaughtered animal being 5/. 7laquo;. 3rf.

6186.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.) What is the total amount of presumed loss ?2,007/. los. 5d.

6187.nbsp; (Chairman.) I should like to know what is the opinion of the local authority of Perthshire with reference to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878. In the first place, may I ask do they consider that the Act itself embraces all that is necessary for maintaining the health of the cattle of the country. I am not referring to the administration, but to the Act itself ?Generally speaking, I think the Act is satisfactory.

6188.nbsp; Now I ask you whether you consider that the general administration of the Act is altogether satisfactory ?No, we do not.

6189.nbsp; nbsp;To what do you take exception ?Principally to the very varied orders that are issued by numberless local authorities which very often cross each other in different ways, rendering the Act exceed-ingly difficult to work on that account.

6190.nbsp; Your chief objection is, then, the absence of uniformity of action ?Certainly.

0191. Is there any other point to which you take exception ?I think it is universally considered that when prosecutions are instituted the penalties are very much too small, and very often are very much mitigated beyond wiiat they might be when eases are taken into consideration.

6102.nbsp; nbsp;Is it the opinion of your local authorities that the system of compensation as at present adopted is satisfactory ?I think fairly so ; although, perhaps, sufficient weight has not been given in dairy cases to tho presumed value of the animals as milking animals j however, I think that has been, perhaps, better understood latterly than it was at first,

6103.nbsp; nbsp; Do you indicate by that answer that the ownerraquo; of dairy stock have not received umplc com-

pensation ?1 think people have been inclined to think that thoy get more the value of tho cow as butchers' moat than as a dairy cow.

0194.nbsp; How are the valuators under the Act of 1878 appointed in Perthshire?Wo have generally got members of tho committees to act as valuators in their differoiit districts.

0195.nbsp; nbsp;Are they professional men, or practical fanners ?They are thoroughly practical farmers.

6196.nbsp; nbsp; {Mr. Stirling). I will take that last point first; has that arrangement been found to work satis factorily in Perthshire?It is very often difficult to got people to value the cattle.

6197.nbsp; You mean to value their neighbour's stock ? Yes.

6198.nbsp; Han any change boon made lately in conse-quenco ?Thoy have appointed a gentleman from Dundee, latterly, to value, in consoquonce of the difficulty in getting men who are both capable of doing it and willing to do it.

6199.nbsp; Prom your answer to the Chairman regarding tho penalties under the Act, are we to understand that you would wish an alteration made wheroby it should not be allowable for tho sheriff to reduce the penalties ? Yelaquo;.

6200.nbsp; Is that the point of grievance ?Yes,

6201.nbsp; Will you state to the Committee on what point the penalties are chiefly incurred according tc your experience ?As far as wo have latterly seen sometimes in cases of suspicion of concealment. As a rule, where concealment has taken place, I think it has been probably effectual, but there have been one or two slightly suspicious cases. The chief point is with reference to tho forging of licenses of Irish cattle.

6202.nbsp; Have you any evidence to produce to the Committee indicating that licenses are forged ?I have. Here is a specimen license ; that is one of a considerable number which our clerk has in his possession {handing in the same).

6203.nbsp; Will you state generally what has been the experience of the local authority with reference to these licenses, and what steps they have taken to protect themselves ?We have had to send a detective to Glasgow, the result of which has been that we have got a great number of these forged licenses, which have been handed found in the hands of different men. The one I have is 9,792, the date of it was altered from the I7tli of April to the 24th, and the number of cattle from 6 to 60. If you hold it up to the light you will see where it has been erased.

6201. Is it the case, then, that the question became so serious that your local authority had to employ a detective ?Yes, that is so.

6205.nbsp; nbsp;I believe that although a large number of these forged licenses were found, it was impossible to obtain a legal conviction ?That has been so.

6206.nbsp; Are you speaking throughout the local authority of the county of Perth ?Yes.

6207.nbsp; But is it not the case that the local authority of the burgh of Perth have for tho last two years been cordially co-operating with the county?Certainly.

0208. And that they joined the county in sending an inspector to trace these forged certificates ?They did.

6209. And also that they feel that tho matter affects the city of Perth quite as much as tho county of Perth ' Certainly.

0210. Especially as to the way in which those licenses have been forged and diseased cattle have been brought in fYes.

6211. Was any attempt made by the local authority to trace the origin of tho various outbreaks ? Yes.

(!212. Wonld you state roughly what was tho result ol the inquires made, and perhaps also yon would at the same time say how many outbreaks there have been in the county ?In tho last 10 years, that is from 1878 to 1888, there have been exactly 100 outbreaks in tho county of Perth ; I could put in a list of them if required.

Aa 2

Mv A.D.Forheraquo;

14 May 1888.

188

COMM1TTKE ON I'LBUKO-rNEUMONJA AND TUBEBOULOBIS:

Mr.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; G213. Would you inform the Committee generally

A. D. Forbes, _wi_1Ht _w,_ls tlio result of the iuquirios m to the origin of

----- these outbreaks?12 out of the 100 wore traced to

14 May 1888. j^ ^^

6214. You say there have been 100 outbreaks in the county of Perth; can you tell us how many there have been in each successive year, und ut the same time state how many of tbe outbreaks have been due to Irish cattle ?Yes; I will givo it in the form of a table, as follows:

The Number qf Outbreaks of Pleuro-Pneumonia in the County of Pvrtu,

Can you say what the rates have gone up to per pound in the county of Perth ; have they varied, and if so, between what sums have they varied ? - -I think they have varied between 3,laquo;. '2d., or even less than that, and 5laquo;. Of/. In 100/., that is from a farthing to a halfpenny in the pound roughly.

6229.nbsp; Speaking broadly, then, we may' say that they varied from a farthing to a halfpenny per pound on the rate ?I should say that is about it. I do not speak from the book at this moment, but that is my recollection of it.

6230.nbsp; Are you aware whether tbe local authority made any representation on the Slaughter Order of 1888 ?They did.

6231.nbsp; Could you state to the Committee what their objections were ?They think that they had previously exercised a wise discretion, that they slaughtered where they thought slaughter was required, and that they had thereby reduced the expenses very much, and they further, in reference to some parts of the Slaughter Order, did not see how they could possibly work it in such a county as Perth.

6232.nbsp; What was their difficulty?Here is one particular sub-section (10), which reads, quot; If a move-quot; ment is to be into the district of another local quot; authority,quot; that is, out of an infected place, quot; there quot; must also be a movement license of that other quot; local authority.quot; Now we have no other local authority in Scotland that will take our cattle from an infected place ; that is one of our great difficulties in getting rid of animals alive, that no other local authority has yet been known to take a beast from an infected place.

6233.nbsp; nbsp;Wlien you referred to the varied orders given by tbe different local authorities, are we to understand that you referred largely to the variation since the Slaughter Order?The difficulty that we saw in this sub-section was, that when there was any desire to move cattle from a place where pleuro had existed to the slaughter-house, we could not get our license countersigned by any other local authority, thsy declined to take the cattle in; even the burgh of Perth would not take them in from the county.

6234.nbsp; nbsp;Would they not take them in for the purpose of slaughter ?No; and that is what I take it that sub-section points to.

6235.nbsp; Has there been any outbreak of disease since that order came out ?I believe there were 30 animals slaughtered from Drumkilbo, because they could not be taken away except under very difficult circumstances.

6236.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) How do you account for the fall in the number of outbreaks from 1879 until 1883 ?I really do not know that I can account for it. I know of no particular reason.

6237.nbsp; At the same time that there was that fall, there was no case traced to Irish cattle. The relation of the introduction of Irish cattle, appears to bear direct relation to the number of outbreaks until we come to 1887, when you give another reason for the introduction ?Yes.

6238.nbsp; Does that lead you to think very strongly that much of the disease in Scotland is due to the introduction of Irish cattle?I am not giving my own opinion, but it is very strongly the opinion of the farmers in Scotland that it is so.

6239.nbsp; Do you think that those figures show that when tbe number of outbreaks fall, the number of cases in which it is traced to Irish cattle also fall? That is the case.

6240.nbsp; Those figures point to that?Yes.

6241.nbsp; Were reports given in those cases where the Irish cattle were traced ?I believe they were.

6242.nbsp; Have you returns showing the reports ?No, I have not. I have only the return of the dates in the different cases,

6243.nbsp; Then you do not know whether the largo majority were traced to Dublin ?I could not tell you that.


Year.			Total Number of Outbreaks in each Year.		Total Number of Outbreaks traced to Irish Cattle.
1878 1879	-	-	16 11	-	3 None.
1880 1881	-	_	1 5	#9632;	None. None.
1882	-	-	5	-	1
1883	-	-	11	-	3
1884-	-	-	5	-	1
1885	-	-	1	-	1
1886	-		11	-	2
1887 1S88	-	-	29 5	-	1 None.

6215.nbsp; Can you say whether these cattle were hawked about the country before coming to Perth or were they known to have come direct from Ireland ? I believe they had in some cases come direct from Ireland.

6216.nbsp; Can you explain the great increase in outbreaks in 1887?The greater number of outbreaks in 1887 were traced, I believe, to Lanarkshire ; to the south-west of Scotland, at all events.

6217.nbsp; To one particular mnn ?Yes, to a great extent to one dealer who came to Perth.

6218.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; You were speaking of the unsatisfactory nature of the administration of the Act of 1878, and I think you indicated that that was owing to the varied orders of the different local authorities ?Yes.

6219.nbsp; quot;What would the local authority of Perthshire suggest, or what would you suggest, as an improvement ?I should suggest, some central authority which would issue its orders according to circumstances.

6220.nbsp; One central authority for tbe whole of the United Kingdom ?Certainly, including Ireland, of course.

6221.nbsp; By those words quot;including Ireland,quot; do I understand that you would not consider it satisfactory if you had a separate authority in Ireland ?Most certainly not.

6222.nbsp; Because you would be afraid of the orders being varied and notquot;agreeing ?Certainly.

6223.nbsp; Then if you were to have one central authority, what would you suggest as to the payment of compensation, should that fall on the Imperial Exchequer, or on the proprietors and tenant farmers as at present?I think it should fall on the Imperial Exchequer.

6224.nbsp; Can you state to the Committee what led the local authority of the county of Perth to adopt inoculation ?The very great loss caused by slaughtering out.

6225.nbsp; Do you think that their opinion would be altered supposing the compensation was to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer ?I think it is extremely probable.

6226.nbsp; Are there many practical farmers on the executive committee PThere are a very considerable number.

6227.nbsp; Would you say that the majority of the committee are practical farmers ?Yes.

6228.nbsp; You stated that inoculation was adopted in consequeuce of the lososs occasioned by slaughter.

MINUTES OP EV1DENCK.

189

6244.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know how many outbreuks there have been since the date in 1887, when the returns that you have given ceased. I should like you to bring it up to date?Since September 29th, 1887, there have been seven outbreaks.

6245.nbsp; nbsp;Do you anticipate that the number of outbreaks from September 1887 to September of the present year will not exceed 12 ?I really cannot form any estimate for the future,

6246.nbsp; Are you acquainted with the particular time of the year at which the disease is more common ? I think we have generally found the outbreaks have come on about February, about that time of the year.

6247.nbsp; nbsp;So that if you have only had seven outbreaks in the eight months up to date, from September 1887, it would be very likely that the number would not exceed 12, would it not, it is less than one a month already ? I do not see that I can form any opinion as to the future from what has happened.

6248.nbsp; nbsp;Vou would not like to form an opinion f I should not like to form an opinion at all.

6249.nbsp; nbsp;Can you tell the Committee whether, of the 29 cases that occurred in 1887 up to September, a large majority occurred in the first half of the year ? By far the larger half. I am only giving you the number of outbreaks. I will not guarantee the number of cattle that were on the places.

6250.nbsp; Can you tell us in what part of the year 1886 the majority of the 11 outbreaks happened?Seven of them took place after November 6th.

6251.nbsp; That epidemic was ill the second half of 1886 and the first half of 1887 ?Yes, practically.

6252.nbsp; To what do you attribute the decrease in this first half of 1888 and since September 1887, because there is undoubtedly a decrease ?I attribute it to the means taken by the local authority to get rid of the disease generally.

6253.nbsp; And those means you have stated to be inoculation since 1886? And slaughter in some cases.

6254.nbsp; The slaughter of the diseased animals, do you mean ?And in some cases the slaughter of healthy animals too.

6255.nbsp; Animals in contact ?Yes.

6256.nbsp; In how many instances have you carried that _out ?I can give you a return, with the names of the surgeons who inoculated the cattle. This return carries it up to date {handing in same).

6257.nbsp; You told us with regard to the Drumkilbo case, that the inoculated animals were placed with the uninoculated on the farm, and that the disease continued amongst the uninoculated ?That is so.

6258.nbsp; But that no case occurred, as I understood, among the inoculated?No case beyond the three that were suspected at the time of inoculation.

6259.nbsp; Since the lltli February 1888, when you paid 32 were inoculated, have any others been inoculated ?

,__No more have been inoculated since that. Two

calves were born and they were slaughtered ; that appears on the return I put in.

6260.nbsp; Are those inoculated cattle still in perfect health, it. is now three months after the inoculation ? Yes, they are in perfect health.

6261.nbsp; You also stated that the disease continued among the uninoculated cattle, and that 32 were slaughtered ?Yes.

6262.nbsp; And of these uninoculated cattle there remain alive 10 ?That is so.

6263.nbsp; Are these 10 animals perfectly healthy ? They were reported healthy as late as last week.

6264.nbsp; You have put in a plan of the farm. Was there any reason to suppose that the disease was carried from one hyre to another by the herdsman ? I never heard that expressed in my district as a reason.

6265.nbsp; Have you had any personal experience of the disease on your own farm ?No, I never had.

6266.nbsp; Have you heard of any case in which the virus was said to have been conveyed on the clothes ? I cannot say that it has ever been proved.

0267. Are you aware whether the disease has been found to break out in any instance that has come under your notice in properly ventilated buildings ? Yes.

6268.nbsp; nbsp;Was that by the known introduction of diseased caitle ? 15y the supposed introduction.

6269.nbsp; By tracing it afterwards ?Yes.

6270.nbsp; Has any instance come under your notice, during your wide experience of outbreaks, in which the disease was traced to a byre supposed to have been infected ?Yes.

0271.nbsp; nbsp;Can yon give us the details uf sucha case ? There was a place. Flaw Craig, Enol, where the disease existed prior to the 15th April 1882 ; it was then disinfected, and the 56 days were allowed to elapse before it was declared clear.

0272.nbsp; nbsp;What was done with the cattle, were they all slaughtered out ?Yes, as far as 1 know; that is not specified in the papers I have here, but I am certain that they were.

0273.nbsp; You said the premises were disinfected and the 50 days allowed to elapse ?Yes ; and on the 15th September the disease again broke out.

6274.nbsp; Then that would bo a breaking out among new cattle that had been introduced ?Yes, among new stock.

6275.nbsp; Did you know the previous history of the new stock ; were they well known to have been perfectly healthy ?They were bought as perfectly healthy, but I cannot give you their previous history. There yon another case in Glassingall, in Peithshire. That was declared clear on 21 April 1883, and was found infected on the 26 June 1883.

6276.nbsp; Do you mean that that was declared healthy upon the 56 days having elapsed ?That is what I understand. There is a third case, at a place called Whinniemuir, which was declared clear on 13 August 1886, and found infected in November of that year.

6277.nbsp; In each case there had been, of course, a re-introduction of fresh cattle ?Yes.

6278.nbsp; And you cannot say positively that those fresh cattle may not have actually brought in the disease in some unsuspected form?No, I cannot say that. The buildings had boon disinfected under the orders of our local authority.

6279.nbsp; nbsp;What is your personal opinion as to the value of inoculation ?I am speaking from what I have seen of it in the county of Perth. We have found it so far valuable, inasmuch as we have saved, according to that return which 1 put in, 2,000/. on those cattle, which otherwise must have been slaughtered.

C280. That is the direct value of it; now, what do you regard as the possible disadvantages ?The animal may loose its tail, if you consider that a disadvantage.

6281.nbsp; Is that a practical disadvantage ?I should say none. I should prefer an animal (if I was buying a milk cow particularly), that I knew was inoculated.

6282.nbsp; Canyon tell the Committee what was the percentage of loss due to the operation itself, from the

Mr. A. D. Forbes.

14 May 1888.

M \1

spi

ead of the virus to the trunk of the animal ; how

many animals died from the operation itself ?-case, I think we have had no deaths, at any none.

-In our

rate I

6283.nbsp; Then you have seen no case whatever to suggest that an inoculated animal is a tainted animal ? Certainly not.

6284.nbsp; And no case to suggest that it is capable of conveying the disease ?Certainly not.

6285.nbsp; Of the total number of outbreaks, in how many was inoculation performed ?15.

6286.nbsp; nbsp;How many animals were inoculated ?377.

6287.nbsp; In the cases in which slaughtering out waa practised what was the total number of animals destroyed ?358 I make it, including those destroyed by the owners.

6288.nbsp; nbsp;{Sir G. Macphcrson Grant.) You were asked as to the compensation under the Act of 1878 in the case of dairy stock, and I think you expressed the opinion that it was not altogether satisfactory ? That was my Q\{i\ opinion, and I think it was the

190

COMMITTEE ON l'LEUBO-l'NBÜMONIA AND TUBKKOULOSIB :

#9632;

Mr. A. D. Forbes,

U May 1888.

opinion of our local authority generally; there has been an inclination to grumble where cows have been slaughtered.

0289. Would you express an opinion as to the expediency or the justice of giving a more liberal valuation in the case of dairy stocks ?I think very often the hardship is greater in the case of dairy .stocks under the present system by valuation than it might be.

()290. Do you say that on account of the indirect losses to the man's trade ?Yes.

6291.nbsp; Have you considered the possibility or tho wisdom of tho working of dairies or dairy farms under a different set of rules to those generally applied, I mean as regards the Slaughter Order ?That question has never come before us as a local authority.

6292.nbsp; You have not considered it in any way ? No,

6293.nbsp; Then as regards these Irish cattle, to which so many of your outbreaks were due, have you any record ais to tho history of those Irish cattle after they land 3d in Scotland?I think that in some cases we could not say #9632;whether they came direct to Perth or whethorl. hey were hawked about.

6294.nbsp;That is exactly what I should have liked to have your opinion upon, if you could give it to us, whether those cattle came to the Perth sales and from them were sent about the county, or whether they wore hawked about; from one market to another previously?I cannot tell the proportion of those that came direct to those that were hawked about.

6295.nbsp; I think you told us that your local authority were induced to adopt inoculation in order to save expense ?That was certainly our idea.

6290. You have also told us that you have a largo number of practical farmers upon your executive committee; are you prepared to tell us what the opinion of your local authority is as regards inoculation apart from the question of expense ?I can give you the reports of people whose cattle have been inoculated.

6297.nbsp; What is tho opinion of your executive local authority as to the value of inoculation apart from the question of expense ?That it is extremely valuable.

6298.nbsp; In what way ?In saving the lives of animals that otherwise would have been slaughtered and sent to the butchers in an unfit state.

6290, Can you express any opinion as to the value of inoculation as a means of getting rid of this disease of pleuro-pneumonia in Perthshire ?We have found it successful so far that we have reduced the disease, we think, by means of it in the county.

63Ü0. May I take it that your opinion and the opinion of your local authority is, that if this system of inoculation as you are working it is persevered with, you would be able to eradicate the disease from your district ?I certainly think that is tho opinion of our local authority.

6301.nbsp; Although you have adopted it with a view to save expense, are you now prepared to say that you consider it an effective means for getting rid of pleuro-pneumonia ?I do not say that it is proved yet.

6302.nbsp; But do you consider it so?The local authority of Perth certainly consider that it is the best means they have at present.

6303.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that it would be more elfective than the present order for slaughter in stamping out tho disease ?I do not see that tho present order gives any guarantee that it may not be re-introduced; you may have to begin to slaughter again.

6304.nbsp; Does inoculation give any guarantee that it will not bo re-introduced ?Wo believe that it renders the cattle that were inoculated impervious to the disease.

6305.nbsp; Then if you consider that inoculation renders all cattle impervious to tho disease, would you go so far as to recommend that inoculation should bo com-

pulsory and universal ?1 am not prepared to say that.

6306.nbsp; nbsp;I think you would uader those circumstances, if you do not make inoculation compultiory, anticipate a certain amount of disease still remaining in the country ?We think that tho disease would bo minimised.

6307.nbsp; That you would not get rid of it by this inoculation process ?I do not say that we could not get rid of it, in the county.

6308.nbsp; What is the opinion of your local authority as to the value of inoculation, having regard to tho experience they have had?I think the opinion of the local authority is that we should bo able to keep the disease out of our own district or immediately to take it in hand if it was re-introdueed.

(5309. Can you say that in your judgment tho system of inoculation would be sufficient to clear your district of plenro ?We think so.

6310.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Boioen-Jones.) When you first commenced inoculation in 1886, at what period of tho year was it ?We commenced on the (Sth November.

6311.nbsp; nbsp;Was that after the II outbreaks in that year ?It was at the beginning of them. I think there were seven outbreaks after the 6th November.

6312.nbsp; nbsp;Then inoculation was applied to the last seven outbreaks in that year ?Yes.

6313.nbsp; Was it on account of the disease extending in 1886 that this system was adopted?We felt bound to adopt something to try and save our pockets. We found that the expense of slaughtering out was so enormous, and we looked about for some other remedy.

6314.nbsp; nbsp;I notice that after 1886 the disease still ext.ended in 1887 to 29 cases, therefore inoculation did not seem to check it very nmch?I believe it was practically one outbreak, that all these cases were traceable to one set of cows that were bought in Perth markets, and that the disease was latent in those cases during that time, and broke out at a different period; and in fact I think that the local authority proved it to be so.

6315.nbsp; nbsp;Can you tell us, out of these 377 cattle that were inoculated, whether all are sound now, or whether any have succumbed to the disease ?We have had no report of any such a thing happening. As far as we know they have all remained perfectly sound.

6310. Have any of these 377 animals been killed and their condition traced at the slaughter-houses since ?We have had reports from all the owners of inoculated stock. We asked certain questions of the owners as to the number of inoculated cattle slaughtered, the approximate date of slaughter, whether a post-mortem examination was made; if so, what was the result; was there any reason to believe that any of the inoculated cattle had contracted the disease or became capable of spreading it. I have the answers here.

6317.nbsp; nbsp;Will you look through them and see whether the condition of tho animals has been traced through the slaughter-house ?Here is one case, Mr. James Ford ; he reports eight slaughtered, no disease found.

6318.nbsp; nbsp;How long were they killed after being inoculated?They were inoculated on the 2nd January 1887, and they were slaughtered in May and June 1887 ; the exact day of the month is not given.

6319.nbsp; Have you any other cases?I have not. 0320. Then of the 377 inoculated cattle, eight

only have been traced to the slaughter-houses ?Yes.

6321. But those eight showed no signs of disease four or five months after inoculation ?That is so,

0322. What has become of the other 369 cattle ? A great many have been slaughtered, and a considerable number still remain on the farm,

6323.nbsp; nbsp;Do you say tho remainder continue healthy ? Yes; and in many cases other cattle have been mixed with them. I. have four reports where other cattle have been mixed, and none of them have taken the disease.

6324.nbsp; nbsp;You stated that your local authority objected to the Slaughter Order of 1888, because it prevented

MINUTES OF JOVIÜKNCE.

191

your animalB being takou into the slaughtor-houses of other local authorities ?That was bo.

6325. Could not tiioy have boon killed on tho farms ?They can be killed on the farms, but the loss would then be very considerable indeed.

0326. In what way ?The loss of otfal, and the want oi' proper places to hang them up ; you ciinnot hang up 20 or 30 cattle in an ordinary farm steading-without putting up special timbers to put thein on.

6327.nbsp; I suppose there is a barn or byro in most farms, where half a dozen could be hung up at a time ?The difficulty which is always stated by tho members of the local authority, who are much more practical in that way than I profess to be, is that the loss is very much greater in slaughtering on farms, and tbat that practice is to be avoided if possible.

6328.nbsp; Is there any insufficiency in slaughtor-houses to your county ?In many cases there are large districts without a slaughter-house for many miles.

6329.nbsp; How did you arrive at the assumed loss of 2,007/., that you say would have accrued from slaughter as against inoculation ?It was estimated according to the loss which actually took place in each separate case on the animal that was killed.

6330.nbsp; How were those animals valued ?They were valued in the ordinary way.

6331.nbsp; I think you said that the average loss on each animal killed was 61. 7*. 3d. ?Yes.

G332. How do you get at that loss ?The local authority sells the carcasses if they are saleable, and has to pay the compensation to the farmer as well for the animal.

6333.nbsp; nbsp;Then they pay 51. 7s. 3d. more to the farmers than they get for the animal ?Yes.

6334.nbsp; How do you account for so large a loss on the animals ?Because if you kill an immature animal of a year old, you can get little or nothing for the meat,

6335.nbsp; Were they dairy stock, then ?They were all sorts, stirks, two year olds, cows, amp;c.

6336.nbsp; Do you think that fairly represents the actual loss of cattle that are attacked with pleuro throughout Perthshire ?I think an average loss up to that time had been generally estimated at 6/. ahead.

6337.nbsp; Probably yours is a breeding district, where many young stock were killed ?Many young stock were killed. In any case, I think the ligure I have given is rather below our average loss.

6338.nbsp; What was the principal objections to slaughtering cattle which were held by the Perthshire authorities and stock owners ?We thought that we could save tho county expense, by adopting inoculation.

6339.nbsp; Then, was it simply a question of expenditure ?I think to a very large extent it was that.

6340.nbsp; Do you think that if slaughter was universally carried out, and if all the local authorities were compelled to adopt slaughter, that would be an efficient means of stamping out tho disease from thecountry? IS'ot if it was entrusted to the local authorities.

0341. Notwithstanding that tho order was compulsory and universal ?No.

6342.nbsp; Do you think if the matter was centralised, and the Privy Council gave orders and administered them, that it would bo efficient then ?I think it would be efficient in stamping it out, but I see no guarantee against its rc-introduction at a future time.

6343.nbsp; Would not tho same application on its re-introduction immediately stamp it out ?It might.

6344.nbsp; What chance of the re-introduction of the disease do you think would be likely to accrue if it was once stamped out ?I think it might be re-intro duced from foreign countries. I see no reason why it should not,

6346. Are you aware that the Act of 187B only admits of the introduction of cattle alive from healthy countries ?Yes.

0346. Do you know that all cattle coming from diseased countries are under that Act killed at the ports of landing ?Yes; I am only saying that there is a

possibility that disease might be re-introduced. I do not see that wo have an absolute guarantee against it.

0347. Are you of opinion that there is n risk of plouro-pneumonia being introduced into tho country if animals coming from pleuro-pnouinonia countries are slaughtered ou their arrival ?I think it is possible.

6348.nbsp; How could it bo possible ?I think it might bo possible from the oithl of tho animals in souks way coming in contact with live animals.

6349.nbsp; Do you think it is possible to comnumicato the disease by mediate contagion ?I do not think that has been disproved yet.

0350.nbsp; Do you think there is no other risk except that ?No, I do not.

0351.nbsp; Do you think that inoculation would utterly destroy tho disease in the country ?I do not go so far as to say it would utterly destroy it,

0352.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloneumj.) Was there any differonee in the treatment of tho 10 cattle that remained alive at Drumkilbo that were not inoculated, as compared with the 29 that were inoculated. I mean in their subsequent treatment since the time of the outbreak ? None, as far as I know.

6353,nbsp; Can you adduce any argument in favour of inoculation from the case of tho 29 that could not bo equally adduced as against it, relying on the case of the 10 ; because you have 10 animals not inoculated, #9632;which have escaped the disease to quite as great an extent as the 29 that were inoculated Can you draw any distinction between the two cases. There are 10 alivo that have been always at Drumkilbo ; that were there when the disease broke out ; that were not inoculated, and are still alivo and healthy, is not that so ?Yes, that is so,

6354.nbsp; Is there any difference in the treatment or the condition of those 10 as compared with the 29 that are alive, and were inoculated ?I know none at present.

6355,nbsp; Then, would not the safety of those 10 be an argument against inoculation quite as strong us the safety of the 29 would be in favour of it.; or is there any difference ?I should be very sorry to buy any of the 10, but I should not in the least mind buying the 29,

6356,nbsp; You mentioned that you thought dairymen suffered greater loss than other classes of cattle owners in case of compulsory slaughter ?I said r.ney thought so.

6357.nbsp; Is it your opinion that if there was a general order that dairy cattle should be valued as milk producers, and not valued as butchers' meat, that that objection would bo got over?I think it would.

6358.nbsp; nbsp;And that no further concession need be made in favour of dairymen especially ?I sei; no other thing that need be done.

0359, 1 should like to ask yon a question or two about the tracing of this disease. You mentioned that in the year 1887 there were three outbreaks traced to Irish cattle, and in the year 1883 there? were other throe outbreaks traced to Irish cattle ?Yes.

6300, Can you tell us in what way that tracing was done, or how far the cattle were traced ?I believe they were traced as being animals that bad come directly from Ireland, or within a very short period of time had been landed from Ireland,

6361.nbsp; In what way was the tracing done? Did you find out what port they came from ?I believe they were traced through the dealers who brought them to Perth.

6362.nbsp; Can you tell us anything of your own knowledge of those cases that were traced to Ireland ? No. This appeared on the reports that arc before the clerk, and he sent me simply the details of the cases that ho traced.

6363.nbsp; That is second-hand information. Can you tell me of your own knowledge any case where the animals were traced back ? Was it that they were traced to a dealer, and the dealer said he got them from Ireland?Tho denier would be an Irishman. I think there are 30 or 40 Irishmen coming to Perth every week with cattlesome directly, but

Mr. A. U. Forbeit

14 May 18laquo;8.

TTr-

192

COMMITTEK ON PLKURO-PNKUMOIIIA AND TUBEKCULOS1S:

Mr.

A.U.Forbei.

UMuy 1888.

formorly somo of tliom used to hawk the cattle about the country when that was allowed.

0364. Then yon do not know exactly what stops wero taken to trace the actual cattle to the bont or to the port?1 believe we employed a detective, that is my impression.

U365. But cannot you tell mo exactly?I cannot tell you exactly what steps were taken.

6306. Referring to that forged order that you handed in, was there any disease connected with that? We have no iiii'orination of disease yet, that is dated the 24 April, so that it is not so very long ago.

G367. But you know of nothing that has resulted from it ?Not at present.

G368. The reason I asked you that was that I noticed they came from Coleraine, and the official reports make out that there has been no disease within 100 miles of Coleraine for more than six months. I gather from what you said to Mr. Bowen-Jones that your chief objection to the slaughter is the matter of expense ?Certainly.

6369.nbsp; nbsp;And the chief reason you advocate inoculation is the saving of expense ?That is our chief reason.

6370.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Would it be the opinion of your local authority that if the Slaughter Order was simultaneous over the whole country, and if the compensations were divided equally over the whole country, that you would no longer bo so strongly in favour of inoculation ? I think that would modify their opinion.

6371.nbsp; nbsp;Would you see any objection to spreading the charge over all the local authoiities of Scotland, so that the poundage rate may be tolerably equal instead of having, as now, each local authority levying its own rate ?J think it should be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer.

6372.nbsp; Supposing the majority of voters thought differently, and we could not get that, would you think it an improvement to divide it over all the local authorities so ns to make one uniform actual rate for Scotland ?I cannot say that I have ever considered it in that light.

G373. It appears from the evidence which we have had that the charge has fallen very heavily upon about three localities in Scotland, and that other localities have completely escaped ?I believe that is so.

6374.nbsp; Can you suggest any improvement in the matter of levying of the compensation, supposing that you could not get payment from the Imperial Exchequer. Is there any modification of the present system that you would recommend ?I know it is legally divided between the landlord and tenant, but in our county the landlords pay it all.

6375.nbsp; Is that a voluntary gift on their part ?- -That is a voluntary gift on their part.

0376. Following up that, is there any alteration of the present law you would recommend for application to Scotland generally ?1 go back to the Imperial Exchequer.

6377.nbsp; That is what yon would like best of all ? Yes.

6378.nbsp; Can you make any intermediate suggestion as an improvement on the present system ?No.

0379. Have the landlords paid the whole rate ever since the passing of the Act of 1878, or is it only recently they have taken to pay it ?I cannot give you any information on that point.

6380.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) Are you aware that 12 more cattle have been slaughtered off at Drumkilbo ?I have beard nothing since the last printed report.

6381.nbsp; You may take it that there have been ; at a meeting held on the Utli May 12 more cattle were ordered to be slaughtered. Do you think that the local authority would consider that there is a possibility of the disease being spread by the contact of animals in the adjoining field ?I believe that it was intended to keep the cattle in buildings in the moan-lime for that reason.

Ö382. That is not exactly an answer to my question. Do the local authority of the county of Perth admit

that disease may be spread by animals in contact with uninoculutcd cattle in adjoining fields ?Certainly.

(raquo;383. Seeing that the movement of cattle must be made by authority from the central council hero in London, who cannot possibly know the conditions of the fields or farms, if they gave general permission for inoculated beasts to bo moved out on the fields, would there not be a risk of spreading the disease in that woy ?There would be no risk in moving inoculated cattle.

0384.nbsp; Do you believe that inoculated cattle are so thoroughly safe that there would be no risk in moving thein out on the fields of a farm?I should say none whatever.

0385.nbsp; Are you aware that a proposal has been made to move the inoculated cattle from Drumkilbo to the fields at. Burnside ?I have not heard anything of that.

6386.nbsp; Do you know the farm personally ?No, I do not know the farm.

6387.nbsp; Can you tell us what fields are in crop this year ?No, I cannot.

6388.nbsp; Do you know that a suggestion was before the local authority that experiments should be made with those cattle to test the value of inoculation ? I believe it was suggested that those animals should be handed over to the Privy Council to do what they liked with them.

6389.nbsp; And that the Privy Council should be asked to use these animals as a special case ?That was so.

6390.nbsp; That experiments should be made specially upon them with the view of testing how far this inoculation would hold good ?Yes.

6391.nbsp; Do you know what was the answer given to that ?No, I heard nothing about it.

6392.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.) I do not quite remember how many of the 32 cattle that were slaughtered at Drumkilbo were found to be affected by pleuro-pneumonia ?Six.

0393. Were the others perfectly healthy ?Yes.

6394.nbsp; When were those 32 slaughtered ; were they slaughtered at the time of the first outbreak ?The first outbreak was on the 4th February, and the 32 animals were slaughtered on the 13th, 16th, and 17th April 1888.

6395.nbsp; quot;Why were they slaughtered ?Because they had got fat by that time

6396.nbsp; And those inoculated were not fat, I suppose ? They were young beasts and cows.

6397.nbsp; {Professor Brown.) I understood you to say you would not think it at all dangerous to move inoculated cattle ?To mix them with uninoculated cattle, do you mean ?

6398.nbsp; No. The proposition is that these cattle, 29 of which are still alive, all of them having been exposed to infection, may be moved from the shed in which they are now to certain fields on the same farm for feeding purposes. I understood you to say-that you do not see any danger in that movement ? No ; I consider that these cattle are healthy.

0399.nbsp; Do you consider that they are not likely to comrnunicate infection to other animals with whom they might possibly come in contact ? No; our experience is that inoculated cattle in Perthshire have not done so.

0400.nbsp; Do you say that simply from the experience you have had with reference to inooulated cattle? Yes, in other cases,

GI401. That is to say, inoculated cattle which have subsequently been mixed with others?Yes.

0402.nbsp; Therefore in this particular instance, although you are aware that the cattle have been exposed to the infection, you say that the fact of their having been inoculated is u, eufftcient guarantee of their safety ? I think so.

0403.nbsp; Would you carry that view so far as to allow those cattle to mix indiscriminately with other stock in any part of the country ?I personally should not have the least fear.

6404. As a member of the local authority would you be prepared to recommend that system ?I should

MINUTH8 OP EVIDRNCK.

103

ro'n

not in tho least mind taking the cattlo on to my own farm to-morrow.

6405. The question is, as a member of the local authority, and therefore as an administrator of the Acts and Orders of the Council, would you recommend the local authority to make the application to the Privy Council to allow cattle undor those circumstances to be relieved from all restrictions? I do not think thoro would bo tho least danger, and I should recommend it.

G406. {Lord Clone urn/.) Am I right in taking this, that after tho inoculation of the 82, throe of those 32 died at intervals, leaving the 29 that you now have ?Yes.

6407.nbsp; Two of those three were diseased, and in reference to the third one there was a doubt between the two veterinary surgeons ?Yes.

6408.nbsp; nbsp;Then you have 29 young cattle inoculated that remain still ?Yes.

6409.nbsp; nbsp;In addition to that there were 30 cattle and the two calves ?Yes.

6410.nbsp; nbsp;Am I right in understanding that of those 80 six were slaughtered and had pleuro-pneumonia, and 24 were slaughtered because they were thought iit for the butcher, and they were slaushtered healthy for food?The whole 30 were slaughtered by our orders.

6411.nbsp; You mentioned that they were slaughtered healthy and were fit for food ?I did not say they were slaughtered healthy, because six of them were diseased when slaughtered.

6412.nbsp; nbsp;But in reference to the remainder you said something about their being fat ?The whole 32 were in a condition when we thought we could make most of them, and their bodies were sent away, but on a post-mortem examination six out of the 32 were found to be diseased.

6413.nbsp; nbsp;And the balance were healthy?Yes; of the uninoculated cattle several others were slaughtered in the interim. On the 14th February, three stots were found diseased and slaughtered. Then there was one stirk on the 13th, and one cow on the 23rd; they were suspected cases before. On tho 3rd March one stot was found diseased and slaughtered, and on the 3rd April another, and on the 9th April two stots.

6414.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) Am I to understand from your figures that, of the uninoculated animals, 13 took the disease aftor the operation of inoculation had been performed on the 32 ?Yes.

6415.nbsp; Was there any difference in tho degree of contact with infected animals between the uninoculated and inoculated ?I should say practically none.

6416.nbsp; (Chairman) I gathered from your evidence that personally, and also in your public capacity as a member of the local board, you are perfectly satisfied that inoculation gives immunity from disease ?I think we are satisfied as far as wo have gone,

6417.nbsp; Are you satisfied individually ?Yes.

6418.nbsp; nbsp;Seeing that you have pronounced so strongly in favour of it, do you think that any further experiments aro necessary ?We do,

6419.nbsp; What more than you now know do you expect to learn?We want to know for what length of time the cattle inoculated will remain secure. We take it that that has not yet been proved.

6420.nbsp; But in the face of that, you say you are perfectly satisfied to take animals that have been inoculated on to your farm, and that you would have no fear of doing so cither as an individual, or as a member of the local authority ?I should personally not have the least fear.

6421.nbsp; Therefore you are satisfied ?Yes.

6422.nbsp; Personally, then, you are perfectly satisfied, and therefore no result from experiments could alter your opinion ?I do not say that.

6423.nbsp; nbsp;Then there is a loophole somewhere? Certainly, if there was not wo should not desire that experiments should be made.

6424.nbsp; Would you tell us the principle upon which your local authority act in appointing veterinary inspectors ?We have always looked for the bes? man

O S4003.

wo could got in tho district in which ho had to bo appointed.

6425.nbsp; Do you require men of great experience ? Wo got the very best men we possibly can.

6426.nbsp; nbsp;Do you require men of great experience of cattlo disease ?1 should say we do.

6427.nbsp; Can you tell tho Committee how many voto-tinary inspectors you have in the county of Perthshire ? We have 13.

6428.nbsp; Can you toll us thn scale of pay allowed to them ?I have hero a copy of tho regulation for their remuneration {handing in same). You will find from that that wo pay them according to the work they do.

(1.) For each first visit on each outbreak of disease where slaughtei' is compulsory, including travelling and all general trouble, 11. Is. Od.

(2.) For each subsequent visit, also for first visits in suspected, or other cases where slaughter is not compulsory, 3s. Gd,

(3.) For each milo travelled out (except in the case of first visits, where a foe of 11. Is. is chargeable, and all visits under one milo), 9d.

(4.) Annual allowance for reports, declarations, attendance at meetings, and fulfilment of other duties not embraced above, li.

Note.Where attendance at committee meetings in Perth is required inspectors from a distance will be allowed railway fare in addition.

(5.) For inoculation, 2s. 6c?. for each animal inoculated, but if more than 10 animals are inoculated Is. per head for each animal above ten.

6429.nbsp; May I take it that you consider this to bo ample remuneration for their services ?I believe they are satisfied with it.

6430.nbsp; Do you consider that 13 inspectors are absolutely necessary for Perthshire ?I think, considering the wide districts, we could not do with less.

6431.nbsp; You have told us that you require men of great experience to fill these positions. Can you toll us the ages of those inspectors ?No, I cannot.

6432.nbsp; I presume they are certificated members of the veterinary profession ?1 believe they aro in every case.

6433.nbsp; Are you aware how many of those men have gone into practice since 1881 ?No, I cannot tell you the number.

6434.nbsp; Would you bo surprised to learn that five of your inspectors only passed out of tho college since 1881, and therefore cannot necessarily be men of very great experience ?I was not aware of that.

6435.nbsp; I think I gathered from a previous answer that the main object for which you think experiments aro necessary is with regard to the length of time during which protection from inoculation exists ? I would not limit it to that.

6436.nbsp; But was not that tho main object you stated ? I did not say tho main object, one of the objects.

6437.nbsp; nbsp;What will be the other information which you think will bo elucidated by experiments ?I think the duration of tho period of incubation of the disease is one.

6438.nbsp; I rather referred to inoculation, that was tho point of my question ?I think that what wo want is an experiment on the disease generally, not only on inoculation. We want to know more about the disease in every way.

6439.nbsp; Are you aware that experiments have already been made in England and in other countries upon pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes, I am.

6440.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware of the results that have been gained up to the present time ?Yes.

6441.nbsp; Do you not consider that the results published are conclusive ?I think not.

6442.nbsp; nbsp;Will you indicate which particular experiments you think arc unsatisfactory ?I could not say that they aro unsatisfatory.

6443.nbsp; nbsp;Inconclusive then ?I say that they have not been carried out for a proper length of time.

6444.nbsp; Would you toll us what particular experi-raeuts were inconclusive?I do not think any of

B h

Mr. A. li, Forbes,

14 May ISKH

:raquo;^

#9632;:-l\

____

104

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEOMONIA AKD TUBBBOULOSIS:

Mr,

A l). Forbes,

14 May 1888.

tliem hftvo been conclusive, because if thoy wore wlaquo; should not want any more.

6445.nbsp; You have read, I presume, the results of the experimentraquo; which have hitherto been tried ?I have read them us reported in the journals of the Royal Agricultural Society and of the Highland Society, but I have not read the official report.

6446.nbsp; Therefore you must have read the experiments tried at the Brown Institution ?1 did.

6447.nbsp; In what regard do you consider that those were not conclusive ?That they did not go on over a sufficient space of time.

(J448. Is that the only objection you have to them ? That is the principal one certainly, I may say almost the only one.

6449.nbsp; Are you aware that all attempts to communicate the disease, with the exception of immediate contact, wore negative ?That was not quite my recollection of it, but I will take it for granted if you say tliat it was so.

6450.nbsp; Have you any expom-nco of tuberculosis ? None.

The witness withdrew.

A. C. Cope.

Mr. Alexandkk Cuutis Cope called and examined.

6451.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) I believe you are chief inspector of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council ?I am.

6452.nbsp; You are also a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?I am.

6453.nbsp; nbsp;How long have you been in the profession ? For 30 years.

6454.nbsp; I presume you are naturally familiar with all the diseases which affect cattle ?Yes.

6455.nbsp; Are you especially familiar with the disease of pleuro-pneumonia ?I am.

6456.nbsp; For how long have you been familiar with that disease ?In 1863 I resided in Somersetshire, a part of the country in which the disease was very prevalent at that time. It was frequently introduced in that year from Ireland to Bristol, and it spread all round that district, and I was then called upon, living at Wells, to make inquiries into pleuro-pneumonia, and treated it as an ordinary disease in those days.

6457.nbsp; Was there any other county in England which was affected at that time with pleuro-pneumonia ?Nearly all the counties were more or less, and in subsequent years I passed a long time in Lancashire, where I saw a great amount of the disease.

6458.nbsp; In the year 1863, to which you especially refer, was there any legislation in force with reference to this disease ?None whatever. In those days farmers used to subscribe to local insurance funds, and when they had an outbreak they used to make a claim, and receive the benefit of their insurance upon their cattle.

6459.nbsp; nbsp;You have told us that you are chief inspector of the Agricultural Department, will you kindly further tell us -when you joined that department ?I joined the department in 1872 as assistant-inspector when Professor Simonds left the department, and went to the college; I was appointed as an assistant-inspector under Professor Brown.

6460.nbsp; When were you made chief inspector ?^I was appointed to the post of chief inspector in 1877.

6461.nbsp; nbsp;Since that period have you devoted much of your time to the study of contagion, and to the cou-tagious diseases of animals ?The nature of ray appointment precludes me from practising privately at all, and, therefore, I have devoted my attention entirely to the subject of contagion, and more especially to those diseases which are named in the Act and Orders in Council.

6462.nbsp; Did your investigation apply to both cattle, sheep, and swine ?All those diseases which were named in our Act and Orders.

6463.nbsp; By whom is the inspection of the ports of this country conducted ?We have a staff of inspectors under me and Mr. Duguid, who inspect all the foreign animals on arrival.

6464.nbsp; In the event, (hen, of an outbreak of disease being detected, what is the action of the department ? The inspector reports at once by telegram that he has, or suspects that he has, such-and-such a disease, and, as a general mit, either Mr. Duguid or myself are instructed to proceed to the port and make a careful inquiry into iiie nature of the disease, and report to the Privy CoMncil upon it,

6465.nbsp; I suppose the trade in foreign cattle is immense in its character ?We land over a million animals every year, and the greater part of them are slaughtered at the ports of landing.

6466.nbsp; nbsp;Within your experience, have you seen many cases of foreign animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease ?Yes, and with every other disease which we haie named in our Act and Orders, including cattle plague and pleuro-pneumonia.

6467.nbsp; How many diseased animals do you suppose you have seen in one day thus affected ?At Dept-ford I have seen 400 or 50Ü at a time affected with foot-and-mouth disease.

6468.nbsp; At the present time I presume that is a circumstance quite unknown ?Yes, it has been a long time since we have landed any case of foot-and-mouth disease.

6469.nbsp; By whom is the inspection in the country usually carried out ?The veterinary inspectors are appointed by the local authorities throughout the country.

6470.nbsp; Are they duly authorised veterinary surgeons ? As a rule they are ; they are members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, hut a certain number of them are practitioners who held the post before the passing of the Act under the provisions of an Order in Council.

6471.nbsp; Is it part of your duty, at the request of the local authorities, to visit and report upon the various contagious diseases which may break out ?Not only at the request of the local authorities but at the suggestion of Professor Brown.

6472.nbsp; Are you frequently asked to do so by the local authorities ?We are constantly being sought for by the local authorities to give them instruction and advice with regard to the disease.

6473.nbsp; nbsp;In addition to which, the information you therfi gather is for the benefit of the Privy Council ? Yes, as a rule a copy of our report to the Privy Council is forwarded at once to the local authorities.

6474.nbsp; In your opiniou does the Act of 1878 give full power to the local authorities to deal with pleuro-pneumonia ?Fully so, if they chose to exercise it.

6474laquo;. Do I gather from that answer that the disease might have been stamped out long ago if they had all exercised the powers given therein ?There is no doubt about that, I think,

6475.nbsp; Do you find that those districts and local authorities who have fully and promptly put in force the powers of the Act been successful in exterminating the disease ?Yes. We have, I think, five or six local authorities who invariably stamp out the disease by killing the diseased animals, and those which have been exposed to infection, every time that it arises in their district.

6476.nbsp; Would you be good enough to give the Committee the names of the local authorities to which you refer ?Northumberland, Dorset, Berkshire, Sussex, Hampshire, Cumberland, and Durham. All those counties have exercised their powers, additional powers under the Act, and their counties are all free.

0477- You necessarily must, in the exercise of your duties, come across a great many different local

#9632;m

MINUTES OK KVIDKNOK.

195

authorities : would you tell the Committee whether you find any very great diffbreuce in the action adopted by them with reference to this disease ? With regard to local nuthorities generally they do not seem to proceed upon any principle in carrying out the Act or Orders. There aro u very few of them who have a veterinary adviser to assist them. Their practice, as a general rule, is to appoint almost anyone and everyone in their district, quite irrespective of whether he is an expert upon the subject of the diseases under the Act or not.

6478.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think also that there is a tendency on the part of local authorities to think Jirst more of the expense likely to be incurred by the stamping out of the outbreak, and to regard only as secondary the importance of cxtinguisliiug the disease ?The expense is generally the first consideration.

6479.nbsp; Do you find, as a rule, that the local authorities reward their veterinary inspectors amply for the duties they perform ?No, not at all.

6480.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give the Committee any idea as to the fees which they allow to veterinary inspectors ? I believe they vary very much indeed, but I think the rule is that they pay a man about half a guinea a day for his services.

6481.nbsp; Is there rather a tendency on the part of local authorities to appoint young and inexperienced men ?They seem to appoint almost anyone us a matter of convenience. But my contention is that if they were to select one man who was an expert on the subject of pleuro-pneumonia and pay him a fair remuneration, they might save their funds to a very great extent, and also prevent the sacrifice of the lives of a great number of cattle which are now slaughtered affected with other diseases than pleuro-pneumonia.

6482.nbsp; Then I gather from that that you would prefer to see one thoroughly efficient officer appointed as a veterinary inspector at a good substantial fee rather ,thau a greater number of men at low and unremunerative fees?Quite so; they should pay him to carry out a proper and exhaustive inquiry rather than for his mere visit.

6483.nbsp; Do you consider it desirable that he might employ others if he thought proper ?Quite so.

6484.nbsp; Have you kept any record of pleuro-pneumonia since the Act of 1878 came into operation ? We have, of every outbreak that has taken place in the country.

6485.nbsp; From which, I daresay, you can give the Committee a general history of the disease ?I propose to give you an account of the disease so long as there hraquo;8 been any accurate account kept of it.

6486.nbsp; Have you made many reports on the subject, including the whole history of the disease?An immense number on the subject of pleuro-pneumonia,

6487.nbsp; Are they already 'recorded in your annual reports ?A great many of them.

6488.nbsp; Could you, then, give a qeneral history of the disease as gathered from your records ?Our records only go back to the period of 1869 {handing in return. See Appendix). Yon will observe by this return that since 1869 we have had 74,552 cattle returned as attacked ; 59,599 killed (diseased); 7,480 have died; and 7,470 recovered. It should be understood that since the passing of the Act of 1878, which required that all cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia should be slaughtered, whenever wo have had a return stating that ths animals were recovered, the Privy Council have always insisted upon the slaughter of those animals. Therefore this return does not show any recovered animals since 1878.

6489.nbsp; quot;Without going into the scientific point of the question, I observe that out of 74,562 animals attacked, 7,470 recovered ?Yoa.

6490.nbsp; nbsp;Was there any doubt in your mind that those animals were ever actually affected with pleuro-pneumonia?Yes, 1 have very great doubt about it. My impression is that many of those animals were suffering from other affections altogether.

6491.nbsp; nbsp;During the time that they were alive would you still regard with a certain amount of doubt their

immunity from a future attack of the disease ? If they have never had it thay would bo liable certainly to take it.

6492.nbsp; nbsp; Do you, through this department, issue annual reports with reference to cattle disease generally ?Yes, we issue reports, which are distributed among all the inspectors attached to the department, and a copy is sent to every local authority throughout the country.

6493.nbsp; Ilave you any reason to think that these reports are carefully read and considered by your inspectors, and by the local authorities?I know, as a matter of fact, that they are scarcely ever read at all.

6494.nbsp; Do those reports contain an account of the laws and legislation adopted by othfil' countries in Europe with reference to the contagious diseases of animals ?-iTus.

6495.nbsp; nbsp;Surely it is of the utmost importance that those in whose hands rests the control of the contagious diseases of this country ought to make themselves acquainted with all that is taking place ?You would think so, and you would think they would read them, but they do not. The report contains an immense amount of very valuable information, and is only got out after a very great deal of time being spent upon it by the officers of this department, and I do not think that I could name a dozen members of the veterinary profession who have read it.

6496.nbsp; To what do you attribute this laxity on the part of members of the profession rI am sorry to say it is a subject which does not pay, and therefore they do not think it worth while. They are engaged in their own private practice, and look upon it as an ordinary medical report, in which they have very little interest.

6497.nbsp; nbsp;And the fees which are allowed them as inspectors are not sufficiently tempting to induce them to take much interest in the subject ?No, I do not think they are.

6498.nbsp; nbsp;Is it your experience that the disease has never been introduced into any other country except by the importation of a living diseased animal ?I believe that is an absolute fact.

6499.nbsp; Is that opinion supported by all the evidence you can gather upon the subject ?Everything I have read points to that fact.

6500.nbsp; I have no doubt you have had brought to your notice cases of thousands of outbreaks in this and other countries since 1878 ?Yes, some thousands.

6501.nbsp; Have you had any case which would warrant the assumption that the disease has been produced by putting cattle into sheds previously occupied by diseased cattle fNo ; our reports go to show that in very few instances do we get a re-appearance of the disease upon the same premises. When we have examined the returns, we have generally found that there have been some animals left upon the premises after the outbreak had ceased, and there is not much question of a doubt that those animals were the means of infecting the fresh stock brought in.

6502.nbsp; nbsp;To go back for a moment to the veterinary profession, do you think that the profession has many opportunities of making themselves acquainted with the disease ?No, very little indeed. I should think that no more than 20 per cent, of the profession have ever seen a case of pleuro-pneumonia.

G503. But still these men are considered by local authorities to be men of experience and snfliciently acquainted with diseases generally to be appointed as inspectors ?That is so, but on several occasions, when I have pointed out to local authorities how essential it was that they should have some expert to consult who did understand pleuro-pneumonia both in the living animal and in the dead animal, they have appointed chief inspectors to supervise the work in their counties, with most eminently satisfactory results.

6504. Can you give an instance where that plan has been adopted?Yes, in 1879, that is immediately after the Act was passed, it became a part of our

lib 2

Mr. A. C lt; 'lt;gt;}gt;('#9632;

14 Moy IBSraquo;.

if #9830;1

ilaquo;

l!)tt

OOMMITTKE ON PL13UR0-PNEUMONIA AND TUHEROULOSIS I

Mr. A. 0. Cope,

14 May 1888.

duty to laquo;xaraino all the roturns which came to the offlce. W(! found that in the west riding ot' York-Bbire, in u largo number of iustances there was only one animal returned ailected in each outbreak. I #9632;wrote a report upon the subject at the time, and I #9632;was instructed to go down to Yorkshire and make an inquiry as to the cause of this. Accompanied with the veterinary inspectors, I dug up a vast number of carcasses all over the country. In the first instance, I found that they had never been opened, and in the second instance, when they wore opened, we found that they not only were not cases of pleuro-pueumonia, but they had not any disease of the lungs at all. The result of that was, there was a meeting of the local authority at Wakefleld, and I was instructed by the Duke of Richmond to attend, and I then recommended that a chiei inspector should be appointed tor the county, without whose sanction no animal should be slaughtered for pleuro-pneumonia, and that, if it were slaughtered, ne should give a separate report to the local authority stating what was the nature of the disease from which the animal died, or rather was affected. The result of that altered arrangement was, that in 1879 there were 262 outbreaks, and in the following year they had fallenoff to 116, and thenumber of cattle attacked, being 370 in 1879, had fallen to 201 in 1880, and the saving in expense to the local authority amounted to a little over 3,000/. in one year, as a result of appointing a chief inspector who understood the subject.

()S05. Then I gather from that answer, that in many instances considerable expenditure has been incurred by local authoritiea unnecessarily ?For not appointing persons to the post of veterinary inspector who understand the nature of the disease.

6506.nbsp; Is it your opinion that pleuro-pneumonia is of a highly contagious nature?No; on the contrary it is not a highly contagious disease. There are only a certain number of aniftials in a herd, as a rule, which take the disease in an obvious form. Some few take it in a form in which it cannot be detected at all, and a great number of animals, according to circumstances, escape it altogether ; in fact, they seem to resist it.

6507.nbsp; Those which fake it in a form which is not readily detected, would possibly be regarded by you as elements of danger in the future ?Yes, we ourselves should never think of allowing them to go anywhere except to the butcher.

6508.nbsp; I presume the spread of the disease depends in some measure as to whether they are kept in close association or not with each other?Yes, very materially, because in the metropolis, in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh and other large towns, where there are a number of cattle kept in association with one another, in large sheds, the disease makes greater inroad and progress than it does in other districts.

6509.nbsp; I presume that you agree with the conclu-pions drawn by the profession generally, that this disease is communicated by contact only ?#9632;We have no evidence, that I am aware of, to show that it can be produced by any other means than that of bringing the living diseased animal within a certain distance, which is yet undefined, of the living healthy animal.

6610. Now, for the information of the Committee, would you briefly define the word quot; contactquot;?That would be a very difficult thing to do. I think that, in dealing with that subject, every case must be dealt with upon its own particular merits. There are so many circumstances which arise in connexion with each outbreak that I am quite convinced that everyone must deal with' them according to their own judgment. It is quite certain that the best thing is to take a liberal view of the term if you wish to prevent any risk whatever.

6511.nbsp; Have you come to any conclusion as to the distance between diseased and healthy animals which would give immunity from the disease ?No, I have not arrived at any conclusion on that point.

6512.nbsp; You can draw no hard and fast line ?No, none at all.

6513.nbsp; Tn the, event of an outbreak, if an expert be called in when the first animal is attacked, and which

in addition to every other suspicious animal is roraoved at once, I presume tho progress of the disease is frequently stopped ?Yes, commonly.

0514. Is it a judicious precaution to apply the thermometer test in ease of disease ?Yes, it is some assistance in the matter.

6515.nbsp; Without indicating the special character of the disease, do you say that it indicates the existence of some form of disease ?It indicates that there is some fever present, but whether it is pleuro-pneumonia or not is a matter of question; but you may have pleuro-pneumonia existing in the early stage without having laquo;ny indication ou the thermometer of fever.

6516.nbsp; Do I understand that you may have pleuro-pneumonia without having an increased temperature ? Yes. When you get a very small portion of the lung affected it is a very common thing for those animals to neither present fever nor any other obvious symptoms.

6517.nbsp; nbsp;At how low a temperature do you think such a condition could exist ?The normal temperature is about 102 degrees.

6518.nbsp; Do I understand that at 102 degrees pleuro-pneumonia may be in existence ?Yes ; in the earliest possible stages I have no doubt whatever that this is the condition of things.

6519.nbsp; Assuming, then, that disease continued and increased, would the temperature rise ?You get an increase of temperature as soon as the disease extends to a large part of the lung, and the proper aeration of the blood is interfered with, and also the moment the external covering, that is the pleura, becomes affected, which produces pain.

6520.nbsp; Have you had any practical experience in the operation of inoculation ?No, never myself.

6521.nbsp; But you have had very frequent opportunities, no doubt, of observing animals that have been inoculated ?Yes. I have watched the effects of the inoculation, as performed by Mr. Priestman in London, upon very many occasions.

6522.nbsp; Has it been part of your duty to make postmortem examinations of animals which have been inoculated, as well as of those which have died from disease direct without inoculation ?No; I do not think I recollect anything about that.

6523.nbsp; Have you frequently had opportunities of finding an encystment in the lung ?A great many. In those instances where we have recommended the local authorities to slaughter out herds I have attended at, the slaughtering of those herds, and I have seen the disease in almost every possible stage, from the very old stage where you get the dead portion of the lung encapsuled to the most recent stage.

6524.nbsp; Do I understand that encystment may be produced from causes other than pleuro-pneumonia ? Possibly it may.

6525.nbsp; Do you regard inoculation as a safe remedy for, or a preventive measure against, pleuro-pneumonia? I do not think there is any evidence whatever that it is a preventive.

6526.nbsp; From that am I to assume that the only efficient treatment in your eyes is that of compulsory slaughter ?If we wish to get rid of the disease, the only thing to do, from a legislative point of view, is to slaughter. We know that we can gist rid of it in that way.

6527.nbsp; Having regard to the insidious nature of the disease, as compared with foot-and-mouth disease and cattle plague, do you consider that there is any very great difficulty to face in getting rid of it ?No ; I am quite convinced in my own mind that we should get rid of it under the present law in time.

6528.nbsp; Are you satisfied that tho present period of 56 days is a satisfactory number of days to assume aa the incubative stage ?No, because that assumes the animals which have been in contact may be allowed to go away in 56 days. I should not think of allowing any animal that had been in contact with diseased animals to go anywhere except to the butcher,

6529.nbsp; Therefore, if you established a system of compulsory slaughter for all animals, both of diseased

#9632;tm

MINUTES OF JSVIIMSNCE.

19V

animals and of animala in contact with thoin, would tliere 1)0 any occnsion to Imvo any definite period stated ?No, wu do not want any period stated.

6530.nbsp; Have you experienced great dilficuUies in this office in consoquonco of the want of uniformity of action on the part of the various local authorities throughout the country ? 1 think the difficulty more exists among people in the localities rather than with us.

6531.nbsp; In consequence, then, of the want of uniformity amongst the various local authorities throughout the country, do you consider that there is any efficient remedy that con be suggested other than compulsory slaughter as at present adopted ?Up to the passing of this order a great number of local authorities invariably declared the places free as soon as the 50 days elapsed. The consequence was that a certain number of animals which had the disease in their system were allowed to escape and go all over the country, and frequently direct into a public market, whence they were disseminated throughout the country and started fresh centres.

6532.nbsp; nbsp;Under the Act of ] 878 were they entitled to permit them to go out after the expiration of 56 days ? Yes, but the Act was very cautiously worded in the respect. It said they may declare the premises free, and many of the local authorities have construed that as shall.

6533.nbsp; May I also assume that they have thus taken advantage of the Act without having the proper precautions of veterinary certificates ?No, I do not think that ; but I think they were so uninterested and so supine on the subject that commonly, as soon as the 56 days had elapsed, they passed an order declaring the place free, and simply let the animals go whither they liked.

6534.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the present form of certificate granted from Ireland and other parts ?I do not think certificates are of the slightest value.

6535.nbsp; In what way would you regard the local authorities as having heen supine ?The Act says that the local authorities mat/, which, of course, assumes in their discretion, declare the place free. If any of the local authorities had read our reports at all, they must have known that it was a very risky thing to declare places free where there were cattle left which had been in contact; because, in all human probability, a certain proportion of them had the disease in their systems and would convey it wherever they went. Inasmuch as the Act gives them permissive power, it was quite competent for them to keep the places infected until the man had either fattened his cattle or slaughtered all his cattle, and thus in that way prevented their going out into the country again.

6536.nbsp; nbsp;Therefore, from your experience of the manner in which local authorities have exercised the powers given them under the Act of 187S, do you tiow consider that they have had too much latitude allowed them ?Yes, certainly.

6537.nbsp; And in order to exterminate the disease from the country, would it be desirable to curtail those privileges and issue the orders direct from the central authority ?Yes.

6538.nbsp; On the same principle as is embodied in the recent order of 1888 ?Yes.

6539.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Can you inform the committee in what countries in Europe pleuro-pneumonia now exists, and how long it has existed in those countries ?At the present moment we know that pleuro-pneumonia exists in Russin, in Austro-Hungnry, in Turkey, in Italy, in Germany, in Switzerland, and in France. In Germany the disease was introduced into that part of it which is known as Prussia in 1802; into Hanover in 1807 ; into Belgium in 1830; into Holland in 1830, and in Great Britain it was detected about 1840. In France it was extensively prevalent in 1812 and 1815. The countries which wo believe to be free at the present moment are Spain, Portugal, Holland, Schleswig-Holstein which is part of Germany now, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

0510. Does It exist in any other parts

of the North

Mr.

A, C. Cope:

14 May 1888.

world ? Yes, wo know that it exists in America, in South Africa, and in Australia.

0541. Is there any record of its existence in India and China ?Yes, we know that it exists in China, hecause we know a gentleinlm who has seen it there.

6542.nbsp; Is there any part of North America free ? Canada we believe to bo freo. It has been introduced at different times into Sweden and other countries.

6543.nbsp; And in those cases whore it has been introduced into Scandinavia, how have they proceeded to deal with it ? It was introduced in 1847 into Sweden by some English cattle, when it. was stamped out. It was introduced into Denmark en several occasions from different parts of Europe, and has always been stamped out. In Norway it was introduced by some Ayrshire cattle. There they stamped it out.

6544.nbsp; By what process did they stamp it out ?By slaughtering the diseased animals and all those which had been exposed to the infection.

6545.nbsp; Do you know when and where inoculation was first practised as a preventive ?I believe it was first practised in Hanover in 1820, at the veterinary school, by Professors Kursman and Hausemann, but no definite results wore recorded.

6546.nbsp; Has it been practised in other parts of the continent ?Yes; in 1850 Dr. Wilhelms, of Hasselt in Belgium, commenced inoculating, and his results were published in the quot; Recueilquot; of veterinary medicine. In 1852 Dr. Wilhelms reported favourably, and a Government inquiry was instituted by the Belgians in 1853. This commission reported unfavourably. In 1854 the Minister of the Interior refused to compensate Dr. Wilhelms, or to recognise the utility of his discovery. Other reports were issued; the fifth report being issued by the Belgian commission in 1858, but this was on the whole favourable. They reviewed the work of the previous commission, and added the results of their own experiments. The sixth commission issued two reports, the minority being in favour of inoculation. The seventh and last report was issued in 1864, and was in favour of inoculation ; it should be noted that the chief opponent to it, who was a very distinguished man, died in the meantime, and therefore his name was not appended to the report.

6547.nbsp; Can you inform the Committee as to the view at present held by the chief veterinaries on the continent as to the efficacy of inoculation as a preventive ? With the object of giving that information I communicated with Dr. Müller, of Berlin, and also with Dr, Wirtz in Holland, and also with a gentleman named M. Cagny, who is the secretary to the Soctetc Veterinaire in Paris, and they sent me letters upon the subject. I will hand in that correspondence {See Appendix, Documents handed in by Professor Cope.) M. Cagny writes from Paris giving an account of the mode in which inoculation is carried out there. He expresses the opinion that inoculation does act as a preventive. Dr. Wirtz, of Holland, without expressing any decided opinion upon the matter himself, says: quot; The official reports of the quot; Netherlands Government are all favourable to in-quot; oculation as a prophylactic treatment.quot; Dr. Müller writes: quot; The opinions about the advantages of quot; inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia are very divided quot; in Germany. Generally the great landowners, in laquo; the first place the owners of sugar fabrics, art; quot; more favourably inclined to regard inoculation as a quot; method of suppressing outbreaks of this disease than quot; the veterinaries, except some fanatics such asPro-

quot; fessor------,quot; and those veterinarians who are gaining

quot; money by the practice of inoculation.quot; Then he goes on to say how long it has been practised, and he encloses me a document in German which contains a resum6 of what has been done in times past. I have also another opinion, which I have extracted from a work called the quot;Text Book of Pathology and laquo; Therapeutics of Domestic Animals,quot; by Dr. ßöll^

#9632;M

i i

198

OOMMITTBB ON PLEUBO-PNEUMONIA ANraquo; TUBEBOULOSIS:

Mr.

A. C. Cope.

14 Muy 188?.

of Vienna, it was publinhed in 1885, so that it is pretty well up to date. He gives an account of it in this way : He says that there are two parties on the subject of inoculntion, those who arc for it and those who arc still against it, and he thinks that it seems most important that the question of inoculation tor this disease, which in agricultural circles is regarded as one of the most destructive, should be again fully investigated.

6ö4ö. It appears from what you have said that the question as to the preventive efficacy of inoculation is still an open one. Will you state to the Committee in general terms the views of the veterinary profession as represented at the Veterinary Congress held in Brussels in 1885 ?At that meeting, which was held on the 13th September, the president put a question to the meeting which was proposed by M. Bouley, and it was to this effect, quot; It has been experimentally quot; proved at the present moment that it is possible to quot; invest the organism of animals of the bovine species quot; with an immunity against pleuro-pneumonia by quot; inoculation with the virus of that malady.quot; When it was put to the vote 22 members present voted for it, 18 voted against it, and 15 abstained from voting.

6549.nbsp; Is there any difficulty in detecting the disease in the living animal ?In certain cases it is quite impossible to detect the disease.

6550.nbsp; In your experience do you find that the veterinary surgeons generally can recognise the disease in the living animals or even in the lungs after death ?No, they do not.

6551.nbsp; Is it not the case that the majority of veterinary surgeons, probably nearly the whole of those practising in large towns, have nothing to do with cattle practice ?They never see a sick beast at all.

6552.nbsp; And that under these circumstances it is reasonable that they should know very little about cattle diseases ?Quite so.

6553.nbsp; In fact you generally recognise among those general practitioners that it is a branch of the art which does not pay for the pursuit of it ?Quite so.

6554.nbsp; Can you inform the Committee of an instance in which errors have been made?Well, they happen so frequently that it is hardly possible for a year to go by without having a great number of returns sent up to us, showing the mistakes which they have made, but I have some here which deal with the question. In 1880 an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia was reported to have occurred in Essex, and I was instructed to go down and make an inquiry. I attended, and the veterinary officer attended too, and I came to the conclusion, after I had heard all that was said, that there must have been some mistake in the whole case, and this is what I say in my report. quot; I therefore had nine of the 13 animals which had quot; been slaughtered and buried dug up, and after quot; making an examination of the lungs of those quot; animals in the presence of the veterinary inspector quot; who had condemned them, I failed to detect in quot; any instance any evidence or appearance whatever quot; of pleuro-pneumonia, and the veterinary inspector quot; said he quite concurred in that view.quot; Then, during the last year, we find that the inspection has been most unsatisfactorily carried out in different parts of the country, and in many instances in Scotland they have been very unsuccessful. These are returns which are received from the inspectors of the local authorities giving an account of the history of each outbreak as far as we can possibly get it. Here is an instance which occurred in Forfarshire. The inspector writes at the time : quot; Mr. Robertson purchased this cow at quot; the cattle market held at Carolina Port within the quot; burgh of Edinburgh on Tuesday the 26th of October quot; last, the said cow being part of a drove which had ' been collected from various farmers in Ayrshire, quot; Lanarkshire, and Stirlingshire, by a dealer who quot; *ttends the cattle market here every Tuesday. The quot; said cow showed symptoms of being ill about ft quot; fortnight ago, and Mr. Bobertson called upou u quot; veterinary surgeon on Monday 20th December inst., quot; and at his request the cow was isolated, and in the

quot; course of four days the cow was reported to mo quot; by the veterinary surgeon as being ill of pleuro-quot; pneumonia. The animal was thereafter killed and quot; found suffering from pleuro-pneumonia.quot; Here is a case which happened in Mid-Lothian. quot; On the quot; 23rd February 1887 a cow was slaughtered on quot; suspicion, but the appearances presented on post-quot; mortem examination were not such as to warrant quot; a declaration of pleuro-pueumohia. But on the quot; slaughter of a heifer on 23id March its existence quot; was placed beyond doubt.'quot; That is signed by Mr. Cunningham, showing that even he was unable to determine that he was dealing with pleuro-pneumonia, although he saw the lungs of the animal. I have several others here of a similar nature. This is another outbreak in Forfar. Mr. quot; McKean purchased a cow at the cattle market quot; held at Carolina Port within the burgh of Dundee quot; on Tuesday 28th June last. The said cow being quot; part of a drove which had been exposed fot sale raquo;n quot; said market by a cattle dealer who attends the quot; cattle market here every Tuesday. The said cow '' showed symptoms of being ill about two weeks ago, ' and Mr. McKean isolated the cow from the rest, quot; and tailed upon Andrew Spreull, veterinary inspec-quot; tor for the local authority here, who treated her quot; until Sunday, 21st August last, when she died, and quot; was afterwards removed to the public slaughter-quot; houses at Carolina Port Dundee, and the disease quot; was then discovered quot; to be pleuro-pneumonia. In Linlithgow there is another case. quot; On December Ist quot; one cow was purchased from Mr. Walker, Tippet quot; Hill, Whitbury, who, as I am told, bought this cow quot; in a sale at Wishaw. This cow became ill a fort-quot; night after, being in possession of Mrs. llussell, quot; and was attended to until death by the local vete-quot; rinary inspector, who made no post-mortem nor did quot; discover it to be pleuro-pneumonia. Two other quot; cows became affected, and they were attended to quot; by another veterinary surgeon, who also did not quot; detect it to be pleuro-pneumonia. One of these quot; cows was slaughtered on the premises, and the quot; carcase sold to a butcher, the other was sent alive quot; per rail to a slaughter-house in Glasgow, and was quot; there detected to have been suffering from pleuro-quot; pneumonia. I was requested on the IGth March quot; by the local authority to disinter and make a post-quot; mortem examination of the cow which died last quot; December, and found she had died from contagious quot; pleuro-pneumonia.quot; I have several others here of a similar nature.

6555.nbsp; Can you inform the Committee of the losses which this country has sustained from 1871 to 1887 ? I have handed in the return showing the number of animals.

6556.nbsp; Have you any digest of the legislation during that period ?The disease continued from 184iJ till 1869, a period of 27 years, before we had any legislation. Therefore, we have no authentic record of how many animals were lost during that period.

6557.nbsp; What was the lirst step in legislation ?The first step in regard to legislation was in 1869. The Act of 1869 did not require owners to give notice of the existence of disease, but inspectors were required to make declarations of the existence of the disease when discovered, and deliver the same to the local authority and send a copy to the Privy Council. It was also made an offence to expose diseased animals in markets and sales, or move them by land or water, and the seventh schedule to the Act provided rules which applied to the infected places as regards the movement into and out of those places. In February 1871 an Order of Council was passed to the effect that, when authorised by the Privy Council, a local authority might cause animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia to be slaughtered, and to pay three-fourths compensation up to 30/. In 1872 an Order was passed giving local authorities, when authorised by the Privy Council, power to slaughter cattle which had been in contact with pleuro pneumonia within 30 days. In 1873 the slaughter of diseased animals was made compulsory

MINUTES OP EVIDENCE.

199

throughoutthecountry, but the Order giving power to locnl authorities when authorised to slaughter cuttlo in eontivct was revoked. By the Aniiuals Order of 1875 owners were required to give notice of the existence of pleuro-pneumonia, and compulsory slaughter was continued with compensation to three-fourths of the value not exceeding 30/., and that condition of legislation was continued till the Act of 1878 wns passed, which required the slaughter of all the cattle aiFected with pleuro-pneumonia within two days, and gave power to local authorities to slaughter unimals in contact.

6658. Was the next important step the passing ot the Order of March 1888 ?Yes. It is estimated that in the 17 years ending 1887 we have lost 07,079 in cattle, and the average loss when giving compensation amounts to about 101. per head. Therefore, the monetary loss is something like 670,790/. in the 17 years.

6559.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) How do you prove the value at 10/. per hesid?That is token from our returns and it is issued in the report every year, and the amount of compensation averages 10/. per head for animals slaughtered.

6560.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) I think you said you had not practised inoculation yourself ?No.

6561.nbsp; But you have watched the practice undertaken by others ?Yes, by the late Mr. Priestman.

6562.nbsp; Is inoculation practised to any great extent in Great Britain ?I think not, only in the neighbour-hood of Edinburgh, in Forfar, Perth, and in the metropolis. Throughout England it is not practised. _

6563.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give any instance in which inoculated cattle have taken pleuro-pneumonia some time sifter they were inoculated ?Yes. I will first of all refer to the outbreak which took place at the Aylesbury Dairy. The whole of that outbreak and the inoculation as practised with those animals the year before is recorded in our annual report of 1873-4, by Professor Brown. The summary of it amounts to this : quot;That quot; of the eight cows which were fatally attacked out of quot; the total of 35, four had been inoculated recently, quot; and four some months previously to the introduc-quot; tion of the disease. Cow No. 68 was brought into quot; the shed in November 1873, inoculated 1st Decem-quot; ber 1873, was attacked with the disease on the 6th quot; March 1874, and slaughtered 10th March 1874. (I quot; may say that all these animals were slaughtered quot; under the Act by the local authority, and as a matter quot; of fact I saw them, with Professor Brown, alive, quot; many of them had been inoculated in the previous quot; year.) Cow No. 78 was brought into the shed quot; December 1873, inoculated 21th December 1873 ; quot; was attacked 5th March 1874, and slaughtered quot; on the 18th March 1874. Cow No. 48 was brought quot; into the shed October 1872, inoculated October quot; 1872; attacked on the 15th March 1874, and quot; slaughtered 18th March 1874. Cow No. 57 was quot; brought into the shed January 1873, inoculated quot; January 1873; attacked 20th March 1874, skugh-quot; tered 22nd March 1874. Cow No. 74 was brought quot; into the shed December 1873, inoculated December quot; 1878; attacked 23rd March 1874, and slaughtered quot; 26th March 1874. Cow No. 52 was brought into the quot; shed May 1873, inoculated May 1873 ; attacked laquo; March 23rd 1874, and slaughtered 28th March 1874. quot; Cow No. 63 was brought into the shed May 1873, quot; inoculated May 1873; attacked 23rd March 1874, quot; slaughtered Slst March 1874. Cow No. 65 was

' brought into the shed November 1873, inoculated quot; November 1873; attacked 31st March 1874, and quot; slaughtered 9th April 1874.quot; That is the record of the outbreak at. the Aylesbury Dairy.

6564. Eight cows out of how many ?35.

6505. All of which had been inoculated ?All of which had been inoculated, some a long time before the disease was introduced.

6566. Was there any explanation of the origin of this outbreak ?Yes, the animals which introduced the disease were six cattle which were brought in and inoculated before being mixed with the rest of the herd.

0567. Do you know if one of them was taken ill ?

Yes, it was. Mr. Priestman saw the six animals before ho inoculated thorn, and he afterwards told us that ho always suspected one of them which Wits not well, and he regretted very much that he had ever let that animal mix with the herd.

6568.nbsp; nbsp;Do you remember if that animal was inoculated ? Yes, it. was one of the six inoculated oy him.

6569.nbsp; And did the operation produce the usual results ?I believe so.

6570.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to this outbreak there were eight cows out of 35 ?Yes.

6571.nbsp; nbsp;The disease then ceased ?The disease then ceased.

6572.nbsp; nbsp;Whs there anything remarkable in that if the animals had not been inoculated ?No, not at all. It would be about an average of the loss which they sustain in the sheds in London.

6573.nbsp; In many cases of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia among uninoculated cattle, the disease does cease with the loss of a proportion no larger than that which were sacrificed in the outbreak of the Aylesbury Dairy?Our returns show that the disease ceases very often with the loss of only one or two animals.

6574.nbsp; In other cases the infection is of a more virulent character and it runs rapidly through a herd ? It does.

6575.nbsp; nbsp;Would you say that these virulent cases are the rule or the exception ?Quite the exception. We have very few instances on record. I have the outbreaks of last year, in which nothing like, a large proportion of the animals were attacked.

6576.nbsp; I believe there were 618 outbreaks in 1887 in Great Britain ?Yes.

6577.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee what proportion of the animals attacked bears to the number of animals in the various premises where the outbreaks occurred? I can give a record showing a comparison of the average number of cattle attacked with pleuro-pneumonia in each reported outbreak in England and Scotland for the last five years. The average number of cattle attacked for each outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in 1883 in England was 2-3 per cent. In Scotland it was 4 per cent. In 1884 it was 3 per cent, in England ; in Scotland 5-8 per cent. In 1885 it was 3quot; 18 cent, in England and 69 per cent, in Scotlaiul. In 1886 it was 4'59 per cent, in England, and 4^,29 per cent, in Scotland, and in 1887 it 3-57 per cent. in'England and 4^,35 per cent, in Scotland.

6578.nbsp; In what districts in Scotland is inoculation most practised ?It appears to be most practised in the Edinburgh county and burgh: in Forfar and in Fife.

6579.nbsp; Do the returns show that the disease has decreased in these districts during the last five years ? The returns go as follows: In 1883 there were 16 outbreaks reported in Edinburgh and 47 cattle attacked; in 1884, 24 outbreaks in Edinburgh and 76 cattle attacked; in 1885 there were 15 outbreaks in Edinburgh and 60 cattle attacked; in 1886, 58 outbreaks and 227 attacked, and in 1887 64 ouibrewka and 233 attacked. In Forfar, in 1883, there were 10 outbreaks and 44 attacked ; in 1884, 2 outbreaks and 7 attacked ; in 1885, 4 outbreaks and 18 attacked ; in 1886, 41 outbreaks and 165 attacked ; aud in 1887, 37 outbreaks and 126 attacked. In Perth, in 1883, 11 outbreaks and 42 cattle attacked ; in 1884, 5 outbreaks and HI attacked; in 1885, 4 outbreaks and 21 attacked ; in 1886, 13 outbreaks and 28 attacked, and in 1887, 33 outbreaks and 104 attacked,

6580.nbsp; Can you account in any way for the increase in the disease in Scotland lately r¹ VTes, we can account for it. Our returns go to show that in the first instance a large number of the owners have been sending their infected animals into the sales and markets throughout the country and whence the disease has been distributed. In the second instnnce there seems to have been a very great indisposition on the part of the local authorities to take any action in reference to nlcuro-pneumonia. The Privy Conrcil

Mr.

A. O tJope.

14 May 1880.

1:1

200

OOMMITTEK ON PLRUnOPNEUMONIA AND 'JUBER017I.OS1S

Mr.

A. C. Cope.

14 May 1888.

solicited or urged upon them the desirability of stopping the markets, but the replies which were received from them were to the effect that they preferred to leave the markets open. And then, in addition to that, tho returns show that the veterinary inspectors have been very unsuccessful in not being able to recognise tho disease among the living animals. Our returns go to show also that seven of the markets in Scotland contributed no less than 407 outbreaks in Scotland during last year.

6581.nbsp; With regard to your last reply, could you toll the Committee how many outbreaks were attributed to one individual ?Well, not to the individual but to the markets. I cannot give that.

6582.nbsp; nbsp;Would you describe those markets ?Yes, I can give them to you. It is in our forthcoming report. The number of outbreaks attributed to cattle bought in some of the markets are as follows: Dundee, 13 ; Edinburgh, 25 ; Falkirk, 4; Forfar, 5 ; Wishaw, 42; Perth, 37 ; and Inverness, 10; making a total of 136, or over 40 per cent, of the total outbreaks in Scotland for the year.

6583.nbsp; Can you give any instances in which cattle have taken pleuro-pneumonia and recovered ?We have one or two very excellent examples of that. Some years ago there was an outbreak which took place among a very large herd of cattle near to Alperton, and the owner, who was very much interested in the question, was frequently in our office, and I used to go down and see the herd at the time that it was under the supervision of the local inspector. There was one animal among that herd upon which he put considerable value, and this animal was, no doubt, the subject of pleuro-pneumonia for some few days. When the local inspector arrived he suspected the animal, and said he would come and see it the next day ; but in the meantime the owner had put this animal into a loose bux away from the rest of the herd, and another in its place. This animal was what they call quot; off its milk,quot; and had a slight elevation of temperature, but little or no cough, and it was never seen any more by the inspector, but the owner promised me at the time that when it was slaughtered that I should have the lungs, and the lungs were brought up 11 months after for our examination, they were taken to the Brown Institution and examined, and there we found a very beautiful specimen of this old encapsuled lung, not bigger than an ordinary cricket ball, in which the lesions were most marked when cutting through it. I know of one or two instances, one of a similar nature which occurred at Willesden, close to the metropolis, but others have also, from time to time, come under our observation.

6584.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give any instance in which such cases have presumably resulted in the communication of the disease to other cattle ?I must give you this as the result really of hearsay from the late Mr. Priestman. I should tell you that Mr. Priestman was constantly in communication with us at the Privy Council Office, and he gave me a very interesting instance in which a cowman in London had 10 cows, and he had had those cows upon his premises for something like a year or 18 months. He bought a hull and brought it into bis cow shed, and about six weeks or two months after that the man came to consult him about one of his animals, which he said was bad in its lungs. Mr. Priestman visited tho shed. He found the animal was a very decided and advanced case of pleuro-pneumonia, being quite unable to account for the disease among the stock, he said, quot; What have quot; you got at tho top here ?quot; The cowman said, laquo; Oh, that is a bull I have bought.quot; quot; Have you quot; had anything the matter with him?quot; and he said, quot;No.quot; quot; Are you quite sure ? quot; quot;Well, he did quot; not feed quite well when he came in first of all, quot; and I thought he had a little cough, but he seems quot; all right now.quot; Mr. Priestman examined the bull, Ivu, failed to detect anything the matter with him. After the first cow was slaughtered he inoculated the #9632;#9632;cst of tho rofvs, but the disease progressed throughout

the herd, until there was nothing loft but one cow and the bull, Mr. Priestman then said, quot; Now, you quot; had better get rid of these two before you buy quot; any fresh in;quot; and, much against tho man's inclination, he consented to have the two animals killed. After they were slaughtered, Mr. Priestman said, quot; This is the gentleman that has done the mischief. quot; Here I find him with an old bit of dead lung;quot; and he came to the conclusion without hesitation, as anybody else would from the history of the case, that this animal had been the means of introducing the disease among those cows which certainly had been isolated for 12 mouths or more.

6585.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know of any instance in which the disease has remained on the premises for some length of time ?Well, we have had certain outbreaks around the metropolis in which tha*; has frequently occurred. The local authorities have declared the premises free after a certain proportion of the animals have become attacked, when the man has restocked the premises the new animals brought in have started the disease again, and this has occurred on one farm upon three successive occasions, the disease having reappeared among those herds where they had the old stock remaining.

6586.nbsp; nbsp;Was there any reason in this case to believe that the infection had remained in the premises ? No, none whatever that we know of. We do know the fact that they had some of the old stock remaining on the premises.

6587.nbsp; In other cases where disease has broken out in the stock introduced into the premises previously infected, has it been possible to trace the origin of the new outbreak without referring it to infection remaining ?We generally find that it is due to the introduction of one of those recovered cases.

6588.nbsp; On the other hand, are there any instances in which healthy stock have been taken to previously infected premises, without further precaution taken, and afterwards remained healthy ?But that is the rule. The animals are taken in and we do not get a second outbreak.

6589.nbsp; So that the weight of evidence is in favour of the idea that there is little or no risk incurred from the infection remaining on the premises ? Quite so.

6590.nbsp; nbsp;When the disease occurs it is in consequence of being re-introduced from without ?From without.

6591.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloncurry.) With reference to the last case where the bull did the mischief, how many cows were there in that shed ?Ten.

6592.nbsp; And when the disease appeared were they all inoculated ?After the first animal was affected the rest of the animals were inoculated with the lung of that animal.

6593.nbsp; And was the bull inoculated ?I cannot say for certainI expect it would be at the same time.

6594.nbsp; Do I understand that the remaining nine cows all died of pleuro-pneumonia ?They were all slaughtered bnt two.

6695. But they were slaughtered because they showed symptoms of disease, and on examination it was proved that they had disease ?Yes,

6596.nbsp; And then inoculation did not save those nine cows ?No, the bull had already done the mischief.

6597.nbsp; You gave us a schedule of the per-centages extending over the last five years in three counties of Scotland, how was that calculatedon the per-centage of animals in contact or the whole of the county ? That per-centage rather fails. It is a per-centage upon the animals which are returned as being on the premises at the time when the disease takes place, and wo have no means of telling whether they were in contact with the diseased animals or not.

6698.nbsp; Then wo cannot place much reliance upon those figures ?No.

6699.nbsp; Can you name any period of time which you regard as quite safe to allow for the stamping out process ; I mean how many days would you think it safe to allow the? slaughter to be extended over. I

MINUTER OF EVIDENCE.

201

#9632;%#9632;,#9632;[laquo;

think at present the order is that it must be within 10 days ?Yes.

6600.nbsp; And how far would you think that the period could be extended without danger to the country or the neighbourhood ?Well, 1 think that they might very well be extended in the case of herds which are satisfactorily isolated from other animals ; and permission might be given to the owner to keep them alive for such period as he wished, I should not say indefinitely, because ho might do it with the object of making himself disagreeable,

6601.nbsp; But you would allow him to keep them to thoroughly fatten them?I see no objection to that in certain cases,

6602.nbsp; That is with the restriction that they would not leave the premises ?Oh, yes, that is a sine qua noraquo;.

6603.nbsp; I. know you said you would rather not give an actual definition of contact, but could you give an opinion as to any distance with reference to cattle in the open field that could be regarded as absolutely safe ?I cuuld not name any distance, but if I were called upon to visit an outbreak, and I found that the animals were in the field, and that they were affected with the disease, and that there were others in the next field, I should certainly have the others in the next field slaughtered as well,

6604.nbsp; Supposing that there was a public road, or a tillage field, or a plantation intervening, what should be the limits that you would say were sufficient provided there was no gate ?In the case of raquo; public road you see cattle may sniff one another over the hedges, and I would not allow anything to remain near to a high road.

6605.nbsp; Take a tillage field; how wide an interval would you allow to intervene for that; would you say that 100 yards would be sufficient ?Ample.

6606.nbsp; Do you think that animals in the open field divided by 100 yards would be ample to secure safety ?I think so.

6607.nbsp; And that there is no necessity to slaughter animals 100 yards apart?Not if they were securely fenced and 100 yards away.

6608.nbsp; Is there any possible danger to human beings from eating the flesh of animals that have been tainted with pleuro-pneumonia?I think all the evidence is against that.

6609.nbsp; Provided an animal is in otherwise good condition the beef is perfectly harmless aud innocuous ? It has been sold for many years, and I never heard of an instance of anyone receiving any injury from it,

6610.nbsp; And from your own experience would you confirm that ?Quite so.

6611.nbsp; (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) In this return that you have put in, which shows that 74,000 cattle have been attacked in the last 19 years, do you refer to England and Scotland alone, or do you include Ireland ?This does not include Ireland.

6612.nbsp; Then in this 19 years you calculate that there has been a loss in England and Scotland alone of 070,000/. ?Yes ; that is for compensation only. That does not include the enormous expense connected with inspection, and the machinery for working the Act and Orders of Council.

661,3. But the ratepayers of the country have had to find 670,000/., as well as money for working it ? That is not quite correct, because compensation has not been instituted all that time.

6614. And if the ratepayers have not lost it all, they have lost a portion, and the owners have lost the other portion ? And the agriculturists have lost the rest. 1 think that inasmuch as the disease has existed here for something like 29 years before the date of the return I have handed in, as the approximate amount of loss which we have incurred in this country since it was introduced would be at least double the sum named by me.

6616. Can you tell the Committee what number of centres there were in England at the time of the passing of the new Order in 1888 ?Well, 1 could. I have not got that information here,

O 54003.

6616.nbsp; Then you cannot tell us the number of cattle that were included in these centres ?No. I could tell you, but I have not that information here, but I shall get it for you.

6617.nbsp; Then iiow much at your own computation of value would the value of those animals be to be slaughtered under the Order of 1888 ?I am afraid I cannot say, because there is a certain amount of salvage. Supposing we say 7,000 cattle slaughtered in a year, we find that the cost of compensation amounts to about 70,000/.

6618.nbsp; I find that the average loss in these 19 years, the particulars of which you have gi\ en us, comes to 35,000/. per annum, and calculated at 19 years it exceeds that ?I dare say you are right.

6619.nbsp; Is it your opinion that, if this Order is carried into force effectually, and nil these animals that are embraced in the infected centres are slaughtered forthwith, that there is reasonable ground to conclude that we shall be done with the disease altogether ? I think so, certainly, in process of time.

6620.nbsp; What length of time do you think would be required to effectually stamp out the disease ?I find that in the Netherlands they were something like four years before they got quite clear after they commenced slaughtering whole herds, because these old cases of lung disease still kept cropping up, and they never got rid of the disease for something like four years after the slaughter was put into force,

6621.nbsp; Then in addition to the amount that would be lost in enforcing the Order this year, you would have to add some further sum for three or four years, as the case may be ?But it would be very small what follows. Of course, the great expense is dealing with it in the first instance.

6622.nbsp; Then the amount you stated that would be expended in carrying out this Order would represent the total loss to the country to get rid of the disease altogether ?Yes.

6623.nbsp; As against 35,000/. per annum for the last 19 years, and perhaps a similar sum for as many years before ?Yes.

6624.nbsp; Do you think that it the inoculation system was introduced into infected herds, and the diseased animals themselves were killed off, that we should be equally safe from a recurrence of the disease as if they were slaughtered under the Order in the way we have described ? Not if you let the inoculated animals go.

6625.nbsp; And therefore the only chance for inoculation to be perfectly efficacious would be to quarantine the animals after killing off the diseased ones and inoculating the rest ?Quite so.

6626.nbsp; What duration of time would that quarantine have to be carried out to make the system effectual ? So long as the rest of tneir lives. I should not let any of them go.

6627.nbsp; That; would be utterly impracticable in breeding herds you must know ?Quite.

6628.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) Can you give the Committee any idea why the number of cases fell from 1878 to 1883, and then rose again to a height at which they were equal to the two years ago after the passing of the Act ?Yes, you see the Act was very successful up to that period; but I find by the returns that this increase is chiefly in Scotland, where the disease extended just at that period.

6629.nbsp; nbsp;Bo you think that this rise is due to the imperfect carrying out of the Act, or to any other cause ?1 think that it is partly, but chiefly in consequence of a number of dishonest individuals sending cattle which had been in contact with diseased animals into these different markets. I think there is no doubt about that.

6630.nbsp; But do you think that the same dishonest operations would not have been carried out before in the previous years ?There is no doubt they have, but we have not been able to find them out, as we haVe this time. We know now as a matter of fact that a great number of the animals which have been

Mr.

A. C. Cope.

U May 1888.

202

COMMITTEE ON PLEUKO-PNEUMONIA. AND TUBBROULOSIS:

Mr. A. C Cope.

14 Muy 1888,

sold and ciuised outbrouks of ilisoiiso hnvci been sold by certiun individuals.

0631. But you novor were uble to traco the Individuals bofbro, wore you ?No. Tho Scotch people have given laquo;a very good information dn that point in their returns which they have sent in to ns.

'6632. So that wo may take it as probable that the explanation you have given of the rest is the correct one ?1 think it must bo; in fact there is no doubt about it.

6033.nbsp; Then do you think that legal proceedings will arrest that, under the present legislation ?As a matter of fact, we spend a great deal of our time in trying to urge the local authorities to take proceedings against those individuals, and it is no uncommon thing for them to write back and say that they do not think that they have sufficient evidence to support their prosecution. But curiously enough they do not seem to be aware of the fact that the law imposes upon the individual tho responsibility of satisfying any court of justice that he does not know when committing the oifence, that his animal was ill, and could not have obtained that knowledge. Therefore, if prosecutions were instituted in such cases the accused would have very great difficulty in proving that he does not know, and it would lead to the conviction of the offenders.

6034.nbsp; nbsp;So that you think that the present legislation is adequate to meet such cases. ?It is if it were put in force.

6635.nbsp; nbsp;In connexion with that point and the imperfect action of local authorities, would you think it wise to compel local authorities to have a veterinary adviser ? I think so. I think further that it would be much better if the advisers were men selected by us; men whom we have tested and tried, and know to be authorities upon those special subjects.

6636.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the practice of inoculation, hitherto inoculation has been practised oply in Scotland, has it not, as a therapeutical measure !^JI think so, as a preventive.

6637.nbsp; And it has not been prophylactic by the vaccination of young healthy animals ?I think not.

6638.nbsp; nbsp;Would you agree that unless it was conducted on both lines that it would have no influence upon the existence of the disease ?That all turns upon the question of whether we know what we are dealing with. When inoculating an animal with the exudate of the lung are we really dealing with a material which contains the virus.

6639.nbsp; nbsp;But supposing that we were dealing with a material which contained the virus, you would agree that unless we inoculated every animal that we should have animals among us susceptible to this disease and therefore always alive to it ?Yes.

6640.nbsp; Therefore we do not learn anything at all from the fact that outbreaks are numerous in various parts of Scotland where inoculation of only animals in contact has been practised ?No, I do not think we derive any information from the experiments which have been conducted up to the present moment in Scotland, for this reason. It is obvious that if you wish to find out whether animals have or receive an immunity as the result of inoculating you must keep them in contact with diseased animals. Now the process by which all tho gentlemen who inoculate go upon is this: first of all the Act requires that all obviously diseased animals should be taken away; secondly, they select as far as they can all those which they find suspicious and take them away; and under these circumstances one can very well understand that they may at times take away all the diseased or infected animals. Inoculation applied to the remaining animals under such circumstances does not prove anything at all with regard to giving immunity.

6641.nbsp; nbsp;Then, of course, you are not aware that in the case wo had given us this morning there was a certain number of inoculated animals mixed with a certain number of animals which had not been inoculated, but among whom there existed the disease, and that for some succeeding weeks or months the

disease continued to progress among the uuinocu-lated but not among the inoculated ?1 have not heard of it.

6642.nbsp; And then again in the experiments which have been conducted on such a large scale in Australia wo have been told that the animals in a large herd of 500 or 000 at the time were inoculated, and tho diseased as well as the sound were all turned out together, so that the disease was still with the herd, and that it came to an end within three weeks or a month after the operation of inoculation had been performed; you had not hoard of that ?No, J. have not heard of that either.

6643.nbsp; You have no evidence from the returns that an inoculated animal is Incapable of communicating the disease?No, I have never heard of such a thing,

6644.nbsp; Do you know of any other case besides tho case recorded by Professor Brown, in which inoculated animals were said to have taken the disease ?Yes, I was going to show you those other cases that occurred this last year in the metropolis. I have sent to all the inspectors of the metropolis and asked them to give me an account of every outbreak that they had, and whether inoculation had been practised, and the majority wrote back and said quot; No, it has not been.quot; But I have one or two instances here in which they say inoculation was practised, and this is one of them. There was an outbreak occurred on the premises of a Thomas Wood on October 2, .1886. There were 27 cattle on the premises, and the return says that they were all in tho same shed. On October 4 these animals remaining were inoculated by Mr. Woodroof, who has been here to see you. On October 2 three animals were attacked, and they used the material from them to inoculate the rest. On October 9 one more animal goes with pleuro-pneumouia; October 23, two; October 30, two; November 6, three ; November 13, one; January in the next year (1887), one ; and February o, one, so that they lost, as a matter of fact, 14 out ofthe original 27 on the premises. I have two others of a similar nature.

6645.nbsp; Then, of course, in that and in all those cases there was a possibility that the animals might have contracted the disease before being inoculated ?Quite so.

6046. What is the longest case that you know of ? Those cases at the Aylesbury Dairy are the longest,

6647.nbsp; From October 1872 to March 1874 is the longest in that case, is it ?Yes,we have them all carefully recorded.

6648.nbsp; Do you think that it is possible that an animal could have the encysted disease in its lung for a year and a half ?You would find the evidence of it for a year and a half after. I think you would find it there for ever ; it would never go. The animal which I had at Alperton Dairy was 11 months after, and that was quite firm, it wasjust beginning to liquefy. As to that bull of Mr. Priestman's it was an animal that had had the disease recently.

6049. In the Alperton case the animals might have recovered only recently. You find the patch 11 months later in that case?Yes, that was another case.

0650. You said that you thought that animals could be kept in isolation under suitable restrictions. Do you think it would be wise to leave restrictions of that sort to the local authorities ?No, I do not at all,

6651.nbsp; nbsp;If such methods were carried out you would have them carried out by the central authority ? Entirely.

6652.nbsp; Do you think it would he found practical to carry out, a double set of rules, one for dairy farmers and one for breeders ?I think so.

6653.nbsp; What I meant was this : You think that it would be possible to allow a dairy farmer to practico either tho method of inoculation or the practice of isolation, keeping his animals under strict inspection, whereas you would insist upon the ordinary breeder slaughtering out ?When any special case is brought under our notice we make an inspection, and if we

MINUTES OF KVIDKNOK.

203

find that tho animals in a fiirra aro a long way from the high road, and aro all included in one shed, wo certainly say that we could very well withstuy our hand and lot the people keep those animals alive until such time as they wished to fatten them.

(5054. That, of course, you think could only bo done with a special Order from the Privy Council ?I am quite certain that it would be unsafe to let tho local authorities have the charge of such a matter as that.

6655.nbsp; nbsp;Then you would allow under these circum-slaneos inoculaiion to be practised by individuals if they wished it under those conditions?I should have no objections at all.

6656.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) I think you said in one oi your answers that you frequently urged the local authorities to prosecute ?Yes.

6657.nbsp; nbsp;Have you ever had occasion with respect, to complaints from the local authorities that when such prosecutions were instituted the bench gave nominal flues, or gave such fines that had no deterrent effect. Has that been brought under your notice ?Yes, it has, at different times. 1 could not speak of one particular instance, but it is so.

6658.nbsp; I do not ask for a particular instance. But are you aware that there have been complaints of that quot;nature ?Yes. I am aware of that.

6659.nbsp; nbsp;And that has acted as a deterrent to the local authorities from incurring further cost of prosecution ? __Yes, on the part of that same local authority.

6660.nbsp; I think you said it took four years for the Netherlands to become clear, did not you ?I think I can tell you exactly. The slaughter of whole herds commenced in 1876. They kept on detecting cases in the living animal up to 1879, but when the disease became confined to what is called the Spuoeling district, that is around Rotterdam where the distilleries are, the Government insisted upon the animals of that district being examined by the Government inspector by post-mortem examination, whether healthy or not, and the result of that was that they continued detecting cases, old cases in the lungs, till 1883, when there were something like 171 cases found on postmortem examination, that was the position of tilings really.

6661.nbsp; At the end of that time what was the state of affairs ?They have now been free for three years. May 1885 was the last case they had. They have had one instance of an animal being affected, and a searching inquiry was made, it was said that it, had been got across the frontier from Belgium, but since then we have reason to believe that it was not a bond fide case of pleuro-pnoumonia.

6662.nbsp; Are you aware what were the regulations during that time for tho movement of cattle, that is were cattle allowed to go free in that country ?My knowledge of the way in which they carried out the restrictions was this: Holland is divided into several provinces, and when they first detect the disease they stamped it out in those provinces where there was the least disease. They stamped it out there the quickest. Then the animals from other districts were not allowed to bo moved into that province, and thus they gradually decreased it in the various provinces until it was extirpated in all but one district, that is the province of South Holland, around the Spuoeling district, and there they for a time ceased slaughtering the whole of the herds, here they allowed inoculation on the understanding that all the animals were slaughtered, when they came out of the shed ; and it was at that time that they made a post-mortem examination of every animal that had been in the shed.

6663.nbsp; You gave us some figures with regard to an increase of the disease in certain counties during the past five years as compared with previous years ? Yes.

6664.nbsp; nbsp;May I ask what is the special pointy that you wish to bring out with reference to that ?That was in reply to a question put by Professor Brown, in which he asked if I knew tho district. I think it was whether inoculation was practised, and whether it had

had any effect in reducing tho number of outbreaks and attacks. I think it was in reply to that,

0665. Would you desire tho Committee to gather that you are under the impression that inoculation has increased the outbreaks ?Not at all. Not as the result of the iuoeulntion ; not that tho inoculation has produced the disease, I do not mean that.

6666. Do you mean that tho result of inoculation has been to increase the disfiase ?T do not, see what you moan by quot; the result,quot; because you cannot produce a disease by inoculating.

0667. That was what made me ask what was the point in making that statement. You say, in certain districts where inoculation is practised the disease has increased ?But it has also increased in other districts as well.

6668. 'What was tho inference that you wished the Committee to draw ?I did not wish any inference to be drawn at all. It was only in reply to a question put to me.

6609. You do not think that there is anything to be drawn either for or against inoculation ?No, I do not know that there is.

6670.nbsp; Then you spoke, in answer to a question of Lord Cloncurry, when he asked you to define quot; contact,quot; and 1 think you said one hundred yards you would consider safe. Would you have any objection to modify that answer in the case of a plantation, say, 50 yards broad. Would you consider it risky to put cattle divided by a strip of plantation 50 yards broad?I do not think that my opinion would be of much value. It has never been actually determined as to what distance the contagion may be conveyed. If you will allow me, I may say that in Lanark the disease has increased to a very much greater extent than in either of those districts where tho inoculation was carried out, and I do not think that there was any inoculation carried out there.

6671.nbsp; Then, seeing the differences of opinion and action by the various local authorities, would it not be desirable that the word quot; contactquot; should be defined a little more clearly than it has been and is being done at present ?If anyone could do it, certainly, but I very much doubt whether they can.

6672.nbsp; You said, in answer to the question by the Chairman that, in your opinion, not more than 20 per cent, of the veterinary surgeons had seen the disease, and were capable of speaking authoritatively upon it? Quito so.

6673.nbsp; Then, under these circumstances, do you think the veterinary profession are fit to bo entrusted with the general system of inoculation, supposing it was decided upon ?Tes, that is quite a different matter to that of determining the nature of disease from which an animal is suffering. It strikes me that anybody can do that.

6674.nbsp; You recommended that the local authorities generally should have special advisers ?Yes, I think

so.

6075. Do you think that there being only a small proportion of the veterinary surgeons that you mentioned, 20 per cent., who knew anything about the disease thoroughly, do not you think there would be a diflieulty in finding the necessary men?I do. I think there would bo n very groat difficulty.

6676.nbsp; Then, in your opinion, the local authorities are not sufficiently safeguarded by simply appointing a cortiflcatod veterinary surgeon ?I am sure they are not. It is a special subject, and they ought to have the aid of experts upon those particular subjects. It is oven the case with such a simple disease as foot-and-mouth disease. It is a most commou tiling for us to go all over the country and see animals which are suffering from a totally different affection.

6677.nbsp; Does not that rather lead you to think that it would bo desirable, in tho interest of science, that some further experiments should be conducted regarding the nature of this disease, I am speaking now of course entirely from a scientific point of view ?As regards the instruction generally,! can say that at our present veterinary college in London all the students have

C c 2

Mr. A. C. Cop*.

14 May 1888.

n ij

*-li

#9632; Ik

204

COMMCTTBB ON PIEUKO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS

Mr. A. C. Cope.

14 May 1888.

had opportunitios of studying the disease very well indeed.

fi678. In your opinion, you do not think that any expei'imtmts were necessary ?Not into the nature of the disease, from a legislative point of view, certainly not. Any inquiry of a scientific nature would be of course highly interesting to science generally, and to the profession in particular.

6679.nbsp; nbsp;You said in one of your earlier answers tliat you did not consider the payment sufficient ?Not the ordinary fee; not to obtain the services of an expert.

6680.nbsp; nbsp;Then supposing that local authorities were to act upon your suggestion and appoint one expert with a good salary, would you indicate how you would suggest that the county should be worked ? quot;Well, do you mean with regard to this particular disease ?

6681.nbsp; Yes?I should leave the inspection exactly as it is, that the police should call in the ordinary veterinary inspector, but, at the same time, this veterinary inspector should not order the slaughter of any animal until the chief inspector of the district came and saw the animal and determined whether it was to be killed or not.

6682.nbsp; (Chairman.) Is not this the same system that Mr. Stephenson has described as pursued in Northumberland ?Yes, and the east and west riding of Yorkshire.

6683.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) I understand, then, that the system which you recommend is practically in operation in the east and west riding of Yorkshire? Yes.

6684.nbsp; Have they had many outbreaks in either the East or West Hiding?The West Elding has the largest cattle population of any county in England, and in 1878 and 1879, after the passing of the A.ct, I think they had thelargest number of outbreaks reported. Since then the disease has been practically exterminated in that district. We found by this system, first of all, that a large number of the cases were not reported at all, because it made the general practitioner particularly careful before his superior came down to see what he was dealing with, and the next thing was that when the expert came down he very often found the animals had all sorts of diseases other than pleuro-pneumonia, and would not have anything to do with them.

6685.nbsp; Did you find in either of those two ridings that when there was a large number of outbreaks

there was any practical difficulty in the export getting over the country, so as to visit these outbreaks within a reasonable time from the first, giving of the notice ? No, because in regard to pleuro-pneumonia it is a disease from which animals do not die quickly, and a question of 24 hours is really not of very much importance, and if the animals had died quickly it is an evidence that the owner must have had them ill a very long time before he gave notice, and if he loses the the animal it is his neglect for not giving notice in time.

6686.nbsp; Are you aware that evidence has been given before this Committee that one county objected to this system, on the ground that the inspector would not be able to visit two different places in one day, if they had any extended outbreak in the county ? No, I have not heard of it.

6687.nbsp; Speaking generally, you think that the difficulty would not arise rI do not think that it would in any way militate against the arrangement which I suggested.

6688.nbsp; Do you think that these inefficient inspectors report as pleuro-pneumonia cases which are not such ? I know they do.

6689.nbsp; In many instances ?In many instances. It used to be very much worse than it is now, and I take those cases of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which happened years ago, and those in Essex, which I read to you, where I dug up nine animals in one day, and none of them had anything the matter with their lungs at all. The same thing has happened as the result of Mr. Duguid's examinations in different parts of the country.

6690.nbsp; You spoke in one of your answers regarding a central authority. If the whole working of the Act was placed in the hands of one local authority in London, do you think that the working would be more thorough and more efficient and more effectual ? I do.

6691.nbsp; But are we to understand that this must of necessity include that this central authority shall be one for England, Scotland, and Ireland?I do.

6692.nbsp; Then the omission of Ireland would or might vitiate its success ?It might.

6693.nbsp; (Chairman.) Do you consider that the system of liaving one chief inspector as in the East and West Riding of Yorkshire, and in Northumberland and Durham is the most efficient mode of administering the Act under the present circumstances?I do. If you associate with him such assistants as required.

Adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o'clock.

Ifl

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

205

TWELFTH DAY.

Tuesday, 15th May 1888.

PRESENT:

Mr. JACOB WILSON in the Chair.

m I'I i

Lord Cloncürrv.

Sir George Macphersolaquo; Grant, Bart.

Mr. Stirling (of Kippendavie).

Mr. Bowen-Jones. Professor Brown, C.B. Professor Horsley, F.R.S.

Mr. R. Dawson, Secrctari/.

Mr. Fitzwilliam Wentworth called and examined.

Mr. F. Wentworth.

15 May 1888.

6694.nbsp; (Chairman.) You are, I believe, a resident in New South Wales ?Yes.

6695.nbsp; And you are there the owner of considerable property ?Yes.

6696.nbsp; How long have you been a resident in New South Wales?1 have been there all my life. I was born in Now South Wales, and have teen connected with stations all my life.

6697- Can you give the Committee some id;laquo;of the extent of your holding. What extent of land do you hold in the country ?I have always held lui'i^e properties, either in New Zealand or AMstral'm. First of all I was a station holder in New Zealand. Eight years ago I sold out my property there and shipped over to Australia.

6698.nbsp; nbsp;How much land have you acquired in Australia ?A.t present I have bought a large property in the liiverina, about 260,000 acres, and about 80,000 acres of Crown lands. I also have a share in other stations in New South Wales, especially a cattle station down at the Macquarie Eiver.

6699.nbsp; Will you be good enough to tell the Committee what number of cattle you now have in your possession at the stations on the Eiverina ? On the Riverina there is only a small herd of about 1,000 head, and down in the country I have a share in 6,000 head of cattle.

6700.nbsp; Then the Riverina is principally for sheep, I presume ?Yes, I have about 180,000 sheep there.

6701.nbsp; Your cattle, I presume, are chiefly bred on the station, and therefore will be of various ages ? Yes, they are.

6702.nbsp; Has the Riverina district been particularly liable to cattle diseases ?The only disease now there is pleuro-pneumonia, and it is really all over Australia.

6703.nbsp; Then would your answer rather be this, that cattle disease in Australia is limited to pleuro-pneumonia mainly ?Yes; there are other diseases in certain districts; such as black leg, Cumberland disease, and others. We have got a little of that, but it is in isolated cases. Pleuro-pneumonia is a general thing, it is in every herd in Queensland certainly. I do not believe there is a herd that is free from it.

6704.nbsp; Do you consider that it is indigenous to Australia?No, it was introduced from England by some imported cattle originally.

6705.nbsp; Then the constant existence of the disease in Australia is probably due to the rights of driving other herds over your runs ?Quite so, the herds are always on the move, either going to market or elsewhere, and they keep dropping out the sick ones and the drovers leave them.

6706.nbsp; When had you last an outbreak on your own run?I had an outbreak there about 18 mouths

ago. I bought two lots of store cattlestore bullocks to fatten from Queenslandabout 600 head, and we had a small outbreak among those.

6707.nbsp; And what would be your mode of treatment in the case of an outbreak ?We did not do anything to the last lot.

6708.nbsp; How many cattle were included in the last lot ?We did not treat either of the lots.

6709.nbsp; Then the last lot you refer to represented two lots, and you did not treat either ?No.

6710.nbsp; Out of the 600 head, how many did you lose by death ?About 30. The Queensland cattle come long distances from Queensland, and pleuro-pneumonia must be general in all the Queensland herds. I imagine from this fact that you must always expect a certain per-centage of deaths from Queensland. It does not show while they are driven, but after they rest and are put into the fattening paddocks there is always a certain amount.

6711.nbsp; Would you attribute some of these deaths to causes other than pleuro-pneumonia ?It is quite possible, but they arc principally clue to pleuro-pneumonia. In Sydney, where most of the fat cattle come to the market, you will almost always see, when they kill, that among their lot there is either pleuro-pneumonia, or the signs of cattle having suffered from it and recovered.

6712.nbsp; Have you had any experience of pleuro-pneumonia in England ?No, I have never seen it in England.

6713.nbsp; Have you reason to believe that pleuro-pneumonia in Australia is of a milder type than in England ?I do not think so. I think that it is much milder there now than it used to be. It is like every disease which breaks out on fresh ground, it is more virulent at first.

6714.nbsp; Has inoculation been adopted as a form of treatment ?Yes.

6715.nbsp; Have you had any personal experience in inoculation ?I have had a good deal of experience of inoculation, more particularly in New Zealand.

6716.nbsp; Do 1 understand that you have now given up inoculation, and all other forms of treatment?We did not inoculate the last cattle that we bought, because we had an idea that they had been inoculated.

6717.nbsp; nbsp;Why did you not inoculate the last lot of 600 ?No, because wo saw that they had been inoculated. You can tell many of them by their tails.

6718.nbsp; But in spite of that inoculation you lost 30 head of cattle ?Yes.

6719.nbsp; Is it your experience of inoculation that a certain amount of deaths occur directly from it ? Yes.

iOQ

('OMMITTEK ON PLEUBO-l^NKUMONTA AND TUBERCULOSIS!

quot;

Mr.

F. Wentworth.

15 Moy 1888,

6720.nbsp; And is it also your experience that a certain proportion of them arc liable to contract the disease a second time ?Yes, I have seen it all along.

6721.nbsp; And also, as you have shown, that in spite of inoculation, deaths will occur thereafter?Yes, but that may bo from its not being properly done.

6722.nbsp; Have you any difficulty in knowing whether inoculation has taken or not in consequence of your difficulty in handling the cattle ?Yes, and the large numbers you have to deal with.

6723.nbsp; I presume you consider that you are at some disadvantage in Australia in not being able to isolate ?We cannot do it; it is impossible.

6724.nbsp; Therefore your conditions are entirely different from those in England?Altogether different.

6725.nbsp; Looking at the question from an English point of view, and recognising the fact that opportunities are present for isolation to any extent, would you, in the event of being able to localise the disease to a few spots in which were a mere handful of cattle, not consider it desirable by heroic measures to stump out the disease ?Certainly I should.

6726.nbsp; Would you therefore, under such conditions, advocate compulsory slaughter ?I would indeed. I should advocate inoculation1 mean in the herds but still if you are going to slaughter them wholesale, I see what you mean.

6727.nbsp; I quot;am not assuming that the disease is all over the country, I mean when you have reduced it to a small number ?Yes.

6728.nbsp; Does it not seem to be a reasonable proposal P Yes,

6729.nbsp; What was your treatment of cattle in New Zealand under disease?Inoculation.

6730.nbsp; Did you persevere with inoculation ?I persevered with inoculation, andl stopped it altogether in my herds. I only had it at the first outbreak ; 1 bought some cargoes of bullocks from Victoria, and it showed itself first in the cattle I purchased. Then they communicated it to my other herd, and I commenced to inoculate the -whole of them, and so stamped it out completely. It never broke out again in my herd.

6731.nbsp; Was it very prevalent at that time in Now Zealand ?This was the commencement of itquite the commencement of it. There was no pleuro-pneumonia in New Zealand until it was introduced from Victoria.

6732.nbsp; nbsp;Until your case occurred?Mine was amongst some of the first cases. I think I was almost the first person to commence inoculation.

6733.nbsp; Do 1 rightly understand you to say that there was no further outbreak in the country ?Oh, yes there was.

6734.nbsp; nbsp;Have you the means of isolation in New Zealand ?No ; but we had smaller herds to deal with altogether.

6735.nbsp; Then I understand that your subsequent immunity from disease was due in a great measure to being able to have your cattle kept in smaller herds ? Yes. The herds in New Zealand are very small. 1,000 head is a large number in New Zealand. Of course in Queensland some of the herds are 40,000 or 50,000 ; some of the runs are as big as a colony is in New Zealand.

6736.nbsp; Coming back to Australia, I will ask you whether you have had opportunities of witnessing post-mortem examinations of cattle which you have known lo have had the disease ?I have often seen post-mortem examinations of such cattle.

6737 Have you also had opportunities of seeing the result of post-mortem examinations of animals that have been inoculated ?Yes.

6738.nbsp; Was it a frequent thing to discover an encyst-ment in the lung ?Yes, a very common thing. You often kill cattle, which you can see have had the disease, and where one lung has gone, and where the disease has healed.

6739.nbsp; Do you consider that the disease, although less virulent in character, is on the increase ?No, I

do not think so. I think that it is a general thing in largo herdsthere is more or less plouro-pnoumonia in all herds.

6740. How do you account for pleuro-pneumonia being always in existence in Australia ?On account of the largo number of cattle, the extent of the runs, and the difference of opinion about the efficacy of . inoculation.

6V41. Then do I gather that it is mainly due to the absence of uniform action ?Quito so.

6742.nbsp; Is it the practice of owners of herds in Australia to inoculate all their cattle annually ?No, certainly not; some dö.

6743.nbsp; Then you only inoculate in cases of an outbreak ?^:Some owners do not inoculate at all; in fact, the great proportion of them do not.

6744.nbsp; Do you think it would bo desirable in the interests of the colony that a law should be passed in favour of compulsory inoculation ?Certainly. I am a great believer in inoculation, if properly done.

6745.nbsp; (Sir George Macpherson Grant.) I think you told us that the last outbreak on your own property with which you had to deal occurred about 18 months ago ?Yes.

6746.nbsp; And was duo to the importation or purchase of about 600 head of store, cattle ?Yes.

6747.nbsp; I think you told the Committee that in that case, although you had previously inoculated, you did not resort to inoculation?I did not, because we could see that the cattle had already beea inoculated at some time or other.

6748.nbsp; Had you reason to believe that the whole ot the 600 had been inoculated ?We could not teil.

6749.nbsp; Out of those 600 head of cattle you lost 30? About 30.

6750.nbsp; Were you satisfied in your own mind that nose 30 animals died of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

6751.nbsp; From examination ?I should say yes.

6752.nbsp; nbsp;You had no doubt on that point ?No doubt A laquo;atever.

laquo;753 What was the effect on the cattle that you htsd on the station before the importation of the 600 head iThose store cattle that I am talking of were kept separate from the ordinary herd ; they were put on another part of the run; they did not mix with the station cattle.

6754.nbsp; Will you tell the Committee, if you can, during how long a period this outbreak lasted among the 600 head of cattle before you got rid of it? Every two or three months an odd one died.

6755.nbsp; So that the loss was only 30 ?Yes.

6756.nbsp; Then I think you said that in your judgment a certain per-centage of inoculated cattle do contract the disease a second time, am I right ?Of course I. could not tell whether all these cattle had been inoculated or not. They had come very long distances from Queensland, and therefore we could not tell. I never purchased any cattle unless we had reason to suppose that they had been inoculated, hut of that you can only judge from the look of the tail.

6757.nbsp; You say that you could not speak to the fact that all these 600 head of cattle were inoculated ? No, I could not.

675t¹. Can you say how many of the 30 that you lost had been inoculated ?I cannot tell you.

6759.nbsp; Cannot you give us any idea of the number of those who had lost their tails or showed signs of being inoculated?No,

6760.nbsp; To pass for a moment to New Zealand, I think you described your experience in New Zealand as limited to one outbreak ?Yes.

6761.nbsp; And in that case you inoculated ?Yes.

6762.nbsp; Did you inoculate the whole herd ?Yes, both the imported cattle and my own cattle on the station.

6763.nbsp; And I think you said you got rid of the disease ?I got rid of it entirely.

6764.nbsp; And that you had no recurrence of the disease ?We had no recurrence of it.

6765.nbsp; Although that was your own personal laquo;x-perience can you say anything about others with whom

#9632; m

___

MINUTKS OF EVIDENCE.

207

you were acquainted in the same distvicl; whothor their success with inoculation was as great as your _own ?Yos, I can ; because we were the first people in our district of Now Zealand to commenco inoculation, and my neighbours, who know nothing about it, asked us to go over and inoculate soveral other neighbouring herds in which plouropneumonia had shown itself. I wont and did their cattle for them, and stopped it just as effectually there as we did in our own.

6766.nbsp; And was there any recurrence in their case ? There was no recurrence as far as I know. Certainly there was none in my own herd.

6767.nbsp; Do you know if inoculation, as practised in this country now, is similar to the mode you adopted in Now Zealand ?I do not know how it is done here.

6768.nbsp; Did you inoculate in the tail ?Yes.

6769.nbsp; From the virus taken from a freshly killed animal ?Yes.

6770.nbsp; Of course we are cognisant of tue difficulties of isolation in cither Australia or New Zealand ?It is impossible either in New Zealand or Australia, because we are not fenced or sub-divided.

6771.nbsp; Am I right in understanding your answer to the Chairman that you thought, if the conditions were given of dealing with smaller herds, under circumstances that would admit of isolation or separation, you would modify your treatment ?Certainly I would if the circumstances were similar to those of this country. I should certainly recommend strong measures such as wholesale slaughtering where the disease shows itself. I should say, stamp it out, in fact.

6772.nbsp; May I take it then as your opinion that notwithstanding your success with inoculation in the colony, that were you placed in the position of an English breeder or stock-owner under the conditions that exist here, you would advocate stronger measures ? Certainly I would.

6773.nbsp; nbsp;And the stronger measures would be the slaughter of diseased animals and those in contact with them ?I think that is the cheapest in the long run.

6774.nbsp; Do you think that that is the cheapest and the safest ?Yes, I certainly do.

6775.nbsp; Do you consider, from your experience of the disease, that if that action was vigorously put in force in this country now, wc should be able to thoroughly eradicate the disease?I do; unless it was re-imported.

6776.nbsp; You have already said that it is not indigenous, but that it is an imported disease ?It is an imported disease.

6777.nbsp; nbsp;So that if by the action of the Legislature the disease could be kept oijt of the country, the British farmer need not fear ?Certainly he need not.

6778.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Do you find that one breed of cattle is more susceptible than another ? Yes, I do; the shorthorn is more susceptible than the Hereford.

6779.nbsp; Than the Hereford or the Devon ?Yes.

6780.nbsp; nbsp;What breed was yours ?Mine were shorthorns principally.

6781.nbsp; I heard the other day of a large cattle-owner in Australia simply separating his cattle which were suffering from pleuro-pneutnonia, and putting them in one paddock, and it was told me that his experience was that they generally got well ?Well, a certain proportion of them recover by themselves.

6782.nbsp; But still you attach enough importance to the losses from pleuro-pneumonia to adopt some preventive system?I do. 1 thoroughly believe in inoculation under our circumstances; that is, whore you have large herds, and there is an impossibility of keeping them from mixing with other herds.

6783.nbsp; Are there any restrictions upon the importation of English cattle to the Australian colonies on account of pleuro-pneumonia ?There have been restrictions until lately; but those restrictions within the last few months have been taken off. Still there is a certain amount of quarantine,

6784. Then tho G-ovcrinnent of tho Australian colonies and the stock-owners of the colonies do attach great importance to having cattle from clean countries ?Oh, yos ; the greatest Importance. In fact, it is only within the last few months that they allowed cuttle to be imported from Kngland.

67H5. It is obvious then that it is to the interest of Eudish stock-owners to clour their country of plouropneumonia, even for trade with the Australian colonies ?Certainly.

6786.nbsp; May I ask you what length of quarantine you have established ?I do not know what it is under the new regulationsformerly it was six months in our colony of Now South Wales, and 1 think that it was tho same elsewhere.

6787.nbsp; nbsp;I understand it is 120 days now. Then it is clear that tho authorities thought; that tho period of incubation was nearly of that length ?Well, it was not only against pleuro-pneumonia that the embargo was put on, but it was against scab or rinderpestthe possibility of any disease. It was not particularly aimed at pleuro-pneumonia.

6788.nbsp; Then it is evident that the stock-owners of Australia and New Zealand determine to have cattle only from clean countries if they possibly can ?Yes.

6789.nbsp; (Chairman.) Have you other lung diseases in the Colony besides pleuro-pneumonia ?Not that I know of.

6790.nbsp; All lung diseases, so far as you know, are recorded and treated us pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

6791.nbsp; From that I gather that you make no distinction between pleuro-pneumonia and tuberculosis ? No, none.

0792. Are you very particular in your choice of bulls ?Very particular.

6793.nbsp; Are they generally selected from native herds or imported ?Well, they were originally imported.

6794.nbsp; But were they directly imported ?There are people who breed stud cattle; they were originally from English stock. In fact, we have got a herd book, and we are very particular about using pure bulls.

6795.nbsp; Have you suffered at all from foot-and-mouth disease ?No, wo have never had it.

C796 Not in any form ?Not in any form.

6797.nbsp; Have you any special disease in the colonies amongst your sheep ?No. In some districts of Australia there are special diseases; but they are confined to certain districts. There is a disease culled catarrh. I do not think you have got it in England, and then there is fluke.

6798.nbsp; Have you also diseases of the skin ?No, not now ; we have stamped them out.

6799.nbsp; nbsp;What measures did you adopt to stamp out quot; scabquot; ?Well, wo adopted something the same as you propose here. We gave compensation and made it compulsory to slaughter all the diseased sheep in New South Wales. Each colony has had a different law.

6800.nbsp; Can you tell us what proportion of value was given as compensation in the case of scab ?No, I cannot do that now, it is so long ago. There was an outbreak about three years ago in some imported rams from America, which had been in quarantine and had been passed out, and then developed the scab afterwards ; but that was through the ignorance of tho inspector. I think the value of tho sheep was determined by assessors. About 8s. is the ordinary value of a sheep out there.

0801. From what source was this compensation paid ?I am not certain ; but I am almost sure that it is paid out of a sheep ratethere is a sheep rate levied there.

6802.nbsp; Is it levied over the whole country?Yes.

6803.nbsp; Is it levied upon the value of land or the number of sheep ?Upon the number of sheep.

6804.nbsp; Then it is really a poll tax ?Yes.

6805.nbsp; And that is paid into the imperial exchequer ? Yes.

6800. And afterwards paid out again as compensation ?Yes.

/'.

Mr. Wmtworth,

18 May 1888.

k #9632;sect;)

lt;#9632;.

2ÖR

COMMITTEE ON PliBURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Air. F. Wentmrth.

16 May 1888.

6807.nbsp; Can you give us an idea of the tax per head on sheep ?There is a tax per head; but this does not go only for the compensation for the slaughter of animnls, hut it goes for salaries and other expenses. There is an assessment of n farthing per head on sheepwhat they call a sheep rate. It is not for compensation only; but for general purposes.

6808.nbsp; And although the disease has been exterminated from the colony, ore we to understand that the tax; is still levied ?That lax is still levied, but not for the purposes of Kompensation only, for other purposes.

6809.nbsp; For what other purposes is it applied; does it include cost of inspection ?It is applied for sheep inspection and for the expenses of the people who inspect travelling sheep, and for things of that sort.

6810.nbsp; By whom are the inspectors appointed? There are stock boards for the different districts, and these inspectors are appointed by the stock boards, that is to say, in a large district the Government appoints a certain number of gentlemen who act as a stock board. I think three in each district; and the inspectors of stock are appointed by them.

6811.nbsp; And must they be possessed of veterinary knowledge?Some are; they are supposed to have such knowledge more or less; but that is not a necessity. I am only speaking of the colony of New South Wales.

6812.nbsp; I am aware that different laws are in operaraquo; tion in different colonies. Do you consider that you sutfer from a want of uniformity and common action throughout the different colonies?Decidedly; the absence of u nitorm action is a great want.

6813.nbsp; Have you any form of local government in New South Wales such as we have in England ? No.

6814.nbsp; It all centres in New South Wales ?Yes. In Victoria they have a Local Government Act, but we have not in New South Wales.

6815.nbsp; Do you prefer that the administration of such matters should be in the hands of the heads of a central office rather than a local government board ? No, it should be localised.

6816.nbsp; Would there not be a want of uniformity among the various stock boards of which you spoke ? Quite so; they are pulling different ways.

6817.nbsp; Then possibly you may attribute a frequent recurrence of the disease to that fact as well ?I think that pleuro-pneumonia is so much less general now, that it is hardly noticed.

6818.nbsp; So they consider that it is beyond them? It is beyond them completely.

6819.nbsp; Do I understand that these stock boards have no control over pleuro-pneumonia ?They are supposed to have, but practically they have no control.

6820.nbsp; Is it practically left to the discretion of the stock-owner?Yes, it is.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. S. P. Lou, and Mr. It.

Latter.

Mk. Stephen Philpot Low and Mr. Robinson Lattek called and examined.

6821.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman to Mr. Low.) You are a justice of the peace for the county of Kent, I believe ? Yes.

6822.nbsp; And a member of the County Cattle Diseases Committee ?Yes ; and of the local authority of the Bromley Division of Kent.

6823.nbsp; And along with you is Mr. Robinson Latter, who is, I think, clerk to the Bromley Divisional Committee of the county of Kent?Yes. There is a local authority, which is the County Executive Committee.

6824.nbsp; In your capacity as a member of the Cattle Diseases Committee, you have of course had to deal with outbreaks of cattle disease occurring in your division of the county ?Yes ; and also in the county generally.

6825.nbsp; Have you recently had an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes, we have had several; going back as far as 1885.

6826.nbsp; Can you give me the number of outbreaks since 1885 ?Yes, I can give them in detail. These arc in the Bromley division only: On the 25th June

1885,nbsp;in the case of John Sutton, of Sidcup Hill, there were two cows slaughtered at a cost to the county of 25/. 16,?. (W. On the 30th July 1885, in the case if S. Cawston, of Bromley Hill, one cow was slaughtered, diseased, and the cost to the county was 13/. 14s. On the 11th August 18S5, in the' case of James Townsend, of Orpington, two cows were slaughtered, diseased, nt ncost of 22A

6827.nbsp; Do you mean 22/. a head ?No, for the two ; that is the total cost.

6828.nbsp; nbsp;Is that, the net sum ?The actual net sum that the county paid. Then on the 27th February

1886,nbsp; there was the case of John Higgs, of Crofton Pound Farm, Orpington, who had 16 cows slaughtered, at a cost to the county of 166/. 10s. Then there were healthy animals slaughtered belonging to John Higgs, 3 bulls and 6C cows, and the amount received by the county for the carcases was 575/. I wrote last night to Mr. Scudamoro to give me the amount which was paid as compensation there, and he telegraphs 697/. 10s. To go on with the cases. On the 5th April 1886, in the case of Edwin Covell, of Eden Park Farm, 11 cows (diseased) were slaughtered, at a cost of 128/. 7s. 6lt;/.,and 149 cows and bullocks and 39 calves were raquo;laughlered, healthy, at a cost to

the county of 1,192/., the county paying 8/. per head and giving up the carcases. On the 2oth April

1886,nbsp; nbsp;at the same place (Edwin Covell's), 23 cows were slaughtered at a cost to the county of 276/. In regard to this case, I made a bargain to kill them all, and several were found diseased, and 276/. was the amount, and he took the carcases. We gave 8/. a head. Then the same owner, on the 20th May 1886, but at Langley Park, had one bull slaughtered, the cost to the county being 51. Is. 6d. That case was rather peculiar. The diseased animal was standing in a shed full of cows and yearlings, and yet the disease did not spread. It was absolutely diseased. Then the same man at Eden Park Farm again, on the 28th August, had six diseased cows slaughtered at a cost to the county of 56/. On the 20th January 1887, at Eden Park Farm, 22 diseased cows were slaughtered at a cost of 221/. There were 48 young stock slaughtered healthy at a cost of 144/., he having the carcases. The same man at Langley Park, on the 1st May

1887,nbsp;had five diseased cows slaughtered at a cost to the county of 45/. 10s. On the 9th April of this year, Thomas Kirby, of Hook Farm, had five cows diseased, slaughtered at a cost of 58/. 15laquo;., and there were 102 slaughtered as healthy at 1,020/. Out of the whole 102, 19 had this disease, but 10 of those cases were not discovered to be diseased until after the slaughter or post-mortem examination. Then on the 10th April 1888, Edwin Covell, at Eden Park Farm, had three cows slaughtered, diseased, at raquo; cost to the county of 21/. 16s.; 18 cows and 10 calves were slaughtered as healthy, at a cost to the county of 200/. Then there was a second batch in the same outbreak of 37 cows, for which we paid 10/. per head compensation. They were slaughtered. We made a bargain with him, and gave him 10/. a head, and he took the carcases. That was at a cost to the county of 370/. These two farms were not very far apart. Then the last is.on the first of this month, in the case of William Vinson, Gravel Pit Farm, Orpington. In that case there were three cows slaughtered, diseased, at a cost of 19/.; 1 bull, 14 cows, and 6 calves had to be slaughtered, and as wo sold the carcases for 8/. 10s. per head, they will stand at a cost of 141/. 10raquo;.

6829. How many outbreaks does that represent since 1885 ?That is 13 outbreaks, two just after the date that I began or just before, so far as Mr.

i,i

ill

nit. ¹

-quot;

MINUTES OF RVIDENCK.

205

Mr. S. P. Loio and Mr. K.

Latter.

Kirby'laquo; civse is concerned, I do not think that it is as far buck as three years; but tlio inspector says it was very heavy.

6830.nbsp; nbsp;How many cattle wore destroyed during the 13 outbreaks since 1885?555, I make it.

6831.nbsp; From the details you have been good enough to give us, I gather that the treatment of your local authorities has in the nmin been that of compulsory slaughter ?Yes, Uelbre the order was made.

6832.nbsp; And you slnughtered both diseased animals and animals in contact with disease, even before the Compulsory Slaughter Act came into operation ? Yes.

C833. Therefore, although you are now compelled to slaughter by the (:!overnment, that was in the opinion of your local authority the best means of Btamping out disease ?Undoubtedly.

G834. Was there any attempt to treat the disease by inoculation ?Yes, there is a man of the name of K. Higgs at Eltham and Chislehurst, he is said to inoculate all cattle that he buys ; and so far as I can gather, there has never been notice of an outbreak at either of his farms.

6836. Are the cattle of various ages, or are they all milk cows ?I cannot say, but Mr. St. Aubyn, the veterinary surgeon, says that he has never had a case there.

6836.nbsp; I have not gathered from your answer that inoculation has been tried us a method of treatment suggested by the local authorities ?No, but it was tried as a sort of suggestion from them by Mr. Covell, of Beckenham, the man who has had so many outbreaks.

6837.nbsp; Was that tried in any one of the cases which you have described?Yes.

6838.nbsp; Then kindly indicate which particular case it _was vThe one on the 20th January 1887 at Eden Park.

6839.nbsp; Have you any details that you can give with reference to that case?In January 1887, after these cows had been slaughtered, the remaining stock were inoculated, the disease immediately began to abate, longer periods occurring between each attack, until it entirely disappeared in the spring. That was the effect of it.

6840.nbsp; Then the outbreak did continue more or less ? Yes, more or less ; but it abated gradually, and it disappeared altogether; the others were not slaughtered.

6841.nbsp; A similar result would have probably occurred whether the cattle were inoculated or not in this case ?I do not know that; one cannot possibly say that, until the inoculation took place we were constantly slaughtering them, day after day.

6842.nbsp; What I wish to convey is this, that it is the experience of gentlemen at any rate in Australia, where inoculation is frequently adopted, that where they do not inoculate, .a certain number do recover after being attacked?Personally, iny impression is that the moment a cow has shown signs there has been no recovery.

6843.nbsp; Therefore you wish to convey to the Committee that the effect of inoculation was that the disease was by degrees got rid of VYes._

6844.nbsp; nbsp;Can you tell the Committee what became of the cattle which were inoculated ?I think they were sold subsequently, as they ceased to produce milk.

6845.nbsp; And to whom were they sold ?To the butchers after being fattened.

6846.nbsp; Was a post-mortem examination made of them?That I cannot say. Covell himself is in favour of inoculation. He considers that, if skilfully and generally practised, it would soon stamp the disease out.

6847.nbsp; I believe that you yourself are not a practical farmer ?No,

6848.nbsp; Nor an owner of stock ?Wo,

6849.nbsp; So that your functions are confuieii to the administration of the Act?Decidedly.

6850.nbsp; Is it your opinion that the Act of 1378 oin-uodies all that is practically required for the protection

o 54003.

from disease of the cattle of this country ?No, I do not think it does.

6851.nbsp; nbsp;I do not mean to ask about the administration, but about the Act of itself, does it give ample powers ? ₁₅ _Mliy ₁₈₈₈.

__No, I do not think it does. I draw a distinction-----------

between dairy farmers and cowkeopers. The eow-koepers around London herd their ciittlo in very large numbers in sheds, they are constantly replenishing these, almost daily in fact; and 1 think that the county runs a very groat risk, because of the large number of cows constantly being changed,

6852.nbsp; nbsp;I was going to ask you a Special question on that point. Is it your opinion that the county of Kent and the home counties generally run a much greater risk than other parts of England, through the continued introduction of fresh animals into the dairies of London ?undoubtedly. I should like it laid down that where they buy into a milk farm round London, every fresh beast that is brought in should be kept isolated for some time ; I think if you could take every cow that is brought in and isolate it for three months, the result might bo exceedingly beneficial. If you had power to compel all these cow-keepers, when they buy a fresh cow, to keep it in a a shed without coming in contact with their existing stock, and to keep it separate for three months, that would do a very great deal towards the relief of the home counties.

6853.nbsp; Do you consider, with your present knowledge of cowkeepers, and of the circumsta nces whi ch surround their case, that such a suggestion would be possible or practicable?I think so: 1 do not see why it should not, if you had penalties.

6854.nbsp; nbsp;Would they not have to be under a system of inspection ?No doubt, j the cost of that would not be so much as it is to us now. I mean, not that each cow should have a separate place, but that there should be a separate place for all the cows that are bought, and that they should not be put into the herd for three months. I think that we should break up these large sheds into sections.

6855.nbsp; nbsp;Have you satisfied yourself as to the medium through which the disease is communicated from one animal to another ?I do not know how it is.

6856.nbsp; Is it your opinion that reports of outbreaks of disease are faithfully made ?No, I think very often there is disease, and we know nothing whatever about it. They try naturally to keep it very quiet. In fact it is not at all unusual, when a report is made, that we are asked not to make it known, because the injury to a man's business is so very considerable.

6857.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the present system of granting compensation in cases of compulsory slaughter? No, certainly not.

6858.nbsp; nbsp;Will you explain what your objections to it m-e ?_I should limit it, if I possibly could, to 30 cows in the case of these large farms.

6859.nbsp; Would you fix a number in proportion to the stock ?I would make the maximum that the county should pay for, 30 cows. What I mean is this ; The maximum compensation that a county should pay, should be for 30 cows, whether the herd is 100, 150, or

2O0.

6860.nbsp; And would you allow payment in proportion for less than 30 cows ?No, I do not say that, because I do not think you can compel that. My idea is that there should not be more than 30 cows coming in contact. Of course that would entail a separate definition of a cowkeeper, and of a dairy farmer.

6861.nbsp; Therefore you propose a different system of compensation for a dairy farm, as compared with a cowkeeper in London ?Yes. 1 draw a groat distinction between a cowkeeper and a dairyman.

6862.nbsp; Then we gather that, so far as a cowkeeper in a town is concerned, you would limit his compensation to 30 cows?Yes.

6863.nbsp; nbsp;Would youmakeany special recommendation with reference to a dairy farmer in the country, or would you allow him to be treated as an ordinary owner of stuck?Oar outbreaks in the country districts have been nothing as compared with those round London.

D d

#9632;p

k 1

210

OOMMTTTKK ON PLEUBO-l'NKUMONIA AND XUBBBOULOBIB S

fifr. gt;' /'. low

and Mr, ft.

Latter.

15 May 1888,

6804, Would you :illo\v liim to 1)0 tniiitod as iui ordiimry owner of .stock ?Yes.

t)8()5. Ik your experionco confined to whutiii'e known as powkeepers ?i'es.

68()ö. Have you nny rcuson to supposo tlint the oompensatiou, which has been hitherto awarded by you to these cowkeepers, has not been ample ?Well, we have great difficulty with regard to the valuation very great difficulty. You see, first of all, we cannot go to any of the local people.

6867.nbsp; May I ask in whose hands this valuation rests ?For a single cow it is done by the veterinary inspector, who probably knows nothing about the value of the cow. When we get a herd to deal with, we get the best valuation that we possibly cana farmer, and a gentleman from Londonbut the great difficulty that we have is the disposal of our carcases.

6868.nbsp; nbsp;I want to know the basis upon which your compensation is awarded ?Where we bought the stock we agreed to give a fixed price per head. Where wo compensate* for the stock and leave the carcases, we give a fixed price per head, which is not less than 8^,, nor more than 10/.

6869.nbsp; nbsp;Does that take the responsibility of getting rid of the carcases off your shoulders ?Yes, but we see them slaughtered.

0S7Ü, In your compensation do you calculate or make any allowance for disturbance of business ? No, none so far as wo know. Whether the valuer does I do not know.

6871.nbsp; Has any special claim ever been made by these cowkeepers ?You do not mean as to the quantity of milk a cow has given, do yon ?

6872.nbsp; nbsp;No, I was meaning only over and above the mere value of the animals, to compensate for disturbance of trade ?No.

6873.nbsp; Is the basis of valuation that of a milk cow or of a fat animal?As a milk cow. Just for a moment see how this works out. Here is one case, for which we paid 600/. In that case we slaughtered and sold the carcases, I think they cost an average per head of from 12/. to 14/. That was the net loss. vVe killed them, and got rid of the carcases ourselves.

6874.nbsp; Would you recommend that the period allowed for the slaughter of animals in contact should be extended from 10 days, to probably 20 or 30 days ? Certainly. One of our greatest difficulties is the throwing of a very large number of these carcases upon the market at once, because we cannot bring lliem to London.

6875.nbsp; nbsp;You mean that you cannot bring them alive ? Yes, that is the difficulty, There are no appliances at the farm for the slaughter of these animals and dressing them, and therefore we must either move at some considerable risk to the county, or else we must slaughter at a very great disadvantage on the farm,

0876. Are you aware that a similar operation is being performed in Aberdeenshire and Perthshire, and yet that they have sent the carcases to London?There they may have appliances which we have not, but our county has no means, if we slaughter, of getting them to London,

6877.nbsp; Why ?Not as a county, because we must go at once to someone to carry them as carcases to the railway station, and send them up to some dealer in London, over whom wo have no control, and then we ran the risk of being denounced for sending diseased cattle to market.

6878.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman) I gather that the average loss per bend of an animal slaughtered in your case is about 10/.Yes, but more if we slaughtered and disposed of the carcases ourselves.

6871). What would bo the loss in that case ?I should think, taking the average, 12/. or 13/. at least.

(JSSO. Does your experience lead you to believe that the cheapest and simplest plan of awarding compensation, is to give someone so much per head, and let him keep the carcases?When I am making such a bargain, at all events 1 atn saving the county from 4/. fo ö/. a ilead.

6881.nbsp; nbsp;Will it surprise you to hear that out of all the cattle compulsorily slaughtered in Perthshire, their total loss is shown in the returns at 3/. per head ?Are those milk cows, because that makes all the difference in the world. Ours aro not ordinary cattle ; ours are all milk cows, every one of them; many of them in very bad condition, that is, a cow giving milk may be very valuable, but for the market it is worth nothing.

6882.nbsp; Have you any suggestions to offer with reference to the iusuranco of cows?That is one of the points I think that ought to be provided for. If a man insures and wo pay, the county ought to get the insurance ; he ought not to get the insurance and the value from us too. That is the point with reference to insurance, if one of these cowkeepers insures, the insurance company deduct from the sum that they pay him the compensation that he gets from us. That is a good thing for the insurance company, but a very unfair thing to the county. We stand in the position of the salvage, so to speak, being sold for the benefit of the insurance office.

6883.nbsp; nbsp;Section 30, sub-section 5, of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, says: quot;If the owner of an quot; animal slaughtered under this Act, by order of the quot; Privy Council or of a local authority, has an insur-quot; auce on the animal, the amount of the compensation quot; awarded to him under this Act may be deducted quot; by the insurers from the amount of the money quot; payable under the insurance before they make any quot; payment in respect thereof.quot; Do you suggest that this clause is capable of amendment ?I think that it is capable of amendment in this way : that where the cattle are insured the full amount ought to be paid by the offices, and that there should be no compensation. The insurance office has its fair proportion of premium ; why should the county pay ? For instance, to take an illustration from another matter, supposing a mob broke a lot of plate glass insured with the Plate Glass Insurance Company.

6884.nbsp; Did I gather from you that the county only paid the difference between the two ?No.

6885.nbsp; {Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Is it your contention that the county ought to have the balance ?Undoubtedly ; it is a relief to the insurance company only. If a cow is insured for 20/. and we pay 8/. and the insurance company only pays 12/.; if they receive the premium for the 20/. why should they not pay on the full amount?

6886.nbsp; Is it a common custom on the part of the London cowkeeper to insure his animals ?We do not know ; they will not tell us that; but I liave heard of eases of insurance.

6887.nbsp; (To Mr. Latter.) Are you aware of it ?I have no evidence, but I heard of it. (Mr. Lowe.) Take a cow insured for 20/.: we pay 8/., and the man goes to the insurance offices and gets 12/. as well as our 8/., and the value of the carcase; the insurance company gets the benefit of what we have paid, plus premium.

0888. {Mr. Bowen-Jones) Do the insurance companies deduct the amount of compensation that has been paid by the county from their insurance premiums before paying ?I have every reason to believe so ; not from the premiums, but from the policy.

6889.nbsp; From the policy?Yes ; we will say for the sake of argument that they take 2raquo;. 6rf. per annum to insure a cow of the value of 20/. If the animal dies they are bound to pay 20/. to the owner ; but in spite of that they deduct the 8/. which the county pay; they pay 12/., and so the man gets 20/., the full price, and the carcase.

6890.nbsp; Then there is no incentive to a man to insure Ids cattle ?Yes, behause he gets the full value ond loses nothing.

6891.nbsp; But he would get that from the county, would not he ?Not if a bargain is made, he would only get 8/., and the carcases, of which he can make what ho can.

6892.nbsp; {Chawman.) I gather from what you have said that you are not aware that a case such as you liavu quoted is of very frequent oconrrence ?No, we

'-I

ill

---------

TrtlNUTKS OP RVIDENOK.

211

couhl not say that, but llioro was ono wise, and il was a vory largo cuso. Tliut is whoi^-e tlio niiirnals wore

00Ü4j Booing that yon mv (lissutisllcd with the present condition of the veieiiiwry inspectors, would

Mr, s. I'. Lou

tml. Mr. /{. Latter,

t |

you desire to have a veterinary inspector appointed by the Privy Council ?For the purpose of valuation, _15Muyi₈₈₈. decidedly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-----------

6905.nbsp; The duty of an inspector is not necessarily that of a valuer, is it?Our veterinary surgeons are valuers for single cows.

6906.nbsp; But you appoint them as such ?We have no other means, for a single cow.

6907.nbsp; Do you think it necessary and part of the veterinary inspector's duty laquo;hut he should know the value of an arainal ?If wo did not employ him for that, we should have to call in some third party, and the cowkoepor might do they same, and then there might be a wrangle between the two, unless you made it compulsory to take anybody that we pointed out. We must get the veterinary inspector to condemn in the first instance, and that is the difficulty as to getting a valuer. We may have to send all the way to Maidstone for one ; it will not do for us to get a cowkeeper, and wo have no farmers or dealers near.

69Ü8. Have you any licensed valuers or auctioneers i¹

__They do notquot;know anything about the value of these

cows.

6909.nbsp; Have von no cattle salesmen in the neighbourhood ?No. This Mr. Covell is one of our largest salesmen. He is the man that we pay the largest sum to by far. In the case of this lust outbreak, wo had the greatest difficulty in getting a valuer. Wc had to send to Farningham.

6910.nbsp; Is there any other part of the Act to winch you wish to draw our special attention ?There is just now a very curious case ; that is in reference to this very man Kirby. Rightly or wrongly we cam.i to the conclusion that we were bound to insist upon the 56 days. Kirby writes to this office in the meantime, and he gets what he thinks is a permit to take in cows

directly.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. . /.

6911.nbsp; That will be, I presume, after the dismtection of the premises ?Yes ; but it is only three or four days afterwards. Is it right that the county should run a risk of that kind ?

6912.nbsp; nbsp;But experience will tell you that after such precautions and thorough disinfection, the risk of further disease is very remote ?Then why fix 56 days?

6913.nbsp; nbsp;What is the great inducement for a dairyman to fill his cowsheds so soon after an outbreak ?Because he has got to find a daily supply of milk. Look at the enormous risk that we run. Here is an instance : We slaughtered 107 animals. Within three days that man goes to all the markets everywhere, und buys 80 cows at various places. Just look at the enormous risk of bringing back the disease into his place.

6914.nbsp; What would you suggest ?That we should take 56 days. Why are we to have anything to do with his business ?

6915.nbsp; nbsp;Assume that you prevent him bringing his animals in for 56 days, do you think that he would be justified in asking you for compensation for disturbance of business ?Certainly not. Why should he ? The risk-is that this man is buying daily a cow or two to fill up his stock, and we have no check ; a cow may come from Holland or Ireland.

69:6. But they cannot now come from Holland ; though they could once?That was the risk that we ran. A Dutch cow or au Irish cow taken into the herd, and within a short time the entire herd was slaughtered, and we have to run the risk. There is every inducement to run the risk, because his business is at an end if he does not till up his stock.

6917. Would you not run just the same risk after the expiration of 56 ihiys ?- No, 1 think not, for this reason : that you have some such provision as this that there should be no risk for the countjifrom entile bought, and brought on within a certain time. If the particular cow is Ionnd diseased, say within three months, we ought not to pay anything.

l)d 2

slaughtored, und we took the oaroaBOS ; but wo do not do that if wo can help it.

6893.nbsp; Supposing you slaughtered an apparently healthy animal which turns out to havo a disonsod lung, would you still give full compensation ?Wo moan to try it, and we do not mean to pay it in this case. Wo made n special reservation that we were to pay only three-fourths if animals were diseased.

6894.nbsp; Is it your experience, when animals in contact were slaughtered, that a very large proportion of them were diseased ?Yes. In cases where the disease has made considerable progress before its nature has become known, and the herd then slaughtered, it is generally found that 20 per cent, of the animals were diseased. Roughly speaking, about 10 per cent. would bo discovered to he diseased prior to slaughter, and the remaining 10 per cent, would not develop such decided symptoms as to make it certain by any outward examination that they were diseased. They would be found in various stages, varying from the earliest beginnings, to that stage in which half the lung has become diseased.

6895.nbsp; In your particular case T gather that the question whether an animal is diseased or not, does not depend upon a certificate granted by the veterinary inspector after external examination?Yes, -we order them all to be slaughtered; we cannot help ourselves. (Mr. Latter.) Only ß of the 107 were diseased.

6896.nbsp; Did he certify that a certain number were diseased?Yes, five of them: but in consequence of that these animals, having all been in contact, they were slaughtered by the authority, and they were opened. As a matter of fact, it turned out that 19 of the 107 were actually affected with the disease, although many of them were not in such an advanced stage as to make it discoverable, and so to be condemned as diseased.

6897.nbsp; Then compensation is awarded in accordance with the results of a post-mortem oxaniination in your case ?{Mr. Low.) Yes, in this last case.

6898.nbsp; Does that only apply to the last case ? That is all. What we think is this : that if you have to compulsorily slaughter all animals that are diseased or not diseased, that three-fourths ought to apply all round, and we ought not to be called upon to pay the full value if the animal turn out to havo been actually diseased.

6899.nbsp; It appears that you interpret, the compensation clause in one way, which is open to another local authority to take an entirely different view of, is it not?Possibly; our legal adviser says that ho does not think that the words arc open to a different interpretation.

6900.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the present system of procedure adopted by your veterinary inspectors ? That is always a very difficult matter. Our veterinary inspectors are men who attend these farms, and I think you will apply what I mean at once to that.

6901.nbsp; nbsp;Am I to assume that there is a certain amount of human nature applicable to such cases ?Yes, that is a grave difficulty.

6902.nbsp; nbsp;Considering that you are geographically situated so near the central office in London, would you f.ce any objection to the appointment, for the home counties, of a veterinary inspector from the Privy Council ?I must answer that by a possible alteration in the future. A large number of these cows will possibly be included in the new London county, under the Local Government Billsome number of these at all events?(Afr. Latter.) It does not affect us. {Mr. Low.) It will not affect Kent at all, because the metropolis now extends in ft most extraordinary way ; it is very curious.

6903.nbsp; How far is Bromley from the centre of the metropolis?About 10 miles. (Mr. Latter.) Lev.-isham, Eltham, and Lee, which are within the metropolis proper, join the Bromley district for n distance of about 8 or 9 miles. (Mr. Low.) It is a curiously shaped district.

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-J'NRUMONIA AND TUBEK0ÜLOSIS i

Mr. S. /'. Low

and Mr. K.

Latter.

15 May 1888,

(ii)18. 1 presume you ore regarding this question entirely from a coinincrcial point of view ?undoubtedly j why .should we pay, if the man goes and buys a cow, ami that cow is diseased at the time ?

1)919. With legard to conipt'iisation, I would ask you whethor you think that in future, under the present oompulsoty order for slaughtiT, compensation ought to bo paid from n local or from an imperial fund ?From an imperial fund, certainly I think wo should all agree upon that, whatever county we represent.

()92(), But so far as the town cowkeeper is concerned, you sny he should be limited to compensation for 30 cows?--Yes.

0921, (Mr. SHrling.) Would you inform the Com-nuttee why you have chosen 30?Simply because we think that that would he a large enough shed. If you get a shed of 60 or 70 or 80 animals, the risk is very much greater, and you cannot expect this man to build sheds for only 5 or 10. It is quite an arbitrary number, I admit that.

6922.nbsp; You do admit that ?Yes,

6923.nbsp; Does not it strike you that that would put a limit upon the business of your district ?No, these men have got very large farms ; they can easily build sheds for 30 or 80 or 90 or 100, there is no very great expense to them in consequence ofthat.

6924.nbsp; I am afraid I did not quite understand you in the first instance. If the man has 90 cows in one place and has an outbreak, do you propose to pay for only 30:'Yes.

6925.nbsp; quot;But if that same man owned 90 cows in three different places, would you pay for the whole 90 ? Undoubtedly.

6926.nbsp; Speaking of the valuations, I should like to know who are the members of your local authority ? The whole of the magistrates of the district.

6927.nbsp; Have yon any practical farmers amongst them ?No.

6928.nbsp; Have you an executive committee of the local authority?No. There is a county committee, and the district authority. The district authority condemns, us they are obliged to do. The question of payment is vested in the county committee.

0929. In the comity committee?Yes, we have no power as a district committee to settle any of these terms, except we derive it from the county committee.

6930.nbsp; nbsp;Must you then call together the whole of the county committee ?No; practically it comes to this: Sir John Lennard, who is the chairman of the Ö-eneral Session?, and Mr. Whitehead, who is the chairman of the Cattle Diseases Committee in the county, and myself, at once communicate with each other, and we come to terms, or Sir John says, quot;You quot;' go down and look, and if you are satisfied let it be quot; paid.quot; Practically that is what it comes to.

6931.nbsp; Then you have not tried the experiment of a valuation being obtained by members of the local authority ?No.

0932. Are you aware that is the system largely adopted, and with success, in other countries ?No. What wc have done of late is to make a bargain with the man at once, because of the difficulty of the slaughter and of our getting rid of the carcases.

6933.nbsp; T think you stated that in one place the veterinary surgeon made a valuation ?Only for single cows.

6934.nbsp; nbsp;And at the same time, in another answer you rather complained that your veterinary inspector had Tiot much experience in the value of cows ?- -None whatever.

0935. Therefore in such case, in every outbreak you are entirely in the hands of a man without experience ? Undoubtedly. It would cost us more than 21. or 3/., it would cost us a lot more if we got n valuer.

6936. Now you spoke of your desire that fresh cows on being brought in should be kept separate? Yes, 1 do laquo;ot mean individually; I mean that the cowkeeper should keep all the cows together for a certain space of time. I did not mean nplace for each puiticular cow.

6937. In giving your unswer I understood you to be speaking of cowkeepers in contradistinction to dairy farmers?Decidedly.

Ö938. Have the cowkeepers in your district, as n rule, suificient shed aecormnodation to admit of that being done ?1 think so. These are very largo farms. If you go to Ivirby mid Covell, you will see that they have enormous large sheds, into which they can put 90 or 100 beasts.

6939.nbsp; nbsp;You say very large farms; what would you call large farms in your district ?From 100 to 200 acres I do not mean a country farm of 1,000 acres; lam simply speaking of around London it is a comparatively large farm around London. For grazing purposes there are a lot of gentlemen's parks hired.

6940.nbsp; Then your idea would be to force these cowkeepers into building smaller sheds; and you think that they would have the greater safety thereby ? You would limit the cases, because so many of the others would not have been in contact. At any rate, we should not have to slaughter 100 or 150 straight off.

6941.nbsp; Were these animals all in one shed?Yes, I should think from 80 to 90 were in one shed, and then an ordinary road between that and another shed, which was open ; and there would be probably 30 or 40 in that.

6942.nbsp; Were the diseased animals all in the one shed, or were some of the diseased animals in one shed and pome in another ?It broke out in both.

0943. The diseased animals were brought out from both ?Yes. What we should like to do would be this, we have no means of ascertaining the history of the cow from the first outbreak, that is conceded. If the cow has been brought in, say, within a fortnight, and falls with the disease, we ought not to be liable for that.

6944.nbsp; To take up another point. In answer to the Chairman you said that you desired that the county should not bo liable for cattle brought in under 56 days ?Yes.

6945.nbsp; Do I understand that the whole of the cattle in the shed would be slaughtered out ?Yes.

6940. That there would be absolutely no beasts remaining in the diseased herd ?That may be so, or it may not.

6947.nbsp; I am supposing that under the slaughter order there will be no beasts left ?That is not so on the farm. That is the difficulty, because it frequently happens that some of those beasts have not been in the particular shed.

6948.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Do you declare any one particular place as an infected place ?A yard or a field.

6949.nbsp; Do you declare any portion of a holding an infected area?No. {Mr. Latter.) It is a Privy Council matter ; we cannot declare an infected area.

6950.nbsp; Then it is limited to the place ?Yes. 0951. {Mr. Stirling.) In the event of the herd

being cleaned out entirely, and no animal remaining, do you then see any necessity for keeping that place clear for 50 days?{Mr. Low.) It should be much longer than that at any rate. Here is a case of three or four da) s, that is the particular case that now surprises us, as being very peculiar. This is the last outbreak, the man comes to us and we intimate that we shall take the 5^f) days, and he then comes to the Privy Council and gets what he considers a permit to stock the farm directly, within four days. We think that is a risky way and ought not to be allowed.

6952. Do you not think, if you have a stock entirely cleared off the farm, that at the end of 66 days you have just as much risk of the man taking in a diseased beast from various places, us you have at the end of 10 days ?No; for this reason, if he brings in 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 cows all at once, surely the risk of infection is much greater, when he is going all over the district to get individual cows, whereas if you had 56 days or some longer time than four or flve or 10 days, he would get them by degrees. If the man chose to do it at his own risk, let him. Why should the county run any risk ?

Itlaquo;

M1NUTKS OF KVIDENCK.

213

()!).),'!. (Professor Honley.) You suid that you could not tracts the cattle that caused the outbreak in each case ?No.

6954. In no case can you do that 'iNo.

(5955. TI1911 you cannot say whether you have any evidence to show that a shed itself can become infected ?No.

69t56. Have you seen inoculation practised ?No; I believe Spvlng?tt did it for Co voll; he is the inspeotor of the Metropolitan Board.

6957.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that the present slaughter order would lend to more concealment of disease than at present exisls ?Undoubtedly.

6958.nbsp; Why?Because of the injury to the man's business at once.

6959.nbsp; nbsp;Have you before you evidence of much concealment of disease at the present time ?Not evidence, but we have rumours ; we have no evidence whatever of it.

6960.nbsp; You have no knowledge of it ?Wo are told that it is so, this very man, where the large outbreaks were, tried to make it a condition that we should not make it public; and we have reason to believe that he slaughtered three or four animals before we knew of the outbreak. Looking at the temptation to conceal it, and his keeping-, perhaps, a couple hundred cows, that is possible, not unlikely.

6961.nbsp; You spoke of keeping cows in quarantine, do you think it possible with the means at your disposal, that the owners would feel disposed to isolate the cows and keep a watch upon them ?Not now, but I suppose it could be done. You do not mean that the county authorities should provide the place ?

6962.nbsp; nbsp;Not to provide, but for you to see that the cows are not taken out VWe should do that.

6963.nbsp; {Mr. Bowen-Jones.) You told us that you have great difficulties in administering the Act efficiently in Kent, on account of the London dairies importing those diseased cows ?Undoubtedly.

6964.nbsp; Do not you thinJr it would be better to get rid of those difficulties by stamping out the disease at once ?Undoubtedly, if it is to be done.

6965.nbsp; And do not you think that the present order of 1888 will be, if rigidly carried out, eti'ective for that purpose ?No, I do not think so. Here is the evidence; within three mouths after the disease has broken out, at the same place, we have to slaughter every animal.

6966.nbsp; That was previous to the 1888 order ?Yes.

6967.nbsp; This disease may have been imported from a district where slaughter was not carried out ?-Yes, that is possible, surely that will be the case where cows are imported into the country, unless you have this quarantine.

6968.nbsp; That is another branch of the subject. We will assume that the disease cannot come into the country if these conditions of the slaughter order of 1888 were rigidly carried out; are you of opinion that that would bo a means of ridding the country of the disease ?If the expert evidence is correct, that it can only be communicated by contact. 1 am no expert in the ni'itter whatever, but my impression has been that, if these animals had been in a shed, and there had been a lot of them diseased there, there must be considerable risk if that place was filled up again very soon; and I think I have a right for saying that, considering the outbreaks which havn taken place.

6969.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Are you not confounding this with foot-and-mouth disease?- No. All these cases are pleuro-pneumoniii. Take for instance, the 9th April, at Hiomley, we got an outbreak, and on the 10th we got it at Beckenham at a coniparativcly short distance. Then Mr. Covell has had three or four outbreaks within the last three years.

6970.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry) Did all these 13 outbreaks take place in dairy cowsin milk cows ?Yes.

6971.nbsp; nbsp;You have mentioned the word cow, and I think that you said that in June 1885 you slaughtered two cows ?That was on an ordinary farm.

W72. Whs the animal that was diseased a cow tnat was in milk ?Yes, they are all cows,

6973. It* that the case throughout the whole 13 out- Mt, S. P. Lo'o

and Mr

Latlei

It.

breaks ?Yes.

6974.nbsp; nbsp;Then on the 20th Janmiry 1887 you say you slaughtered 48 young animals that were not cows. You only slaughtered when they had been in contact with the 22 diseased animals, 1 suppose ?Exactly.

6975.nbsp; nbsp;Therefore, if proper restrictions were placed upon the milk cows, you would have no trouble with other classes of cattle ?No.

6976.nbsp; And those bullocks and so forth, that you have mentioned, could have been properly classed as cattle other than dairy cows ?That I do not know. I cannot say that, because in the case of dairy cows, the business is far more valuable than the stock.

6977.nbsp; nbsp;Then would you see any insuperable difficulty in removing this milk supply further away from a populous district like Bromley ?I should think there would be difficulty. Surely those people would have a right to compensation, if you compel them to take their trade further away, liemenibor these hirgo farms that they have taken, the buildings that they have erected, and the leases that they have got. If you were to compel these people to go away, and to say that no one was to be a cowkeeper within 30 miles round London, you would have to pay compensation.

6978.nbsp; nbsp;Can you suggest anything other than the present order for slaughter, if you cannot remove the business further away from Bromley ?I think there ought to be some means by which these cowkeepers should not believe that they have the county to fall back upon for full compensation. That is, the risk should be divided very much more than it is, so that a considerable amount more of inducement should bo given to keep the disease out of their promises.

6979.nbsp; nbsp;And you can suggest no other means than to throw it upon the imperial exchequer, rather than upon the county ?And the fact tiiat the cows that they buy should not be brought into contact for some considerable time.

6980.nbsp; nbsp;Would you consider it possible to levy a poll tax upon milk cows?I do not see why you should not, if you can get them to assent to it; but it is very doubtful.

6981.nbsp; nbsp;Your main objection to the compensation is that the county derive no benefit from the cowkeep-ing interest ?Take ourselves. What earthly interest is it to the east part of the county of Kent that they should bo all taxed for this Bromley district ? They have nothing whatever to do with it, and no benefit from it. Bromley is purely commercial, and yet the agricultural interest has to pay for it, while the Bromley district pays comparatively nothing to tho county of Kent, because the compensation that U given elsewhere is very small.

6982.nbsp; nbsp;Would not all that you say be a strong argument for stamping out the disease from all England slmultaueously ?No doubt, if it could be done.

f)9S3. Would you be satisfied with the present order, if carried out simultaneously all over England ? And certain other things ; for instance, that theso men should not buy cowlaquo; where they like, and without evidence of disease or not.

6984. There would be no danger if tho diseased cattle wore slaughtered everywhere?Why should not a man who comes from Bromley, and buys a cow, keep it somewhere for a time, until the place is declared by the inspector to be Irce ?

69S5. Yet the inspector could not detect the disease in a latent form?I suppose the latent form would break out in some form or othci.

6980. It may be at the end of two year:'. We have evidence of that here ?Surely it would modify the risk. Here we find that on these farms the disease is constantly being repeated.

6987. (Sir George Macpherson Grant.) lraquo;o 1 iinderstand you to suggest that it would be wise and just to impose a sort of fine upon these dairy-keepers ? f would make it much more to their interest to buy

15 May 1888.

'mk

#9632; m

214

COMMm'BB ON rLEUUO-I'Nl'UIMONlA V^D TUBEBOUIiOSIS;

il/c. S. /'. Low

and Mr, It.

Latter.

IS May 1888.

liealthy cows and to preveut the outbreiik, by gMtig tliem less compensation in some shape or form.

0988. Would you diminish it by the actual amount of componsation ?If you cannot'do it in any other

way.

6989.nbsp; Can you suggest any other way ?I say that the free filling up of those farms is a risk the county ought, not to boar.

0990. Then limiting the componsation would be the thing? It would limit their market very considerably,

6991. Have you gone so far as to suggest what extension of time you would impose upon a keeper of dairy stock ?No.

0992. Would not you say how far ho ouglit to bo involved, pecuniarily, in this question of compensation ?Why should not you make it compulsory upon every cowkeeper to insure, where they keep over a certain number of cows ?

6993. 1 am not sure that a county might not insure itself, as well as tlio dairy-keepers?We cannot, because we have to furnish particulars. Wo cannot have a floating policy, L suppose.

0994. Can you give us any instance where such a compulsory insurance has been adopted, or even attempted ?No j certainly not.

6995. The gravamen of your complaint seems to be, that the cowkeeper has a very small risk himself, in consequence of the full compensation. It imposes an enormous risk, and an enormous amount on the local authority, and the general affairs of the county ? No doubt.

6990.nbsp; And your view is, from that statement, that the present difficulties would be considerably removed if there was less compensation paid ?If the Imperial Treasury paid a certain amount of insurance to the cowkeeper, that might be worthy of consideration.

6997.nbsp; The insurance would be a large one in that way. You could not confine it to dairy stock alone ? Well you might as to numbers.

6998.nbsp; Instead of going into such a scheme as that of compulsory universal insurance, would it not be better to have the vigorous laquo;pplication of an order such as this, to endeavour to get, rid of the disease ?If you can extend it by preventing the risk to the county, and these cowkeepers are noc allowed to fill up their places directly, or de die in diem, at an enormous risk of infection.

0999. (Chairman.) It is not to get rid of the disease in all parts of the county only, but to get rid of restrictions?If you make it more stringent with regard to the slaughter, which ought not to be at the risk of the county.

7000.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) I see your point is, that the risk is too great in the county compared with the i isk which the cowkeeper individually runs ?Yes.

7001.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Then it is the geographical difficulty, that the London cow does not live in London ?No doubt.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . _

7002.nbsp; nbsp;You suggested that the dairyman, in bringing in fresh cows, should not be entitled to compensation if the disease re-visited the place within an arbitrary period ?Yes.

7003.nbsp; nbsp;How do you propose to carry that out ?By isolating the cow for a time.

7004.nbsp; Under inspection ?Yes.

700.'). And whenever he purchased cows, you propose that he should isolate them in some way ?Yes, our inspector should mark them, and a cow should not go with the herd, until a certain time had elapsed.

7006.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing that your inspector allowed the cow to go with the herd before the expiration of three months ?Then I should punish the inspector, and let him be liable to a penalty if he gives permnsion for it.

7007.nbsp; You would take the responsibility off the cowkeeper ?(Mr. Latter.) No, but we should also furnish the inspector.

7008.nbsp; Under your proposed scheme ?We should allow him to put it in h's herd after n given time.

701)9. {Mr. Stirlinij.) You stated that you were In the habit of making a bargain with the owner as to the amount to be paid, allowing him to keep the carcase ?Yes.

7010.nbsp; I suppose you are aware of the provision of section 21 of the Act?Do you mean as applied to

that ?

7011.nbsp; You must have often heard of the provision, section 21, sub-section 3, it says : quot; The local authority quot; shall, out of the local rate, pay compensation _ as quot; follows, for animal slaughtered under this section quot; (I) where the animal slaughtered was affected with quot; pleiiro-pncumonia, the compensation shall ho thrce-quot; fourths of its value immediately before it became so laquo; affected, but so that the compensation do not in any quot; such case exceed 30/., (2) in every other ease the quot; compensation shall be the value of the imimal quot; immediately before it was slaughtered, but so that quot; the compensation do not in any case exceed -10/.quot; Have you ever had your custom called in question on that point?Never.

7012.nbsp; Do you think that you could maintain that custom, if called in question by a ratepayer ?J. do not think that ho could complain.

7013.nbsp; {Chairman.) It is not a question of policy. It is a question of law versus equity ?He could not complain, for in one case wo paid 18/. to 14/., and in no other case had we paid more than 10/.

7014.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) Then you also said that these cowkeepers (at least I gather so from the statement) were rather slack, in consequence of having the county at their back ?Yes.

7015.nbsp; If they had not the county at their back you think that there would he a greater concealment of disease ?Very likely.

V01G. Do you think then there is much concealment of disease just now?I think there is nround London.

7017.nbsp; Have you any suggestions to make in regard to the penalties under this Act ?I should make them very much stronger for concealment.

7018.nbsp; nbsp;You think that they are too slight in the present scale ?No doubt.

7019.nbsp; Have you bad many prosecutions ?Not for concealment. We only had one for swine fever.

7020.nbsp; Have you had any for illegal movements ? No, I do not think we have had any for the last four or five years.

7021.nbsp; Yon spoke of your veterinary inspectors, may I ask how many do you employ in the county of Kent ?_L should think about four to five. We have two in our Bromley district.

7022.nbsp; nbsp;But in the county of Kent about four ? There are a lot of boroughs who have got them.

7023.nbsp; Have you any county scale of payment for a veterinary inspector?Yes.

7024.nbsp; Can yon inform the Committee what the county scale is?That 1 have not got.

7025.nbsp; nbsp;You can send it?Yes, we can send the Kent county order. You fully understand I have not come here as an expert.

7026? {Chairman) Can you tell the Committee what the county rate now is in consequence of the numerous outbreaks of diseases in Kent?No; lean

get it.

7027.nbsp; You could not tell how much it is in the pound?No, we do not levy it. {Mr. Latter.) 1 believe the whole county rate is only about frf. in the pound,

7028.nbsp; It is rather important, as a matter of comparison with other comities ?(yVM Low.) But the extraordinary part of it is this, that one third of the rating power is in the London district. It is very curious that Lewisham and the Kentish parishes within the metropolis provide at least, one-third of the rateable value of the entire county.

7029.nbsp; Have you anything further to eommunieato? (Mr. Latter.) I have two or throe suggestions to make. With reference to the suggestion that cow-keepers should be distinct from dairy farmers. I think then; should he some definition of a cowkeeper

'gt;.!

MINUTKS OF UVIDKNdK.

215

and a dairy ftmnor, mui that it should bo put into the regulationraquo;, und that thu uowkeepei'S* deflnition should tlepond upon thu mode of dealing with theii' milk ; for instance, I do not think tlmt it would bo fair to apply this sort of rule, which has been suggested by Mr. Low, to a dairy farmar in Cheshire, who manulaquo; facturos his own milk into butter and choose and so forth; but that it should be defined that unless the man deals with say 50 per cent, of the milk, that ho produces In such manufacture, ho should bo classed as a oowkeeper. Many of those men who koop dairy farms In the country Bond the whole, or tho quarter part, of their milk by railway to Londonyaiul they should bo considered, I think, as commercially dealing in milk, as diatinct from agriculturists ; and I think that the definition which regulated the description of the man either as a dairy lamer or a oowkeeper, should be founded upon the method of dealing with his milk. Then upon the principle of compensation I make some suggestions. It might not have occurred to the Committee that there is a great, distinction, even amongst tho London cowkeepers, who are the people that we are dealing with, in the manner they dispose of their milk. Mr. Kirby, for example, retails his milk as well as produces it, while Mr. Covell sells his milk to dealers. Tho one will get 4d. per quart for his milk, that is to say, sixteen pence lor a gallon of milk, or rather 2s. 8c?. for a barn gallon ; and the other will only get probably half the amount, or something under 1*. 6d. the barn gallon.

7030.nbsp; One is practically a wholesale dealer ?Yes, and the other is a retail dealer. And when you come to the compensation, the question that arises as between these parties is like this. The retail cow-keeper will say : This is an animal giving 24 quarts of milk per day, and 24 quarts to a man who retails it is a different thing to him for the 20 weeks, during which she will be rnilkable at that rate, than it would be if he had no retail trade, and were compelled to sell his milk at half the price. And such man will say that his cow is a very good one, and she is a valuable cow to him as a milker, although she is akin and bone to the butcher. Now both will say the cows give 24 quarts of milk per day, and if I keep her at a cost of say lüs. a week, and she gives the quantity of milk for the next 20 weeks, she ought to be valued very highly. The county have to slaughter her, and if, as is frequently the case, she is a bag of skin and bones her carcase would not produce 4L or 5/. I think therefore that the principle upon which compensation should be calculated ought to be clearly defined There is another matter which I think is very important, I am not speaking as an expert at all, but, having lived in the country and seen a great deal of this, it does seem to me that the cowsheds used by these people are very much overcrowded. I do not think that practically there ought to be less than six feet between the head of the cows that are tied up in the stalls. You go into the sheds and they can scarcely lie down ; they slip about so very much from being overcrowded, and I believe it would tend very much to the sanitation of these sheds, if there were some regulations, that animals kept in sheds should have a certain lateral space. (Mr. Low.) It is one of tho great difficulties which we have at Bromley that the cowsheds are in this position. That tho control of the cowsheds and ylaughter-houses is taken away from us and put under the local sanitary autlioriiy, and they do r.ot inspect, and we cannot help ourselves. I think that the powers given to the local authority by that order should be restored to us.

7031.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) Section 8 covers what you require quot;Sanitary state of all dairies and cowsheds.quot; quot; It shall not be lawful for any person following the quot; tradraquo;; of a oowkeeper or diaryinan, to occupy as a '' dairy or cowshed any building whether so occupied quot; at tho eommencetnent of this order or not, if and quot; as long as the lighting and the ventilation, including quot; air space, and the cleansing, drainage, and water quot; supply thereof, are not such as are necessary or quot; proper {a) for the health and good condition of the

quot; cattle therein; and (b) for the cleanliness of milk quot; vessels used therein for eontaining milk for sale ; quot; and (lt;;) for tho protection of the milk therein quot; against infection or contamination quot;?{Mr. Latter.) Hut that, order is under the cognisance of a diileieut authority, it is under the Local Board in our district and not under the county authority ; mid it does not make any provision as to lateral space; but merely if you have got a lofty shed which gives the cubical contents for the number of animals, it satisfies it.

7032.nbsp; nbsp; {Mr, Bowen-Jones.) It rests with the sanitary authorities to form their own bye-laws for carrying it outfYes {Mr. Low), what Mr. Latter means is that cows should stand a certain distance apart, and that distance should be fixed for all and not left to the various local authorities to determine.

7033.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr, Stirling,) Yon are satisfied with this order that I have read ?Yes.

7034.nbsp; That is a state of things that you would wish to see ?Hut I want to supplement it.

7035.nbsp; Hut you think that the administration of thai order should be put under tho same authority ?No, 1 did not mean that, but that that order should be supplemented by making it compulsory to provide certain lateral space for some cattle. {Mr. Low.) 1 think that it is ridiculous that the local authority, who have no interest whatever in tho payment of compensation, should be tho parties to say whether the place is in perfect order.

703(5. {Chairman.) Then, Mr. Low, you desire to see the administration of (hat order amended?No doubt, we have no power to go in and inspect the place ; we cannot go and inspect the place, and when notice has been given that there is an outbreak, it devolves upon someone who has no pecuniary interest in the matter to see whether it is iu accordance with what is right or wrong.

7037.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) I ask whether Mr. Low is aware, that, in a recent case, the veterinary inspector to a local authority refused to schedule some cows as diseased, and that was only accomplished through the medical officer seizing the milk as being unfit for human food ?I do not know anything with regard to the sale of milk.

7038.nbsp; In that case, the inspector to the local authority, who should have scheduled these animals as diseased, would not do so; consequently the only way that it could be prevented from reaching the consumer was by seizing the milk ?There may be an individual case of that kind; but take Bromley, and especially Beckenham, where these outbreaks very frequently occur, where the county authorities have to stand and pay the piper, and we cannot go and see the premises to see what is right and proper. The Local Board have to do that, whether they like it or not, and we do not even know that they inspect.

7039.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.) The control is given to the ratepayers ?No.

7040.nbsp; But would not the rural sanitary authority be ratepayers ?They are local boards with us.

7041.nbsp; nbsp;They are rural sanitary authorities with us ? Well, we have no power over them. {Mr. Latter.) W hat 1 was going to add upon the subject of compensation was this: I think that the principle upon which compensation should be given by the counties, should be stated in much more precise terms than it is stated in the present regulation. For instance, there was a question which was raised by a gentleman living near to Lewes, who corresponded with me and other local authorities, whether, in considering the value of an animal immediately before slaughter that has been in contact, the animal should he taken as totally untainted, or as having its value allected by reason of its having been in contact with an animal suffering from pleuro-pneuinonia, a very important question, upon which the regulations throw no light whatever. My own opinion is, that the animal so affected is not, of the same value as it was before it had been in contact with u diseased animal, and

Mr. S. P. low and Mr. It.

Latter.

15 May 1888.

216

COMMITTBlä ON PLBUilO-l'NEÜMONIA. AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. S. P. Low and Mr. H.

Latter,

IS May 1888.

should not be so duclared,

It is a very difficult

certain radius around London ?1 do. 1 do not think it would be necessary to apply it elsewhere. I do not think that the regulations for cornpensudou in force, as applied to fanners, properly so-called, are at all ii\ excess of what they should be; as 1 think that the intention of the Legislature was that the agriculturist should bo helped in reference to the outbreak of disease, of whatever kind ; but 1 look upon the cow-keepers us altogether a distinct class. They are not agriculturists ; they are merely keeping those cows in the cheapest way quot;they can for themselves, and congregating them in largo masses, merely for the purpose of obtaining profit from them by the sale of their milk, and not as agriculturists or breeders of cattle.

7045.nbsp; 1 gather, then, that you strongly recommend, in the same way as Mr. Low has approved, that no greater number than 30 animals should bo herded in one shed ?Except at the owner's risk. I would not forbid it. I would say to Mr, Kirby, for instance, quot; You are at liberty to take any number you like into quot; that shed, but remember you have no compensation quot; from the county for any more than ilO; and if you quot; like to divide your herd you may do so; and if quot; you like to keep your herds separated, in numbers quot; limited to 30, if an outbreak occurs there, we must quot; remain liable as before; but if you choose to keep quot; more than 30 in one place, you would go on your quot; own entire risk for all above that number.quot; I would have the separate sheds 200 yards apart at least,

7046.nbsp; nbsp;Why draw a hard and fast line at 200 yards ? Because I think that is a safe distance. I think that would be the same for foot-and-mouth disease as for pleuro-pneumonia.

7047.nbsp; nbsp;Is that based upon your personal experience ? I am not an expert, but it is rather more from what I have heard people saythe inspectors and so forth.

7048.nbsp; In the event of an outbreak under those circumstances would you consider there would be any great risk to the other sheds ?No, I would not. But you know in the case of pleuro pneumonia the head inspector in this office was down in Mr. Kirby's case, and he said that he did not consider that cattle in the second shed, which, as Mr. Low said, was 20 or 25 yards apart from the first shed, waa so far in contact with the animals in the shed where one had been seized, that it was necessary for the local authority to slaughter the others. But, he said, if you have an outbreak, and one of those animals is diseased, then you must slaughter the lot. Two or three days afterwards one animal in the second shed was seized, and the whole of the animals were slaughtered,

7049.nbsp; nbsp;Then the reason why both sheds were condemned, was because the disease was present in both ? But it was not simultaneous with the slaughter of the cattle in the first shed. When the inspector came down, he was asked the question, whether he con-sidered that the animals in this shed over the way had been so far in contact as to compel the local authority to slaughter, and he said, quot; I do not think quot; that they have; until an animal has been seized quot; you need not do more.quot;

7050.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) That is the point; when you said the diseaso in both sheds I thought you said it was simultaneous ?No, it was not simultaneous.

question.

7042.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Are you speaking of if, from a legal point of view ?ij'rom a legal point of viovv. There is nothing definite in the rules to regulate the principle upon wliich this vuluo of the animal quot; imme-dlutoly before it is slaughtered '' should be calculnted. It should be delined whether it should be valued as an animal untainted, or whether as an animal which lias been in contact.

7043.nbsp; As a matter of fact, do you suggest that an animal which has been in eontnet must necessarily produce meat which is not fit for human food? No. {Mr. Low.) Our diffionlty in the disposing of the carcase makes it of less value. {Mr. Latter.) The question is, should it be valued as an animal utterly untainted, or should the circumstance be taken into consideration that it has been in contact with animals suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, and therefore liable to take it; and it may be even suffering from the disease, though in a concealed form, at the very moment that it is valued. Then, another question, with reference to compensation of cowkeepers' cows ; should they be valued in reference to the actual value to the man whose property they are, or should they be valued at the price which they would fetch on a market green, exposed for sale in an open market. There the question which 1 brought under the consideration of the committee is of importance. Mr. Kirby's cow, which is producing milk, which is saleable by him at retail, at 4rf. per quart, is, in one point of view, worth more to him than the same cow, if she belonged to Mr. Covell, who is only selling his milk at half the price; because, assuming that the cow should continue in their ownership, giving the same quantity of milk in the same period, it would be worth, in a prospective point of view, to Mr. Kirby, more than it would be to Mr. Covell, because he has only to pay, in addition to the cost of keep, the expenses of distribution of the milk, and he gets very much larger profit than the wholesale dealer. It should be defined very carefully by law what are the principles which regulate the compensation. Further, with regard to compensation, I think that if the parties fail to agree upon the price, there should be a valuer appointed by the Privy Council Office, who should come down and value the cows between them. I should not suggest that the department should pay the costs of it, or all the costs of it, but there should be a penaky on the part of a man who makes an undue claim for the value of his stock, to pay some part of the costs of the county valuer, und some part of the Privy Council arbitrator, if it should turn out that lie has overvalued his stock, for which purpose I should require him, on receiving notice that disease existed, to put a value on his stock, and have them numbered consecutively in sheds, or by description of the animal. I should make him put a value on each cow, and if, in the opinion of the Privy Council valuer, he has unfairly attempted to defraud the county by over-valuation, it should be in the discretion of the Privy Council officer to mulct him in the costs of it.

7044. {Chairman.) Do you wish us to understand that your recommendation should apply only to a

The witnesses withdrew

tlons. Lamerit,

Monsieur Lameris, called and examined through an interpreter, Baron Gevers, First Secretary of the

Netherlands Legation.

#9632;^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

7051.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) You reside, I believe, at the Hague in Holland ?Yes.

7052.nbsp; And you are there Government district veterinary surgeon for the province of South Holland? Yes.

7053.nbsp; nbsp;That is the district of the Hague north of the llivcrs Maas and Lok ?Yes.

7054.nbsp; nbsp;Arc the veterinary police and inspectors under your charge ?Yes, for that district.

7055. Do I understand that in Holland a body of police are specially told off for the protection of the health of the animals of the country ?In every district the; first inspector has a number of veterinaries who are under him, and who, in case of his absence, also can take his place in case of disease in a special district. They have a body of cattle inspectors who report. These cattle inspectors are under the veterinary, and go about and count the cattle and report to the veterinaries of the district.

___

MINUTK8 OF EVIDHNOE.

217

V, i.

7056.nbsp; Are these cattle inspectors members of the veterinary profession, or arc they more in the form of policemen ?They are only temporarily nominated in the district, whou there is a disease or suspected disease in that district, and they are nominated by the Government on the proposition of the veterinary.

7057.nbsp; Of what social position in life arc these inspectors ?They have not studied ; they arc not veterinaries, they are taken generally from the people who have a certain knowledge of cattle; they are very often butchers and people of that class. Tn the beginning too many of these people wore norainated, and they saw afterwards that they were not absolutely necessary, so those that were of comparatively little use were sent away, and the others wore kept oa.

7058.nbsp; Do I understand correctly that their duties and appointments ceaso on the termination of an outbreak ?They are dismissed after the district is no more considered infected, and kept on for some time, but generally dismissed ; and it is from the Home Office that the decree comes for their dismissal.

7059.nbsp; How are these men paid ?1,000 gulden, which will be about 76/. per annum. Their nomination runs from month to month, but they are paid at the rate of 1,000 gulden n year.

7060.nbsp; Have there been many outbreaks of pleuro-pnenmonia in Holland during the past 10 years ? In the kingdom of Holland many cases of pleuro-pneumonia occurred since 1878, especially in some places in the province of South Holland, including the Spoeling district. For this district strong measures were adopted, and since then pleuro-pneumonia has much diminished.

7061.nbsp; What were the measures which you describe as being more strict, which were then adopted ? The Spoeling district is the last district of the country in which more specially severe measures were taken.

7062.nbsp; And what were those specially severe restrictions ?Does the Committee know what Spoeling district means? I will describe it. The Spoeling district is the district round Schiedam, Delft, and Rotterdam, consisting of 17 communes, in which there are 40,000 animals. In Schiedam and its neighbourhood there are many gin factories, and the refuse from these distilleries is used to feed the cattle, and the consequence of that was that a very great number of cattle was concentrated nil round in this districtthere are more cattle there than in any other district in the kingdom. Most of them were for slaughter; and it was only around Rotterdam and Schiedam they kept them for the purpose of milk. As soon as the cows began to give less milk they began to feed them. This district was in so far the centre of the disease, us the farmers of course fed their cattle solely for meat. The cattle, after having been removed for slaughter, are replaced by lean cattle, so that the cattle are changed about three times in the year. But at the same time they brought them from all other parts of the country to produce milk to a certain extent, and then they sent them out for meat; and this was the funnel by which all the cattle of the country passes through.

7063.nbsp; Was it in this particular spot where the more recent outbreaks took place ?Yes. There is a district which we call the Commune of Overschie, ftnd they have on an average over 7.000 head of cattle fed on this little spot in the district of Schiedam, an average of 5,000. Schiedam is the place where most of the cattle are accumulated ; but the whole district is overrun with cattle.

7064.nbsp; Having arrived at the general description of the district around Schiedam, will you kindly describe the stringent regulations which you put in force to exterminate the disease ?1 have got all the dilTerent rules and regulations; but it would take me a very long time to read them in detail. I can tell yon in general terms what has occurred.

7006. Have you had an opportunity of reading the report issued by the Agricultural Department here, o 64008.

for the year 1885, with reference to this subject ? Wo commenced reading it and got through three partb of it; and we found that in a general way it was porfoctly correct.

70(36. Then so far as you can gather, is it substantially correct with reference to the outbreaks and treatment adopted in Holland ?Yes, in general it is right; but 1 do not remember having road anything much about the Spoeling district, about the measures taken especially in that district.

70(37. It refers more particularly to the administration of the whole of the country of Holland ? Yes.

70C8. May I now come more directly to the point. Has inoculation been adopted in Holland as a mode of treatment of pleuro-pneumonia ?Only for the suspected; it never has been of diseased animals,

70G9. But has it been adopted as a preventive measure ?Yes, it has been adopted as a preventive measure in that Spoeling district for the cattle coming in,

7070.nbsp; Is it at present adopted as a preventive measure ?No.

7071.nbsp; For what length of time was it adopted as a preventive measure in Holland ?Private farmers have done it since the year 1845, so far as it is known ; but it only became adopted by the Government in 1874.

7072.nbsp; Then for how long was it adopted by the Government?Up to 1884 and 1885.

7073.nbsp; Will yon kindly inform the Committee why such a system of treatment was abandoned ?They stopped this preventive measure because the reanon of adopting it bn'. lOüscd. There was no more diseased cattle, aüil uur frontiers being protected against the importation of disease from outside, there was no reason for further adopting this preventive measure.

7074.nbsp; May I ask yon whether you succeeded in getting rid of the disease by means of inoculation only ? Inoculation is only a preventive measure, and by inoculation one can stop the increase of disease ; but as to getting rid of the disease entirely, there is one way of doing it, and that is by killing the cattle. I have had experience since 1870. I have been in the most infected districts, and according to my personal opinion nothing but slaughtering the cattle is really effective.

7075.nbsp; Do you consider that your country is now absolutely free from a vestige of the disease of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

7076.nbsp; And has that been accomplished by means of compulsory slaughter ?According to my experience we owe that in the first partthe greatest partto the obligation of slaughtering the diseased cattle and suspected cattle.

7077.nbsp; Is compensation allowed to the owners of stock thus slaughtered ?Suspected cattle are paid for to their whole value, and diseased cattle are paid to half of the value. According to my personal opinion it would have been of advantage to um and to the object that we were trying to reach, if we imu paid more than half the value of the diseased cattle, because the half of the value of the cattle was generally less than the value of the meat, or the carcase, and it very often led the peasants to hide the diseased cattle, and not frankly to confess the matter; so that, according to my opinion, it would have been desirable to pay more, but as a fact nothing more was paid than the half.

7078.nbsp; Have you any dread of contracting die disease from other countries ?The greatest danger of course is from importation from, Belgium in the first place, and then from Germary. Wo have got very strong measures on the frontiers, and if any district is infected of course we take our precautions; but at the present moment I think that there is not any special danger from infected districts on our frontiers. Gorinany takes more severe and efficient measures than Belgintn,

7079.nbsp; Is the administration (if tins question ol cattle disease conducteil under an A.ot of Parliament,

JbU e

Muttraquo;. Lamei-ii

15 May 188,'.

Jl

fii

#9632;

218

OOMMITTBIB lt;gt;N PLBUKO-I'NIOUMONIA AND TUBEUCÜLOSIS:

Mona,

i May 1888.

or under n decree of the Stdto ?It is, and laws given by Parliftment, of course, and lloyal decrees. According to one law, the Hoynl decree is the authority which presoribes the way in which the law is to be oxocutod. Those are the executive measures.

7080.nbsp; nbsp;Thou are those decrees carried out through the medium of the burgomaster of the various districts ?The district veterinary prescribes the measures in virtue of the laws and decrees. The burgomaster must execute the recommendations of the district i-eterinary. If the burgomaster has objections he can submit them to the Minister. In places where we have had very grave cases, as in the Spoeling district, the civil authority, the burgomaster, had to be assisted by the military forces, which means that the disinfection was done by the soldiers of the sanitary column, and by hospital attendants from the military force of the neighbouring towns, who did the thing properly under the orders of the burgomaster; and also the policemen, and the gendarmes who gave authority to the proceedings.

7081.nbsp; Then the duties of the burgomaster are limited to carrying out the decrees which are issued by the King or the Governmentthat is the burgomaster cannot himself make any law ?The burgomaster is a person who is absolutely under the orders of the governor of the province, and the governor of the province is under the Home Office, which has the central management of interior affairs. The burgomaster can issue orders., but these must never be contrary to the laws and decrees of the country.

7082.nbsp; Have you, in your official capacity, bad any experience in making post-mortem examination of animals after disease ?Very often indeed.

7083.nbsp; Have you ever observed an animal to have had a second outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia after inoculation, in those days when inoculation was practised ?Do you mean an animal that has been ill once ?

7084.nbsp; nbsp;You said that the treatment of inoculation was adopted for some. time. I want to know whether, after an animal has been inoculated, you have observed it become diseased ?I have often observed that cattle that had been inoculated, a greater or less time previously, were afterwards attacked by pleuro-pneumonia However, after inoculation no sufficient reaction had followed in these animals, so that the inoculation could be considered unsuccessful. Cattle that showed sufficient reaction after inoculation (swelling of the tail, amp;c.), and with which the inoculation had therefore been successful, I saw resisting the disease to the last in infected stables. Hitherto we only knew that, after inoculation, it is only with the smaller part of the animals that a sufficient reaction and, consequently, unsuseeptibility, is obtained. As the process in the tail is the same as in the lungs with lung disease,

therefore, when reaction is obtained after inoculation, contagious matter is developed. Under these circumstances an animal can infect another animal standing next to it, in a natural way. The district veterinary, Prakke, and I think we have observed cases, in which pleuro-pneumonia has been brought to infected stables through inoculation.

7085.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) Is the lymph fluid which is used for inoculation taken from the lung, or taken from fluid in the chest covering the lung ?In Holland we have always taken it from the lung.

7086.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that the material which is found in a piece of diseased lung several months old is virulent or poisonous ?Does that apply to cattle which have been slaughtered or died from the disease ?

7087.nbsp; nbsp;Do ycu think that an animal with encapsuled disease is infective; that is, can it give the disease ? These animals are very dangerous indeed, because we have hud the case, and so have several of my colleagues, of suspected animals that have been trans-fcrred or removed to other places, and then the perfectly healthy cattle have been taken hold of by plouro-pneumonia. and afterwards it was said that the lungs of these removed cattle were in that special

coiidition.

7088.nbsp; Was the history of the animals known, among whom this encapsuled diseased animal was placed. Do you know the previous history of tho so-called healthy animals ?Yes. these animals were considered as being healthy, and nothing was known of those animals before.

7089.nbsp; Were these animals bred on the spot?I have seen, for instance, in the summer time, diseased cattle in those grass places, which were only separated by little narrow canals, and if in tho summer time disease had been seen in the cattle in one field, and there was a neighbouring field where the cattle wore healthy, the healthy cattle belonging to peasants who had farms at a great distance, and who in the winter brought back their cattle, were taken ill on their farms in the winter. On slaughtering diseased and suspected animals, which had been thus put in during winter, it appeared that some of them had suffered slightly from pleuro-pneumonia, and had recovered. They were animals with encapsuled disease.

7090.nbsp; At what distance do you consider it to be dangerous for them to be kept near to each other in open fields ?There is no absolute distance can be given, because the infection is carried over by birds, by wind, and the air, but especially very much by birds. We have a sort of blackbird that always sits upon the cattle, which causes a most dangerous risk of infection.

7091.nbsp; Do you know of any case in which the cows of one field have been infected by cows at a distance of 200 metres ?I think that what can be transported of poisonous material by wind or air, or anything of that sort, cannot have any effect at 200 metres; but it is very difficult to keep the peasants and the attendants of the cattle at a distance, and then the danger is from the birds even at that distance.

7092.nbsp; You think that the virus may be conveyed on the clothes of the herdsmen ?Yes.

7093.nbsp; Can you name to us any place where such an event occurred?I should like to relate a case which happened to myself. On this plan you will see the place where the diseased cattle of the district were slaughtered. Quite towards the end of the time during which the disease was reached several cases of disease were seen to occur by a peasant who lived next door, and the cattle were killed; but about a month later, a son of this peasant bought cattle in Delft market, and brought it into the stable of another peasant on this side of the town. In this little place it is quite a little town of stablesthe disease all at once appeared. This was one of the last cases of disease in the province. The animal that was brought from here by the person who bad been in this infected stable was taken ill. It had been quite healthy, and the only link between this diseased animal was this person, who had been with the infected cattle on this side of the town.

7094.nbsp; What was the history of the cattle bought at Delft ?That was quite sound.

7095.nbsp; Where did it come from ?IVom the neighbourhood. It was an animal that belonged to the place and to the districtit had been raised there, and for two or three years there had been no more disease about, Delft, and the animal was considered absolutely sound and healthy.

7096.nbsp; Did you actually see the farm and the person from whom this animal was bought ?No, I did not see the stables, but I am perfectly convinced that this animal was perfectly healthy, as no case of disease had been in that district for two or three years. In my practice, I have remarked very often in the statistical tables, when looking through the different names of those that had diseased cattle, that at places which were considered comparatively healthy districts, where the disease was in different and separate places, the peasants who bad the diseased cattle had visited and fed and dined and gone into tho stables of their friends.

7097.nbsp; nbsp;Would not they also raquo;ell their cattle move readily to those people than to strangers ?After we had closed the Spoeling district and drawn this line, this district was specially infectious; of course i

quot;! I

f -

MINUTES OF imDKNOK.

219

lraquo;''' tf

was impossible to cross tlio lino on account of the votoriiuiry inspection. I do not remeniber any speoial place where it has ooourred, but I know it has ocoui'red in several Instanoes, that cattle outside of tlio Spooling (iisti-ict, in a relatively healthy part of the eountiy, were so taken ill, by a'peasant's relations going to each other, so that the selling of the cattle could not very well have had to do with it. This peasant I am speaking oF, who is a very religious man, and in a case 01 that sort a sort of fatalist, did not believe in the infectious character ot the disease, and of course ho was not very much afraid, and ho used to go about his stable and did not take very great care. He had u, brother who was outside the district. This was outside the district in the year in which I speak of. These lines {pointing to the plan) show how they Isave diminished the disease in the time that I speak of; it was outside the district, and this peasant here had the disease in his stable, and some time later, this man notices the disease in bis stables which bad been perfectly healthy, and these were people who knew each other ; they were two brothers.

7098.nbsp; Do you think that the virus of the disease' thu poison of the diseaseis contained in the manure, the excreta ?I personally think that it is not, but of course it is very difficult to prove. Yery often, and mostly, there is some of the virus which comes out of the mouth and goes out of the lung and spreads over it, when the animals cough. In the time of the disease, when the disease was severe in the Spoeling district, the manure was exported from those parts of the country to this part near Pool Dyke. This place is like a garden; it is all fruit trees, and generally gardens, and supplies the Hague and all the large towns with fruit. There are hardly any cattle, nothing but garden land ; and the manure from this cattle district also, during the time of the disease, was transported for manuring purposes to this garden part; and nobody ever knew of cases of pleuro-pneumonia coming there to the few cattle that there are there. They do not know of disease having been hrought over by manure.

7099.nbsp; What do you believe to be the incubative period of a disease, that is to say, the time which elapses between the animal being put into contact and its developing the disease ?Three or four weeks is a general timefrom six weeks to two months happens very often, and as much as six months ; and even, in scieatifie reports in our country during the time of the disease, they have spoken of 10 or 12 months. But I think that this is not the case, and in the cases of 10 or 12 months there lias been a new infection, because some of the animals are taken very slightly and seem to be cured, or recover without anyone knowing it, and develope and give the disease to others.

7100.nbsp; nbsp;Will you tell me whether that might not have occurred in the case you referred to just now, in which the cattle were brought from Delft to Schiedam ?I examined the animals after death, and if that had been the case, I would have seen some lungs that had recovered, and that was not the case.

7101.nbsp; nbsp;Did you examine evory animal that was killed at Schiedam ? Wore all the animals in these stables slaughtered out ?The whole stable.

7102.nbsp; nbsp;And you saw the lungs of all?Yes, 1 saw the lungs of all of them,

7103i Before the animals were brought from Delft to here {pointing), was this stable completely empty of animals?There were cattle. For a long while the dangerous part of Schiedam had been considered entirely cured, no disease had been seen and nothing remarked, and it was considered absolutely pure and absolutely clean, and this animal had been excellently healthy for a very long time. I examined this animal, and there were no cured lungraquo; but only diseased lungs, and this animal was brought from Delft, brought in by the son of this peasant,, who did not want to bring his cattle into his father's stable because it was diseased. The son ot this peasant, did not put up at his father's stable because it was infected, mid he took it to this perfectly healthy part,

which was absolutely henlthy, for a very long lime, Mom. and no measures had been taken. It was considered Lameris, absolutely cured, and thoro was no other contact but * 'quot; from the clothes of the son.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^

7104.nbsp; Now 1 want to ask you a question which bears upon the distance within which infection is possible. If cattle are in two different sheds, and disease breaks out in one shod, and if those sheds arc not in absolute contact, would the cattle in the other shed take the disease ?In the case of those two stables being on ouo farm, if one animal is taken, one or two at the most, out of a largo stable, 1 certainly would agree to slaughter the whole in this stable and examine the lungs of all animals, and I would try and not slaughter the second stable if those lungs were all healthy. But if three or four animals wore taken ill at the same timea larger proportion of the cattle were taken illI would slaughter the whole lot.

7105.nbsp; Do you think that it is possible that the poison will travel from one lot of animals to another over such an interval as that; have you met with such a ease in your experience ?Not through the air. 1 do not believe in it at all through the airif there are no holes in the wallif the wall were perfectly cemented.

7106.nbsp; nbsp;Is it done by tlie clothes of the man ?Yes, and through rats and mice in the stable. I have also seen a case where the cattle were diseased in one of two stables next to each other, and whilst the man and the cattle were quite next door, and were quite at a distance. These men never touched the cattle, and had nothing to do with the diseased animal, and they were kept absolutely healthy.

7107.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir George Macphcrson Grant.) Will you tell us how the compensation is paid for the animals that are slaughtered ; from what fund is it paid ? The Government pays it.

7108.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Boimn-Jones.) I should like to ask what was the condition of the rest of Holland when they put this stricter law into operation. They put this law into operation in the Spoeling district only. Why did they confine this stricter law to the Spoeling district 'iI think I have already said that this was the nucleus of the disease ; it is also the place whore the greater number of cattle is concentrated in Holland.

7109.nbsp; Then what was the condition of other parts of Holland with respect to cattle disease at that time In 1878 the general sanitary condition of the cattle in the rest of the kingdom was satisfactory. Some few cases occurred here and there; but on the whole it was, compared with what it had been, very satisfactory. In the province of Priesland and North Holland the disease was considered to be absolutely cured.

7110.nbsp; In the few infected places that were loft what course did they pursue ?From that moment in the rest of the country they only followed the principle of slaughtering, and did not inoculate at all.

7111.nbsp; Then they applied slaughter toother districts besides the Spoeling at that time ?Yes, at that time; in 1878. After the number of diseased animals had remained stationary in 187.'i, 1874, and 1875, in 1876 slaughter of diseased and suspected animals took place on a rather large scale. If the Government, in that year, had not been prevented by want of the necessary funds, they would have applied the measure on a larger scale. In 1877, and subsequently, the slaughter of diseased and suspected cattle was applied, with excellent results, and the number of diseased cattle diminished from 2,227 cases in 1875, to 44 cases in 1880.

7112.nbsp; In the Spooling district they have slaughtered those healthy animals in contact with the diseased animals?Not in 187H. In the year 1878 they promulgated u law that made inoculation compulsory within this certain district.

. 7113. Did they slaughter only diseased animals ? They only slaughtered diseased cattle and had compulsory inoculation.

Lnr

, i ft'

#9632; i #9632;#9632;^:l

220

COMMITTKE ON PLlUKO-l'NEUMONIA AND TUBBROUIiOSIS:

Mons, Lameris,

IS May 1888.

7114. Uid that system free the Spoeling (listrict of disoaso ?I do not contddor that wo owe to this system the fact of there being no disease now. Later on, tiie compulsory slaughter of diseased and suspected cattle was begun, and that is the measure that cured the disease in that district. The disease diminished, but it did not disappear, by slaughtering diseased animals and compulsory inoculation. Those are the tables from which you can exactly see how it is (producing statistical tables). This is a very curious and graphic description of the matter. Every little square is a head of cattle, and this gives in the Spoeling district in 1878, for every four weeks, the number of diseased cattle that were foundthat is the proportion in 1878, and in this year they commenced with slaughter and inoculation. And these stricter measures were not only the slaughter and the inoculation, but also the removal and transport of cattle to a district outside the district, where they were under very strict supervision.

7 U 5. In or out of the district ?Everything that came from outside the district was marked and inoculated.

7116.nbsp; And was nothing allowed to go out of the district ?They were only exported for slaughter, and in this case they were always exported with a special mark and note as to their condition, and the railway carriages were also disinfected.

7117.nbsp; When were the still stronger measures taken ?In this period of 1878. When these special measures for the Spoeling district were taken, they slaughtered the diseased and suspected cattle in the other parts of the country, and this slaughter of diseased and suspected cattle had given such good results, that a very strong movement in favour of this measure was taken in the district itself; and then began in 1884 the slaughter of diseased and suspected cattle. From that moment they did not inoculate regularly any more, only when it was specially necessary, in the case of a healthy stable being next to a diseased stable, then the inoculation was applied 1880 vvas the best year. These measures had had a certain result, and then at that moment we ought to have killed all the cattle. A posteriori I am of opinion that, when diseased and suspected animals are slaughtered, inoculation need not be applied.

7118.nbsp; May I ask, after 1880 did the disease continue to increase under the inoculative system until 1884?Yes.

7119.nbsp; nbsp;Did it increase over 1882 and 1883 ?In 1882 and 1883 the disease was stationary, and of coxirse, when it did not diminish or develope very much, 1880 would have been the best moment for adopting the entire slaughter; and in 1883 they began to slaughter, first of all partially ; in 1884 they began to do it regularly, and to slaughter everything.

7120.nbsp; nbsp;What period of the year did tiiey slaughter in 1884?They began to slaughter in one district, in this Spoeling district, in 1884; but in the rest of the country they began it much earlier. The slaughter of suspected animals was commenced in February, as thr Government wished thereby to prevent animals, which were purchased to go to the pastures, being infected by animals from the stables. They blockaded this district, and it was entirely closed from the rest of the country, so that you must consider it from a different point of view.

7121.nbsp; nbsp;When did you exterminate the disease in the Spooling district ?fhe last case in tiio Spoeling district was on the 12th of April 1885.

7122.nbsp; There have been notie since then ?None.

7123.nbsp; nbsp;I should like to go on a little further. Being a continental country, I suppose there is a liability to the re-introduction of the disease, a greater liability than would be the case with an island like Great Britain ?Yes; the danger of importing the disease is of course greater, because there is more cüinmunicution across the frontier.

7124.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had any rcintroduction of the disease ?Not, to my knowledge. But on looking through tho annual report for 1886, I see that, on

October 8th of that year, a case of plcuro-pneumouia occurred at Heer, iu tho province of Limburg, near Maastricht, situated at a distance of over one hour from the Belgian frontier. This case was imported from Belgium.

7125.nbsp; nbsp;If tho disease appeared again, you would immediately stamp it out by slaughter, I presume P If that was the case, the disease would bo stamped out entirely by slaughter according to the law. Tho recent order of 1888, 27th March, gives still stricter reference to this thing.

7126.nbsp; When a country lias only a few eases of disease, you have no doubt in your mind that stamping out is tho best process for getting rid of the . disease ?It is the most safe and most certain way of obtaining your object, and in the long run it proves the cheapest.

7127.nbsp; nbsp;Could the country have been cleared by compulsory inoculation ?No, absolutely not. It diminishes slowly but it does not disappear by slaughtering the diseased, and compulsory inoculation of the suspected.

7128.nbsp; nbsp;[Professor Brown.) Is it true that the Netherlands Government have prohibited the entrance of live cattle since 1870, except for special purposes? Yes, it is so, it was in 1870 or 1871.

7129.nbsp; nbsp;Is it also true that they did not proceed to deal with pleuro-pneumonia until 1871 ?Before 1870 measures were taken, but those were only local measures. Two provinces, Groningen and Zeeland, were always able, before 1870, to master the disease, by keeping close watch on the frontier and slaughtering diseased and suspected animals. And the money supplied for the slaughtered cattle was given by the Province, or by the Commune of the surrounding towns, but general Governmental measures were only taken from 1871, or commencing in 1871.

7130.nbsp; And these measures that were taken were slaughter of diseased cattle only ?In 1870 only tho slaughter of the diseased cattle.

7131.nbsp; nbsp;And that system was continued until the end of 1873?Yes, until 1873.

7132.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware that, under that system, tho disease decreased from over 6,000 outbreaks in 1871, to 2,479 outbreaks in 1873 ?I do not remember the exact figure. I know that the disease diminished.

7133.nbsp; In 1874 was the slaughter of diseased cattle continued, with inoculation of all suspected cattle ? Yes; in that time inoculation, or the system of inoculation of suspected cattle was begun, and practically this is a more popular measure, for they gave to the Governor of the Province the right of shortening the period during which the cattle was supposed to be suspected, to one month. For instance, the animal was declared for three months, but if they inoculated the animal, it was to be considered suspected only for two months.

7134.nbsp; nbsp;That system continued during 1874, 1875, and 1876?Yes, until 1876.

7135.nbsp; nbsp;And during those three years the disease decreased about one halfduring 1874, 1875, and 1876?I must look at the figures. In 1876 there were altogether 1,723 cases in 110 communes, that is, the town districts.

7136.nbsp; nbsp;Whereas in 1874 were there not 2,414 cases? If you are taking them from our return, they are all correct.

7137.nbsp; nbsp;Did those measures apply to the whole country where disease existed ?They were applied to the whole of tho country.

7138.nbsp; nbsp;In 1877 tho Government, under a Decree of October 30th, 1872, ordered the slaughter of the diseased and suspected cattle, did they not ?Yes.

7189. And at the end of that year there were only 951 cases recorded?Yes, it diminished very much.

7140,nbsp; nbsp;During tho year 1880 there were only 44 cases, were there not ?Yes.

7141,nbsp; nbsp;Is it true that since 1880 pleuro-pneumonia was confined chiefly to the Spoeling districts ?Yes, in general terms, you may say that that is absolutely

\quot;'

#9632;,

MINUTES OF EVIDBNOB.

221

so, (hat the disenKP, from 1880) wnu only in tho Spooling district practioally,

7142.nbsp; In 1881 there was uu Increase In tho discaso, chiefly in tho Spooling district?The disease did increase in tho Spooliiig district in 1881.

7143.nbsp; Sinco 1881 we hftve no record of tho disciise hnving been detected in any living animal, in any part of the Netherlands, until October 1886; that is, between

1881nbsp; and 1886, there is no record of a living diseased animal being found in the Netherlnnds. Is that in aooordanoe with your experience?No, it is not true; it is since 1885, not since 1S81.

7144.nbsp; Tho reports which we got are from 1882, and they say that 62 cases of disease were found in animals after they were slnugbtored in tho abattoirs ? Slaughtered because of disease.

7J 45. They do not say, but they convey to us the impression that they were not found out till after death. The words are, quot; No eise of pleuro-pneumonia quot; in the Spoeling district during the month endingquot; so raquo;ad so. But six animals were found to be diseased after slaughter in the abattoirs. That is in 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885?-Our reports show what it was, and you can see the exact number of cattle. According to the statistical table you may take it that, dnring the whole of 1882, there were slaughtered 184, and 572 suspected. The fact that, from 1881 to 1886, reports were sent in which it was stated that a certain number of cattle were found, after slaughter, to have been suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, must be attributed to the circumstance that owners of cattle sent them to the slaughter-house, as soon as they observed signs of disease. The veterinary, in those cases, waited to discern the disease until the animals had been slaughtered. In general the owners of cattle in the Spoeling district were inclined to slaughter their fat cattle soon, because the beasts diminished in value every day.

7146.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give us the number of animals which were slaughtered diseased, and the number slaughtered suspected for 1882?In tho Spoeling district in

1882nbsp; there were killed, diseased 184 and suspected 572.

7147.nbsp; nbsp;Were there any outside the Spoeling district that were killed ?This is a resume of all the cases of disease in the different provinces of the country for 1882. There were 11 cases in the rest of the country.

7148.nbsp; nbsp;How many animals were killed diseased, and how many were killed suspected. Would it bo convenient to separate the Spooling district ?It would bo more convenient to separate them.

7149.nbsp; nbsp;Then will you give us the Spoeling district and other parts of the Netherlands, from the years 1877 to 1885 both inclusive ?I have not thlaquo; figures here, but I will furnish them.

7150.nbsp; nbsp;When do you consider that the disease was entirely stamped out?You must separate the Spoeling district because it was considered much earlier.

7151.nbsp; Then in the other parts of the Netherlands, outside the Spoeling district, when was it stamped out ?In the Spoeling district the last case was in 1885, arid I cannot exactly answer the question as to the other parts of the Netherlands.

71.52. But the last case was finally stamped out in 1886 in the Spoeling district ?Yes.

7153.nbsp; Do you know of any cases since 1885?In the province of Limburg, which is between Belgium and Germany, separated almost from the main part of our country, in 1886 there was a case of infection through Belgian cattle, and this was entirely stamped ont by the slaughtering of everything, all the diseased cattle and suspected cattle. That has been tho last case.

7154.nbsp; Do you know of any case in January 1887? I think you allude to the case that I have mentioned.

7155.nbsp; It was at Heer, in the commune of Beck, that I refer to ?Yes, I think it was there.

7l5(i. Sinco that case there has been no disease in any pint of tho Nelherlands ?Xo cusu of disease.

7157.nbsp; You have said that the slaughter of the diseased animals, with tho inoculation of the suspected, led to the decrease of the disease ?Yes.

7158.nbsp; Do you know why the Netherlands Government commenced the slaughter of entire herds in 1878. As the disease was decreasing steadily why did they alter tho system of inoculation and slaughter of diseased cattle, and have recourse to tho slaughter of diseased and suspected cattle ?At the moment when they began with this system the disease was more or less stationary, it was not decreasing rapidly, it had decreased, and it was not increasing, and so they tried this system.

7159.nbsp; In short, they thought it a favourable opportunity for getting rid of it entirely ?For getting rid of the disease, because the measure of slaughtering the diseased, and inoculating the suspected, animals, did not seem strong, as the disease was not decreasing rapidly enough.

7160.nbsp; nbsp;And by the adoption of this system of general slaughter you succeeded in getting rid of the disease ? Yes.

7161.nbsp; Was inoculation carried on during that time ? No ; as a general rule, when we slaughtered the cattle, the diseased and suspected, we did not continue that inoculation, except in some very rare cases under special conditions.

7162.nbsp; Is inoculation practised now in the Netherlands ?No.

7163.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) When cattle are ordered to ba slaughtered who values them ?The burgomaster names a man who taxes the cattle, and this man is under an oath, and he taxes the cattle.

7164.nbsp; That is, he sets a value upon them ?Yes ; that is called taxing.

7165.nbsp; Is this man generally a cattle dealer ?They are dealers or butchers.

7166.nbsp; Is there one for every district or each town ? Each burgomaster appoints the person who values the cattle. By some burgomasters special inspectors were appointed as valuers. In 1884 the Government charged an official of the meat department to control the different valuations of cattle.

7167.nbsp; nbsp;I understand that a large number of animals that are slaughtered are milk cows in the Spoeling district?Yes ; and also cattle for meat.

7168.nbsp; Are the majority cows that are being fattened, or cows that are for milk ?The greater part is for meat.

7169.nbsp; Has the valuator any instructions as to the principle upon which he has to value these animals ? No; only according to the market price and his best knowledge.

7170.nbsp; Does he, when valuing a cow that is in milk, value that cow as a milk cow, or as dead meat? Absolutely the market price, which means tho price that the peasant can get for the cow in the market. If a milk cow he can get a certain price, and this price is what he has to be paid for it.

7171.nbsp; nbsp;Then the peasant will suffer no loss in consequence of it being a milk cow ?No ; they have no loss as to the actual value of the cow, but they sutler sometimes if they have contracts with bakers and others for the delivery of milk; and if they cannot keep these contracts, if they are broken, they are condemned to pay for not going on with the contract. This only applies to the slaughter of suspected cattle. The man does not get the full value for a diseased animal, he only gets half of its value.

7172.nbsp; But if it is a s'lspccled animal he gets the full value ?Yes.

7173.nbsp; nbsp;What happens in the case of cows being slaughtered in a dairy, that is in the stable of a man who has large contracts to supply milk. Would not his loss be considerable? Nothing is allowed for that. It is very hard, and that is exactly the case ; that Is the hardest case that can bo thought of.

7174.nbsp; Are there many largo dairies in the Spoelings district?Tho milk produced by the cows fed in

AfonSt Lauuritt

IS May 1888.

#9632;n

#9632;f

222

committee on igt;l euro-pneumonia and TUBBBOUIOSIS i

Atom. Lameris,

\i May 1888,

this Spoeling district is not very good for the production of milk; they do not make much cheese, but they make butter.

7175.nbsp; nbsp;But my question was directed rather to whether there were large dairies whore many cows are kept ?There are peasants who have up to 400 cattle, and several have 250 and 100 cows.

7176.nbsp; nbsp;You said just now that some of those had made contracts with bakers and others to supply milk ?Yes.

7177.nbsp; nbsp;Is that contract on stamped paper, and if so do they never put a clause in, that in the event of disease breaking out in a dairy they are free ? No, I have never hoard of such a clause. I do not know if they are on stamped paper.

7178.nbsp; nbsp;Then how are these cattle housed; are they in big sheds. I am speaking of the dairies in the Spoeling district where you have 200 and 300 cows ? They have stables of from 60 to 70, with 20 to 30 together in one shed, and these sheds very often communicate with doors.

7179.nbsp; Then, during the period that they tried this system of inoculation, did they at all adopt the system of isolation with these animals that were affected with

disease ?__The diseased cattle were isolated as soon

as possible. There was, however, a clause in the Act, with a view to separate the animals, recently imported into the Spoeling district and inoculated there, from the animals that had already been there for some time. This isolation, however, proved not, possible, in practice.

7180.nbsp; When the disease broke out in a byre, and the cattle were inoculated, the diseased cattle being slain, when was that owner allowed to bring new cattle into his hyre ?Generally two months after.

7181.nbsp; nbsp;Was the inoculation compulsory upon all? Upon all.

7182.nbsp; At what age ?Calves of three months were exespted, hut there were no calves in that district. All the cattle in the district are cattle brought from outside. A peasant who has about 100 head of cattle in his stable changes the stock about three times in a year.

7183.nbsp; Then they do not apply the bull at all ?No.

7184.nbsp; How do you value the cow that is failing in milk, and is in the process of being fattened for the butcher ?That is exactly the most difficult; point, and very often the taxations differ according to the state in which the cow is, but I cannot exactly tell you if there is any special system. It differs according to the stage which the cow has reached in fattening.

7185.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Have they a system of insurance in Holland ?Not in the Spoeling district, but in other parts of Holland there are.

7186.nbsp; You were asked if the farmers rear all the calves that raquo;re born, or do they destroy some of the male animals?Yes; a great number of calves are killed, because there are more born generally than can bo supported.

7187.nbsp; The cattle population is enormous, is it not ? Yes.

7188.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) Have you had much experience in your practice of the concealment of the disease ?Very much.

7189.nbsp; And principally amongst what class ; that is to say, are they farmers, or what we call dairymen, or men who are, what you spoke of just now, as dealers in milk ?The people who hide the most cases of disease are generally found among the middle class of peasantry, but they are not so afraid of the slaughtering of cattle as of the declaration of being suspected and of being isolated, because, when they are declared suspected, of course they cannot buy any cattle, nor add cattle to their stock, nor sell any cattle; and they fear this declaration more than the fear of slaughtering their cattle.

7190.nbsp; Is there any penalty under the present law for that concealment?Yes, there is. The punishment is that the actual value of the animal is forfeited. If the man keeps it secret, and it is discovered without his giving any notice, the value of the animal is

forfeited. Besides the forfeiture, the offending persons are also liable to a fine,

7191.nbsp; In paying this compensation, does it fall upon the district where the disease is, or does it fall upon the General Imperial Exchequer ?It was out of the General Exchequer, that is, the Home Office. The worst year was the year 1883 and 1884 in the Spoeling district; the disease did not exist in the rest of the country. In 1884 the disease was at its height in the Spoeling district, and there all the cattle were slaughtered and killed, and we asked for a credit of 600,000 gülden, and afterwards for 300,000 gülden, altogether 900,000 gülden, or about 8O,0CO/. Of this sum for the year 1884, 714,599.09 gülden (59,549/.) was paid for the compensation, the buying up of diseased cattle,

7192.nbsp; On what was the balance spent ?The rest was spent in paying for disinfections, and paying all sorts of other costs, and also for the expenses of other contagious diseases,

7193.nbsp; Do I understand that that 80,000/. represented the total cost, or was there any return in the shape of meat sold, and if so, what ?The return was 367,709 gülden (30,642/.).

7194.nbsp; nbsp;Can you kindly give us the returns of what it has cost the country of Holland to rid itself of the disease, since it has abandoned inoculation and adopted compulsory slaughter ?The returns are as follows:

lii


Your.		Charge for Compensation.		Produce of Sale of Meat.
		Florins.	Cents.	Florins.	Cents.
1877	#9632;	673,736	66	243,692	92
1878	-	432,585	50	176,068
1879	-	114,114	50	33,835	24
1880	-	72,819		19,620	49
1881	.	33,748		11,843	94*
1882	-	137,245		74,866	70
1883	-	243,719		141,272	60
1884	-	714,699	9	367,709	10
1885	Total	67,450		32,969	62
	Total	2,490,016	75	1,101,878	614

A florin is about equal to Is. 8rf. of English money.

7195.nbsp; nbsp;Can you also give us the returns for other years in the same way; a return of the cost of animals slaughtered, and the sums received for the dead meat in other years, in the same way as you have for 1884 ? I shall get it for you {see foregoing Table),

7196.nbsp; Do you consider this disease indigenous to the country of Holland, that is in contra-distinction to its being imported?I consider that it is an absolutely imported disease, and even the way in which it was imported is known.

7197.nbsp; Where do you believe it to be introduced from?About 1833 the disease came from Germany into the province of Guelderland, and two years later the disease was noticed in the province of South Holland.

7198.nbsp; Then do you believe that by safeguarding the frontiers and compulsory slaughter, you can keep the country of Holland absolutely free from disease? Yes, absolutely, without any doubt. Of course there might be here and there a case somewhere on the frontier, but if you take immediate measures you may have the disease entirely in your hands.

7199.nbsp; Have they conducted any experiments as to inoculation from a seientifle point of view in Holland ? Yes; in 1845 it was investigated by Dr. Jennes and Dr. Hengerveld.

7200.nbsp; Have you seen the account published in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England of the account of those experiments, and if so, may we refer to the results as substantially correct ?It seems that our Consul-General, Mr, May, translated this work of Pools into English,

7201.nbsp; nbsp;Is that correct ?Mr. Poels ot llotterdam is the gentleman who discovered the virus, the original poison, and I have read this report, and 1 think that

Iff

#9632;r

::_;T

MINUTES OP KVXUENCH.

223

it is perfectly correct, and tlmt ilirough this report inuch more light was thrown ou the question of inoculation.

7202.nbsp; Now to refer to u recent law this year. Would you kindly say what is the actual state of the law in Holland at the present time, regarding the breaking out of disease ?The States Journal of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the 27th of March 1888 gives you all the particulars. This Act names the different diseases of cattle which are considered contagious, which also includes pleuro-pneumonia, and gives all the measures which are to ho officially taken in cases of those diseases, for each one separately, and for pleuropneumonia as well. The measures to bo taken against pleuro-pneumonia for cattle are in paragraph 4 of the law of the 27th of March 1880. This law makes out very clearly all the diseased and the suspected cattle must be slaughtered. That is what it says in the first paragraph. We have sent a copy through the Legation some weeks ago to this Privy Council. In the beginning of that time, when compulsory slaughter was adopted in Holland, it was not done in an energetic way, for a long while, for instance, after having slaughtered cattle in a place for two months, on stopping the slaughtering, the disease attacked again ; but I only found good results when it had been carried on systematically for at least a year regularly. It was a regular slaughter.

7203.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) Did you lind it practically impossible to carry out the inoculation thoroughly, I mean, to get the inoculation properly performed, because you told us that, where it had not been successful, there you got the disease, so that there must have been a certain per-centage of ill-successes ; would you assume that itgt; was practically impossible ?It is practically difficult to make inoculation succeed, but great progress was made in this after the book of Monsieur Jfoeis had appeared on the virus, and which threw a great deal of light on the theories of inoculation.

7204.nbsp; Do you believe that Monsieur Pools isolated the virusthat he got pure virus ?Yes ; he has proved that it was really pure virus; he stated that he had produced pleuro-pneumonia by injecting the cultivated micrococci into the lung.

7205.nbsp; It was proved by inoculation of cattle, was it ?Yes, it was proved by the inoculation of a cow.

7200. Isthat the case published?Yes, and that has been translated into English by Mr. May in the Consul-General's report.

7207.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that inoculation has any effect at all on an animal that has just taken the disease ? No, I have inoculated animals myself that have had the disease, and there has been no reaction.

7208.nbsp; The disease has run its usual course ?The inoculation has had no reaction.

7209.nbsp; The animal went on and died from the disease ?I have inoculated on animals that had had the disease and were cured, and there was no reaction from the inoculation. This is a proof of the efficacy of the inoculation.

7210.nbsp; I want to know whether, supposing an animal has the disease in the natural way, if inoculated, would the inoculation stop it ?No, I do not think that.

7211.nbsp; When inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia was practised in Holland most, was it practised identically in all provinces in the same way ?It was not practised over the whole country at the same time. Both after and before, the minister made use of his powers to cause suspected cattle in certain districts to be slaughtered, or to cause the slaughter to bo discontinued.

7212.nbsp; Where was it practised thenwas it practised in Friesland ?In Priesland it was practised. Although inoculation of suspected cattle was applied in Priesland in 1875, '76, the majority in the province was in favour of slaughter of diseased and suspected animals. As Friesland only exports and does not import cattle, there was no danger of infection through foreign cattle. This danger did exist in North Holland from the importation of Frisian cattle, and in South Holland, from the importation of Frisian and North Holland cattle. For this reason inoculation was applied in South Holland for a longer period than in Priesland.

7213.nbsp; Then at no time was inoculation practised universally ?No.

7214.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman?) Have you any experience of the disease known as tuberculosis ?Yes.

7215.nbsp; Do you consider that it is a disease which is on the increase in Holland ?The disease exists, but it certainly is not on the increase at the present moment.

7216.nbsp; Is it a disease that is frequently confounded with pleuro-pneumonia?It has been confounded with pleuro-pneumonia in some cases; but with a little more thorough knowledge of one and the other disease, it is impossible to confound them, and the confusion does not happen now.

7217.nbsp; Have you any special laws or decrees with reference to the treatment or prevention of tuberculosis ?No there is nothing.

7218.nbsp; Do you consider that it is necessary to have anv more stringent regulation imposed with respect to tuberculosis than you have at present ?That is a question that has been considered, but not so much from the cattle point of view as from the infection for human beings, because Professor Koch has discovered that there is a microbe or a bacteria, which is the same in cattle as in human beings, and there are people who might catch the disease.

Mont. Lammia.

IA May 188raquo;.

*sm

m m

m %

m I

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o'clock.

224

COMMITTEE ON PLBOBO-PNBÜMONIA AND TUBBBOULOSIS :

THIRTEENTH DAY

Wednesday, 16th May, 1888.

PUESENT :

Mk. JACOB WILSON i* the Chair.

Lord Colncurby.

Sir Gbokoe Macphrrson Grant, Bart.

Mb. Bowkn-Jones. I'rofessor Brown, C.B.

Mb. B. Dawson, Secretary,

Mi.h:. c. lisdall.

16 May 1888.

Mr. Edmund Ciiarlus Tisdai.l, called and examined.

7220.nbsp; {Chairman.) You live, I believe, at Holland Park Farm, Holland Park Boad, Kensington ?Yes.

7221.nbsp; And T. think you have for a considerable length of time been deeply interested in the milk sapply of London ?Yes.

7222.nbsp; Are you at present engaged in that business ?

__I am practically out of business now, although I am

interested in a milk supply company.

7223.nbsp; nbsp;Will you kindly tell us the name of the company with which you are associated ?The Holland Park Dairy Company.

7224.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any other farm besides the Holland Park Farm ?Not now.

7225.nbsp; I believe you formerly held some farms in Surrey ?Yes, I lately gave up three farms which I had in.Surrey.

7226.nbsp; nbsp;You were there, I believe, a breeder ot pedigree shorthorn cattle, as well as an owner of dairy cows ?I was.

7227.nbsp; Would you mind telling the Committee how many cows the Holland Park Dairy Company possess?Only a small quantity, abont twenty.

7228.nbsp; nbsp;Then, I presume, that you receive milk from many other sources ?Yes.

7229.nbsp; nbsp;Could you describe to us the reason why you keep any cows at all ?Certainly. The chief purpose in keeping cows in London is to supply the nurseries with fresh milk, fresher than can be obtained by railway.

7230.nbsp; The milk of how many cows do you distribute daily?I should say about a thousand.

7231.nbsp; Before you gave up your farming, how many cows had you in your possession ?1 sold at my sales at Epsom about 150 head of dairy stock.

7232.nbsp; nbsp;Was that about the number of your stock generally ?Yes, for many years past, for the last 15 or 20 years.

7238. During your great experience as an owner of dairy stock, had you many outbreaks of disease ? Only too many.

7234.nbsp; nbsp; Has pleuro-pneumonia been among the diseases that you have had ?Frequently.

7235.nbsp; Do you think pleuro-pneumonia is on the increase among the dairies of London ?I should think not, certainly.

7236.nbsp; How far is the Holland Park Dairy from the centre of London ?It is two miles from Hyde Park Corner.

7237.nbsp; How much land have you attached to it ? Not above 40 acres now, the parks of Holland House and the fieldraquo; at the side.

7238.nbsp; nbsp;Has pleuro-pneumonia ever been in the Holland Park Dairy ?Yes, several times.

7239 When was your last outbreak ?We had one slight auack last year ; previous to that, we had not had anything for many years.

7240.nbsp; What was your form of treatment in the case of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia ?Since I began inoculating, which was about 25 years ago, the outbreaks have been very rare and very slight. It would almoät seem as if the character of the disease was altered.

7241.nbsp; Do you inoculate all your cattle, as a general practice, or do you only inoculate in case of an outbreak ?As a rule we inoculate all.

7242.nbsp; That is done when they enter the cowshed, I presume ?That is done when they are purchased. I have a quarantine field where I place all the fresh cattle that are bought. If possible, the fresh ones are bought some little time before calving, and they are inoculated; if they go on rightly, then after calving they are placed amongst the other stock.

7243.nbsp; How long do they remain in quarantine? Sometimes from two to three months, according to the time of the calving ; generally from two to three months.

7244.nbsp; In the event of purchasing cows in winter, where is your quarantine then ?I put a shed up in this quarantine field on purpose.

7245.nbsp; How long do your cows on an average remain in your cow sheds ?Since I gave up my breeding farms, I have adopted rather a ditferent system. We do not calve them down more than once, so that they are not in the sheds probably longer than from 12 to 15 months.

7246.nbsp; Then do I understand that all the cows that come into your sheds are in calf when purchased ? As a rule, in calf and near calving.

7247.nbsp; How near the date of calving dare you venture to inoculate ?As a rule not within a month, the longer the better; if it is possible, from two to three months.

7248.nbsp; Have you had any instances of an outbreak of disease after inoculation ?None serious.

7249.nbsp; Then you have had some outbreaks, though in a modified form ?Yes.

7250.nbsp; Has it been your practice, after an outbreak, to follow your animals to the slaughterhouse and to make a post-mortem examination? Yes; having farms I have perhaps adopted what is unlawful. 1 have made one of my barns a slaughterhouse myself, and cut the cows up in order to examine the lungs.

7261. Have you found any very great difficulty in getting rid of the carcases so near London?Oh, yes.

7252.nbsp; Do yon think that the difficulty of getting rid of the carcases exists to a greater extent near London than elsewhere ?I find a difficulty in getting rid of them at all.

7253.nbsp; nbsp;Was it your practice to slaughter animals in contact with diseased animals, as well as the diseased animals themselves ?Yes.

\v*

MINUTES OK EVIDENCE.

225

7264. I suppose you bury the civrcasos oi' diseased animals ?Yes, or send them to the knacker.

7255.nbsp; Then tlioso which were slaughtered, which had only been in contact, were practically good for food if the animal was in good condition ?Yos,

7256.nbsp; What means did you adopt tor the sale of such a carcase ?If I Und that the disease had practically unaffected the carcase, they would go to a salesman and be sold as ordinary stock, because, as a rule, we keep them up in condition.

7257.nbsp; nbsp;Would you send the animals up alive ?If they are perfectly unaffected they might go up alive.

7258.nbsp; I understand that you sent the carcases to the Dead Meat Market to your own salesman, and sold thera in the ordinary way ?Yes.

7259.nbsp; Did you find that you were thns placed at any disadvantage ?At Epsom, for instance, where I was at a long distance from the London market, I have called in some local bntobers, who have come and seen the cattle and purchased the carcases.

7260.nbsp; I was rather anxious to learn from you whether there was any special difficulty existing with reference to the sale of carcases near London, which does not exist in regard to other towns ?I think you are speaking of instances where the disease perhaps may be prevalent on the farms, and where animals may have been in contact with others suffering from the disease.

7261.nbsp; J am assuming that is the position in which you slaughter your animals in contact; and I want to know how you get rid of the carcases, which have been slaughtered in consequence of being in contact. You have told us that you send thoin up to the Dead Meat Market in the ordinary way ; have you been placed at any great disadvantage by so doing ?No ; I do not know that there was any special disadvantage, because I was extremely cautious in sending up to the Dead Meat Market only that which was totally unaffected ; if I found there was any infection, it would not go to the Dead Meat Market.

7262.nbsp; I am assuming that is so in every case; but do you suppose that in the Dead Meat Market there is any idea that those animals come from a place in which disease had been in existence ?Probably not.

7263.nbsp; Have you ever found any great inconvenience, in the event of an outbreak, from your customers leaving you for the time being ?No.

7264.nbsp; Have you ever found any great difficulty in meeting a disturbance of your milk trade ?There is a difficulty in meeting it, certainly.

7265.nbsp; Have you personally experienced it?The great difficulty is not so much with the customers, because my course has been to go into the country and make up the supply at once ; I go and make a contract with some farmer in the country to supply the missing quantity.

7266.nbsp; Have you been able to supply yourself with an equivalent quantity without any loss of time ? Yes.

7267.nbsp; What are the general conclusions you have drawn from your experience of the value of inoculation ?I can put it in a very few words. I went over the quantities I had lost for the ten years that I was in business, from 1847 to 1857, and 1 found they amounted to about 25 per cent, of my stock. Since then, since I began inoculation, it does not quite reach five per cent.

7268.nbsp; Over how many years would that five per cent, apply ?Nearly 30 years.

7209. It appears, therefore, that whilst you have in a great measure diminished the risk, you have not succeeded in absolutely exterminating the disease ?No, but it has put it within manageable compass. But I am quite certain that in the cases of pleuro-piieiunoni:i that have occurred, (and this I would apply to the remarks, that I have made about marketing these cattle) the disease is not the same kind that it was before inoculation. The cases of pleuro which have occurred since have been of a much lighter cLarnctor, almost as if it were a different kind of disease.

7270. That is, in inoculated animals ?Yes.

0 Ö40U3.

7271.nbsp; nbsp;Do you not ll.ink there is much alteration in the nature of the disease; you think that it is modified and in a lighter form in the inoculated animal ?Yes.

7272.nbsp; Is inoculation generally pursued as a mode of treatment in the London dairies?--! think it is, very largely.

7273.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;How do you account for the constant outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia which are constantly occurring ?I should fiiney in most cases it is where they do not inoculate.

727'*. Do you attribute that to the want of a uniform system of inoculation ?I do.

7275.nbsp; nbsp;Would you think it desirable to have compulsory inoculation throughout the country ?I think it would bo very wise,

7276.nbsp; Would you extend that provision to the whole stock of the country, or only to the dairy cows of London ?To dairy stock generally. There is so much more liability, in my view, for cattle to take on diseases of the lungs where they are stalled and kept in closer compass. They breathe the same air over and over again, which becomes much loss pure, of courso; and therefore they are much more liable to this class of disease.

7277.nbsp; nbsp;You say that you would limit compulsory inoculation to dairy cows?Yes, to dairy stock.

7278.nbsp; nbsp;At what age would you assume that that should commence ?I should think the best age probably would be from two years to three years old.

7279.nbsp; That is before she becomes a dairy cow ? But she is in calf.

7280.nbsp; Then we are coming now to the larger and more extended area, which would include very nearly the stock of the country ?Yes.

7281.nbsp; Then do you recommend practically that it would be a desirable thing for the nation at large, that the whole stock of the country should he inoculated ?All the dairy stock.

7282.nbsp; Supposing you happen to have a dairy farm in conjunction with an arable farm, on which you would have all kinds of stock; would you not think that feeding animals might be equally susceptible of the disease ?They might, but the liability is not so great, inasmuch as they pass away so ranch more quickly. In the cuse of dairy stock they are tied up, season after season and year after year, and they may develope a greater liability to diseasethey may get weakened.

7283.nbsp; Does that apply to a London dairy ?Not so much as it did.

7284.nbsp; Am I right in assuming that the life of a cow in a London dairy does not exceed, as a rule, about 15 months ?Yes, I think you might assume that. It is something like from 12 to 18 mouths; perhaps 15 months would bo a very good average.

7285.nbsp; nbsp;You say that by means of inoculation, you have diminished the outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, and that you have also diminished its virulence ? Yes.

7286.nbsp; If the disease were localised to a very few spots, would you not consider it a desirable thing to exterminate it by some more heroic measures, and get it out of the country altogether, subject, of course, to liberal compensation being paid for the animals slaughtered ?I can conceive there are instances where it would be, perhaps, wisest to stamp it out in that way, but I cannot help thinking that it is done; at very great cost. I remember, I daresay it would be 20 years ago, an outbreak occurred at Wormwood Scrubbs. I had 10 or 12 head of young stock there, they were all slaughtered, as many scores were too. Those things were perfectly healthy; there was not the slightest taint on them. I happened to know the butcher who killed them, and tlie lungs and all the internal organs were perfect. There was an immense cost, of course, to the ratepayers in that system. I have no doubt they had been in contact with animals that hud suffered, but that wholesale system of slaughter seemed very costly.

7287.nbsp; If that is to be continued as a general mode of treatment, undoubtedly it would be very costly ; but,

F f

Mr. E. C. THidall.

16 May 1888.

#9632;''f.. '#9632; -i

;*'

#9632;f' I

'ifc fc

i in

22Ü

C0MM1TTKE ON PLEUBO-l'NEÜMONIA AND TUBEKOULOSIS:

Mr. E. C.

'J'isdull.

10 Muy 1888.

if by simply exterminating every case, oven if by running iv risk of killing some animals uimlfeetoil, and seeing that the diseiise is an imported disease, and not indigenous to this country, would you not consider that there is a great probability of the disease disappearing altogether ?Of course, it would be well to got rid of it if possible. Since 1 have inoculated my cows, I have had occasional slight outbreaks, perhaps of only two or three. Previous to inoculation, I never had the disease but what it run through the whole herd. I have lost 20, or 30, or 40 at a time with it, but not since inoculation. Since inoculation, it will come lighlly, and, perhaps, seize only three, or four, or live out of fifty.

7288.nbsp; nbsp;Then I gather that your treatment by inoculation has been upon the assumption that the disease always would be in existence in the country, and that it was your duty to endeavour to diminish its virulence?Quite so.

7289.nbsp; You are accepting the position then that the disease always would be in existence in this country ? Yes, more or less.

7290.nbsp; Would you tell us your opinion of the present form of compensation, is it satisfactory to you ?Yes, I thought so.

7291.nbsp; nbsp;Who wore the valuers in the cases to which you have referred, I mean your own cases ?The Metropolitan Board of Works appointed, I believe, one or two veterinary surgeons to inspect the animals and deliver their verdict, and tbey asked the owners for a claim. If the claim was thought to be a fair one, taken in conjunction with the report of the inspectors, it was admitted, if not, the owners were summoned before the Board at Spring Gardens, and wore subjected to examination upon that point, and some sort of compromise was effected.

7292.nbsp; In making out your claim for compensation, upon what basis did you move; was it the value of the cow as a dairy cow, or for the butcher?In many instances they were young stock. They were in ciilf, heifers about 2^ years old. I think 1 valued them at about 12/. each,'about the value they would fetch in the open market.

7293.nbsp; As a heifer in calf or as a fat sinimal ?As heifers in calf.

7294.nbsp; Were their carcases sold to the butcher? Yes, they were in good condition, and they were sold for the butcher.

7295.nbsp; Then the Metropolitan Board of Works took the risk of the market, I suppose ?They did.

7296.nbsp; Have you any idea what price they realised ? Yes, I was told they ifctched an average of about 10/. each.

7297.nbsp; Then there was a loss of about 2Z. each ? Y^res; they gave me my claim, I may say, without question.

7298.nbsp; You, I presume, put what you thought was a fair but a full value upon them ?A fair value; they were worth more to me, because they were home bred animals, and I have always believed that home bred animals are much loss liable to attacks of disease than animals bought. Our great risk as town dairymen in buying in animals, is that wo get them from all parts of the country, and you do not know quite what the^ have been in contact with, and therefore the liability to disease is much greater. When I bred most of my own animals I was very much freer; it, was quite a rare thing then to have disease. Vor years 1 went on at Epsom without a touch of disease, as I bred chiefly my own stock.

7299.nbsp; Regarding this question of compensation from a broad point of view, what would you say is a proper principle upon which to value a milking stock which had been slaughtered ?The dairyman is led by the value of the animal to him. He gives rather a higher price, probably, than it is worth to the butcher, because it is a season trade to a largo extent with him. He gives, perhapu, 21. or.'U.a head more than the animal is worth, because she is calving at a season when he requires the produce, and ho is very likely to value them, especially the good milk producers, at a higher

valuo than would bo set upon them by outsiders, especially as meat producers.

'7300. According to that, then, the claimant treats the trade value as an important element in valuing a cow ?Yes.

7301.nbsp; Over and above the cow itself?Yes, no doubt.

7302.nbsp; What would be the action of the professional valuer in a case of a claim of that nature ?I should imagine the professional valuer would, to some extent, admit that the trade was the beat judge. They fix the value in the open market. It is the trade who go to Copenhagen Tields, or to any other market, who iix the value by giving a higher price for the beast.

7303.nbsp; Is that in the open market ?Yes.

7304.nbsp; Now what do you think would bo the effect of such a claim made upon the Metropolitan Board of Works ?I should think it is very likely they would take a certain percentage off of it.

7305.nbsp; Do you think that they would be disposed to admit a claim for loss of trade?That is another matter.

730Ö. t take it that the Metropolitan Board of Works would not consider themselves justified in giving compensation for loss of trade ?No.

7307.nbsp; nbsp;But they would give liberal compensation for the loss of the animal ?Yes ; but I said that 1 thought probably they would take a discount off the value that the owner might set on it.

7308.nbsp; I put it in this way, that if on cross-examination the claimant were asked to say how much he valued his cow at, and how much he put on for trade compensation, they would knock off the trade compensation ?Certainly.

7309.nbsp; Have you had any experience in the insurance of your dairy stock ?Yes.

7310.nbsp; Do you still insure your cattle?No; the results were not favourable. 1 insured with a company which I thought was a large and sound company I forget the namein Charing Cross; I think it was the National Live Stock Insurance Company; but there were so many conditions attached to it that I found it better to be my own insurer, especially after inoculation.

7311.nbsp; Because your losses were then fewer ?The losses were then so much less.'

7312.nbsp; Did you ever make a claim for compensation after compulsory slaughter ?Only in that instance at Wormwood Scrubbs.

7313.nbsp; Did you receive compensation both from the Metropolitan Board of Works and from the Insurance Office ?No, I had discontinued to insure before then.

7314.nbsp; nbsp;What would have been the effect in such a _case ?I should not have expected to receive compensation from both sources.

7315.nbsp; (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) I think you said you keep a very small number of cows in London itself ?Yes.

7316.nbsp; I think you told us that the object was for the supply of nursery milk, and milk for invalids ? Yes.

7317.nbsp; Therefore, in the event of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonin, you do not find any great difficulty in keeping up your supply ?No.

7318.nbsp; Do you bring it from the country ?There is no great difficulty in obtaining the milk that is lost by an outbreak.

7319.nbsp; In fact, you keep up your supply by hoving it brought from the country ?Yes.

7320.nbsp; nbsp;We have had eome evidence here about the very much greater value of shed milk, to the milk that is brought from the country, is that common in London, or in the neighbourhood of London?Do you mean the value of the milk itself, because almost all the analyses that have been made, show that shed milks are higher in percentage of solids than the country milks. Wo analyse our milks every week, and the difference would be, I should think, quite two per cent, of solids between the feeding of our own cows and the feeding of the cows in the country.

ll gt;

! i

f.quot;1)

MINUTES OF KVIDKNOE.

227

7321.nbsp; Would the owner of cows supplying what I call shed milk, Imj put lit a ninch greatot' disadvantago, in tho event of an outbreak of disease, than the owner of a dairy drawing his milk supply from tho country ?lie would, hur, thcro are low now, and thoy are usually small men, who rely entirely upon their own supply.

7322.nbsp; Thou may wo gather from you that although shod milk may have a greater value, tho number of men who deal in that commodity are very few ?They are few who deal wholly in that.

7323.nbsp; So that, although their indirect loss individually would be greater, the whole thing would not amount to much ?No.

7324.nbsp; I think you told us that inoculation is now protty generally practised in dairy stocks in and about London ?I think so, very generally.

7325.nbsp; nbsp;And that your experience of it during tho last 30 years is favourable, both in reducing the number of outbreaks, and in diminishing the severity of tho disease ?Quite so.

7326.nbsp; nbsp;That being so, would you recommeud that there should be compulsory inoculation of dairy stock ?Yes.

7327.nbsp; I think you said that you would prefer that the age for compulsory inoculation should bo tho age of about two years ?From two to three years.

7328.nbsp; How would that work in regard to the general stock of the country ?1 should confine inoculation to the dairy stock.

7329.nbsp; But you propose to inoculate an animal before it has become what I call dairy stock at ail, do you not; if you inoculate at the age of two years the destination of that animal may not be known ; are you not going rather beyond the dairy stock therefore ? I should not go outside. You know pretty nearly what is intended to be done with the stock upon a dairy farm. If the dairy farmer breeds heifers for his own use, of course he sees the purpose, and before they are too far in calf with their first calf, I think it would be wise to inoculate them ; that is the time I mean, between two or three years old, he calves them down as a rule at from two and a half years to three years. It is not the general stockthe store stockthat is running at large that I should have inoculated, only those heifers which are intended for the dairy.

7330.nbsp; I follow you quite well as far as what you consider wise, but I think you went so far as to say that you would not object to make this compulsory over the whole country. I do not quite see myself how in a ease of general stock it would work, because, although many dairy owners may have a breeding farm and breed their own animals, as you used to do at one time, there must be a very great number who purchase their dairy stock in the open market through the country, and who have nothing to do with the breeding of it ?Yes.

7331.nbsp; nbsp;So that you must got a, very large number of animals probably that had never been incculated ? Then, in that case the owner would inoculate, if ho believed in the system, or if he did not, I think it would be wiser for him to be compelled to inoculate them when he received them, as I do.

7332.nbsp; That is when they are once destined or committed to a dairy life; then they should bo inoculated ?Exactly.

7333.nbsp; nbsp;But would you prefer that that inoculation should take place somewhere about two years, before they are too far gone with their first calf?Yes.

7334.nbsp; nbsp;That you consider would bo the wisest plan to pursue?I think it would bo a preventive.

7335.nbsp; I think I gathered also, but I should like to bo quite clear about it, that you adopted inocnla-tiou, or rather have persevered with inoculation, not so much because you believed that in that way you will get rid of the disease, as because you believe that thereby you reduce tho numbers of the outbreaks,, and diminish the severity of the disease when you do get an outbreak ?Of course it was done with a view to

got rid of the disease; tho result was that I did not get rid of it wholly, but [ got rid of it protty noai'ly.

7336,nbsp; And that was the reason why you persevered with the treatment ?Yes.

7337,nbsp; Then your experience has boon, that inoculation, even as carefully practised as it has been by you, will not stamp out the disease ?1 should not like to say that, because the character of it was so altered in the course of the inoculation that it was not the same thing.

7338,nbsp; The fact remains that you did not get rid of tho disease ?Tho virulency of it seemed to have gone after inoculation.

7339,nbsp; Do you think that it is diminishing now' Do you think that if you persevere with inoculation, you will diminish tho virulence of the disease und get rid of the disease by a sort of process of exhaustion ? Yes, it looks like it very much in my case,

7340,nbsp; I do not sec how you are going to get rid of the disease altogether, but I understand you to indicate the view, that as you have so far diminished tho severity, you will eventually get rid of the severity altogether, that is, get rid of tho disease; is that what you think ?Yes,

7341,nbsp; Then yon can, as it were, breed the disease out ?Yes.

7342,nbsp; nbsp;As you can breed out a fault in an animal ?gt; Yes.

7343,nbsp; nbsp;You have told us, certainly, that you have made considerable progress in getting rid of tho disease,in breeding out the disease, if I may call it so,in 25 years ?Yes, I have,

7344,nbsp; nbsp;Can you give us any idea, from your experience, of the virulence of the disease now, comnarcd with what it was when you commenced inoculation, as to how many years it would take to get rid of it ? I do not quite put it in that way, because, when I began inoculating 30 years ago, I did not breed so largely as 1 did afterwards. I bought more .cattle therefore, and many of these animals appeared to suffer after I bought, being more liable to the disease than these I bred. I suffered very much more as long us I purchased animals away from my own farms, than I did after I began breeding more largely at home. So that lately, probably for the last 10 years, I should not find 2 per cent, of the animals touched with pleuro-pneumonia. When I began probably there were 8 or 10 per cent., so that it has been with me a sort of diminishing number,

7345.nbsp; Will you tell the Committee, if you can, how much of that diminution is due, in your judgment, to inoculation, and how much is due to the fact that you bred these animals yourself instead of bought them ?It would perhaps be rather difficult to say, because I think that by breeding at homo I have avoided chances of contact which I should have had if I had bought animals in. 1 dti not know that I could separate them so exactly as that, but there is no doubt that something has been due to avoiding chances of contact.

7346.nbsp; nbsp;Have you found tho diminution of tho severity of tho disease gradual year by year, that is to say, has the virulence of the disease been of gradual diminution?I think it has, looking all through the time.

7347.nbsp; Is it becoming less and less?Yes.

7318, Of course, if you arc of opinion that it would be gradually bred out, so to speak, it must bo diminishing gradually ?Yos. I think ray experience would warrant mo in saying so ; it has become less virulent,

7349.nbsp; You inoculate also very much on tho assumption that in the meantime, at all events, and probably for some considerable time, you will havo this disease in the country ?Yes, certainly, I am afraid that is too true.

7350.nbsp; If it was the desire of the country and tho desire of the Legislature that, instead of having this disease in this country until by a process of exhaustion you could got rid of it, the disease should be vigorously haiullcd, and, if possible, stiimpcd out, can

Ff 2

Mr. IS. C

Tisdall.

ICMay 1888.

quot;#9632;'i

| m

2ib

COMMITTEIO ON PLEUUO-rNEUMONIA AND TUBKKCULOSIS:

Mr. E. C, Tiidall.

16 May 1888.

yon suggest imy other method than the stomping out _OV([_or raquo;__i think it would ho wiso in eases where largo numbers of cattle were herded together, and i* fow instances of quiio well defined plouro ooourred, that isolation should tako i)UieL', they should be separated, and the othors be kept quarantined, laquo;s it were, for u while, to see whether any further instances should happen. I think it might quot;be done at very much lesa cost than the present wholesale system of slaughter. I explained it in the case of that instance at Wormwood Scrubbs. 1 believe in that ease there really were but two head of cattle that were aftected, and I think something like 15U head of cattle were slaughtered. I firmly believe that 148 of those had not a trace of disease about them. Isolation in that case might have proved snflieient.

7351.nbsp; quot;Mightquot; have?Of course I do not say it will, but I think it would be wise to try it.

7352.nbsp; If the Legislature were to decide that it would bo wise to make an effort to get. rid of the disease by stumping out, instead of going on by a process of exhaustion, do you think n system of isolation would accomplish that ?Of course the two are not consistent.

7353.nbsp; Can you suggest any other mode than that of the slaughter of the diseased animals and the animals that have been in contact ?Inoculation and isolation. I think isolation might be very cifective sometimes.

73.54. Do yon think that would succeed in getting rid of the disease out of the country ?I should not like to give an offhand opinion ; I should not like to give a very definite opinion about it.

7355. Has that been your experience ?1 should think it would be likely tquot;.

73Ö6. You have been, as I understand it, inoculating for 30 years ?Yes.

73.')7. And isolating also?Yes.

7358.nbsp; And you have not got rid of the disease ? No; I have bought in, you see, from other sources; that is where I have introduced it into my stock. I am continually buying in from other sources. I buy from all parts of the country. I go down into Cum-berland, into Yorkshire, into quot;Westmoreland, and buy truckloads of animals, and bring them up here.

7359.nbsp; nbsp;Do you require to do that in the process of your business ?Yes.

7360.nbsp; nbsp;Then you cannot carry on your business unless yon do that ?I could purchase the milk much more easily than I could buy the animals, and at a less cost.

73(51. Then that would be an interference with your business ; but as long as you cany on your business as you do at present, and as long as you find it desirable to carry on your business as you do at present, you must introduce fresh stock ?Yes.

7362.nbsp; Then, I take it, your experience has been that inoculation and isolation will not prevent tho recurrence of the disease in your dairy ? Not entirely.

7363.nbsp; nbsp;That being so, on what, grounds do yon wish us to think that it would be easier to accomplish the extinction of the disease over tho whole country, than it would be to accomplish it in the Holland Park Dairy ? Would not the former be very much more difficult?Yes.

7304. One word about iho compensation. In your own individual case, I understand that the animals that were slaughtered wen; heifers in calf, and you got a fair valuation, on the whole, for them ?Yes.

7365.nbsp; In your judgment it was loss than the value, but the loss to the ratepayers was not very great in that case ?Yos.

7366.nbsp; nbsp;Would you make quite clear your view as to the compensation for dairy cows; I understand you to say that, the value usually put upon them would ho the value in the open market; do you mean what they would fetch in the open market as dairy cows ? Yes.

7367.nbsp; nbsp;Would you, with your experience in your bus iip.ss, be satisfied with that compensation ?Yes.

7368. That is to say, } ou would not go beyond that in the way of indirect losses ?No.

73G9. You would not say that because a cow was giving so many quarts of milk in the day, and was likely to do so for so many wouks, you should he compensated forthat in addition to what tho cow would letch in thu open market as a dairy cow ?No, 1 do not think I should.

7370.nbsp; nbsp;And you do not think that you could recommend going beyond tho value of the animal fairly exposed in tho open market where these animals arc sold ?I think that would bo a fair tost.

7371.nbsp; nbsp;You do not propose any system of compensation for what I call indirect losses, that is, loss of business ?No.

7372.nbsp; I understand your experience of insurance was not favourable ?No.

7373.nbsp; That, being so, do you think it likely that any scheme for compulsory insurance would be welcomed by dairy owners and stock owners throughout the country ?1 think not.

7374.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Bowen-Jones.) You say that it is the exception and not the rule that London dairymen have only dairy cattle in London ?I think so.

7375.nbsp; nbsp;The rule is that they purohaje a certain proportion of their milk from the country ?The largest proportion ; all the big dairies do, most certainly.

7376.nbsp; Then, supposing an outbreak of pleuro unfortunately occurred, and this new order was put into operation, and all the cattle slaughtered out, say, within a week or 10 days, would you experience any great difficulty in getting a supply of milk for your customers ?At certain seasons you might, but the supplies from the country have been for many years so good that there has not been very much difficulty in doing that lately.

73V7. I suppose there are some cases where London dairymen get no supply of milk from outside ?Yes.

7378.nbsp; nbsp;Would they have a greater difficulty than those who aro now in tho habit of getting it ? Yes, they would.

7379.nbsp; nbsp;Are there not agencies established through the. country that supply milk to those who want it in London ?Yes.

7380.nbsp; Could not they go to one of these agencies and order their supply up ?They could. But as I remarked, there are certain seasons, as you are aware, probably when the town supply is very much in request, and it might be difficult then to obtain the quantities required, especially by any large man. Probably, from November to May, when the London season is at its full, if they lost their cows they might have a ditficulty in obtaining a country supply.

7381.nbsp; Hut you do not consider that that difficulty would be insuperable?No.

7382.nbsp; Still that class of dairymen would be subject to greater losses in getting supplies than those who have their agencies existing in the country now ? Certainly.

7383.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that that loss would bo ruinous to such men ?It would be very severe.

7384.nbsp; Then do you draw a clear distinction between tho two classes of dairymen in large towns?Yes.

7385.nbsp; nbsp;Would you recommend greater compensation to the class of dairymen I have alluded to, who entirely depend on their London cows, than to those who get their milk partly from the country and partly from the London dairies?! hardly know how to answer that question, because it has become so general a matter of lute years to derive a considerable portion of the supply from the oountry, I hat it seems to me only a wise thing to adopt it. I do not like to say that any body of men are unwise to pursue such a plnn us that you have alluded to, but 1 should not like to run the risks, which I know aro run, in keeping a largo quantity of cows in towns.

7386.nbsp; Do you think that class of dairymen geta larger amount of profit from keeping their cows in

illl

#9632;

i -i

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

town, than the others who get part of their supply from the country?No, I think not.

7387. Then what advantage is it. to thom to run that risk ?I cannot say that it is any advantage. It appears to me to bo a great risk, without any corresponding advantage, lint tlioy luve been accustomed, porlmpi, and their families, and tiioir fathers before tliem, to do it. I know of some instances where it is the case ; they have the conveniences for it. It is carried on chiefly in the suburban dairies.

7.'i88. Then, in your opinion, the better system of supplying milk to large towns like London would be for a portion of the supply to be depended upon from the country districts?I think so, certainly. 1 have tried both.

7389.nbsp; Do you think that inoculated animals take pleuro-pneumouia again ?Very slightly, if at all.

7390.nbsp; Have you had any personal experience of an animal taking pleuro-pneumonia after inoculation ? I should not like to raquo;ay I had not, because there are some instances when you inoculate and you scarcely see any resultyou hardly know yourself whether the inoculation has been perfectthe differences in the results of inoculating are so great. With some animals there is no question about it; from the time almost of the inoculation the virus seems to take effect, but w ith others you sec no effect, or scarcely any effect, and, perhaps, you have to inoculate them a second time, and 1 have inoculated a third time without scarcely any apparent effect.

7391.nbsp; Have anv of these animals taken pleuro ? Yes.

7392.nbsp; After a third inoculation?Yes.

7393.nbsp; nbsp;(Lord Cloncurry.) You mentioned that you would like to see compulsory inoculation for dairy stock. Do you mean that it would be sufficient to nlake a rule, that no cow should be brought into an urban dairy unless she had been previously inoculated ? No, I do not mean that. I mean that if she had not been inoculated she should be; unless the purchaser could obtain information that she had been inoculated, he should be compelled to inoculate her.

7394.nbsp; That would involve his having a place for isolation, so as to prevent placing her among his herd until the inoculation had taken full effect and she had recovered ?Yes, every large owner of cattle ought to do that.

7395.nbsp; You mentioned some small owners who arc also urban cowkeepers; could they manage that without difficulty ?It would be at some little additional cost. It comes a little in collision there with the Cow Houses Act, because the sheds have to be licensed, but if they might be allowed to adopt it, the small men would only want room to put up one or two cows, and they might be put in a stable or apart from the other cattle in some sheil.

7396.nbsp; nbsp;A separate shed ?Yes.

7397.nbsp; nbsp;Would there be time enough to inoculate these animals after they had proved in calf ; would two or three months before calving bo time enough ? Yes.

7398.nbsp; nbsp; And then there would be no need of inoculating any other stock in the country except heifers in calf ?Dairy stock.

7399.nbsp; nbsp;They were about to be dairy stock; you could hardly call them dairy stock, because they had not either calved or produced milk ?Quite so.

7400.nbsp; nbsp; Do you wish to have inoculation done previous to the birth of the first calf?Either then or immediately afterwards. I only spoke of the two or three months before calving as a suitable time, but if there is any doubt about that being safe, it might be postponed to after the birth of the calf; perhaps that would be better.

7401.nbsp; That would involve postponing the bringing of the heifer into the urban dairy until several weeks, perhaps two months, after calving?Tbey are not brought up so early as that. There are very few urban dairies that buy heifers ; they would remain in the dairy farmer's hands.

7402.nbsp; Then, in fact, your suggestion of the general inoculation of dairy stock would not involve the inoculation of a very largo percentage of the total stock of JDngland ?No, not a fourth, I should think.

7403.nbsp; nbsp;You told us that you had carried on this inoculation in a general way, on the assumption that you would always have to contend with pleuro-pneumonia in the British Islands? When I began inoculation, I imagined it would entirely prevent the disease, but my experience was that it did not entirely prevent it. I still continued inoculation because 1 found it reduced the disease.

7404.nbsp; Then you have been inoculating for the last few years upon the assumption that you would have to face the risk of pleuro-pneumonia coming in from elsewhere?Yes.

7405.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing you took the other assumption, and you believed that the Government could stamp it out of England, what would bo your course, would you continue inoculation or try to continue inoculation ? Not if it was stamped out.

7406.nbsp; nbsp;If you thought the country generally was clear, then there would be no need of troubling any further about urban dairies ?No, there would not.

7407.nbsp; This open market value and trade value is a very difficult question ? Surely the trade value, so to speak, of a cowthat she has a prospect of giving a large quantity of milk for the next six months must enter into the question of the so-called market value in the case of that cow ?I do not see any source that is so good as the trade to put the market value upon a cow. If you go to Copenhagen Market the London Marketany Thursday, you will find a largo number of cowkeepers there buying this stock, and it is they who stamp the market value, because they give 20/., 25/., or 30/., for an animal that looks to be an excellent milker.

7408.nbsp; It is because she has that trade value that she brings a very much larger sum than she would bring if she was being sold for butcher's meat or for any other purposes?Quite so. That is what 1 call her market, value.

7409.nbsp; Then the market value, in the case of an urban dairy cow, must to a great extent include her trade value to the urban dairyman ?No, because the cow in profit is of a much higher value to the dairyman than she is to a butcher; that is what I call her value.

7410.nbsp; nbsp;But is not that really the two things combinedit is her value as she stands, and in addition to that, the value which these dairymen by competition put upon her in the market. Is not it ?L think it is the correct test, the right test, and, in fact, the only test that you can set up for an animal of that description.

7411.nbsp; 1 am not arguing thatI agree with you there, but surely it must include the two elements unless there were a trade demand for milk, nobody would give 25/. for an animal of that sort?I am not sure of that.

7412.nbsp; Probably she is only worth 9/. to the butcher ? T have found heifers in the country sometimes fetch as much as these cows 1 spoke of in London. 1 moan heifers going to the dairy farmers in the country.

7413.nbsp; But that is in view of their future milking capacities ?Tes.

7414.nbsp; nbsp;That is their trade value, is not it; what is the difference ; their value is placed upon them because the buyer thinks they will produce so many thousand quarts of milk during their lifetime ? Yes.

7415.nbsp; Does not that include their value as milk producers ?Certainly.

7416.nbsp; Is not that their trade value?It seems to mi! only calling a cow a cow, she is a producer of milk.

7417.nbsp; You call her a cow and you do not call her so many pounds of bad beef?No.

7418.nbsp; If slio was selling as so many pounds of inferior beef, she would be worth one price, and if she was selling as a cow with a prospect of giving eo

Mr. E. O,

Titdatt.

16 May 1888.

230

COMMITTEK ON PLEURO-l'MlUMONIA AND TUBERCOLOSIS :

Mr. E C. Tisdall.

16 Muy 1888.

many thousand qutU'ls of milk, sho would got another ])rico ?You ivro not putting her in her proper market when you linnd her to the butcher.

7419.nbsp; nbsp; Then do not you think, if thoro were suificiontly distinct directions to the valuers to treat a cow in valuing her as a milk producer, all questions of compensation could bo satisfactorily settled on that basis ?I think so.

7420.nbsp; nbsp;And that there should be no difficulty to a competent valuer to place the increased value on the cow because she was a good milking cow. He should be able to ascertain at once the value sho would bear in excess of the value she would bear if she was a dry lt;iOw or barren ?I think so.

7421.nbsp; If that was distinctly stated, would there be any possible ground of complaint on the part of the urban dairymau in the mattet' of value:Thoro ought not to bo.

7422.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) 1 think you snid that you reduced your losses as to plenro-pnoumonia from 25 per cent, to 5 per cent, by inooulation ?Yos.

7423.nbsp; How do you proceed in your case in regard to inoculation ; when you had fresh stock in, what did you do ?I inoculate them as soon as possible. For instance, if I buy them six months in calf, and I buy a great many cows a little more than half gone in calf, half advanced. As soon as I got them home J. should inocitiate them. If I buy them after calving, I inoculate them immediately upon getting them home.

7424.nbsp; Then you treat both classes of animals 'raquo;tactly in the same way ?As far as inoculation is concoruod, I do; only in the one instance they are running in the field perhaps for throe or four months, and in the others they go into the sheds.

7425.nbsp; But in both cases, before you put them into the fields, or as soon as you put them into the fields, and as soon as you put them into the sheds, you inoculate them ?Yes; in the case of the cows not in profit, they run at large, that is the only difference. 1 have fields with sheds in them, as 1 stated, for the purpose of keeping these cows till they are safe. 1 called them quarantine fields.

7420. When you bring in fresh stock and inoculate them in that way, do you mix them with the others which you have already in the dairy ?No, never.

7427.nbsp; Have you means of keeping them quite separate for a time?Yes.

7428.nbsp; But in many of the London cowsheds there is no possible way of doing that, is there ?unless by taking a small adjoining shed or stable.

7429.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know any dailies in the metropolis where any such thing could be done ?Yes, where they keep the bought-in cattle separate, certainly.

7430.nbsp; But are there not a large number where they could not keep them separately at all'?They should make provision for it. I am afraid there are a number where they do not make provision for it, but the difficulty of making provision is not great.

7431.nbsp; Are there not a large number of cowsheds in which the man has only just room to keep the cows which he requires ?Yes.

7432.nbsp; When one is taken away by the dealer he has another one put in exactly the same place ? Yes, but I think it is very unwise; I think he is a great fool.

7433.nbsp; When a small dairyman has a dairy of a dozen cows, his business depends on keeping that number up, and he has no alternative, has he ?He could take a stable in the next street for 5s. a week probably, and that would perhaps save him 50/.; it wants a little foresight, that is all.

7434.nbsp; Do you consider inoculation Is an absolute protection ?Not absolute.

7435.nbsp; We have boon told by witnesses that when cows are inoculated there is no risk whatever of their taking the disease ; do you agree with that statement? Not entirely.

7436.nbsp; nbsp;One member of a local authority and a stock owner told us that if he had a number of cows that had been in contact with the disease, and had been afterwards inoculated, ho would not hesitate at tho

end of a couple of months to turn those cows loose into any part of tho country; would you consider that a wise thing to do ?It is never wise to run risks, but 1 think practically they are almost free from chances of the disease.

7437.nbsp; Still, in your experience you found that something like 5 per cent, of tho inoculated animals have taken it, I understand ?Yes, that is true.

7438.nbsp; Then I think I may conclude that under thoso circumstances you would not send into tho country a number of inoculated animals which had been exposed to tho disease ?No, 1 would not unnecessarily run risks.

7439.nbsp; Because that risk would really amount to 5 per cent, of those animals would it not ?Yos, it i/iight.

7440.nbsp; According to your own experience ?Yes.

7441.nbsp; Do you perform the operation yourself ? I do.

7412. How do you do it ?By an insenion of the virus in the tail.

7443.nbsp; Is that by means of a seton or by a puncture? By a puncture, and then, after the puncture, inserting the virus and binding it carefully up.

7444.nbsp; At what time after the operation do you generally find the swelling begins ? Sometimes within a short period, it varies from, perhaps, two or three days to a week.

7445.nbsp; Have you met with any quot;cases where the incision heals up completely and nothing occurs for 14 days ?Yes.

7446.nbsp; And then the swelling begins?Yes. I think 1 may say that it is sometimes deferred as long as that.

744V. Have you met with instances where tho inoculation produces no effect at all ?Yes,

7448.nbsp; What do you do in those cases ?Inoculate again.

7449.nbsp; Have you met with any instances where the second inoculation has failed ?Yes.

7450.nbsp; Have you gone beyond tho second inoculation ?I have inoculated sometimes the third time.

7451.nbsp; And has that always sucaeeded? Not always. I have sometimes thought that in thoso cases, perhaps, there is no liability on the part of the animal to take the disease.

7452.nbsp; nbsp;You cannot call to mind, probably, any case where you have traced that animal lor any time afterwards?Yes, I think I have sometimes, and found that that animal has suffered, perhaps, a year or two later, and they would be, of course, included in this 5 per cent, of my loss.

7453.nbsp; Then you have met with at least one instance, where an animal which you have tried to inoculate three times has taken the disease afterwards ?Yes.

7454.nbsp; But have you known any instance where the inoculation has been successful three times in succession ?It has sometimes been successful tho second or third time, where it has not been successful the first time.

7455.nbsp; Have you met with a case where inoculation has been successful two or three times in the same animal ?Do you mean has it been successful tho second or third time, when it has not succeeded the first time ?

7450. No, when it has succeeded the first time ? I have never tried that, if it succeeded the first time I have not tried again.

7457.nbsp; Naturally you would not, but are you aware that it has been done experimentally, and that it has been found to succeed two or three times ?No, 1 am not aware of that.

7458.nbsp; In the cases to which you refer of animals having been inoculated three times, and the operation failing every time, the animal, you say, subsequently took tho disease ?Ye8.

7459.nbsp; So that the fact of its not being susccptiblo lo inoculation was not also associated with the fact

iquot;

ft'

#9632;i

MINUTES OP KV1DEN0K.

231


		i
		*:,
	Mr. B. C. Tisdalt.
	18 May 1888.	A
		i
		*#9632;M* 1

of its iiiBuscoptibilily to the natural affection? Quite so.

7460.nbsp; nbsp;You have said that you consider inoculation to bo a very valuable prcvontivo, on tho asduiuption tiiat thoi'O is ulways a risk of getting tho disease into a shed ?Yes,

7461.nbsp; How do you account for tho outbreaks which happened in your case among the inoculated animals ; could you ever trace it to a particular animal ?No, I do not know that I could say that I had done so. but I know in one case I had bought in two or three head of stock, and rather incautiously after making them perform a short quarantine, the animals had calved, and they were not in a condition for inoculation, I thought thoy had suffered rather in travelling. I wanted the milk very badly, and after giving them a fortnight's quarantine to prove them quite free from foot-and-mouth disease, which is a worse plague almost to us than pleuro, I had passed them into tiie sheds, and I had not inoculated them. One of those fell afterwards, and introduced it amongst live or six others. That was one instance.

7462.nbsp; But in all those cases you found that, although the disease extended to some other animals, it stopped very mucli more quickly than it did when you did not inoculate ?Yes.

7463.nbsp; nbsp;It may be taken, 1 suppose, that inoculation involves a good deal of trouble?It does.

7464.nbsp; And a certain amount of loss ?A little.

7465.nbsp; About what percentage of loss has occurred in your case ?Tho loss of stock would be slight, but there is a considerable amount of trouble, and there is no doubt a slight loss of the produce.

7466.nbsp; In the milk ?Yes,

7467.nbsp; nbsp;Have you noticed that ?Yes, it has a greater effect upon some animals than upon others.

7408.nbsp; Taking into account the amount of trouble involved, and the risk of tho operation sometimes being omitted, and tho disease being introduced, would you consider it an advantage if, under any circumstances, the affection could be actually exterminatedentirely got rid of?Of course it would be u great advantage.

7409.nbsp; nbsp;Would it be an advantage to discontinue the inoculation for the reason that there was no longer any ground for continuing it; the disease having ceased to exist in the country ?Yes, certainly.

7470.nbsp; Do you know any country where this result has been obtained ?I have heard that in some other countries the disease has been entirely stamped out.

7471.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware that that has been done in Holland ?Yes.

7472.nbsp; nbsp;And that tho operation of inoculation is not now being adopted in that country because there is no pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

7473.nbsp; Do you know how they obtained that result ? I imagine it would be by very severe measures of stamping out.

7474.nbsp; It was, as a matter of fact, the result of tho adoption of the slaughter system, after inoculation had succeeded in reducing the number of cases of the disease; as in your case it did succeed in reducing tile number oC attacks ?Yes, it did.

7475.nbsp; Supposing that in any country the disease is reduced to what might bo called a controllable state, would you think it then desirable to adopt energetic measures, including the slaughter of diseased and suspected animals for tho purpose of getting rid of it entirely?Yes, I can quite conceive it might be.

7476.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware that on three occasions tho adoption of that system has stamped out cattle-plague in this country ?I was not aware that it had done so on three occasions, I knew that it had done so on one or two.

7477.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware also that when foot-and-rnoutli diseaso was reduced to a ^ery few centres, the slaufiiiler system was adopted, and the disease stamped out ?Yes.

7478.nbsp; So that there is a fair probability that the ftdoplion of tiie suum System would, after some time, get rid of pleuro-pneumonia?It may be so.

7479. (Chairman.) Do you make a practice of employing tho thermometer test in order to discover the oxisleiicü of disease in your cowsheads ?Yes.

74laquo;(). Do you do that regularly ?Yes.

74ilt;l. What is your idea of the manner In which pleuro-pneumonia is communicated from one animal to another; is it by inhaling the excreted breath of a diseased animal?Do you mean by contact or by the air ?

7482.nbsp; By tho respiratory organs ?Yes, I think so, through the air.

7483.nbsp; Only?Yes,

7484.nbsp; Have you any reason to think that it is ever communicated by a herdsman or a veterinary surgeon ? Not pleuro-pneumonia.

7485.nbsp; Do you consider there is any danger, after disinfection in putting fresh animals into buildings which have hitherto held diseased animals say after two or three days?I should not like to put them in so soon as timt. I should like everj chance of infection to bo diminished as much as possible; and I should not like to say that all chanco of infection would be got rid of so early and so easily as that.

7436. Is it your opinion that the infection can only be communicated from a living animal to a living animal ?But I can conceive that some spores might be given out from the breath of an animal, and, perhaps, might be lodged on the walls of a building. I think it is quite possible that they might be licked off those walls by another animal. I should like to have every chance of disinfecting them most thoroughly, and should not put an animal in the same place within two or three days.

7487.nbsp; nbsp;If there is a danger of an animal licking the walls, then it is communicated, in your opinion, otherwise than through the respiratory organs ?I do not say it is so. I only say it may be so.

7488.nbsp; Would you be afraid of it ?Yes, I should be afraid of it.

7489.nbsp; Have you any instances which you can quote to justify that fear?I have not any definite one. I should say that most likely it is through the respiratory organs.

7490.nbsp; What is the longest period you have observed in your herd of the incubation of the disease between the outbreak in one animal and in another ?I do not remember anything longer than eight or nine weeks ; and more often it has been eight or nine days.

7491.nbsp; nbsp;How many cows do you generally have in one shed ?From 40 to 50, not more.

7492.nbsp; Without any division or partition between any portion of them ?Yes, but I should only have that number in well ventilated big sheds.

74-93. How many animals do you think the best and safest number to put together in one shed ? About that number, 40 to 50. I would not tie up more if I had 10,000 acres of land. I would have shells in different parts.

7494. What would you recoinmond as the distance that one shed should be from another ?The farther the better; half a mile.to a mile.

7495.#9632; So much as that ?Yes.

7496.nbsp; Do I gather from that that you fear the disease being communicated from a shed which is half a mile from another?Yes.

7497.nbsp; By tho wind ?Yes, the wind blowing in that direction, I believe, would bo quite likely to take the disease half a mile.

7498.nbsp; You are not confounding pleuro-pncuinonia, I presume, with foot-and-mouth disease ?No ; but of course I have both in view, I have disease generally in view.

7499.nbsp; nbsp;I want to pin you to pleuro-pneumonia, if you pleiiHe, because there is a good deal involved in this. Do you think that the distance between tho sheds should not be less than half-a-mile or a quarter of a mile?If [ spoke of phuro-pneumonin alone I would not think it necessary to put thorn so far apart.

#9632;

232

ÜOMMITTEE ON rkEtmO-rNTKUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

i !

Mr. E. C.

TmUäl.

16 May 1888.

7500.nbsp; nbsp;What dUtmico would you recommend for tlmt?Probably 200 or 1)00 yards would bo siifl'icieiit in that case,

7501.nbsp; nbsp;In tlio caso of this auimal, whiuli refused to take the inoculation after three attempts, would you regard tlmt animal ns an element of danger for the future, and as likely to ootmnuuioate the disease to other animals ?No, 1 should not, necessarily.

7502.nbsp; Did it not occur to you that, b'-'eause this animal refused to take inoculation, she ought to be slaughtered ?No, certainly not.

750;5. Did it occur to you that she might have had the disease before ?That did not occur to me.

7504.nbsp; Although she did not take inoculation after three attempts, still she took tiie disease afterwards ? Yes, I have known an instance of that.

7505.nbsp; nbsp;Have yon, in your largo experience of the management of cows, had any cases of tuberculosis in your herd?Not to my knowledge.

7506.nbsp; I think you have said that you have seen a great many cases of diseased animals after slaughter ? Yes,

7507.nbsp; Have their lungs always indicated the same appearance ?No, there were varied appearances.

7508.nbsp; Did they always indicate the existence of pleuro-pneumonia ?Not always pieuro-pneumonii.

7-509. What other affections did you observe ? Pleuritic affections. Pneumonic affections, probably, would be the proper word, but not |)leuro-pneumonia.

7510. Do you know tuburculosis when you see it ? I do not know that I should. It is only fair to say that.

75M. {Professor Brown.) Have you any particular method of distinguishing pleuro-pneumonia?I have sometimes in those instances when I have had any doubt upon it, called in a medical friend,a brother-in-law, who has been of some service to me,and tie

has described the difference to mo between a simple afl'eetion, perhaps inilammation of the lungs or other pneiunonic affections, and plouro-pneumonia.

7512.nbsp; How would you yourself describe, in plain language, the peculiar appearance of pleuro-pneumonia? Th. t the pleura has [)oen inflamed and changed in substance, and giown to the rib of the animal intide, and the lung itself altered in its texture and chnracter, and often of a sort of pipe-like character when it is advanced.

7513.nbsp; If you make a cut right tlirough the diseased part, what does the cut surface look like?Gorged often with a dark Ih.id and sometimes with a kind of mucus oozing from it, that would bo of an unhealthy and spongy character, and altogether abnormal iu its state.

7514.nbsp; But is there anything else that is not dark in colour besides the dark part of the lung ? Is there anything which contrasts with that ?Yes, a lighter fluid which seems to ooze from this spongy state.

7515.nbsp; Have you seen anything in these cut surfaces which suggests to your mind the idea of a marbled appearance ?Yes.

761G. That is characteristic of the disease, is not it ?Yes.

7517.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen that marbled appearance in cases where there has been a very limited extent of disease; a small piece of diseased lung ? Ves.

7518.nbsp; How small a portion have you overseen ? As large as a hand.

7519.nbsp; Not smaller than that?Perhaps I may have seen smaller even than the size of a hand.

7520.nbsp; And the fact of seeing a small portion of lung which is solid and presents that marbled appearance on being cut, would satisfy you that it was pleuro-pneumonia, would it not .'I should think so.

gt;l I

The witness withdrew.

Adjourned to Tuesday, the 29th May, at half-past ten.

J '

FOURTEENTH DAY.

Tuesday, 29tli May 1888.

PRESENT 1

Me. JACOB WILSON in the Chair.

Mb. Stirling (of Kippendavie), Mr. J. Howen-Jonks.

Professor Brown, C. B. Professor Horslby, F.E.S.

Mr, Dawson, Secretary,

Dr. JS. P. Ritchie, M.D.

29 ti*3 1888.

Dr. Robkrt Peei- Eitchie, M.D., of Edinburgh, F.ß.C.P.E., amp;c., amp;c,, amp;c., called and examined.

7521.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) I believe you are a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh ?I am.

7522.nbsp; And reside in Edinburgh ?Yes.

7523.nbsp; You are also, I believe. President and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh ?I am.

7524.nbsp; And senior Vice-President of the Medico-Chirurgical Society of Edinburgh ?I am.

7525.nbsp; nbsp; Have you had special opportunities of investigating tlie subject of bovine tuberculosis?

Personally I am in this position; I represent the views of theMedico-Chirurgieal Society of Edinburgh upon the subject. I have not specially worked at the subject myself.

752G. The society which you represent has, 1 believe, made some representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland upon bovine tuberculosis?Wo have.

7527. Would you state their reasons for so doing ? The reasons why the society acted in the way in which

-U

MINUTES OV liVIDKNOK.

it did were these. The subject was comparatively new to the members of the society. Wo had the subject brought before us by a veterinary surgeon, the Principal of the College in Edinburgh, Mr. Walley. Following the reading of his paper, a discussion by the members of the society took place, and, us the result of that discussion, and the statements made in his paper, wo fell the subject was one of such extreme importance that it was our duty, as n body of medical men, to bring the matter to the knowledge of Government, and, not only before Government, but also as bearing upon another part of the subjectthe inspection of byresbefore our town council in the city of Edinbnrgii, iu whoso bands the inspection rested. The reason for our bringing the matter before Government was this. It was a subject in which there is considerable doubt and presumption in the minds of many at present, and it was a matter which wo thought could be better examined, if Government were to take it up, than could be done by individual members of the profession. For that reason, therefore, we thought it was right that the Privy Council should be appealed to. The paper was read ou the 15tli of February last, and the subject, although not fully worked out in the way of conviction, still it seemed that there was a suflicient basis upon whieli we could ground the application that wc made.

7528. Could you give a brief summary of the evidence which was submitted to the society upon this subject ?It appeared in the first place that there was very great difficulty in diagnosing tubercle in the early stages of tuberculosis in cattle, and, therefore, we thought it was necessary that inspectors should be men of skill, because one point was that they should be capable of judging whether the animal really was affected or not; otherwise there might be considerable expense incurred by the animal being killed if there should be no necessity for it, and, on the other hand, an animal that was really capable of doing injury might be allowed to continue to supply milk, and so injure the health of the people. The evidence upon which we based our application was founded upon that which has of late years come more prominently forward, that tubercle was connected with the presence of a bacillus. As I have said, the subject was comparatively new to us, and the points which we, as a society, took up were that the tuberculosis of bovines and the tuberculosis of the human subject were, in our opinion, identical. We had some dissentients, but the opinion of the society was that there was identity. That, of course, is questioned by some, especially upon two points ; the size of the bacillus, and the position that it occupies with regard to the tissues of the animal. We held, however, that the size was not a point upon which reliance could be placed as a diagnostic mark. I have brought one little specimen here, taken from the human sputa, showing that the bacillus, even in the human subject, may vary considerably in size. The other point, as distinguishing the bacillus, has been held that in animals it occupies the cellsin the human subject, that it is between the cells. That is a view that Mr. Klein has, 1 believe, expressed, but the opinion of the members of the society, best able to express an opinion upon that subject, was that that might be called an accidental difference, because it depended in a great degree upon the medium in which the bacilli were developed, and the rapidity of the growth. We hold, therefore, that the bacillus, being identical in bovines and in the human subject, was one which showed that if there was not a probability of the communication, at all events we all agreed that there was a possibility, and a very great possibility. Then, with regard to the contagiousness of tuberculosis, that, it seems, has been declared by other societies than ours already. It was declared in 1883 by the National Veterinary Association at their meeting in London, and also at a meeting of the same society in Manchester in 1884. At the International Medical Congress at Copenhagen the subject was also accepted, and then a new point came into connexion with this o 54003.

matter, which I shall refer to a little further on, if Vr you will allow me. The resolution, therefore, of the JHloh society was that, whether we all agreed or not as to

ft. /'.

29 Muy 18S8.

the probability, at all events we all agreed as to the possibility of this contagion occurring. The evidence submitted to the society showed that this was possible in three ways. The first was by the Ingestion of tuberculous meat: the aeeond was by the milk from tuberculous cows; and the third was by the inocula-lion from sores to sores; that is to raquo;ay, from sores upon the udder to sores upon the hands of those wiio handled them. Then we had also before the society evidence that human tuberculosis could bo coinmum-cated to animals by inoculation, and that tuberculosis can be communicated from animal to animal also by inoculation. The transmission of tuberols to the human subject from the lower animals by inoculation has not yet been attempted, so that we have not that direct evidence. Then the cases upon which we came to this conclusion were narrated by Principal Walley, as consisting of cases which have been related by others.

7529.nbsp; nbsp;Would you kindly give the particulars of those cases to which you refer ?Prom a Mr. Cox. He gave the ease of a boy who was inoculated in the haiiil by sores. The other cases all had reference to the Ingestion of milk. We had no case before us where there was the Ingestion of flesh as causing tuberculosis. The other cases were all by the Ingestion of milk. Several members of the family of a dealer were infected by the milk from what are called wasters (I believe that is the name). Then there was a cousin of the author who became consumptive, and during the progress of her illness three cows on the farm were found to be suffering from tuberculosis. The next cases be narrated were those stated by Mr. Hopkins. They consisted of two female members of a family who drank milk and became consumptive, and it was found that the cows on the farm were tuberculous. The next case was one which occurred in Principal Walley's own experience. Three of his children were affected by milk which they drank, and one of them died subsequently (and that child had drank the most, I understood) with tabes mesenterica, that is of tubercular affection of the glands of the abdomen. Then he mentioned a case from America, where a child had been also affected with inflammation of the bead. It was found there that the milk which that child used had been supplied from a tuberculous cow. Then the case of all others which made most impression upon the society was one which was given by Dr. Woorlhead, of Pdtnburgh, and which is the same instance as that given to the Committee in Mr. McFadyean's evidence. It occurred in an institution, and the patients, who had ingested milk from tuberculous cows, were affected with phthisis; and pigs fed on the same milk became also affected with tubercle. When the milk was stopped the health of the children and pigs improved. These cases all showed infection except the first by the ingestion of milk. Xo case in man from eating the flesh of tubercular animals was stated. But a question arises here, and it is this : first, is tubercle in the general system of an animal sulHcient to affect the milk, or is it only in oases of tubercular udders that the milk is dangerous #9632; Observation only points clearly at present to the latter condition, that is to say, that the udders must be tubercular. Of course the milk becomes affected, but it is from the udders, or external sores.

7530.nbsp; nbsp;Did I gather from your last answer that you had no proof of disease being communicated from the meat ?We had no proof.

7531.nbsp; nbsp;Was this immunity from disease from meat due in some measure to the meat being cooked before being eaten ?We presume so. But the subject is so much in its infancy at present that we are to a certain extent surmising.

7532.nbsp; Seeing that opinions differ so mucli upon the whole question, do you think it desirable that further experimerit-i should be made to see ir. what way, if at all, the disease can be communicated from the bovine

't'\

#9632;ill

I i

;.,!laquo;

28*

OOMMtTTKK ON PLEUBO-PNBUMONIA AND TUBBKCULOSIS :

gt; I

Dr. H. P. animal to man ?Umloubtedly. That istho olijeet of Jiiichie, M.D, our coming to the Privy Council to get public in-

#9632;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;vestigation of the matter by exporimcnt.

29 M.iy 1888. fg;^ ji_av0 y_OU _anything furthor to state with reference to the subject which you have been do-scribing ?Yes ; I Avanted also to call the attention of the Committee to this point, it made n very strong impression upon me at the time. It seemed to mo that if a mother could communicate disease to lior suckling, there -would be no difficulty in understanding why a cow should communicate disease through its milk. Two cases occurred in my practice, within the hist five years. In the first case, a mother nursed her child for two months. During that time the mother had suffered from irritation of the mammary glands ; they never suppurated, but there was nodular inflaia-mation of the glands. Previously the mother had not been herself the subject of marked tubercular disease. She had been in delicate health, but not the subject of tubercular disease. But about-this time she began to show evidence that the lungs were being affected. The child was taken from the breast, was then put upon cow milk, and, after two months, it died of tubercular inflammation of the brain. The mother also subsequently died in 41 months of tubercular phthisis. In that case, viewing it with the light which we have now thrown upon the matter, it seems to me probable that the mother had supplied the child with tubercular bacilli through the milk, and that that affected the glands of the child's abdomen, and then that secondarily we had this acute attack affecting the head producing tubercular inflammation there. The other cuse was one of a similar kind in which the mother was even healthier than in the first instance. She had previously had two healthy children. She nursed the third child for seven months. The same thing happened. She suffered from the same form of inflammation of the breasts. The child was after wards put on cow milk and six weeks thereafter it died also from inflammation of the brain, having had the attack ushered in by a slight febrile attack of cold. The mother subsequently (within four months) also died in this case of phthisis. In both instances the father is alive and healthy.

7534.nbsp; What grounds had you for supposing that tuberculosis in this case had been communicated from the mother, and not from the cow's milk ?From the fact of the mother subsequently dying of phthisis. The two mothers subsequently died of tubercular phthisis.

7535.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) In both cases ?In both cases, and they both had the same form of inflammation of the breast.

7536.nbsp; Where do you suppose the bacilli were generated ?I presume there must have been a tubercular inflammation of the mammary gland.

7537.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) In the event of tuberculosis existing in the mother is it more likely to be developed in the mammary gland than in any other part of the system ?No, I think not; but there are certain cases where the mother may be tubercular, but the child does not always die before her of tubercular meningitis, nor of tubercular disease. That is the peculiarity in those cases, the child dying before the mother, and within a limited time in both instances. I merely mentioned it as in some degree illustrating the matter, that, if we could believe that such a thing happened with a mother, we could understand how tubercular disease in the udders would also affect the cow's milk.

7538.nbsp; nbsp;I presume that in your investigations with reference to this subject the human milk direct from the breast of the woman was examined microscopically ? I nm sorry to say that, when these cases occurred, we had not the light that we now have, and that was not done. Now I should feel it my duty to make such an examination,

7539.nbsp; nbsp;Then may we assume that the disease of tuberculosis, although not of recent origin, has now assumed an importance which it did not possess a very few years ago in the eyes of scientific men ? It is so. We also fell;, as a society, that the

frequency of tubercular disease in infancy requires explanation. As -will be seen from the following table, during the last ten years in Edinburgh the average death rate from tuberculosis under five years of age has been G'S per cent, of the deaths, that is to say, of 44,616 deaths at all ages, 3,054 occurred under five years of age from tuberculosis. Of course wo have been in the habit in the past of putting these down to hereditary influences.

Deaths under Five Yeaus from Tuberculosis during the past Ten Years.


Years,	Total Deaths in the City.	One Week.	One Month.	One Year.	Five Years.	Total Deaths under 1'ivo Years.	Itato per cent.
1878nbsp; - - 1879nbsp; #9632; - 1880nbsp; - 1881nbsp; #9632; - 1882nbsp; #9632; 1888 - -1884-1885 #9632; 1888 - -1887 #9632; -	4,078 4,11)5 4,31laquo; 4,292 4,275 4,568 4,241 4,585 4,824	5 5 9 7 (i raquo; (t 9 8 8	0 1raquo; 25 24 19 17 27 10 10 27	120 120 142 103 123 138 144 130 160 141	150 151 1laquo;2 157 183 137 I'M 151 149 140	293 295 #9632;335 291 281 290 321 308 32laquo; 318	a'2 7-0 7'1 8'7 0-5 Vl *70** 7-2 7-1 6-6
Total -	41,618	63	202	1,306	1,483	3,054	G-8

Totai. Deaths from Tabes Mesentekica and Tubks-cclar Meningitis during Ten Years, 1876-1885, Scotland.

Jraquo;


	Tahes Mesenterica.	Tuheroular Meningitis.
Under three months - six months ,. twelvemonths two years three years four years flye years	620 745 1,194 2,396 1,227 728 508	668 1,446 3,61raquo; 3,788 1,734 1,223 989
Total	7,416	13,216

7540.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any other special point #9632;which you wish to bring out ?Yes; there is another point which I would like to mention; and it is the frequency with which disease of the glands of the abdomen and inflammation of the brain occur in young children. I find from the second table I put in, -which was prepared by a medical friend from the Registrar-General of Scotland's returns for 10 years, that during that time 7,415 deaths occurred from tabes, that is the disease of the glands of the abdomen, and 13,210 deaths from tubercular meningitis, that is tubercular inflammation of the brain, or water in the head as it is frequently known as. Then it was found that, with the exception of the first three months at the respective ages, inflammation of the head always caused the larger number of deaths. Now it occurs to myself that possibly the greater number of inflammations of the brain have been preceded by disease of the glands of the abdomen. One point is this, that in the first three months the tabes is in a larger proportion, but at all other periods between the three months and five years of age tubercular meningitis is the largest number. Tubercular meningitis, according to the return, may thus be regarded as due to infection from tuberculous glands. The glands therefore possibly may have become affected from the milk which the children have been fed on (I am merely speaking as n possibility), and the secondary disease, inflammation of the brain, may have thereafter resulted. That is another point which I wanted to bring before you.

7541,nbsp; nbsp;We gather, therefore, that the disease of the abdomen precedes the disease of the brain ? I cannot say that it is always observed to precede, but there is a supposition that it may precede. Meningitis being much more rapid in its fatal course, presents the more urgent and formidable symptoms, and to it is assigned the cause; of death ; whilst the tabes, being less evidently active, may be overlooked, or not

.11

raquo;I

¹ I

Ell

___.___

MINUTES OP EVIDENOB,

235


		lt;r.-f)
		t'j
	Jh. It. P, Ititchi,; M. !) 29 Mny 18SS	'quot;i

mentioned, in the certiflcnto of death. Then I have also to mention thot so littlo is tho subject known amongst medical men at present, that I interviewed, before coming up to this Committee, between 40 and 50 of our medical men in Edinburgh; and, with the exception of Dr. Woodhead, none of them had seen a case in tho human subject which they could say resulted from bovine tuberculosis. They had, in soveral instances, had suspicion that such a thing viiight Lave occurred; they nearly all agreed as to the oossihilitv of its occurring. Some of them doubted its probability; but they were all unanimous in this, that the subject was one of such great importance that they thought an inquiry on the part of tho Government was necessary to allay the popular mind and the doubts at present existing.

7542.nbsp; Have you anything further to say on the subject of tuberculosis, of a historical or explanatory nature ?I think not. What we feel is the necessity for further information upon the subject, and not only information but a certainty of information.

7543.nbsp; Do I understand that you desire to see a series of experiments extending over a certain period ?Yes.

7544.nbsp; Over what length of time would you think it desirable that they should extend ?I cannot give you a direct answer to that question.

7545.nbsp; Do you desire to ask for a certain sum of money to be devoted to this purpose ?We had not put it in that form. We thought we did our duty sufficiently if we brought it before the Privy Council, and allowed them, after hearing all the evidence that they were collecting upon the subject, to decide what was to be done.

7546.nbsp; How do you propose that these experiments should be conductedby a board of specialists or oy what other means ?By a board. I should expect that would be the best form.

7547.nbsp; Where, in one particular place or extending over the whole kingdom ?Seeing that we have so much tuberculosis in Scotland, I should hope that it would he conducted also there.

7548.nbsp; Tou have explained to the Committee that in Edinburgh a considerable number of infantile deaths occur from tuberculous disease ; have you any statistics to show to what extent it exists in other parts of the kingdom ?I did not provide myself with them.

7549.nbsp; Have you any reason for knowing, as a matter of comparison, how the matter stands in other parts of the country ?I have no information on that point.

7560. I believe you have a large amount of tubercular disease occurring amongst cattle in Edinburgh ? Yes, we have ; but I do not know that it is larger there than it is elsewhere. It is only that we have been observing it, and had our attention called to it. I suspect it must be generally diffused over the country, as I hear it spoken of. In fact, since I came to London to-day, I was told by a gentleman I met that in the part of Scotland where he came from it was common,

7551.nbsp; Have you any reason to believe that it arises from, or is aggravated by in-and-in breeding either in tho human subject, or in the bovine animal?1 was informed by a veterinary surgeon, whose opinion I have a very high respect for, that he considered it was due to ir-breeding. Eor my own part I think the conditions in which cows are kept lead to it. So far as I have observed the cows in Edinburgh, the insanitary state in which they are kept has a great influence; and I also think that tho want of exercise that stall-fed cows have, also aids in producing a state of health favourable to tho production of tubercle ; and also, I cannot but think, that artificial feeding has some influence, because, so far as I make out, the object of a dairyman is to feed a cow upon such food as will not improve the blood and flesh of the animal so much as will favour the great flow of milk, and they are therefore fed, I understand, upon nil sort of foods which will favour thnt, and they are not blood-producing foodraquo;.

7552.nbsp; Have you observed a greater amount of tiborculoim disease among the porer classes of the

human subject than among those of a higher social position ?1 would say yes.

7553.nbsp; Can you account for that?Hitherto we have accounted for it from the circumstimcos in which they are roared,

7554.nbsp; (Mr. Bowcn-Jones.) Do you consider it is hereditary ?Yes, tho disposition to tuberculosis is hereditary.

7565. You spoke of it being contagious when you commenced your statement to the Committee, for that reiison I thought you excluded the hereditary principle perhaps as being one of the causes, but that is not so, is it?It is not so. It is hereditary in this sense, that you must have a certain disposition of constitution, I beliave, or a certain state of system (which may be acquired but may be transmitted hereditarily) before tho bacilli find the suitable place for development.

7556. And in-and-in breeding under those circumstances of course would be a cause for it ?Yes.

7537, {Professor Ilorslei/.) Was it the opinion of tho society that the evidence respecting the possibility of the disease being contagious from a husband to a wife was adequate ?That is a point which the society at present has not taken into consideration. I have no opinion of the society upon that point.

7558.nbsp; I suppose the society and yourself were quite of the belief that in addition to the possibility of disease being conveyed hereditarily and also by food, it might be conveyed by inhalation ?I have never observed it, but there is some reason to believe it. Amongst cattle that was one point where we considered that it was not by inhalation, possibly the cow got it in the stall, or from the insanitary state in which its surroundings were. Cows were apt to lick what had passed from the mouths of other affected animals, if it had dried up on the stall where it was, and in that way the bacilli might be introduced into the cow's system.

7559.nbsp; nbsp;Then it was your opinion at that time that the virus was conveyed in the secretions of the body, and the excretions of the body, rather than by the breath ?Yes, rather than by the breath.

7560.nbsp; nbsp;We have had evidence given us here tending to show that it was by the breath, but in all the cases which you had laid before you there was a possibility of the process being a very complicated one ?Yos, it was not by the breath apparently.

7661. Did you have any evidence to show that those cases in which tubercle was supposed to have been conveyed by means of foodthat is to say by milk, or flesh, and so on#9632;that tabes mesenteriea was the commonest form in which the disease appeared ?From the early age at which tabes appears, wo concluded that it was in most instances the primary form in which tubercle developed, and that the other conditions were probably secondary to that or to inflammation of other glands, because in tho chest you might have tho thoracic glands affected.

7562.nbsp; nbsp;What I understand you to mean then, is that those cases in which tubercular meningitis occurred were in a minority as compared with those in which mesenteric or intestinal tubercular disease occurred ? No, I have shown that the most numerous deaths were from tubercular meningitis.

7563.nbsp; nbsp;What evidence had you laid before you of deaths resulting from supposed tubercular milk ?We had no evidence of that kindwe had no direct evidence of any case of glandular affection resulting from milk. In the early part of my evidence, after stating the views of tho society, I referred to the frequency with which tubercular disease occurs in infancy, and stated that there was a want of explanation of it. Then I pointed out, that during the lust ten years the average death rate from tuberculosis under the age of five had been 6'8 per cent, in Edinburgh, Then I wont on to say that there was a relation, evidently judging from tho second table, between tabes mesenteriea anil tubercular meningitis, which was so far a surmise on my part, and I pointed out that in the first (hreo months of life tabes exceeds

Gg 2

? M

#9632;v4\

ifl

n #9632;M I

I'fv

236

COMMITTEE ON PLKURO-I'NKXIMONIA AND TUBEROULOSIS i

Dr. R. P. ItnJUe, M.l).

29 May 1888.

the doatlis from tubercular meningitis. Basing the sujiposition upon Unit, I wanted to show that possibly the tubercular condition of the glands might result from the Ingestion of impure milk, and tlmt the other diseasesthe tubercular moniugitis and other innni-festations were secondary.

7564. Secondary to the infection of the alimentary canal ?Yes, of the glands.

7563. Then you have no actual figures to give us of those ca.-es in which the disease followed, to show the ditferenco?No, I cannot that is where wo are at present so much in need of ealightonment.

7566.nbsp; nbsp;Do you not think it would ho highly advisable for the general sanitary condition of a nation, that an inquiry of that kind should bo instituted ?I think so ; it was the desire with which our society was actuated in coining here. We felt that it was a very important subject, but that the information wo hud was so indefinite that it would require to bo made more precise and clear.

7567.nbsp; Was any evidence laid before the society in which it was shown tiiat the disease distinctly passed from one class of animal to another. I am speaking now of the lower animals?The evidence which we had was from one animal to another,

7568.nbsp; I mean from one kind of animal to another; you have given us Dr. Woodhead's case ?There was a supposition, 1 think, of Mr. Walloy's that it might proceed from rabbits and get into cows through the pasture, but it was a mere supposition.

7569.nbsp; nbsp; That was nothing more than a mere supposition, you say?No; the difficulty that we labour under is that we are groping for information just now. The matter seemed to us of so much importance that wo took the opportunity of approaching the Privy Council, m that we might, if possible, get a check put upon the way in which animals at present are exposed for sale, are slaughtered, and ore treated, and so strengthen the hands of the veterinary inspectors in getting these animals properly looked after. One great difficulty, however, which occurred to us as a society was that in the early stages of bovine tuberculosis the diagnosis is so obscure and so difficult. Another point to which I have already alluded was this, that the evidence we had before us chiefly showed that the udders of the cows must be affected. At least, in all the cases it was only through the milk (hat wo had any evidence of infection, and the question was whether the udders of the cows must be affected, or whether tuberculosis in the general system of the animal could affect it in any way. We had no distinct evidence to show that general tuberculosis in the animal affected the milk, unless the udders were affected.

7570.nbsp; Is it your opinion that an animal may have general tuberculosis without the lesion in the udder, and yet be infective ?We have no evidence to show that.

7571.nbsp; nbsp;1 understand that in those cases which you quoted, the udders were diseased as a rule ?So faras, from the evidence laid before us, we could judge.

7572.nbsp; Was any evidence laid before you of the existence of the bacilli in the milk itself; were specimens laid before you ?Specimens were not laid before us. That is a a very important matter in connexion with milk, because the dairymen, 1 believe, mix the milk which comes from different cows. Now it is quite understandable that if you have in the concentrated milk a certain number of bacilli, these may be demonstrated readily enough, but if you diffuse the milk and the bacilli through a large quantity of milk coming from one dairy, and you may examine that milk and yet have very great difficulty in isolating the bacilli. That is one of the difficulties, and therefore it seems to us that there is a necessity lor a careful inspection,

757;i. You mentioned the case of a boy being infected from a sore; I believe there was one case in Qcrnmny of a woman being so affected?I have heard of one case of a woman, but that was Inoculated I mm n human being ; and I have exhibited a photo-

graph of bacilli from tubercular sputa to show tlmt iho varying size of the Imcillus was not a certainty.

7574.nbsp; What regulationraquo; do you consider necessary to prevent the spread of ibis disease amongst cattle and the possibility of its communication to a human being ?It seems to me that a thorough and regular inspection by skilled men would be necessary.

7575.nbsp; Do you think that the present staff' of veterinary inspectors are equal to that work ?They would require special training, it seems to me, to be able to use the microscope and to detect the presence of bacilli; without detecting the presence of bacilli yon cannot speak with certainty or act with decision.

757C. {Mr. Stirling.) You spoke at the beginning of your evidence of some experiments by milk ?Not by milk, but by inoculation of tuberculous bacilli.

7577.nbsp; There have been no experiments made by milk then?No; the bacilli which you see in the photograph are magnified about 600 diameters. To look for those in a gallon of milk is a matter of very considerable difficulty unless you have a very large proportion of them. Therefore, to readily examine them you must have a concentrated portion of the milk that you are looking at, so that it is extremely difficult. In order to test these you require to obtain the bacilli from the milk, and then to cultivate them by artificial cultivation, and then to judge of the result from the cultivated bacilli. It would be, therefore, extremely difficult to inoculate from the milk itself; in fact it would be almost impossible,

7578.nbsp; I did not mean inoculate, I rather meant transmit by milk. Have you made experiments in transmission by milk ?We have no experiments on the human subject further than tliat one which Dr. Woodhead mentioned, where you had a distinct experiment you may say, because the tuberculous cows existed, the tuberculous disease in the children developed, the tuberculous milk was given to the pigs, they became tuberculous, and when the tuberculous milk was stopped being given to both children and pigs, the health of both pigs and children improved. That may be regarded, I think, as an evidence of the conveyance of disease by milk.

7579.nbsp; You say that their health immediately improved?I mean the health improved in this way; the disease T believe amongst the other children ceased to be developed. I do not refer to those cases where it was once established.

7580.nbsp; Then am I to understand that once established you cannot get quit of it again ; you cannot cure them ?Phthisis is a curable disease. We have in our post-mortem rooms frequent evidence of phthisis having been cured. You will find cretaceous deposits in the lungs which are held to be significant of a tubercular deposit there having undergone areparative change.

7581.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know by any chance what is the death rate in Edinburgh from phthisis?10 per cent, of the total deaths. I think Dr. Littlejohn will tell you that the total of deaths is somewhere roughly taken at about 5,000, and the proportion from phthisis is about 500.

7582.nbsp; Has that been on the increase of late years ? I do not think it has. That is one of the difficulties in the case, that we do not know when or how long this condition that we arc now wanting information about may have been continuing, or has been going on, but wo have not found that the deaths from phthisis are increasing.

7583.nbsp; {Chairman.) Has the per-centage of deaths increased of late years in Edinburgh ?It has diminished, but then it has diminished from other causes. Wc hold that our death rate has diminished in consequence of the excellent sanitation of our medical officer of health, because our death rate from other diseases has diminished. Of course you are aware of the conveyance of other diseases by milk. During the past yeur in Edinburgh wc had one epidemic, but we had two sources by which the milk containing scarlatina poison was introduced into the city. As an evidence of the disease being spread in that way, I would mention the

^; ,

MINUTES OF KVIDBNCB.

237

fact Unit one morning 200 intimations of frosh cases were given to the modical üfflooi' of health, and they could not have all been communicated from one person to another.

7581. (Mr, Stirling.) EVom what you say are wo to understand that it would ho vmy difflcult, or in fact almost impiactioablo to test the milk supply for tuberculosis ?No; I would require to make a correction 11' I have ^iven you that impression. What I meant was that in the dairies they mix the milk from different cows. If you get the milk from an infected cow, it lias been shown in public court, in Paisley, 1 believe, that you can demonstrate the presence of the bacilli in that milk, but if you get it diffused through all the gallons of milk that come from a dairy it would be very difficult indeed to trace the bacilli.

7585.nbsp; Then would you not require to test the milk from each cow ?Yes ; and it is there I think where the necessity for skilled inspectors shows itself. Of course that implies great expense, but still we, as a society, did not think that, the question of the expense lay with us to consider in a matter of this kind. Wo were medical men who were desirous of improving the health of the people, and we left it for our governing authority rather to decide as to how the expense was to be met.

7586.nbsp; But expense would be involved in training the surgeons ?You would require to have a larger number of inspectors I would presume, and you would require to pay them higher if you get a greater amount of skill; but that is a matter which we, as a society, did not think it our province to introduce ; it was purely from the medical aspect of the health of the people that we were interested in this question.

7587.nbsp; You spoke of a boy who was inoculated in his hand; would you mind giving us tho history of that boy ?I cannot j it is a case quoted by Mr. Walley from a Mr. Cox who had given the statement elsewhere. Mr. Walley merely incorporated it as one of his confirmatory cases. I can give you what Mr. Walley said upon the subject, but, I cannot give you any information upon it from my own knowledge.

7588.nbsp; nbsp;What is your opinion as to how the disease is generated ?Sii.co Koch demonstrated the presence of bacilli I must regard the bacilli as the exciting

#9632; cause of the disease. These bacilli seem to be introduced into our systems in various ways, but we must have in our system a suffieieut pabulum or nidus, upon which they may germinate and increase. Unless you have that condition of system, the bacilli may be in your system and may pass out, I believe, without leaving the impress of their presence.

7589.nbsp; Then it is not spontaneous?No; possibly they may be ingested with our food and although we have no distinct evidence of it it is possible that they may be inhaled.

7590.nbsp; nbsp;Will the action of cooking not destroy the bacilli ?I believe it will; perhaps I may be allowed to refer to what happened in anthrax. My attention was lately directed to that and I mentioned it in the paper which 1 wrote on the subject, that the late

Mr, Robertson in his book on Equine Medicine states, that ho had lived on anthrax moat after it was cooked. If tho cooking will kiraquo; the anthrax bacilli it will undoubtedly also kill tho jaeillus of phthisis.

7591.nbsp; Tbon that makes the danger arising from meat to bo quite secondary to tho danger arising from milk ?I so regard it, further than this, that you may have it introduced from sausages which are often not perfectly cooked. I said that wo had no evidence in what was laid before the society of any case in which the moat of the flesh had induced disease, and I attributed it certainly to the cooking.

7592.nbsp; nbsp;What temperature will destroy the bacilli ? A boiling heat would be probably sufficient.

7593.nbsp; Then yen believe that meat thoroughly cooked, or milk properly boiled, in each case, destroys the bacilli?I have reason to think so, but I cannot say with certainty, because yon may have the spores which might resist that temperature, but the probability is, I think, that that temperature will be sufficient.

7594.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) You said that you thought it desirable that tho milk of cows should bo inspected by skilled persons, with a view of detecting bacilli if there were tubercle present ; have you formed any idea of the scheme by which that could lie worked ? No, I have not. There is inspection going on of which Dr. Littlejohn will be able to give you all details. I merely came here to express the views of the society as to the necessity for further investigation being made into the subject, and to impress upon the Privy Council their views. As to tho character of the inspectors, I think Dr. Littlejohn will tell you all regarding them ; my own idea is that they should be men who are capable of using a microscope and able to apply the power of recognition of tho bacilli.

7595.nbsp; Of course you are aware that tubercle bacilli cannot be detected satisfactorily without rather a complicated staining process ?I am aware of that. That is why I say that it would require some inspectors who had sufficient skill to guide them in such a matter.

7596.nbsp; (Chairman.) You have given one or two instances of disease, other than tuberculosis, as being communicated through milk. Now, from a medical point of view, would you consider it to be to the interest of the inhabitants of large towns that milk should bo supplied from country dairies, under proper medical and sanitary conditions, rather than from town dairies ?I do not see why town dairies should not be properly conducted.

7597.nbsp; 1 only ask for an answer to this question from the fact of your having stated that cows in town dairies were kept in a somewhat unnatural condition ? Yes; but it so happens that these cases of scarlet fever in Edinburgh were introduced from a country dairy.

759S. I said in my question quot; under proper medical quot; and sanitary conditions quot; ?1 speak of Edinburgh, and I do not see why our town dairies there should not be perfectly capable of supplying good miik.

Or. /,'. P,

Ritchie, M.U.

29 May 1888.

m #9632;1

'.Si

The witness withdrew.

WH ,'#9632; '4 #9632;

#9632;uim

I'itl

238

C0MMI1TEB ON PLEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS :

Dr. H. 1).

Liltlejohn, M.D.

29 May 1888.

Dr. Hknuy Duncan Littlejohn, M.D., called and examined.

7599.nbsp; {Chairman.) You are, I believe, the Medical Officer of Health of Edinburgh ?I am.

7600.nbsp; And also Consulting Medical Officer of the Local Government Board of Scotland ?I am.

7601.nbsp; And as such you are, I presume, aware of the prevalence of tuberculosis among cattle in Edinburgh ?I am.

7602.nbsp; Has your attention also been directed to the prevalence of tuberculosis amongst the population of Edinburgh ?It has.

7603.nbsp; AVill you describe to the Committee the method which is adopted in Edinburgh of dealing with carcases affected with tuberculosis?If the animal is in good condition, if the tubercle is limited, if the glands are not affected, and if the flesh on section appears sound, we pass that animal in our slaughter-houses. If, on the other hand, the animal is at all emaciated it is at once condemned as unmarketable. If the tuberculosis is extensive, and if the glands are affected, whatever be the condition of the animal the carcase is condemned.

7604.nbsp; What, in your opinion, is the effect, upon public health when the flesh of animals affected with tuberculosis is used as human food ?We have no data in Edinburgh to prove that the use of the flesh of animals affected with tuberculosis has any effect upon the public health ; in fact we have no data to guide us.

7605.nbsp; Have you in Edinburgh any powers of seizing animals thus affected in thojmarkets or cowsheds ? We have not.

7606.nbsp; Have you any powers of preventing; the milk from a diseased animal being mixed with milk from healthy animals ?We have not.

7607.nbsp; Have you any suggestions to make with a view to meeting these difficulties ?I should like to have similar powers to those enjoyed in England and Ireland, so that our inspectors might take any animals from our public markets which exhibit a suspicious appearance of emaciation, summoning the veterinary inspectors of the Corporation, and craving powers from the magistrate to have that animal destroyed.

7608.nbsp; Have you any reasons to justify you in supposing that the inspectors have such powers in England and Ireland ?I have. I will refer you to the Act to amend the Nuisances Removal Act for England, 1885, with respect to the seizure of diseased and unwholesome meat, which is dated 28th July 1863, and which was extended to Ireland in 1869, upwards of six years afterwards. In the Act I find the following provision : quot; The medical officer of health quot; or inspector of nuisances may at all reasonable times quot; inspect and examine any animal .... exposed quot; for sale, or deposited in any place for the purpose of laquo; sale or of preparation for sale, and intended for the quot; food of man .... and in case any such animal quot;... appear to him to be diseased or unsound, quot; or unwholesome, or unfit for the food of man, it quot; shall be lawful for such medical officer of health quot; or inspector of nuisances to seize, take, and carry quot; away the same . . . .in order to have the same quot; dealt with by a justice ; and if it shall appear to the quot; justice that any such animal .... is diseased, quot; or unsound, or unwholesome, or unfit for the food quot; of man, he shall order the same to bo destroyed.quot; I observe that in the Act there is no definition of what the disease is.

7609. Then you desire to possess similar powers under the Nuisances Act; but are you aware that no such powers are given under the Contagious Diseases (Animal¹raquo;) Acts ?I am not aware of that; but not being a lawyer I naturally imagined that unless this Act was specially repealed it was still in force. Then I beg to draw the attention of the Committee to a ciauso which was obtained in a public Act applying to Qreonook. In 1877 the Greenock people obtained

a clause, which you will find quoted in my Report to the Board of Supervision on Tuberculosis (Bovine), Appendix No. 3, page 5. I hold that this ciauso would give us powers to deal with cattle supposed to bo infected either in markets or in dairies.

7610.nbsp; Might I ask you whether any application has ever been made by the city of Edinburgh for such powers ?No. The whole question with regard to tuberculosis has only emerged of late.

7611.nbsp; Are you aware when the last Police Act was obtained for Edinburgh ?About four or five years ago, I think; not longer than four years ago.

7612.nbsp; Was any application then made for further powers to deal with disease of any kind?No; the only ciauso that wo got was power to prohibit the entry of milk from infected dairies in the country into the city of Edinburgh. We got powers from Government, that if we had reason to suspect any dairy in the country which was supplying to the city milk containing disease of an infectious character, wo had power to stop the entry of that milk.

7613.nbsp; Then the powers which you sought were rather against the country ; but had you any special powers at that time affecting your city dairies ?Yes, we had. We got a ciauso compelling all dairy keepers to give at once intimation to the local authority of the presence of infectious disease in their families or among their dependents, and also to intimate serious disease among their cattle.

7614.nbsp; Do you think it desirable, in the face of what you state, that tuberculosis should be included in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts ?So far as my experience as a medical officer goes, I should say yes, because I myself see weekly in our markets large numbers of cows somewhat emaciated, which I suspect to be suffering from tuberculosis, and if they are not disposed of in Edinburgh, we know where they are they are drafted to Glasgow or other fairs. I should like to have that power which was given formerly (whether abolished or not) under this Nuisances Removal Act in England, that our inspectors on due cause shown should have power to seize a. cow, have it examined by our veterinary inspectors, and if they agree, have it slaughtered and a due examination made of it then.

7615.nbsp; Is it within your observation that this disease is on the increase or not ?I think it is, so far as my experience goes. It is only since 1887 that we have carefully looked into this matter, because, prior to 1887, all diseases of carcases killed at our public slaughter-houses (we have public slaughter-houses) in Edinburgh were lumped together, but since 1887 I had a careful record made, and I find that during the year 1887, 51 carcases of undoubted tuberculosis were condemnedso bad were they that they were at once condemned. Up till May 1888the present date we have 46. Now we have 51 for the whole year of 1887, and up till now in 1888that is hardly six monthswe have 46.

7616.nbsp; Is it your experience that tuberculosis is easily detected in the bovine animal ?Not in the living animal.

7617.nbsp; Are you aware whether the cases to which you have referred were supposed to be animals suttering from other diseases ?I have no doubt a large proportion were.

7618.nbsp; Do you suppose that they were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia ?No, because our inspectors at our abattoirs can easily recognise a cow affected with pleuro-pneumonia, but I find they cannot detect an animal affected with tuberculosis, unless the disease has gone to such an extent and with such emaciation that anyone can recognise it.

7619'. Are you aware that many animals which have been in contact with animals suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, but have not yet developed the disease and have been slaughtered, have afterwards shown undoubted proofs of tuberculosis PSigns of

#9632;M\

MINÜTRS OP EVIDENCE.

239

tuberculosis have boon seen, that has occurred in several of our town dairies.

7620. And is it possibly in consequence of the rooout slaughter order now in operation timt it has beon discovered more frequently timn formerly?A case occurred the other day. I will read a report from one of the inspectors, as I told him to put it in writing. Ho says, quot; I have the honour to report for your in-quot; formation that six carcases of beef have been con-quot; domned during the present month for tuberculosis, quot; and also that on the occasion of 16 cattle from quot; Liberton,quot; quite close to Edinburgh, quot;being quot; slaughtered hero during this month for being in quot; contact with animals atfected with pleuro-pneumonia, quot; no less than six out of this total were found quot; affected with tuberculosis in various stages of the quot; disease, and condemned accordingly.quot;

7021. In the event of the powers which you desire to possess being given, whereby you may seize animals suffering from tuberculosis, would you be disposed to grant compensation for their destruction ? I speak with diffidence on the matter, but I would be inclined only to grant compensation where wo happened to make a mistake; that is to say, if we got hold of an animal and killed it, and found that we had made a mistake, then 1 think that the owner might be entitled to some compensation, but in the meantime I am perfectly sure that our inspectors and myself laquo;ill only act in the case where we find a cow emaciated ; because if the animal were otherwise well nourished, I do not see that there would be any reason to condemn it. From the number of emaciated animals that I see in our markets I am perfectly sure that if we had the power of seizure it would be a. very great boon indeed.

7G22. With your long experience, do you believe that this disease exists more among dairy stock than among ordinary farm stock ?Undoubtedly. I have no hesitation in saying so.

7623. Have you any reason to think that tuberculosis can be communicated from the bovine animal to the human subject?That is a matter upon which I cannot speak with certainty. We found a large amount of tuberculous disease in young children, but it is exceedingly difficult to speak with regard to Edinburgh, because Edinburgh is exceptional. There is no doubt of this that the poorer classes are taking less milk than ever they did before ; they cannot afford to take it, and I find the poorer classes in Edinburgh have their children feed chiefly on tea. But then we have an enormous floating population in Edinburgh, a young population. Edinburgh is the great educational centre of Scotland, and there arrives there every year an enormous number of young people. These young people are sent to Edinburgh with money and they live a good deal upon milk, so that no one can speak positively as to the extension of disease from milk so far as the Edinburgh population is concerned.

7624. (Professor Brown.) Would you propose to have power to seize any meat or milk which you thought might be infected ?I think we have the power in Edinburgh already to seize any diseased meat. We wish if possible to be able to seize the live animal.

7025, Then you would in that case proceed on suspicion very often ?Undoubtedly.

7626.nbsp; And then kill the animal to satisfy yourself ? Undoubtedly.

7627.nbsp; In that case supposing you found the animal free from tuberculosis you would have to give compensation ?Undoubtedly.

7628.nbsp; Would you propose in such a case to compensate for the value of the animal as a milking animal, or would you be content with butchers' prices ?1 am hardly competent to give an opinion on that point.

7629.nbsp; nbsp;It is a matter of coinnum business. A man with a lean, good milking cow might bo very much injured if ho Avere compelled to take the money which that animal would be worth to the butcher ?-. -There-

fore I would be inclined to deal liberally with him, and I believe the people of Edinburgh are inclined to do so.

7G30. Would you go beyond considering the living animal; that is to say, would you compel owners to give notice of the existence of disease when they knew that it did exist or suspected it,?I would, but I think there would be a little objection there because I think it is utterly impossible for them to suspect the presence of this tuberculosis. When they begin to suspect the presence of this tuberculosis, the auhnal is so emaciated that I think the moat would be condemned in Edinburgh as unmarketable. I may be allowed to explain that we have a great many carcases condemned as unmarketable simply because the animal. is lean. What is the fault in their condition we cannot tell, but we again and again condemn animals simply because they are lean and unmarketable owing to that leanness.

7631.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware that animals in very good condition have been even recently sold in Edinburgh and Glasgow for considerable sums of moneyfrom 201. to 30/and that the butchers who purchased them have had them seized subsequently for tuberculosis which has been discovered after slaughter? Several such cases have come under my personal notice ; one on Saturday last.

7632.nbsp; And those men who bought the animal in good faith of course lose the whole value which they have paid for it ?Not so far as this last case was concerned, because the person who sold the animal at once returned the money to the purchaser.

7633.nbsp; nbsp;But there is no provision in such case for compensating the man whose animal was seized ? Except by ordinary law,if a man buys an animal from another as a sound animal, and we find that it is unsound, and he agrees that the animal is so bad as to be condemned, I think he is entitled to have the money sent back.

7634.nbsp; Are you aware that some of the most valuable strains of cattle in the country are known to be infected with tuberculosis ?So I understand.

7635.nbsp; Do you think that would constitute any difficulty in the way of legislating ?Undoubtedly it would.

7636.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that any legislative action can be taken with the idea of arresting the progress of the disease among the lower animals ?Can you specify the lower animals which you have in your mind.

7637.nbsp; I mean mainly cattle ?When I see the manner in which our town dairies are managed J, as a medical man, am not at all surprised to find tuberculosis rife among the animals kept as they are. In our Scotch towns it is chiefly farmers, who have failed in their country business, who come into town and begin to practice with dairies. They bring nil their country notions into town; they keep everything in a state of constant damp; they have the animals tied up close against the wall and close together without due provision for the proper cubic space ; the animals are never taken out from year's end to year's end until they are taken away for slaughter ; the place is badly ventilated, and therefore so far as I, as a medical man, am capable of judging, I should say that that is a certain method of producing tuberculosis.

76.38. Have you no provisions under the dairies order in Scotland?We have; but they are not so thoroughly carried out as I should like.

7C3i). What jurisdiction legislates for dairies in Scotland?The local authority of each place, and wherever there is a town council or corporation, the corporation is the local authority of that place.

7640.nbsp; Are you aware that in England tho Local Government Board administers that Act ?Yes, and I believe that, the Board of Supervision, of which I am an officer, also administers the matter,

7641.nbsp; nbsp;Does that correspond in Scotland to the Loeol Government Board hero ?It does exactly so.

7G42. Probably by strict administration of the powers which were originally exercised by tho Privy

Dr. H. l)

Itittlfju/iii, M.D.

29 May 1888

#9632; re

*;:

240

COMMITTEE ON PLKUUO-^NKUMONIA AN1gt; TUBBROUI1O8I8

Dr. H. D.

I I'lUjulm, M.U.

2raquo; Muy 1K88.

Council, under the thirty-fourtli section of the Act of 1878, which gave them quot;power to pasraquo; orders for the repalation of dairies; if those powers were strictly administered by your Board of Supervision you might very much improve the sanitary condition of the dairies ?I have not the slightest doubt of that.

7643,nbsp; nbsp;Your ideas I expect in reference to tuberculosis and the seizure of living and dead apimals have 'iisinly regard to public health ?They have.

7644.nbsp; nbsp;You are probably aware that under our Acts we have absolutely no power whatever to deal with tile disease solely on the ground that wo might take measures to prevent its extension to human beings? IndeeJ, I was not aware ofthat.

764.'). We are bound to show that our measures have reference mainly to the prevention of the extension of the disease among the lower animals ?1 was not aware of that. I see in the last milk-shop order they speak about preventing milk in a dairy being mixed with olher milk, where we have infectious diseases among the cows. That is an unfortunate interpretation so far as tuberculosis is concerned, because I see that tuberculosis is not mentioned amongst the special diseases named in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. We may have several cases in the town dairies where we have reason to believe that the cow from its peculiar look is suifering from tuberculosis. How can we deal with that cow, and prevent the milk of that cow being mixed with the other rnilk in the dairy ?

7646. Probably you would suggest that if we were to make tuberculosis a disease within the meaning of the Act, you would then have all the powers in regard to dairy procedure and markets which you now have in reference to those diseases which are under the Act ?That is what we believe.

7047. That would be perfectly simple ?Yes.

7648.nbsp; nbsp;But you see at the same time that merely to put a disease within the provisions of the Act and to say nothing more about it would bo rather a feeble action ?Would it not enable us, for example, to prevent the milk of suspected animals being mixed with other milk or sold for human food. That would be a great matter in an educational centre like Edinburgh, and in our town dairies if we could tell a man that we suspected an animal to be affected with tuberculosis, and if we could prevent him mixing the milk of that animal with the rest of the milk in the dairyif we had that power, I think it would be a great advantage.

7649.nbsp; nbsp;I understand that you would suggest that at least the disease should be defined as one of the diseases within the meaning of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act?Such is my opinion, and if it were general I believe it would make dairymen and butchers act in regard to this disease in a way we cannot get. them to act at presentthey snap their fingers at us and say, quot; You have nothing to do with quot; us; that disease is not named among the list of quot; diseases, and you are powerlessquot;they tell us that openly.

7650.nbsp; nbsp;Have you formed any opinion as to the desirability of examining milk from living cows by the microscope and other means ?Yes. I have seen such milk exhibited in open court and examined in open court, and specimens handed to the judge in order to enable him, through the microscope, to see the peculiar bacillus of tubercle. That is in the cases where the udder has been markedly affected.

7651.nbsp; nbsp;Would you propose to make the examination of milk for the tubercle bacillus an ordinary procedure, that is, a part of the inspection of the dairy ? 1 should think so. I think it would be the duty.of the medical officer of health of that special placehe would have to conduct this milk-shops order, and wherever he suspected that tuberculous milk was being mixed with olher milk, it would be his duty to take a specimen and either examine it himself or get it examined by some skilled observer.

7652.nbsp; Which would you suggestthat the medical officer should have the duty of examining the milk or that it should be sent to a bacteriological laboratory for the purpose ?1 should say to n bacteriological laboratory, of which wo have spveral in Edinburgh.

7653.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. lioweu-Jones.) You stated to Professor Brown just now that you thought tuberculosis ought to be included iu the diseases under the Act of 1878; how would you propose to deal with it under that Act?----Were it nothing more than giving us the power which we claimed under the dairies, cowsheds, and milk-shops order, that of itself would bo a great advantage in a town like Edinburgh, because we should then have the power to exclude the milk of any supposed infected animal.

7654.nbsp; Bo you think that would be sufficient to lessen the disease or to eradicate it from the country ? I have a very strong opinion that, if the local authorities and Government did their duty in the enforcement of this dairies, cowsheds, and milk-shops order, a great deal would be done to eradicate the disease in the country.

7655.nbsp; Then I take it that your opinion is that, if tuberculosis was included in the Act, the present powers would be sufficient to diminish the presence of tuberculosis and the injury it does, if those powers were properly carried out by the local authorities ? I think so. I think just now local authorities, both in towns and country, are very lax; I say it to my own shame, in Edinburgh.

7656 Then supposing that was the case, would it be more likely that the local authorities would carry out their work better with this disease included in the Act than they do now ?They would not have the excuse for saying they have no power in dealing with tuberculosis, because they say tuberculosis is not recognised by the Government as one of the special infectious diseases, but if it were, as public attention has now been so much directed to this, I believe that the dairies, cowsheds, and inilk-shops order would be far more stringently enforced now than ever any such order has been before. Public opinion is gaining strength every day.

7657.nbsp; Then you think the Act would bo better administered by the local authorities on account of the effects of this disease being more feared now than they have been in the past ?I think so.

7658.nbsp; nbsp;Would you go further than that and advise tuberculosis to be treated as pleuro-pneumonia. is now under that Act by owners being obliged to give notice, and by its being slaughtered out in every case in which it Wiis found to exist?First of all I do not see how owners can give notice, because owners are not cognizant of this disease until it has gone to such an extent that really any inspector visiting, as they ought to visit, from time to time, these places would at once say, quot;This quot; animal is affected and must be removed at once.quot;

7659.nbsp; nbsp;When it became evident that the disease was existing, would you advise slaughter being put into operation as in the ease of pleuro-pneumonia ? Undoubtedly I would of the infected animal.

7660.nbsp; Would you recommend compensation to be paid as in pleuro-pneumonia ?As I have said before, recognizing this disease to be dependent largely upon the insanitary conditions which extensively prevail, both in town and country, I would not be inclined to give compensation, except in cases where n mistake was made by the inspector.

7661.nbsp; Do you not think the effect of that would be that many cases of tuberculosiseven advanced cases of tuberculosiswould not be notified to the authorities ?Not if the dairies were properly inspected in town and country as they ought, to be.

7662.nbsp; 1 think you must draw a distinction between town dairies and country herds. You think, 1 gather from what you say, that in town dairies these cases would bo found out by the authorities ?1 think so.

7663.nbsp; Would that apply to ordinary country herds ? I am not competent to speak upon that.

7064. Do you think enough evidence exists to show that tuberculosis is so dangerous that this

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

241

course you recommend should be pursued, or would you advise further experiments on the nature and effects of the disease ?I think decidodl)' that furlhor experiments are required to clear up many points connected with this disease, laquo;s for example the use or employment of meat from an exceedingly fine animal that exhibits this tuberculosis. With all my experience, I cannotlooking at the meatsay that that meat could do any harm, and looking at our poor population, and the price of butcher's meat, 1 am inclined to think that some of that meat might go into human consumption, but 1 am overbonio by my fellow inspectors, and the animal is condemned in toto, I should like investigations to be made to ascertain how far the flesh which appears to be sound is really affected in any way with tuberculosis. This has not as yet been determined so fur as I am aware.

7665.nbsp; nbsp;Have you formed any idea of the nature and oxtent to which experiments ought to be carried out to make them valuable from a public point of view ?I have not.

7666.nbsp; nbsp;Nor of the cost ?1 think these experiments should first cf all be carried on in the great centres, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the large towns of England, where they could bo carried on at comparatively little cost, there being in those centres a staff of skilful men ready to conduct the experiments. I do not see what is to hinder the local authorities the corporation say of a town like Ediuburgh, to conduct certain experiments, with regard to the danger of laquo;sing flesh of certain animals exhibiting signs of tuberculosis.

7667.nbsp; Is there anything lo prevent their doing so now ?Nothing whatever.

7668.nbsp; Then do you recommend local authorities doing that, or do you advise that further and more extended experiments should be undertaken, to be paid for through Imperial sources?I think if a series of experiments were made in Londoncontrol experiments I should call themthe local authorities elsewhere might conduct similar experimenlb.

7669.nbsp; Are you prepared to advise this Committee as to the nature and extent and method (if carrying out those experiments and the cost ?As I have said, I think experiments should be made with the flesh of animals affected witli tuberculosis, to make out really how much the muscular tissue which we eat is or is not affected with this disease.

7670.nbsp; That would be a very simple thing I should think ?That would be a very simple thing indeed.

7671.nbsp; nbsp;Would you go on further and test the question as to the communicability of the disease from the lower races to man ?1 would; except that I am quite at sea as to the nature of the investigation. I do not quite see how we could prove it, unless, as Professor Fleming advised, Government should give us a criminal sentenced to death to work upon. He advised that experiments might be made on a criminal sentenced to death, who should be infected with tuberculosis by giving him tuberculous meal to eat, and then when he comes to suffer the last penalty of the law the body should bo delivered up for dissection, and we could tell then positively whether any bad results followed or not.

7672.nbsp; You see the groat difficulty of conducting such experiments would bo on account of human life not being trifled with ?That is the important thing that is the great dilliculty.

7073. Do you think that tuberculosis is heveditary in animals?Upon that point I am not qualified to give an opinion.

7674. {Professor ITorslcy ) You said that you would like to see tuberculosis included in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 187H, and yet I understood you to say that yon did not consider it to be well to insist, in accordance with that Act, upon notillcation of the presence of disease ?The difficulty

arising from notification is that in the early stages it is utterly impossible to detect this disease.

767.'5. I will come to that point directly, but accepting it in the abstract, 1 suppose you would admit that where possible the disease should bo notified as soon as possible?It is a chronic disease; if it was an acute disease, where hours are of the greatest possible importance, I hold that a man should give intimation as soon as possible because the inspector might not come round for the next three or four days, but with a practically chronic disease, like tuberculosis a matter of a week makes not the slightest difference. It is justas in the human subject with scarlatina or some of those acute diseases. Wo must got the intimation as soon as possible, but in the case of consumption a few days makes no matter at all.

7676.nbsp; It would make a difference of course if it was a question of disease being conveyed by the milk. I quite understand what you say with regard to its chronicity, but supposing the inspector did not come round then, and supposing ho did not carry out a very searching examination, we should by notification get an additional aid, should we not, in the discovery of the disease ?Undoubtedly.

7677.nbsp; nbsp;In respect of that point of the difficulty of diagnosing the disease, 1 understand that you would not think it well that non-notification should be made penalthat you would not punish a man for not giving notice ?No, I really think not.

7678.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it would be sufficient encouragement to notification if you offered compensation in every ease where you slaughtered such an animal ?I confess the compensation clauses frighten me, not only as a medical officer but also as a ratepayer, because we have had in Edinburgh to pay so heavily for compensation in pleuro-pneurnonia. I strongly suspect that if once a comparatively wealthy city like Edinburgh was able to levy rates for such a purpose, you would have all the tuberculous cows of the countryside sent into Edinburgh.

7679.nbsp; Supposing the charge for compensation of cattle slaughtered of any disease is ultimately put upon the Imperial Exchequer, what would you say then ? Undoubtedly my opinion would be altered.

768Ü. You said just now that yom would only eom-pensato when you had made a mistake in diagnosis ? Yes.

7681.nbsp; Would you not thereby be sometimes committing an injustice in places where the sanitarv condition of the byres, amp;c. was good ?i think the man must conduct bis trade taking the chances of trade. If he makes a bad bargain in buying an animal affected, he must just take his chances. I do not see why this trade, of all trades, should be bolstered up, especially when I am of opinion that this disease, differing from pleuro-pneumonia and rinderpest, is dependent largely upon insanitary conditions at the disposal, so to speak, or under the management of either the proprietor or the tenant.

7682.nbsp; In the course of your experience have you found cases where in consequence of non-ventilation of byres, the disease has distinctly spread from one animal to the neighbouring animals in the shed?All I can say is that we have condemned several animals from a special dairy. From the way the cattle are housed, with their breath beating against the wall, and spreading on every side, if the disease is communicable by the breath, I do not see a more likely means of spreading it than the present arrangements in our towu dairies.

7683.nbsp; But you cannot give the Committee at this moment any particular instance in which cows standing on either side of an infected animal have taken the disease ?I cannot. I might have provided myself with that inlbrination, but 1 have not done so.

7684.nbsp; As you have the public slaughter-houses In Edinburgh, can you tell us what is the proportionate! occurrence of tubercular disease among the cattle killed (here?The following table will show that:

Itr H. D.

Zittlejohn, M.D.

2a May 188laquo;.

v.t. v. i

K.I:

o 54003.

II h

242

COMMITTEE ON PLBUttO-X'tfEITMONIA ANTD TUBKBOULOSIS I

raquo;raquo; H. Ü.

Littlejohn, M.D.

29 May 1888.

Return of Carcases aftected with Tdbebculosib condemned in Edinburgti from lat January 18S7

to current date.


Yuar.	Month.	Number of Caroases of			Total Number of Caroases.
	Month.	Beef.	Pork.	Voal.	Total Number of Caroases.	Total Number of Cattle.
1887 raquo;gt; raquo;raquo; raquo;raquo; raquo;raquo; it	January - February March April ... May June July ' - August - September October . November December	2 5 2 6 3 1 6 3 C 8 4	_ 1	2	-2 5 2 laquo; 5 2 1 Ü 4 6 8 4	2,507 2,334 2,681 2,392 8,61fi 2,14laquo; 2,124 2.363 2,484 2,610 2,959 2,550
Total for year 1887 -		48	1	2	51	29,665
1888	January - February March April ... May	17 10 7 fi C .....	1			2,722 2,276 2,266 2,085 1,407
Total for 5 months		45	1		46	10,756
Grau	d total -	93	2	2	97	40,421

'if

16^5. Can you give the Committee any facts respecting the proportionate distribution of the disease in the body of the animal ?It is chiefly, so far as I have observed in the pleura and peritoneumthe coverings of the chest and abdomentliat we find the disease. In the second place we find the liver affected, and thirdly, the glands generally. The lungs rarely are affected, the animal apparently being killed before the lungs become affected. I have never observed any deposit of tubercle in the flesh of the animal that is used in the way of cooking for human food.

7686.nbsp; nbsp;I understand you to mean the muscle? Yes. I have seen it in the case of a pig, but never in the case of a bovine animal.

between man and man, free from any local prejudices at all.

76laquo;5. The section says that quot; if it shall appear to the justice.quot; If you substitute the sheriff substitute it will read quot;If it shall appear to the sheriff substitute quot; that any such animal Is diseased quot;?Yes, he takes evidence, first of all from the medical officer, from the inspector, and from a skilled veterinary surgeon, and after that he satisfies himself. If, on the other hand, the thing is not established, he orders the cow or animal to be returned to the owner. In that case I think the man is entitled to damages, and he would have, damages against us in the civil court.

7096. You laid very great stress upon the insanitary condition of the dairies just now ?Yes, I did.

769 7. I think you said that one reason why you would not give compensation in certain cases was, that you thought the fault lay with the proprietor and the tenant ?That was my opinion, and is so.

7698.nbsp; nbsp;Do you know the Dairies and Milk Shops Order of Council ?I am acquainted with it.

7699.nbsp; nbsp;What do you think of section 8 of the Order ?I think that is an admirable clause.

7700.nbsp; After reading that clause, are you prepared to say that the responsibility does not now rest upon the local authorities ?It rests upon the local authority undoubtedly to see the Milk Shops Order carried out, but going a little furlhcr back, it rests upon the proprietor, I hold, of this dairy, and secondly, upon the tenant before ever the local authority takes action. I think it is a disgrace in the case of any dairy that the local authority should have to take action under that Order.

7701.nbsp; But there is the Order ?Yes.

7702.nbsp; And it is for the local authority to see that Order carried out ?Undoubtedly, and we are to blame if it is not carried out.

7703.nbsp; The local authority in Edinburgh is__

what ?The town council.

7704.nbsp; nbsp;And in the county ?In the county, if I mistake not, the various local authorities scattered throughout the county.

7705.nbsp; Are you aware what it is in a small village where they have got the Burgh Police Act?It would there be the commissioners of the burgh.

7706.nbsp; And failing themwhom ?The Board of Supervision.

7707.nbsp; Of which T think you said you were the medical ofHcer ?Yes,

7708.nbsp; May I ask how many instances have come within your knowledge, where either milk sliops or

7687.nbsp; Have

you ever seen it in the joints ?I

have.

7688.nbsp; nbsp;How often would you say that you had seen it in the joints ?I can hardly say, but of course if we found it in the joints, we would look upon it as h very bad case indeed ; we find it of course occasionally, but not frequently.

7689.nbsp; Have you ever seen it in the bones ?I have. That is a very bad case indeed. But really the animals are slaughtered before the disease has time to manifest itself as it does in the human subject, where every care is taken to prolong life, while our great object in the case of cattle is to shorten life as much as possible.

7690.nbsp; Have you any evidence of the spread of the disease from one kind of animal to another, from bovine animals to pigs or to fowls?I have not.

7691.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) You said that the disease of tuberculosis was not easily detected ?In the early stages.

7692.nbsp; nbsp;You also suggested that tuberculosis should be included in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and that you would like to see inserted that section given in Appendix No. 2, page o of your repcrt to the Board of Supervision on tuberculosis ?I would.

7693.nbsp; Do you not think, taking the last two sentences in the section given in Appendix 2, that if the disctwe is not easily detected, it would be a great risk to leave the matter in the hands of a justice in the country?This is nn English Act, and I trusted therefore to my board, or to lawyers, to adjust that to our Scotch system of judicial inquiry.

7694.nbsp; To whom would you suggest it should be left in Sootland?1 should say the sheriff substitute, the resident slieriffa competent man, a man accustomed to deal with these questions, and to deal honestly

MINIITKlaquo; OB' läVIÜENOM.

24,^,i

laquo;

Dr. JJ. J).

Littlejohn, M.D.

29 May 1888.

dairies have been reported to tlie Board of Suporvisiou by any persons, interested or otherwise, as in an unsanitaiy condition?In my department, none; the Board may have received the complaints, and have dealt with those eomplaints outside my special medical department, but, so far as 1 am concerned, none.

7709.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware whether the Board of Supervision has taken any steps to see whether this order is carried out or not in villages?What they have done is this: they have sent down copies of the order to these various local authorities, and told tliom that their inspectors would from time to time visit and see that this Act was faithfully carried out.

7710,nbsp; But it has done nothing further than send down the order ?--They have done nothing further. I anticipate a great stimulus from this Committee.

^ 7711. You mentioned that the Edinburgh Town Council got a now Act about four years ago ?Tbev did.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^J

7712. Do you know of any reason why they did not seek more stringent powers in regard to the seizure of cattle when that Act was being sought for instance, why did they not seek such powera as are included in the Greenock Police Act of 1877 i' They were ignorant of the existence of that clause, and, in fact, trusted to the Contagious Diseases (Animals; Act, and not having this question of tuberculosis, which has suddenly emerged, before their eyes. they did not think of asking for such stringent powers.

_ 7713. Have you ever heard it stated that, at the time the town council were seeking their new Act, there was a proposition to seek more stringent powers than they at present have, but that in view of the great influence of the dairy interest, it was decided not to press the matter further? I have heard that stated.

7714.nbsp; And you, as a medical officer in Edinburgh, are of opinion that that was distinctly an error of judgment ?I have no doubt of it.

7715.nbsp; Have you any reason to think that there is a greater amount of tuberculosis and disease in the country dailies than in town ones ?I have no reason to think so.

7716.nbsp; Have you any experience of country dairies ? Comparatively little.

7717.nbsp; Then why did you seek powers to shut country dairies out ?Because the dairies in Edinburgh cannot supply Edinburgh with a sufficient quantity of milk, so much is required by our educational wants, therefore we have to take supplies from all parts of the country. As we had suffered extensively so far as money is concerned, from outbreaks of infectious diseases which, led to the closing of schools, amp;c., where we could trace the disease clearly to milk brought, from the country into Edinburgh, the town couneil sought powers to prevent the entry of milk from an infected dairy outside the city into the city proper. Such outbreaks entailed an enormous expense upon Edinburgh. We live by our lodsinr-and teaching, and if that is lost Edinburgh is practically rained.

7718. Do you suggest an examination of the milk as a remedy for that ?1 cannot say so unless it was proved to my satisfaction that in every case of tuberculosis we could detect the peculiar bacillus of tuberculosis in the milk, which I strongly doubt because so far as my own experience has gone J have only found it in cases where the udder has been markedly affected, and so affected that any person accustomed to deal with cows would at once see that tnere was sometiiing seriously wrong in the animal.

7710. Then so long as the udder of the cow is sound you would not be suspicious of the milk from that cow being unwholesome ?Undoubtedly not, unless there was the nccornpanying emaciation, which of itself is always suspicious.

7720.nbsp; Do you know what temperature will kill the bacilli ?#9632;The boiling temperature will.

7721.nbsp; Then meat if thoroughly cooked and milk if boiled would no longer be unwholesome in either

case ?There is ao doubt that boiling meat will kill the liaeilli; roasting meat will not, so it is said.

7722. May I ask you why you think roasting moat will not kill the bacilli; i₈ the temperature not the same?It is rare indeed that you see roust meat that does not show in its interior evidence of under-cooking, in fact a roast is not presentable at table unless it displaye that under-eooking. In the case of a boiled leg of mutton it will be apparent to every member of the Committee that when it is cut it is boiled through and throngh-an under-boiled log of mutton would be rejected at once. _ 7723. You liava spoken several times about the inspection in Edinburgh. Can you tell me what class of men you employ as inspectors ?Butchers veterinary surgeons, professors of veterinary science,' and myself.

7724.nbsp; How are the inspectors paid ?They are paid sums varying from 120/. a year up to 220/.

7725.nbsp; A fixed salary ?Yes. 772laquo;. May we take it that the same conditions

apply ut the other largo towns in Scotland according to your knowledge?I am afraid not, unless you have a public abattoir as Edinbumh has ; they have sufficient abattoirs in the city of Glasgow, but not in quot; Greater quot; Glasgow. Without abattoirs meat inspec tion becomes a perfect farce. In london it is, in consequence, very imperfect.

7727. I do not follow what you mean by the

difference ; is there no public abattoir in Glasgow ?__

They have two, but that is not sufficient for its entire wants, and, though there are no private killing houses in the city, there are many in the surrounding small burghs, which form quot; Greater quot; Glasgow. If you allow private killing houses you at once open up avenues for the entrance of diseased meat among the population, and you cannot prevent it. The most remunerative trade going is running the blockade With diseased carcases ; the profits are enormous.

7728. Then do you attribute the great, superiority of Edinburgh to its public abattoirs ?That is one of the main causes undoubtedly.

7729._ Do you go the length then of suggesting

that private killing houses should be abolished ?__

Undoubtedly; first of all they are the gravest sanitary abuses with which we have to contend, and secondly, they are each of them avenues for the entrance of diseased meat into the community.

7730.nbsp; nbsp;If that was made compulsory, are you of opinion that it would tend to lesson the amount of diseased meat, and especially tuberculous meat, throughout the country ?I have not the sliehtest doubt.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;

7731.nbsp; nbsp;I suppose by that answer you would mean to extend this rule to all towns, such as would come under the Burgh Police Act ?Yes, or even smaller; nothing is a greater nuisance in a small community, say for example, one which attracts summer visitors^ than to have a portion of the town rendered almost uninhabitable owing to the smells in summer coming from a single badly conducted killing house; it destroys the amenity and the comfort of many people for the whole season.

7732.nbsp; nbsp;Such towns as you now indicate I fancy are

about the size that usually adopt the Police Act?__No

much smaller. As a Government inspector I have again and again condemned, at the instance of our Local Government Hoard, killing houses which are not properly constructed.

7733.nbsp; Yon have done so on a good many occasions during the past six months, I think ?Kepentedly.

7734.nbsp; Could you state to the Committee what amount of population you would consider necessary in a town where they ought to have a public abattoir ? I should say a thousand, because in a population of a thousand we have generally two or three butchers, and to those two or three butchers it would be a savinquot; of expense, and a source of revenue to this small com-tnunity to have a well-conducted public abattoir.

7735.nbsp; Are you aware that there is considerable ilifficulty in getting such an abattoir at the present,

H h 2

¹ Hi #9632;If

quot;I

* i |

n 4

I^:

244

COMMITTEE ON PLEUllO-PNEUMONIA AND TUHBUOULOSIS:

#9632;

Dr. //. V.

Littlfjohn, M.D.

IS May 188S,

time ?Only from private intercstK inlei'l'oring. Tliu butolicr hccomcs n member of the little coi'poratton, ha booomes au aldet'awu uad of course hu hag a largo following in the town, or he becomes a policu com-uiissioner and diliiculties at once arise as to his special case.

7736.nbsp; Do you give (hat evidence from your personal experience ?From a very huge experience.

7737.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any other alteration which you would suggest besides those which you have named ? I really think not. As 1 have said before, I have no doubt this Committeo will give a stimulus to all local authorities, and procure a bettor and more conscientious enforcement of those Acts which Parliament 1ms passed. I have not the slightest doubt of it.

7738.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Am I correct in understanding that in your opinion the condition of the dairies in Edinburgh is unsatisfactory ?It is indeed,

7739.nbsp; At the same time am I correct in gathering that the dairy interest in Edinburgh is very powerful ? It is.

7740.nbsp; nbsp;And it is in consequence of the exercise of that powerful influence that certain improvements suggested in the last Police Act were not embodied therein ?That is my opinion.

7741.nbsp; It appears further to be your opinion, does if. not, that one of the reasons why milk was excluded from coming into Edinburgh from the country, was because of the risk of acquiring disease from country districts ?It was so.

7742.nbsp; nbsp;Are there now any special medical or sanitary conditions attached to the country dairies other than under the milk-shops order ?The milk-shops order is universal, the country districts are nearly all furnished with medical oiliccrs, they have sanitary inspectors who are also sworn in to work this inilk-shops order, so that the country dairies ought to be as well looked after ns our town dairies.

7743.nbsp; Is the milk from the country dairies supplied

to individual households or to milk ineicliants ?In nil cases to middlemen or to milk inerclmnta.

7741. Are you aware whether these milk mcrchunts or middlemen require any special conditions beyond those contained in the milk shop order with reference to those country dairies ?They do not ; their object is to sell.

774.'). Are you aware that, in connexion with the supply of milk to London from the country dairies in the south of England, such special private conditions are compulsory, in addition to those under the Act ? I am aware of directions in the case of one of the dairy companies. We have dairy companies in Edinburgh who probably from time to time publish observations by special inspectors as to the conditions of the dairies from which they get their milk.

7746.nbsp; But have they special private sanitary requirements rThey are specially visited.

7747.nbsp; Then where is the great risk in receiving the milk from the country ? Because these private arrangements are not universal, and I am suspicious of a mere private arrangement which is used as an advertising medium. I think all that investigation should be done by the public authorities and not left to private enterprise.

7748.nbsp; Is the water supply to the Edinburgh dairies in a satisfactory condition ? It is remarkably pure, and we allow no private wells in connexion with our dairiesnone whatever.

7749.nbsp; Do you think that the water supply of the country dairies as a rule is equally satisfactory ?No, so far as my experience goes nothing can be worse.

7750.nbsp; Do you attribute some of the risk which you consider exists with regard to country milk to the imperfect water supply ?I have no hesitation in saying yes.

7751.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any other point which you would wish to bring before the Committee with reference to tuberculosis ?I think not.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned to Thursday next at half-past 10 o'clock.

FIFTEENTH DAY.

Thursday, 31st May 1888.

I'KHSENT ;

Lord Ci.oncuruv. Mb. P. Stirlincj.

Mb. JAÜOB WILSON in thk Chaik.

Mil. J. BoWKN-JoNKS. PnOFESSOR Horslky, E.R.S.

Mb. Dawson, Secretary.

Sir C. A.

Cameron,

M.D.

31 May 1888.

Sir Charles A. Camkron, M.I)., F.R.C.S.L, of Dublin, called and examined.

7752.nbsp; {Chairman.) You are, I believe, ex-president and Professor of Hygiene and Chemistry of the Iloyal College of Surgeons in Ireland?I am.

7753.nbsp; And you are also the superintendent medical officer of health for Dublin ?I am.

7754.nbsp; And in that capacity I presume you have had frequent opportunities of observing the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in cattle ?In the latter capacity, yes.

7755.nbsp; nbsp;For how many years have you held that position ?I have been an officer for something more than a quarter of a century under various titles. As the Acts of Parliament were passed from time to time the titles varied. At present I am the superintendent medical officer of health. With regard to cattle disease I have had more than 20 years' experience.

7756.nbsp; Is it within your experience to have discovered pleuro-pneumonia both in the dairy yards, as

#9632;A

MINUTES OF KVIDENOE.

245

well us iu tlio slaughtür-liousDS of Dublin?Yos, veiy froquuntlyconstjuitly, in faot.

7757.nbsp; nbsp;And iimy wn ^iitlnu' from that, (hut plomo-pnisumonia wus a disouslaquo; tlmt was always to Wo found in thu Dublin dairies PAlways.

7758.nbsp; Was it your praotloe to t'ollow tim disoused animals from tlio yai'dato ihc slaughter-houses in order to satisfy yourselt' of tlie existence of the disease i I may remark that about 21 or 22 years ago I induced the Commissioners of Police in Dublin to devote a certain number of constables to the duty of inspecting the slaughter-houses and dairy yards, before the corporation took any action in the matter ; and since this system was adopted large numbers of animals were observed to be ill, und in subsequently examining thorn I found a largo number suft'ering from pleuro-pneumonia.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; '

11 od. Then i may gather from that answer, 1 presume, that you were the first to institute a systemuUe UXiuninution of tiiouu shiMghtor- Imnses and dairy yards, for tlio purpose of provontlug tlio sale of diseased animals as food lor man ?Yes, in fact, for some years before the sanitary authorities interfered.

7700. Can you give the Committee any idea of the amount of flesh of animals unfit for food that was detected and confiscated in Dublin in any given time ? In the last annual report I made a statement showing the quantity of food unsound and unfit for human use condemned since the year 1870, and I may say that at least three-fourths would be the flesh of animals affected with plouro-pnenmonia, and iu some instances perhaps HO per cent., or even 83 per cent, were so affected. If you will permit me I will hand in this table:

Sir C. A.

Canwrou,

MM.

31 May 1888.

It!

Comparative Sümmakies for the Years 1870-86.


				Number	Number	Number
	Number	Examina-	Quantity	of Persons	of Persons	of Persons	Total	Amount
Yeiir.	of	tions of	of	Fined for	Fined for	Imprisoned	Total	of
	Annlysca		Food	Selling	Selling, amp;c.,	for Selling, amp;o.	Convietions.	Penalties
	performed.	Petroleum.	Condemned.	Adulterated	Diseased	Diseased	Convietions.	Imposed.
				Food.	Meat, amp;c.	Meat, amp;e.
			Lbs.					£ s. d.
1870	219		392,057	15	23	4	42	156 18 0
1871	257		413,151	14	13	5	32	100 17 7
1872	523		332,961	67	25 #9632;	2	94	434 5 0
1873	439		224,552	43	11	10	64	311 10 6
1874	405		258,682	37	4	6	47	150 5 0
1875	601		380,679	44	4	__	48	265 0 0
1876	1,001		229,111	68	10	4	82	2/1 5 3
1877	1,760	60	110,284	22	2	__	24	101 0 0
1878	1,700	58	243,084	14	4	__	18	52 11 0
1879	686	44	215,151	44		__	44	127 15 0
1880	758	72	262,497	65	1	1	67	321 0 0
1881	546	40	242,425	56	3	__	59	258 0 6
1882	979	87	187,845	43		^_	43	194 0 0
1883	718	684	121,931	48		_	48	181 10 0
1884	894	27	152,572	63	3		65	297 0 0
1885	768	12	220,180	56		_	56	280 10 0
1886	428	4	214,694	43				211 0 0
Totals -	12,682	1,088	4,201,856	742	102	32	833	3,714 7 9

#9632;(#9632;

#9632;' H

One year it amounted to 340,000 pounds weight.

7761.nbsp; nbsp; Is it a fact that before the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878 came into force only a small proportion of the diseased animals was detected ? Of course it was impossible to determine, but I should say that the greater number of animals escaped detection, because, where there are 50 or 60 slaughterhouses, and where the slaughter of cattle is largely carried out only on one day, it was impossible for a limited staff to be everywhere ; and I have no doubt that a very large proportion of the animals escaped detection, though a substantial proportion was detected.

7762.nbsp; Then we may take it that one of the results of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act has been that very few of the sick animals now escape detection ? There is no object now in concealing them. At that time the animals that were seized had tobe confiscated by magistrate's orders, there was no compensation given, consequently it was to their interest to conceal the existence of disease.

7763.nbsp; Is it your opinion, that in consequence of that, there is less pleuro-pncumonia in Dublin than formerly ?It is not a matter of opinion, but it is a matter of absolute certainty.

7704.nbsp; To what do you attribute this improvement ? I should say to animals being reported upon early, so that they were removed from contact with the healthy animals, instead of lingering on as they would have done under other circumstances for a considerable time.

7705.nbsp; nbsp;Was it the case that in former years the entire herds of Dublin dairymen were sometimes carried off by the disease ?Well, using a figurative expression, of coursepractically I have known many

cases where the greater number, nearly the whole of the animals in a particular dairy, were swept away.

7766.nbsp; Is it your opinion that the flesh of animals suffering from pleuro-pneumonia is wholesome food ? I may say that I should not like myself to eat the flesh of an animal affected with a fover under any circumstances. I am not quite prepared to say that, in the very early stage of the disease, and with the meat properly cooked, that the flesh might not be eaten with impunity, because cooking destroys the materies morbi of a great many diseases ; but I should prefer to eat myself, and to give to my children, meat in amp; sound state, and not the flesh of an animal which was in a feverish condition.

7767.nbsp; Have you ever made a report upon this subject ?Yes, I have.

7768.nbsp; nbsp;Where does that appear ?That is a copy of it. ( The book was handed in.) It was submitted to the Corporation of Dublin, and ordered by them to bo printed.

7769.nbsp; Are you aware that a similar opinion is held by other nnthoritios ?I am.

7770.nbsp; Could you give us the names of those authorities⁵There are hundreds mentioned in that book. There is a synopsis given as to the opinions of certain persons out of a total of persons addressed upon the subject.

7771.nbsp; Do 1 gather it as your opinion, that in the interest of the public health it would bo desirable that the flesh of animals suffering from pleuro-pnoiimonia should not to be used ?Well, with the qualification that I have mentioned; but I am not quite prepared to state that in the very earliest stage of the disease, when well cooked, the flesh might not bo eaten

4:

u raquo;

OOMMiaTJälä OM I'XiBURorNKlJMONlA AND 'i'ÜBBBOÜIiOSISi

('(imeron, M.V.

i\ May 1888

with impunity. Wo have very little positive evideuoo

should be giveu to local authorities with reference to the dairy yards ?I do.

7780. And in what direction ?Until lust year, boards of guardians, and not the urban sanitary authority, were the executive authority with reference to the carrying out of the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and the inspectors of the dairy yards and milk shops were appointed by the boards of guardians. About the end of the year before last the powers were transferred from the boards of guardians to the urban sanitary authority, and, therefore, as ] am the medical officer of health and also the executive sanitary officer of the Dublin urban sanitary authority, I adopted more stringent byelaws in reference to the regulations of dairy yards than had hitherto been in use, and, amongst others, one which provided that any application for a licence for premises not hitherto used as dairy yards should not be granted, Our advising counsel, when the byelaws were submitted to him for revision, struck out that byelaw as being ultra vires. He said that local authorities had no power to refuse a licence; they had only power to see that the regulations that wore prepared for dairy yards were properly carried out; so that wo might have in our most fashionable quarter a dairy yard.

7787.nbsp; Does the Nuisance Removal Act apply to Ireland ?Wo have an Act called the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, which is almost a replica of the English Act. That Act provides that any place which is a nuisance or injurious to health may be abolished; but that would not deal with a case of that kind, because the dairy yard might be established m one of the most fashionable parts of Dublin, to the great injury of the public.

7788.nbsp; Do you consider that it would be in the interest of the public at large that dairy yards should not be allowed in towns at all?lam strongly of that opinion.

7789.nbsp; Do you think that the milk requirements of Dublin can be amply supplied by means of the rapid transit by railway and road from the country ?I have no doubt at all upon the subject, and I may state as an illustration of that the fact that although nearly 1,500 dairy cows have been lately slaughtered in Dublin, we have found no difficulty in purchasing milk. The milk comes in from the country in sufficient quantities in fact twice the quantity necessary could be obtained.

7790.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to Dublin, are they slaughtered in public or private slaughter-housesquot;?They are nearly altogether slaughtered in private slaughterhouses. We have two classes of slaughter-houses in Dublinthose that were in existence in 1847, at the time when the Towns Improvement Act, Ireland, came into force, and that was followed immediately by a similar Act passed for England and Scotland. The slaughter-houses then in existence were scheduled, and in the event of the Corporation constructing a public abattoir, the owners of those slaughter-houses were to he compensated, and the slaughter-houses for which licences have been granted since that period have annual licences, and they can be abolished without compensation; but unfortunately in Dublin there are 30 of the slaughter-houses which have been in existence since 1847. The Corporation of Dublin some years ago established a public abattoir at a cost of 27,000/. Unfortunately it was just on the very boundaries of the city, and not included within the city limits, and it was found that the use of the slaughter-houses was not compulsory because it was not situated within the boundaries of the city, and it has been a source of enormous loss to the Corporation ever since. Very few butchers will use it, they prefer using their own; but we are now taking, I hope, some active measures for having the abattoir included within the city limits for the special purpose of ineeting this objection.

7791. Bnt in the interest of the public health I lake it that you recommend that public abattoirs should be used ?I would make it mandatory that all

one way or the other upon the subject.

7772.nbsp; You uro aware, I daresay, that very stringent measures are at present being adopted in Ireland for

the eradication of pleuro-pneumoma ?I am.

7773.nbsp; Is it your opinion that euch measures are likely to prove snceessf'ul ?They are very likely to prove successful.

V774. Do you believe that if some such measures were not adopted, that it is highly improbable that the disease would ever disappear ?I do not think that it would ever disappear. It has been in Dublin now for 40 or 50 years, and there is no probability of itraquo; disappearing.

7775.nbsp; Is it your opinion that it was an imported disease originally ?undoubtedly.

7776.nbsp; And, therefore, you will assume that it is more likely to be exterminated ?Yes. It is not a disease that we know of in Ireland previously to 1843 or 1844some time between 1840 and 1844.

7777.nbsp; nbsp; Am I correct in assuming that compulsory slaughter has on a previous occasion been adopted with success in Ireland with regard to other diseases ?I know of two occasions in which it was.

7778.nbsp; Could you state these instances ?When the cattle plague appeared in Ireland the same measures were adopted; the slaughter of the animals atfected with disease and those in contact with them, and it was followed by complete success.

7770. Have you anything to add with regard to foot and mouth disease ?Yes. There was a case some time ago, when Lord Spencer was Viceroy of Ireland, where the disease appeared in raquo;certain district, I forget exactly whore; I think it was in the county of Meath. At that time there was no compensation in the case of compulsory destruction of animals, but Lord Spencer, out of his own pocket, indemnified the owners of the animals, and sick and well were all killed, and the result was that the disease did not spread. I have no doubt in that case, if the extreme measure of killing all the animals, in health or otherwise, had not been adopted, the disease would have spread, and we might have had for some years a very serious outbreak of that disease in Ireland.

7780. You have stated, I think, that for the last 20 years pleuro-pneumonia was always to bo found in the Dublin dairies ? It has never been absent. There was not a week during which animals were not condemnednot a single week, sometimes not a day.

7781.nbsp;Are the sanitary arrangements of the dairy yards of Dublin better than they were formerly ?Yes, they were in the worst possible state that you could conceive with regard to the overcrowding of animals. I remember a case when I was first giving attention to

he Dublin dairy yards, seeing animals nearly in contact, and I asked the man, quot;How do they lie down ? quot; and he answered, quot; Begorra, sir, they 'take a turn about.quot;

7782.nbsp; Then within the last three or four years has there been an improvement in the sanitary condition of those places?Yes; since the Order in Council.

7783.nbsp; What becomes of the calves that are born in the dairy yards of Dublin ?Formerly the greater number of them were sent to the country, and I have no doubt that that was a very serious means of the propagation of the disease in the country districts. I am perfectly certain of that; but now where disease is proclaimed, if I may use the term, of course the calves are not allowed to be scut out.

7784.nbsp; Are they slaughtered as veal, or arc they dcstro3'cd as useless ? It is only lately that the extreme measure of slaughtering healthy animals was adopted; before they were not slaughtered until such time as they showed the disease, which was not very frequently the case. It appears to mo that the calves, at least, in Dublin, appeared to have a considerable immunity dorn the disease as compared with the adult animallaquo;.

7785.nbsp; Do you consider that any further powers

MINUTES OP EVIDENCE.

247

local sanitary authorities in towns of at least 10,000 inhabitants should have a public abattoir,

7792.nbsp; nbsp;Would you not put it lower than 10,000 ? Well, 1 am not prepared to say what number,whatever number may Seem advisable on due consideration; but certainly in towns whore the number of persons would be sulHciont to enable the sanitary authority to maintain a public abattoir, it ought to bo made compulsory on the local sanitary authority to do so.

7793.nbsp; nbsp;From what source or fund 'is compensation paid in Ireland for animals compulsorily slaughtered ? From a sum of which one-half is contributed by the Treasury and the other half from a local rate all over Ireland. There is a general rate in Ireland.

7794.nbsp; nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) You spoke of the inspector making an examination of animals in the

dairy; was that while the animals were livinraquo;- ?__

Yes.

7795.nbsp; nbsp;In your experience did you find that animals were sometimes condemned for pleuro-pneumonia, and on examination afterwards, it turned out to be some other disease ?Yes, some cases of that kind came under my observation.

7796.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Has that occurred frequently ?__Not

frequently.

7797.nbsp; nbsp; And srenerally what was the disease? Tuberculosis.

7798.nbsp; nbsp; Then you have had some experience in tuberculosis ?Very considerable ; from the fact that I have seen so many thousands of diseased animals; we have had more of them than almost any other place in the kingdom. We have had thousands and thousands of them.

7799.nbsp; What is the system you adopted in Dublin of valuing animals condemned to be killed ; who values thera ?There are two officers who act on behalf of the board of guardians; lately, the inspection of dairies has been vested in the urban sanitary authority, the power with regard to compensation and the appointment of the veterinary surgeon and valuer still remains with the boards of guardians; I have nothing to do with them, but I know what the system is. When a case occurs in the dairy yards or in a pasture near Dublin, the police are communicated with, and the police then communicate with the veterinary surgeon of the board of guardians, and they also send a telegram to the Sanitary Department if the case occurs within the city of Dublin. That is my department ; that was done as a kind of concession to our department. Then the veterinary surgeon proceeds to the place, and he examines the animal, and if it is pronounced to be a case of pleuro-pneumonia, it is killed ; the valuer then appears on the scene and values tlie animal.

7800.nbsp; After it is dead, and not before it is dead, you mean ?After it is dead, as a rule. It is then disposed of ; but in some cases, and for some years a contract has been madean all round contract, with local butchers, sometimes the price was very low, I think so low as 31. to U. a carcass.

7801.nbsp; Is not there a clause in your Irish Act similar to that in the English Act which says the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately preceding its slaughter ? Yes, certainly. Hut then immediately preceding the slaughter and immediately after the slaughter is one and the same thing.

7802.nbsp; nbsp;After the slaughter you know the condition

of the animals internally, do not you?__Yes, you see

the valuing and the slaughtering, and all occur, I may say, at the same time.

780;5. Is it your custom to value a cow that is condemned as a cow in milk, or only as fat for the butcher ?Oh, no, as a cow giving milk. Cows in milk miglit bo very valuable cows for such a purpose, but would not be worth much to the butcher; they arc generally thin. It is the marketable value of the

animal ibr whatever purpose it was devoted to__

giving milk or being fattened for the butcher.

7801. Ah farm you nre aware, are the dairymen generally satisfied with the .system of valuing and

compensation ?_Thoy are, because formerly they got nothing at all, and a very large proportion of their animals were diseased, and they got no compensation. They are not satisfied with the compulsory slaughter order, there is no dairyman in Dublin who approves of that, as far as I can learn.

7805. On what grounds ?On the ground that they cannot replace their herds sufliciently quickly. Although they get the value of the animals, still their business la interfered with, and they have to quot;et milk from the country.

7800 ^ There is no compensation for loss of business ?There is no compensation for loss of business.

7807.nbsp; nbsp;If the price given for the animal is its full market value, do you not consider the dairyman sufficiently compensated?! do. I am inclined to think that it leans in favour of the dairyman, as it ought to do, perhaps.

7808.nbsp; Then it is a mere question of whether anything should be paid for disturbance of trade ? -I would not as a rule give anything for disturbance- of trade.

7809.nbsp; nbsp;But that is their contention ?Yes ; that their trade is interfered with, and that they have to purchase milk. Undoubtedly they have to purchase milk.

7810.nbsp; nbsp; If the loss of trade is such that the man has to get milk from other parts, and he is put to inconvenience, why should not he receive compensation for that loss as well as for any otiier, if the slaughter is for the general good of the country ?--Well, in tliis way: that he himself, I suppose, is more benefited than anybody else. Before this Act came into operation at all dairymen were always complaining of their terrific losses. Sometimes one-half of their whole stock was carried away. I do not know that anyone is more benefited than the dairymen themselves.

7811.nbsp; nbsp;That is not the opinion of the dairymen who have been here, for they say that their trade is so disturbed that it is impossible for them to continue the business; they have been ruined in many instances ?I should say that some of the smaller men with small capital would be.

7812.nbsp; nbsp;Then you admit that it might be a very serious grievance to a man with small capital, and

who had invested all his capital in the business ?__In

that case I think it would be a grievance.

7813.nbsp; And in that case he should be entitled to compensation?I think that in such a case as that he ought to get some compensation.

7814.nbsp; nbsp;How soon do you allow them, under the Irish Act, to replenish the dairy again if a whole stock be killed out?They have done nothing yet. The authorities have selected the period when the cows are out at grass for the purpose of carrying out this measure, so that the whole summer in Dublin would be devoted to the cleansing and purification of the dairy yards and sheds.

7815.nbsp; nbsp;But I do not think that you have quite understood my question; what I meant was this: after the dairyman has had his stock slaughtered out for pleuro, how soon do yon permit him to oring fresh stock into the dairy ?I think (30 days. I am not quite sure, for I do not carry out that part of the business; but my impression is that. I do not know the exact number of days; but I know that the dairymen complain very much of the restrictions. They say that they are afraid to report a case, because they know for a long time they cannot bring in cattle' when they have removed sick cattle, and they complain very much of the restrictions in that way; and the length of time for which they are prevented from bringing in cattle again. My own impression is that they ought to be encouraged to report promptly ; and if they have any grievance which may appear reasonable 1 would bo very much disposed to recommend givino- way to them so as to get them quickly to report.

78lö, Have you any fear thatifoompensation were given for tlistnrbnnco of trade, that that would lead to I'h-Iso claims?I am perfectly sure that very exaglt;'e-

Sir C, 4

Canern',

M.D.

31 May 1888.

-I .iß ijf

#9632; 'M

lt;xlaquo;

I I

f: .

I I

IT;

248

COMMITTEE ON MiBUBO-PflBUMONIA AND TUBEKOULOSIS :

Sir C. A.

Cameron,

MM.

31 May 1888.

ratod claims would be made. I suppose the dairymen are like traders that have their premises destroyed when unhealthy areas are cleared, and they always put forward the most preposterous claims. Vou would have some dilficulty, I imagine, in awarding them compensation.

7817.nbsp; How are your valuators paid ?They are ollicers of the unions.

7818.nbsp; Have they fixed salaries?In the case of the small unions the veterinary surgeon and the valuer is one person.

7819.nbsp; In the alteration that you spoke of in the transfer of power from the boards of guardians to the urban authorities, is that transfer in existonco In any part rgt;f Ireland except Dublin ?In every part,

7820.nbsp; Do I understand that the boards of guardians are no longer a local authority all over Ireland ? They are locid authorities still,

7821.nbsp; nbsp;For the purposes of this Act?They are local authorities for the purposes of the Act, but they do not now inspect the dairy yards and they have no officials for that purpose. It is only with regard to the inspection of the dairy yards and milk shops that the transference of powers from the boards of guardians to the local sanitary authorities has taken place, but with regard to compensating the owners of cattle for their destruction, that power is still vested in the boards of guardians, as is also the appointment ot veterinary inspectors. I do not understand why there should be this division of authority. It would be better for the boards of guardians to have all the powers, or the local authorities to have all the powers.

7822.nbsp; nbsp; I suppose it is only in large towns that you have those urban authorities? Every town over 6,000 inhabitants is an urban sanitary authority under the Public Health Act, except where they have special Acts, and then they may have only a few hundred inhabitants.

7823.nbsp; Do you think that this division of authority is good ?Well, I cannot understand why the authority should be divided; I do not see any objection to the boards of guardians. I think that they might have been allowed to continue to act, or when a portion of their powers, has been taken away from thfgt;m,I think that the wlioleof the powers should have been vested in the local sanitary authorities ; there is still, of course, a far larger proportion of Ireland under the authority of boards of guardian^, for they are the rural sanitary authorities. They have acquired the same powers for the country that urbas sanitary authorities have for the cities and towns.

7e24. In your experience, has there not been u want of uniformity of action amongst these various boards of guardians, in the regulations required for carrying out the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?Yes, I think that only a few boards of guardians have any regulations at all. I tried to get copies of regulations from board uf guardians, and I found very few had prepared codes of byelaws.

7825.nbsp; Would you consider it desirable to have a central authority to administer this Act for the whole kingdom ?There is a central authority.

7826.nbsp; Where ?The Veterinary Department of the Privy Council administers the Act, pays the moiety of the expense to the local authorities, and collects the rates.

7827.nbsp; nbsp; To return to the carcasses of animals slaughtered, what is your custom regarding the animals slaughteredare they sent to the dead meat market or how are they disposed of?Are you now speaking with reference to the slaughtering which has been carried out lately ?

7828.nbsp; nbsp;Yes; and generally ?Before that period the boards of guardians made contracts with local men, and the animals were then sold to them except the veterinary surgeon condemned them; but some yearraquo; ago a conflict of opinion arose, as to the fitness of the carcasses, between the veterinary surgeons of the boards of guardians and tny department, and they contended

that if it was the opinion of the veterinary surgeon, that any animals that they had examined were fit for hnrimn food, their opinion should bo accepted, whether the sanitary authorities thought that they were fit or not. But it was pointed out to them by the Undersecretary for Ireland, through a deputation of the hoard of guardians who waited upon him, that it was a question altogether for the sanitary authority and for the medical officer of health, and since that time officers from my department are always present when the animals are killed. They are tnen of some experience, and if they see that the animals are not fit. for human food, they take possession of them, regardless of the opinion of the veterinary surgeon. But I may say that, for some longtime past now there bus been no difference of opinion as to the carcasses. There has been only one case within the last year or so. They send for me if there is any doubt in the case.

7829.nbsp; That was the practice previous to the passing of the last order; but what is the practice now of slaughtering under this last order?I have taken a great interest in seeing this order carried out, and I have attended constantly at our abattoir. Of the animals, 1,400 or 1,500 that have been slaughtered in the abattoir of which I have the control, appear to have been sold to a contractor who arrived from England. He brought over his own men, and the animals were slaughtered and dressed, and nearly all taken out of Dublin. They were nearly all brought to England.

7830.nbsp; Have you any reason to think that there was a large traffic in diseased meat ?I may mention that, before I instituted this system of examination, the local knackers, perhaps only once in a year, got a diseased animal. So soon as I began to have examinations of the slaughter-houses and dead-yards, there were dozens, aye hundreds of them sent to the Zoological Gardens. The Zoological Gardens never got the diseased animals. What became of them before ? They must have been all devoured, and the figures show that the lucal knackers never got them and the Zoological Gardens never got. them. But the very first year that I instituted this examination, about 400 of those animals were seized and destroyed. I say, as a matter of the most absolut* certainty, that before I instituted the examination of the slaughter-houses and dead-yards in Dublin, 1 have no doubt in the world that every single animalno matter how advanced the disease waswas consumed as human food. That is a matter beyond the region of speculation.

7831.nbsp; I suppose the reason that you consider the meat unsound was from the state of the blood at the time of the slaughter ?Yes, the animal is in a high fever.

7832.nbsp; Did you take any steps before presenting that, report to the board in Dublin, of which you spoke to the chairman, to ascertain the general medical {laquo;pinion of the country?I did.

7833.nbsp; Is it the case that you sent a circular to every medical man residing in the city and county of Dublin ? Yes.

7834.nbsp; And how many replies did you receive ; was it 265 ?Yes. Some of the gentlemen whose names were in the Medical Directory that I sent the circular to were dead, and some were young medical men just registered, and having graduated the year before had left Dublin ; but nearly all the resident medical men replied.

7835.nbsp; Is it the caae that 228 out of the 258 replied in the negative,that they considered the meat was not fit for human food ?They said it was not fit under any circumstances.

783G. That is to say about 88 per cent, of the medical men replied to that effect ?Yes.

7837. Did you also send any circulars to the officers of health in the different towns of the United Kingdom ?I did ; to every officer of health in the case of every town of, I think, more than 20,000 inhabitants.

78.'J8. And ii large niiniber of those who replied staled that they considered the meiit was not lit lor food under any circumstances ?They did,

#9632;M

MINUTES Oi? EVIDENCE.

240

7839.nbsp; You believe tlmt thuro Is no dll'eot ovidencc, or little direct evidence, tlmt the flesh of oxen suft'ering from pleuro-pueurnoniii, produces disease in mun ?! do not think there is veryjmuch direct evidence. The effects must be rather like those produced by continually drinking bad water or inspiring foul air. I do not think that the flesh of animals in disease acts like strychnine or arsenic; but 1 think that the use of such flesh continuously is somewhat similar to the use of bad water or of the breathing of bad air j buc undoubtedly I have known cases in Dublin where persons were made ill by taking what appeared to be ordinary meat, and suffer from terrible diarrhoea and vomiting. Constantly those cases are mot with, and it is very difficult to account for them, except that the flesh which was eaten was diseased.

7840.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any suggestion to make with regard to the exposure or sale of meat of animals slaughtered while suffering from pleuro?The suggestion I have to make is one I have already made, but perhaps was from another point of view, and that was that all animals slaughtered should be subject to the inspection of the local officer of health or a veterinary surgeon, and that can only be done by having public abattoirs.

7841.nbsp; nbsp;How do you propose to carry that out in country districts? You must know that there are killing-housesslaughter-housesin towns now, containing say 1,000 inhabitants, where you have one or two slaughter-houses ?Yes, but in Ireland every dispensary and medical officer is ex officio a medical officer of health. In every village there is a health officer. There is no difficulty in having the carcasses inspected. In large towns they have a medical inspector or veterinary surgeon.

7842.nbsp; nbsp;Then you would make it a compulsory order on the part of guardians to instruct such officer to examine the meat?I would. That would be the proper thing to do.

7843.nbsp; nbsp;And make it part of his duty ;And make it part of his duty. Those animals that have been recently slaughtered in the public abattoirs of Dublin, although they have been slaughtered either because they were suffering from a contagious pleuro jmeumonia or had been in contact with animals suffering from that diseaseyet a very large proportion of them was found to be suffering from another disease still more dangerous, and that is tuberculosis.

7844.nbsp; nbsp;You said that the Dairy and Cow Sheds and Milk Shops Order has been extended to Irelandthat is the Act of 1885 ?We had an order issued the year before last for the inspection of the dairy yards and milk sheds, under which the local sanitary authorities can make regulations. Is there anything in that order different from the Act of 1885 ?It was in 1886 that our order came into force.

7845.nbsp; nbsp;Would you look al section 7 of the Dairy and Milk Shops Order of 1885, and see whether you have anything in Ireland similar to that. It runs as follows :7. It shall not be lawful for any person following the trade of cow-keeper or dairyman to occupy as a dairy or cow-shed any building, whether so occupied at the making of this order, or not, if and as long as the lighting, ventilation, cleansing, drainage, and Wüter-supply thereof are not such as are necessary or proper(laquo;.) for the health and laquo;ood condition of the cattle therein ; and {b.) for the cleanliness of milk-vessels used therein for containing milk for sale ; and (c.) tor the protection of the milk therein against infection and contamination ?Yes, we have a similar one to that order.

7846.nbsp; nbsp;Then if you have a similar order, I do not quite understand the answer that you gave to the Chairman in regard to the byclaw in licensing new dairies. It seems to mo that under that section you have the power to prevent any new dairy that you like ?I do not think so.

7847.nbsp; nbsp;Unless it complies with the regulations j is that not so?That is precisely what I say; but this clause does not prevent anyone applying lor a licence

o Mno,').

to have a dairy yard in any part of the city of Dublin. It was never before us for that purpose.

7848.nbsp; But you can compel him to have such a dairy under that order as shall thoroughly satisfy the medical officer of the board of health ?I say under no circumstunces ought a dairy yard to be in a city, because I do not care what conditions you propose it is impossible to have a dairy yard which would not bo more or less of a nuisance.

7849.nbsp; Then your view is that there ought under no circumstances whatsoever to be a dairy in the centre of a town like Dublin ?Certainly, We have 15,000 cows. I object to dairy houses and slaughterhouses in crowded centres of population. They must be a very serious nuisance.

7850.nbsp; And your opinion is that it would not be possible to keep any such places open and to do away with their unsanitary conditions ?That is my opinion. It is no matter how strict the regulations are.

7851.nbsp; This, I suppose, is your view based entirely on the grounds of public health ?Altogether.

7852.nbsp; {Professor Borsley.) Have you in the course of your wide experience been enabled to form any

opinion as to the true incubation period of pleuro ?__

Well, I have not, beyond what I have read in the veterinary works.

7853.nbsp; Do you think that the period of 56 days is too much for possible incubation of disease ?Do you mean that an animal might during that long period have the germs of disease undeveloped ?

7854.nbsp; Yes; from the time that it came in contact with the diseasefrom the time that it showed the symptoms ?Yes, I think it is quite possible ; not that I think the disease was actually incubating durinlaquo;-that period, I think tlmt is improbable; but in some way the microbes might linger on in the skin of the animal or in some part in which they did not actually get into the circulation. I am perfectly satisfied on that point.

7855.nbsp; Have you any evidence which would lead you to believe that the virus of the disease is capable of remaining in the wall of a byre or shed ?Yrs.

7856.nbsp; You think that the woodwork could be infected with virus ?I have no doubt. I have seen so much of the disease in Dublin and of those highly contagious descriptions, I am quite sure that it would remain a long time in the woodwork.

7857.nbsp; Have you seen a case in which you could say of a disease that it existed in a shed, and from which shed all the cattle were removed, and in which shed cattle is subsequently put and those cattle contracted disease ?I have known many cases. I have known cases where the animals were completely removed and frosh animals came in afterwards.

7858.nbsp; Can you give us the name ? Can you remember the name?Well, I do not think I could, it is such a common thing. I do not remember any particular names, in fact I hardly know the names of any of those people when I go.

7859.nbsp; You have seen places where cattle have been completely removed and clean cattle re-introduced, and they have taken the disease ?#9632;Yes.

7860.nbsp; And you are not aware of the previous history of those cattle previous to their introduction ? They may, of course, have been infected before they came, that is the difficulty that vitiates the whole thing.

7861.nbsp; nbsp;Can you give any case in which the disease broke out very shortly after the cattle came in ? Can you give an interval of time ?No, I cannot charge my memory.

7862.nbsp; Have you seen the converse? Have you seen the dairy completely emptied and thoroughly disinfected and yet the disease appear in it ?I do not think I have seen that; I think generally where the disinfection has been thoroughly carried out the disease has not reappeared, not immediately at all events.

7863.nbsp; nbsp;You cannot give the names ?No, I hardly ever inquire the name of the owner when I go into a dairy yard.

I i

Sir C. A.

Cameron,

M.D.

31 May 1888.

* i

#9632;ft

i Ä

#9632; imi

#9632;i #9632; i

250

OOMMITTHK ON I'LKUJIO-PNKUMONIA AND TirBKKCULOSTS:

Cameron, Al.D.

31 May 1888.

7864. With rospect to tho introduction of animals

7880.nbsp; nbsp;Would yon destroy all such flesh ?No, I would not do that.

7881.nbsp; nbsp;Where would you draw the line?I would examine very carefully the carcass. Iflfoundita well nourished carcass, and that the fat was firm and the serous membranes dry, and there was a generally satisfactory appearance about the carcass, and that the animal was in a very early stage of tho diseaseno pus in tho lungsI would have no objection.

7882.nbsp; nbsp;Would you accept the test which is accepted here, namely, the degree of rigor mortis ? If that was clearly shown, would you regard that as sound ?I look upon that as an important factor in influencing ^,ny judgment. There is so much of that disease, that I undertake too great a responsibility in condemning indiscriminately every carcass, and although I have a prejudice against any animal in a state of fever, still, I do not feel justified in condemning them in the very early stage; but when the lungs are clearly increased in size, and when muco-purulent matter flows out in quarts, I have no hesitation in saying that I think the condition of the lungs influences me very much in coming to a judgment. Many of the carcasses I saw at the abattoir were bad, and I condemned 12 myself, irrespective of the opinion of tho veteriuary surgeon.

7883.nbsp; nbsp;Have you inspected a large proportion of the carcasses of the animals killed ?I saw a very large number of them.

7884.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloneurry.) You mentioned the very crowded and bad state of the Dublin dairies some short time ago. Do you think that that sort of treatment originated and caused any of those diseases PI do not think so ; it could not originate them.

7885.nbsp; nbsp;Of course you are aware, if I am rightly informed, that Dublin cows are fed on hot brewers' wash and liquid food, and so on ?They arc.

7886.nbsp; Is it your opinion that that treatment and that food predisposes, or makes the cows more susceptible subjects of disease than those cows fed on the ordinary farms in Ireland?I do not know that there is any scientific evidence to prove that. I do not see why it should.

7887.nbsp; But you are aware that there is a sort of prejudice or idea of that sort floating about in people's minds in Ireland?I know that that is the idea that some of the dairymen have, and some of the feeders of stock about Dublin, that this wash originates the disease. They have an idea that it originates it.

_ 7888. But from your own great practical experience you do not confirm that opinion ?I do not see how that could originate the disease.

7889.nbsp; nbsp; And you are quite satisfied that if the disease was once stamped out, and not allowed to be brought among the cattle from other countries, Ireland could be kept free from disease in spite of that ?I have no doubt that the extraordinary morbid influences that originated that disease might never occur again. I am one of those who believe that when a disease of that kind died out, or rather was extirpated, that although an equally formidable disease might arise, the chances are that that particular one would not appear again. May I mention as to the influence of the food of the Dublin dairy cattle, I am of opinion that it has a good effect upon the milk. From thousands of examinations of milk I have come to the conclusion that the milk of the Dublin dairy cows, when you obtain it pure, is better than that supplied from the country districts.

7890.nbsp; You attribute that to the richer and better class of food?To the fact that they are well fed and get abundance of food.

7891.nbsp; nbsp;You do not agree with the idea that they get disease from too much liquid food that they are fed on ?As far as the production of milk goes, that is actually a question more for tho veterinarian ; but with regard to the quality of the milk, it has a good effect upon that. I generally find that the solids rarely sink, in Dublin milk, below 12 per cent., and very frequently there is 16 per cent, of solids. Lately I have examined 120 specimens of milk from indi-

in the dairies in the way I haves just stated, are you a.-quot;'?, whether any dairy in Dublin has been free for a year from the disease ?Yes, 1 have known men

who have not lost an animal.

7S6o. I mean the cases such as those wo have mentioned, having been thoroughly cleaned out and rtisinfectedhow Ionlaquo;; have they boon free from the disease?I am not prepared to state tho time.

7866.nbsp; It would have supplemented iny previous question if you could answer it ?I have known cases where n man had a largo number of animals affected -with disease and then his place has been cleaned out, and I have known it remain for a year or two without any fresh cases.

7867.nbsp; nbsp;Has it been the practice in Dublin to Inoculate their animals ?quot;Yes, but only a very few.

7868.nbsp; Have you watched those cases ?I have not.

7869.nbsp; With respect to the replacement of cattle, those dairymen who complain oi their business having been ruined thereby, are you aware how long it has taken them to replace their stock ?I am not.

7870.nbsp; You said just now that there was no -fliminu-tion in the quantity of milk supplied in Dublin since this slaughter ?That I know.

7871.nbsp; nbsp;Can you tell us whether the price of milk has been raised ?No, it has notit remains the same.

7872.nbsp; nbsp;Has there been no direct claim put forward by any one dairyman on account of the destruction of iiis business?Many of them stated that it was a very great hardship, and some of the small men have given up their business.

7873.nbsp; Do you know whether the other men who have been keeping on have been obliged to sell their milk at no profit ?I may have heard them state that. I may mention that country milk is very cheap, and I am surprised that pure new milk is now supplied to Carrick-on-Suir Union at 4rf. per gallon.

7874.nbsp; nbsp;With respect to the disease you spoke of in this large number of animals that have been killed, can you tell us whether inquiries were directed as regards their health before they were killed ?In eveiy place where animals had been reported to be ill, the veterinary surgeon inspected the animals. If he found that they were in a state of disease, then all the animals on the farm were taken out and put into the abattoir.

7875.nbsp; nbsp;But were the animals simply in contact examined before they were killed ?No, they were all killed.

7876.nbsp; nbsp;Were only those animals suspected of being diseased killed ?No, it did not matter, because they were all killed.

7876a. With respect to the flesh of animals suffering from pleuro-pneumonia. What is your direct opinion as regards the encysted flesh; do you believe that it is due to the organism in the tissues, or do you believe that the tissues have undergone pathologically a change by the production of ptomaines ?I have noticed that the flesh of animals killed whilst affected with that disease appears to undergo rapid changes.

7877.nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean rapid decomposition ?I mean rapid decomposition. For instance, we have often kept them in the places used when we take possession of the carcasses for that purpose, and I have noticed that in a very short time they have actually become putrid. That is one danger.

7878.nbsp; That is a separate point. The meat is liable to more rapid decomposition, and consequently unfit?A more rapid retrograde metamorphosis.

7879.nbsp; But do you think that the tissues of an animal suffering from microbes are chemical products ? I have no evidence of that, but I think, as those changes that I speak of are more likely to take place, that there is a greater risk when the flesh is kept in an ordinary waypurchased onFridoy and kept until Sunday before it is cookedthat those changes may make the food unfit for use, I may say that I have a prejudice against eating the flesh' of a sick animal, and I think that prejudice ought to be taken note of.

MINUTKS OF EVIDJäNCK

2bi

vidual cows; I have boon making experiments to prove the action of chlorate of potassium on the lacteal secretion of cows, sometimes the solids, amount to 17 per cent,, and in only two cases out of 120 have thoy fallen bolow 12 per cent.

7892.nbsp; Is it the fact that since the slaughter of this largo number of dairy cows in Dublin, the rnilway coinpanies that have been serving the Dublin district have made special facilities for the introduction of country milk ?I have only heard that that is the case, but of my own knowledge I do not know. It is stated that they have made those facilities, and that they have advertised special arrangements.

7893.nbsp; Would that partly account for youv previous answer that there has been no increase in the price of milk and no difficulty in obtaining it ?Whether they made those special arrangements or not, there would bo plenty of milk in Dublin.

7894.nbsp; And if that would apply to Dublin, it would also apply to the small towns of Ireland ?Yes.

7895.nbsp; And you think that your recommendation that urban dairies ought to be compelled to be kept in places not so populous, would not cause them any difficulty in the supply of milk ?I am quite sure that it would not in the slightest degree. It would lessen the amount of disease, and indirectly increase the quantity of milk produced over the whole country.

7896.nbsp; Do you consider, from your own knowledge of the circumstances of those 30 slaughter-houses that have existed in Dublin since 1847, that there would be any very serious difficulties in dealing with those ? No; they would be pecuniary altogether. Simply they would have to be compensated for trade disturbance.

7897.nbsp; nbsp;That would bo a matter not within the power of any authority; it would require an Act of Parliament to deal with it ?It would not; the only thing we require to do that would be an Act of Parliament consisting of a single clause, providing for this special purpose, that the abattoir now on the confines of the city of Dublin was to be considered as within the city of Dublin, and then wc should abolish all the slaughter-houses that were in existence before 1847.

7898.nbsp; You think that such a clause would be satisfactory for that purpose ?It would, and it would have been done a long time ago, but they have not the power, which English corporations have, of carrying a Eill through Parliament at the cost of the ratepayers. If a Bill were promoted by the corporation, and it failed, then the persons who introduced the Billthe private members of the corporation would be liable for the costs. It is a substantial grievance that the Corporation of Dublin has.

7899.nbsp; nbsp;Have any cases of pleuro-pneumonia to your knowledge occurred this year, since the cows were i'emoved from the urban dairies, as usual, into the pastures in the month of May ?No, there has been a very sensible decrease. Of course, since this wholesale slaugher of the animals has been carried out, there have been very few cases.

7900.nbsp; You mentioned that no fresh cattle had been brought into Dublin diseased, for the reason that all cows are taken out of the byres and placed on country pastures. Has the disease broken out in those country pastures within the radius around Dublin within the last month ?Yes, it is precisely in those country pastures that most of those cattle have been taken from and slaughtered, so that consequently we were not in raquo;position, as this act has only been done within the last month, to state what the eft'ects will be, but very few cases have occurredwithin the last fortnight, only two or three, I think.

7901.nbsp; nbsp;When you spoke of Dublin dairies with reference to the proceedings of the last month, you you meant not only the actual dairies in the towns, but those places where the town cows have been removed to ?Precisely so.

7902.nbsp; And from your experience in former years, are your aware that disease has been brought into

country places in the months of May and June by the Dublin cows ?All around Dublin cases are occurring, especially towards Bray. Your Lordship knows that direction,

7903.nbsp; nbsp;llathdown Union you mean? Yes, and towards Droghoda, from which n large number of cases came. The veterinary surgeons of the district will give more accurate information upon that point.

7904.nbsp; In a previous answer of yours, you said that the small towns of the country, to the best of your knowledge, had no efficient byelaws under those powers entrusted to them in reference to this disease ? I do not think that they have. I think that only a very few of them have printed rules.

7905.nbsp; Might not that arise from the fact that there is no disease at all there ?Undoubtedly.

7906.nbsp; Eor instance, that there has been no foot-and-mouth disease ?There are whole regions in Ireland where no case has occurred.

7907.nbsp; nbsp;With the exception of your own particular district, I think I am right in saying that there is no disease in Ireland in the last year or so ?There has been in Drogheda.

7908.nbsp; You mentioned Bray and Droghoda as being mixed up with Dublin ; are they within the district affected by the Dublin cows ?So far as I can learn there is very little pleuro-pneumonia.

7909.nbsp; And for the reason that you have no fooi-and-mouth disease ?Precisely.

7910.nbsp; And that will justify the local authority in not printing regulations that would have no effect.? I think that there are few in most of those smaller districts, but I am not prepared to say that some of them have not, but I tried to get the regulations, and the reply I got was that they had none. Some had, the North and South Dublin, and the Rathdown.

7911.nbsp; There you come to the throe diseased places again?Well, to judge from the small salaries the veterinary surgeons and valuers get, I imagine that some of those places had very few cases.

7912.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) I believe you have had very extensive experience in tuberculosis, both in cattle and human beings?Especially in cattle. I have seen more cases in cattle, so far as post-mortem examination is concerned, than I have seen in man.

7913.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the spread of the disease first. Have you any proof of the spread of the disease by any other method than by heredity, by inhalation, or by the actual swallowing of saliva ?No.

7914.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had evidence of the occurrence of each one of those methods ?My observation has been simply of (hose animals coming under my notice as medical officer of health, that is, a cow being seen and seized and slaughtered, and being found affected with this disease. But, you know, the antecedents of the animals I really had very little knowledge of.

7915.nbsp; Then you could not give us an instance in which it could be proved that the disease of tuberculosis was conveyed from one diseased animal standing in a shed to those standing on each side of it, and its spreading throughout the herd ?I could not.

791G. Has it been drawn to your notice among the diseased cattle that you have seen killed that the thorough cleansing of the dairy and the organisation of its sanitary arrangements has got rid of the disease from that particular dairy ?No, I could not say that from my own knowledge.

7917.nbsp; From your general knowledge of the disease, I supposes you consider that It is contagious by inhalation?! am a believer in that theory of its nature. I believe that it is a contagious disease, though not so very contagious as the fevers.

7918.nbsp; Of course you believe in its being a very hereditary disease?T believe that there is a predisposition to acquire it; I do not believe in 'tiio transmission.

7919.nbsp; You do not, believe in the transmission of the virus ?No.

7920.nbsp; Yon simply believe in the transmission of the particular state of body or tissue which renders it liable to take disease?I think that persons arc

li 2

Sir C. A.

Cameron,

M.D.

31 May 1888.

m i

#9632;-9 J

¹ j

k\ I

laquo;;. .if

-----------------

252

COMMITTHH ON I'LHUKO-I'NKUIHONIA AVI) TUBHU0ULOS1S

Sir C. A.

Cameron,

M.D.

31 May 1888.

more liable to ucijuii'e other disouses through heredity than they are to ticquiro that,

7921.nbsp; But you do not think that the actual virus is transmitted by parents?Of course, I am not in a position to prove that, I am only giving my own idea as to the improbability of that transmission.

7922.nbsp; Do you believe that the virus of tubercle is transmitted from the lower animals through the milk and through the flesh?I believe so.

7923.nbsp; Now, lirst as regards milk. I am led to believe, from what I have road and hoard, thnt there is a very considerable amount of tuberculosis in Ireland among human beings, and especially as tabes mesentorica among children ?Precisely. I think that the state of public health is not at, all satisfactory. Our general death-rate is high and our death-rate from constitutional disease is high, the death-rate from zymotic disease can compare fairly with England at all events, but phthisis is higher in Dublin than almost any town in the United Kingdom.

7924.nbsp; Can you give ns the per-ceiitage ?I believe that the diseases of tho organs of respiration amount in some years to nine per thousand. I have often tliought that phthisis has something to do with the existence of the tuberculosis, which so largely prevails among the Dublin dairy cows. I may quote from page 95 of ray report as to the cases of death in Dublin city in 188G. quot; One of quot; the most serious factors in the Dublin mortality quot; bills is phthisis, or pulmonary consumption. Tliis quot; malady caused 984 deaths in 1886, b88 in 1885, ' and 999 in 1884. These figures are, making allow-quot; ance for defective registration previous to 1879, quot; somewhat in excess of the figures for previous quot; years. The same observation applies to the other quot; constitutional diseases. It is remarkable that, whilst quot; the general and zymotic death-rates are declining, quot; the mortality from constitutional diseases shows no quot; decrease.quot; The actual numbers are : phthisis, 3quot;9 per thousand; that is very high.

7925.nbsp; Can you give us, at the same time, the tubercular diseases of the intestines ?They are included in the diseases of the digestive organs, which are about one and a halfabout 1'5 ppr thousand; they are not very high. The diseases of the digestive system gives 353 deaths, in the ratio of 1-4 per thousand of persons living. But phthisis is our most serious disease; it is in excess of all other diseases, even in relation to our high death-rate.

7926.nbsp; Can you give any cases of the milk from tubercular cattle having caused disease ?No ; 1 am sure. Professor Horsley, you are well aware of the difficulty of proving directly any cases of that kind.

7927.nbsp; You have had no case that seemed to you a suspicious case?Certainly, I have had several; but not what you know to be a scientific certainty. I knew children who had been drinking the milk that I had ascertained had been taken from cows that they called phthisiky cows, and those children certainly had tuberculosis. But of course it might have been a coincidence. I have known several cases where, at all events, the persons were suffering from phthisis, and where I knew the cows, the milk of which had been used by them, had phthisis; but whether that was cause and effect I am not able to say,

7928.nbsp; Passing now from human beings, have you seen any case which would lead you to suppose that the milk of tubercular cows has caused tuberculosis in other animals ; pigs, for instance ?No ; nothing beyond what I know of the literature of the subject.

7929.nbsp; No case has been brought to your notice in which the disease has appeared in one class of animals in a form which had spread to other animals ?Not to my own knowledge. I have not kqown such cases. My observation is court ned to a very limited extent. Of course, with regard to other diseases I have been able to connect milk and disease. One most interesting case in Dublin, where G3 cases of typhoid fever occurred, I connected with the milk of one dairy, the owner had typhoid fever, and one of his children, six persons died, including the wife and

son of Mr. Coddington, county Moath. This shows tho necessity of inspecting those milk sheds and dairy yards.

7930.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to tho autonomy of tho dlsvuso as you have seen it in cattle,-the distribution oraquo;. disease in the animal,what would you consider the

eommonost states of the disease in your oxporienco ?__

In the lungs of course principally ; but also the whole of the peritoneal cavity I have seen covered with tubercles.

7931.nbsp; Have you seen it in the alimentary canal ?__

Yes; they often call them warts. Tho butchers speak of them as warts.

7932.nbsp; Have you seen it in tho generative organs ? Yes.

7933.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen it in theinnselo itself?Yes; not often ; it is quite exceptional.

7934.nbsp; Have you seen it in tho joints ?I do not think I have seen it in the joints. Of course, I was only looking at the ease from the point of view whether the animal was fit for food. You, Professor Horsley, would look at it from a pathological point of view.

7935.nbsp; Then of course you have not had an opportunity of seeing whether it existed in any considerable portion in the marrow of bone ?No, I do not carry my observations as for as that, but I have seen in the whole cavity of tho bodymost extraordinary casesmasses of tubercles.

7936.nbsp; Can you give us an opinion as to how often it occurs in the muscles ?No, I should not like to say.

7937.nbsp; But I suppose you consider it, to be a low per-centago ? Decidedly, so low that it has not very specially attracted my attention. I have seen it occasionally, but it is very exceptional.

7938.nbsp; nbsp;You would not consider it occurring so frequently in the muscles as to very seriously damage the food for human consumption apart from other considerations ?Apart from other considerations, certainly not; but I must say that the flesh of animals that I have seen affected with tuberculosis is often of a very poor wretched quality,

7939.nbsp; Then it is quite your opinion that all tho

flesh of all tubercular animals should be destroyed ?__

Yes, no matter in what condition, they ought to be destroyed; 1 must say that, be the condition satisfactory or otherwise, I unhesitatingly condemned any animal that had tuberculosis in any part of it.

794raquo;. Then you have not seen extensive disease accompanied by good nutrition of the body generally ? Very rarely.

7941.nbsp; A considerable number of cases have been stated before us?Well, allow me to say that I would not see such cows, because they would not Attract attention, and it is only those cows that are in poor condition that the health officer would notice.

7942.nbsp; nbsp;You would be only called in when it was very obvious ?When it was an obvious case; but I might say that I did see some fairly good animals in the abattoir not suspected to be ill, but in contact with diseased animals; I saw three or four animals that had very good carcasses.

7943,nbsp; To what extent had the disease gone in them ?Very slight, and altogether in the lungs in those cases.

7944,nbsp; Practically, in every case where you have seen the disease in its commencement, it has been in the thorax ?Every case.

7915. Have you seen much tuberculosis in other animals besides tho bovine animal POh, yes, in pigs and sheep, but not often. Pigs and sheep do not live long enough, I very seldom see it in either of those animals; and I thereby attribute it to their comparatively short life.

7946,nbsp; nbsp; And tho distribution of the disease is precisely the same as in the bovine animal ?Yes.

7947.nbsp; nbsp; Has your attention been drawn to tho tubercle in fowls ?Yes, frequently. Fowis have been sent to me sometimes under the idea that they were poisoned. I meet with the most curious cases. A man writes to say that in the last two or three weeks

MINUTKS OF KVIDENCK

Ml!

he lost 50 or 60some enormous number of fowls and they must bo poisoned; and several times I have found those animals had tuberculosis. That is the only way I get to notice them as cnsos of suspected poisoning.

7948.nbsp; nbsp;Do you believe that under those circumstances it is probable that the fowls contrnetod the disease from the expectoration of the human being ? They might probably pick up sputa, as they are always living in the neighbourhood of houses. I have no doubt that, as the refuse of all kinds ia thrown out in ash-pits and so on, the birds pick up sputa occasionally. I am glad you asked mo that question, as I have not mentioned it in anything tbat I have written. It is u very curious fact, but I have several times met with tuberculosis in the case of three or four out of a large number of animals that must have no doubt died from the same cause. And it was represented to ma that they had died from slow poisoning.

7949.nbsp; With reference to the prevention of this disease: first as regards cattle, and secondly as regards the danger to human beings. Now as regards cattle, do you not think that the disease should be included in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?I look upon it as much more serious, from a sanitary point of view, than pleuro-pneumonia. Whilst I would rather oat the flesh of a healthy animal, I would not mind so very much if it were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, but under no circumstances would I allow anyone to eat the flesh of an animal affected with tuberculosis.

7950.nbsp; Consequently you would strongly support the view that this disease should be included under the Act of 1878 ?I am glad to learn that such a proposal is to be entertained. It is a much more serious disease in my opinion than pleuro-pneumonia.

7951.nbsp; You consider it a much more serious disease than any of the diseases included in the Act ?It is the most serious.

7952.nbsp; Now, practically, the carrying out of such a thing is beset with some difficulties. Do you think that the owners of cattle should be compelled to give notice'of the existence of disease r¹I am strongly of opinion that the owners of cattle under all 'circumstances, from the private gentleman to the dairy stock owner, should, whenever they see an animal suffering from any cause, give prompt notice to the authorities.

7953.nbsp; All cases of disease, in your opinion, should bo reported, and that by means of a regulation of tlmt sort we should get tuberculosis included ?Precisely so.

7954.nbsp; nbsp; Considering the difficulty of diagnosing tuberculosis in an early stage in the lower animals, I suppose you would not be prepared to insist on any heavy penalty for non-reporting such disease ?No, I would not. I am not in favour of very heavy penalties in such cases,

7955.nbsp; Do you think it would be wise or in any way desirable to establish any kind of reward for the reporting ot obscure diseases ?I would bo altogether disposed to have it.

7956.nbsp; You mean thereby that it would be only a small reward in order to prevent any fraud ? Precisely.

7957.nbsp; But on the whole you regard the danger to the public health as being so great that you think every encouragement should be given to the reporting of such disease?Well, as a sanitarian, if I wore asked to make a choice between reporting pleuro-pneumonia and tuberculosis, I would unhesitatingly say tuberculosis; that is, from a sanitary point of view.

I would not be disposed to slaughter animals in contact.

7960.nbsp; nbsp;Would you on account of tho chronic con. dltion of the disease?Yes, whilst it is undoubtedly contagious. Every pathologist, whoso opinion is worth anything now admits that it is a contagious disoaso. It differs very much from such a disease an small-pox or scarlet fever. The ohanoes appear to be much less, when an animal is in a good state of health than when tho animal issiek,fof contracting the disease. It is contagious, but it is much less contagious than those diseases I have mentioned.

7961.nbsp; nbsp;Would yon kill tho suspected animal ?Yes, and I would take all tho other precautions.

7962.nbsp; Following on from what you wore saying before, you would give compensation for such an animal ?I certainly would.

796.3. As regards the existence of disease in the country, and its introduction thereinto, I suppose you consider that if we could reduce its number by slaughter that we should stand some clianco of ultimately getting rid of it altogether ?There would bo a very strong probability, it would not be a certainty. One could not bo sure where the disease has existed so long, and tho poison is so persistent that it would not reappear ; but if the same measures were carried out time after time the disease would be ultimately extirpated. I am not prepared to say that the present measures would do so.

7964.nbsp; You do not believe that it, is in anv degree spontaneous; you believe that it is simply carried on from one animal to another ?Why should it bo ? We know that syphilis is not sporadic, or any other of those diseases.

7965.nbsp; nbsp;You consider also that the generally admitted possibility of the disease being conveyed by heredity is not sufficient to stand ia the way of legislation for stamping it out ?That is my strong opinion.

7966.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) In your experience have you any reason to believe that this disease is caused' by in-and-in breeding ?I have no evidence one way or the other. If you ask mo concerning in-and-in breeding in reference to tho development of disease, I generally could give an answer.

7967.nbsp; Then as to your objection to eat the meat of an animal suffering from tuberculosis, have you any reason to think that tho microbes could not bo destroyed by cooking rNo doubt, if every precaution were taken. If yon know what you are going to do and every precaution has boon taken, a sufficiently prolonged exposure to a high temperature would destroy the bacillus, but wo know that most people would not do so, and wo know that there is such a thing as eating meat very underdone. It is sometimes quite red. I have quot;seen it violet. Wo know that when meat is violet in colour no microbes present are destroyed. I have myself seen the meat purple and violet in colour.

7968.nbsp; Then as to the milk, I think you said it is transmitted, and you believed that it could bo transmitted by the milk ?I believe from what I ban; read of the experiments and tho pretty extensive literature on that subject, and from my general know-lodge of_ those matters, that milk is a vehicle transmitting tuberculosis.

7969.nbsp; nbsp;Would boiling destroy tho microbes there ?__

I think it might if the boiling was prolonged ; but when it is merely raised to a boiling temperature, to an exposure to a temperature of 212 degrees, although the microbes may be destroyed, tho ova, if I may use the term, may withstand a higher temperature than tho microbes themselves. Professor Horslcy knows that there are numerous experiments which show that prolonged exposure will not kill tho germs of the microbes themselves.

7970.nbsp; It has been said that boiling tho milk would render it perfectly safe ?It renders it perfectly safe as far as I can learn in the case of foot-and-mouth disease.

7971.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloncurnj.) You mentioned just now that on those recent occasions of slaughtering you

Sir C, A.

Camei on,

M.D.

31 Ifay 1888.

^,;

'Ml

7958.nbsp; nbsp;From

its danger?Yes, from a sanitary

point of view.

7959.nbsp; Well, then, as regards the possibility of other animals being infected on account of the contagiousness of tubercle, would you do more than slaughter tho animals suspected of disease, or would you slaughter animals in contact on account of tubercle ?

_ _,------------------------------------------------------------

I'llt

164

ooMMimas on plbubo.pndijmonu and tubbbouiiOsis i

Sir C. A.

Cameron, MM.

May 1888,

found some good-looking animals that were in fair condition that af'tei' death proved to bo in an incipient Stage of tuberculosis in tho lung?No, not in an inoipient stage, but having actual tuberculosis.

7972.nbsp; Those that had it slightly in tho lung only, would you in that case prohibit the use of the ilüsli for human food ?All those carcassoa wore condemned, every one of them.

7973.nbsp; But you -would wish always, if there was tho slightest trace of tubercle in tho lung only, that the whole carcass should be destroyed. I would con-denm unhesitatingly tho whole carcass.

7974.nbsp; Have you any direct evidence to show that tho consumption of tho meat of an animal affected with tuberculosis by a human being has produced the disease in the persons who have eaten it ?1 have already stated that I have known it with regard to milk.

7975.nbsp; But I want to draw the distinction between flesh and milk ?No, I have not to my own known-ledgo; I have not known of a person who was fed on that kind of meat. Evidence of that kind would be extremely difficult to obtain.

7976.nbsp; Because of the difficulty with the human being before he ate it ?Yes ; and there would bo the difficulty. You can only go upon general principles in such a case.

7977.nbsp; You say that you have no direct evidence; are you prepared to give any strong opinion as to the possibility of that ?No. We know exactly what the cause of tuberculosis is. We find that it is an organism of which we have no doubt whatever as to its identity, and as to its being the cause of the disease. If wo find that organism in the flesh of an animal that is intended for human food, it is obviously impolitic to allow anyone to use such food as that. May I, whilst I am on this question, say that it is quite evident with an animal suffering from the disease which is commonly called quot; black leg.quot; We know that there is plenty of evidence to show that the persons who use that kind of food would be subject to the disease, or a somewhat similar disease.

7978.nbsp; nbsp;Has any case of that sort resulted fatally to the human being ?Certainly to the lower animals.

7979.nbsp; nbsp;But you do not know of any case that has occurred to the human being ?Well, I have known a case to be attributed to that disease in the county of Wexford, the Eose Garland case, in which two people died, and we investigated it, and brought some evidence to prove that the animal had anthrax.

7980.nbsp; And in that case there was an idea of poison ?There was an idea of poison, but I found there was no poison in the case.

7981.nbsp; And you believed that it was black leg ? Well, there was no strong evidence whether it was or not, but there was some supposition.

7982.nbsp; You mentioned just now that tuberculosis was a more serious disease than pleuro-pneumonia. but you do not mean from the farmer's point of view ?I said that it was merely from a sanitary point of view.

798.'5. The farmer would not suffer to the same extent in the case of tuberculosis, because the disease would not be observed to spread through the other cattle?No.

7984. The farmer would not have the same inducement to get rid of it ?I have seldom seen more than one case of tuberculosis in a dairy yard, whereas I

have seen six or eight out of one dairy yard in the case of plouro-pneumonia.

7985.nbsp; (Professor Horstey.) Do yon think that llio effect of a slaughter order would be to cause the concealment of pleuro ?1 do not think it would.

7986.nbsp; And when there is good compensation you think still less so ?If there were good compensation it would be still less. I am sure, especially with regard to tuberculosis, that most persons would bo only too glad if they had a sickly cow to report it, and get compensation for it, especially if you did not make the restrictions too severe.

7987.nbsp; Could you give us the per-centago of the occurrence of tubercle amongst the animals that were slaughtered under your notice ?I could have furnished you with that, but I understood from Sir William Kaye that Mr. Hedley would give evidence on that point; allow me to say that it might be desirable in some way that, when sales of cattle are effected, those sales should be recorded j that when an animal is sold at a fair, for example, the person selling tho animal should give a certificate to the purchaser of it, showing where the animal was before it was sold, and who the owner of it was, so that disease in that way might be traced to its origin, and the person might be held responsible for selling those diseased animals. I think some regulation of that kind should be required with regard to the sale of animals at fairs and markets, so that if a man purchased an animal, and the next day he found it was diseased, he should have someone to look to for the responsibility of having sold that animal.

7988.nbsp; You mean a guarantee ?Yes; I have had a great deal of compunction in condemning animals recently purchased. Suppose when 201. has been paid for an animal, and tho day after it was purchased I have had to condemn it as unfit for human food. I think that something of the kind is required in that direction. I know how difficult it is to have a warranty, but I say that even if there is no warranty that no one should sell an animal without givinraquo; a statement as to the ownership of it, and where⁵ it came from, for example, when a man sold an animal, and a day or two afterwards it was found to be suffering from pleuro it would be desirable to have the information as to where it came from, so that other diseased animals might be detected.

7989.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.) Do you apply that to large transactions and large purchases, or merely to sales of cows ?I should apply it to every case.

7990.nbsp; Throughout tho whole country ?Certainly ; I do not see any difficulty when a man sells a cow,' giving with the cow a statement as to who its owner was, and where it came from. This could be delivered to the purchaser, and he would retain it, and if the animal became diseased he would report that to the police.

7991.nbsp; nbsp;You are speaking of cows only ?I am speaking of every transaction.

7992.nbsp; Surely, if a dealer had 100 animals, and he was selling them in a fair, it would be impossible for him to do that ?But very few do that; a good many persons buy two or three. It is seldom that a person goes to the fair and buys more. In the case of very large transactions, a person buying 100, it would be impracticable perhaps. It might be only practicable when applied to cows.

lt; '

The witness withdrew.

Mr.

A. tdngard,

M.R.C.S.

Mr. Alfeeu Lingakd, M.E.C.S., D.P.H., Camb., called andexamined.

7993.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman,') You are, I believe, a member of the Eoyal College of Surgeous ?I am,

7994.nbsp; And you also hold a diploma in public health, Cambridge ?Yes.

7995.nbsp; Arc_ you at present connected with the Brown Institution ?Yes, I am working with Dr. Klein for the Local Government Board.

7996.nbsp; Have you had considerable experience in tho physiology and pathology of tuberculosis ?Yes, during the last six years,

7997.nbsp; And more particularly to the effects produced by inoculation and the feeding of animals ?Yes.

7998.nbsp; I mean inoculation and feeding of animals, both with human and bovine material ?Yes.

MINUTES OF HVIDENOK.

255

If:

' il

7999.nbsp; nbsp;With what animals particularly have these experiments boon made ?With guinea-pigs, rabbits, and fowls, principally.

8000.nbsp; nbsp;Might 1 ask you to explain what you moan by tubercular material ?I mean the caseous matter taken from a tuborcular lung, excepting where it is otherwise defined.

800L Have you any experience of tuberculosis in the bovine animal ?1 have seen a number of cases.

8002.nbsp; nbsp; Is it your opinion that it is connnunicablo from the bovine animal to the human subject ?I should think that it is most probable that it is communicable, more especially by eating tuberculous meat not sufficiently cooked,

8003.nbsp; And probably also through the medium of milk?Yes, if the disease affects the mammary glands the milk so obtained would be capable of communicating the disease to any person feeding on such milk_; and also, I might say, if there happened to be a tubercular abscess on the udder (should the individual milking have a sore on the lingers) by direct inoculation.

8004.nbsp; Would you give us the result of your experiments upon guinea-pigs inoculated with bovine tuberculosis ?Guinea-pigs, to coninience with, would have enlarged glands after a period of a few days,the glands first affected would be those in immediate communication with the seat of inoculationoccurring generally in about 14 days. Then later on, perhaps in a month or six weeks, these glands will suppurate, and the animal will then become emaciated, and after a time, varying from 50 to 60 days, the animal dies; and on making an examination one finds tuberculosis of the lungs, extensive disease of the liver, a very large spleen,generally 10 to 20 times as large as one finds in health,and the abdominal glands are nearly always enlarged also. In guinea-pigs the kidneys are very seldom affected.

8005.nbsp; Then one result was that the animal died ? The guinea-pigs so inoculated usually die from the 55th to the 60th day.

8006.nbsp; Does your answer refer particularly to guinea-pigs inoculated with bovine tubercular matter ? Yes.

8007.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee what was the effect upon guinea-pigs fed on bovine tuborcular matter ? In the first place the animal lives about the same time, generally 60 days; but as the virus enters the body through the intestinal tract, the glands that one would expect to be enlarged at first are the mesenteric, and those are the ones we find enlarged.

8008.nbsp; nbsp;Now, I will take you to another point, and ask you what effect you discovered from guinea-pigs inoculated with human tubercular matter?In the case of human tubercular matter the guinea-pigs live from 80 to 90 days; that is, as a rule, the average duration of their life. One finds the organs affected are almost identically the same in the two diseases that the disease has advanced to about the same extent in each, but the difference that one finds in the liver in an animal so inoculated is most marked. If one animal is inoculated with bovine, and another with human matter at the post-mortem, by inspection I can tell immediately the difference between the bovine and the human one. In the case of the bovine the liver is slightly enlarged, with numerous yellow patches, some small, others large, running one into the other, so that there arc large areas of necrosis, while the liver tissue itself is pale. That is in contradistinction to the necrotic portion, which is yellow and stained with bile. In the case of the human subject, the livci^ substance is granular on the surface, coloured darkish red,a muscle colour,varying in intensity, together with pale areas ; but the areas of necrosis are almost identical with those in bovine. The spleen in the human is generally of a darker colour than that in the bovine. It is almost identical with the colour of the liver, that is, a muscle red; but as a rule in bovine disease the spleen attains to laquo;bout the same size as human, and that varies from nine grammes to 20 grammes, according to the stage of the disease.

8009.nbsp; nbsp;Have you anything further to state on that point ?No.

8010.nbsp; nbsp;I now come to the question of experiments With fowls, and I will ask you whether you find that the disease is easily couununicated by human tubercular material to fowls ?Of course, there are two ways of communicating the disease to them.

8011.nbsp; nbsp;Did you lind that your experiments were in any measure refractory ?Yes.

8012.nbsp; nbsp;What effect did you discover upon fowla inoculated with human tubercular material ?-I made inoculation experiments in fowls with human tuberculosis in two different years. During ihe first year I found that the fowls very readily quot;took the disease, but in the second year not more than two-fifths of the number of fowls inoculated took it, but in those that did take it the disease advanced, and after 150 days the fowls died.

8013.nbsp; nbsp;What information have you to give us with reference to fowls which were fed on human tubercular material ? The fowls that were fed on human tuborcular material died in two instances, the first in 49 days, and the second in 62 days, with enormous spleens. The spleen of the fowl is about the size of a very small marble, but in these instances the spleen was found to bo about as large as a hen's egg, and the liver, which, in health,'occupies only one-third or a quarter of the interior portion of the abdominal cavity, in these instances tilled the whole of the abdominal cavity, so that there was an increase in bulk of probably six times.

8014.nbsp; nbsp;Did you continue your experiment to inoculation of fowls with bovine tubercular material ?Yes.

8015.nbsp; nbsp; And what did you find as the result of inoculation ?The earliest cases died in 49 days with very extensive disease even then. The average is found to be 120 days, and the largest were 311 days.

8016.nbsp; nbsp;How did the spleen compare with the previous case which you have just described ?The spleen in the case that died with advanced disease was identical in the two diseases as regards size. In the one I described before I said as large as a hen's egg. Well, of course, hens' eggs differ considerably in size, but I might say two inches in diameter.

8017.nbsp; Then what did you discover to bo the efieot upon fowls fed in contradistinction to those inoculated With bovine tubercular material?The fowls died with advanced disease in from 260 to 3(.10 days.

8018.nbsp; Did you observe any unusual emaciation in the latter case?Yes; in the case of the 12 fowls that I fed on the bovine matter every one was emaciated to the very last degree ; literally, it had barely any ilesh on its bones.

8019.nbsp; In any of the experiments you have tried on the fowls, did you observe any swelling of the head ? No, never. On one occasion I noticed swelling of one foot.

8020.nbsp; When you speak of fowls do you include turkeys ?No, hens simply.

8021.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) You have described to us certain anatomical differences in some animals produced by the inoculation of bovine and human tubercular material respectively ?Yes.

8022.nbsp; Do you or do you not regard the tubercle under those circumstances as fundamentally the same disease ?Yes, I consider that originally the tubercular bacillus originated from one source.

8023.nbsp; From one stock ?From one stock.

8024.nbsp; Do you think that the bacillus becomes slightly increased in size and exercises a different influence upon the tissues according to the animal that it grows in ?Undoubtedly.

8025.nbsp; Have you any facts to lay before the Committee to show that the tubercular bacillus, as it grows in cattle, is capable of transmission to man ; have you any specific facts that you could name to the Com-mittee?I have no facts that I should like to communicate, except the ease of quot; butcher's tubercles,quot; which are formed upon the hands or lingers, caused by direct inoculation from tuberculous meat, such

Mr. A, /Jm/ard, M.ll.C.S.

!i\ May 1088.

.(A

*#9632;]#9632;

------------------

250

COMMITTEE ON PLEUKO-rNEUMONIA AND 1UUBKOUL081S :

Mr. A, Jjinqara,

M.n.'c.s.

81 May 18B8,

tubercles bting found to contaiu the tubercle bacillus. 1 Imvo no dooumentftry evidence that I could lay before you.

8020. Is it your opinion tlint such transmission is possible ?Certainly,

8027.nbsp; If the disease may bo conveyed from one animal to another by the second animal digesting the flesh of the first, ilo you believe that the disease is transmissible from one animal to another, from one human being to another by inhalation ?Certainly.

8028.nbsp; Ts it your opinion that the disease is hereditary, moaning thereby that the tubercular bacillus is transferred from one parent to the other, and so to the offspring ?I have no evidence to bring on the subject in the case of human tuberculosis; but in the case of bovine tuberculosis, Professor Johne, of Dresden, published some two years ago a most interesting announcement that he had made a post-mortem on a cow then pregnant with a calf of eight months, and that the mother had general tuberculosis. He made a very careful examination of the calf; he found in one mng two or three caseous nodules, and on careful examination inicroscopically, by staining for the tubercle bacilli, he was able to demonstrate it in these caseous nodules in the eight months foetus.

8029.nbsp; Have you any definite facts to support the evidence of one witness, which was laid before us, showing that one parent animal could contract disease from the other. For instance, in one animal it was stated that the hull contracted the disease from several tubercular cows, and in those cases the uterus was shown to be the seat of tubercular disease ?I know that in the case of a German girla servant girl waiting on her master who was suffering from tuberculosisthat she had to empty a pot containing the sputa, having a small cut in her thumb at the time. She was in the habit of putting her thumb in this small pot to carry it away. Alter a few weeks time she noticed some redness aoout the thumb, and then some lines running up the arm; an enlargement of the glands above the elbow and in the axilla next followed. She showed it to a medical man, and he, immediately grasping the idea that it was in all probability the inoculation from the tuberculous sputum, excised these glands and examined them, and found that all contained tubercle bacilli. So that I should say it would be easy for the penis of a bull, if it had any excoriations, to be inoculated by the discharge coming from the uterus of the cow, but of course it would primarily originate in the penis, and the glands in the inguinal region would become affected secondarily.

8030.nbsp; nbsp;What was the further course of the girl's case that yon quoted just now?At the present time I am unable to give you that information, because no further report has been published, but we are waiting and looking forward to a further report, to know whether it was arrested by the excision of the glands.

8031.nbsp; In this case where the disease is said to hü hereditary, do you think that the child's tissues are in a state to receive tubercular bacillus, or do you believe that the virus is handed actually down in the ovum ?I think in the first place we have no evidence to prove that the virus is handed down in the ovum, except the one calaquo;e Professor Johne has discovered in the cow.

8032.nbsp; Do you think that it is possible ?It is just possible, but most improbable.

8033.nbsp; Do you believe, in cattle, that the disease could bo communicated from one cow tied up next another by the saliva of a cow affected with the disease getting on to the manger?Undoubtedly.

8034.nbsp; So that actually, us a matter of fact, she might take the disease either hereditarily or by inhalation, or by the inception of excretions from a diseased animal ?Certainly.

8035.nbsp; As regards the distribution of the disease : wo have hoard a groat deal concerning the disease in the viscera, but I believe you have made some special observation upon the presence of tubercle bacilli in Komy of the other tissues of the body where they arß raquo;ot commonly supposed to exist, especially in bones. Will

you tell the Committee what discoveries you have made in respect to that point. To begin with, I think you Lave made experiments upon guinea-pigs by inoculation with tubercular material. Did you find the tubercle bacillus in the marrow of a bone ?Yes, I did.

803C. Did you find this in the early stages of the disease ?Yes.

8037.nbsp; nbsp;So that wo can say that in all probability in general tuberculosis the marrow of the bone is infected at an early period ?Certainly.

8038.nbsp; Do you consider that it would bo possible for any unskilled persons to detect the presence of such tubercular foci in the marrow of such bones ?It would be impossible for any unskilled persons to do so.

8039.nbsp; nbsp;So that actually the tissues of an animal would be infective at a period when it could not be recognised by the naked eye ?Yes, it woqld.

8040.nbsp; nbsp;With respect to the employment of meat from animals diseased from tubercle, I suppose you would insist that all meat from tuberculous animals should be destroyed ?Undoubtedly I should.

8041.nbsp; I mean to say, whether you could see anything in the parts used for food or not ?Whether I could see anything or not.

8042.nbsp; I believe you also found that muscles which were not near any focus of the disease were free from the bacilli ?Quite free.

8043.nbsp; nbsp;In reference to the risk, would you consider, from a practical point of view as to the public health, that it would be too great ?It would be too great to allow it.

8044.nbsp;With regard to the disease occurring in other animals, are you aware of its being conveyed from the human being direct to the fowl ?Yes.

8045.nbsp; Can you give the Committee the details of sucli a case ?I have here a full account of the translation from Dr. Lamalleree, published in quot; Gazette Medicalequot; of the 15th of August 1886.

8046.nbsp; In that case was the disease transmitted from man to fowls ?TVom man to fowls.

8047.nbsp; And wat it not also transmitted from man to man ?From maa to man also.

8048.nbsp; Would you give the Committee an outline of the beginning of the disease ?A man came to a small -village after serving as a soldier in the Franco-Prussian war. He went to live at a village 1,500 feet in elevation. At that time he was said to be suffering from bronchitis. It turned out that he had tuberculosis of the lungs. He married a fine healthy woman, and, in the course of some months, this woman showed symptoms of bronchitis, or rather what was called bronchitis. The husband eventually died of tubercle and the wife also. At the time that the wife was suffering iu bed, another woman, at another portion of the village, showed symptoms also of so called bronchitis.

8049.nbsp; nbsp; Had the second woman been previously healthy ?Yes, the second woman, who was previously healthy, showed symptoms of tuberculosis. The doctor who was called in had great ditKculty in making up his mind how this tuberculosis could be spreading in this way in a village where for years and years previously nobody had been known to die except from old age. Knowing that the soldier had died of tuberculosis, he asked her, quot;Did you have any food from the house of the soldier ? quot; She said, quot; On many occasions I have had dead fowls sent to me from her house.quot; He then proceeded to the house of the soldier's wife and, at the moment of Hearing the door, he heard the poor woman coughing. He heard her expectorate. At that moment he saw a large number of fowls hurry-skurrying one before the other as hard as they could tear into the house, and he just arrived in time to see them fighting over the expectoration. That day one of the fowls had died, and he made a post-mortem of it, and found the identical state of tilings that I have describedan enlarged spleen, and a huge liver, dotted all over with tuberculos. He said to himself, quot; How could it quot; possibly hurt the woman who had eaten those

#9632; !l



		*r'!
		\|i^:
	Mr.	#9632;i'^
	A, Lingard,	1
	M.R.C.S.	1
	31 May 1888.	m J

MINUTES OP 1!V IDENOK.

267

quot; fowls, ovon though dead fiom diseuse, if properly quot; cooked through raquo;t a higli temperature r quot; There is only one wuy of uocouuting for it, und tlint is ilmt this woman has not eaten it after being well cooked. So he said to the second woman, quot; Ho-v do you eat the fowls, do you eat thorn well cooked ?quot; She said, quot; No, sir, no, 1 take them just after very slight quot; cooking, as I am told by everybody that the blooding quot; flesh of fowls is the best wuy of gaining strength to quot; overthrow the bronchial attack.quot; It was found that, on numerous occasions afterwards, whonever one of these fowls died it always died with extensive disease, and it was discovered that this wonnui had had something like 10 or 12 from the same butch within a period of three months. As I have said, this is taken from the quot; Gazette Medicale quot; of the löth of August 1886, and the report is by a medical officer. Dr. de Lamalleree.

8050.nbsp; Is it not a very common thing to find fowls suffering from tubercle in London ?Very common indeed.

8051.nbsp; And I suppose that would be practically true for all large cities ?Yes, 1 think so.

8052.nbsp; With your knowledge of the spread of the disease you believe, of course, that the disease is not in any way spontaneous, but si'nply dependent upon the transfer of bacilli from one animal to another? Certainly.

8053.nbsp; Consequently, if we could kill otf those animals which are suffering from the disease we should stamp it out?To a groat extent.

8054.nbsp; Do you think, therefore, that the disease ought to be included among those which are enumerated in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act with a view to that?Certainly.

8055.nbsp; If it were stated, against such an opinion, that the disease might still be transmitted hereditarily, and that you could not interfere with the breeding of cattle, I suppose it, would be still your opinion that the slaughter of as many animals which are affected as possible would be a very gre.it service?A very great service.

8056.nbsp;Could you epitomise the printed work in your hand and put. it in as an appendix without much trouble?I shall have to nsk the permission if Dr. Klein.

8057.nbsp; nbsp; (Mi: Stirling.) How do you think that tuberculosis is generated ; what is your opinion on the subject?1 think that the tubercle bacillus is far more ubiquitous tliau wo have any idea, and that it is in the human being and probably in some animals when there is a loss of power of resistance, that the organism finds a suitable nidus.

8058.nbsp; nbsp;Then would you consider that that loss of power might be brought about by in-and-in breeding? Certainly.

8(159. Even from sound animals ?From sound animals. I mean in-and-in breeding from the same sire or from the same mother.

8060.nbsp; May we take it you believe that in-and-in breeding from the same sire may possibly produce, or very likely produce, tuberculosis from weakening effects?It may produce the weakening effect, and so a loss of power of resistance, so that the tubercle bacillus happens to come in contact with an animal thus providing a suitable sod for its growth and multiplication.

8061.nbsp; It simply ineans that from in-and-in breeding they become more und more susceptible to tuberculosis ?They become weakened and therefore more susceptible.

8062.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any ground for thinking that tuberculosis is very prevalent in wild herds where in-and-in breeding cannot be regulated?In wild herds one does not know that tuberculosis exists at all, and if there is in-and-in breeding, tubercle bacilli not being present in such districts, the animals certainly could not contract the disease.

8063.nbsp; nbsp; Von spoke of the effect of cooking on meat; would you consider milk taken fro.n a cow suflcring from tiihereulosis dangerous if boiled?I

o Ö4O03,

should consider it undoubtedly dangerous wore the mammary gland affected, but the tubercle bacillus 1 have fomid to be capable of complete destruction after half a minute to a minute's boiling. The great danger is the spore formation, tho seed of the bacillus, which is v^ry didieult to destroy and that is capable of bringing about the disease at any timeafter years, if it is thou introduced into tho animal.

8064.nbsp; nbsp;You said that you destroyed tho baoilli by boiling. Could you tell the Committee how long the virus is capable of existing without destruction ?In tho presence of oxygen the tubercle bacillus forms spores speedily, and these spores are in all probability capable of producing the disease, if only put into V proper medium of cultivation, that is to say, either by introduction into the human being or into an animal, or if put on an artificial medium of cultivation, then it would be capable of springing up and producing bacilli at any date, probably years after tho destruction of the bacillis that originated it,

8065.nbsp; What temperature kills bacilli ?One to two minutes' exposure to a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit, but in the case of boiling a piece of meat of course tho inside of the meat would never reach that temperature,

8066.nbsp; nbsp;Then in roast beef it would bo loss likely to be destroyed?Less likely, especially In tho interior in the middle of tho joint,

80()7. 1 suppose nothing but a microscopic examination of the milk would show the presence of these bacilli?No, in the case of the inoculation of the suspected milk into guinea pigs, in the course of a few weeks' time you would be able to say whether it was tuberculous milk or not; either by inoculation or feeding.

8068.nbsp; nbsp;Would it be easy for a non-professional man to make an examination of the milk?No, it would be difficult for him to do it; in fact, [ should not like to take his opinion.

8069.nbsp; If tho Committee wished to take steps to prevent any chance of this milk being used in London, would you consider the medical officers of health capable of detecting tuberculosis in milk ? Do you consider that tho officers of health arc sufficiently skilled to he able to say that the milk suumitted to them is or is not affected with tuberculosis?J think in the majoiity of cases they are not in a position to say it, A man who has either a degree or a diploma in public health is supposed to be examined in all to do with bacteriology. On the other hand, without the man has had several years' work at it, I do not think that he is in a position to do it. Tho easiest way would be simply by inoculation. 1 would not be satisfied with microscopic observations only, because if only three organisms are in a pint of milk the chances are that one would not come across the organism in the microscopical preparations; but if one could get an animal led on that milk or inoculated with it, one would have a much better chance, I do not think that the three organisms would ever arrive in the body of the animal inoculated.

8070.nbsp; How long would such an experiment take ? Within a month.

8071.nbsp; (Mi: Botven-Jones.) You are of opinion that tuberculosis might be included, as far as the animals are concerned, in what we call the quot;Contagions Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 quot; ?Yes, I am.

8072.nbsp; nbsp;You would make it imperative that owners should give notice when they had tuberculosis, the same as they do in cases of pleuro-pnoumonia ?I think it ought to be known, but 1 think tho only way would be by compelling the owners to give notice.

8073.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think ordinary farmers and dairymen would know the disease sufficiently well to be able to do this effectually ?No, I do not think so.

8074.nbsp; nbsp;And how would you get over that diniculty'' Well, the veterinary inspectors to each districtI am not versed in that matten' however.

H075, It is really a practical diirieulfy. Then I uiidersland you would suggest that a system of

K k

lii

#9632;m

#9632;I

K. .11

4 #9632;*.

#9632;I


	laquo;1
	.	*Mr.* *A. Lingard,* *M.R.C.S.*
	lt;	81 May 1888.

258

COMMITTEE ON PLIäUBO-l'NRUMONTA AND TUBKUOULOSIS :

inspection should bo earriod out?Undoubtedly, in dairies.

8076.nbsp; You know probably that it would be much more dangerous in town dairies than in country herds ? Certainly, I should not be inchnei to fear tuberculosis in a largo herd until one case had occurred. There might bo an inspection every three months of the herd, and then if any disease broke out, or any one of the animnls died, a post-mortem should be made of it, and then if it turned out to be tuberculosis, that farm ought to be undoubtedly watched, and watched very carefully.

8077.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing tuberculosis was found to exist on a farm, would you recommend the slaughter of the tubercular animals and compensation to the owners ?I do not know that it would be easy to diagnose the animals that were suffering from tuberculosis or grapes.

8078.nbsp; nbsp;Would you go further and recommend that the whole of the animals on a farm which had been in contact with a tubercular animalwith one which had died and which was proved to be tubercular should be destroyed ?1 think it is such a serious matter that the milk from that dairy ought to be stopped at once.

8079.nbsp; I am not speaking of a dairy herd now, but of a breeding herd; do you think that it is of such importance to the health of the country that the slaughter of the tubercular herd should be resorted to and compensation given to the owners ?I think that they ought io be slaughtered, but I am not sufficiently versed in the matter to qualify me to say whether they should receive compensation, or whether they would get it if they wanted it.

8080.nbsp; But you think that the animals ought to be slaughteredas a matter of justice, I presume, if the public are to derive benefit from such a system being pursued, you would see no objection to compensation being given ?Certainly not.

8081.nbsp; Do you think by such a process that you could get rid of tuberculosis altogether in this country ?I cannot say that one would get rid of it altogether, but one would be lessening the evil, because at the present moment we do not altogether known the habitat of the tubercle bacillus.

8082.nbsp; Can you say whether or not tuberculosis is an imported disease intoEngland ?lam not sufficiently versed in that.

8083.nbsp; You stated just now that it existed to a much greater extent than people had any idea of. Did you not say that the organisms were floating about to a much greater extent than people had any idea of? Yes.

8084.nbsp; Do you think that if tuberculosis was cleared out of this country at the present moment it could arise again if not imported ?I do. I think that it is here. If portions of an animal that had died of tuberculosis were to be left in a field, I think that the tubercle bacillis can be communicated to other animals in that way.

8085.nbsp; nbsp;Ton say that if a portion of the tubercular animal were left in the field, further cases ot the disease might arise from that?Certainly. In some small portions left about I have found them increase and multiply to an enormous extent in a piece of decomposed flesh. Four years after they were still alive, and capable of reproduction.

8086.nbsp; nbsp;Let us assume that for a moment, and then it seems a very difficult thing to get rid of it tinder any circumstances ?But I do not say that cattle are left about the fields dying in this country. I am only saying that if they were left.

8087.nbsp; Let us assume that the disease was stamped out, that the germs were destroyed, do you think that

it could arise in this country from climatic or other influences ?This is what I mean : if all the animals were killed off, and the disease was stamped out, I cannot say that, from the human being it might not be transferred to the dog or to other animals that we make pets of, that it might spread again ; but it might take years and years; but if there were one case in the human being, it might spread all round again, and a difference in the organism take place in going from one animal to another. There is no doubt that the tubercle bacillus is considerably modified by passing through different animals; and as I started by first saying, in all probability the tubercular bacillus was originally one and the same organism. On passing into difl'erent animals it has been converted and modified to a very great extent.

8088.nbsp; Then I think 1 may assume that the drastic legislation I have suggested would only be the means of modifying the disease, and not exterminating it, in your opinion ?I think that it is advisable to modify it, and, if, possible to exterminate it.

8089.nbsp; I want to know if you think this drastic legislationthat is, killing the animals in contact with those suffering from tuberculosis on farmswas adopted, whether it would in your opinion only modify the disease, or do you think it would exterminate it in this country ?I think it would go very far towards exterminating it.

8090.nbsp; But then, supposing compulsory slaughter were adopted in tubercular herds, you would have the animals in contact with herds suffering from it capable of transmitting it to animals again ?You might have it.

8091.nbsp; So that that disease might remain ?You might have it.

8092.nbsp; Do you think it would be of any value to have a series of extended experiments on the question of the incubation period of this disease from one animal to another or from the human race to the lower orders of animals ?I think that it would be of the utmost benefit.

8093.nbsp; Could that be carried out at the several stations in England, Ireland, and Scotland ? Are there sufficient scientists to carry that out properly and successfully, do you think ?Certainly.

8094.nbsp; Have you ever considered what the expense of such a series of experiments would be ?No, I have not. I should not like to give an idea without thinking it over carefully.

8095.nbsp; Would it be possible to experiment with the human being in the opposite way to what 1 have indicatedthat is, as to the incubation period of the disease from the lower animals to the human being ? Would it be possible to carry out such experiments as those ?Certainly not.

8096.nbsp; Because we should be trifling with human life ?Yes.

8097.nbsp; Would not that sheer off a great deal of the value from such a series of experiments ?No, because all the information that we can derive from either one source or the other tends to help us in after work, so that when we have the chance, if we ever do have it, we should then have the evidence concerning the animals to go by.

8098.nbsp; Do you think that the evidence as to the animals would apply in a great measure as to the human being ?Yes.

8099.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloncurry.) In what form did you administer the human tubercular disease to the guinea pigswhat part of the human subject did you give to the guinea pigsfrom the human lung ?Portions of the caseous matter taken from the lung of a person who had died of proved tubercular disease,

8100.nbsp; Was the inoculation from the same material ? The matter used in the inoculation was from the same material.

i :

:nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i

([I I

Inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;1

11 I

The witness withdrew.

Lu,

MINUTKS OF KVIDENOIC.

259

Mr. Alexandeu Gürtjs Cope, M.ll.C.V.S., rocalled and further examined.

Mr. A. C. Cope, M.R.C.V.S.

31 May 1888.

8101.nbsp; nbsp;(ChainnaH.) You have, 1 believe, during your large professional experience, paid special attention to and ha.l unusual opportunities of observing tuberculosis in the bovine animals ?1 have.

8102.nbsp; Have you gonemllj observed it in raileh cows, more than in any other animals ?It is always more frequently observed in milch cows by reason of the fact that they live to a greater age, and the disease is allowed to develop in those portions of the system which enable people to observe that they are obviously affected, but as a matter of fact there are a large number of young animals which are affected with the disease, in their lungs particularly, and frequently in a stage that no one can detect if they have the disease in their system at all.

8103.nbsp; You mean that in young animals, presenting a healthy appearance externally, the disease may still be in existence ?I have frequently seen some of the healthiest looking; animals in the market which, when slaughtered in the abattoirs, were found to be extensively affected with tuberculosis in the lungs.

8101. I pres'ime, under certain conditions, you do find considerable emaciation?Yes.

8105.nbsp; But am I right in assuming that so long as the lungs only are implicated such is not visible ? As a rule the emaciation is much greater when the digestive organs are also affected.

8106.nbsp; I may gather then that you have great difficulty in detecting disease in animals affected in the lungs only ?Yes, very great indeed, when only a small portion of the lung is invaded.

8107.nbsp; Then in the face of this difficulty there would bo a considerable difficulty, would there nut, in expecting the owners of animals to give notice of nn outbreak of disease ?Yes, I think that very few owners would recognise the disease in their animals, and therefore they would not be likely to give notice of the existence of the disease.

8108.nbsp; nbsp;Any legislation, therefore, which might be instituted on the subject, would consequentlv have to be based on information of the existence of the obvious disease ?All legislation material depends upon having early intimation of the existence of disease among animals.

8100. Have you found great difficulty in diagnosing the disease ?Yes, a very great difficulty. Only a few years ago we had a cargo of animals brought from France in which the foot and mouth disease was found to exist. All these animals were prize animals and in splendid condition, and were detained at the place of landing, by order of the Privy Council.

8110.nbsp; nbsp;Do you refer to the animals coming from the Paris Exhibition ?Yes. You recollect the difficulty that 1 got into -with a North Country breeder. One of tiie animals which was badly affected with foot-and-mouth disease, but otherwise apparently healthy, dierl, that sdie was in quarantine, but the post-mortom examination showed it to have extensive tuberculosis deposits in the lungs, a fact which was unknown to the owner.

8111.nbsp; Was that a high-bred short horn?--It was one belonging to Lady Piggot.

8112.nbsp; Are you aware of any case you could illustrate wiiere even a veterinary surgeon has been unable to detect the disease ?Yes, I know of an instance in whicli a gentleman who was a great expert in connexion with cattle diseases, ami had some valuable animals of his own, had an nnimal gradually waste and pine away. He thought at the time that it was suffering from some injury to the stomach, the result of raquo;wallowing either a needle or some other sharp instrument, and it was not until the animal died under his own care that he found out that it was really suffering from tuberculosis.

8113.nbsp; Have you any very recent instance in which it has been brought to your personal knowledge; and are there other cases in which you have had a difficulty in satisfying yourself of the existence of the disease ?

Yes, only on Tuesday last. We had, a fortnight or three weeks ago, a report sent to us of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia among some cattle in Warwickshire. I was unable to go down, but we recommended that the local authority should send up the lungs of the animal, it being doubted as to whether it was pleuro-pueumonia or not. On examining the lungs I found that this animal had not suffered from pleuro-pneuuionia but from tuberculosis, but it was complicated with pleurisy which, no doubt, produced symptoms during life very similar to those of pleuro-pneumonia. I weiit down on Tuesday last, and examined the remainder of the herd, and among theses animals I find there are four or five of them now which are coughing and showing evidence of disease of the lungs, but I am by no means prepared to say that they have tuberculosis, because I think that it is quite possible that some of them may have old encapsuled portions of lung, and unless the animals are slaughtered I could not give any decisive opinion as to what the nature of their disease is. At present 1 have recommended the local authority to keep the animals under observation, before making up their minds as to whether it is pleuro-pneumonia or not, if it be pleuro-pneumonia we shall have some more fall within some indefinite period.

8114.nbsp; Have you any idea at the present time as to how this disease is perpetuated ? #9632; Yes, I am of opinion that the disease is hereditary, but we have no absolute evidence to show how it is communicated from animal to animal during------.

8115.nbsp; nbsp;Then you are not of opinion that it could bo gathered by association only ?No, hut I think it may, although we have no satisfactory evidence before us to prove that it is propagated in this way.

8116.nbsp; nbsp;Do you believe it to be due in any measure to in-and-in breeding ?No, I am of opinion that it is _ not, and I think I can give pretty satisfactory evidence in reference to that subject.

8117.nbsp; nbsp;Will you give us your reason for such an opinion?Yes; the Spanish people have a race o, cattle of a pure and distinct typeevery animal is the exact prototype of another, the breed has been existing in that country for ages, and they breed in and in entirely from their own cattlethey will not allow a single head of foreign cattle to go into their country on any consideration. They are also most particular in preventing any of their own female animals coming out, of their country, or any males which are not emasculated. We get nothing from them except steers. Now we have had hundreds of thousands of these cattle whicli must be bred in and in sent to this country, and in no single instance have we ever been able to detect a case of tuberculosis in any one animal, and they have a character for being so healthy that the Jews invariably buy these cattle in preference to any others. The Jews always have their cattle examined by the priest after slaughtering, and before they are sent for consumption, and they are passed as to what they call cosher, which means healthy. The priest attends the slaughtering, and invariably examines the interior of the chest, and passes his band round to see that there are no adhesions of the lungs, and also examines the lungs to see that they are not affected with tuberculosis, and we know of no single instance where we have had a case sent to this country among these cattle.

8118.nbsp; Does it suggest itself to you nmt uic baeilli are not present in Spain ?I take it that that is the case with regard to cattle, the cattle are not tainted with the disease, but, as a matter of fact, J believe there is plenty of tuberculosis among the people.

8119.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any special reason for saying so? Yes; when travelling in the train to Wiltshire only a few months ago, I met a Spanish gentleman, who told me it was very prevalent in the neighbourhood of Madrid.

K k 2

4 '111

ft ,.;  quot;/

^fi;

260

COMMITTEE ON J'LKUHO-rNlSUMONIA ANraquo; TUBEBOULOSIS;

;:*, #9632;

Mr. A. C. Cope, M.X.C.V.S.

31 May 1888.

.SJ2Ü. But at the proseut tlmo it does not aifoai't) be communlontod from man to nnlmals?A.pparoiitly not.

8121.nbsp; Tiien we may gather that it is only in cattle which are in mi advanced stajio of tuberoulosis that the disease can Uo recognised?As a rule it is only sucli animals nraquo; liavo becomo emaciated, or show evidence ot tumours externally which can bo satisfactorily determined as being affected with tuberculosis.

8122.nbsp; But in the event of a veterinary inspector ordering the slaughter of an animal, as ho frequently may on account of tuberculosis, and subsequently finds thai It is not so affected, who would havs to pay the compensation urtder the existing circumstnnceß ?At the present moment they have no power to slaughter for tuberoulosis. The difficulty would only arise in the event of an order being passed authorising the local authorities to slaughter cattle affected with tuberculosis.

8123.nbsp; And that order would define by whom it was to be paid, no doubt?Whoever ordered the slaughter of the animal would have to pay the coinpensation.

8124.nbsp; Now, is it your opinion that you find tuberculosis generally throughout a herd, or only in some few animals in each herd ?As a rule you only lind one or two cases in a herd. Occasionally you find several animals affected, but this is the exception.

8125.nbsp; Probably in the event of a breeding herd representing several animals, you would find it more in some families than in others ?You do.

8126.nbsp; Do you think that it is possible to legislate for the eradication of tuberculosis ?I do not think that any legislation could be adopted that would eradicate the disease from the cattle in this country, on account of the great difficulty of recognising the disease in the animal when alive.

8127.nbsp; What is the utmost that could be done by compulsory powers to diminish the disease?As far as 1 can say, the ordy thing that could be done would be to slaughter all thoso animals which are obviously affected with the disease, but that, naturally, would only be in the interest of the human being.

8128.nbsp; But would this diminish the disease generally in the country ?No, not among the cattle, because it would be in such a very small per-centage of affected animals that you could detect it.

8129.nbsp; From that 1 gather that any legislation must be more in the interest of the human being than of cattle ?Certainly, 1 think so.

8130.nbsp; Is the conclusion which you have arrived at, that you would not recommend tuberculosis to be added to the Contagious Diseases (Aninmls) Ast, 1^78 ?Well, Ivö have thought the matter over very seriously, but we find that there are so many difficulties in connexion with dealing with the matter that up to the present moment the Privy Council have not felt themselves in a position to legislate for it in the interest of animals.

8131.nbsp; nbsp;Rut the same objection could not be raised from u sanitary or medical point of viuw ?No, 1 think not.

8132.nbsp; Is it your opinion that tuberculosis is easily, if at all, communicable between the bovine and the human being ?I have no experience upon that subject.

8133.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) You told ns that the disease is difficult to diagnose in the earlier stages?Yes.

8134.nbsp; nbsp;Do you not think that if you were adding this diseasescheduling it under the Actthat it would lead possibly to the slaughter of a great many healthy cattle ?Yes, I do, animals affected with other diseases.

8136.nbsp; At the same time do you consider that this disease is of such a dangerous nature that it would blaquo; desirable that it should bo scheduled ?Not so far as the cattle of the country are concerned.

813(3. llut for the general health of the country ? For the health of the public, 1 think it ought.

8137.nbsp; Then would you really recommend it as raquo; public benefit solely on that ground ?I think so.

8138.nbsp; nbsp;Wo have in the course of this inquiry been told, as regards pleuro-pneumoiiia and tuberculosis, that there is a wont of general infonmition amongst the local authorities themselves and veterinary surgeons. Would you inform the Committeo -what steps your department take for the issuing of information generally regarding those diseases?Well, we issue pamphlets, some of thorn illustrated. For instance, we have issued a very interesting report on swiue fever, illustrated, and sent it to all the local authorities ; and the symptoms of all diseases have been accurately described in our reports from time to timenot repeated every yearbut in last year's report we gave an account of the symptoms of disease which had been added to the Orders of Council, those of anthrax and rabies, and in previous reports there wore symptoms of the other diseasesfoot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia. In a new handbook, recently issued, we have given the symptoms of nearly all the diseases.

8139.nbsp; But by the word quot; departmental quot; report, I understand you to mean the annual report, such as this which I hold in my hand ?Yes, of the department.

8140.nbsp; nbsp;Will you inform the Committee how many of those are issued, and. to whom those were issuedI mean gratis ?We have, altogether, öVO copies to issue, I think. They are issued to the local authorities gratis, and we also send them to our own veterinary inspectors gratis.

8141.nbsp; By local authorities, do 1 understand that you issue one copy io each clerk of supply ?Yes, to the clerk of supply, or clerk of the peace, or town clerk.

8142.nbsp; By the veterinary surgeons, I understand you to mean only those half dozen or a dozen veterinary inspectors of the Privy Council ?There are 22.

8143.nbsp; So that except by purchase the veterinary inspectors, generally, employed by the local authorities throughout the country, have no means of obtaining those reports ?Well, I think not, but I think I ought to ask in order to know exactly upon that point.

8144.nbsp; And the various members of local authorities in the same way, they can get those copies only by purchase ?Yes, I think so.

8145.nbsp; Has any attempt been made, or has it been suggested that the principal part of the report, that is to say, the report containing the professional officers' reportthe report of the diseases which have existed amongst animals in Great Britain, and amongst animals in foreign countries, and the report of the chief travelling inspector and inspectorsmight be issued separotely ?Upon one occasion only, and that was when we issued the statistical tables separately, for the information of the House of Commons. They were got out earlier than the other part, and the statistical tables were issued by themselves, and the manuscript part was issued subsequently ; but only on that occasion.

8110. But theic has been no attempt made to distribute the manuscript part amongst the various bodies to whom the working of this Act is entrusted ? No, never, apart from the statistical tables.

8147.nbsp; Do you not think that it would be desiralde, and tend to the better working of the Act, if this report was more widely distributed ?What I think would be more desirable is that it should be read after it is distributed. That is the difficulty. As a rule the report is issued at a very low priceonly the price; really of the printing.

8148.nbsp; Is it 2s. (id. rLast year it was 2s. 6lt;/., but the year before, I think, it was only lO-^rf. This year it is more expensive in consequence of the maps which have been put in.

8149.nbsp; {Chairman.) Will you kindly volunteer any further information that you have with regard to tuberculosis ?I do not think I can add anything, except that the subject has been engaging the attention of the Privy Council for a very long time, and attempts have been made to draw up an order that

ii -'

MINUTES OF KVIDBNOE.

291

laquo;:

was wui'kublü! utul wo have invited tho co-opcnitioigt; of otiioi' people in rolorenco to the subject, hut after all ovaiTonu seeiua to ikIjiiIi tlint any li'^islution wliicli is put in I'orue with ruferoncu to t'lu disensu must be rather with n view to the tntorest of the human being than tlmt of cattle, and therefore on that ground it does not quite come within tho scope of our duties. I wish, however, to draw the attention of the Committee to the important fact that, up to tho present, no country has legislated for (his disease in the interest of animals, but solely with a view to prevent the consuniption by human beings of food from tuberculous animals.

81.10. Have you iiny reason for thinking that the disease is on the inoreaso?No, I do not think it is. Wo heiil' B great doid moiv nlioiil. it now, because,ol late years abattoirs liave been established thl'OUgliout thlaquo; country, and tliesi; abattoirs are under the jurisdiction and supervision and inspection of the local nuthorities. Formerly no notice was taken of those nniiiials that were slaughtered in the butchers' shops sonielimes in cellars, and no one ever saw anything about them or heard anytbiiig of them. But I do not think there is any evidence, so far as England is concerned, to show that the disease is any more preya-lent now than it was as long ago as I can remember.

Mr, A. C. Copraquo;, M.R.V.V.S.

81 Miiv 1888.

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till to-morrow (Friday) at 10 o'clock.

:#9632;#9632;:

SIXTEENTH DAY.

Friday, 1st June 1888.

i-

Pkesent : Mr. JACOB WILSON in thk Chair.

Lord Cloncurry. Mb. P. Stirling. Mr. J. Bowen-Jonbs.

Professor Brown, C.B. Professor Horsley, P.B.S.

Mr. K. Dawson, Secretary.

Mr. Gavin Low, J.P., called and examined.

Mr. G. Low, J.F.

1 Jnno 1888.

8151. (Chairman.) I believe you area cattle and sheep salesman in Dublin ?Yes.

81Ö2. Do you come here as the representative of the Royal Dublin Society?Yes, I do.

8153.nbsp; In connection with your business have you had considerable relations with tho various parts of Ireland, as well as the city of Dublin ?I have.

8154.nbsp; Do you object to inform the Committee, byway of showing the extent of your business, the number ot cattle that pass through your hands in the course of a year?Not in the least. About 250 cattle, and 1,000 sheep on an average, per week.

8155.nbsp; As part, of your business do you import and export cattle from England and Scotland ?I do, but not as part of the business beyond acting for clients. 1 only act as commission agent.

8156.nbsp; How many years have you been in business in Ireland ?Since November 1863, on my own account.

8157.nbsp; And during that time you have no doubt had opportunities of seeing outbreaks of disease of various kinds amongst Irish stock ?I have.

8158.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland at present ?1 think notnot that I am aware of.

8159.nbsp; nbsp;You have had frequent outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, I believe ?Ob, yes, Dublin is seldom if ever clear of it.

81 GO. And in what parts of Ireland is the disease most prevalent ?The county and city of Dublin.

8161. At the present time is pleuro-pneumonia confined to the city of Dublin ?Not exactly the city perhaps, but the Dublin district.

8162.nbsp; nbsp;It is then in the district of Dublin ?Yes, in fact it has gone from the city with the dairy cows when they went to grass this season.

8163.nbsp; nbsp;Do you desire to convey to the Committee that the disease has hitherto affected the dairy cattle of Dublin more than any other stock ?Certainly, and I do not think that we should have any lung distemper in Ireland if Dublin did not produce it.

8164.nbsp; Up to the present time has disease always been in existence in the Dublin dairies ?l do not believe that Dublin has ever been quite free from it.

8105. Where do the Dublin dairymen derive their cows from ?From all partsfrom the south and west particularly. Of course a few cattle come from the northern and midland counties,but it is from Oonnaught and Munster principally.

8166.nbsp; In those parts, has disease existed to any great extent?Very rarely.

8167.nbsp; Therefore, there is no supposition that they bring the disease with them tNone, whatever.

8168.nbsp; To what do you attribute the continual outbreaks of disease in the Dublin dairies cI do not believe in the system of feeding or housing that they have. I do not say that the feeding would create pleuro, but I think that by the system of feeding, we abuse the animals' constitutions, so that it makes the animals very susceptible to any disease.

816!). Therefore you attribute it in a great measure to imperfect housing and the defects of sanitary arrangements ?Certainly.

8170. Are you of opinion from your observations that the disease is an imported disease ?Since I have

262

UOMMITTBE ON l'LKUKO-J'NEOMONTA AND ODBBBOUIiOSIS I

Ah-

u, Lon'.j.r.

1 .lunu 1888.

known Ireland,froiu 18G1, it has beeil, i think, iiöYöi' t'roo from pleuro.

8171.nbsp; nbsp;VVhat is the uvcrajru leugtlraquo; of time that a cow is kept in a Dublin dairy ? It is ovei' 12 months ; many over two years.

8172.nbsp; During that time may we assume that some of them may have calves ?Yes ; dairymen usually buy spriugers.

8173.nbsp; What bocomes of the calves ?They sell some of them75 per cent. I should say.

8174.nbsp; And where do those calves generally go ? All over Ireland, to Longford and lloscoramon principally, and down that country, and the tillage districts in Leiuster.

8175.nbsp; Do you not consider that such a proceeding as the sale of those calves from infected dairies is very liable to convey the disease to other parts of the country ?I do.

8176.nbsp; Have you any special illustration in your mind upon this point ?I could not call one to my mind just now, but 1 have known it to be the case with respect to cows sent to the country in the spring. Dealers send them down by train, and expose them in fairs as country cattle. 1 have heard of such cases, and distemper has broken out, I believe, in consequence.

8177.nbsp; At what age are the calves sent out?They go as sucking calvesa fortnight or under that age.

8178.nbsp; Are you of opinion then that the disease may be communicated from the mother to the calf before it is born ?I have not thought that subject over, but coming out of the dairy-yard where the disease might be, it might be sufficient to carry the contagion or infection. But I cannot say that 1 could answer that question.

8170. Are you under ihe impression that it is conveyed in like manner as foot-and-mouth disease is conveyed ?I would not go so far as that.

8180.nbsp; Is it your opinion that pleuro-pueumonia is conveyed through the respiratory organs?Yes, I believe that, I do not know that my evidence on such a point would be so good as that of a professional man's.

8181.nbsp; But treating it as a matter of practice and experience ? Well, 1 have known of cattle-sheds giving fresh cattle disease three years in succession. For instance, in Mr. Pollok's case, in i860, his stock had lung distemper, on one farm, and although all the cattle on that farm, which is a very large one, some 3,000 or 4,000 acres, had no contact with the cattle which were tied up, because they were bought cattle, the others were not tied up three months before lung distemper appeared among them.

8182.nbsp; Are you aware that this is a very insidious disease, and that the germs may lie dormant for three mouths ? i'es.

8183.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any reason to believe that the cattle taken into this yard had none of those hidden germs of disease amongst them ?None, I believe they got it in the shed.

8184.nbsp; Was this outbreak ever investigated ? It might to some extent, but the place was whitewashed the first year, and the second year, and the third year the whole of the lime was picked out, new floors and woodwork were put in, and everything else done, and no disease appeared next year.

8185.nbsp; nbsp;That is good so far as the buildings are enncemed, hut as to the cattle imported into them, do you know whether there was any reason for assuming that they had no opportunity of contracting the disease beforehand ?I do not think that they had ; they were freshly-bought cattle.

818(gt;. Were those cattle bought in a fair ?Yes. It is very seldom that there is any disease in a fair in the west of Ireland.

8187. Had you any opportunity of tracing the previous history of those cattle ?No.

Ml88. You are aware that a compulsory slaughter order has recently been put in operation in Dublin, 1 proHumo. ?I naj.

8181). Is it your opinion that this is a wise proceeding?It is, but 1 think it is very difficult to carry out.

8190.nbsp; nbsp;Do you thiuk that it goes far enough?! think it goes far enough, hut I think it is imperfect as to details.

8191.nbsp; nbsp;Would you point out the defects?In the first place, there are too many authorities,three different authorities in Dublin at least, the Privy Council, what they call the local authority, and then there is the Corporation ; and I think that it is almost impossible to have the thing carried out with so many authorities.

8192.nbsp; But in this particular case it has been done directly, has it not, tnrough the Privy Council ?Yes, the local authorities refused to carry it out.

8193.nbsp; How are those dairy-yards of Dublin regulated ?The license is given by the Corporation.

8194.nbsp; Does the jurisdiction of the Corporation stop there ?It does, 1 think.

8195.nbsp; nbsp;What are the functions of the local authorities with reference to dairy-sheds ?usually, before the veterinary department commenced their regular inspections, a dairyman noticing a cow ailing, would report the animal to a policeman or to the veterinary surgeon for the local authority, who, on examination, would, as the case might be, condemn the animal for slaughter. The value is appraised by the local authority's valuer, and the owner is paid two-thirds its value; the local authority finding the amount, less any sum obtained for the carcase.

8196.-By what authority are the inspectors appointed ?The local authority.

8197.nbsp; You said that you considered that there arc; too many authorities, in what way is this shown ?^#9632; For instance, the Corporation might license a dairy-yard that the Privy Council would not. Some of the yards are not fit to hold pigs.

8198.nbsp; Do I gather that you would prefer that the Privy Council should grant these licenses ?I should say so.

8199.nbsp; nbsp;Would you desire that dairy stock which once come into your cow sheds should never leave them alive except for slaughter ?I am very strongly ofthat opinion; they should be sent to the slaughterhouse.

8200.nbsp; Would you say so even if there were no disease in the country ?1 would.

8201.nbsp; Do you approve of having dairies and cowsheds in towns at all ?I do not.

8202.nbsp; Would you therefore prefer that the milk for towns should be supplied direct from the country ?I would.

8203.nbsp; And you see no difficulty in carrying out that arrangement ?None.

8204.nbsp; nbsp;What are your chief reasons for thinking it desirable that dairy cattle should be kept exclusively in the country for the supply of milk to towns ?In the first place, I think that it is injurious to the health of the population to have them in towns.

8205.nbsp; Then with regard to the cattle themselves, what do you say is the effect upon their health ? Well, they cannot have so much fresh air and exercise as I think is desirable for the health of any animal.

8206.nbsp; Do you attach importance to the cattle being exercised ?I do.

8207.nbsp; And that iu the case of town dairies would be practically impossible ?Practically impossible.

8208.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the present principle upon which compensation is awarded for animals that are slaughtered ? Do you mean it is sufiicieut for the dairymen.

8209.nbsp; I refer both to the amount of compensation and the means adopted for arriving at their value, and so on ?I should not like to answer the question.

8210.nbsp; You are, I believe the valuer appointed by the Government under the recent slaughter order ? Yes.

8211.nbsp; Have any complaints been made to you as to the principle which you have adopted in making your awards ?No.

i ,(

In'

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

263

8212.nbsp; What is the priuciple upon wltich you proceed in fixing the value of the cattle in the Dublin dairies for purposes of compensation ?1 value the cow at what I think it is worth to tlio dairyman, not _twhat it would bo worth to soil in a fair. I was told to give full value for the cattle.

8213.nbsp; Therefore I presume that this value would represent more than the animal would have practically brought in the fair ?For a milking animal it would ; not for a fat one, or one calving.

8214.nbsp; nbsp;In the case of a fat cow you would value it at what it is worth for slaughtering ?Yes,

8215.nbsp; Therefore the principle you go upon practically is this : that you value a dairy cow at the highest price that it may be considered worth for the purposes of the dairyman ?Yes.

8216.nbsp; So that the owner would thuu have nothing to complain of ?That is so, in fact there has been only one out of the whole lot who has seriously disputed the valuation.

8217.nbsp; nbsp;What was his argument ?Well, he had some 91 cattle and he said that I gave him 41/. too little for tliern.

8218.nbsp; In your valuation do you award anything for disturbance of trade ?No.

8219.nbsp; Is the whole of your valuation embodied in the amount given for the value of the animal ?Yes.

8220.nbsp; Which you consider a liberal valuation ?A liberal valuation.

8221.nbsp; nbsp;And which was intended to cover everything ?Yes ; if you will allow me to explain, most of the cattle are in milk six months or four months ; they are worth more for their milk than they would if sold. It is not in a state to sell, and would only be sold as a quot; stripper.quot; They would not have kept it if it were not a good milker.

8222.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware of the system adopted in examination of cattle at the various ports in Ireland ? Yes.

8223.nbsp; Is that system to your mind satisfactory ? Well, I suppose it is as tjood as can be adopted.

8224.nbsp; nbsp;Have you heard any complaints with reference to it ?Well, I have heard that cases of diseased cattle have passed the inspectors.

8226. In the case of pleuro-pneumonia, you would not be surprised at such an occurrence ?I would not.

8226.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that sufficient time is devoted for the purpose of this examination before the cattle are shipped?Yes, I do not think any more would be practicable. You see that cattle might have to remain about Dublin longer, and the cure might be worse than the disease.

8227.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) In speaking on th* question of compensation and your method of valuation, 1 suppose yon do that under the 21st section of the slaughter order, or the 21st section of the Act? I could not say which it is.

8228.nbsp; nbsp;It is the section which says ; quot; in every other quot; case compensation to be the value of the animal quot; immediately before it was slaughteredquot; ?Yes.

8229.nbsp; Do you know if that is the general rule in Ireland ?Yes.

8230.nbsp; nbsp;And is it there generally held that that gives you power to value a cow as a milk cow, and in full milk, iu contradistinction to the butcher's price ? Oh, yes, to value a milk cow as a milk cow; and a beef one as a beef one ; and a springer as a springer,that is, one at calving.

8231.nbsp; nbsp;Then you said that you objected to dairies in towns as injurious to the health of the population, is that so ?Yes.

8232.nbsp; nbsp;For what reason. Do you object on the ground that tho milk is inferior, or that the dairies themquot;elvps cannot be kept properly clean ?Well, I do not object as regards the milk, but I think that placing cattle in a small space, such as the Dublin dairy-yards are on the south side in one part of tho city, I think that the air cannot bo very pure. Indeed after valuing cuttle, one's clothes would have the smell of tho yard for a month,

8233.nbsp; Theroforo it is not possible under the dairy and milk shop order to keep dailies sufficiently clean to bo healthy ?I would not say so, but cattle kept as they are, and housed as thoy are in Dublin, I think is the very opposite of benefical to tho health of the city.

8234.nbsp; nbsp;But does that not arise from want of a proper administration of the dairy order ?Yoa, to a great extent I should say it did.

8235.nbsp; Then if tho town authorities administered that Act strictly, it would take away a great deal of your objection to the dairies boing in towns ? Certainly.

8236.nbsp; Then is there not a considerable advantage in the dairies being in the towns where you can got the milk absolutely fresh and quicker ?I do not think that there is so very much. Tho transit of milk by railway facilities is such that I do not think that there is very much advantage.

8237.nbsp; Are you satisfied that that is the case in most of tho principal towns in Ireland ?1 do not sufficiently know about the principal towns.

8238.nbsp; nbsp;The Committee cannot suggest legislation for Dublin only, it must bo for tho towns of the whole of the country ?Well, in tho summer time, the milk has to come by cart sometimes 10 miles, and it will come 50 miles in the same time by train.

8239.nbsp; Is it your opinion as far as you are aware that the dairy order is fairly administered in smaller towns or in country districts ?1 have no oxperionce of tho country districts ; none whatever.

8240.nbsp; Are you satisfied with tho Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act as far as it goes ?Yes.

8241.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that that Act itself is good ? Yes.

8242.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the general administration of it?I think that it is very hard to carry it out in Ireland.

8243.nbsp; nbsp;Why?Well, there is great difficulty in having it carried out; I think it is almost impossible to have inspection so complete as to prevent the order being broken.

8244.nbsp; nbsp;Would you give that answer in consequence of the multiplicity of authorities, or from the composition of the local bodies by whom tho law is administered ?It is simply to ovado tho laws by the parties concerned with a view, as thoy believe, to lessen their loss.

8245.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it would be any improvement if the administration of tho Act were consolidated and removed from tho Board of Guardians ?It would.

8246.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) You have not had much practical knowledge of the disease itself ?No.

8247.nbsp; nbsp;But from what you have heard, aud so on, do you think that an attempt to introduce the slaughter order generally in Ireland would load to concealment of tho disease from what you said ?It might.

8248.nbsp; And do you think that tho concealment would frustrate the efl'oct of the order ?Yes.

8249.nbsp; nbsp;But do you think that there would bo concealment if the dairy owners were to a certain extent to be compensated for tho loss of their business ?I do not think so.

8250.nbsp; nbsp;Have you heard in connexion with the recoct order many complaints among the dairymen of loss of their business ?No; when they found out the basis on which I valued their animals, they were not very much disappointed; it was bettor than they thought. Thoy had an idea that with animals in milk they would bo cheated. But my instructions from the Government were that I should give the full value to the owners.

8251.nbsp; And thoy wore satisfied with that?In ninoty-nino cases out of one hundred thoy were perfectly satisfied with the valuation.

8252.nbsp; nbsp;But in spite of being satisfied by compensation you think that there would be concealment of the disease for other reasons ?Yes, for instance, with a largo owner, say ISO cows, six miles out in the conn try grazing, he would not like to have 150 cattle

Mr.

Low,

).V.

1 June 1H88

'ttj

.n'M

'if

264

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-l'NKUMONIA AKD TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. il. Low, J.P,

1 June 1888.

slaughtered, he would rather bury one, or cart it away during the night.

8253.nbsp; Do you regard the disease ut present as being more or less indigenous in Dublin ?Yes.

8254.nbsp; Do you think that it is brought into Ireland ? I do notnot since I have known Ireland for the last 25 years.

8255.nbsp; Are you aware whether it exists in other ) mrts of Ireland ?No, or to a very little extent. I do not know that it is in Ireland hardly at all, except in the Dublin district.

8256.nbsp; Of course you have numbers of cattle coming to you from all parts of Ireland ?Yes, from all parts.

8257.nbsp; nbsp;So that if it existed in any degree you would be sure to know of it ?Yes, besides, I attend fairs and buy store cattle for clients, and, except in one case, I have never known of a case come from a fair in all my transactions.

8258.nbsp; With regard to the inspection of cattle nt ports, you said that if done more thoroughly than at present, the time occupied would be too great, is that not because the staff of inspectors is too small, and because their pay is insufficient ?I do not menn to convey that; but I believe that lean store cattle should be kept in exposed places as short a time as possible.

8259.nbsp; The Chairman did not mean that?I think that there are sufficient hands.

8260.nbsp; And do you think that they are sufficiently remunerated for the work ?I do not know how they are remunerated for the work.

8261.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.j I want to ask you, in inference to this 75 per cent, of calves sold out, whether they go for tearing in the country or whether they are killed?Eearing at this time of

he year ; at other seasons of the year they would be killed in Dublin and sold for 6s. or 10s.

8262.nbsp; If reared they would go into the grazing districts ?Yes, they are doing that now ; there is a great demand for tliem, as milk is now plentiful there.

8263.nbsp; At what age are they seat ?Within a week T should say.

8264.nbsp; nbsp;At an age not exceeding 10 days? Generally.

^Q265. Do you think that it is possible for a calf to convey the disease at 10 days old ?I laquo;m afraid that it would. I do not say so positively, but I say that it is a source of great risk.

8266.nbsp; You do not absolutely know a case where a calf has taken a disease at that agi; ?Certainly not, but where calves generally go, such as Longford, Navan, Clonmel, and Newbridge, the distemper has frequently appeared in these places.

8267.nbsp; In these districts where the outbreaks have taken place have any other class of stock been sent out besides calves?I have known of cows taking it from Dublin to various places.

8268.nbsp; nbsp;Is the practice of selling cows from the Dublin dairies that you alluded to, as country cows, a frequent practice ?No, nor has it been done recently. I think that the inspection of the recent two years would have almost prevented it.

8269.nbsp; nbsp;That of course you believe would be a very fertile source of danger ?'A. most fertile source of danger. I might say that I think that the Dublin dairy cows should be branded or tattooed, that it should be shown on their skins, not on their horns or hoofs; it should be in a conspicuous place. For instance, if dairy cows were branded or burnt or tattooed in some conspicuous place, they would be known if ever they were exposed anywhere, and they would not be bought.

8270.nbsp; {Chairman.) Did you say not on the horn or hoof?I would say in a conspicuous place on the body, I think that it ought to be conspicuous to be noticed without such a closu inspection as might be necessary for the horn or hoof.

8271.nbsp; {Mr, Bowen-Jones.) Now since the slaughter order has been put into force in Dublin has any

difficulty been experioncod in getting milk for that city ?So.

827a. And you do not attach much importance to the fact thai large towns should be cleared of dairies altogether ?No.

8273.nbsp; You do not think that the public would suiter In the way of getting milk ?No.

8274.nbsp; Do you think the milk would be as good a quality when coming from the country ?Better.

8275.nbsp; Would it stand the carriage ?Certainly.

8276.nbsp; What is the practice with regard to the milk sent in ; is it refrigerated beforehand?No.

8277.nbsp; Do not you think that the 10 miles carriage by road in the summertime would rather deteriorate it ?Ten wiles by voncl would do it no good, it would not improve it, but I do not think much harm would result to it.

8278.nbsp; With regard to the milk sent in by rail, is that collected and refrigerated ?I do not think that that is done generally ; it might be done in one or two cases.

8279.nbsp; Are there agencies for the distribution of milk from the country where it is collected and distributed ?I think there are. There are also some creameries in the south I believe.

8280.nbsp; Then practically the milk that comes to Dublin by road or rail comes direct from the farmers ? Yes.

8281.nbsp; And in neither case would it be refrigerated ? I think not. I am quite sure that it would not.

8282.nbsp; You think that there is a difficulty in carrying out this slaughter order in Ireland because of the farmers being inclined to conceal the disease. Why should they conceal it if they are paid full compensation under the Act?They have a disbelief,a mistrust in getting full compensation. That is the general feeling.

8283.nbsp; But if it were made clear to their minds that they were to have compensation, would not that make a difference ?Well, the trade would be upset a bit. Some of the dairymen have 150 cows, and some of them over li.O; it would be a great upset to them if they had not a place to get fresh cattle in immediately.

laquo;284:. But in your opinion would a stringent enforcement of the Act and this recent slaughter order clear the country from disease ?I think so.

8285.nbsp; Well, then, would it be to the advantage of farmers even to submit to a little disarrangement of their business to effect that purpose ?Yes.

8286.nbsp; Do you think that at present that they are not sure that they will get the full compensation ? They have a doubt about it.

8287.nbsp; nbsp;And perhaps they have not taken into consideration the ultimate effect of it ?No, they do not look far enough for their own benefit, but it is the small details that is really a difficulty in preventing the Act being carried out. If the dairyman knew that his cattle were not to be allowed out to grass from the yards, 1 think he would be satisfied with that arrangement, because they could buy cattle, and put them on grass lands through the spring months, and sell all they have in the dairy-yard, because two thirds of them are fattened every year in the dairy-yards in the winter season. Only one third of the cows in Dublin are sent, to grass in the spring.

8288.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that It is any great advantage to the dairymen of large towns to be enabled to send their cattle out to grass to finish ?Not to finish; they do not finish them on grass.

8289.nbsp; What do they send them out for fGrass iraquo; cheaper feeding.

8290.nbsp; Then it is for milking?Certainly for milking. Cows are very apt to take any disease coining out of hot dairy-yards from hot feeding to chilling east winds. I do not think that they should he allowed out at all.

8291.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Clnncwry.) You mentioned as to the niilkinlaquo; of the cows und sending the nt'lk about 10 miles by road. That is really the milk produced by the dairy cows which at a particular time of the


	1
	1

!quot;

igt;lt;

Iquot;

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

266

year aro removed from the town into the country ? Yes.

8292.nbsp; nbsp;In the winter time these cows aro milked in the town, and two thirds are sold to the butcher before the end of the winter season ?Yes.

8293.nbsp; And then in the month of May the remaining one third are moved out into the country districts around Dublin ?That is so.

8294.nbsp; nbsp;And 1 think you told the Committee that the country milk which is brought so far as 10 miles by road, is really milk produced by the same animal that was producing the milk in the town in the winter ? Yes.

8295.nbsp; Then as to the question of removing those cows from the dairy and selling them in country markets as country cattle, that has been a strictly illegal transaction for the last three or four years ? It has

8296.nbsp; With reference to the question of compensation, I gathered that in this recent slaughter about Dublin the owners of cattle are now satisfied because they have found by expenence that compensation is reasonably and properly awarded ?Yes, as regards the value of the animals.

8297.nbsp; But you fear that that is not the feeling through the country generally ?I think not.

8298.nbsp; Supposing the compensation came from the Imperial funds, and it were administered by the Privy Council, and not dependent upon the will of the local guardians, would that feeling be removed ; would there be more confidence ?I think they would expect all the more from that source.

8299.nbsp; But would it make them more confident in being justly treated, and not liable to be treated as you said just now ?Really 1 could not say that they #9632;would. I have some doubts that they would.

8300.nbsp; You mentioned in the early part of your evidence that you act as agent in the case of importing some cattle rYes.

8301.nbsp; That h a very small matter ?Yes, it is merely stock for breeding.

8302.nbsp; And have you pedigree bulls and so forth from England ; that would not amount to 500 head of cattle in the year perhaps ?It would not.

8303.nbsp; Supposing, by successful orders, that the pleuro-pneumonia was stamped out in Ireland, would you fee any practical difficulty in placing such a quarantine upon the importation of cattle as would make it absolutely safe to keep out the disease in future. Would that involve any hardship upon the people who imported them ?No great hardship, but what could easily be put up with for the benefit that the order would give.

8304.nbsp; In fact, the only effect that it would have would be as to the importation of these cattle bearing an excessive value ?Yes, pedigree herd cattle form part of the question. There were a great many sheep of course.

8305.nbsp; The sheep (!oes not come into the pleuro-pneumonia question ?No.

8306.nbsp; You do not think that pleuro-pneumonia could bo introduced by sheep ?No.

8307.nbsp; So that we need not touch upon that question ? No.

8308.nbsp; As to the other largo towns in Ireland and their supply of milk are you sine all the large towns have sufficient railway accommodation to ensure a supply of milk whenever wanted, is there any large town that has not vet sufficient accommodation ? No.

8300. They could full back therefore on their railways to make up any deficiency ?Certainly.

8310.nbsp; nbsp;Has the price of milk been increased as against the buyers of milk owing to the recent slaughter order ?It has not been incren.sed at nil, I believe.

8311.nbsp; And to meet any posssible difficulties the railway facilities are very much greater ?They have very great facilities by railway.

8312.nbsp; nbsp;where you spoke of your value including the extra value that the cow would bo to the real

o 64003.

owner, above what her appearance would warrant a stranger to give for her, that practically gives pact of ' the compensation for her trade value ?Certainly.

8'il'ii. You could not separate the trade value from that additional value ? 1 think not; it is a ti'ade value 1 should say.

8314. You mentioned that the cow owners should not permit their cows to go out of their byres except for slaughter ?Yes.

8313. Would that life-long imprisonment entail any practical hardship upon such owners ?No, considering the advantage likely to follow such a course.

8316.nbsp; And would they make as good beef in that yard ?Yes.

8317.nbsp; When the animal ceases to be of value for milk, the owner could get the full price from the butcher?Yes. Cows, as their milk decreases, fatten proportionately.

8318.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that the dairymen themselves would raise any objection ?I do not think they would.

£319. They would willingly submit to any arrangement of that sort you think ?I am quite sure that they would.

8320.nbsp; nbsp;Have any of the dairy owners raised the question as to whether inoculation would be a wiser resource than slaughter?T am aware that many of them have adopted inoculation,

8321.nbsp; nbsp;That is previous to this year ?No, This year I know they have.

8322.nbsp; nbsp;And has that been a success ?I believe so. Two dairymen mentioned the matter to me, and one said that he did not think that it, did any good, and the other thought it did.

8323.nbsp; Did either say that it had cleared away disease from the premises ?No.

8324.nbsp; nbsp;They thought it might weaken the disease, but not exterminate it ?That is what one said.

8325.nbsp; nbsp;No-w, as to the question of cattle, such as you buy and bring in railway trucks to Dublin, do you believe there is any possible danger of catching the disease from the cows in the Dublin dairies?I do not believe it.

8326.nbsp; nbsp;They do not possibly come within contact; they are many hundred yards from any of those places ? They do not come in contact.

8327.nbsp; The railway passes through the northern side of Dublin, and they come to the place of exportation, and the cattle that pass through Dublin have no connection whatever with the cows in the town dairies ?None whatever, unless the dairy cows were sent down to bo shipped,

8328.nbsp; The only danger is from the breaking of the regulations and sending the cows to the shipping place ? That would be the only danger.

8329.nbsp; About the branding of horns and hoofs. What you mean is that every animal is more or less branded on the horn, and if you go to the fair you do not examine the horn brand ?Many people do not.

8330.nbsp; Whereas if there was a conspicious brand in an unusual place on the body, everybody would see it, and the animal wordd be immediately spotted ?Yes.

8331.nbsp; And that would be the only way of preventing the removing of the cows ?It would be a sure mode of detection.

8332.nbsp; The mere fact of having some Government brand on the horn would be easily blotted out and escape observation ?It has been known that cattle with these brands on them were exposed in Dublin market.

8333.nbsp; As n matter of fact the owners of cattle throughout Ireland do put their initials or some particular mark on the horns of animals in their possession ? The first thing that any grazier does who knows his business is to brand his cattle the next day after buying them.

8334.nbsp; Branded witii a hot iron upon the horn ? Yes,

8386. And if these cattle changed hands frequently, it often occurs live or six times, they may be branded on the horn each time ?Quite so.

Mr. Low, J.P.

1 June 1888

.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;ifhH

ill

I |

I i

266

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

8336.nbsp; Therefore, if a Government brand was put on to make the seventh or eighth brand, it might be there and nobody would notice it ?Very easily.

8337.nbsp; Whereas if the Humane Society would allow you to brand them on the body, tliere would be no mistake about it ?No.

8338.nbsp; But it is illegal to brand any animal with a hot iron on any part except the horns and hoof in Ireland ?I confess that I was not aware of it. It is often done I know. I might remark that if the Dublin dairymen were compelled to sell or fatten the cattle iu the yards, 1 think it would be of great general advantage to the trade.

8339.nbsp; Then as to the conflict between the three authorities in Dublin, what you mean is this, that the Corporation not being interested particularly in the general health of the cattle of the United Kingdom, gives licenses for dairies which another class of authority would not give ?I would not put that blame upon them, but I think that one authority would have a better chance of regulating the whole business to a more successful issue than three different authorities.

8340.nbsp; But I understood you to say that at the present time licenses we given to promises that you think should not receive the licenses ?Certainly.

8341.nbsp; As far as that question goes you think that the Corporation is not the most prudent authority to administer that part of the Act ?Certainly not, they have not done so up to now.

8342.nbsp; Trom your knowledge of the actual cattle trade would there be any difficulty or objection to carry out the proposal of compulsory slaughter of all animals in the one place; the new abattoir at present outside the boundary. You are aware that there is a large abattoir, but there is a technical objection now on account of the boundary. Supposing that objection were removed, would there be any hardship or difficulty upon the butchers or the meat trade of Dublin, if the cattle were sent to the abattoir and not to private slaughter-houses ?I think that there should be more abattoirs.

8343.nbsp; We had strong evidence upon that point yesterday ?I think there should be at least one other abattoir on the other side of the city as extensive as the one already built.

8344.nbsp; Then in fact you mean that the Liffey so cuts Dublin in two that, whatever the accommodation the one side has, there should be similar accommodation on the other side. But perhaps you would say that one on either side would meet the requirements of the case ?Yes, the present abattoir is at the very extreme corner of the city, it is not in the city, it is

outside the boundary, it is just outside the cattle market. The cattle market is in the boundary and the abattoir is out of the boundary, and four miles from the other side of the city. It is a long way in summer to take meat.

8345.nbsp; And at present, having 30 private slaughterhouses in Dublin, it is almost impossible for the sanitary officers to supervise the meat and to see that wholesome food is only sent out ?It is impossible.

8346.nbsp; Do you think that there is any great consumption of diseased meat owing to the want of supervision of the slaughter-houses ?I am sure that there is a great deal of diseased meat.

8347.nbsp; Of course you think that is objectionable ? Yes.

8348.nbsp; Do you feel confident that if the dairies and slaughter-houses of Dublin were placed under proper regulations that we should have no more complaints of pleuvo-pneumonia in Ireland ?Yes, and if the details were carried out sufficiently. The difficulty is in carrying out the details.

8349.nbsp; Aie you satisfied that the rest of Ireland is in such a condition that if Dublin was purified from this disease, that we should have comparatively little trouble in keeping the country free in future ?I am satisfied of that.

8350.nbsp; You are quite sure of that ?It is my firm belief.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; '

8351.nbsp; {Chairman.) In your great experience among the cattle stock of Ireland have you had any opportunities of observing the disease known as tuberculosis ? Very little. I have had an odd animal sent in from clients suffering from that.

8352.nbsp; Is the disease difficult to detect in the living animal ?Not eventually.

8353.nbsp; Is it in its early stages ?I think it is in its early stages.

8354.nbsp; Have you reason to think that it is on the increase or decrease ?I think it is on the decrease.

8355.nbsp; Do you observe it more in one class of animals that in another ?Well, I could not say.

8356.nbsp; Have you observed it in the highest class of shorthorns of Ireland ?Very rarely.

8357.nbsp; Have you ever heard of it araong the Kenies ? No, I do not think that I have.

8358.nbsp; Do you regard tuberculosis of the same importance as pleuro-pneumonia ?No.

8359.nbsp; Would you think it of sufficient importance to be included in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878?I think not, I would not attach much importance to it at all.

G. Zow, J.P. 1 June 1888.

I¹

#9658;i

- 

The witness withdrew.

Mr. W. Chambtrs, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. William Chambfbraquo;, M.E.C.V.S., called and examined.

8360.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) You are, I believe, a member of the Eoyal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?I am.

8361.nbsp; And are at present the Government inspector at Drogheda in Ireland ?I am.

8362.nbsp; You were also, I believe, for some time inspector of the local authority for the county of Norfolk ?Yes, about 10 years, and I was acting as a general practitioner there in the Lynn district.

8363.nbsp; Have you been for the last 15 years inspector for the Privy Council in Ireland, at Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Drogheda ?Yes, and the greater portion of the time in Dublin.

8364.nbsp; And whilst in Dublin had you extensive experience of pleuro-pneumonia in the cowsheds and dairies ?I have. I have been engaged as inspector of the Dublin dairies on various occasions both before and since the passing of the present Act.

8365.nbsp; How long have yon been at Drogheda ? Only about 12 months.

8366.nbsp; Are you aware whether there is any pleuro-pneumonia in the dairies of Drogheda, or in the neighbourhood of Drogheda ?I do not believe that there is any disease in the town of Drogheda, but

there have been several outbreaks in the vicinity, and in the county of Louth, and in the county of Meath.

8367.nbsp; Have these outbreaks been of recent occurrence ? Yes, they originated last year from the purchase of Dublin dairy stock. It was due to the purchase of Dublin dairy stock.

8368.nbsp; But coming back to the Dublin dairies, can you describe the general condition of the Dublin dairies in a sanitary sense ?In a sanitary sense undoubtedly there is a necessity for reform, but they are not nearly as bad as many dairy-sheds and farm premises in the country where pleuro-pneumonia never exists. It is undoubtedly bad enough, and requires reform, but in many instances the sheds are very good, and as a rule, I consider they are better than many places in the country.

8369.nbsp; 'f be difference being that one is surrounded by a large population and buildings, and the other has a more free circulation of air ?Yes, in the country they have a larger cubic space.

8370.nbsp; Do you consider it desirable to have cowsheds and dairies in towns at all rI do not in a sanitary sense, but iu Dublin, of the two evils, it would be

: f H

MINUTES OF EVIDKNCK,

267

bottor to kcop tlio dairy stock in tho city. There are so many disease centres that if wo sent them out of the city it would lend to an enormous amount of mischief. And to further explain myself, I consider that if the Dublin dairy stock wore put in palaces we should still have plenty of pleuro-pneumonia, so long as tho owners are so ignorant and utterly indifferent to the contagious nature of the disease.

8371.nbsp; Supposing the milk were supplied from farms in the country, having no connexion whatever with town dairies, what would you say to such a proposal ? For the good of the public health I think that it would be a decided advantage, because the milk may be contaminated without visible symptoms of disease in the animal secreting it.

8372.nbsp; Have you observed what becomes of tho calves which are born in the Dublin dairies ?Many are sold to farmers in the country for rearing and feeding. I have frequently seen them purchased in dairy-sheds and taken in to adjoining markets.

8373.nbsp; Do you consider them an clement of danger ? Most decidedly so.

8374.nbsp; Are you conversant with the regulations at the various ports in Ireland ?I am. I have been on duty at most of the ports temporarily and permanently.

8375.nbsp; Do you regard these regulations as of a satislaquo; factory nature ?They are as satisfactory as portal inspection can be, but I do not consider port inspection a safeguard against the spread of contagious disease.

8376.nbsp; Especially in the case of pleuro-pneumonia ? Yes.

8377.nbsp; Do you think that there is sufficient time devoted to tho actual inspection by the officers at the ports ?Not in the case of pleuro-pneumonia; as very frequently cattle are rushed down immediately before the sailing time, and an inspector has not a proper opportunity for examining them Under these circumstances an animal in the early stage of the disease would pass a most vigilant inspector.

8378.nbsp; You are familiar, I believe, with the county of Norfolk. Am I correct in assuming that that is a county in which a considerable number of cattle are fed rA very large number of Irish store cattle are fed there.

8379.nbsp; From what source are these cattle chiefly derived ?Almost absolutely from Ireland.

8380.nbsp; From what part of Ireland do they come ? From various parts, but principally from Dublin, Belfast, Drogheda, and Dundalk. Those are the three principal ports ; but every port ships cattle for Norwich.

8381.nbsp; And they are then exposed for sale on Norwich Hill, and disseminate the disease throughout tho country?Yes, occasionally.

8382.nbsp; Have you had frequent opportunities of observing the cattle on Norwich Hill?I have had opportunites at different times.

8383.nbsp; Have you ever been able to detect disease there ?Not pleuro-pneumonia.

8384.nbsp; But you are aware that a great many cattle coining to Norfolk from Ireland have afterwards developed pleuro-pneumonia ?I am perfectly satisfied on that point.

8385.nbsp; Have you had any special opportunities of investigating outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in the county of Norfolk ?Yes, in connexion with my official visit about 9 or 10 years ago and in private practice,

8386.nbsp; Will you kindly describe what took place on that occasion ?I investigated, with the assistance of the local authority, various outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, and found that in the majority of instances, in fact nearly every instance, that the disease originated in newly-purchased Irish cattle, within three or four weeks from the date of purchase, being the average period of the incubation of pleuro-pneumonia.

8387.nbsp; Did those ov tbreaks take place in the open fields or in farm buildings ?I believe it was in the month of September or October, when farmers were just purchasing their cattle for stall feeding, and in

many instances they were put on a piece of stubble a week or two before being put into sheds.

8388.nbsp; What ago were these cattle ?From two to three years old.

8389.nbsp; nbsp;Was any treatment attempted ?I think that compulsory slaughter was in operation at that period as far as the diseased animals were concerned. With your permission I wish to explain my opinion as regards store cattle, purchased in healthy districts in Ireland, developing pleuro-pneumonia three or four weeks after purchase, in Norfolk.

8390.nbsp; Could you trace the origin of the disease in this particular case ?In my opinion store cattle purchased from districts where pleuro-pneumonia has never existed frequently are exposed to contagion in Dublin, especially in the back end of the year (September or October), when cattle arrive too late for shipment on the same day. They are put then to lairage on pasture in the vicinity of Dublin, and frequently mixed with dairy stock either on the same fields or adjoining fields, and in my opinion, considering the prevalence of pleuro-pneumonia, they are frequently exposed to contagion by those means.

8391.nbsp; Therefore you point to tho necessity of exterminating the disease in the Dublin district ?In my opinion three parts of the outbreaks in the united Kingdom could be traced directly or indirectly to Dublin.

8392.nbsp; Then practically the health of the stock of Ireland, and in a great measure those which are imported into Scotland and England from there, is dependent upon the condition of cattle in Dublin ? That is my opinion, and in the early part of the year, in the mouth of April, when the shipments of stores are extensive from Dublin to the grass lands, they frequently come in contact with fat-dairy stock in the shipping yards, some of which may be couvalescent cases of pleuro-pneumonia, and in a contagious condition. At the present time we have a pleuro-pneumonia order in force, preventing the shipment of fat dairy stock, but I am alluding to the period previous to the passing of this order. But at the present time I have reason to believe that the blockade is frequently run by the Dublin dairy owners and cattle dealers. I mav mention a fact which was told me by one of my colleagues last eveningI am not in a position to mention it officially, probablythat a marked case of pleuro-pneumonia was seized at the port of Dublin, on Saturday, which proved to be in an advanced stage of disease, and was undoubtedly a dairy cow.

8393.nbsp; Can you tell us what became of the rest of the cargo?I heard there were nine other cows in the lot, but I omitted to make inquiries whelhcr they were detained or not. Thoy were fat cattle; but 1 rather believe that the whole 10 wore detained.

8394.nbsp; nbsp;Were they coming from Dublin to Liverpoo I? Yes, 1 heard it last night in passing through Dublin.

8395.nbsp; From what you have said may I gather that the recent compulsory slaughter order was a wise provision on the part of the Privy Council ?Most decidedly. You arc alluding to animals herded with diseased animals ?

8396.nbsp; Yes?I think that it is a very wise measure for Dublin, probably from the fact that it will dispose of a large number of animals that I have just mentioned the convalescent cases of pleuro-pneumonia, which 1 consider a very serious source of danger.

8397.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had frequent opportunities of tracing animals which have been in contact to the slaughter-houses, and subjected them to a post-mortein examination ?I have frequently seen animals, apparently healthy when slaughtered, showing lesions of pleuro-pneumonia on post-mortem examinatimi.

8398.nbsp; Is it your opinion that an animal with an encysted lung is dangerous hereafter ?For many weeks or many months the disease may be coiiimuni-cable to other animals in that condition.

8399.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) Do you know what the practice ordinarily is when you detect a diseaacd animal; do you detain the rest of the cargo or not ?

L I 2

Mr.

W. Chambers, M.H.C.V.S.

Juno 1888.

ffl:{l

ll!

268

COMMITTEE ON Pl,EURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBBROUIOSIS:

Mr. fT. Chambers, M.R.C.V.S.

1 June 188a

No, in lut cnse of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland wo have pot done that.

laquo;400, That is to say, if tliere are 20 animals come up to be shipped and you find one having pleuro-pneumonia, would the other 19 go on board ?I am not aware that we have any authority to detain the remaining number.

8401.nbsp; Do you think that a regulation of that sort would be of any practical value at all ?I think not.

8402.nbsp; That, in point of fact, you might as well let the whole 20 with the one palpably diseased go, as keep back the one and send the 19 ?It would be worse in foot-and-mouth disease than in pleuro-pneumonia. Amongst fat animals going direct for slaughter, there would not be so munh risk as with store cattle.

8403.nbsp; I am speaking chiefly with regard to store eattle, of course if you were certain that they were to be slaughtered, it would not much matter, but with regard to store cattle, if left entirely to yourself, what would be the best course to be adopted, send the diseased one with the 19 apparently healthy, or to stop the diseased one and send the 19awa^?It would be better to send the diseased one, as it would give the buyer on the other side an opportunity of seeing his danger, and adopting precautionary measures.

3404. You say that the animals were commonly driven up almost at the rnotrent of the vessel going out of the dock, and there was very little chance of inspection ?It frequently occurs that we have little opportunity of efficiently examining the cattle.

8405.nbsp; If an animal comes up after being driven sharply, with the state of the respiration you would be unable to suspect the existence of pleuro-pneumonia ?It would be apt to deceive the veterinary inspector. It might be due to exhaustion or it might be due to a diseased condition.

8406.nbsp; In fact unless the animal was respiring in a characteristic way, you probably would not suspect pleuro-pneumonia at all ?Well, if the animal is very much distressed, we frequently isolate the animal for a while to give us a better opportunity for examination, but it sometimes occurs that the Shipping Company are in a hurry to get the animals shipped, being obliged to catch the tide and thus often they confuse the veterinary surgeon.

8407.nbsp; Would you think it at all possible to detect pleuro-pneumonia in the very early stage if the animals were detained ? It would be possible but not very probable in the early stages.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,

8408.nbsp; You have said that yow have met with cases where the animal appeared to be perfectly healthy, and on post-mortem examination it proved to have the disease ?I have in many instances.

8409.nbsp; Then in your experience there is a form of the disease which is not detectable ?That is my opinion.

8410.nbsp; And that, therefore, inspection of any kind, under the most favourable circumstances, could not be an absolute security against the introduction of pleuro-pneumonia by the agency of imported animals ?It would not be.

8411.nbsp; And that observation will apply to any country In the world ; not particularly referrmg to Ireland?I really have no faith in port inspection as a very valuable measure. It certainly acts as a prevention. It prevents parties bringing down diseased cattle.

8412.nbsp; Is there any system that you would suggest that would be practicable, and which would enable yon to detect the disease prcviou., to shipment?I consider Ireland is peculiarly calculated for different legislative measures, as regards cattle disease. I prefer commencing with the other end, the origin of the disease. I think one body, with county and district qualified inspectors, who could be held responsible for the health of live stock in each particular district, a system that might probably work in Ireland.

8413.nbsp; Then you would propose to make the inapectore of the districts responsible for the health of

the cuttle Loforo sending thorn to tho port?Yos, before sending to the fairs, markets, or ports.

8414.nbsp; And under those circumstances, would you abolish the port inspection altogether ?No, I would not altogether, because it is necessary to have some system of port inspection as a preventive measure, otherwise parties would take advantage and ship diseased cattle.

8415.nbsp; Then under that system which you suggest, you would look upon the port inspection rather as a deterrent ? -I would.

8416.nbsp; nbsp;But the value of the system would really consist in the assurance on the part of the inspector, that the animals sent to the port came from a district where pleuro-pneumonia did not exist, and had not existed for some time previously ?That is my meaning.

8417.nbsp; nbsp;Would you have these animals marked in any way ?It would be a very valuable measure if practicable. It would be rather a difficult matter in some districts, in the large grazing districts in the county of Meath, for instance, it would be a very difficult matter where there are many thousands of cattle.

8418.nbsp; If you had not adopted some system of marking, would there not be a risk that they might be changed on the road ?I think that a system of marking would be necessary, if practicable.

8419.nbsp; Without going into the details, what you propose is that the inspector should see that none but healthy animals should be sent from his district, and that such animals might be marked, so as to be identified ? That is my idea.

8420.nbsp; Have you had any experience of inoculation ? Not very extensive; I had a slight experience in Norfolk ; it is many years back, and it was not satisfactory.

8421.nbsp; Have you seen anything of its operation in Ireland ?I have some little knowledge of it in my own district. Mr. Simcocks, the local veterinary surgeon, adopted it, and it has been adopted in Dublin. I think that Dublin would be a very dangerous place to experiment with it.

S422. Do you know any cases of animals inoculated where they have taken the disease afterwards ?Not in my own experience that I have had in Dublin and in County Loulh.

8423.nbsp; As you have had no experience, you naturally cannot say, as a matter of fact, that they have not taken the disease after inoculation ?Although I have not had experience, Mr. Simcocks says that it has been successful in one or two instances; but I am positive it would be a most dangerous system in Dublin, solely on the ground of the convalescent cases to which I have alluded.

8424.nbsp; Do you think that those convalescent cases would take inoculation as it is called ?I have no experience on that point. I am not able to form an opinion, but my opinion is that, where inoculation is adopted, the animals should be kept for slaughter, and not removed.

8425.nbsp; nbsp;They should be shut up for life, and only removed from the place where they were inoculated to bo slaughtered 'lt;That is my idea.

8426.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Clonr.urry.) This recent slaughter order that is now enforced in Dublin, does that extend to your district of Louth and Drogheda ?It does.

8427.nbsp; Does your local authority refuse to carry out the Act?They did.

8428.nbsp; And the Privy Council in Ireland has taken the matter out of the hands of the local authority because they would not carry out the Act themselves ? There were some animals in the Union that were slaughtered by the Privy Council in Drogheda a few weeks back.

8429.nbsp; nbsp;How many outbreaks have there been in Drogheda since the paesing of the recent order ? Either two or three that I am aware of; I think three.

8480. And what was the number of cattle slaughtered?Only 13 of them were slaughtered up to the present time, that were herded with the

MINUTES OF EVIDEMOE.

diseased animal, although the others in auothor district have been ordered for slaughter, and tlio probability is that it will bo ciutuhI out this week.

8431.nbsp; Did that occur in open Holds, or were thu cattle in the sheds ?In open flehis ; it occurred since the cattle were put out to gragSi

8432.nbsp; nbsp;Were these dairy cuttle ?No, they were store cattle; the instances that I am somewhat acquainted with were two and a half year old bullocks, and I am informed by the owner that they contracted the disease through Mr. Smith's cattle, who purchased dairy stock in Dublin last senson, and who was under restrictions. His animals were slaughtered at the back end of the year, but there were evidently some cases not, reported, and the disease has broken out afresh, and is entirely due to the first outbreak.

8433.nbsp; nbsp;Then have you reason to believe that these two and a half year olds were herded or actually in contact with the dairy cattle brought from Dublin last year?They were in the ailjoining field to thlt;i diseased cattle.

8434.nbsp; nbsp;And they might have caught it naturally through the bars of the gate ?Yes, the cattle were in contact because the fences were broken down.

8435.nbsp; nbsp;And they might liave broken through from one field to the other ?Yes.

8436.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware of the number of those that were discovered to be actually diseased, on examination after slaughter ?I did not hear that any of thera were found diseased when slaughtered.

8437.nbsp; nbsp;Did you examine any of them yourself as a part of your duty ?But I was not asked to make a post-mortem of these animals; but the local inspector told me that he did not detect any disease amongst them.

8438.nbsp; nbsp;And he was a man thoroughly competent to form an opinion whether the lung was healthy or not ? Yes.

8439.nbsp; nbsp;Then these cattle were only slaughtered because they had been in contact with Mr. Delany's diseased cattle ?One of the animals was a marked case of pleuro-pneumonia, and the remaining 13 were subsequently slaughtered.

8440.nbsp; nbsp;You did not know whether that one beast was examined after that ?I have reason to know that it was a marked case of pleuro-pneumonia. The post-mortem was made by the local inspector, and the lungs were sent up to Dublin and examined by our officials there.

8441.nbsp; Was the owner, as far as you are aware, satisfied with the scale of compensation granted in that case ?I have reason to believe not; in fact I have heard him complaining.

8442.nbsp; nbsp;Who is the valuer in the Drogheda district; what class of person is he ?The veterinary inspector.

8143. Who appointed him ?The local authority.

8444.nbsp; nbsp;Is that the board of guardians ?Yes.

8445.nbsp; nbsp;Does he act as inspector and valuer combined ?Yes.

8446.nbsp; And that is a very frequent occurrence in the country districts of Ireland ?It is, und in many instances they have special valuers and in others the veterinary inspector acts.

8447.nbsp; (Mr, Bowen-Jones) In referenlaquo;D to the cow yon heard of in the Liverpool Cattle Yard, which was afliected with pleuro, how is it that undu¹ the recent order the animals in contact were not killed at once ? I am not in a position to give a candid opinion, because I was not really officially acquainted with the matter ; I simply casually heard it before leaving ,Vorth Wall last night. But I know it to be a fact that one animal was diseased.

8448.nbsp; How do you suppose that an animal in an advanced state of disease like that coukil have got down to the docks without its being discoveml before ? I also heard that it was exposed in the market on the previous Thursday.

8449.nbsp; nbsp;Does not that show tlmt the inspection is very imperfect in that district ?There is a veterinary surgeon appointed by the corporation as market inspector. Certainly I am somewhat surprised that he

d,U nut detect the animal there; hut when the animal came to the North Wall, it. was the first time that it IiaiUti under the notice of tha (Jovonnnent otttciali),

8450.nbsp; nbsp;You did not trace the original habitat of that nniinal ?Nu, I was not in a position to do so.

8451.nbsp; But you think that it came from one of the Dublin dairies ?I heard that it came from the South Dublin Union.

8452.nbsp; Notwithstanding this slaughter order having leen put into operation, within the last fortnight some animals have escaped ?Undoubtedly the dairy owners have run the blockade. The animals are branded, but owners are able to remove the marks.

8453.nbsp; Can you make any suggestion by which such an evasion of the law could be obmted ?I really am not in a position at present to do so; it is a very difRcult matter to baflSe the Dublin dairymen. They are a most ignorant and ill-informed lot; it is almost impossible to cope with them. If the Dublin dairymen could be made to believe in the contagious nature of the disease of pleuro-pneumonia, it would do much more good than any legislative measures. A very small portion only believe in it, the majority simply attributing it to the will of God and nothing else.

8454.nbsp; Do you know how many inspectors there are in Dublin Cattle Market ?There is only one inspector unless the Veterinary Department sends them. I believe the Corporation are responsible, and they have only one officer.

8455.nbsp; Can one inspector inspect a couple of thousand animals in the morning?In my opinion the market is not sufficiently inspected.

8456.nbsp; Does not that suggest to your mind that some improvement might be made by removing from the Corporation to a central authority the carrying out of these cattle regulations ?Yes, I think that it would be a very wise measure.

8457.nbsp; I suppose that, from what you have said, you do not place implicit confidence in the slaughter order for clearing Dublin or Ireland, as things are regulated now ?[ think that is the only measure calculated to suppress the disease. I firmly believe in the slaughter order, and I think it will do a great amount of good. As I said before, I have reason to believe that, there are many diseased centres which the authorities know nothing about.

8458.nbsp; If the order is not properly carried out, if it is evadedI may say you think that it isis it your opinion that the order itself will clear the country ?It will be a very long time in clearing it, but it is the only measure calculated to do any good.

8459.nbsp; If a more practical administration of the order could be instituted by some means, would it be effectual then ?The existing slaughter order, with a more perfect organisation, would be efl'ective.

8460.nbsp; Do you recommend that that order should bo carried out by a central authority in preference to the local authorities ?Most decidedly by the central authority. I have no faith in the local authorities in Ireland in connexion with the working of the Cattle Diseases Act. They are more or less influenced by interested motives; in plain words, I believe it is a farce. In Ireland the carrying out of the Cattle Diseases Act by boards of guardians, as local authorities, is simply a farce.

8461.nbsp; Then in the event of the central authority administrating the Act, do you consider that the Imperial revenue should pay the compensation for the slaughter of cattle, or that the local ratepayers should still continue to do so ?In my opinion the country should bear its share, it being a national question, but the boards of guardians, as local authorities, are most anxious to keep down the county rates, and arc thus penny wise and pound foolish, which loads to considerable delay and danger.

8462.nbsp; Then yon think tlmt the general run of farmers in Ireland do not understand the nature of pleuro-pneumonia sufficiently for them to assist the authorities in exterminating the disease ?We do not get the slightest assistance from them.

W. Chambers,

M.U

1 Juno 1888,

liH

il 11

11 'I

¹ #9632;

.lt;#9632;#9632;

270

OOMMITTEK ON I'liBUUO-l'NRUMONIA AND TUB1B0ÜL0SIS

laquo;n

Afr.

W, (-'humbeia,

M.it.cr.s.

1 Juno 1808

8463lt; NotwitliBtanilinlaquo;' that thoy tiro compelisiitod under the Act ?Notwithstanding that they are compensated. In fact most outbreaks are due to thoir own imprudenco and ignorance, and they do not deserve compensation at all,

8404. You told us that the principal daugor of pleuro-pnoumonia in Ireland is throughout the county and city of Dublin ?Yes, the county and city of Dublin.

8465.nbsp; And other cattle being exported through the port of Dublin ?Yes, that is my opinion,

8466.nbsp; Are animals coming from any other ports to Dublin, and shipped through other ports like Drogheda, likely to spread the infection ?I believe Drogheda is the next dangerous port to Dublin, being In close proximity to the county of Dublin and county of Meath. We have several outbreaks in the counties olquot; Meath and Dublin. Drogheda is somewhat of a dangerous port in that respect. We do not ship many stores except in September and October for staVl-feeding purposes.

8467.nbsp; Taking altogether, a firm administration of the new slaughter order you think is the only chance of extirpating the disease from Ireland ?That ia my opinion, and not to compensate the owners too liberally, otherwise they will take advantage of it Parties will purposely get diseased cattle into their stock in order to obtain the compensation.

8468.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) But on the other hand if you do not compensate liberally, would there not be a danger of concealing the disease ?I would give a fair compensation, but I would be afraid (o trust them further.

8469.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) You believe that the way the disease is communicated is by inhalation ? Yes.

8470.nbsp; One animal breathing the breath of the other ? That is my opinion.

8471.nbsp; Have you any evidence to show gi-ound for believing that it is possible for a shed to be infected with the virus ?Yes, I have known instances #9632;where a dairyman's cattle were perfectly healthy in summer, and without any fresh purchase of cattle, the disease broke out within three or four weeks after the cattle coming into the shed, which, in my opinion, proved the contagion existed on the premises from the previous year.

8472.nbsp; nbsp;Were you quite satisfied that the cattle had had no opportunity of getting the disease while they were out ?I am not perfectly satisfied, but I made strict inquiries, and found no disease in the neighbourhood where they were grazing that summer.

8473.nbsp; Could you give the names of such places ? No, I could not. It has occurred, and if I have been correctly informed, there have been various similar occurrences.

8474.nbsp; Have you any evidence to show that it is possible that the virus is conveyed on the clothes of the cattle people ?Not pleuro-pneutnonia. I have no evidence to prove that. The only instance that I am rather suspicious of is this. The year before last, whilst on dairy inspection duty in Dublin, I inspected a yard and found two diseased animals. These were very bad cases; and I went straight from that yard (I had no instructions to the contrary) to another yard where an old man had two cows. I made inquiries about them, and he said that he had had them for several years, and not had any fresh stock, or a case of plenro-pneumonia in any sense of the word. Three weeks afterwards one of those cows was attacked with pleuro-pneuraonia, and I made strict inquiries, and coidd trace no probable origin beyond the fact of my conveying disease on my clothes.

8475.nbsp; nbsp;You are quite satisfied that those animals did die of pleuro, and not of anything else?Yes, I saw the lungs. Both were slaughteredone, two, or three weeks after my visit, and the other, two or three weeks after that.

847(5. What is the usual incubation period of the diHcase ?In my experience the average incubation stage is from three weeks to a month, but I have known instances of three months even.

8477.nbsp; Is three numths the longest fThat is the longest in my experience.

8478.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the concealment, can you give us any idea in per-centage as to how many cases would be concealed under the present order ?No, I could not give an opinion,

8479.nbsp; Do you think as many as 20 per cent. ?I think Mr. Hedley would be better calculated to give an opinion on those points. I have not been in Dublin since the working of the new slaughter order.

8480.nbsp; With regard to the movement of the cattle and the disease, I suppose you consider, like most people, that certificates are of very little value ?They would be of very little value in Ireland.

8481.nbsp; Do you believe that disease exists in any other part of Ireland besides the county of Dublin and the district around?I believe the south and west are quite clear. I believe that the principal store districts are clear from disease.

8482.nbsp; Do you believe that the disease is taken from other Irish ports besides Dublin and Drogheda, for instance, do you believe that it is taken from the north ? I have reason to believe there are very few cases in the north. Occasionally we get outbreaks in Belfast dairies, but I believe they have been free for some little time.

8483.nbsp; You have not heard of disease there ?Not in the north for some length of time.

8484.nbsp; Are you aware how much transhipment of Dublin cattle there is from Dublin to the northern ports ?I an not in a position to give numbers.

8485.nbsp; I mean cattle shipped from Dublin to one of the northern ports, for instance to Dundalk, and from thence to Scotland ?The only way in which cattle can be shipped to the north is via Dublin and Belfast, but that seldom occurs. In going from Dublin to the north they invariably go by railway. Dairy stock were occasionally taken from the Dublin market to Belfast.

8486.nbsp; But not to any great extent ?Not to any great extent now. The people of the north are getting more cautious, and will not purchase dairy stock in Dublin. They are more enlightened than some parties, and know the danger, and avoid it.

8487.nbsp; It has been stated to us that the disease is sometimes conveyed by Dublin, not by coming direct from Dublin to Scotland, or England, but by bjing taken to one of the northern ports. Do you think that that is possible ?It is not possible under the existing regulations.

8488.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the inspection of cattle at the port of embarkation, would it be a serious injury to the cattle trade if the hasty embarkation of cattle was prevented ?It would at certain seasons of the year, in fact it would be a serious injury to the trade if the shipping was stopped at any period of the year.

8489.nbsp; 1 mean if stopped for 24 hours, supposing a herd came down ?Oh, no, a temporary measure of that kind would make very little diflferenco, further than that they might lose Manchester or Liverpool market by waiting till next shipping day.

840O. But that would not practically interfere ? It might not be a serious pecuniary loss, especially if the market happened to be a bad one.

8491.nbsp; And at the same time it would admit of the inspection being made more perfectly ?Where a diseased animal is detected it would be advisable to keep the whole cargo.

8492.nbsp; But at present you have no power to do that?No, we have no power to do that under the existing pleuro-pneumonia regulations.

8493.nbsp; But that is only for making a diagnosis, and when you have found the animal which you have diagnosed to bo diseased ?Quite so.

8494.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr, Stirling.) In the event of your finding one of the cattle diseased at the present moment at the port of embarkation, do I understand you to say that you have not power to detain the rest of those in contact ?If I (ietain an animal, my duty is to report to the local inspector, and the responsibility is really

:l i

#9632;#9632;'tl

MINDTES OF EVIDENCE.

271

upon him rather than myself. The local authority have power to carry out the working of the Act in that way, and I report the matter to the local inspector as quickly as possible.

8495.nbsp; Then under this recent slaughter order, thero would be a possibility of the rest of the cattle in contact being shipped before any order could bo received for their slaughter ?I do not believe that the local authority would make an order to detain them. Provided I take a diseased animal out of the ship-yard I do not believe that the local authority would make an order to detain them, nor would I have power to do so without the authority of the Privy Council. It would very likely happen that the local inspector could not be immediately found when required.

8496.nbsp; Then if the shipper chooses to send away cattle that have been in contact to your knowledge with the diseased animals, you have no power to prevent him ?Not upon my own responsibility.

8497.nbsp; And if you made an application to the local authority; in the event of their refusing you would have to apply to the Privy Council ?Yes.

8498.nbsp; And that would take hours, or possibly days ? It might occur after official hours. Our duty is very often between 5 and 6 and 6 and 7 in the evening, when the authorities have all left the office.

8499.nbsp; Assuming that they are coming from Ireland to a port in this country, and you telegraph to the portal authorities, have they power to order their destruction. Are you aware that they have ?I am not aware that they have, I believe not. If 1 had reason to believe that a breach of the Act had been committed by the removal of those animals from an infected district, I believe I would be empowered to detain them with the assistance of the police; but not unless I had reasonable ground for believing that they came out of an infected area.

8500.nbsp; Without that you are helpless ?Without that I would be afraid of the responsibility of detaining them.

8501.nbsp; And the inspection constantly takes place after official hours, so that there would be a day's delay in obtaining the Privy Council's sanction ? And it would mean a very serious matter to the cattle trade and the shipping company.

8ß02. But there is this further reason, that cattle in contact would be liable, on their arrival at Liverpool or Silloth, to spread the disease throughout the country, without any possibility of arresting them ? It is a source of danger undoubtedly.

8503.nbsp; Then you spoke, in answer to a question put by the chairman, of a proposal that there should be district inspectors, and that cattle should not be allowed to be moved except after examination by district inspectors ?If a scheme of that kind could be carried out, I think that it would be a decided benefit in the suppression of cattle diseases in Ireland.

8504.nbsp; Would you indicate how you would propose to work that, is it practicable ?There certainly would be many difficulties in the way.

8505.nbsp; Would you not require a large staff' of inspectors?You would require a much larger staff, and all fairs and markets would have to be inspected, and there would be necessarily a great waste of money by appointing parties in districtraquo; where we have no cattle disease. At the same time, it would be no use unless uniformly carried out throughout the whole of Ireland,

8506.nbsp; And then in a district where there was a large number of cuttle, it would be quite possible that from one point or other they might be shipped or moved from a district without the authority of the inspector ?Yes. Such a large grazing district as the county of Meath for instance, it would be impossible to carry out any branding process or anything of the kind.

8507.nbsp; I did not understand that you proposed to add a brand under this inspection, is that so ?In answer to a question by the Professor, I stated that it would be necessary to have some branding system.

8508.nbsp; Then what kind of branding would you suggest ?--Branding on the horn and hoof, or ear mark.

8509.nbsp; nbsp;But is it not the case that in Ireland cattle are already largely branded on the horns ?We have brands indicating the initials of the owner on the horns, but nut in all cases.

8510.nbsp; Do I understand you to mean that it is usual in the Dublin district and does not apply generally throughout Ireland ?In the Dublin district, undei the pleuro-pnuemonia order, the Dublin dairy cattle are branded.

8511.nbsp; Surely there would be rather a risk of nuilli-plying the marks on the hoofs and horns, it would be hardly noticed by the time that the animal had changed hands six or seven times ?I fear that it would be scarcely practicable. An ear mark might be preferable.

8512.nbsp; Then in your experience at the port of Drogheda, do you think that the licenses at present in use between England and Scotland and Ireland are of any practical value ?You allude to a shipping license ?

8513.nbsp; Yes ?No, they are not; they seldom accompany the animals.

8514.nbsp; You speak of them from your own personal knowledge ?Yes.

8515.nbsp; Then the licenses which are given from the inland districts of permission to move cattle, are they equally trustworthy ?They are not in the least trustworthy.

8516.nbsp; You indicated that you would not be inclined to be too liberal in the payment for compensation ? If so, I fear that some of the dairymen in Dublin would take advantage of it.

8517.nbsp; Would you suggest on the other hand that the penalties for concealment should be increased ? Yes, certainly.

8518.nbsp; In your experience have you known cases of prosecution for concealment?Yes, many cases in Dublin.

8519.nbsp; Before whom is the case tried ?Before the divisional magistrates in the city of Dublin.

8520.nbsp; In Ireland is the penalty a fixed one, or is it in the discretion of the magistrates ?In the discretion of the magistrates. Invariably we get heavy fines in Dublin, but in a breach of the Act it is impossible to get a local magistrate to do it, for the simple reason that he is frequently in the cattle trade, and interested himself. I have known a paltry fine of 1*. and 2s. fid. in the case of plcuro-pneumonia.

8521.nbsp; But do you think it would bean improvement if the penalty was made a fixed penalty and largely increased ?I think that it would be a means of frightening the parties and preventing a breach of the Act, In the county districts they do not mind a few shillings, and in Dublin they do not mind a 51. fine. I believe they have some fund by which this money is paid, so there is practically no individual loss to the owner.

8522.nbsp; I think you indicated that you were of opinion that there should be no dairies in towns at all; that it would be advisable not to have them ? Yes, in a sanitary sense I think that it would bo much more advisable to have them outside the city or borouglfboundary. But in Dublin I would be afraid of the experiment, until we get the Dublin dairy stock into a much better condition than it is now. If we turned the dairy stock out of Dublin we should do an immense amount of harm. In the summer season there is much more harm done, whilst cattle are grazing, than in the winter season, and we have no system of inspection during the summer season.

8523.nbsp; nbsp;Is it not in your experience that the condition of dairies in Dublin is quite exceptional. I mean by condition of dairies, the condition under which the dairy trade is carried on ?In many instances thoy are in a bad state indeed,

8624, I am not moaning the state; I mean the system under which it is carried on, by which the cows are moved out in the summer time?I think that it is a very dangerous system, and a very careless

-Mr.

W. Chitmhera, M.R.Ö.V.S.

1 Juue 1888.

(if

''11 I

272

COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TÜBEE0ÜLO8I8:

Mr. W. Chamberraquo;, M.R.C.V.S.

1 Juno 1888.

system, as healthy cattle are often mingled with infected stock with impunity.

8525.nbsp; Are you aware that it is not the case in London, or in many of the largo towns on this side of the channel, that the system carried out in Dublin differs entirely from the system adopted in the large towns here ?I have understood that dairy stock are not allowed to be moved outside the city boundary in Londoi),

8526.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) Is there anything you desire to add to the evidence you have already given on pleuro-pnenmonia?I think not, further than we have simply to make our fight in Dublin. Dublin is the source and origin of pleuro-pneuraonia in other parts of Ireland, and elsewhere,

8527.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any further alteration in reference to the order or the Act yon would wish to suggest ?No, I believe not, I think we have ample power, if efficiently carried out, to deal with the disease.

8528.nbsp; nbsp;With the large experience jou have had both in Ireland and in Norfolk, have you had brought before you many instances of the disease known as tuberculosis ?Yes, many cases; especially in the Dublin district,

8529.nbsp; Has that been chiefly in the case of dairy cows ?Invariably in the case of old dairy cowsold milked-out cows; in fact you find a case of tuberculosis in 3 dairy yards out of 10,1 suppose, or more,

8530.nbsp; Does it develop itself so slowly that it is not generally found except among old dairy stock ?Yes; I have also seen many young stock suffering through hereditary taint, but it is invariably seen amongst old cows.

8531.nbsp; Do you regard it as hereditary disease ?Yes.

8532.nbsp; Is it your opinion that this disease is on the increase throughout the country ?I believe it is, especially in Ireland.

8533.nbsp; Is it a disease #9632;which is easily detected in the living animal ?It is not difficult for a professional observer to detect. They are invariably low in condition, and have a peculiar cough, with other marked symptoms somewhat easy to detect by a professional observer if the disease is fairly developed.

8534.nbsp; Do you regard it as of sufficient importance to be included in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?For the sake of the public health, I think that it is advisable that tuberculosis should be included under the Act, especially as it would be an advantage in detecting pleuro-pneumonia. Of course in the Dublin dairy-yards an inspector is often baffled as to whether it is tuberculosis or an old case of pleuro-pneumonia, and if we had power to deal with tuberculosis we would get more contagious pleuro-pneumonia cases.

8535.nbsp; Is it in your experience that tuberculosis is frequently mistaken for pleuro-pneumonia and vice versa, ?In many instances it is, I have been baffled myself.

8536.nbsp; {Professor Horsley.) Do you think that pleuro-pneumonia is spreading by inhalation. Have you seen it spread for instance among cows standing tied up on either side of a diseased animal ?Yes, but very frequently, the first cow affected may be at one end of the shed, and the next one at the far end. I consider that susceptibility or idiosyncrasy on the part of the animal.

8537.nbsp; Have you any experience which leads you to believe that the virus is conveyed on the saliva ?No, I have not; 1 should say not. I have known animals fed upon the refuse food from diseased cattle and not take the disease.

8538.nbsp; Have you seen the disease spread steadily among a herd of cattle?As a rule it spreads steadily, sometimes it spreads rapidly, but more often steadily and slowly.

8539.nbsp; Have you ever seen tuberculosis spread from one kind of cattle to another, and one kind of animal to another, and have yon seen it go from horned cattle to pigs r--?^To other animal is liable to pleuro-pnou-monioi

8540.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the infection of tubercle from one animal to another; what would you say to that ? 1 think that tuberculosis is convoyed by actual contact or taking the germs through the medium of the mouth.

8541.nbsp; nbsp;Then you would expect the animals standing side by side with the diseased animals to be the first to take it ?I think it quite possible, judging from the experiments conducted with milk from diseased cattle.

8542.nbsp; nbsp;Have you seen the disease spread through the pigs, and the fowls, and other animals ?No, I have not; I think that it sometimes occurs, because if the owner has a bad-thriving beast he invariably gets rid of it, and the carcase is often used for pig feeding.

8543.nbsp; Have you seen the disease amongst i'owls in Dublin ?Yes, I have, but I am not able to give an opinion as to the origin.

8544.nbsp; nbsp;As to its prevalence, you said that in the dairies you have about 30 per cent, affected with tuberculosis?I intended to convey a per-centage of yards where the disease might be found, and consider about 20 per cent, would be about the average.

8545.nbsp; But still it is very common?It is very common.

8546.nbsp; What proportion does the prevalence of tubercular disease in the country in Ireland bear to Dublin ?It is, generally speaking, more among the Dublin dairy stock, but it is not unusual to have stock in the country suffering from tuberculosis. I have frequently had them offered for inspection and shipment at my ports.

8547.nbsp; nbsp;Where they have come from purely country districts ?Yes.

8548.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that the disease is more prevalent in the towns than in the country ?It is more prevalent amongst aged milk cattle.

8549.nbsp; The disease, of course, has been present in the country for so long a time that you cannot say whence it is now obtained or distributed ?It is invariably duo to hereditary taint in my opinion.

8550.nbsp; Have you any evidence to show that it might be conveyed by the water or by the excreta ?1 consider it is possible, but I think it more frequently arises from hereditary taint.

8551.nbsp; nbsp;Would you be prepared to recommend that the owner of an animal that is tubercular should be fined if he did not give notice of a disease as he would be for pleuro-pneumonia?Yes, with a mitigated penalty under the circumstances.

8552.nbsp; You would inflict a penalty, but it would be a lighter one than for the more contagious disease ? Yes, the danger would be more to public health than loss to stock owners,

8553.nbsp; Then of course you would compensate him on a scale in the same way as you would compensate for pleuro-pneumonia ?I think that it would be only reasonable to do so.

8554.nbsp; Do you think that stamping out, or a measure of that kind, would get rid of the disease ?It would be much easier to get rid of a disease of that kind than a contagious disease. In my opinion, if owners were compensated for tuberculous cases, the disease would soon be exterminated, as parties would be only too anxious to report them and get rid of them.

8555.nbsp; At present the loss falls entirely upon them in that ease, and in the other case they would be perfectly recouped ?In the case of tuberculosis there need be no restrictions upon the premises, so that the owners would not hesitate in reporting cases.

8556.nbsp; And at the same time there would be the advantage referred to before, that we should also get at the cases of pleuro as well, and so help to stamp out that disease ?Yes, it would assist the authorities in detecting outbreaks of pleuro.

8657. You do not consider any practical disadvantage in including the treatment of tuberculosis under the Act of 1878?Not the slightest; in my opinion it should be included.

lt;

The witness withdrew.

MINUTKS OH¹ KVlUENCE.

273

Mr. Matthew Hedley, M.R.C.V.S., called and examined.

Mr.

M. Hedley,

M.lt.C. V.S.

1 Judo 1888.

8508. {Chairman.) You are, I believe, travelling inspector under the Veterinary Department of the Irish Privy Council ?Yes.

8559.nbsp; And in that capacity you have been engaged in carrying out the recent slaughter order in Dublin ? I have.

8560.nbsp; Has it been part of your duty to observe or make post-mortem examinations of animals that have been slaughtered ?I have not made a post-mortem in all cases ; Mr. Prentice, one of my assistants, did.

85ö I. Have all the animals that have been slaughtered been examined ?They have.

8562.nbsp; Will you tell the Committee the total number of cattle that have been slaughtered under the recent order ?-1,486.

8563.nbsp; Since what date ?Between the 20th of April and the 12th of May.

8564.nbsp; Did those animals include both diseased animals and animals in contact with the disease ?It was intended to include those that were in contact with diseased animals only.

8565.nbsp; What do you mean by quot; only quot; ?Well, at the same time that it was supposed there were old cases in the herds, they were deemed in contact rather than diseased. As soon as ever a place was declared to be infected, we did not take much trouble as to whether the animals were diseased or not, so long as it was brought under the operation of the slaughter order. That was the desire as far as we were concerned. We then knew that old cases would be dealt with in the general slaughter.

8566.nbsp; And what was the result of that examination ? How many of these 1486 were found to be healthy upon post-mortem examination ?There were 530 diseased.

8567.nbsp; I want the healthy ones first ?956.

8568.nbsp; And the total number of diseased would be what?530.

8569.nbsp; nbsp;Of these 530 diseased animals how many did you discover showed symptoms of recent disease ? 174.

8670. And how many quot; old casesquot; ?-There would bo 356.

8571. When you describe these as diseased do you refer to pleuro-pneumonia only or do you include other diseases?I referred only to pleuro-pneumonia.

8672. Were there any cases of tuberculosis discovered as well ?Yes.

8573.nbsp; How many of those ?73 in addition.

8574.nbsp; Then that comes out 956 ?Not altogether, some cases of pleuro-pneumonia showed also tuberculosis, there can be the same disease in one set of lungs.

8575.nbsp; Of tuberculosis only, you found how many ? There were 7i'. cases.

8676.nbsp; nbsp;What became of the meat of the animals that were found affected with tuberculosis ?Part was con-

demned ; when the flesh was not affected, and there was no appearance ot any tubercle, that flesh was passed as fit for food mid sold.

8677.nbsp; nbsp;Were there any animals in which you discovered symptoms both of pleuro-pneumonia and tuberculosis ?Yes.

8578.nbsp; How many of these?I have not got the number.

8579.nbsp; nbsp;What per-centage would you indicate ?A small per-centage,

8580.nbsp; What became of the carcases slaughtered ? The majority of them were sold for food.

8581.nbsp; Were they sold in Dublin ?Not altogether.

8582.nbsp; And where did the rest go to ?To England and Scotland.

8583.nbsp; nbsp;Was the sale of these carcases under your control ?I engaged Mr. Elliott, of Birkcnhead, to carry on the sale and the slaughter also.

8684. Are you able to tell the Committee what the return was for salvage ?It is not made up yet.

8586. What was the amount of compensation paid under the slaughter order?19,357/. 5s., that is for o 64008.

North and South Dublin Unions. 1 cannot give tlio items for each.

8586.nbsp; What was the amount derived from the sale of carcases ?About 11,000/.

8587.nbsp; By whom were those animals valued ?By Mr. Gavin Low, of Prussia Street, Dublin.

8588.nbsp; By whom was ho appointed ?By me on behalf of the Government.

8589.nbsp; Were you appointed commissioner lo carry out this order ?I was.

8690. And was that in consequence of the local authority refusing to do so ?Well, they say they did not refuse. They did not carry out the order in the specified time.

8591. That was taken as a refusal ?It was tantamount to a refusal.

8692.nbsp; From what source was the money for the payment of this compensation supplied ?The cattle diseases fund for the present.

8693.nbsp; Which is a fund I believe provided partly by rate and partly by the Government ?Under ordinary circumstances, compensation is paid partly by the cattle diseases fund, and partly by the local rate. The cattle diseases fund is raised under sec. 83 of the Act of 1878.

8594.nbsp; Then the hesitation on the part of the local authority was based upon the want of funds ?Well, they did not believe in the efficacy of the slaughter.

8595.nbsp; But they gave that one reason for not carrying it out ?Yes.

8596.nbsp; Had they not other objections ?They had other objections.

8597.nbsp; And what were they ?They believed in inoculation in preference to slaughter as being less expensive and equally efficacious. They disputed the legality of the order.

8598.nbsp; Have all the animals now been slaughtered, that are supposed to have been in contact with the diseased animals ?No.

8599.nbsp; Are you still engaged in slaughtering under this order?Yes, we find that there are two lots left.

8600.nbsp; Which you did not expect existed before ? No, it was a mistake with regard to the limits of an infected place, in one case. A yard was defined as at the rear of a certain house, and it seems that the same person has a yard at the rear of the first-named yard, which was infected as well. We were under the impression that there was only one yard infected, and I caused all the cattle in only one yard to be slaughtered ; but there are 11 still remaining. It was doubtful in another case whether certain animals had been in contact or not, and it is being held over for a decision, and I understand since then a further outbreak has taken place on the premises. These animals will be slaughtered with the others.

8601.nbsp; Can you point more explicitly to the last outbreak to which you referred ?Yes, I can, it is about five or six days ago; it is only recently.

8602.nbsp; Have you any reason to believe that any cows from infected sheds have escaped since the slaughter order was put into operation ?Do I understand you to mean, have cattle been taken from the premises.

8603.nbsp; Yes ?I do not think so. I do not see how they could. We have our own private brand marked on them since the order was passed, and if the brand mark had been in any way interfered with, we should have been able to detect it.

8604.nbsp; Do I understand that as soon as the order was passed every animal in a cow shed in which disease existed was branded ?Yes.

8605.nbsp; nbsp;What is the nature of that brand ?A letter and figure on the left quarter and figures on the right.

8606.nbsp; nbsp;Did you do this under the slaughter order, or under the order by which you were appointed ? Order 61, the slaughter order. See sub-Art. 3 of Art. I. I was empowered to mark or brand, as I might think requisite.

M m

I!,

274

COMMITTEE ON PLEUKO-PNEUMONIA. AND TUBERCULOSIS!

I*H

Mr.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 8R07. Was this brand a burning brand ?No, it

M. Medley, was a pnlnt brand, it wns of similar material to that

M.n.C.V.S. generally used bore, except that it was made lesb

_% .-----~_oao liable to lgt;e removed.

1 .Tune 1888. ₈₆₀₈ j _regume jj _was suitable for temporarj

purposes ?Yes. We should have had the Society

for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals interfering if

we had put a burning brand on. I was authorised

for that purpose prior to being appointed to carry out

the order.

8609.nbsp; Can you give us a history of any ot the general outbreaks in Dublin ?Yes, if you will permit me, I will designate the places by their letter and a number, as, in case of publication, if I mentioned names and residences, the owners would be liable to suffer an injury to their trade. F. 35 is in the South Dublin Union. The disease appeared on the premises on the 24th day of January. We had one case of disease on the premises. The place was declared free by the local authority on the 19th day of April. By that time it had come under the power of the pleuro-pneumonia slaughter order. Influence was used to got it excluded from the operation of the slaughter order because there was only one case. It was not yielded to. There were 43 animals on the premises. The post-mortem examination showed 17 old cases and three recent, a total of 20 ; and three cases of tuberculosis.

8610.nbsp; Is it within your knowledge that each ot the animals in this case had been carefully examined by the inspector ?Well, I really cannot say that he examined them carefully, because I was not present at any lime that he made the examination; I believe that he looks upon it as not being his duty. He considers his duty is completed when the animal reported to him has been inspected and disposed of. _ If he does anything beyond that, it is at his option. The inspector's name is Mr. Lawlor.

8611.nbsp; nbsp;Do I understand, in the event of a veterinary inspector being called in to an outbreak, that he confines his examination to one animal only ?I believe in very many cases he does, that is to say, the local authority's veterinary inspector.

8612.nbsp; Is it possible, do you think, that there was actually more than one animal diseased ?I should think so. As a matter of fact, if a veterinary inspector examined all the cattle on the premises carefully, he could not get through the work, and attend to his private practice, as well.

8613.nbsp; Have you any more to say about this particular outbreak ?I think not.

8614.nbsp; Are you aware when any of these animals had been inoculated ?It is reported to me that none of those animals mentioned were inoculated.^

8615.nbsp; Have you any other case to illustrate. There is a case of G. 41. The disease appeared on the premises on the 19th day of November 1887; the total number of animals slaughtered as affected with pleuro-pneumonia between the 19th November and the date of the general slaughter, the 25th, 26th, and 30th April, wa^ 15.

8616.nbsp; How many cattle were there on the premises at this time ?There were 71 on the premises at the date of the outbreak ; but, the total number of animals, when the cows were slaughtered, was 64.

8617.nbsp; What happened to those in contact ?63 had been inoculated. A cow dropped a calf a little while before the lot was slaughtered. There were 64 slaughtered, including this calf. The calf was not inoculated. There were 10 old cases of pleuro-pneumonia and one recent case.

8618.nbsp; Were there any symptoms discovered of any other diseases?There were four cases of tuberculosis. Between the period of the lust case of pleuro-pneumonia and before the slaughter took place, the place was declared free by the local authority on the 19th April. More than 56 days had elapsed since the last case and that date.

8619.nbsp; From that I gather then clearly that, in your opinion, the 66 days as a period likely to guarantee immunity from disease is not aufflcient?Oh, no,

nothing like it. There are plenty of instances of longer periods without giving immunity. I shall be able to give two or three cases in the course of evidence.

8620.nbsp; Does that complete this case, or do you wish to say anything more upon it ?No.

8621.nbsp; Did you examine this case yourself?Do you mean the post-mortem examination ?

8622.nbsp; Yes.No, I did not.

8623.nbsp; You saw some of them ?Yes, but not all.

8624.nbsp; Did you see any of those which were diseased ?Yes.

8625.nbsp; Were the encystments very evident?Quito evident. I would like xo make a further reference to this case. All the cattle upon these promises were inoculated, except a calf. The owner told me that 12 of the cows had been on the premises about a week when they were inoculated. They were brought in in November, just before the outbreak. He considered that this is a test as to the efficacy of inoculation. They were fresh cows which had been brought from A district where there was no pleuro-pneumonia, and they were kept a week in a yard and inoculated. He thought that, if inoculation was successful, then upon post mortem there would not be pleuro-pneumonia in the lungs of these animals. They were inoculated in November.

8626.nbsp; Had they been a week in contact with the animals already there before they were inoculated ? Yes, he says about a week ; there was one case of pleuro-pneumonia as the result.

8627.nbsp; Do you regard that as one of the recent cases or an quot; old casequot; ?It was an old case.

8628.nbsp; Therefore that has no reference whatever to the recent outbreak ?No.

8629.nbsp; Have you any other case which you wish to bring before the Committee?Yes, there is another case, L. 11. The number of cattle that were slaughtered between the time of the outbreak and the time of the slaughter is six.

8630.nbsp; How many cattle were there in the shed ? There were 12 animals.

8631.nbsp; nbsp;Altogether ?At the time of the slaughter.

8632.nbsp; Would you wish to introduce this case at all ? It is one of the inoculated cases, and there was only one case of pleuro-pneumonia.

8633.nbsp; But you will have an opportunity of fllling it up afterwards ?I can send you those particulars.

8634.nbsp; nbsp;Will you tell us as much as you can in reference to this case ?The disease appeared on the premises on the 8th November, the final slaughter took place on the 2nd May. At that time there were 12 animals on the premises. There was one old case of pleuro-pneumonia among them. Those animals were inoculated early this year, what time I could not ascertain.

8635.nbsp; Out of the 12 animals, one was an old case of pleuro-pneumonia. Was there any evidence of any other disease ?There was one case of tuberculosis. I have got several other cases here where the local authority declared the premises free. I do not know whether you consider it necessary to take any further note of those.

8636.nbsp; Could you tell us the number ?Yes,

8637.nbsp; How many cases are you aware of in which disease broke out after the local authority had declared the premises free?That is another point altogether. That is not the point I am putting forward. The point I am putting forward is this, that a place was declared free, and when the slaughter took place, we ibuud a very large number of cases on the premises.

8638.nbsp; Is it your opinion then that any definite length of time would affect this question; instead of 56 days would you mention any other period ?As to when the cessation of the disease would take place ?

8639.nbsp; Yes ?No, I could not; I think it is impos-lible,

8640.nbsp; Can you tell us any other, and if so, how many quot; old cases quot; have b.een discovered after post-mortem examination, and where the local authority

MINU'J'KS OV KVIDKNCE.

275

had declared the place to be free ?There are seven other instances in the South Dublin Union.

8641.nbsp; Have you anything to say with regard to the history of any other outbreaks ?Yes, here is an instance: H. 7, pleuro-pneumonia appeared on the promises on the 18th November 1887. One case of disease, and then 56 days elapse, and the local authority declared the place free from disease on the 17th January 1888. Disease re-appeared on the 24th February 1888. We had one case. There were only three animals left on the premises, they were slaughtered on the 5th May, and all found healthy.

8642.nbsp; Have you still another case ?Yes ; here is rather a heavy case, P. 30. The disease appeared on the 15th March. Between the 15th March and the 25th and 26th April, when all the animals were slaughtered, 11 cases had presented themselves ; there were 78 animals left on the premises at the time of the slaughter.

8643.nbsp; To begin with, there were 89 animals?I will not say that there were 89 animals; there might be a calf born. There was a post-mortem examination, which showed 21 old cases, 11 recent cases, and 11 cases of tuberculosis.

8644.nbsp; nbsp;With reference to this case, do you think that the local authority took sufficiently prompt action ? From the number of cases it might be inferred not.

8645.nbsp; Have you any further cases ?I might just mention one or two cases where the disease has continued for a long time on the premises. F. 82 and F. 83. These two people occupied one premises. For a number of years they have had the disease appearing and re-appearing frequently. The 15th day of November 1886 disease appeared on the premises. The number of healthy cattle was 94 belonging to the two men. The total number of cases in the yard was 21. The restrictions were removed off the premises on the 5th day of May 18S7. A license was given for the movement of those animals on the 4th May, the day before the restrictions were taken off. They were again all removed out to grass. The number of cattle moved was 72. There was not any case at grass. The cattle were moved into the dairy yard in November 1887.

8646.nbsp; As you cannot put it specifically, could you put it more generally, so as to make your evidence more consistent ?I shall correct the evidence afterwards.

8647.nbsp; Are you aware whether any, and if so, how many, fresh cattle have been introduced in the interval?There were fresh cattle. 1 have not a note of the number.

8648.nbsp; Will you go on with the history of this case ? After the cattle were taken to the yard, the disease appeared again; the number of cattle on the premises at that time was 69, and the total number of cases in the yard was 7. When the slaughter took place, there were 64 animals on the premises, each man owning 32. Belonging to F. 83 there were six old cases of disease, and belonging to F. 82 there were 12 old eases, making a total of 18, and there were a total of five cases of tuberculosis.

8649.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any other case of an outbreak of long duration ?Yes, F. 52, in the season of 1886 and 1887, cattle in the yard 35. Disease appeared on the 16th November 1886. There were seven cases on the premises before the place was declared free. The place was declared free on the 17th day of the third month 1887. On the 30th day of the fourth month they were removed to grass ; at least 25 were removed to grass. There was not any case at all reported from grass that season, so that from the 30th day of the fourth month 1887 until they came in, until the 20th day of the first month of 1888, we had not any case of disease in those premises or in connection with those cattle,

8660. Are you aware whether any fresh cattle had been introduced ?Yes, but I could not give the number.

8651. But there had been some ?Yes.

8652.nbsp; nbsp;Will you kindly continue your narrativo ? We had 10 cases from the 20th January up to the time of slaughter, that is the 21st April. There were 31 animals slaughtered, nine old cases and three recent cases, making 12.

8653.nbsp; Do you wish to make any further statement upon this matter ?No.

8654.nbsp; nbsp;The cases which you have just represented are typical cases of what has been going on for some time in Dublin ?They are; that is all in connexion with the South Dublin Union.

8655.nbsp; Do you wish to refer to another historical case ?Yes, in another union, the case of A. 25. One of the inspectors of the Veterinary Department visited the premises belonging to this man in the course of his duty, and pointed out a case which was supposed to be an old case ot pleuro-pneumoniii, on the 22nd February of this year. The local authority veterinary inspector would not slaughter the animal. I sent two other veterinary inspectors then io see what their opinion was, and each of them confirmed the opinion of the first veterinary inspector. We then quietly watched this yard, and on the fifth day of the fourth month disease appeared, that is to say, a recent case occurred. We had the animal slaughtered ; at least the local inspector then slaughtered, and that brought the outbreak under the operation of the order. At the post-mortem examination of the herd we found three old cases and two recent cases, and one case of tuberculosis, and between the time of the place being declared infected and the slaughter, we got six cases of pleuro-pneumonia off the premises.

8656.nbsp; How many affected cases were there altogether ?About 11 cattle.

8657.nbsp; Were they all slaughtered;Yes.

8658.nbsp; Did any other citse come under your notice in the same union ?Oh, yes; a number.

8659.nbsp; Are you aware whether any cattle in this union were removed to the abattoirs to slaughter previous to the slaughter order coming into operation? Yes, we know of about 48 having been so moved; but we did not make post-mortem of them as an opportunity was not usually given.

8660.nbsp; Have you any reason to think that it was probable that some of these might have shown symptoms of disease ?I think so. I think it is almost beyond doubt. Here is a case of C. 55 in the North Dublin Union. The owner had all his animals slaughtered under a compulsory slaughter order, similar to that. His yard was situated near Northwail, where the export trade takes place, and on account of any fear that disease might be conveyed to animals exported, the animals were slaughtered off, so that he started with a new stock before the last grazing season. He bought all his stock in the country, away from Dublin altogether, and went miles away on purpose to have them free as he supposed. He then put them on to a grazing farm within the district. The cattle from other dairy yards were sent, out there to grass, and a case of disease appeared among them. These new cattle were eventually brought into the yard in Dublin. A sale by auction cannot take place without a license from the Lord Lieutenant. These men made application to have license to sell their stock of 40 head on the premises. The matter was inquired into, an examination was made of the stock, and there was ground for suspecting that there was one case among the rest.

8661.nbsp; Were the 40 head to which you refer the whole stock in the shed ?40 was the full number on the premises, but when the inspectors went to exnmino the stock, instead of being 40 there were only between 16 and 17. The others had been sold privately, it was said to butchers in the district as they wore all fat. They had grounds for suspecting that the animal was diseased. The place eventually on the 16th day of the fourth month carae under the restrictions. Four cases wero taken off the premises; 12 were left; 11 of them were diseased ; nine old and two recent cases. I will just quote the other two cases and I think that will be sufficient.

M m 2

Mr. M. I led ley, M.R.C.V.S.

1 June 188B.

if a

w 11

tii

\\\

276

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEKOITLOSIS:

Mr. M. Hedley, MM.C.V.S

1 June 1888.

86C2. {Mr. Stirling.) You said there that 16 were left, then four of those were taken out diseased ? Yes.

8663.nbsp; And then 12 wore loft on the premises and the slaughter order took away the 12, und 11 were diseased. What interval of time was there between those taken out as diseased and the 12 ?It could not be very long. The place came under restriction on the 16th day of April, and the animals were slaughtered on the 3rd day of May, about three weeks I think. I have an instance where there were five occupiers in one yard B. 9 to B. 13 inclusive. There is one date missing and it might happen to be the date of the .outbreak but I am not certain. However, in the case of B. 11 disease appeared on the 21st February 1888, disease appeared pretty much about the same time with regard to B. 10, B. 13 on the 28th March, B. 12 on the 3üth March. B. 9 had no case taken from him at all. They were all slaughtered on the 4th May.

8664.nbsp; How many were on the premises ?I have not got that record here.

8665.nbsp; nbsp;How many were slaughtered ?Eight, it was only a small yard of small occupiers.

8666.nbsp; What was the result ?In the case of B. 9, we only had three animals, and they were all diseased old cases. In the case of B. 10, all his had been taken away from him before the slaughter took place, so that he had not any to slaughter. That was three cattle, and they were diseased. In the case of B. 11 he had two animals left, and they were free from disease. In the case of B. 12 he had one animal slaughtered, and it was a recent case. In the case of B. 13 two animals were slaughtered, two were diseased.

866'7. {Lord Cloncurry.) How does that divide the eight; have you got them totted up there ?Six diseased, and two free.

8668.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) All cases of pleuro-pneumonia ? All pleuro-pneumonia. Just about the time that the slaughter was completing, I was privately informed that a certain man was not reporting pleuro-pneumonia, D. 50. I had his premises visited, and an animal was picked out as being a case of disease ; the owner was instructed to report to the police immediately, which he did not do. Early in the morning I went to the police about it, to get to know what had taken place, and what the result was, because we could not take any step until the local authority declared whether it was a case of disease or not; I found that the police knew nothing at all about it. I sent the policeman up to the man's premises, and he said he had had the inspector there since, and there was nothing at all the matter with the beast, so that it was not necessary to slaughter it. I went up myself to examine the beast, and decided that it was a well-marked case of disease, an old case; I went immediately for the veterinary inspector and took him with me. He had not previously seen the animals. He ordered the animal to be slaughtered. A postmortem was immediately made on it, and it was a well-marked old case. There were 31 left in the yard. There were 12 cases of pleuro-pneumonia, old cases, and 9 cases of tuberculosis.

8669.nbsp; nbsp;Were the 31 slaughtered ?Yes, we got 12 old cases, and 9 cases of tuberculosis.

8670.nbsp; Do you use the therraometrical test as a rule? Yes, pretty nearly always. At the same time 1 do not think it is always necessary. It is done more for the sake of recording statistics than anything else.

8671.nbsp; nbsp;Have you anything more in the way of historical facts to place before us ?I do not think there is anything more that would be of any use to you.

8672.nbsp; nbsp;I will ask you at this stage whether in your investigations of the Dublin dairies you have observed greater frequency of outbreaks among the smaller dairies than among the larger dairies ?I really could not answer that question.

8673.nbsp; I was rather alluding to the case of five separate tenants in one set of premises ?In looking

over this list just now, with regard to one union, there seems to be a very large number of both. They were pretty nearly even, from one up to about 67 in one union, and 1 think the same thing might apply to the other one. They are pretty even.

8674.nbsp; Have you had much personal experience of inoculation in cases of pleuro-pneumonia?I have never inoculated anything.

8675.nbsp; Have you had opportunities of observing inoculation, or the effects of inoculation, in animals ?I have a few cases, but I do not consider that my experience is of much value to the Committee.

8676.nbsp; From the evidence you have given here, do you desire to convey that it has not been a means of preventing outbreaks of disease ?So far as 1 can judge, it has not. In fact I cannot see how it could.

8677.nbsp; Has inoculation been practised in the Dublin dairies up to the time of the application of the recent slaughter order ?I have never heard of any case of inoculation taking place before the past winter. That is the reason why we personally know so little of it.

8678.nbsp; Have you any particulars that you can give the Committee with reference to inoculation in connexion with any particular outbreaks beyond that which you have mentioned ?I think not.

8679.nbsp; Have you already stated what you know on that point ?I have already referred to such cases.

8680.nbsp; And have you also stated all that you desire to state with reference to the period of incubation of the disease ?Here is one further case. K. 76 which is, I think, probably rather interesting. That is in South Dublin Union. Pleuro-pneumonia was reported on the 1st of April 1888. The man had three cattle on his premises. He reported two as diseased. There was one left to slaughter. That was slaughtered on the second of May, and was found to be a recovered case of pleuro-pneumonia. The case that was on the premises, and that was slaughtered under the order, was the last case bought. The other two had been on the premises a longer period, and it was the old case of pleuro-pneumonia. This man purchased one cow on the 20th of October 1887, and he purchased the other cow on the 27th of the same month. His last cow he purchased in 1887, November the 10th. The disease appeared on April the 1st, 1888. That would give some idea of the period of incubation there. Then the two cases you see drop at once, they are both reported on the same day. That would show an exposure from the 27th of October to the 1st of April, over five months. In the other case, from the 10th of November 1887 to the 1st of April, it was nearly five months.

8681.nbsp; Have you ever had an opportunity of observing an animal suffering from a second attack of pleuro-pneumonia? Yes, frequently, post-mortems show that often.

8682.nbsp; I take it that this would be the result of a second case of infection ?Yes, that is my opinion.

8683.nbsp; Do you think it possible that disease could result from a breaking up of a cyst?Yes, it is possible. In fact, I believe that is the way that many of the cases are produced, by the cyst breaking up.

8684.nbsp; {Mr. Bowen-Joms.) You do not call that a second infection, I suppose ?I do not see why you should not call it a second infection.

8685.nbsp; What do you mean by a second infection ; a break up of a cyst or re-exposure to a fresh case of disease from another animal ?I should consider them both to be re-infection.

8686.nbsp; (Chairman.) They may re-infect themselves ? It is re-infected /'rom the old cyst, or it may have become a second case from exposure to other infection.

8687.nbsp; Now I come to the question of compensation; with reference to this recent slaughter order in Dublin, have you reason to believe that the principle of compensation has been satisfactory to the owners of stock slaughtered?I think highly so with one exception, and I do not think he has any reason to grumble. Everyone has accepted the valuation with the exception of one man.

#9658;'

'If

MINUTES OF BVIDBNOB.

277

8688.nbsp; Do you consider the Dublin dairies, us at present managed, are in a satisfactory condition ?I do not.

8689.nbsp; Do you think that town dairies are desirable under any circumstances, from a sanitary point of view ?From a sanitary point of view I should say no, but I should be very sorry to see dairy-yards moved out of Dublin at present.

8690.nbsp; Will you give a reason for that statement ? Yes, I believe we have got a number of old cases of pleuro-pneumonia in the dairy-yards in Dublin, and if they were moved into the country we would never know where the limit of the area of disease was situated.

8691.nbsp; Then may I take it as your opinion that the cows once coming into Dublin dairies ought never to be removed from there alive again ?That is my opinion, emphatically so. It would be a very iiicon #9632; venient arrangement, but it would be the safest. It is very doubtful whether such a scheme could be carried out.

8692.nbsp; Wherein do you see the difficulty of carrying out such nu arrangement ?I think the dairymen would disobey any law, and send their cows out. It would want an army around the placo to keep them in. They have a very large sum of money invested in grazing land for the purpose of sending their stock out to it, and if they do not send their stock out to it they would lose a very large sum of money.

8693.nbsp; Are you aware whether similar arrangements as you suggest are already in existence in London and Edinburgh, and other large towns ?I believe so.

8694.nbsp; That cows are allowed to go out from the towns into the pastures ?No. I thought you said such as I recommend. I recommend that they should be kept in.

8695.nbsp; Do you mean for a certain part of the year ?Certainly; I refer to the summer season, that is to say, from the 1st of May to the end of Ociober. We have two seasons.

8696.nbsp; Will you kindly describe the general principles of management of cows in a Dublin dairy throughout the year, describing the winter and the summer treatment respectively ?About the beginning of May in the majority of cases all the cattle are turned out to grass, and they remain there until about November.

8697.nbsp; How far from Dublin are the pastures upon which these cattle are grazing?Up to 8 or 10 miles.

8698.nbsp; And the milk is then brought in by carts, is it not ?By carts. It very often happens thnt two or three, or even four different dairymen have got the same grass land, and they divide the expenses among them of bringing in the milk. Probably, they each have a horse, and the two horses may be required to bring in the milk in the morning, and then the other men's two horses would bring the milk in in the evening, and so on. Then, when the winter comes, the cows are all brought in. Sometimes the young stock are left out over the winter, and they become the dairy store stock. Perhaps, after a while, these store stock are brought in to fatten, and they are sold then to the local butchers. When the cows are in, they are fed chiefly upon distillery grains and wash, or brewers* grains and wash, according to circumstances. The one has a different influence upon the animal economy to what the other has, the one being constipating and the other relaxing ; and, according to circumstances, they treat their animalsthe one gives a better flush of milk than the other will. The dh.tillery grains and wash are preferred. They give hay, and some of them who are in better circumstances give pollard and brana small proportion, but I tun not aware that they get any roots. From the period of going into the dairy until the period of coming out, they are fastened up by the heads, and I do not think that many of them ever get their heads loosened again ; that is from November right up to May, that is for about six months they are fastened by the head against a wall. There is no passnge-wny between the

houd room and the wall. At one time the troughs wore all of wood, but now tiioy are having them of earthenware, and concretedall made so that thoy can bo bettor cleansed than thoy used to be. At one time the beds were of common earth too, but tiie earthen bed is passing away, and the concrete bed is being used. The young stock tiiat is brought into the yard remains there a considerable time, perhaps the whole winter, then goes out to grass again in the summer. They keep a bull generally on the premises, at least where there is anything like a largo herd ; and, consequently, they have in one yard a bull, some cows, some maiden heifers, which are making up to be fattened because they are not in calf. They have heifers in calf, young stock, and calves, so that the dairy trade in Dublin is a very mixed concern.

8099. Are you familiar with the regulations at the ports of embarkation in Ireland ?Yes.

8700.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the present system of inspection at the ports, and of the certificates granted ? I do not think that it could be improved upon without very materially interfering with the trade.

8701.nbsp; Do you consider that sufficient time is devoted to the examination of animals at the ports of embarkation ?Yes, I believe so, as far as it can bo under the circumstances. Probably there may be pressure towards the latter part of the day when trains come in from considerable distances, where the animals will be put into a pen and kept there, perhaps only half an hour before they are inspected. We do, as far as it is possible, delay all animals an hour at least, and let them stand quiet. A more perfect system might be got up, but I think there would be great opposition to it.

8702.nbsp; In what way would you desire to make it more perfect ?I would have an individual examiua-tion. That would require a very large staff; it would require considerable delay; it would put the people to great inconvenience ; it would be almost impossible to do it.

8703.nbsp; From your experience as atravelling inspector, are you of opinion that the present system of inspection throughout the country is generally satisfactory 'i Fairly so.

8704.nbsp; Could you ofTer any suggestion in the way of improvement in that respect ?Not without interfering with trade interests.

8705.nbsp; Do you consider that inspectors are amply remunerated for their work ?Indeed I do not. I think they are very badly paid. I consider that they have a very great responsibility upon them. They are liable to dismissal for errors in professional judgment. Then it is such a small sum that they are paid. A man commerces at about 10*. a day, and, after five years, he gets up to 14s. 6^., and he cannot rise above that. He is expected to devote his whole time to the service of the Government. He has no pension. He is subject towell, as a matter of courtesy, a month's notice ; but he is subject to immediate dismissal in case of necessity. In case of prolonged sickness there is no gratuity given if permanently removed from the staff.

8706.nbsp; Do I understand that each board of guardians appoints an inspector ?Oh, dear, no. It is the Government appoints the portal inspector, It is the portal veterinary inspector I am speaking of now.

8707.nbsp; But I speak of inspectors throughout the country generally ?When you come to think n man will take a district, and travel distancesmileraquo; upon miles, and he will do it for 12/. a year, paying his own travelling expenses, the remuneration is then very small indeed.

8708.nbsp; A private practitioner, 1 suppose ?He is not a private practitioner; he will do it to keep himself out of the poor house. Fortunately there is but one instance like that, and there is not very much disease in the district. There are other cases where the inspector will receive larger salaries, for instance, in Dublin one receives about SOOA a year, but then to do that he is expected to devote his whole

Mi: M. Hedley, M.R.C.V.S.

1 June 1888.

iff

% I

mvk

278

COMMITTEE ON l'LEURÜ-PNEUMONIA AND TUBBKOULOSI8:

Mr. M. Hedley,

M.n.c.v.s.

\ June 1888.

time to it. As a fact ho does not devote his whole time to it, he is a mnn in private practice.

8709.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) In reference to those cases where you found disease on slaiiglitering was there any oppoi'timity of exanaining the animals jutit before they were killed ?No, there was not.

8710.nbsp; nbsp;Simply tho fact that disease was detected after slaughter ?Just so.

8711.nbsp; Without there being evidence as to the symptoms which the animal might have shown if it had been examined during life ?Quite so.

8712.nbsp; Does that apply in every case to which you have referred ?No, it does not apply in every case.

8713.nbsp; Do you reoolluct any instances in which, after a careful examination, no disease was detected, but when the animal was slaughtered disease was found on post-mortem examination ?No, I will not say a careful examination, but I remember on one occasion being in a yard when the animals were being loaded ; they were not driven to the slaughter-house ; they were conveyed in vans. While standing there I pointed out some cases which I believed to be diseased simply from the coughing and the general appearance of the animal. I believed them to be old cases of disease, but ] did not make a careful examination of them. They were found to be diseased afterwards.

8714.nbsp; In that case there was sufficient evidence to satisfy you, on a mere cursory inspection, that the animal was at any rate of a very doubtful condition ? Quite so.

8715.nbsp; It is, therefore, probable that, if you had had

an opportunity of examining very carefully------?

We might have picked out a larger number of cases. In another instance I went on to certain premises, a field, where there were 14 head of stock, and walking among them, without putting my hands on them at all, I said that I thought there were eight cases among them. It turned out on the post mortem there were nine.

8716.nbsp; But you do not appear to have in your mind any cases where, after a thorough medical examination, you failed to detect disease which, nevertheless, #9632;was found to exist after slaughter ?No, we did not make any carefnl examination. We neither had hands nor time. It took us all our time to get them slaughtered, the animals labelled, and the lungs labelled as well, so that the post mortem might be made, and we might be able to say to which animals the lungs belonged.

8717.nbsp; The result of your general knowledge of the subject is that there are, in all probability, cases of old lung disease still remaining in the Dublin dairies ?I believe so.

8718.nbsp; With the system which is in vogue, and which presumably will be continued, of moving animals from the dairies into the grazing districts, will not these cases of old disease constitute a probable source of infection ?I believe so.

8719.nbsp; Under those circumstances is it possible that pleuro-pneumonia will be stamped out in a short time ?I should not think so.

8720.nbsp; Have you any suggestion to make in view of facilitating the process of making it as short as possible ?If it could be done, it would be as well to stop all cattle that have been brought into the Dublin dairy-yards from going out to grass.

8721.nbsp; nbsp;How many cows are there now left in the Dublin dairies ?They are out to grass again now.

8722.nbsp; Supposing they were all in, about what would be the number ?About 7,000 I should think.

8723.nbsp; Have you any idea of the cost of slaughtering tho whole of them?It would be very difficult to give that, because as the slaughter proceeded, the price of the dairy stock would rise, there would be a difficulty to obtain dairy stock, and so fancy prices would be offered for them.

8724.nbsp; Do you know if the suggestion was, that you thought the whole of the cattle in the Dublin dairies should be slaughtered ?We have said it jestingly, but I do not know that it has been seriously made.

8725.nbsp; Did it form part of the suggestions of the

report which arose out of Mr. Cope's visit and consultation with you ?I do not remember.

8726.nbsp; In view of the fact that there is a considerable risk of cases of old lung disease being taken out into the grassing districts, and the practical certainty of the disease being extended by those means, it would be, I presume you would say, desirable to take some steps to prevent tho possibility of the occurrence ? Certainly.

8727.nbsp; Whether by slaughter of all the animals in the Dublin dairies, or by shutting them up for their lives, is a matter which would require discussion r Yes.

8728.nbsp; {Lord Cloncurry.) Perhaps the owners of these 7,000 cattle would regard it as a great hardship if they were prohibited by law from taking the cattle to their grass fields, but have not the owners adjoining those grass fieldsthe owners of land in the neigbour-hood of Dublin, an equally strong grievance now against the law which allows these diseased cattle being brought out among them ?It is no greater now than it has been for ten years.

8729.nbsp; nbsp;Tho point I wish to draw out is this, have not the owners of land in those districts of the county Dublin, who are not dairymen, got just as great a cause of complaint now from the presence of these diseased cattle being brought out among their healthy herds do not they suffer more injustice now, than the dairyman would suffer, if he was obliged to keep his diseased cattle at home?Well, we have no evidence to that effect, because we do not find that the disease extends so very much, it usually keeps among the dairy stock.

8730.nbsp; Then the other stock of the county Dublin, although the diseased cattle are among them, do not as a matter of fact suffer very much from the disease ? No, I do not think so. We have very few reports of it. Our police system would very soon let us know if there were outbreaks of disease in the district. The Eoyal Irish Constabulary on their ordinary beats, are going all over the various farms, and if there is anything goes wrong it somehow or other gets to their ears, and if they have any suspicion that animals are being moved, they report to us. We have had reports we often have reportsthat originate from the Royal Irish Constabulary, that they heard that such and such was taking place, whereupon we make inquiry. We found that in one instance, there was a man that had lost several of his head of stock through nothing else but overfeeding with decorticated cotton cake. Well, he suspected of course that this was a case of pleuro-pneumonia. We hud inspectors sent down and an investigation made into it, and it was found then that it was simply a case of overfeeding, and the animals had been slaughtered to save their value as it were.

8731.nbsp; Do you think that mistakes were made in the country districts of Ireland by inspectors condemning an animal for pleuro-pneumonia, when really it is suffering from some other form of disease?No, not often.

8732.nbsp; Do you think the ordinary pleurisy, as apart from contagious pleuro, is a very prevalent disease in Ireland?It is not. We have the lungs of animals that are slaughtered for pleuro-pnenmoiiia sent up to Dublin for inspection, and we see them.

8733.nbsp; Do you think at the present time the disease is prevalent through other parts of Ireland, irrespective of the Dublin and Drogheda districts ?I really do not think so. Of course there is the Ardee outbreak.

8734.nbsp; That is very near Drogheda ?That is tho other side of Drogheda, but it is not the Drogheda union.

8735.nbsp; I meant the district along the east coast of which Dublin is the centre ?I believe the disease is entirely on the east coast; it is in the province of Leinster.

8736.nbsp; Would you say from Bray to Ardee, along the east coast ?It goes below Bray sometimes, There is nothing below the Rathdown union.

laquo;

M1NUT15S OF GVIDKNÜK.

279

8737.nbsp; Then it is in tho immediate Dublin district ? The immediate Dublin distriot, I believe that is the district which iraquo; infected.

8738.nbsp; Do yo,u think there is much concealment in Dublin at the present time, that is to say, are (here many dairy stocks in which disease exists which has not been officially brought to your notice ?1^ hardly think so. They are just laquo;bout as afraid of being found with diseased animals on their premises as they can possibly be. When I had a number ofat least 10 or 12inspectors going round, if they did not report it then they got rid of the animals; and I cannot see how they do get rid of them, and got others into the place, because we have a record of every visit; laquo;n inspector visits the premises, and he sends in a record to me of the number of animals on the premises at each visit, and if we see that there is a continued decrease going on, or anything like that, there is some inquiry made into it in order to get to know why it is, and how it is, and if we think it necessary we put police supervision on the premises.

8739.nbsp; Do you or your assistant inspectors examine every herd of cattle throughout the Dublin districts, whether reported diseased or not?Y'es.

8740.nbsp; Do yon examine dairy-yards where no disease has appeared ?Certainly.

8741.nbsp; How can there be any concealment if you have the right to examine all cattle in the Dublin dairy districtin the diseased districtif you have the power to make an examination of every herd of dairy cattle ?This is only in the city of Dublin, and about the city of Dublin that I am referring to, and during the winter season.

8742.nbsp; We will confine it to that. Supposing that during the winter season you, or your assistants have the power to examine every dairy cow in Dublin, how can you say there is concealment ? Of course there may be a case of disease not noticed by your inspector, but he has the opportunity of making the examination ?I do not say there is concealment.

8743.nbsp; But is it possible there can lie ?It is possible,

8744.nbsp; Can a daii-y owner keep a cow hid in some place where you or one of the inspectors will not see her ?Not in that yard ; he would not in that diary-yard.

8745.nbsp; Then do you think he may have stabling or some place that your inspectors are not aware of; that he may have a cow hid somewhere ?We have reason to know that it has occurred once or twice.

8746.nbsp; Is there any danger of that being carried on on a large scale ?No, it is not; it is impossible to carry it on on a large scale.

8747.nbsp; Then if it is only an exceptional case, may we hope that if the order is persisted in you will get to the end of this disease ?quot;Yes, that is my belief.

8748.nbsp; Is there any particular suggestion you would wish to make now in the direction of hastening that time ; when the disease will be exterminated ?Yes; the legal machinery is rather difficult to manipulate. For instance, if an inspector in connexion with the Veterinary Department enters premises and sees an animal that he believes to be diseased, he orders the owner to report that case. It is reported, and the local authority veterinary inspector goes there, and he says that he does not consider it is a case of pleuro-pneumonia. We have not got the power to order the slaughter of that animal until we get an Order in Council, or an order of the Lord Lieutenant empowering us to cause the slaughter of that animal. We rarely can think of doing that without asking the local authority to order the slaughter of that animal through their own inspector. There is thus considerable delay, and there was an opportunity for considerable damage to be done in the same herd, but now that the slaughter order is in force, of course as soon us any animal is declared diseased on any premises, then the whole herd has to be slaughtered, so that the doing of material damage is a matter of little consideration now.

8749.nbsp; Then would you suggest, for tho purpose of the slaughter order, that all tho inspectors of the loelaquo;'

#9632; luthority should bo superseded by your assistant inspectors ?No, [ would not speak of it in that way. My opinion is that tho most advisable way to work, is to take the entire management of the matter out of the hands of the local authority, in the same way that tho cattle plague was dealt with in London in 1877, I think.

8750.nbsp; That would be what I said, that tho local inspector would be superseded by the Privy Council inspector ?Quite so.

8751.nbsp; And you cannot suggest any remedy that would be effectual short of that strong measure?I do not think so.

8752.nbsp; In that event, do yon think it right that tho guardians should be called upon to find half tho _molley ?No, certainly not. I do not believe in the guardians paying a half-penny of it.

8753.nbsp; Then do you think the order should be carried out entirely by the Privy Council officers, and the compensation paid by public funds ?Yes, I do.

8754.nbsp; And without that you have not much hope of getting rid of the disease in Dublin ?Yes, wo have hope, but not so soon.

8755.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) I do not think you are quite clear as to the remedy that you would suggest for the mode of examination at the port of embarkation ?I see great difficulties in the way. There are so many conflicting intereststhere are the trade interests of both the stock owners and the ship companies, and there are the railway companies to consider. In fact there are a great many conflicting interests to consider. The fact of the matter is, that I have not gone into the question sufficiently deeply to admit of a decided opinion being expressed.

8756.nbsp; Were you not an inspector at Stranraer ? I was.

8757.nbsp; What was your chief duty there ?To count the number of animals that came into Scotland. I could not do anything else, because it was often so dark I could hardly see what came.

8758.nbsp; Then the real thing is that there is not sufficient time at the port of embarkation or debarkation to make anything like a satisfactory or careful examination of animals ?In that case, at the port of embaika-tion the examination could be made more perfect than at the port of debarkation. That is in Stranraer, iov instance ; in the majority of instances the examination takes place in Ireland during daylight, but tho animals may arrive in England at all times of the night, just according to the sea passage.

8759.nbsp; Supposing a case happening at present, and that you are at the port of embarkation in Ireland, and you observe amongst a herd a diseased animal, what would your action be ?I would stop that case ; the inspectors would stop that caso.

8760.nbsp; What would you do with the rest of tho animals in contact ?We could not do anything with them. We would have to wait there and see whether the local authority inspector confirmed tho opinion of the veterinary inspector of the Government.

8761.nbsp; Are you under the impression that you have no power to stop the remainder of the animals that are in contact ?That is my impression.

8762.nbsp; What would your action be in that case. Would you report it to the local authority ? Certainly.

8763.nbsp; Supposing the local authority declined to stop the animal ?It might eventually go on then. The probability is that we would use our influence with the owner to slaughter the animal as we frequently have done.

8764.nbsp; I mean those animals that were in contact; what would you do with regard to animals that had been in contact with this known diseased animal ? I presume that by tho time we had got to know whether it was diseased or not, they would be on their way to England.

8765.nbsp; You have found one animal in a herd diseased ? Quite so, and that animal has been taken away

Mr. M. ffedley, M.R.C.V.S.

1 June 1888.

'#9830;la

m f

280

OOMMITTEK ON PLKURO-PHEUMOJJJA AND TUBEKOULOSIS ;

M.BCVS ⁱⁿ⁸P^ect0(1' ^,lquot;d have been declared ns free from disease ' ' quot; ' and certified to that effect, and on account of that, they

1 June 1888. ^llavo heen put on board the vessel, and by the time all

-----------that iias been done, the veterinary inspector of the

local authority has been made acquainted with the fact that there is one animal stopped. When he comes down, probably not until 11 or 12 o'clock at night, an inspection takes place and we may sometimes find that it is necessary to get the owner to have the animal slaughtered. He may not come to the port immediately on notice being sent him, as his other engagements necessarily occupy his time.

8766.nbsp; Do you think you have no power of detaining those that have been in contact, and meanwhile they would be shipped to England or Scotland, and might bo a source of spreading the disease ?They might certainly; I do not see what power the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council has.

8767.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman) Do you mean to say that under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, they have no such power ?I believe not.

8768.nbsp; Is there any other order or Act ; which gives them power ?I am not aware of an A.ct, there is an Order in Council, the Animals (Ireland) Amendment Order of 1886, which has reference to the inspection of animals prior to embarkation for Britain.

8769.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) There is an order which was passed on the 23rd of March 1887, have you a corresponding order to that ?I do not think we have.

8770.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) Do you know of the English cow-sheds, milkshops, and dairies order ?Yes.

8771.nbsp; You have, I believe, almost identically the same order in Ireland ?We have nothing at all to do with that now.

8772.nbsp; But there is the same order in Ireland existing, is there not ?Yes, it is exercised by the Local Government Board.

8773.nbsp; Are you satisfied with the provisions of that order ?I am not.

8774.nbsp; In what respect ?Perhaps it is more with regard to the enforcement of the order than with the order itself that I am not satisfied.

8775.nbsp; I was coming to that; as far as the terms of the order are concerned, do you think the order is a good one ?Yes, but I daresay it might be improved.

8776.nbsp; But your principal objection is not to the order itself, but to the fact that it is not properly administered ?Quite so.

8777.nbsp; Have you reason to believe that if the order was properly carried out by the local authority in Dublin, there would be far less pleuro-pneumonia disease ?I think there is ground for dispute with regard to that, because it is a very questionable point. There is a certain amount of theoretical evidence to the effect that disease may hang about the premises, but there is no proof that any animal has taken the disease from the condition of the premises, when, there is no other animal on the premises at the time. I do not believe myself that if you put a beast in the dirtiest place on the face of the earth, you could produce pleuro-pneumonia from it. I do not believe in the spontaneity of pleuro-pneumonia, neither do I believe that manure will give it. I have never met any evidence of it, I have never seen it. There are thousands of tons of manure go from Dublin in the year, but we have never beard of any case of pleuro-pneumonia being produced by it, so that the contagion does not appear to be conveyed by the manure of the animal. A great many people try to make out that the way the animals were fed would produce pleuro-pneumonia.

8778.nbsp; nbsp;But that is not your impression ?No, I do not think so.

8779.nbsp; You have spoken of the small remuneration of the veterinary inspectors throughout Ireland?I was referring to the remuneration of the veterinary inspectors of the Privy Council.

8780.nbsp; Then your answer did not apply to the local authority veterinary inspectors ?Not the remarks I made at that time, but subsequently I said that some

of the inspectors took large areas and were supposed to do professional work for a very small sum of money.

8781.nbsp; And these men are appointed by the poor-law guardiansYes, they are with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant.

8782.nbsp; Is there much competition for such a place ? Yes.

8783.nbsp; (Chairman.) Have you any special evidence that you can give the Committee, upon tuberculosis, other than that which you have already mentioned ? Yes, I have frequently seen cases in the country of bonä fide cases of tuberculosis in prize herds, and so on.

8784.nbsp; Do you consider it is a disease that is easily detected ?No, I do not.

8785.nbsp; Except, I presume, in the later stages ? Yes.

8786.nbsp; Do you think it is on the increase in Ireland ? I hardly think so ; I have not any statistics to show me.

8787.nbsp; Do you think it is of sufficient importance to be included in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 ?I am not prepared to give an answer to that question.

8788.nbsp; Have you had any experience which would point to tuberculosis having been communicated from the bovine animal to the human subject ?-Not in Ireland.

8789.nbsp; nbsp;Have you anywhere ?Yes.

8790.nbsp; From your own personal observation ?Yes.

8791.nbsp; Will you kindly give that in detail ?I take a certain farm in Scotland; that I remember well. During the course of the season we used to have between 14 and 16, or even up to 20 cases of tuberculosis on the premises. There was a larger number of patients among the servants on this farm of consumption, and there were many more cases of consumption in that immediate district than at other places. I believe the statistics of the Bhines District of Wigtownshire would confirm my statement very much.

8792.nbsp; Do you attribute the prevalence in that district to the particular breed of cows they have there ?Not altogether, although I believe that the Ayrshire cow is very subject to it.

8793.nbsp; Does the narrow chest of the animal indicate susceptibility to this disease ?I believe so.

8794.nbsp; Would the moist climate of the district have something to do with it ?That is very probable too, but I do not say that those things would produce it.

8795.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Have you had any experience of tuberculosis in Ireland ?Yes, I have seen it in Ireland frequently.

8796.nbsp; Would you say that it is more or less prevalent there than it is in Great Britain ?I think it is less prevalent than it is in Great Britain so far as I can see.

8797.nbsp; Are there any districts in Ireland where it is more common than in other parts of the country ? Yes, in the districts which are more dairy districts than in other districts.

8798.nbsp; Do you happen to know whether consumption in human beings is common in those districts?I cannot say positively.

8799.nbsp; You have never seen any notice in the medical journals ?I have not taken notice of the medical journals.

8800.nbsp; You say that in this particular case to which you refer in Scotland, the people on a particular farm were subject to consumption ?Yes, the workers were.

8801.nbsp; Did you at the time or did the medical man associate the two things together ?I did, I do not know what the medical officer did.

8602. Did you consider that the men suffered from disease in the cattle, or that the cattle suffered fron the disease in the men ?It was women, the women work among the stock there, the women suffered from the cattle, that was my belief.

8803. Do you think they got the infection from the living animal ?I do.

#9632; i

(I #9632;

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

281

8804.nbsp; Not from the oonsumptlon of the milk ?No, from the living animul, tlittl wuh my opinion.

8805.nbsp; ])o you ineim from tliu breath ?Yes, that was the opinion that I held. I hnvo hiul no reason to change it.

8806.nbsp; I suppose they would take the milk?No doubt they laquo;lid, but I did not see tiic disease existing in the udder.

8807.nbsp; It is not usually believed, is it, that human beings run any grout risk of contamination from merely working about cattle, without taking any of the products?It is not usually believed, but slill I do not think that there is any ground for the opinion that they will not.

8808.nbsp; Do you think it is probable, at any rate, that the spores of the bacillus may be communicated through the breath to the human being, as they may from one man to another ?I believe so, just as pleuro-pneumonia may be conveyed from an old case of pleuro-pneumonia to other animals in the same premises. There is another thing I can call to mind now ou the same farm : the landlord of the property was pressed to pull down some of the sheds; the sheds were pulled down and there was a great deal less tuberculosis on the premises after that.

8809.nbsp; Do you mean among the cattle ?Among the cattle, I cannot say about the people. This shed I referred to used to be a shed in which all the newly purchased stock was put.

8810.nbsp; After that was pulled down the animals were less subject to the disease?They were less subject to tuberculosis.

8811.nbsp; {Mr. Boioen-Jones.) Supposing tuberculosis was introduced as a disease under the Act of 1878, would 5'ou ihink it preferable to apply it only in the way the Act is applied to pleuro-pneumonia, or in the direction that the new order has taken, that is for notice to be given and slaughter of infected animals to take place only ?I think that would be the better thing in the first instance.

8812.nbsp; Do you think it possible for farmers to be able to notity the disease in the earlier stages of tuberculosis ?I do not.

8813.nbsp; But in the later stages they would be ?In the later they would.

8814.nbsp; Then, underthose circumstances, would it be possible to make the Act compulsory for the owners to give notice of the disease ?It is quite possible.

8815.nbsp; But do you think it would not be practicable for them to carry it out except in the later stages ? Quite so, that is my opinion.

8816.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) From an answer that you gave to Professor Brown are we to understand that if the udder does not show traces of disease then in your opinion the milk is not allected?From the evidence which was before me when I was in that district, I am rather inclined to think that way,

8817.nbsp; Do you know of any cases occurring in fowls ?No, I cannot say that I do.

8818. Did you notice in the Rhins district any excessive mortality amongst the fowls ?No; they were notfywl keepers there to the same extent that 1 know them to bo keepers of fowls in Ireland.

881i). Slill there were a considerable number of fowls on the farm, I suppose, of which you speak ? I cannot say as to whether they wore on that particular farm.

8820.nbsp; In your experience, is there a greater proportion of tuberculosis in the towns than in the country ?I was speaking more particularly of cuttle that are presented at some of the ports for embarkation, and of course they are then in the town, but they have really come from the country.

8821.nbsp; Then you have given us an account of a great many animals which you found afibcted with tuberculosis at the time of slaughter. At the time did you take any particular notice of the distribution of the disease in the body ?No; but some carcases were condemned on account of it as unlit for food.

8822.nbsp; Butj-ou cannot say whether the disease was more in the abdomen or in the thorax, or in the joint, or in the muscle, or in any part of the body ?No, I cannot; because I did not make any examinations of the body with the exception of those cases that my attention was immediately directed to.

8823.nbsp; And in those cases?And in those cases the thorax cavity was affected more than anything else.

8824.nbsp; Do you believe the disease to be hereditary ? That is a very difficult question to give an answer to, and I do not think that I have got sufficient evidence before me to admit of my giving a scientific opinion.

8825.nbsp; But you believe that it is transmitted by inhalation ?I do.

8826.nbsp; Do you think it may be transmitted by water or excreta ?I ha^e no evidence to make me think that it will, but if you take it by inference, by inference ' would say that it is probable that it could bo transmitted. When the bowels are affected, then of course there would be affected excreta of the animal, just the same as when the udder is affected, the milk would be liable to give it, and when the lungs are affected, in my opinion the breath is liable to transmit the disease.

8827.nbsp; {Chairman.) Do you think that in the absence of specific information with reference to tuberculosis, it would be desirable that further experiments and investigations should be made on the subject ?I do.

8828.nbsp; Do you think also that further investigation is necessary as regards pleuro-pneumonia?I do not think so.

8829.nbsp; Not even for scientific purposes ?Yes, I daresay that some information could be gained.

8830.nbsp; But you would not think it desirable that the present operations of the compulsory slaughter order should be withheld while such experiments were being made ?No, certainly not.

Mr. M. Hedlty, M.R.C. V.S.

1 June 1888.

\ i

ill

The witness withdrew. Adjourned till Monday next at 12 o'clock.

o (14003.

N n

282

OOMMITTEE ON PLEUKO-PNI5UMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

SEVENTEENTH DAY.

Monday, 4th June 1888.

Lord Cloncukry. Mu. Bowen-Jones.

PKESKNT:

Mu. JACOB WILSON in THE Chair.

Pbopbssob Brown, C.B. Propessob Horsi.ky, F.K.S.

Mb. Richard Dawson, Secretary.

Prof. T. Carroll

4 Juno 1888

Professor Thomas Carroll, Superintendont of the Agricultural Department of National Education,

Ireland, called and examined.

8831.nbsp; (Chairman.) T believe you reside at the Albert Model Farm, Glasnevin ?I do.

8832.nbsp; And you are there the Superintendent of the Agricultural Department of National Education, Ireland ?Yes.

8833.nbsp; How many cattle may you have had under your direct control at Glasnevin ?From 45 to GO cows.

8834.nbsp; Arc those exclusively for dairy purposes ? Yes.

8835.nbsp; In addition to the cows, have you any other farm stock?We generally rear half-a-dozen calves each year.

8836.nbsp; Have you personally had much experience of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes.

8837.nbsp; Have you had much experience of pleuro-pneumonia upon the model farm of Glasnevin ?In 1854 and 1855, when 1 was u pu|)il at this institution, there was a very large number of cattle affected with plouro-pneumon'ia at that time, and since 188Ü wo have had two considerable outbreaks on the farm. That is since I have taken my present position there.

8838.nbsp; Was the farm ever really free from disease in the early stages of the outbreaks ?From 18GO, and since the system of not purchasing cattle in the Dublin markets has been practised, the farm has been comparatively free from disease.

8839.nbsp; Previously to that you attribute the frequent outbreaks of disease at the farm to the purchase of cows in Dublin market ?Quito so.

8840.nbsp; Has the disease been very rife in the neighbourhood of the farm ?Yes, in the neighbourhood of the farm. The dairymen of Dublin send their cows to grass in the early summer, and immediately (hose cows are sent out the neighbourhood becomes full of disease.

8841.nbsp; That I take it is on the north side of Dublin ? On the north side of Dublin I am speaking of.

8842.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee of any instance which you can clearly trace the disease to that origin ?In 1883 an outbreak occurred on the 6th of June; we bad not purchased cattle about that time, but the disease appeared in the neighbourhood and on a neighbouring farm. My impression of the cause of the outbreak on our farm was from some of the pupils who went to see sick animals in the neighbouring farm, and that they brought the contagion in that way.

8843.nbsp; What is your general opinion of the means by which disease is communicated from one animal to another?I am very strongly of opinion that contact must bo the meansthat the diseased cattle must be in close proximity to the cattle affected, but here I could not trace any occasion where our cows had been i:i contact witli diseased cows.

8844.nbsp; May I ask you, when had been the last introduction of fresh cows on the farm prior to that outbreak ?About four months previously.

8845.nbsp; nbsp;Did you trace the previous history of those cows?Yes, and they came from a district where there was no disease.

8846.nbsp; How many cattle were affected in this outbreak ?Nine from 6th of June to 15th of July, nine cattle became affected, and I had those nine killed.

8847.nbsp; Were they in a shed by themselves ?They were in a shed by themselves. The farm, I may say, is divided into three portionsa large portion of 145 acresa medium sized farm of 25 acres; and a small spade labour farm of 6 acres, each having its own stock, and kept entirely separate. The outbreak o.i this occasion took place on the medium sized farm, and the farm buildings on this larm are some considerable distance away from the large farm buildings, but adjoining the small farm buildings.

8848.nbsp; nbsp;May I ask yon what distance were the medium sized buildings from the small farm ?They are part of the same block. I had the animals slaughtered on both farms, four cows on the small farm and nine cows on the large farm, I should say the intermediate farm.

8849.nbsp; nbsp;Were the whole of the nine animals regarded as diseased ?Yes.

8850.nbsp; And did you regard the four animals as animals in contact only ?Quite so.

8851.nbsp; nbsp;Did you make a post-mortem of the whole of them ?I saw the whole of the lungs of the lot of the cattle.

8852.nbsp; Will you tell the Committee what was the result of that examination ?I found the lungs of the nine cows very much diseased indeed, the lungs of the four cows were not diseased at nil. It appeared to be a very virulent type of the disease, and went through very rapidly.

8853.nbsp; Have you any reason to believe from your post-mbrtem examination that any one of the nine animals which were affected had shown symptoms of a previous attack of pleuro-pneumonia ?I should not think so at all. It appeared to have been of recent origin.

8864. Was there no appearance of an encystment in the lungs ?No.

8855.nbsp; And you feel that you cannot attribute this outbreak to direct contact ?No.

8856.nbsp; nbsp;Have you had any more recent outbreak ? Wo had an outbreak commencing on the 19th November 1884,

8857.nbsp; nbsp;Will you kindly describe the circumstances connected with it ?The first animal was noticed on the 18th ; she was killed on the 19tli. The next on the

MIN^uT]flS OF UVIDMNOE.

283

22n(l; oho .inimal killed. On tlio 24th ono animal; 27tli, four animttls; December 4th, one animal, 9th one, 13th ono, 18th ono, 22ml ono, 23rd ono, 24th two, 28th one ; January 1st, 1885, ono, 3rd two, 4th two, 6th two, 15th one.

8laquo;58. Am I correct in assuming that 24 animalraquo; were affected during that outbreak ?Yes, on tho largo farm.

8859. Will you tell tho Committoo how many cattle you had on the largo farm at that time ?Thirty-nine.

8800. Were those nil cows?Thirty-four cows, four calves, and a bull.

8861. Wore the rest of the animals in contact with these diseased animals ?Yes.

8802. What was the result of tho outbreak to these 24 animals ?Twenty-four wcro killed by order of tho local authority; 15, together with four from tho other farm, which had been in contact, were slaughtered by direction of the Commissioners of National Education.

8863.nbsp; Was a post-mortem examination made on the whole of these carcasses ?Yes.

8864.nbsp; And can you give us the result of that postmortem examination ?All the 24 killed by order of the authority were found to be diseased.

8865.nbsp; Were all these showing symptoms of recent cases ?Yes.

8866.nbsp; And what was the result of the examination of those which were in contact only ?The animal supposed to have had disease, which was allowed to live for some time, as there was a doubt about her, was found, on tho post-mortem examination, to have had the right lung affected, and this cow would probably have lived, in fact, may certainly have lived. Nine cows were found to be free from pleuro-pneumonia. There was a difference of opinion between the veterinary inspector and the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, and the inspector of the local authority. I understand that in the case of five, four wore pronounced to bo pleuro-pneumonia, and one not to be pleuro-pneumonia, by the referee who was to decide the case.

8867.nbsp; Are you aware whether symptoms of any other disease were observed in any of the carcasses ? In the case of two there was an appearance of tuberculosis.

8868.nbsp; To what do you attribute this outbreak in 1884 and 1885 ?At the Dublin railways there are cattle depots where the cattle are discharged from the railways coming from the country. The agriculturist at tho model farm met a dealer at one of those places, and the dealer sold him live cows, to be delivered at this depot. Four of these cows were bought from a dealer named Commall, and ono from a dealer named Mulready. Tho cow bought from Mulready was the cow first attacked with pleuro-pneumonia on the 18th November. Those cows were bought on the lOth September. This cow was kept in a dealer's yard from Saturday till Monday. My impression is that she must have been in contact with cows there, because at that time disease was very prevalent in county Kildare.

8869.nbsp; I daresay you are familiar with the agricultural conditions of Ireland generally ?I know something about it.

8870.nbsp; And with such information as you possess, can you tell the Committee in what part of Ireland the diseane is most prevalent ?Mainly in the neighbourhood of Dublin; Dublin, Meath, Louth, and co. Kildare.

8871.nbsp; And to what do you attribute the more frequent outbreaks in tho neighbourhood of Dublin ? Well, I should speak very plainly upon that point entirely to the malpractices of many Dublin dairymen.

8872.nbsp; What is your opinion of the general sanitary condition of Dublin dairies and cowsheds ?I believe that they are in a most unsatisfactory condition. Tho animals in many cases are very badly housed and kept. I believe that in many cases it is almost impossible to

detect disease, and I believe that in many eases all the provisions for its detection and prevention ore evaded.

8873.nbsp; Therefore, I gather that ono of the. causes of tho frequent outbreaks is tho secrecy which exists, and the reluctance to report the outbreaks of disease ? 1 believe that.

8874.nbsp; nbsp;There is a custom, is there not, of tho cows in Dublin dairies being removed therefrom during the summer months to farms at some distance from tho city ?Yes.

8875.nbsp; Do you in any way attribute the frequency of outbreaks to such an arrangement ?Those are clearly traceable. We have the cattle going to tho districts, and disease at once breaks out. I may also mention matters that have been reported, Dealers frequently buy what are called dry cows, that is, barren cows, take them into tho country fairs and sell them as stores, because thoy can bo sold at u much higher price as country cattle than as Dublin cattle.

8876.nbsp; Apart from the danger of transmitting diaease from one infected place to another, do you not consider that the fact of the cows having remained in an unnatural condition during the six winter mouihs in the Dublin dairy yards unfits thorn for going into the fields again, and makes them more susceptible of the disease ?Possibly; but I do not for a moment think that the disease may be generated in the Dublin dairy yards, but I believe they are more susceptible to disease coming from the close shedstho dairy yards.

8877.nbsp; I mean that their constitution is impaired by an unnatural system of feeding, and also of living in a close atmosphere ?Quite so.

8878.nbsp; And that they became more susceptible to disease and to risk from contagion ?Yes, I believe that.

8879.nbsp; Would you, therefore, think it advisable that if cows are to be kept in the Dublin dairy yards that they ought to be fed all the year round there by food taken to the animals instead of the animals being taken to the food ?If the Dublin district could be freed onco from pleuro-pnoumocia, I believe certainly tho cheapest course for tho dairymen would be tho summer pasture and the house feeding in winter, and if the district could be freed onco from pleuro-pneumonia I do not see why that should not go on.

8880.nbsp; nbsp;But looking generally to the interests of tho community, would it not be desirable that the cows should remain always outside in tho country districts in tho neighbourhood of Dublin?Yes, I should like to see Dublin supplied with milk from tiie country. I should also like to see tho Dublin corporation take the matter in hand, and either erect, or compel to be erected, properly constructed dairy yards either in suitable districts within the city or outside the city.

8881.nbsp; Is it not a fact that there is some equivalent in Ireland for what is known as the Dairy and Milk-shops Act in England ?Yes, dairy yards must bo registered and subject to inspection.

8882.nbsp; nbsp;Do you desire to go beyond this provision of tho Act?I should like to see the corporation take tho matter up and insist upon better dairy yards being constructed. I had an idea at ono time that tho corporation might build dairy yards on tho principle of the artisans' dwellings, and let those out at reasonable rents to dairymen who would like them.

8883.nbsp; nbsp;Mas such a suggestion been made to the corporation within your knowledge ?Not that I know of.

8884.nbsp; nbsp;Is tho present system of inspection to your mind satisfactory ?I am afraid it is not.

8885.nbsp; By whom aro tho inspectors appointed ?By tho unions.

8886.nbsp; Are these inspectors generally members of tho veterinary profession ?No.

8887.nbsp; To what class do_i they belong ?I know the inspector of dairy yards of the North Dublin Union, ho is a man of ordinary education.

8888.nbsp; Has he any medical knowledge?I should think not.

N n 2

Prof. r. CanoU,

4 Juno 1888.

I \

!!,,

111

284

COMMITTEK ON I'LÜURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEIMJULOSIS:

Prof. T, Carroll.

8880. Would you think it desirable that an inspector should liavü some knowledge of the veterinary art ?1 think so.

8890.nbsp; nbsp;Have you found generally Umt the Act of 1878 lias worked in a satisfactory manner?I believe there is a great deal of evasion.

8891.nbsp; Can you suaKost any means by which that might be obviated?There is a hirge number of inspectors, and possibly more inspection from the central department might bo better than the local authority.

f;H*)2. You desire, therefore, I gather, that the Act WJuld be more satisfactory if administered from a central authority rather than through a local authority ?For a time, I should say so.

8893.nbsp; At any rate, that should be so during the time of any compulsory order for slaughter? Quite so.

8894.nbsp; You are conversant, I presume, with the manner in which the recent compulsory order has been nanic.Iout in Dublin?Yes.

8S95, Sc far as you know, has that been carried out in laquo; satisfactory manner?I believe it has.

8896 Are you of opinion that it will have satisfactory rofults?Yes, if carried out fairly.

8897.nbsp; Though it may not show very immediate results ?I believe if carried out fairly, that certainly within three or four years we should be free of plenro-pneumonia in Dublin.

8898.nbsp; Have you any reason to believe that infected animals have escaped during the time that this order has been in force ? I cannot say that they have. I may say that the time for putting the order in force has been opportune; it is just at the time of turning the cattle out into pasture.

8899.nbsp; Does the present system of compensation satisfy you ?So far, yes.

8900.nbsp; Hweyou any thing further to suggest as likely to amend it ?The compensation at the present time, I think, ought to be perfectly satisfactory, because the taking up of the whole of the animals of the Dublin dairyman at this season does not mean that the restriction put upon his place would prevent his continuing his trade. At the present time he can take grasj in the country, and buy cows and continue his trade, but if this were to occur in the winter time, it would be extremely serious for dairymen, because of the ccstrictlons put upon their yards, they could not replace their cows for several days and their trade would be interfered with.

8901.nbsp; nbsp;What reason have you to assume that, if the whole of the cattle in the yard should be slaughtered, it may not be re-occupied immediately ?The difficulty of procuring cows.

8902.nbsp; Would that be the only difficulty ?Yes.

8903.nbsp; Do you consider that the present compulsory slaughter of cows has in any way caused inconvenience to the milk supply of Dublin ?I do not think that it has. I think that it will improve the future supply of milk in Dublin, because it has caused the railways to reduce their rales for milk carriage, and I think that we shall have milk coming in from the country.

8904.nbsp; Do you hope that it maybe a means of inducing country milk sellers to send their milk to Dublin ? Yes.

8905.nbsp; nbsp;With reference to compensation, I wish to ask you whether you have ever heard a desire expressed on the part of the owners of dairy cows for compensation for loss of trade beyond the actual value of the cow itself ?When the order was about being put into force at all, it was very generally considered that loss of trade ought to ho compensated for j but it has been found, as far as I can make out, that there has been no such loss of trade, for the reasons I have just mentioned, that the people could buy their cows and provide for the supply of milk.

8906.nbsp; nbsp;What is the loss on compensation paid for animnls compulsorily slaughtered ?1 found that a lot of cows were ordered for slaughter by the authority and the price naid to us was on an averngc 12/. 13laquo;. 8d.;

for the cows sold for slaughter the price averaged 11/. 14.laquo;. 9d.

8907.nbsp; Therefore the loss of snlvago was not very groat ?Not very great.

8908.nbsp; (Professor Jlorslci/.) Have you any experience respecting the conveyance of the contagion by virus, by its supposed carriage on clothes ? Yc/u stated to us, I think, that it was supposed in one instance to bo carried by students?I am rather afraid that that was the case.

8909.nbsp; Have you any other case ?No, I have not any other case.

8910.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any case in which there was any reason to suppose that the woodwork of the shed was infected ?No.

8911.nbsp; nbsp;And do you believe in the possibility of such a thing ?I am rather inclined to think that the disease must bo by contact from animal to animal; but this was a case of outbreak which could not be traced to any contact, and it was known that the pupils went into a farm where disease existed and came back, and I think that that looks very much as if the disease had been brought in in that way.

8912.nbsp; But then have you not met with or heard of cases in which the disease has lain dormant in an animal for something like four months?I believe that is so.

8913.nbsp; nbsp;Then the animals that you speak of would come from a district where the disease existed ? No.

8914.nbsp; You were speaking just now respecting the compensation for loss of trade. Supposing stamping out by slaughter to be effected in the winter, do you think that that would be a just measure, that compensation should be paid for loss of trade ?I think so.

891.0. From what fund would you propose to obtain the compensation ?I believe there is a residue of the cattle, plague fund for Ireland, and it might come from that. That might be exhausted, and perhaps another rate would be struck to provide a fund.

8916.nbsp; nbsp;If, as you suggested just now, you would have the inspection and the authorities generally respecting the disease vested in a central authority, you would not propose that the money for compen sation should come from the Imperial Exchequer ? AVell, if it could be got I should like it, but I think that Ireland should provide its own fund.

8917.nbsp; nbsp;I mean to say that the money would come from ihe Government funds and not from the local rate ?I think that local rates should in part bear the cost, because the benefit to the country would be great.

8918.nbsp; But I was referring more especially to this case for which loss of business was to be compensated ? Yes.

8919.nbsp; Do you suppose that there would be opposition among any of the ether tradesmen to pay such a rate ?I think there would be a very considerable opposition.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;lt;

8920.nbsp; Do you think it would be feasible to propose such a measure ;'It might be carried, but with very great opposition. The Dublin dairymen get a very high price for the milk, and the Dublin people will consider that the rate in aid of those men would be a hardship.

8921.nbsp; nbsp;Then, at any rate, you believe that, practically, the carrying out of such a measure would be attended with very great difficulties?I believe it would.

8922.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr, Boivcn-Joms.) To what do you attribute the deception and the malpractices, as you term it, of the Dublin dairymen, if they get compensation for their animals being slaughtered for pleuro-pneu-monia ?To the restrictions put. upon their yards interfering very seriously with the trade. Take it that a dairyman has 200 cows, An outbreak of disease occurs, he loses .50 of those cows in three months. The 56 days will overlap, and it will take a very long time before he is allowed to bring cattle into that yard.

4 June 188(


	ilii
	i
	i r

MINUTES OF KVIUKNCE.

285

8923.nbsp; nbsp; The dairies aro liable to inspection in Dublin ?Yes.

8924.nbsp; How can a Dublin dairyman deceive the authorities if disease exists in ills dairies ?The Dublin dairymen are particularly sharp about cattle disease ; they see very quickly, and possibly before the inspector can, the diseased animal. That animal is removed at night.

8925.nbsp; Then the practice of deception is going on and they are all the time disguising the disease ? Yes, it goes on very extensively.

8920- That being the case, aro you of opinion that the Act of 1878 by itself would not be sufficient to remove plenro-pneumonia from the Dublin dairies ? I feel very certain about it.

8927.nbsp; Do you think that the slaughter order that is now being carried out, followed up persistently, will have that good etfect ?I believe it will.

8928.nbsp; Could you suggest any other means of getting rid of disease short of that; any less drastic means ? I do not think so for a moment.

8929.nbsp; Have you had any experience in inoculation ? I have not tried inoculation. I have read a good deal about it. I have seen some animals that have been inoculated, and I have no faith whatever in it.

8930.nbsp; You do not think that the inoculation, with the slaughter of diseased animals, would be sufficient to eradicate the disease ?I do not think so. I think that by careful slaughtering and close inspection the disease may be eradicated in a very short time, and considering now that during 1887 only 1,819 animals were slaughtered because of the disease; of course that does not represent the number diseased, but it shows that the disease, as compared with laquo;even yerrs, is decreasing. Taking that into consideration I believe that the slaughter will very shortly eradicate the disease from Ireland.

8931.nbsp; But even with slaughtering, if the disease is hidden, kept secret, it must still linger on and break out again and again from time to time. How will you get over that difficulty ?With careful inspection, and with fair compensation and slaughter, I believe you would get rid of it.

8932.nbsp; Would not an order or regulation preventing the Dublin dairymen taking their animals from dairies to the summer pastures facilitate that ?Very much indeed. I believe that if an order were madeif the Dublin dairymen were compelled to keep their cattle in the city, and not allow them to leave the dairy yards alive, that that would help it very much.

8933.nbsp; Would it be very unjust to propose carrying out such an order ?I do not think so. I remember, as a boy, seeing the late Mr. Roper's dairy. Ho was the first; he was the great dairyman of the country. His system was, that once a cow ceased to give less than eight quarts of milk she was fattened for the butcher; in fact, he always replaced dairy cows by the sale of fat cows. That is what we do at (ilasnevin, and we sell large quantities of milk, about 2,000/. worth a year, and that is our system. We never sell a store, or dairy cow as such.

8934.nbsp; nbsp;Is there any more difficulty in the feeding of dairy cows in Dublin than there is in a large city like London, or Birmingham, or Manchester ?Not at all.

8935.nbsp; nbsp;Would you approve of any system by which the cattle that were brought in the dairies in Dublin or elsewhere were branded in a conspicuous place, so as to make it less possible by the evasion of the law taking them out?I think that would bo quite neces-

^salT-

8936.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing that these Dublin dairymen, as I

believe they have, possess or rent lands in the country that they now take their dairy cows to, could not their young stock be reared there, and could they not supplement the old with other purchased stock to feed without losing very much ?There are very few of the Dublin dairymen who hold land. They generally rent land in the summer months at so much per acre or so much per cow for a week. Very few hold farms.

8937.nbsp; That being the case, supposing the dairy

cows were confined to the dairies, the dairymen would not suffer, they would simply not have to rent the land ? They would purchase food.

8938.nbsp; They would sustain no indirect loss by the system I have suggested being pursued ? They cannot feed their cows in Dublin as cheaply as they can pasture them in the country. They get the pasturage from 3s. to 5raquo;. per week each, and they could not feed them in the town at such a rate as that.

8939.nbsp; If they liked to pursue such a policy, they could discontinue their dairy in the town, and open dairies in the country by renting land in suitable places?They might do that, and I believe at the present time some of the dairymen bring milk from the country and retail it at a largo profit.

8940.nbsp; From what you say, I gather that you do not think tha¹; any great injustice would bo done to the existing trade in Dublin, by carrying out either one or other of those plans of which I have been speaking ? No, I do not think so, with fair compensation.

8941.nbsp; Could yon tell us what per-centage of supply of milk that comes into Dublin is supplied from the country districts at the present time ?I am afraid I cannot venture an opinion upon that; but, certainly, I should think, perhaps, 0 to 10 per cent.

8942.nbsp; And you see no difficulty in that being augmented?None whatever. At the South Dublin Union the milk is already sent from the county of Cork, which is a long way across Ireland, at a very much less price than the Dublin men are getting for it

8943.nbsp; Has the price of milk been increased by the slaughter order being put into force ?Not at all.

8944.nbsp; If such is the case at a particular crisis, are you of opinion that there would be no difficulty in the future when there is time to make arrangements ? There would not be any difficulty.

8945.nbsp; Do you think that it would be important at this particular juncture, while this drastic system is being pursued, thai; the action on the part of the local authorities should be suspended and the central authority take their place in carrying out the cattle regulations ? I believe it would contribute to harmonious working. I know that there has been a good deal of friction between the two, and to avoid that as you say for the present it would be desirable to have it administered direct from the central authority.

8946.nbsp; Pr-wided that the central authority took the matter in hand, what lapse of time would take place before the disease might be exterminated ?I think, certainly, within four years.

8947.nbsp; nbsp;You have no doubt within your own mind that it could be exterminated ?None whatever.

8948.nbsp; {Lord Cloncwri/.) In the case of that outbreak in 1883 on the neighbouring farm near you, you said that the disease might have been brought there by the students' clothes, and so forth, Could the cattle have broken the fences and got mixed ? Quite impossible.

8949.nbsp; nbsp;So you think they could not have been in contact, and there was no way of getting in contact ? There was no means of such contact.

8950.nbsp; Well, there can ba only one other means. Could it be possible that these cows that your superintendent bought at the railway depot could have been, without his knowledge, supplied by a fraudulent dealer as a country cow and yet have been a Dublin cow ?That might have been done, but this man waited at the station and saw the cows come out of the truck. They might have been, but I do not think that this diseased cow was a Dublin cow, because the general appearance of such is short hair, which shows them to be house-fed cattle.

8951.nbsp; But it is within your knowledge that Dnbliquot; dealers occasionally do remove cattle by night, and sell dry cattle ns country stores, whereas in reality they aro Dublin cows ?I know cowi that havo been brought into the .slaughter-house and they havo never been inspected, and they have been brought in for sale. The other matter is a matter of general know-

Prof. T. Carwell.

4 June 1888.

III

'ii

4 11

28(::

COMJim'JUE ON 1'LEUllO-l'NBUMONU AND TUBKUOUL08I8:

Prof. T. Canol.

4 Juno 1888

lolt;lge, that tho cows nrc sent from Dublin into tno ooantry to bo sold, because thoy soil them at a higher price in the country faira. A grazier would not think 01'buying Dublin-fed oows in the market.

8952.nbsp; In 1884 your buyer might possibly have been imposed upon and brought it in that way ?It would be possible.

8953.nbsp; I suppose tho general rule is that plouro-pneumonia would not be curried by tho clothes of poi'sons visiting from one place to another ?I never felt that it could.

8954.nbsp; {Chairman.) Have you had any personal experience of tuberculosis ?Except in tho slaughtering of those animals, we found three cows with lungs aft'ectcd.

8955.nbsp; Was there anything in the external appear-unco of the animal to indicate the existence of tuberculosis ?No.

8956.nbsp; May we giithor from this that pleuro-pnou-monia and tuberculosis are capable of being mistaken the one for the other in tho living animal ?I could not say so from what I have seen in those cases, and I should lather doubt the mnttor. The three cows that were affected with tuberculosis appeared apparently healthy, and the lungs were not much aflectod. There were two affected parts, and another ouc, it was not a very aggravated case.

8957.nbsp; Do you find that tuberculosis shows itself in any part other than tho lungs?Not nt all.

8958.nbsp; Have you ever observed tuberculosis amongst other animals on the farm at Glasnevin?No; I may say when I lived in England I Lad a very highly bred shorthorn bull. This animal got scrofulous swellings in his throat and nose. There were none of his calves that I could find out affected, but in a very

large number of tho second generation in our herd I know of 10 cows having to be sold because of tho outbreak of scrofula. I have no doubt that it passed one generation to the next.

8959.nbsp; Have you any reason to think that tho disease is on the increase ? I cannot say that it is. My impression of the condition of the disease of cattle in England and Ireland is that our Irish cattle are very much freer from disease than tho English cattle. There ia a disease not at all uncommon in tho Midlands, known locally as quot; grapes.quot; It is an affection of tho stomach. Tuberculosis affects the lungs.

8960.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) Do you say that it was in tho stomach ?Yes; it was in Leicestershire. They have killed them for what is locally callod grapes. It appeared to be a cancerous disease in the stomach. The animal would pine away and become much aflec-ted with diarrhoea.

8961.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman.) In which stomach? In tho first stomach.

8962.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) On tho outside?On the inside. It has the appearance of a bunch of grapes. It is known very well at a fair j a grazier will say quot; that cow is graped.quot;

8963.nbsp; {Chairman.) Do you consider tuberculosis is a disease sufficiently important to be included in tho Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act ?I quite think so. I may say that in Sweden they are exceedingly particular about it. Four years ago I was in Sweden, and I heard a great deal there of the feeling of the Swedes about tuberculosis.

8964.nbsp; And you would further consider that owners ought to be compensated for animals slaughtered com-pulsorily for tuberculosis ?1 quite think so.

The witness withdrew.

I'¹

Mr. A. Lawler, C

Peter A. Lawlek, M.E.C.V.S., Teterinary Inspector to the South Dublin Union, called in and examined.

8965.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman?) You arc, I believe, a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ?Yes.

8966.nbsp; And reside at 16, Westland Row, Dublin ? Yes.

8967.nbsp; nbsp;You are veterinary surgeon also of the South Dublin Union ?Yes.

8968.nbsp; nbsp;How long have you held that position ?. Since July 187711 years.

8969.nbsp; During that time have you had frequent opportunities of observing pleuro-pneumonia ?Very much indeed.

8970.nbsp; Have your duties been confined to the South Dublin district ?Yes.

8971.nbsp; You are conversant, I presume, with the recent compulsory order for slaughter which has been put in operation in Dublin ?Yes,

8972.nbsp; Was that adopted by the South Dublin Union ?No, it was not.

8973.nbsp; And upon what grounds did they decline to adopt it ?Well, the majority of the guardians, at least some, a good many of thein, being owners of land and farmers and agriculturists, came to the con-elusion that it would not be effectual ; they also, which I think was a very largo way against it, say that if it was, the rates would bo struck off the two unions. I think if it had been struck off the whole of Ireland thoy would have carried it out.

8974.nbsp; Then their objections were twofoldfirst, they did not think that it would be effectual; secondly, that thoy considered that tho rates imposed for tho compensation would be inequitable ?Yes.

8975 What were the circumstances connected with the South Dublin Union that made it different from any other union or part of Ireland ?It would nffect the South Dublin Uniou and tho North Dublin Union more than any other unions, on account of having so many dairy cattle in these unions and so many restrictions which would affect them.

8976. Were there any deputations on the subject ? Yes, there was deputations of both, and both unions were unanimous in refusing it.

8977.nbsp; nbsp;Was the union desirous that some other form of treatment should be adopted?Yes, they were.

8978.nbsp; What was the particular form of treatment that they wished to see adopted ?They believed in a certain extent in inoculation.

8979.nbsp; To what extent; did they believe that it gave immunity from disease ?Yes, as far . as my evidence wont with them.

8980.nbsp; Have you personally tried inoculation as a form of treatment for pleuro-pneumonia ?I have as a preventive.

8981.nbsp; nbsp;I take it for granted that you accept tho doctrine of pleuro-pneumonia being an incurable disease ?I do.

8982.nbsp; What has been the result of your observations on inoculation ?It has proved successful in every place that 1 have done it, as far as I ever could obtain any evidence with regard to it.

8983.nbsp; And you consider, therefore, that inoculation of the animals in contact with diseased animals would give them immunity from the disease in future ?It has proved so with me.

8984.nbsp; Are you aware whether there are many exceptions in other cases ?Yes, I believe so.

8985.nbsp; Do you consider it part of your duty to make post-mortem examinations of animals which have been inoculated by you ?I do.

8986.nbsp; nbsp;Can you toll tho Committee what you have found ; have you any returns in reference to specific cases ?I only made the examination with regard to some animals that wore slaughtered at the abattoir during the compulsory slaughter that I had inoculated in an infected yard.

8987.nbsp; nbsp;You say some of the animals. Did you examine all the animals out-of the same yard ?No, I did not.

8988.nbsp; nbsp;Upon what principle did you make your selection ?I made my selection from fresh cattle that had been bought about a week previously to the outbreak of the disease.

MINUTE8 OF KVJDUNOE,

8989.nbsp; Can you givo us a definito statomont of animals inoculated by you ?The first time that I tried inoculation was in November 1880.

8990.nbsp; May I ask you where that was ?It was on the Harolds Cross Road, outside of Dublin.

8991.nbsp; And to whom did these cattle belong?To a man named Cullen.

8992.nbsp; Wore they in a yard or field ?They were in a yard.

8993.nbsp; At what time of the year was it ?In the month of November.

8994.nbsp; How many cattle were there inoculated at that time ?At that time 86.

8995.nbsp; What was the total number of cattle in the yard ?94.

8996.nbsp; Why do you omit the small number to which you refer ?They were fat and about to be slaughtered in three days afterwards.

8997.nbsp; Had those animals been under restriction at any time that you are aware of?Not to my knowledge.

8998.nbsp; Were they under restrictions at the time of the operation ?No.

8999.nbsp; Were any of the animals to which you refer as having been operated upon, afterwards taken away as cases of pleuro-pneumonia ?No, never.

9000.nbsp; Have any animals, not in this case alone, but in other cases after inoculation, been taken away as subjects of pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes, one animal; but in that case the inoculation did not take.

9001.nbsp; Did you examine the cattle at the abattoir under the Slaughter Order, No. 61?I examined some of them ; well, about 50 of them.

9002.nbsp; What method did you pursue in performing the operation in the case of the 86 ?Taking the virus from a diseased lung and inoculating the end of the tail, passing the seton through.

9003.nbsp; What was the effect of that upon the tails; how many had you to amputate ?At first I amputated about 14 or 15 out ofthat number, but of late, within the last seven months, I did not amputate at all.

9004.nbsp; Out of that number did any of the animals die from the operation ?None.

Ö005. Have you frequently lost animals from inoculation ?I never lost one except once, and that was at the owner's risk, because he would not let me amputate the tail.

9006.nbsp; What further evidence have you to give with reference to the 86 ?Out of 86 cattle inoculated, 20 of them were removed last year by license to grass, about seven miles from Dublin, to a place called Woodtown. They were put on to three small fields in the centre of a farm which is let in subdivisions to about 15 different dairymen. Disease broke out in this farm, and it was a regular hotbed of disease for the summer months, so much so that I think I was removing from six to ten beasts a week from it suffering from pleuro-pneumonia ; it was a very dry season, and those 20 cattle were in want of grass and were being fed on the grass with grains, and they were constantly breaking backwards and forwards to the other herds, and they were removed back again in the month of November by license, and they never contracted the disease.

9007.nbsp; Can you givo any other illustrations of inoculation ?I inoculated beasts in an infected yard.

9008.nbsp; Will you givo the name of the place, if you please ?Daniel Mearns, of Irish Town.

9009.nbsp; What is the date of that operation ?On the 20th January 1888.

9010.nbsp; nbsp;What was the number of cattle operated upon ?-12 in one yard.

9011.nbsp; nbsp;What was the total number in the yard? 13, there was one animal reported suffering from pleuro -pneumonia.

9012.nbsp; nbsp;What was the result of the operation ? The result of it was that three of them became infected of pleuro-pneumonia within the week.

9013.nbsp; nbsp;From which statement do I correctly gather that they had been infected before the operation ? Yes, and that the virus had not taken at the time. But in the next yard there were 14 animals, it was

only joined by a passage, but the same men wore feeding and milking. Those animals all remained perfectly healthy.

9014. Will you tell mo what you consider the means by which plouro-pneumonia is usually convoyed from one animal to another?Well, my idea is that it will bo only conveyed by the animals iu the same yard, that it will remain in or about the promises, but I. do not think, as far as my knowledge goes, that it could bo carried by a man from one to the other.

901 ö. Have you anything further to say with reference to this particular enso ?No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

9016.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any further cases which you can illustrate ?Well, in Fagau's it was under restrictions.

9017.nbsp; nbsp;Where was that situated ?2G, Richmond Street.

9018.nbsp; nbsp;What time of the year did that take place ? January 17, of this year.

9019.nbsp; nbsp;How many cattle were there operated upon ? 65.

JJfr.

P. A. Lawlct,

M.li.C.V.S.

4 .Tim.! 1888.

What was the total number of cattle in

the

9020.

65 in the yard, and 55 operated upon. What became of the others ?They were removed diseased before the operation.

9022.nbsp; nbsp;And were they under restrictions at the time ?They were.

9023.nbsp; And for what ?For pleuro-pneumonia.

9024.nbsp; And previous to you being called in to the 65, five animals had been previously infected ? Yes.

9025.nbsp; nbsp;So that 10 animals altogether fell affected with the disease ?Yes.

9026.nbsp; What was the result of your operation in this case ?All the animals remained perfectly healthy after that, with the exception of one, and this animal was removsd .six weeks afterwards suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; but at the time I told the owner that I did not believe that the Inoculation had taken, although I inoculated the second time, yet I do not believe it bad ever taken.

9027.nbsp; Is it your practice to observe the effects of your operation day by day ?Not clay by day, about every third or fourth clay.

9028.nbsp; And was that clone in this particular case ? It wo,s.

9029.nbsp; Might I ask whether you were called in as an expert to perform the operation, or whether you were called in in your position of a veterinary inspector ?I was first called as veterinary inspector, and afterwards to perform the operation ofquot; inoculation.

9030.nbsp; Then your functions were, in the first place. as veterinary inspector acting on behalf of the local authority ?Yes.

9031.nbsp; And secondly, you were acting on behalf of the owner ?Yes.

90.32. I suppose I may ask what was the amount of fee allowed for inoculation, as it is a new subject to us ?Half-a-crown each beast.

9033.nbsp; That is for the one operation ?Yes.

9034.nbsp; Did you keep a careful eye upon those animals for some time afterwards ?I did.

9035.nbsp; Was there anything special noticed with reference to them ?Nothing more than some of the tails dropped off and abscesses formed on the back, nothing more than that.

9036.nbsp; Is it your opinion, as well as that of the guardians of the South Dublin Union, that the compulsory slaughter order is an unnecessary form of trentmont ?It is my opinion that it would not he successful in being carried out, unless all the animals within a radius of 10 miles of Dublin wore slaughtered.

9037.nbsp; But even then, might not other nnimnls come in from other parts and bring disease with them ? Yes, they might.

9038.nbsp; Do wo gather from that, that all the animals within a radius of 10 miles of Dublin are in a state of disease, or exposed to disease?1 believe all the herds of animals within a radius of 10 miles of Dublin, if they were all slaughtered, that there would be very

i^:

-H!

'. 1

288

COMMITTEE ON KiEURO-PNEÜMONlA AND TUBEROUIiOSIS!

Jfr. P. A. Lawler, M.H.C.V.S.

A June 1888.

fow exceptions that you wouKl not find somo old cases of pleui'O-pneumoiua in each herd of cattle,

9039.nbsp; Do you eoiiBider that an animal with an encysted lung is dangerous for the future ?1 do, for a certain time.

9040.nbsp; nbsp;For what length of time ?In my opinion for about seven or eight months.

9041.nbsp; Do you regard pleuro-pneumonia as an imported disease?Yes. According to the evidence I believe it is.

9042.nbsp; And as such, do you not consider that it is more likely to be easily exterminated than if it had been a disease indigenous to the country '{#9632;-Yes, I do.

9043.nbsp; nbsp;Are you acquainted generally with the condition of the dairy yards of Dublin ?- -I aui.

9044.nbsp; nbsp;Are they in a satisfactory condition ?They are not.

9045.nbsp; And what would you suggest as an improvement ?I would suggest that they be remodelled altogether.

9040. In what direction ?I made a suggestion in my report in 1881 to the guardians, stating that the cowsheds were in a very unsatisfactory state, and that it would be impossible for one dairy inspector to carry out a proper inspection of the dairy yards. The sheds ought to be all rebuilt, they are in a very bad condition, and especially the flooring, and in fact the general condition of the yards is in a very bad way, with the exception of some 15 or 20 yards in my district,

9047.nbsp; How many dairy yards are there in your district ?Well, there were in 1881 503, that is, 325 within the city and 178 in the metropolitan police district.

9048.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it a desirable arrangement that the animals which are kept in the Dublin dairies in the #9632;winter should be permitted to go into the country in the summer ?I do not.

9049.nbsp; Do you think it would be preferable that an animal going into a Dublin dairy should not be allowed to go out again alive ?That is my sole idea.

9050.nbsp; And you would, therefore, prefer to carry the food to the animal rather than the animal to the food in summer ?Yes.

9051.nbsp; nbsp;Would you think it desirable that there should be no dairy yards in Dublin at all, but instead of that to have the dairy yards outside the city of Dublin?I made a report in the year 1881 to that effect.

9052.nbsp; And you have not been induced by anything that has taken place subsequently to alter that opinion ? I have not.

9053.nbsp; Is it a fact that a certain amount of milk is already conveyed to Dublin from the country ?It is.

9054.nbsp; nbsp;And you see no difficulty in deriving the milk supply of Dublin from the country round about ? If you will allow me I will read the paragraph in my report of 188]. quot; Compulsory slaughter of all quot; animals in infected places would entail a very large quot; expenditure on the ratepayers of the union, and in '' my opinion would not be an effectual mode of quot; stamping out the disease ; but if the same sum of quot; money was expended on the remodelling of the quot; dairy yards in the city of Dublin on a plan ap-quot; proved of by the Privy Council, as in the majority quot; of cases owners are not in a position to do so, or quot; better still, if all dairy yards within the city were quot; closed and no one be allowed to keep cows within a quot; reasonable distance of it, that would, in my opinion, quot; have a more beneficial effect in arresting the pro-quot; gress of the disease than any steps that have yet quot; been taken.quot;

9056. (Professor Brown.) I presume that you look upon inoculation as an effectual preventive ?As far as my experience goes.

9050. Have you any record of the number of animals you have inoculated ?I have.

raquo;057. About how many ?1,560.

9058.nbsp; And over what time has that spread ?Well, the principal number would bo from the 1st January last year.

9059.nbsp; And you have carried on the operation practically up to the present time ?Yes.

9060.nbsp; Have you noted at all whether in every case the animals which you have inoculated have been exposed to infection ?Well, no; not in the last cases. I think that they have all been the fresh cases that have been bought since the compulsory slaughter.

9061.nbsp; Can yon form any idea of the proportion of the inoculated animals that have been exposed to infection ?The oidy places that I did so was in the two yards,

9062.nbsp; The two yards to which you have referred ? Yes,

9063.nbsp; nbsp;In the one case 20 cattle which were exposed to infection, and in the other about 55 I think you said?Yes.

9064.nbsp; Are those animals still alive ? No, they were slaughtered.

9065.nbsp; Did you follow them to the slaughter-house ? I only examined 13 belonging to Mr. Fagan,

90G0. Then it is something over 50 that you know nothing about ?Yes.

9067.nbsp; Could you tell us whether these animals were diseased when slaughtered ?No, I could not.

9068.nbsp; nbsp;So that when you say that the inoculation in your hands has protected animals from infection in those cases referred to, you are not prepared to say that a large proportion of those animals were free

from disease at the time of the slaughter?__No, I

am not.

9069.nbsp; nbsp;But what you mean is that they did not take the disease on the farm in the way that you could detect it ?They wore free from disease for some months previous to their being slaughtered.

9069laquo;. That is the time nearest to the time of slaughter at which you saw them; three months before slaughter ?Three months before slaughter.

9070.nbsp; You did not see them subsequently ?I saw them three days before they were slaughtered.

9071.nbsp; And up to that time there was no symptoms which indicated the existence of disease ?None whatever.

9072.nbsp; Hut you had in a considerable number of cases the disease in a form in which you could not detect it ?Yes.

9073.nbsp; From that it is possible that some of those animals might have had the disease without your being able to detect it ?They might have had it.

9074.nbsp; nbsp;Some of them might have been old and encysted cases ?

9075.nbsp; You spoke of one animal about six weeks after inoculation having failed ?Yes.

9076.nbsp; Do you draw any conclusion from the fact of the inoculation failing ?I do not, more than that it was the only animal of 55 that contracted the disease for three months.

9077.nbsp; You do not conclude from it, for example, that the animal was diseased at the time of the inoculation ?No, I do not.

9078.nbsp; That is to say, you do not consider that the fact of the animal being diseased would prevent the inoculation taking necessarily ?No, I do not.

9079.nbsp; It was a mere accident. Would you, from the experience which you have had of inoculation, advocate that system as a means of getting rid of the disease in preference to the stamping out system properly applied and taking the question as to be entirely conclusive of any cost ?I would advocate the trial of it in my idea before resorting to compulsory slaughter. I would advocate at the present time to have all the animals, dairy cows, brought into Dublin from the metropolitan district inoculated, and I would never allow an animal to be removed out of Dublin except for slaughter.

9080.nbsp; nbsp;I concluded that you object to that on the assumption that some of those animals would have the disease whether they were inoculated or not ?I do not believe that, but I Would take that precaution.

#9632;

#9632;'

I-

MINUTES OF KVIDKNCß.

289

9081.nbsp; But do you bdieve that if the unimuls had the disease you would be able to discovoi' it in that case you have said already tiiat you would not? No, I do not,

9082.nbsp; nbsp;You have also said that if the animals had the disease tho inoculation might, and probably would, suocoed notwithstamlino; ?That is the reason that I would take the precaution of not allowing the animals out of Dublin except for slaughter; and after a time, as anyone connected with the trade would know, that is every year, there are a certain number of cattle fattened and sold, and in my belief in three years you would have a fresh healthy stock if all the cattle were inoculated at the time with all tho old cattle. And so in three years in a number of 10 or 15 or 20 out of every yard sold as fat beasts for slaughter you would have a fresh healthy stock in the yards.

9083.nbsp; Then I am right that your object in keeping these animals shut up would be to prevent the risk of any diseased animals escaping ?That is for that time until you get a complete healthy stock in Dublin,

9084.nbsp; What would become of the old stock ?They would be all slaughtered by that time.

9085.nbsp; nbsp;In fact you would keep them shut out until they were killed, to prevent the risk of the escape of any diseased animals from that district ?Yes.

9086.nbsp; But supposing you are simply instructed to extinguish pleuro-pneumonia in the country regard-less of all cost, what plnn would you adopt ?I certainly, as far as T am of opinion, would adopt inoculation in the first instance.

9087.nbsp; Do you known that that system has been tried in one country at least ?I do.

9088.nbsp; Do you know what the result was ?I believe it has been a failure.

9089.nbsp; nbsp; Do you know that the result was that thoy got the disease down to a certain point, and then it stopped there, and did not either increase or diminish ?Yes.

9090.nbsp; nbsp;Are you aware under those circumstances they adopted the stamping out system and got rid of it ?Yes, I am.

9091.nbsp; Do you think that a course which would be preferable in its results to adopting a system of inoculation, which I gather from what you say is in your view quite consistent with the continuance of the disease ?Well, as far as my opinion goes I believe it to bo a success as far as I have gone myself.

9092.nbsp; But is it not the case that the practice of inoculation is necessarily based on the fact of the continued existence of disease ?Yes, it is'.

9093.nbsp; And that, therefore, so long as you go on inoculating pleuro-pneumonia must continue ?No, I would not say that. I have given my opinion before that I do not believe that in three years, if the dairy cattle were inoculated and confined to the yards, that you would have a trace of disease in it.

9094.nbsp; And you would have to give up inoculation for want of material. Should you be able to carry on the operation when the disease had ceased ?No.

9095.nbsp; Then your answer to my question is in the affirmative. In these old cases which you spoke of you say you form the opinion that they would be dangerous for about seven mouths ?Yes.

9096.nbsp; Of course it is a very important question. Have you any particular evidence on which you base that opinion?Well, in yards where disease has existed, there has been a certain number of animals removed, slaughtered under the order, and the disease oas ceased to exist; and I have known fresh cattle to be brought in and they have not had the disease for two or three years, to my knowledge for the past two or three years.

9097.nbsp; That is to say, that they did not take the infection from those old cases which you saw in the slaughter-houses ?No ; but I believe that when disease breaks out in a place, there are always some cattle that take it in a very light form without its becoming perceptible to the owners or the dairymen, and I believe that if it was capable of preventing the

o S4U03.

disease after a certain time those fresh cattle would have contracted it.

9098.nbsp; But you caunot refer to any special case in which you have evidence of post-mortem examination H Well, I have seen some of those animals slaughtered afterwards sold as fat cattle, and they had no trace of the disease.

9099.nbsp; But I mean you liavo no wuy of deciding how long those old cases, as you call them, have really existed, within a certain number of months you could not be positive ?No, I could not do it.

9100.nbsp; But probably after 12 months animah with this limited form of disease would bo safe ?I think about that time. I certainly think up to six months or seven months they would be transmitting the disease,

9101.nbsp; Do you consider that there is any danger of the disease being transmitted from one of those fibrous cyst cases where the disease is shut up ?I do not.

9102.nbsp; Do you think that there is much danger at n much later period when the pleuro-pneumonia mass becomes broken up and liquified, and the cyst becomes gradually thinner, that the walls may rupture and let the fluid free ?I think there might be at. that time.

9103.nbsp; Have you formed any opinion as to the time when that might take place from the commencement of the disease ?No, I have not.

9104.nbsp; nbsp;But judging from the experience that you have had, you conclude that after something like 10 or 12 months an animnl with this limited form of disease would be no longer dangerous as a rule?I do not think so.

9105.nbsp; nbsp;{Lord Cloncurry.) You mentioned that when you first commenced this operation of inoculation a certain number, I think you said 16, of the tails fell off, but that recently had not been the case ?That is so.

9106.nbsp; Did you make any change in the system to cause that result ?In the first instance I amputated the tails; but later on I did not amputate them, I allowed them to fall off.

9107.nbsp; And what per-centage of tails out of that 1,500 came off?About 20 per cent.

9108.nbsp; Then you mentioned that if this compulsory slaughter was to be really useful, you thought that i t should be extended to all herds within 10 miles of Dublin. Have you any reason for fixing any special distance?Certainly, within five miles. I would limit it to within five miles, my idea before was that. In all herds of cattle there are many old encysted cases of which no one knows anything.

9109.nbsp; nbsp;When you speak of herds, you mean Dublin dairy cows ?Dairy cows I alluded to.

9110.nbsp; As far as you are acquainted with the neighbourhood of Dublin, the other classes of stock that are fed there are comparatively free from disease ?--Yes.

9U1. And they do not seem to take it even when the cows are brought down among them ?No.

9112.nbsp; As to your valuable suggestion of locking up the dairy cows for life, would it be possible to enforce the law and prevent the dairymen bringing them out ? Unquestionably it would.

9113.nbsp; You think that it could be enforced? I do.

9114.nbsp; With a sufficient watch and guard upon tho yards ?With a sufficient watch and guard kept on the yards, and also by the police.

9116. Do you believe that the present system of branding, by paint or tar, would be sufficient to ensuro an animal not being changed or the brand being rubbed off ?No, I do not.

9116.nbsp; Do you think that anything short of a burning brand on the skin would be effective?Very little short of that, because they will imitate it, no matter what they do.

9117.nbsp; And your experience of Dublin dairymen is that they are rather clever in avoiding those restrictions, are they not ?Very clever indeed.

9118.nbsp; nbsp;And do you think that such a scheme as you suggested would be in any way a pecuniary hardship, if they were allowed to keep animals until lit for the

0 .)

Mr. P. A. Lamhr,

M.n.v.v.s.

4 June I88S,

290

COMMITTEE ON PLEUKO-l'NKUMONIA AND 1ÜBBKCULOSI8:

Mr.' P. A. Luwler, M'.U.V. V.S.

4 June 1888.

butcher and preventod fi'oiu doing anything else with them, would that entail very serious loss ?To a eortain uxtent it might. I canuot say that the loss would be very serious.

9119.nbsp; I gather from nil that you say that in any case it would not be safe for the Dublin dairy cattle to be sold throughout the country ?I think so.

9120.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Honley.) Do you know of anything concerning the existence in other parts of Ireland of the disease besides Dublin and the country around Dublin ?I do not.

9121.nbsp; nbsp;You do not know whether the disease has existed further west in Ireland ?I do not.

9122.nbsp; Of the number of cattle that you have inoculated, how many have you examined post-mortem, roughly speaking ?#9632;#9632;#9632;About 40.

9123.nbsp; nbsp;Were all those healthy when you examined them, or was there evidence of disease ?There was one case, which was an old case, the others were all free.

9124.nbsp; You said that virus was not conveyed on the clothes; have you any reason to believe that virus infects the woodwork of stalls ?Yes, I believe it remains.

9125.nbsp; Have you got any case which you can lay before the Committee ?In various cases, in my experience, I have tried to obtain evidence with regard to it, but I never could find any evidence except that it must have been the virus remaining in the yard.

9126.nbsp; How do you know when the inoculation takes ?When you get swelling in the tail.

9127.nbsp; That is the local trouble ?Yes.

9128.nbsp; Do you recognise any constitutional disturbance in the animal at all ?Well, you may get slightly increased temperature, the animal may be off its feed, perhaps, one or two meals, but that is all.

9129.nbsp; You do not regard the inoculated animal as a tainted animal at all ?I do not.

9130.nbsp; Then you do not consider it capable of communicating the disease ?I do not, because I do not think it produces the disease, it only produces the local inflammation.

9131.nbsp; Have you had any opportunity of watching the duration of such protection afforded by inoculation ?Well, the keeping of those animals up to 18 months, and they have never contracted the disease.

9132.nbsp; With regard to the stamping out by slaughter, do you think that it would lead to the concealment of disease more so than exists at the present time ? I think there is a great deal of disease concealed at the present time under the compulsory slaughter order.

9133.nbsp; But was not there a great deal of concealment before the slaughter order ?Yes, there was.

9134.nbsp; What per-centage, roughly speaking, would you represent the amount of concealment, how many were diseased ?I should say 25 per cent.

9135.nbsp; What caused the concealment then before the slaughter order ?Their being placed under restrictions, and interfering with the bringing in or taking out of cattle.

9136.nbsp; Did that interference produce a sensible loss in the business ?To a certain extent it would produce loss.

9137.nbsp; Or was it only trouble?It would produce loss, because if disease broke out and the man reported he would have to supply the milk from some places else.

9138.nbsp; Do you think it was so much the actual loss or the trouble given to the dairymen ?I suppose they were both combined. They also very much objected to the police watching their places, so that they would be both combined, the trouble and the loss.

9139.nbsp; But with respect to the latter point, namely, their objection to the watching of their premises. That, of course, would be a bar to the introduction of the ineusure that you propose, of keeping the cattle in contact with the diseased in a dairy, because you would have to watch a dairy in the same way?But if made compulsorr in the whole of the metropolitan

district, then it would fall the same on one man as on the other.

9140.nbsp; And you think that that would get rid of it, it is no sentimental reason?None whatever. I think it would get rid of it.

9141.nbsp; Do you think that the compulsory slaughter order disturbs a man's business ? Are you aware of specific complaints having been laid before the authorities ?No, I do not think so. I have heard some complaints, but not of very much effect.

9142.nbsp; Have you heard of any complaint as to the way in which compensation has been awarded ?I only heard one complaint in Dublin. In fact I heard the men were all perfectly satisfied.

9143.nbsp; Then what is the opposition due to, is it simply the general interference with the business ? The general interference with the business for the time being.

9144.nbsp; But if there has been no serious complaints made with respect to great losses that surely cannot be considered of much importance ?As at the present time, but not when the winter sets in. Of course now a man can buy cattle and put them out to grass.

9145.nbsp; If the man's business was very greatly disturbed, do you suppose that any project giving him special compensation would be accepted by your board of guardians or by the people from whom you get the rates ?I think it would be accepted.

9146.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman?) I understood you, in reply to a question of Professor Horsley, to say that inoculation, in your opinion, would not produce, the disease ? I do not believe so.

9147.nbsp; But am I wrong in having hitherto assumed that the whole merit which was claimed for the operation was that it produced a mild form of disease ?I never could see where it did produce disease. It produces local inflammation in a certain part of the body, but it certainly does not produce pleuro-pneumonia.

9148.nbsp; But does it produce disease similar in character to a mild form of pleuro-pneumonia ?Not of my own knowledge.

9149.nbsp; What is there then, in your opinion, that justifies you in thinking that it would give immunity from pleuro-pneumonia hereafter?The only evidence that I have to give on that point is from my experience in seeing the animals, and the mixing of those diseased animals and their not taking it.

9150.nbsp; You are aware, I presume, that inoculation is practised very largely in the colonies ?Yes, I believe so.

9151.nbsp; Can you tell us whether that has been the means of getting rid of the disease in Australia PNo, I cannot.

9152.nbsp; Can you tell us of any country in the world where pleuro-pneumonia has been got rid of by inoculation ?No, I cannot.

9153.nbsp; nbsp;Are you familiar with the present system of inspection at the ports of embarkation in Ireland ?I am.

9154.nbsp; Is that inspection conducted in a satisfactory manner in your opinion ?As far as being practical of being carried out, I believe it is.

9155.nbsp; Do you think that the time allowed for inspection is ample for the purpose ?I do not. I think that any man might be liable to make a mistake in examining some 40 or 50 head of cattle going to be shipped.

9156.nbsp; Is pleuro-pneumonia, in your opinion, easily detected in an animal ?No. Not in the very early stage, it is not, it is very difficult to detect.

9157.nbsp; Are you aware whether there is greater risk to English and Scotch purchasers of Irish cattle from receiving them from the port of Dublin than from other ports in Ireland ?Yes, I believe so.

9158.nbsp; To what do you attribute this greater risk ? I could never account for it.

9159.nbsp; Is it not possible that it is due to the proximity to the city of Dublin and to the risk of infected cows from there mixing with the store cattle forexport ? There may be from the infected cows mixing with

'i ,

#9632;4 !#9632;

___

MINUTES OF BVIDENOB.

291

the others, but my boliof is that they would uevor contract the disease in being brought from the railway to the boat and being shipped.

9160. On the whole, do you consider that the present system of compensation in cases of compulsory slaughter is satisfactory ?There is only one case that I have heard of complaints. In all other cases I believe it was, from what I have hoard, very satisfactory.

9161.nbsp; May wo take it that the chief objection on the part of the South Dublin Union to put the compulsory slaughter order in operation was of a financial character ?Yes.

9162.nbsp; If it had been known that the compensation would be paid from a national fund, do you think that any such refusal would have taken place ?1 think not.

9163.nbsp; Have you any experience or evidence to give with reference to tuberculosis ?I have not.

Mr. 1'. A Lmvlur, M.U.C.V.S.

4 Juno 18S8

The witness withdrew. Adjourned to 21st June 1888.

#9632;

Oo 2

#9632;

-raquo;---------

#9632;

quot;1

AFPIiSNOIX,

293

APPENDIX.

Put in by Mr. Cope.

A Numbbh, of Oattlb reported to have been attacked with nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Plbübo-Pheümohia. in Gkea.t Bbitain during each

year since the passing of the Contagions Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, with the nutnher of diseased cattle killed, died, and recovered; and the total numbers to the end of the Year 1887.

The failures are not duo to tho manual mode of operation, but to other causes. Besides, there are no means of knowing the virulence of the fluid employed; if it has been kept for many hours or many days, its action is milder and less active; then again, we cannot distinguish |in a stable, among tho animals in contact, which are those which are not only simply in oontaot but are also already diseased (in tho flrat stage), and which would have tho time to infect those in tho vicinity before the fluid applied into tho tail would bo able to render them free from infection. Mr. Rutherford has pointed out a means of promptly distinguishing these diseased animals. Whether it is a good way or not is a question which poses us. Just at present I have not been able to try it, and I do not know whether others have done so.

With sincere greetings,

Paul OAONif.


			Diseased Oattlt
		Number of Cattle Attacked.
Year.		Number of Cattle Attacked.
			Killed.	Died.	Recovered.
1869raquo;		1,899	887	608	507
1870		raquo;,602	1,755	1,276	1,635
1871		6,869	2,197	1,339	2,332
1872		7,983	8,871	1,979	2,017
1873		6,787	6,061	1,028	oot
1874		7,7laquo;	7,434	289	31
1876		6,806	5,584	190	20
1876		5,263	6,131	114	12
1877		6,330	6,223	107	⁸
1878		4,603	4,488	114	_
J879		iAU	4,296	119	-
1880		2,765	2,681	88	-
1881		1,875	1,797	78	-
1882		1,200	1,161	39	-
1883		931	897	35	-
1881		1,096	1,074	20
1885		1,611	1,469	42	i _ \|
1886		2,471	2,409	63
1887t		2,4S7 74,662	2,384	62
Total		2,4S7 74,662	59,599	7,480	7,470
20 weeks trom August Utli to nccember 2Bth inclusive t 3 diseased cattle remained alive at the end of the year					1887.
Total losses since 1869 :
Killed- - - #9632; 59,59 Died - - - - 7,48					9 0
Average loss per head A 17 years -				67,07 10 1	9 0
Average loss per head A 17 years -				.£670,79	0
Agricultural Department, Priw Council Office,
	10th	May 1888,

Utrecht, My Deab Mb. Cope,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;28 April 1888.

In the letters which have come to hand, you ask me a multitude of questions concerning the practice of inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia in Tho Netherlands. I have not the time necessary to work out a lengthy report on the large number of points on which in general terms you have requested me to give an opinion. Allow me then, my dear colleague, to ask you to bo good enough to consult the annual reports on the surveillance of the veterinary police in The Netherlands for the years 1871-1886. You will there find what you require in the midst of other sufficiently lengthy statistics.

As regards the total number of cases of compulsory inoculation, and of losses in consequence of the operation in the distillery districts during the five years 1878-1882, you will perhaps call to mind my short note in the statement of the 4th veterinary international congress, p. 512.

In the five annual reports on the progress of veterinary

science (Jahresbericht___Berlin) for the years 1882-86,

I have given concise views on the state of the question; see 1882, page 23,1883, page 29, 1884, page 21,1885, pages 24 and 25, 1886, page 25. Your annual reports of the Agricultural Department contain sufficiently numerous data on the subject; for instance, the year 1878, page 42, 1881, page 43, 1883, page 49. Not possessing all your reports, I do not know whether further communications regarding the measmes taken by the police against pleuro-pneumonia in The Netherlands can be found there.

As regards the method of inoculation, the veterinary surgeons entrusted with tho practice of compulsory inoculation operated in the usual manner, generally known and described in the treatises of the special pathology of contagious diseases, amp;o., that is to say, they have taken the lymph from a portion of tho lung found in tho primary stage of hepatisation, and that, by means of a lancet or grooved needle, they have introduced into the skin at tho extremity of the tail. It is sufficient to introduce the virus beneath the epidermis, but, in the opinion of certain practitioners, the success seems to them more certain if a deeper inoculation he followed, even into the subcutaneous cellular tissue. (As you see, they have not applied the subcutaneous injection by a syringe, nor, much less, by setons.)

As regards inoculators, amp;c., look into your annual report for 1878, for our law and tho royal decree of 1878, regulating by extraordinary measures the practice (mark also quot; compulsory inoculation, amp;o.quot;) of inoculation in the distillery districts.

The reports of the official Netherlands Commission are three in number (the first and the second of 1852 tho third of 1855). They arc all favourable to inocula-tion as a prophylactic treatment. Having lent my copies of these reports to colleagues, I no longer possess them, and so cannot send them to you. Tho essential por;ions and conclusions of these reports have beer. a thousand times cited and reproduced in foreign

Correspondence respecting Inoculation.

Senlis, Deab Mb Cope, 'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 30 April 1888.

Mb. Leblanc communicates to me your letter regarding pleuro-pneumonia and inoculation for the disease. Every method of inoculation was employed, incision in tho tail, seton, and injection with the svringe. In my opinion all the means are good, because, carefully carried out, they admit of the cellular tissue of the tail and the virulent fluid coming into contact.

294

COMMITTEE ON rLEURO-I'NEUMONIA AND TUBEB0ULO8TS:

litoraturo. In tho llüportoriiiiii of Horing, for example, sufficiently lengthy recapitnlations can be found: XIV., 1853, pp. 1, 183 (Ist and 2nd reports), a^d XVI., 1855, page 287 (3rd report).

Accept, Ac.

Dr. Wim/..

InooulaUon.Prof. It. von Boll remarks as follows:

quot; Notwithstanding that inoculation has been practised in different countries for more than 30 years, there is still a variance of opinions as to its efficacy as a preventitive of the natural infection. One party maintains that inoculation, when carried out at the proper period, occasions a local and simple inflammatory ' process accompanied by moderate fever, which insures the inoculated animal against the natural infection. And, also, that if healthy animals in an infected district are inoculated, the progress of the disease is arrested, and it will bo stamped out with much less expense than before.

quot; The opponents of inoculation disagree entirely with the above assertions, and point out that the disease also comes to a standstill without inoculation being practised, and that animals, although apparently inoculated successfully, have been attacked with the disease. Consequently they maintain that inoculation is no protection against the natural infection.

quot; It seems most important that the question of inocu-lation 'of this disease (which, in agricultural circles, is regarded as one of the most destructive) should bo again fully investigated, and a series of experiments should be carried out without bias or prejudice.

quot;Up to the present, experience has shown that inoculation may be rightfully looked upon as a necessity iu cases where pleuro-pneumonia has already broken out in a herd of cattle.quot;

Von Boll quotes statistics showing results of experiments in this direction cairried out in Germany, Prance, and elsewhere.

Text Book of the Pathology and Therapeutics of Domestic Animals, 1885.

Berlin, N.W., 56, Louisa Street, Dear Me. Oope,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 10 April, 1888.

Tub opinions about the advantages of the inoculation of pleuro-pneumoniaaro very divided in Germany. Generally tho groat landowners, in tho first place the owners of sugar fabrics, are more favourably inclined to regard inoculation as a good measure for suppressing outbreaks of this disease than 'the veterinarians, _ ox-oepting always some fanatics and those veterinarians who are gaining money by tho practice of inoculation.

This practice has very much diminished in Germany during the last 10 years; it has never had many friends in Sonthern Germany, and has there been always a rare exception. The greatest number of inoculations has been practised, and is practised now, in the province of Saxonia, but has also diminished considerably in the last time. Few cases of inoculation are reported every year from the district of Hiedesheim (Prov. Hanover), and occasionally concerning the a.!wflM/s-very-rare outbreaks in latifunds of the province Pommerania.

You will find the statistics of inoculation and remarks about the success of that practice in the yearly reports you have regularly received, about the spreading of contagious diseases in Prussia (last year in the German Empire).

The district of Magdeburg (Prov. Saxonia) was over, and is also in the present time, the place where pleuro-pneumonia has the greatest spreading. You can say that at least seven-eighths of all outbreaks of the disease are ohserved there, in the first place under the ever-changing bovine population of the sugar fabrics in the fertile valley of the Elbe. Pleuro-pneumonia has nearly been stamped out in the district of Merseburg (Prov. Saxonia), where it had caused great losses in former years under agricultural circumstances similar to those of the district of Magdeburg. In all other districts of Prussia outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia are limited to few premises, and they are ever soon stamped out; in most cases by the slaughtering of the ^vhole infected herd.

Depart. Thierarst Oemler in Merseburgyou would call him chief inspector for this districthas published four years ago a treatise about inoculation and suppression of pleuro-pneumonia. The treatise is interesting, because Oemler has great experience in this matter, and because he has also taken notice in his publication of the experiences made about the success of inoculation in other Prussian provinces, in Belgium, the Netherlands, amp;c.

I am sending you a copy of the above-mentioned treatise by the book post, and put the publication, of which I have a duplicate, entirely at your disposition. I should recommend that you give the treatise to a friend who reads German, and beg him that he may excerpt the remarks that are interesting to you. The second half (pages 96-139) contains distinct observations about the stamping-out system now in vigour in Germany.

The proposition of a law rendering inoculation of pleuro-pneumonia obligatory in the district of Magdehury has been deolined two years ago by the Eoichstag.

I believe that you are on the best way to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia in England by your last Order that prescribes nearly the same measures as against outbreak of cattle plague. We should have gone the same #9632;way in Prussia if we could pay the enormous costs such a stamping-out system would require. Then England can do what is forbidden in poor Prussia, whore the same measures have been ordered nearly always in those districts where outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia are observed only exceptionally.

Bo assured, dear Mr. Cope, of my readiness to give you any farther information you are wishing for. Please to recommend me to Prof. Brown. Kind remembrance, vnd believe me

Yours most sincerely, Chief Inspector Alex. C. Oope.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Müller.

Tub Inoculation and Stamping-out op Pleuro-Pneumonia.

By Herr Oemler, Eepwrtmmtal Veterinary Surgeon, Mersehmg.

After tracing the course and the results of inoculation during the last 36 years, Oemler remarks: quot; I '' think I have shown in the foregoing that an absolute '' conclusion as to the efficacy or inefficacy of inocula-'' tion for pleuro-pneumonia cannot be obtained from quot; the ordinary clinical observations.quot;

Further on he observes, quot; Since the defence of inocu-quot; lation has frequently been based on the reports of quot; the Belgian Commission, I feel compelled to note quot; the following facts:

'' The Commission appointed by the Belgian Ministry of the Interior declared in their fifth report against the advantages of inoculation.

quot; In the sixth report there was a minority in favour of inoculation.

'' In the seventh and last report of November 1864 the Commission declared unanimously in favour of inoculation.quot;

This Commission (which then declared their mission ended) based their conclusions mainly upon results obtained by experiments and observations.

JUmperiments.

Saxony, 16th June 1877.A cow, in a herd of 150 on a farm in Oschersleten was attacked with pleuro. It was isolated and shortly afterwards slaughtered. With the lymph obtained from the lungs Dr. Ziegenbein inoculated (23rd June) 125 head of cattle, whilst 12 cows and 13 calves were not inoculated. The cows which were not inoculated were put in a shed with 14 which had been inoculated, so that each non-incculated cow stood between two which had been inoculated.

By July 15 the inoculation had shown itself successful on 113 head, 96 of which lost the end of the tail owing to necrosis, and five were killed on account of the too violent course of inoculation.

Of the 125 inoculated cattle, by the 17th July, within 24 days of inoculation, four showed symptoms of pleuro, and were isolated. Shortly afterwards they were slaughtered, and found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia.

Of the 12 cows which were not inoculated, nine were visibly affected, five of which wore slaughtered immediately, being dangerously affected. The remaining four gradually recovered, and were replaced in the stalls I! t Two of tho latter were slaughtered on the 3rd and 11th of September respectively, when Ziegenbein discovered traces of pleuro.

APPENDIX.

295

Five of the 13 oalvos which woro not inoculated wero attacked with plouro.

Willems' Experimente,

In 1852, quot;Willems placed two old cows (which were perfectly healthy) which ho had inoculated, in a herd largely affected with pleuro, and later on in an infected shod in which diseased cattle wero at the same time housed. quot; Tho health of the two cows was in no way

affected.quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. . , .,,.,,.

The Belgian Commission in 1852 oxponmoutod with lb cattle. The inoculation carried out by Willems only took on seven cattle, tho other nine wore not oven influenced by a second inoculation. The whole 16 were placed in continual contact with infected animals; nevertheless, they remained free from pleuro, although several were even housed later on in infected stalls.

According to the fifth report of the above Commission, 10 out of 20 oattlo wero inocalated, four wero attacked, throe being non-inoculated animals and one which had been inoculated.

The Butch Oommission.

Second Beport, 28 December 1853.Out of 20 cattle 15 were inoculated, five not being so treated. An old milk cow died 20 days after inoculation owing to a virulent swelling. Of the remainder, which wore all placed in stalls with infected animals, the 14 inoculated cattle showed no symptoms of pleuro for more than three months after being placed in the infected stalls, wbereas four of tho five cattle which were not inoculated died of decided pleuro, and the other died of a -very suspicious case of pleuro.

Third Eeporf.Out of 30 cattle, 26 were inoculated, six with primary lymph, 10 with secondary lymph of the second generation, 10 with secondary ot third generation. The 26 and the four non-mocu-lated wero placed in contact with 10 animals affected with pleuro. Six cattle contracted the disease, three had been inoculated, and three not so treated.

Numbbr oraquo; Odibäeaks 01 P.P., how caused, and Numbeii or Cattib implicated in Nomhumbeb-land.Years 1880 to 1887.


	Due to Irish Cattle.	No. Implioatod	Duotodittlo from Homo Counties.	No. implicated.
1880 -	5	111)	-	-
1881 -	-	-
188a #9632;	-	-	1	lä
1883 -	1		2	84
1884 -	1	:)	. 1 .0
1885 -	I	127	^_ i
1880 -	1	*#9632;X.*	1 s
1887 #9632; 1		Gl		19
18		354	8	114
Total No. (	g	114		1
Total No. (	21 )t Outbreaks.	#9632;WS	1 ' Cattle entirely or partial ij OS

Supposed outbreaks of P.P. Tuberculosis.

that tunled out to be 0.

Yeabs 1879 to 1887.

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

4 5 4, 3 2 2 1 Nil 2

Put in by

Mr. Clement F.U.C.T.S.

Stephenson,

A. Number of Cattib that Died or were Slaughteued for Disease in City of Newcasiie-on-Tyni;.Years 1871 to 1887.


-	Total.	P.P.	T.	F.M.	N C.
1871	108	87	3	2	10
1872	85	OS	8	4	10
1S73	63	31	S	1	13
1874	57	37	0	1	14
1875	!I0	no	8	fi	10
1870	It:!	40	4	1	18
1877	411	24	10	Nil.	16
	63 30 17 14	30 8 Nil. 1	7	Nil.	10	After this date a record ot the cause of deathraquo; (except in P.P.) has not been kept, but the totals arc correct.
1883	IB	11
188laquo;	li	Nil.	-	-	-
1884	4	Nil.	-	~	-
1885	17	Nil.		-
18Slaquo;	13	Nil.	-	-	-
I8S7	10	Nil.	l quot;	quot;	.._
P.P.	Plcur	o-pnou	inoniraquo;		T. T	ibcrcnlosis.

My Deab Sie,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Philadelphia, September 2, 1887.

About the commencement of the present year I wrote you of an experiment that was to bo tried in Chicago, Illinois, of placing healthy cattle in the sheds of the Shufeldt Distillery which had previously contained animals affected with quot;contagious pleuro-pneumonia,quot; 1 gave Mr. Shufeldt an opinion at the time, backed up by your experience, and Prof. Brown's, that I considered this perfectly safe, and that contagion could only be conveyed by contact with the living diseased animal. He now writes mo that the experiment has been successful, that tho 900 steers placed m the sheds on the 18th of December 1886 woro slaughtered (fat) in Juno and July 1887, under State veterinary supervision, all the lungs carefully examined, and not a taint of the disease found in any of them. It is true that these sheds were superficially disinfected, but tho flooring was not removed, nor the refuse under tho floors taken away. As to the virulence of tho disease there ca,n bo no doubt, as shortly before this test was made, the rapidity with which it spread among living animals my post mortoms (of steers in Chicago) showed that of some of the herds destroyed, 80 per cent, of tlio whole number were affected, many of them slightly.

I am deeply interested in tho extermination of this scourge in tho United States, and I would very much

F. M. Pool, and mouth diaeaso.

N. C. Natural causes, in which is included all causes, except P.P., T., and P. and M.

286

OOMam'BB ON PLKUltO-l'NKUMONIA ANraquo; TUUEUCULOSIS :

hko to liavo your opinion as to the reason that plouro-pnounionia prevails to such an alarming extent in Groat Britain to-day, notwithstanding the stringent laws #9830;.hat you have, and the vigorous ollbrts made by tho trovornmonl to eradicate it.

I am firmly of tho boliof that tho chronic and so-called rsoovorod cases in this country have been the centres of contagion that have communicated the disease to the west, and caused the frequent outbreaks in localities where it had not heretofore existed, and 1 would like to know if you experience the same results in England.

The reports in the quot;Veterinarianquot; show that the disease prevails to a greater extent in Scotland than in other parts of the kingdom, and knowing that inoculation has been extensively tried in that country I would like to have your opinion as to its value in preventing the spread of this disease, or whether it has rot rath or tended to keep it alive, and introduce it where it did not exist before.

Please send me one of your yoarlv reports when thov arc out, and hope you will pardon me for again troubling you on this important subject.

I have the honour to be, Yours very respectfully, J. W. Gadsden.

Clement Stophonson, Esq., P.E.O.V.S., Eng.

Oontaoious Diseases (Animais) Act, 1869.

Eeturn of Horsos, Cattle, and other Animals sent to , Newoastle-on-Tyne.

Date when

I'D-

coivort.

Doscriu. tlon of Ani-

mnls.

No. or

Animals.

Whether

(lend or

alive when

rocoivod.

I'romnbsp; nbsp; nbsp;From

whom |nbsp; what ,

ro- ;nbsp; place Bomarks.

oetvedi Inbsp; sent.

Signed Dated

188

The inspector appointed under Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Town Hall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,

Note.It is provided by the Order of the Privv Council Office, in that behalf made : quot; That, if any per-_ son fails to give, produce, do, or observe any notice

license, thing, or rule, which he is by this Order or _i any regulation of a local authority thereunder re-

quired to give, produce, do, or observe, he shall, in

every such case, be deemed guilty of an offence

against this Order.

Directed and stamped envelope supplied with this

E. Eepout to Local Authority op Cessation of Disease.

Pletiro-pneumonia.

Petty Sessional Division.

With reference to the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia upon the premises in the occupation of

situate at in this county, on thenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;day of

last, it is tow reported that there has been a cessation of disease therein for a period of at least fifty-six days, and I recommend that the same bo now declared free from plonro-pneumonia.

Cost of quot; stamping out quot; Pleuro-Pnoumonia in Northumberland.Years 1880 to 1887

Dated

Approved this

Inspector.

1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887


	*£ s. d.*
	530 0 0
	619 1 6
	169 0 0
	1,075 7 9
	339 11 0
	257 3 8

day of

Chairman, or two members of the sub-committee of the above division.

Countersigned by

Veterinary inspector of the county. Datednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;188 .

£2,990 2 11

mFXIl**'^year'^a,ld ^abont *^y;'^of laquo;^ⁱⁿ

AITKNDIX.

COUNTY OF LANARK.

Retükns from the Local Authorities of Scotland regarding Pleuro- I'äeomonia in 1887, and informal ton as to

Teeatment of Cattle in Contact, and as to Inoculation,

Compensation Paid raquo;or Cattlk Slauoutkbkd.

C0UNTIK8.

Policy adopted as regards

Slaughter of Cuttle in

contact, raquo;nd result.

Exueiienoe of results of Inocuhition where resorted to.

Cattle Diseased.

II,

Healthy Cattle in Contact.

Adbrdbks

£ s. d. 1,261 17 2

£ raquo;. d. laquo;as 2 e

£ s lt;1. 1,920 19 8

Cattle in immediate contact with atlected animals have been invariably slaughtered, either by order of the local Authority, or by special arrangement with the owner. In such cases the disease has been stamped out.

There has been but one herd of cattle inoculated during the past year, and good results followed. Inspector had inoculated prior to that period several heads of cattle,and in all cases he is convinced that it stayed the progress of disease and reducedthe number of attacks At the same time his opinion is that where an outbreak of the disease takes place, and cattle are inoculated, they should in no case leave the farm, except for slaughter.

Abstll Ayr

Not resorted to, but a special report was got Irom the County V.S. Inspector after inquiry in other counties, and he did not recommend it.

None. The Local Authority disapproves of it.

Bakfp -Bebwice

603 18 2

2.683 7 11

3,087 laquo; 1

Tgt; slaughter all in contact, and this policy has been very successful.

Ina few cases such cattle have been slaughtered. Disease did not spread to adjacent places; but strict isolation is chiefly relied upon.

BVT3 #9632;

Caithness Ojlacemabican

130 2 6

207 10 0

337 12 6

All cattle in contact were slaughtered, Althoughthis done in two byres, disease spread to two neighbouring byres within a few yards of those in which thediseane broke out.

Cbouabty

Dumfries

DüNBABTOif

612 1 9

1S8

660 6 8

In four stocks healthy animals slaughtered, but not the whole healthy animals in the herd; the remainder inoculated. The whole animals in one stock were slaughtered. It was in the centre of a dairy district, containing many valuable cattle. No fresh case occurred in that district.

Highly favourable. 134 head of cattle inoculated; of these 6 died or were killed in consequence of exposure before recovery from inoculation, and 3 which had been inoculated were slaughtered as in plcuro-pncumonia. They were suspected as having been diseased when inoculated. The Local Authority regard inoculation as a preventive of pleuro-pneu-monia, provided the germs o f the disease are not latent in the animal at the time of inoculation.

That it is of the greatest use in preventing the spread of the

raquo;4

2laquo;

EDiHBUBan Blqik flTE

FORIAB

1,191 17nbsp; nbsp; C

10 17nbsp; nbsp; 6

1,781 16nbsp; nbsp; 3

070 16nbsp; nbsp; 4

226 6 0 988 19 0

1,191 17 0

287 2 6

2,717 15 3

1,769 19 10

Slaughtered; no more spread of disease.

For two years in most cases all in contact slaughtered.

No inoculation by order of Local Authority. One member has made the experiment,and has reported it as eminently satisfactory.

Adopted inoculation from Sept. ember, 1886, to 1st April 1887 18 outbreaks i 494 cattle inoculated, 31 of these afterwards attacked. Is protective against disease when tho cattle are healthy when inoculated i successfully inoculated cattle though brought into contact with diseased remain healthy j inooulatod cattle have not convoyed the disease to other stock with which they have been brought into contact.

1,090 4 0

Prom Ist April to October, while county an infected area, all cattle in contact slaughtered. Since October each case consiüereii on its own merits. It was thought slaughtering of all cattle in contact was a waste of money.

Uaddikotoh Inverness

22V 2 6

681 10 0

910 12 0

Usual course has been to slaughter all animals in contact, and this has been otfcctual in checkine the diieaie.

0 540O3.

29S

COMMITTEK ON PLBURO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBBROU108I8:

CüMPBNSATION PAID VOM CATTLE , SlAÜOUTKKläl).

OoUNTIläS

Oattlo Sisousod.

II.

Hoalthy Cuttlo in Contact.

III.

Tot Ai.

I'olujy adopted as regards

Sliughter of Cattle in

doutaot, and result.

Bxporloneo of results of Inooulation wliero rewrted to.

KlXCAliDINE #9632;

Jt' raquo;. a.

27!) 18 raquo;

£ raquo;. d.

7(1!! 10 0

£ s. a.

1,042 S 0

Ho flm d policy, but in seven of these eigrht stocks oattlo in contact slaughtered. In the eiceptod miso only one head slaughtered, and disease did not spread.

All cattle in contact are generally slaushtered, and tho result has generally been the entire disappearance of the disease,

Kinross

.SO 15 0

'Ml 0 0

70 IS 0

KlRKCUDBIiKJHT

8,7711 2 C

10,473 12 0

13,252 15 0

All cattle in contact slaughtered nt once, excepting in the case, of the two stocks afterwards referred to, where the cattle apparently healthy were inoculated.

Used most successfully in 1880 in three out of tho four cases of that year. In case of fourth stock not tried as stock very limited. As an experiment, inoculated stock was joined by cattle which had not been in contact with diseased stock, and all escaped. Inoculation saved a largo sum to tho Local Authority in that year.

The apparently healthy cattle in two stocks were inoculated at the instance of the owners, after the disease had appeared in one cow in each. In the first, a stock of 9, the remainder was at once inoculated, and the V.S. Inspector considers it was thus saved. In the second, a stock of 34, the remainder was in-oculated.but only after 40 days from the date of detection of the disease and tho slaughter of the diseased animal. 81 days after the operation 6 cattle were found diseased, and the whole herd was then slaughtered. The V.S. Inspector considers the disease was latent at the time of tho operation.

In first case 28 inoculated, and 20 remained healthy. quot;Unless it is properly done, there is no protection.

Lanakk

LlNLITHGOW

Nairn #9632;

Orknet

Peeuleb

Perth -

llENPKEff

Ross

66 10 3

laquo;6 10 3

Immediate slaughter, which has proved effective in preventing spread of disease, but it is a most wasteful method.

1 2raquo;

40 10 0

902 3 raquo;

8 6 0

44 0 0

61 16 0 744 12 6 121 10 0

02 6 0

Slaughtered. Disease stamped out.

Slaughter; attended with great loss.

Policy lor three years to slaughter all cattle in contact. In the three outbreaks during that period the spread of the disease was completely checked.

Cattle which have been in contact with diseased animals have as a rule been slaughtered, with the result that the disease has never been communicated to other stocks,

Tho practice is to slaughter.

1.64laquo; 16 3

Very favourable, where done at once.

129 15 0

47 0 0

koxbukgii

Selkirk

32 2 9 S3 0 0

4 0 0

3laquo; 2 9 33 0 0

Successful.

All cattle in contact immediately inoculated. Practised for a number of years, and invariably found effectual in arresting spread of pleuro-pneumonia.

Sterling suthkhlanu

Wigtown

62 17 6 48 17 i

238 10 0

261 7 6

Slaughtered, disease.

Extinction of

48 17 4

Tho whole of the cattle on the affected farm were slaughtered.

In former outbreaks of pleuro, slaughter was, whorover allowable, resorted to at once, and the disease was generally stamped out without spreading.

Total in counties

10,laquo;!laquo; 17 ()

19,004 13 5

29,031 10 11

Atl'JÜNDIX.

299

Compensation Paid fob Catile

Sl.AlHlUTKltEl).

Policy adopted as regards

Slaughter of Cattle in

contact, and result.

Bxneriencoof results of Inooulation whore resorted I

KlIROHS,

II.

Healthy Cattle in Contact.

Cattle Diseased.

Abebdeen

AlKDEIE


		£ s. d
	X	48 IB 0
	6	12S 16 0

20raquo; B 0

£ s, d. 18 15 0 330 0 0

Stamping out. No further outbreak.

18 cattle in all have beon inoculated, with successful results.

Annan #9632;

Ansteütiieii

(Bastor)

Ansteütiiee (Wester)

Akbboath

24 13 0

24 15 0

la one stock of 21 cows disease appeared in one animal, which was slaughtered, lle-raainder inoculated successfully, with one excontion, in which operation did not take effect, and animal subsequently found atlectod and slaughtered.

Aye

Banff -Bkechin

liUENTISLAND -

Campbeltown Ceail -Ceomakty

CüUEN #9632;

Culkoss

CüPAE -BlNSWALI,

BoKNOon

UUMBABION -

i 25 5 0

87 17 0

In Hrst case cattle in contact slaughtered, with satisfactory results.

Have resorted to inoculation during the past year. Believed to be successful.

101 16 6

120 0 0

221 16 (!

In the other two cases the healthy cattle were inoculated. The inoculation lias been very successful, nono of the cattle thus dealt with having become affected with disease.

Dumfries Dundee

123 15 0

526 0 0

660 4 6

All cattle in contact slaughtered. This procedure successful, except in one stock, where disease appeared in renewed stock from i\n animal imported with the disease upon it. The same thins has taken place a second time in same herd, and in both cases the disease evidently existed prior to purchase.

No inooulation for last eisht or nine years ; before thai, in four outbreaks calllc inoculated, with the result i hat disease at once and completely disappeared. No deaths from disease having occurred amongst the animals inoculated, il can only be regarded as uniformly anil completely successful, so fur us the trial within this burgh is concerned.

DUKFEBMI.INB

50 S 0

It the ^raquo;laquo;i-mortolaquo;examination showed that disease was in an advanced stage, cattle in contact slaiiRli-terod. quot;VVhon this has been done the spread of the disease has been arrested.

Throe healthy cattle in immediate contact slaughtered, rest preserved.

Only five such cattle slaughtered.

Number Of byres in which

cows inoculated - . n Not inoculated - - . |

Total outbreaks - - 12 Slaughtered affeoted with

plcnro-pueumonia-Of 182 cows inoculnted, '20, or less than a sixth. u 16 not inoculated, 11, or more than a, halt. Ill llvo byres, contiiiniiig 7laquo; cows, no case of disease occur rod after inoculation.

Dyhakt -

Edinbüböb

22 0 0

III M 0

ES 8 0

630 15 0

33 0 0

663 16 0

I'AI.KIIIK

1'onPAii-

Pp 2

300

COMMITTEE ON 1gt;LEÜBO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBEBCUL08I8 I

OOMPBRUTIOM PAID raquo;OB GlTItE

SuuanTBBao.

lil'IKJIIH.

III. Total.

Policy adopted as nigards

Slaughter of Cattle in

contact, and result.

Eiperlenceof results of Inoculation whore resorted to.

Cattle Disoasod.

II.

Healthy Cattle in Contnot.

A! J. (/.

£ t. d.

£ (. d.

1'OHBBS

gt;'OBTR0SE

IIALABHIBLB

36 6 0

SIS 6 0

In some eases slaughtered. Believed to have prevented threatened spread of disease.

In some cases inoculated. Veterinary Inspectors state their experience as successful.

tiUBGOW

165 7 6

166 7 G

Detained as long a period as the Local Authority had the power, or removed for immediate slaughter, if desired by owner, but no compon-sation granted.

Only one stock inoculated.

Total number - - 37

Slaughtered prior to inocu-tion being had recourse to, and in consequence of being affected - #9632; . s

Slaughtered after inoculation at periods from a week to six weeks, and in consequence of showing the pathogusmonic signs of the disease - - s

Remained apparently sound and protected by inocula

tion . . . . ,

24 37

(iREBSOCE

22 10 0

110 O No disease for ten years before this one case. This was case of six poor emaciated cows, of which five diseased, and all slaughtered.

104 10 0 Slaughtered. Disease did not spread.

Hamiltoraquo; I

Hawick

Interarat Invebbebvie -ikverkeitiiiso

48 laquo; 0 23 C 0

66 10 0

23 6 3

Slaughtered; but our experience is limited.

49 17 C

15 0 0

64 17 6

In one case healthy cattle in contact slaughtered, and no further outbreak occurred insame locality. In another this not done, and the remainder of the stock continued healthy.

Inverness

Invebdbie

(Included in Aber-deenshire).

Ibviite -

KllMABHOOK

ElLBBNNT

KlNGHORN

KlHTOBB

(Included in Aber-deenshire).

Kirkcaldy

123 0 0

910 6 0

1,033 6 0

Slaughtered, and stamped out.

disease

9 0 0

Generally cows in in an infected byre have been slaughtered, and disease prevented from spreading.

KlBECUDBBIQHT

KlRKWAM

LAHARK

Luith #9632; liitiithgdw -

JiOCHMABBK MUKTBOSB

580 0 0

680 0 0

Inoculation has been resorted to since 1878, and has been found very successful.

72 11 S

72 11 3

Complete success, with the exception of two cases, where infection was supposed to exist before inoculation took place.

mubseibubou Nairn -

Oban -

9 0 0

0 0

71 0 0

Immediate slaughter successful.

APPENDIX.

301

OOUPBNBATIOM PAID Poll CATTIiB SlAUÖIITUBKU.

BUHOIIB.

ll IS

Gnttlo Diseased,

II.

Healthy Cattle in Contact,

III,

Total,

Policy udopted as regards

SlmiKliUir of Cuttle in

contact, and result.

Exuerionco of resultraquo; of Inoculation where resorted to.

1'AIBLBV

£ s. (I. 18 IS 0

£ a. d. 18 0 0

£ s. d. 66 15 0

The only occasion of slaughter of cattle in contact; ordered on the urgent appeal of the owner, to get the infected area declared free. 182. was a compromise paid to him to slaughter the cattle at sight of Inspector.

I'KRTIt

29 0 0

271) 0 0

308 0 0

Invariably slaughtered, with the result that no further outbreak in neighbourhood occurred.

GlKRHEAD

(Included in Aber-deenghire).

PlTTSKWBBM -

Poet-Glasoow portobbllo #9632; qcbessperbt

RBNFRBW RüTHBBSLBN #9632;

88 10 0

118 0 0

20610 O

In the first of the two cases the whole cattle in contact were slaughtered. In the second case those in contact were isolated, and remained unaffected. The latter course is what is preferred by he Local Authority,

St. AuDBBWa Saucjuhae Sblkiek Stieliho

128 Vi 6

* 7

15117 1

Slaughtered. In opinion of Local Authority the result has been successful, as no fresh outbreak of disease has occurred.

Tais Wick

Total in Burghs

2,602 2 9

2,469 7 1

4,961 9 10

Ä38TBACI O! THE PoEEGOING.

CoMPBHSAiioir Paid foe Cattle Sladohteebd.

Number of Stocks Affected,

Cattle Diseased,

II.

Healthy Cattle in Contact.

III. Total.

OODHTIBS BUROHS #9632;

269

£ laquo;. d. 10,66laquo; 17 6

2,602 2 0

£ laquo;. d. 19,064 13 5

2,469 7 1

£ raquo;. d. J,6S1 10 11

4,961 910

TOTAI,

18,069 0 3

21,624 0 6

34,603 0 0

Compiled from Special Returns obtained for the Local Authority of tho County of Lanraquo;rk.

W. -Ajwton JJxkes, Clerk of Supply. Hamilton, loth March 1888,

.#9632;502

COMM1TTKK ON PLBUKOI'NEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Oompauative Statement of the Outbueaks of Plbubo-Pneumonia in Scotland during tho last, six years, and of the Oomvensation paid during the lasfc four years. The statistics of the first flvo of those years are taken from tho Annual Reports of tho Abricultuhal Depahtment of the Pbivy Council.


	OUTBBBAKB.	OOMPENSATION PAIB FOR OATTLK SLAUOHTBBRD.
	OUTBBBAKB.	I.	II. III.
		Cattle Diseased.	Healthy Cattle in ToTAt, Contact.
Vbak 1882 1888 , 1881 #9632; . .	711 77 58	In the Reports for those two years the componsatioR in respect of slaughter in Plouro-Pneumoniais not distinguished from the compensation paid in respect of slaughter in other diseases.
Vbak 1882 1888 , 1881 #9632; . .	711 77 58	£ s. d. 2,436 1raquo; 4	£ s. d. .1,141 raquo; 5	£ s. d. 5,681 8 i)
1885	BO	8,711 8 1	0,680 0 8	10.891 8 4
1888	!)4	6,299 5 2	8,832 0 5	18,181 5 7
1887	380	18,089 0 3	21,624 0 0	34,698 0 9

Note.As appears from the Reports of the Agricultural Department, the amount returned by certain Local Authorities for 1884,1885, and 1886 are stated after deduction of the proceeds of the sale of carcasses. In the above statement for 1887, it is understood that, except in one unimportant case, the compensation returned is the gross amount, before makins such deduction.

W. A. D.

Papers relative to Slaughter and Inoculation.Put in by Mr. Spreull.

Copy Lettbks and Reports as to Slaughter and Inooolation. quot; Tummelbridgo Hotel, bv Pitlochry, quot;Dear Sir,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; July 7,1887.

quot;With reference to your letter of yesterday's date, and as desired by the Commissioners, I state my opinions as follows :

quot; 1st. As to the inoculation of healthy cattle for the prevention of plouro-pneumonia, I think in the present stage of the question the local authority should not adopt the practice.

'' The responsible advisers of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council have condemned the practice, and tho Grovernment recently stated in the House that such inoculation was the means of spreading infection. quot; Therefore, until we have more light on the question, delay is advisable.

quot; 2nd. As to the milk of inoculated animals, I have no doubt or liositation in stating my opinion. All tho milk yielded by any animal, while under the influence of moculaHon, should be destroyed forthwith. Such destruction sbould be done daily by a sanitary official; and any person abstracting or using such milk should bo liable to heavy penalties.

' It is doubtful how long the influence of inoculation affects tho physical condition of the animal, and, so far as 1 know, there is no clear and ooncluaivo evidence to warrant the wholesoraoness of the milk at any given period subsequent to inoculation.

quot; Yours faithfully, quot; Thomas Thornton, Esq.,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;A. M. Anderson,

'' Clerk to the Local Authority, quot; Dundee.quot;

ing purposes, under Article 15 (b.) of The Animals Order of 1886, which requires a Special Order of the Privy Council, I have to request that I may he furnished with full particulars as to the description of the public slaughter-house to which it is proposed to move the animals, and as to whether it is situate within the district of the local authority of the burgh. quot;I am, Sir,

'' Your obedient servant,

quot; C. L. Peel.quot;

Extract from annual report mentioned in the foregoing letter :

'' The question of how to deal with pleuro-pneumonia in Great Britain does not require much consideration, universal experience having established the fact that nothing short of the slaughter of diseased cattle, and of those which have been exposed to infection, and the adoption of the precautions which are includecU(n the stamplng-out system, will secure the desired result. Isolation and inoculation succeed in checking the spreading of the infection, but they do not effect tho extinction of the disease.

quot; It is curious in the present day to observe that even among stock owners there is a want of appreciation of the advantages of the stamping-out system as a means of getting rid of contagious diseases, although our own experience and that of all countries in which it has been tested is entirely in its favour. The popular maxim that the doctor is bound to try to cure and not to kill his patient is unassailable so long as it is limited in its application to patients whose lives possess a value which cannot be estimated in money. But in regard to the live stock of the farm, the pecuniary aspect of tho question is the all-important one for the farmer, and it is not only permissible, but absolutely essential, that the two systems of killing and curing shall be considered on the basis of finance rather than on that of medical science. Even on scientific grounds there is something to be urged in favour of slaughter in certain diseases. Pleuro-pneumonia, for example, is an affection which cannot be cured. It is quite true that when cattle affected with this disease were treated by veterinary surgeons at a time when no Acts or Orders existed, a proportion amounting from 30 to 50 per cent, recovered ; that is to say, they did not die, but regained a degree of health, and in some oases wore again brought into use for dairy purposes, but tho diseased portion of lung in these cattle remained; and for an unknown time, at least for many months, the infective matter from the morbid structure would bo carried out of tho lungs along with the animal's breath, infecting other cattle which came within reach of the apparently recovered beasts. On no plea could such dansrerous lives be worth

quot; Agricultural Department, quot; Privy Council Office, quot; 44, Parliament Street, Westminster, S.W., quot;Sir,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;9th July 1887.

quot; I have submitted to the Lords of the Council your letter of the 6th instant, requesting the opinion of the Agricultural Department on the flubjoct of the inoculation of apparently healthy animals in the same byre or shed with animals afleoted with plouro-pneumonia.

quot; In reply, I am directed to refer you to the annual report of that department on the Contagious Diseases Inspection and Transit of Animals, for tho year 1886, on pages 5, 6, and 7 of which you will find that tho question is dealt with.

quot; Respecting the movomcnl of cattle affected with plcuro-pneuminia out of an infected place for slaughter-

APrK.NDTX.

303

preserving, and least of all, on the ground of hamanity or ooonomy.

quot;The veterinarian naturally prefers to nttempt to savo the life of his patient, and when he advises slaugh-tor as an alternative with the view of extinguishing disease, it is reasonable to allow that ho is not acting in his own interest, nor in conformity with his pro-fossional instincts, which would induce him. to tost the curative and preventive power of all the means within his reach, instead o'f rendering investigation impossible by the summary process of slaughter.

quot; The enthusiasm with which some of tho principal #9632;veterinary authorities in Scotland have advocated the adoption of inoculation of the oattlo in a herd in which pleuro-pneumonia has appeared, is perfectly intelligiblo, but unfortunately for its advocates the history of inoculation furnishes the strongest arguments against its adoption.

quot; In countries whore inoculation is most extensively practised, pleuro-pneumonia is always most rife. For example, in Belgium, and especially the townof Hasselt, the residence of Dr. Willems, the discoverer and consistent advocate of the operation. More than 30 years ago the savants of France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands decided that inoculation, while it does not give absolute immunity, confers on the system of the inoculated animal a certain degree of protection for a time which is not determined, and so far the inoculated animals are benefited; but tho fatal objection is, as has been before pointed out, that among the herd in which pleuro-pneumonia is detected, there are certainly some cattle which have taken the disease in a mild form, which is not indicated by any signs of ill-health, and cannot be discovered while the animal is alive. These apparently healthy cattle, after being inoculated, will be looked upon as safe from an attack of the disease from which they are actually suffering, although in a form, which is unrecognisable by ordinary means of examination, and only demonstrable on post-mortem examination. This obscure affection is nevertheless communicable to other cattle with which the inoculated animals may come in contact.

'' In favour of inoculation as a means of controlling the spreading of pleuro-pneumonia, it is urged that a large number of dairy and breeding cows and feeding stock may be preserved instead of being summarily disposed of, to the great inconvenience and sometimes ruinous loss of the owner. This plea acquires additional force when it can be shown that owing to want of uniform action on the part of the different local authorities pleuro-pneumonia is constantly spreading from districts in which the restrictions are inadequate, or are not strictly enforced ; but even if the plea be admitted, the objections against inoculation which have been referred to still remain so far as the infected herds are concerned. Inoculation has a certain value as a preventive. But the mischief which is done^ by the circulation of infected cattle after inoculation and their association with other cattle in various parts of the country, is not clearly recognised; if it were, the operation would soon be abandoned.

quot; When the Netherlands Government passed an edict which virtually made inoculation compulsory in the Spooling district, they were wise enough to provide that no bovine animals should be moved out of the district, except in the form of beef; and wherever inoculation is practised for the benefit of the individual stock owner, the inoculated cattle should he shut up for life in the interest of the community.

quot;No country has yet been successful in getting rid of pleuro-pneumonia by the aid of inoculation, and at this moment there is not one fact which can be adduced in favour of the system in addition to those which were urged by Dr. Willems in 1852. Indeed, all the added facts of the intervening period militate _ against the practice as a means of eradicating the disease from a country.quot;

your clerk, but should any moiuber of the Commission desire further explanation ou tho subject, I shall bo onlv too glad to supply him with whatever information I am in possession of, oithor in elucidation of any point ou which I am about to touch, or in the ampliBcation on the whole subject.

quot;I. 'As to tho pioposod plan of inoculation and its merits.'

quot; In making preparation for the operation of inoculation, the first and most important oonsidoration is to find a suitable diseased lung from which to select tho virus ; then the selection must bo very carefully made, and, when it has been made, the lymph must be used within a limited time,while yet it is perfectly fresh, and free from tho dovolopmont of putrifaotivo germs, which very spoodily make their advont therein,in order to ensure the undoubted success of tho operation. quot; The modo of performing the operation I nood not describe in detail, as that is a matter of no oonsequent'o so far as tho terms of this report are concerned. Suffice it to say that the tip of the tail is the part operated upon for a variety of very cogent reasons ; but first and principally, because this is tho most oonveniont place; and, secondly, because, in the event of the inoculation taking too great an effect, and thi-eatening to extend to the vital structures above, all that is necessary in order to completely control and restrict its action, is to resort hi the simple but effective means of amputation of the part involved, so soon as the inoculation has como to maturity, which usually occurs from a fortnight to three weoks, or occasionally as late as close upon a month after the operation.

quot; As to the merits of the operation after it has been done, I consider myself quite within the mark whlaquo;n .1 state with the utmost confidence that it will save not less than 99 per cent, of all animals that are inoculated in a healthy state, and render them perfectly proquot;!' against the disease. Not only are they rendered incapable of taking the disease themselves, but they are equally incapable of transmitting it to others with which they may be afterwards brought into contact, as has been again and again exemplified within my own personal experience and in this immediate noighbour-hood.

quot;The following statistical summary of facts may, however, serve to illustrate the merits of the system better than any mere verbal explanation that I could possibly give:


Outbreak.	Number ot Inoculations (without selection).	Killed Diseased (after the operation).	Remaining Healthy.
A.	44	¹	laquo;
B.	12	0	12
0.	7	0	7
D.	6	0	6
B.	3	u	3
F.	17	1	IG
G.	Ti	0	(i(i
H.	a	1	2
I.	48	1	47
J.	4fl	0	til
K.	2	0	i
L.	20	0	20
M.	8	i	7
N.	72	r	67
0.	2	()	2
P.	8	0	raquo;
Q.	12	0	12
Total	laquo;80 Inoculations.	l(i Killed diseased.	3(14 Remaining healthy

quot; Yeaman Shore, Dundee, 12th July 1887. quot; Gentlemen,

quot; In compliance with the wish expressed at the meeting of the Sanitary Committee, on the evening of Tuesday last, öth inst., and in conformity with the terms of a letter forwarded to me on your behalf by Mr, Thornton, I have much pleasure in Bubmitting the following report for your consideration on the subject of contagious pleuro-pneumonia in cattle.

quot; In doing so I may say that I will confine my remarks strictly to the points raised in the letter received through

quot; Figures like those, when resulting from the indiscriminate adoption of inoculation, speak for themselves, more especially when it is homo in mind that the losti after inoculation can bo reduced, without serious difficulty, to not more than half the above proportion by tho careful elimination of all suspected cases before going on with the operation, and by performing it only on such as are believed to bo thoroughly healthy animals ;

304

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBBKOULÜS1S :

and when it is further romombored that in each and all of the aboTo-mentionod outbreaks the disease dis-appoarod as completely as if tho pole-axe had been at work, as soon us the inoculation had time to como to maturity and take effect on the system of the animal. In proof of what I have just stated, ic is only necessary to mention that all the oases in which the disease made its appearance after inoculation had been performed, did so within 16 days of that date, thus most conclusively demonstrating that the disease must have existed in a latent form prior to the dato of tho operation. One only of all tho above-mentioned cases was lost os a result of the inoculation itself, and as this was the solitary example of a healthy animal lost out of all the hundreds I have quoted, it is only fair to conclude, that, if perfectly healthy animals alone were to be operated upon, the loss as a result of tho operation would hoc exceed the modest sum of from three to five per thousand. Still further, however, in order to satisfy those who may bo inclined to doubt, notwithstanding, what I have already said, I may mention that in outbreak (F), only three of the animals were at first inoculated in order to test its value, and the result was that the disease continued to pick off one here and one there amongst the uninooulated animals, while these three continued to take their food and give their milk as usual, just as if nothing remarkable had happened to them, and innocent of how death was thinning out the ranks of their companions all around. Finding ultimately that they would not die, and as it now became apparent to the owner that if ho was to save any of the others, it would be necessary to resort to similar means to protect them, the remaining 14 animals were accordingly operated upon, but within a few days one of them succumbed, leaving, however 13 sound and healthy animals, besides the first three, which all stood out to the end, and were alive and well when I saw them last, just before the place was declared to be free from disease.

quot; My experience in outbreaks (I) and (J) were, if possible, of even a more satisfactory character.

quot; In (I) only one case failed to become protected out of a herd of 48 animals which were subjected to the operation. This stock, like tho last mentioned one (F), were not all put under the operation at the same time, but were inoculated in two lots, as one half of the cattle were kept in a separate part of the steading, and at a considerable distance from the byre in which the outbreak of the disease had occurred. One of the first lot operated upon succumbed soon after the Operation, and the disease disappeared for some weeks. When, however, this state of matters had gone on to about the sixth week, the disease, as usual, without any extraneous aid, found out for itself that there were still a. number of unprotected animals within reach of its baneful influence, and, without more ado, selected its victim. So soon, however, as this occurred, the owner, being quite alive to the situation, caused all the remaining cattle to be inoculated without further delay, and from that day the disease completely disappeared.

quot;In outbreak (J), as in the cases of (F) and (I), the stock were not all inoculated at once. The first lot operated upon here being a lot of 14 milch cows, amongst which the disease had made its appearance. There was, however, a lot of eight fat ones left undone, which stood in the opposite end of a very long byre from the stall in which the diseased cow had been, and as they were partially separated by a wooden partition, had never been actually in contact with the others, and were meant to be killed off without delay, the owner thought them quite safe, and that it was unnecessary to touch them. After a few weeks had elapsed, the whole of the 14 inoculated animals had quite got over their operation, and were sound and healthy; but as suitable arrangements for the slaughter of the eight fat ones could not be made so soon as expected, they still remained in their stalls, with the result that, as in tho other instances quoted, the disease found that they were still unprotected, and five of them out of the eight were found to be diseased, and had to be slaughtered in consequence, while three of thorn only remained healthy till they were all killed by arrangement with the owner about six weeks after the outbreak of the disease. The remaining cattle in the adjoining courts were now inoculated, as it was perfectly evident that the disease would soon have extended to them, the result being that the whole of them did well, and, including the 14 cows which were at first operated upon, the whole 49 animals were in good health, and several of them ready for the butcher when the declaration of freedom from disease was made.

On the other hand, in tho case of outbreak (Q-) where all tho animaLs were inoculated as soon as the disease made its appearance, tho whole six oases that had to be killed in coa8ec|uenoe of disease ooourred within 16 days after the operation ; tho same thing may be said in regard to outbreak (N), but here only about lOaays elapsed before all the diseased animals had been weeded out, and no further cases occurred, except that one of this herd succumbed to the effects of the operation. The same remarks, in fact, apply about equally to all the other cases, it is therefore surely unnecessary for me to multiply instances, or to enter into further detail as to the merits of the operation of inoculation in this disease. Suffice it for me to say that, without exception, tho cattle on each of the above-mentioned premises were mixed with fresh stock on the expiration of the prescribed period of 56 days, and up to the present time not a single case of disease has resulted from doing so ; moreover, where the inoculated animals have been sold to the butcher and killed there has not, so far as I have been able to learn, been a single instance in which there has been the least svspiown of the disease on making a post-mortem examinationraquo;

quot;II. 'How do you think the local authority could carry it out?quot; Inoculation can only be carried out with the consent of the owner, as there is no power to enforce it, but as it is equally to the interest of the local authority and the owner to adopt itand as there are no special provisions in the Contagious Diseases Animals Acts or Orders of Council to prevent itit is rare that any objection will be made to the carrying out of the operation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

quot; III. 'With special reference to the disposal of the milk of the cows inoculated and otherwise.' One of the first signs of disease, or systemic disturbance of any kind that attracts the attention of the attendants on or owners of milch cows is the cessation of the lacteal supply, and in no case is this more marked than in the disease of which I am now speaking; yet, while that is so, it is nothing unusual for us to be told that the animal in question ' gave her milk, ate her food, and ' was chewing her cud on the morning of the day on ' which she was observed to be taken ill,' and on which also she was most likely to be killed by the butcher; while the post-mortem examination reveals to us a state of things which it is impossible to conceive could have come about in a period short of weeks or even months of illness. Of course, during all this time the milk has been given, it has also been mixed with the product of the neighbouring cows, and sold without the slightest suspicion being attached to it. Now, if the milk of such animals can be sold and used with impunity and prove itself perfectly innocuous, it must be infinitely safer to use that drawn from a cow which has been the subject of inoculation, as, if there be anything of a deleterious nature in the milk in either case, it must admittedly be much more likely to be present in the case of the animal which has contracted the disease in the ordinary way, where the amount of systemic disturbance is greatest, and where the development of the disease products is much more aggravated than in inoculated cases. Not only is the contagium of the disease present in such cases in considerably larger . quantities, but it is located in much more vital structures, and in addition to retarding and interfering with the proper purification of the blood from its mere mechanical presence, it is also there in a much more subtle, readily-communicable and active form, ready to be and freely is given off in the breath from the substance of the lungs. While that is so in regard to the cases of disease with which from time to time we have to deal, on the other hand, the oases in which inoculation has produced the development of the disease, display none of the dangerous distinguishing characteristics of which I have just spoken, the action of the virus of the disease being strictly confined to the immediate surroundings of the point of its insertion, and though it regularly developes sufficient energy to produce such an effect upon the system of tbr animal as to render it incapable of contracting the disease itself thereafter, which is really all that is wanted from the operation,yet either from the nature of the structure in which it has developed, or from the fact that it is not brought into contact with the atmosphere in the same way, or to the same extent as it does when located in the lungs, or from some other unknown cause, it becomes emasculated and loses all its more virulent (jualities, and can only be again propagated by such direct means as ro-inoculation. As n plant will not grow and como to its characteristic maturity without a suitable soil and other favourable

------------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 

APPI2NDIX.

306

conditions, bo in like manner the germs of this disease will not develop their (iharactoristio effects when a suitable medium for that development is not forthcoming, and as the suitability of the medium in the oraquo;se of the human species does not exist, therefore no such disease as contagious pleuro-pneumonia can develop itself therein. I do not, therefore, know that there need be the slightest hesitation to use, or allow the milk of inoculated animals to be used, as it is a well-known fact that plouro-pneumonia is essentially a disease of the ruminantia, and has hitherto proved itself quite incapable of development in any other section of the animal kingdom, It is equally well-known that if you sow oats you cannot reap barley, and so in like manner the diseases of the zymotic or contagious class produce and reproduce solely and only their own special kind, whether they have been introduced into the system of the animal by inoculation or otherwise.

Supposing even that it were possible for this disease to develop itself in our systems, the connecting links necessary therefor are wanting. The virus or active contagium of this disease can only be found in a mature state in the substance of the diseased lungs, or in the tissues of the part surrounding the point of inoculation, nothing more than the immature microbes, or even more probably still, only the emanations from their minute bodies being present in the blood and the milk, or in any other part of the system of the animal, it therefore follows a natural corollary that as we cannot grow grain from unripe seed, or if we do not give it suitable soil and other favourable conditions, so in like manner there is no danger of the development of the disease from using the milk of pleuro-pneumonia inoculated cows, as neither of these essential conditions for its inception and growth are available.

quot; If practical proof be of any value to our contention, then that also is not wanting in support of it, as, notwithstanding that the milk of hundreds of inoculated animals iu this and the surrounding district has been consumeda great proportion of it by infants, who would be specially susceptible to any sinister influence it might containno such thing as a case of contagious pleuro-pneumonia amongst them has ever yet been heard of. Laying the milk question aside, however, it is not a matter of very great importance, in the consideration of the causes, Inoculation v. Stamping-out, whether the milk should or should not be used; and if it please the local authority best so to order that there be a period fixed during which its use must be discontinued, in order that there may not even be the suspicion of any harm attachable to so important a food product of the peoplemore especially of the rising generationthen by all means let the milk be sacrificed without hesitation, and debased, if I may so term it, strictly to such uses and purposes as those for which alone nature provided the supply.

quot;. IV. As to ' any other suggestions which may occur ' to you in regard to outbreaks or pleuro-pneumonia.'

quot; One such suggestion occurs to me on the subject under discussion, which is probably worth mentioning here, and is as follows:Till the veterinary profession has gained more experience and has become more uniform in its belief in the efficiency of inoculationtill our authorities have instituted some satisfactory experimental inquiry into the matter, and have come to a favourable conclusionand till the public at large are more enlightened on the subject, and have gained sufficient confidence that the very best thing is being done for its extirpationit might be well to impose restrictions on all cattle which have been exposed to the infection of pleuro-pneumonia, and have been inoculated therefor, for a period of not less than 12 months, or for life even, if that should prove more acceptable, and make it illegal to move them from the place in which they are kept, except for immediate slaughter. Were some such measure as this adopted it would entirely disarm the opposition to inoculation, as it would no longer be possible for our opponents to contend that there was a probability of the inoculated animals propagating and spreading the disease, as they would never come into contact with any others except those in the same byre, and under similar circumstances to themselves, and would never again be moved therefrom, except when about to be slaughtered.

quot; It is also highly desirable that powers should be obtained for the authorities of this burgh similar to those contained in Orders of Council (447) Edinburgh, (449) Glasgow, and (450) Loith, by which the local authorities of these cities can, when occasion demands, remove diseased, suspected, or even healthy animals from premises in which it may bo either highly

o 54003,

impracticable or absolutely impossiblefor want of the necessary accommodationto kill them, as provided for by the terms of the Acts and other Orders of Council. Without some such powers, it is quite impossible for your officials to administer and carry out efficiently the working provisions of these Acts. I trust, therefore, that powers of this kind will be got without further delay.

quot; Humbly reported by your obedient servant,

quot; Andw. SrnJäuiL, P.B.O.Y.S., quot; Veterinary Inspector for the Burgh quot; To the Honble. thenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;of Dunuoe

quot; Commissioners of Police for quot; the Burgh of Dundee.quot;

quot; Sanitary Department,

quot; West Bell Street, Dundee, quot; 18th July 1887. quot; Dear Sib,

quot; In reference to the two recent outbreaksoi pienru-pneumonia within this burgh, and the question of inoculation against slaughter, I am decidedly of opinion the latter course is the only sure and safe way of stamping out the disease, and ridding the community of all danger from using the milk of cows that may bo in the first stage of the disease, and unknown to tho owner. This course in the end will likewise be found to be the least expensive to the ratepayers. If inoculation is to be practised, it will require the services of a sanitary officer in each dairy to see that the milk from the animals is effectually destroyed and the regulations fully carried out.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Yours truly,

quot; Thos. Thornton, Esq.,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Tjios. Kinneae.

quot; Clerk to the Local Authority, Albert Square.quot;

Supplemental Report up to Mai 1888.

In order to bring my experiments with inoculation for the prevention of contagions pleuro-pneumonia up to date it is only necessary for me to add the results of three further outbreaks, as follows :


Outbreak.	Inoculations.	Killed Diseased.	Kormiiiiinsr Healthy.
Totals forward R. - . #9632; 8. - - -T. - - -	880 I 11 34,	16 0 1 t	364 1 10 32
Totals -	#9632;12laquo;	19 407

So far as these outbreaks are concerned, the latter two only call for any remarks regarding them.

Outbreak (S) took place about the middle of November last (1887) amongst a lot of 23 milch cows in byre, with 10 feeding stirks in a court adjoining, separated, only by two ordinary wooden doors, through which, when open, all the manure from the byre was xhrown into the court. On 25th January 1888 the 10 stirks in the court were inoculated, and on 23rd February one of the milch cows was also done, which the owner was specially anxious to save, if at all possible, but within a fortnight of the operation she had to be slaughtered, sutfering from the disease. By about the middle of February two of the stirks that were very weakly to begin with had very sore tails from the effects of the operation, and on the 23rd I advised the owner that they should be put into shelter, but as he had no more convenient place for them, he immediately pub them, without either cleansing or disinfection, into two stalls in the byre, from which within an Lour or two previously two diseased cows had been taken for slaughter. In these stalls they were kept, under the same roof, breathing the same air, and in the midst of the remaining cows, amongst which the disease was making such havoc, up to the 17th March, by which time the whole of the 23 milch cows had been slaughtered, with tho result that only two out of that number were found on post-mortem examination to be free from the disease.

30G

COMMITTEE UN PLEURO-PNEl'MONIA AND TUBEBCULOS18;

Alter this date these two BtirkB wore ngain put out into the court omougBt the other eight inoculated unimals, tbat the byre might bo cleansed and diein-ibcted, as proyidod for by the Acts, and remained with thorn thriving and doing well on till 14th April, when the #9632;whole 10 were killed in censecpience of the operation of the Compulsory Slaughter Order of 6th March last, when they were all found on post-mortem examination to bo absolutely froo from disease.

As showing the beneficent action of inoculation more fully, I may hero mention that, besides completely protecting these 10 stirks from the disease,two of them under the most trying circumstances,it interfered so little with their growth and development during the period of its action now under review, that, while they were valued on behalf of the local authority on 30th November 1887 at the sumof 60J. sterling, they were revalued by the same valuator in the feame interest on 30th March 1888 at the sum of 1001. sterling, being au increase of no loss than 4L a head for the four months.

The two diseased animals in outbreak (T) were most undoubtedly old cases, and the whole of the others were found on post-mortem examination to be perfectly healthy, when they also had to be slaughtered in consequence of the operation of the Compnluory Slaughter Order from 30 to 37 days after the operation.

I may bero be permitted to give you a few notes on the working of the existing Acts and Orders of Council which I intended to speak upon when I was before the committee of incpiry, but which, so far as I remember, were either entirely omitted or very casually touched upon, but which I consider of some importance to the efficient working of these Acts, viz.:

Ist. That local authorities should either be entirely abolished, or made simply administrative, under definite instructions, in order to secure uniformity of action throughout the whole of the disease-infected districts.

2nd. Tbat restrictions should apply exclusively to infected places and districts, particularly export districts or places, such as the west of Scotland, the north of England, and Ireland.

3rd. That all diseased and suspected cattle should be slaughtered, and power given to veterinary inspectors to do so without waiting for the consent of local or central authorities.

4th. That veterinary inspectors be not held pecuniarily responsible for the value of any animals slaughtered under the belief that they were suffering from contagious pleuro-pneumonia, even when on post-mortem examination tiiey are found to he free from this disease.

5th. That a post-mortem examination be made by the veterinary inspector of the district of all cases of death, or where an animal is killed under suspicious circumstances.

6th. That the compulsory slaughter of healthy animals in contact is not only costly and quite unnecessary, but is likely to defeat its own object by preventing owners of pure bred stock and dairy farmers from reporting early, as slaughter means to them a total loss of their trade.

7tb. That as inoculation is equally as effective in stopping this disease as the pole-axe, it is preferable in every way ; owners will be glad to report at once, whenever tliey know that the disease can be arrested with little trouble and less cost, and at the same time if their trade be in pure bred stock it is scarcely, if at all, interfered with, while in the case of the dairy farmers, theirs goes on all the time without the slightest hindrance.

And 8th. That if the foregoing oases had all been killed out, as is now being done, the loss thereon would have been as follows;

Under Slaughter.

426 cows. 15 average value,

2130

426

6390 total value. Salvage ss £ of above = 2130

,£'4200 loss to local authority.

Under Inoculation.

19 cows lost diseased. 15 average value.

95 19

286 total value. Salvage J = 95

190 loss. 50 say for veterinary fees.

.240 total loss.

The above figures are sufficiently graphic to require no further explanation of the diflerenoe between the two methods.

Paper tut in by R. Ruthbrfobd, FE.C.V.S.

laquo;^

Animals inoculated by me in Edinbui-Kh and county, excluBive of Leith and Fortobello.

891

687

144

118

187

223

299

632

300

Do. Leith

344

224

133

247

Do. Portobello

141


Centres in Edinburgh -	38	30	8	3	4	14	10	1	10	9
Centres in County	IS	7	8	8	3	-	6	--	7	G
Centres in Leith -	20	14	1	-	-	-	6	1	0	9
Centres in Portobello -	3	3	-	-	-		-	-	1	-

Inoculated iu above places and in other counties from 1878 to 1887, 6,116.

Inoculated in places where disease was, 130; each representinK a separate owner.

Handed in by Mb. Woodboof.

Number of Cows inoculated by the late Mr. H. Pkiestman from 1867 to 1873.


Year.	Number of Dairies.	Number inoculated.	Number affected.	Swelled Tails.
1875	3	16	3
1858	28	370		1
1859	41	915	25
1860	40	846	13	3
1861	22	654	6	3
1862	27	541	38	9
1863	24	505	39	C
1864	21	678	100	3
1866	13	325	13	1
1866	nil.	lt;	battle plague.
1867	1	11	4
1868	4	35	3
1869	6	93	13
1870	14	252	29	1
1871	18	642	29	1
1872	24	395	49	3
1878	28	602	24	2
		6,780	388	S3

ArnsNDix.

307

NtJMBEn of Cows inoonlafced daring the year 1874.

1870 and 1876contirmocl.

I i

Average cows kept.

o .

I'd

o laquo;gt; 'A

Whether infected at the

time of commencing

Inoculation.

Average No.

kept.

#9632;3

o laquo;


	1	1 a
	$53	H
	wJS
	ö raquo;	V
	13	i

Whothor infected at the

time of oommenoing

Inoculation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

24 4 12 100 8 6 12 14 12 18 8 50 8 35 8 13 12 50 40

16 65 49 70 17 6 16 29

28 12 14

8 4 5

138

12 77 49 66 11 5 21 25

7 4

14 5 3

Yes.

No.

Yes, had slaughtered one.

No.

Yes, had slaughtered one.

No.

Yes, several slaughtered.

Yes.

No.

Yes, had three slaughtered.

No.

No, the two were affected within six weeks of their arrival in the shed.

Yes, had five slaughtered.

Yes.

Yes, had 19 slaughtered.

Yes.

Yes (/owr in shed affected at the time).

No.

Yes.

No.

3 4 5 (i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

18 6

10 15 8 10 15 12 20 12 6

27 115 21 8 16 5 8 31 12 17 7 14 33 8 9

1 3

Yes.

No.

No,

Yes.

360 45

1877, 1878, 1879, and 1880.


5 0	tu l	*amp;* 3 sect; r	s .	1 'öS as	Whether infected at the time of Inoculation
1	60	75	9	1	No.
2	30	52	2		Yelaquo;.
3	15	15	1		Yes.
4	50	108	5	1	Yes.
5	10	20	5		Yes.
6	8	14	2		Yes.
7	15	11	1		Yes.
8	20	19	1		Yes.
9	30	64	5		Yes.
10	50	46	10		Yes.
11	20	16			Yes.
12	40	20	1		This case in shod two montlis,
13	65	149	17		Yes.
14	18	14	2		Yes.
15	30	46	1		No.
16	30	25	1		No.
17	12	9	1		No.
		703	64	2

755

671

Daibibs where Dieease was in existence or broke out after Inoculation.

1875 and 1876.


1	Aver-	k	%	1	Whether infeoted at tha
Q	age	\			time of commencing
s 6	No. kept.	\			Inoculation,
1	16	¹¹	2		No.
2	18	18	3		No.

Qq 2

SOS

COMMITTEE ON PLEOEO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS!

1881,1882, and 1883.

Answeii to Questions put by the Committee to M. Lameius, on Pleuro-Pneumonia in Holiand.

London, May 1888.

I have ondeavoui'od to answer the quostions which have been put to mo, as far as I am able to do so with the material within my reach.

An approximate calculation of the amount of com-pensation paid for animals which died in consoquonco of inoculation, and for the slaughter of suspected animals, can be made by multiplying the number by 170 guilders (14i. 3g. 4d.), and for the slaughter of infected animals by multiplying tho number by 85 guilders (7J. Is. 8^.)quot;.

I may mention that the flesh of animals dying in consequence of inoculation is buried.

One-third of the value of an animal may bo taken to represent the amount received from the sale of meat.

The district veterinary surgeon, J. T. Iamebis. To the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council.


	1	\	1	3 1	Whether infected at the time
1	*gt;* *lt;*	a j		3 1	of Innculatiou.
1	30	124	15	1	No.
2	30	64	3		No.
3	12	33	2		No.
4	65	158	5	2	Yes.
5	6	4	1		Yes.
8	16	9			Yes.
7	30	72	10		No.
8	14	42	5		Yes.
9	18	11	2		Yes.
10	50	108	7		Yes.
		1125	50	3

Pleuko-Pneomonia, Eoiland.

1871. Animals attacked -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

6,078

1884, 1885,1886, and 1887.

Ttamp;mavks.

The Act of 20th July 1870, and tho decrees iu pursuance thereof, were first applied to-wards the end of 1870. Amount of compensation and prodace of the sale of meat unknown.

1872. Animals attacked ----- 4,008 After the 13th of November 1872, suspected cattle were slaughtered in some parts of tho kingdom, the number of which is not given in the annual report.

1873. Animals attacked -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . 2,479

Cattle inspectors were appointed to inspect suspected cases.

Up to 8th April 1873 suspected animals were slaughtered in some parts of the country; there is no return of the numbers.

Whether infected at the time cf Inoculation.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes

Yes.

No.

Yes.

1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

139

182

1874.

Animals attacked -

2,414

By the decree of the 17th April 1874 inoculation of suspected cattle and more strict separation of such cattle were prescribed.

Some suspected cattle slaughtered.

The number of animals which died from inoculation was not stated in the annual reports.

The amount of compensation paid for the slaughter of suspected animals and received for the sale of meat not known.

1875.

Animals attacked.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

-nbsp; 2,227

-nbsp; nbsp;191

Suspected cattle slaughtered Amount of compensation, amp;c. not known.

1876.

Animals attacked -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

-nbsp; 1,723

-nbsp; nbsp; 822

Suspected animals slaughtered -

Compensation, amp;c. not known.

1877.

Animals attacked -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .

Suspected cattle slaughtered

956 3,318

Compensation for animals attacked and

suspectednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; *nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

Sale of meat

- fl. 673,736-66 243,692'92

975

1878. Since 1878 separate returns were made of cases of plouro-pneumonia within tho isolated district in which compulsory inoculation and marking were prescribed.

APPENDIX.

309

Spoeling district within the isolated circle t-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Kingdom (exclusivo of Spooling district) i-

.__! fiu_fi . - - 1,206nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Animala atlackod - - -18

Animals attacked - - #9632;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;g _octod _animal8 _slaughterod in the kingdom

The animals were slaughtered by the owners tor theirnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; (including Spoeling district)

986

own account. .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Compensation, diseased and suspected

fl. 243,719 141,272-60

The cause of the high nutnber of disoawd cattle is tonbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

bo found in stricter inspection.

animals -Meat sold -

Died from inoculation -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , 112

Amount of compensation is not stated in the annual

report.

1884.

Spoeling district:

Animals attacked. . - -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 134

Died from inoculation - - -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 59

The whole kingdom (including Spoeling district) :

Animals attacked . . - -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 234

(Including suspected animals whichnbsp; after slaughter appeared to bo diseased.)

Suspected animals slaughtered - -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 3,050 Compensation, diseased and suspected

animals.....nbsp; nbsp; ^fl-TiÄquot;?S

Meat sold- ....nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 367,70910

The whole kingdom, with the exception of the Spoeling district:

Animals attacked - - -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot; n onn

Suspected animals slaughtered - -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - raquo;raquo;laquo;w

Compensation, diseased and suspected

animals - - - - nbsp; nbsp; quot; 432₎oraquo;5^-50

Sale of meat - - - quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 176,068-83

1879.

Spoeling district:

Animals attacked Died from inoculation

. 475 - 279

1885.

The kingdom, exclusive of the Spoeling district: Animals attacked -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ' ¹⁵'

Slaughtered in the whole kingdom (including the

Spoeling district), suspected animals -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 064

Compensation, diseased and suspectednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.,.,,. .1

anrmals -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; #9632;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;A- 114,114 50

MoXold- - - - - as.sss^

Spoeling district :

Animals attacked _ -

10 4

Died from inoculation .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

In the whole kingdom (including Spooling district) :

1880.

Animals attacked .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

(Including 56 animals suspected, which after slaughter appeared to be diseased.) Suspected animals slaughtered in the whole king-

380

Spoeling district:

Animals attacked Died from inoculation

177 291

dornnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; #9632;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; #9632;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;

Compensation, diseased and suspected

animals.....^o'S

Meat sold.....32,969 62

The whole kingdom (excepting the Spooling district) :

Animals attacked -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - , i , '

Suspected animals slaughtered in the whole king.

dorn (including Spoeling district)nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 4amp;1

Compensation, diseased and suspectednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_no-,ai\i\

animals ...nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - ^fl-^.81900

Meat sold ...nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 19,62049

In the whole kingdom, including the Spoeling district, only one case of pleuro-pneumonia occurred. Suspected animal slaughterednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . _a'-ia\

Compensation -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; quot; 120

Meat soldnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ..,.--nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 35

The District Veterinary Surgeon,

J. F. Lameeie.

To the Privy Council, Agricultural Department, London.

Spoeling district: Animals attacked -Died from inoculation

1881.

267

272

Kingdom (exclusive of Spoeling district) :

Animals attacked -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - ,.'.,,quot;. j ~

Suspected animals slaughtered in the kingdom

12 189

(including Spoeling district) -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

Compensation, diseased and suspectednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;₀ _AO

anfmals ----- fv S? Meat sold.....11,843 95

Papers uandkd in by Mr. Drummond Forbes.

Number of outbreaks of pleuro.pneumonia in the county of Perth :

Traced to Irish cattle.

1882.

Spoeling district : Animals attacked -Died from inoculationnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-

Kingdom (exclusive of Spoeling district):

ÄÄÄ Slaughtered in the kingdom (including Spoeling district) 'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; '

184 207

664

1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888

3 Ö 0 0 i

1 1 2

Compensation, diseased and suspected animals-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot; quot;

137,245 74,866-70

Meat sold .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -

1883.

Spoeling district : Animals attacked -Died from inoculation

163

168

310

COMMITTEE ON I'LEDBO-l'NIOIIMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS

Statf. of PleüecPnbümonia iu tho Oounty of Pebtii. From 80th September 1887 to 30th April 1888.


Date of Out-	Names of Places.	Original Stock.	Attacked Diseano.	order of Looraquo;! Authority.		Slaughtered by Owner on Premises.	Itemaining.		Value of Animals slaughtered	Oompensa-tion.		Carcases sold for.	Loss to Local Authority.
break.	Names of Places.	Original Stock.	Attacked Diseano.	Diseased.	Uoalthy,	Slaughtered by Owner on Premises.	Inocii-latod.	Not Inoculated.	by Local Authority.	Oompensa-tion.		Carcases sold for.	Loss to Local Authority.
1887. Oct. 18	Muirhead.Ardooh	15	2	2	2	_	11	_	£ s. d. 48 0 0	£ s. 42 0	d. 0	£ a. d. 0 18 6	£ s.d. S2 3 7
Nov. 1	Watorybutts, Errol	20	8	8	12	-	-	-	178 B 0	161 6	3	102 3 10	60 2 6
1888. Feb. 4	(ioshen Bank, Soono #9632;	13	2	²		10		_	26 0 0	10 10	0	12 1 0	7 0 0
6	Drnrnktlbo, Moiglo	86	22	22	26	-	2raquo;	10	847 10 0	766 0	3	671 10 0	183 10 3
Mar. 22	Easter Kattray, Blair-KOwric.	o^						61		-		-	-
,. 23	Loyal, Alyth	30	1	1	2	-	-	28	16 0 0	12 16	0	6 0 1	7 14 11
., a-t	Baimacron, Moigle	63	6	6	13			34	247 10 0	227 0	0	120 3 2	106 16 10
	Baimacron, Moigle	277	41	41	56	10	40	133	1.383 5 0	1,217 17	6	821 0 0	306 17 0

Diseased animal from this stock found in Edinburgh, No further appearance of disease.

State of Pletteo-Pneumonia in the Oounty of Prmh.

Prom 30th September 1886 to 30th September 1887.

Pieuiio-Pneümonia.


Date of Out-	Names of Places.	Original Stock.	Attacked by Disease.	Slaughtered by order of Looal Authority.		Slaughtered by Owner on Premises.	Bomaining.		Value of Animals slaughtered by Local Authority.	Compensation.		Carcases sold for.	Loss to Local Authority.
break.	Names of Places.	Original Stock.	Attacked by Disease.	Dis-eased.	loalthy.	Slaughtered by Owner on Premises.	Inoculated.	Not Inoculated.	Value of Animals slaughtered by Local Authority.	Compensation.		Carcases sold for.	Loss to Local Authority.
1886. Nov. 6	#9632;Whinnieinuir, Perth	20	11	11	2	_	7		£ s. d. 170 0 0	£ s. 133 15	d. 0	S s.d. 38 6 7	£ s. d. 06 8 6
26	Glenwhilk, Dunblane	1raquo;	3	3	16	-	-	-	266 10 0	246 7	6	100 11 7	146 16 11
,, 30	LongJorgan Farm -	32	2	2	1	4	28	-	54 0 0	44 15	0	10 18 0	33 17 0
Dec. 11	Errol Hotel	-1	2	2	-	1	2	-	14 0 0	11 10	0	3 4 9	8 6 3
,. 18	Gallowhlll, Criefl -	8	1	1	-	-	7	-	16 0 0	11 6	0		11 6 0
22	Burghmuir, Perth	4	1	1	-	-	4	-	18 0 0	13 10	0	3 6 8	10 4 4
.. 29	Pitcoag, Glenoarso	47	2	2	1	-	41	3	46 10 0	38 0	0	6 12 2	31 7 10
1887. Jan. 1	Burnsidc, RcdROrtou	48	2	2		1	51		18 0 0	IS 10	0	_	13 10 0
raquo; 7	Farroohil, Aberfeldy	14	11	11	3	-	-	-	198 10 0	160 7	6	61 4 7	108 2 11
17	Springfield, Bonhard	27	3	3	-	4	20	-	28 0 0	21 0	⁰	9 10 6	11 0 7
Teb. 8	Errol Park, Errol -	21	7	7	-	3	-	16	82 0 0	61 10	0	38 8 4	23 1 8
16	Eosemount, St. Martins -	23	1	1	-	-	26	-	10 0 0	7 10	0	0 11 8	6 18 4
., 17	Duchlage, CriefE -	27	16	16	9	5	-	-	286 16 0	236 10	0	106 8 11	130 1 1
Mar. 4	Chapel Place, Alyth	4	2	2	2	-	-	-	46 0 0	40 6	0	4 17 1	36 7 11
7	Kuowehead, Bendochy #9632;	8	2	2	3	3	-	-	64 0 0	68 16	0	32 3 11	26 11 1
,. raquo;	Auchnahoyle, Pitlochry	8	3	3	6	-	-	-	90 15 0	80 6	0	22 17 7	67 7 5
raquo; 12	Woodend, Auohtorarder -	30	2	2	-	1	-	31	26 0 0	18 16	0	5 17 1	12 17 11
15	Huntingtowcr Cottage -	1	1	1	-	-	-		16 0 0	12 0	0	6 7 11	6 12 1
., 16	Pitroddie, Errol -	43	1	1	-	-	4?	-	12 10 0	9 7	6	3 12 1	6 16 6
Apr. 28	Wester Cultmalundie	45	2	2	-	-	43	-	16 0 0	11 6	0	6 11 11	6 13 1
May 4	Balmyle, Meiglo -	6	2	2	4	-	-	-	64 10 0	47 16	0	21 6 9	20 0 8
.. raquo;	Crossford, Scono -	13	4	4	9	-	-	-	127 0 0	112 16	0	27 8 6	85 6 6
Juno 7	Duchally, Blaokford	raquo;4	1	1	-	-	-	94	8 0 0	0 0	0	0 6 7	6 13 6
,. 14	Mains of Errol	27	4	4	23	-	-	-	19raquo; 10 0	190 0	0	120 11 10	78 8 2
26	Woodend Hill, Auehtcr-arder.	13	1	1		-		14	11 0 0	8 6	0	--	8 6 0
July 11	Sandyhall, Errol	44	4	4	12	-	-	28	136 12 6	126 7	6	67 10 3	68 17. 3
21	Woodside, Cargill -	13	1	1	-	-	-	12	14 0 0	10 10	0	8 11 6	3 18 7
Aug. 4	St. Mongoes, Gtloneaglos -	22	3	3	-	-	-	10	34 0 0	26 10	0	2 17 7	22 12 6
6	Orchardseat, Dimbarney -	2	1	1	1	-	-	-	12 0 0	9 10	0		9 10 0
15	Port Alien, Errol -	60	1	1	2	-	63	-	11 0 0	0 16	0	6 14 6	4 0 7
18	Pitwhanitry, Fortoviot -	23	2	2	-	-	-	21	21 0 0	15 16	0		16 16 raquo;
18	Baulk of StruicPorteviot	10	4	4	6	-	-	-	81 16 0	74 18	1raquo;	14 10 11	60 7 10
27	Gloncagles, Auehtorardcr	20	1	1	-	24	-	1	10 10 0	12 7	0	8 3 4	4 4 2
Sopt,20	Little Fardio, Caputh Total for year	00 861	3	8	0	-	14	33	28 0 0	21 0	0	0 4 2	11 16 10
	Little Fardio, Caputh Total for year	00 861	107	107	90	40	337	272	2,218 7 6	1,907 11	8	732 16 0	1,174 16 3

ArPKNDIX.

.'UJ

Statement showing the Loss which would have pro-bubly boelaquo; sustaincil by the Slaughter of 837 AWMAM in OOütaot wltn animals attboted with Pleuro-Pneumokia, but which animals were inoculated and remained healthy.

instructions, to Mr. George Wilson, Leather Merchant, Perth.

7.nbsp; Where carcases are not fit for humau food, or whore an animal has died of disease, the inspector must Bee thorn buried in thoir skins after being slashed and covered with a sufficieut quantity of quicklime or other disinfoetant, and not loss than 6 foot of earth.

8.nbsp; In every case the local authority require owners to cleanse and disinfect their premises to the satisfaction of the inspector at their own expense.

9.nbsp; Inoculation, if to bo paid for by the local authority, must be sanctioned by tho executive or emergency committees.


Place,	k5	I'jj ii	M 8 2 . \|\| II P	Estimated Loss on these Inoculated Animals had thev been Slaughtered.	llomarks.
Whinniemuiv Longtoi'Bim	13	£ a, d, 7 6 0 11 5 8	7 28	£ s. d. Bl 7 S 81S 18 8	Average loss on each animal slaughtered, U. 7laquo;. M.
Errol Hotel	2	4 2 7	2	8 B S
Giillowhill	1	11 6 0	7	78 IB 0
Eurghnmir	1	10 1 t	4.	40 17 4
Pitcoug	3	10 9 3	41	428 IS 3
Bumsido -	2	a V) o	61	3laquo; 5 0
Spi-ingfleld #9632;	8	3 1(1 0	20	70 10 0
Kosemount	1	0 18 i	26	173 18 4
Pitroildie -	1	r, 16 6	42	242 7 6
Cultiimlundie	2	2 16 0	43	121 raquo; 6
Port Allan -	8	1 (i 10	63	71 2 2
little Pavdlc	3	3 18 7	14	6S 0 2
	3	3 18 7	337	2,007 IS B

Be/rmmeration of Inspectors.

10. (1.) For each first visit on each outbreak of disease where slaughter is com-pulsory, including travelling and all general trouble

£ s. d.

1 1 0

(2.)

For each subsequent visit, also for

first visits in suspected or other cases where slaughter is not compulsory ....

0 3 0

(3.)

For each mile travelled out (excepc

in the case of first visits, where a fee of \l. Is. is chargeable, and all

0 0 9

visits under one mile)

(4.) Annual allowance for reports, declarations, attendance at meetings, and fulfilment of other duties not

10 0

embraced above ...

(5.)

Note.Where attendance at committee meetings in Perth is required inspectors from a distance will be allowed railway fare in addition.

For inoculation, 2s. Gd. for each animal inoculated, but if more than ten animals arc inoculated. Is. per head for each animal above 10.

By Order,

D. M. Smythb, Interim Chairman of Executive Committee.

COUNTY OP PBETH. ^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 to 1886.

Instructions to Inspectors.

1.nbsp; Every inspector should make himself thoroughly acquainted with the Acts of Parliament and relative Orders of Council, particularly with those sections which relate to the powers or duties of inspectors, and he should have a copy of the Official Handbook published in 1885, and of all Orders of Council passed since that date (especially quot;The Animals Order of 1886 quot;)gt; ready for reference at all times.

2.nbsp; quot;Whenever it appears to an. inspector that pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease exists (or has, in the case of pleuro-pneumonia, within 56 days existed) in a cow-shed or other place, he shall with all practicable speed, and if necessary by telegram, inform both the clerk of tho local authority at Perth, and the nearest member of the district committee, and consult with the latter anent the measures to be adopted.

3.nbsp; Where on any visit, the inspector finds an undoubted case of pleuro-pneumonia to exist, and where, owing to distance or other causes, he finds it impracticable to consult a member of the local authority or district committee, he shall at once, on his own responsibility, order tho slaughter of the diseased animal, and immediately report tho same to the clerk of the local authority at Perth, and to tho nearest member of the district committee.

4.nbsp; All animals before being slaughtered must be valued. It is only in emergencies that inspectors are authorised to adjust the valuation with the owner themselves, without the aid or assistance of a member of the local authority or of the district committee. Duplicates of the valuation schedules should bo at once transmitted to the clerk of tho local authority, Perth.

5.nbsp; In tho case of every animal slaughtered by order the inspector shall make and report the result of a postmortem examination.

6.nbsp; The carcases of animals slaughtered by order belong to the local authority, and, in the absence of other instructions, the inspector must see that, so far as fit for human food, thoy are properly dressed and packed and forwarded to Mr. Hugh Couper, II Moat Market, Moore Street, Glasgow, for sale on account of the local authority. He must advise Mr. Couper of their despatch, and request him to forward the account sales and cheques to the clerk of the local authority at Perth. Tho hides must be consigned, with similar

PiEURO-PNEirMONiA at Dbumkilbo Farm, near Meigis, Perthshire.

On the 4th February the following is a state of the number of oattle on Drumkilbo.

The number in Eoman figures shows the place they were in.

2 cows in No. I.

9 stets \

- in No. II.

I bull J¹

östots jj _N

Ill,

b queys J 9 cows in No. IV. 19 stirks in No. V. 16 stots in No. VI. 9 small stirks in No. VII. 8 stots in No. VIII. making in all 85 head of cattle on the farm.

On the 4th of February 1 cow in No. IV. was found diseased and slaughtered.

On the 5th of February 1 stirk in No. V. was found diseased and slaughtered.

On the 7th of February 1 stirk in No, V. was found diseased and slaughtered.

On the 11th of February 1 stirk in No. V. was found diseased and slaughtered.

On the 11th of February 1 stot in No, VI, was found diseased and slaughtered.

On the 11th of February 1 stirk in No. VII. was found diseased and slaughtered.

Virus was obtained from tho lungs of these three animals, and the following woro inoculated on the 11th of February, 32 head in all: 8 cows in No. IV. 16 stirks in No. V. 8 stirks in No. VII.

On the 14th of February 3 stots in No. VI, woro found diseased and slaughterod.

312

COMMITTEE OM PliBlIBO-PNKUMONXA AND TUBEBOUL08IBI

On tho 13tli of February 1 stirk* in No. V. was found disuased and slaughtored.

On the 23rd of February 1 cow* in No. IV. was found diseased, but was not slaughtered till tho 10th of March.

On tho 3rd of March 1 stot in No. III. was found diseased and slaughtered.

On the 13tli of March 1 cowf in No. IV. was found diseased and slaughtered.

On the 3rd of April 1 stot in No. VI. was found diseased and slauglneved.

On tho 9th of April 1 stot in No. HI. was found diseased and slaughtored.

On the 9th of April 1 stot in No. II. was found diseased and slaughtored.

Two calves were born from inoculated cows about the beginning of March.

These two calves and 30 cattle that had been in contact with diseased animals were slaughtered on the 13th, 16th, and 17th of April. These were all uninooulated, and of them six were found to be diseased and the remaining healthy. J

About tho 11th of March four cows were moxed from No. IV. to No. IX., so that the state of the cattle at present is as follows ;

2 cows in No. I. uninooulated. 2 cows in No IV. inoculated. 15 stirks in No. V. inoculated. 8 stirks in No. VII. inoculated. 8 stots in No. VIII. uninooulated. 4 cows in No. IX. inoculated.

No allowance will bo made for travelling expenses when the place visited is within two miles of tho residence or place of business of the inspector.

Tho committee reserve to themselves tho power of disallowing any such exponsos as in their judgment ought not to have been incurred, and also of disallowing all or part of any charge which may appear to them to be improper or excessive,

11.

Memorandum handed in by the Eath-down boahd of guardians, with copy of Memorial presented by Koyal Agricultural Society of Ikeland to the Chief Secretary, December 9 th, 1886.

Memobanduh.

To the Chairman and Board of Guardians of Eathdown Union.

Your committee have, in the course of tho investigations which they have made in order to carry out the object you had in view, not only obtained information from the dairy inspector with regard to the dairies within the union, and from the veterinary surgeon as to his experience, but have also given consideration to the very important facts and suggestions nut forward by the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland in the statement laid before the Chief Secretary by a deputation on the 9th December 1886.

The committee find that this document sums up the arguments and practically gives the conclusions which they themselves arrived at on the origin and spread of pleuro-pneumonia in the Dublin and neighbouring unions, and they cordially endorse the request for a thoroughly business-like and competent commission of inquiry appointed by G-ovemment. The statement referred to points out, quot; that the question is of national quot; importance, and one which can only be thoroughly quot; and effectually coped with by action and remedies quot; which should as far as practicable be common to all quot; the centres of disease throughout the kingdom. The quot; centres are plainly the dairy yards of the great cities, quot; as is shown, for example, by the cities of Glasgow, quot; Edinburgh, and Dublin, in all of which the disease quot; exists to a greater extent than in the rural districts.quot;

This is confirmed as regards Dublin by the information obtained by your committee that pleuro-pneumonia is most prevalent in districts of an area six miles from Dublin, and that the direction it comes principally from is Smithfield Market, and cattle coming out from dairy yards of the South Dublin union. This state of things is aggravated by the present system of feeding on wash and grains, and the want of proper ventilation in the dairy sheds. Regulations Nos. 6 and 6 of the Dairies Ireland Order, 1879, require considerable amendment with regard to the latter.

The committee have further to remark that they cannot too strongly express their condemnation of the short sighted policy which was developed in the new Order of last year in frittering away amongst a number of urban sanitary authorities the responsibility of meeting, and taking measures against, the dreadful scourge, and thus by inviting the danger of divided counsels depriving the union of all power for the common safety.

That the disease has been lessened of lato years no doubt there is proof, but as, to stamp it out, sensible alterations are urgently needed in the regulations and Orders of Council, the committee recommend the board to send a memorial to the Chief Secretary, supporting and enforcing the prayer of the Council of the Boyal Agricultural Society.

(Signed) E. W. Vekner, Bart.,

2nd February 1887.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Chairman of Committee.

Ordered

Copy of this report to be forwarded to tho Chief Secretary for Ireland.

(Signed) Powehscouet,

Chairman of tho Board of Guardians.

Memorial.

The Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland, deeply impressed with the urgent importance of drawing the

Totals. 10 uninooulated \ 29 inoculated J

39.

The divisions are throughout about 8 feet high, and in no case are they carried up to the roof, so there is a free passage of air through all the buildings. David M. Smithb, Vice-Ohairman Perthshire Local Authority.

Detjmkilbo Outbbeak.

CONTINUATION OF EePORT.

On the 22nd of May there were slaughtered: 2 queys in No. I. uninooulated. 2 queys in No. TV. inoculated. 8 stots in No. VIII. uninooulated. Of these the queys in Nos. I. and IV. were found healthy; six stots in No. VIII. were found healthy, and two stots slightly diseased.

The queys in No. I. had never been exposed in any way to contagion, but the queys in No. IV. had been in contact with diseased animals.

There now remains 27 head of cattle on the farm, all inoculated and all apparently healthy. May 26th, 1888.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; David M. Smythe.

Rlaquo;munei'ii-tlon of veterinary inspectorB,

10.

Handed in by Mb. S. Low.

Scale of Ailowances to Veteeinart Inspectoks in the County of Kent.

The following allowances will be made to the veterinary inspectors for their services:

£ s. d.

For each visit -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;- _ - 0 5 0

For every hour engaged in attending a cattle mavket by order of the executive committee, or of a divisional committee nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 0 2 6

For every certificate given pursuant to an Order of Council, or of the local-authoritynbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 0 1 0

For a visit rendered necessary by any circumstance which the committee may, upon the report of the inspector, consider sufficient, a sum not exceedingnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 1 1 0

For travelling by railway, 2nd class fare.

For cab hire (when necessary) from a railway station, per mile, one way - 0 1 6

For travelling otherwise than by railway, per mile, one way nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; - 0 0 6

Inoculated.

t Inoculiited. This cow is said by one veterinary laquo;urgeon to have been mlforlng from plouro, by the other veterinary surgeon from inoculntivc fever. She was close on calving.

} Uf tho disoiMcd cattle two laquo;ere in No, III. and (our in No. VI.

----------------------nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;rnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. rlaquo; 'laquo;r ^^a #9632;, '_#9632;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

APHENPIX.

.113

attention of those in autbovity to the continuod pro-valenoo of pleuro-pneumonia in difi'orent parta of tuo United Kingdom, osRociatod with one from the Unitod Cattle Traders Association, desire to lay before you their vio^s on the matter, and to urge on you the necessity for furtticr action being taken to remedy the present state of things. In Approaching this q'iostion we would dolaquo;iie to point out that it is of national importunoo, and one which, in our minds, can only bo thoroughly and effectually copod with by action and remodioa which should, as far as. practicable, bo common to all centres of disease throughout the kingdom. Tho centres are, plainly, the dairy yards, of tho great cities, as is shown, for example, by tho cities of GMasgow, Edinburgh, and Dublin, in all of which the disease exists to a greater extent than in the rural districts. We, as representing the interests of agriculturists in Ireland, have therefore approached you to-day to call attention to this very serious condition of afl'airs, and to express our opinion of what we consider to be the ineffectrveness of tho Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act as at present administered to suppress this disease, which a great veterinary authority has designated as the most treacherous and the most intractable of all the zymotic class of maladies. As regards this disease in Ireland, it appears from statistical returns for the year 1885, that during that year but six cases occurred in the provinces of Ulster, Munster, and Connaught, so that those provinces, extending to about throe-fourths of the whole of Ireland, may be pronounced as practically free from disense, while as regards the remaining province, Leinsttr, it appears that the Dublin district, comprising tho poor law unions of North and South Dublin, were responsible for by far the greater part of the remainder, and those registered from outlying districts may be fairly attributed to the removal of Dublin dairy cattle to pasturage in the summer months; so that, broadly put, we think we have conclusively shown the accuracy of the assertion with which we started, that the seat of the disease in Ireland is in the metropolis. We do not propose to go into details as to these matters, but to confine ourselves to impressing upon you the possible result in the United Kingdom to the particular interest we represent if this disease be not extirpated. On the part of the agriculturists, we ask the closest and most searching investigation into the whole matter, more particularly in the three cities referred to, and generally wherein the disease may be found. Tho questions in connexion with this matter which press for immediate solution are:Does pleuro-pneumonia really exist iu the Dublin unions even to a greater ex'eni than statistics show? If it is prevalent what is the remedy ? Is tho Act of 1878, if properly admiuis-tered, sufficient to cope with the disease? Do tho present circumstances of the Dublin dairy yards generate or tend to perpetuate dnoase P We rospect-fully submit that reliable information on the whole subject can only be procured by the prompt appointment of a small Royal Commission composed of loading agriculturists and veterinary surgejns, who should be empowered to take evidence on tho spot as to the existence of infectious pleuro-pneumonia in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dublin, and its neighbourhood, and decide on the most effective method of stiimping it out. We would take the liberty of suggesting that Professor Bobertson, of London, and Professor Wlialley, of Edinburgh, be appointed on the commission in order to give confidence to the public, and that the veterinary surgeon of tho Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland be associated with them. We also pointed out at tho commencement of this petition that we believe whatever remedies may be adopted, they should bo general for tho whole kingdom.

1867, and tho Acts amending the same, and are, there fore, deeply interested in tho general prevoution and mitigation of disease among tho inhabitants.

2.nbsp;That your Memorialists' attention has for some time past been attracted to what they consider a grave dangei to the public health, viz., tho increaaod prevalence of the disease called tuberculosis among milk cows in thoh district and ne^;ghboui'hood.

3.nbsp; That there is a general consensus of scientific opinion that tuberculosis in cattle renders tho tlesh of auiinuls allocted thereby dangerous, if not Invariably unfit, for human food, and that in partioular the milk of cows affected by this disease, especially if it has extended to the udder, or if the milk contains the tubercle bacilli, is highly dangerous and unfit for human food.

4.nbsp; That tho disease in question prevails to such an extent in this district that during the past 10 months the veterinary inspector of the burgh has condemned in the public slaughter-house, as unfit for human food, no fewer than 64 carcases of animals (chiefly milk cows) that had been affected by it.

ö. That from inspections made by the veterinary inspector and tho public health officials of the burgh during the past 10 months, in a public cattle market in tho town, which is hold weekly, over 55 animals were discovered atl'eoted with the disease, most of which were giving, or had recently been giving, milk though they were in many instances in the last stage of emaciation.

6.nbsp; nbsp;That many of these animals, though obviously diaeased, as is borne out by tho fact that they were sold at prices ranging from 4s. to hi., could not in the present state of the law be seized and destroyed, and there is reason to believe that a considerable number of them were killed beyondthe jurisdiction of your Memorialivti, whore, after the viscera and other parts which furnish the readiest evidences of tho disease had been removed, the carcases were disposed of for human food, or were brought back to Paisley to be disposed of as such food.

7.nbsp; nbsp;That it is notorious that certain individuals trade in this class of animals, and have them slaughtered in places where there is no inspection at all, or no skilled inspection, and that by the removal of the viscera and the other parts which are more particularly affected by the disease, they frequently succeed in passing the dead meat as fit for human food.

8.nbsp; That on an inspection of the milk cows of the burgh by the veterinary and sanitary inspectors, five cows which were very seriously afi'eoted with the disease were discovered, and in the present state of the law the local authority and their officials found themselves powerless to stop the sale of tho milk of any of those animals, though in one case the cow died from the malady shortly after it had been discovered, and iu another case the bacilli or germs of tuberculosis were found by Principal Williams, of the New Veterinary College, Edinburgh, in the milk of the animal.

9.nbsp; nbsp;That your Memorialists, believing they were acting within their statutory powers under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, applied to the sheriff to ordain the owner of the latter animal to discontinue to carry on his trade or business of a cow feeder and seller of cows' milk so long as ho retained in his possossion the diseased cow, but the action was dismissed as irrelevant in respect the local authority could not specify the persons to whom, and the dates on which, the milk of this particular cow was sold by the dairyman who kept a number of cows in his dairy.

10.nbsp; nbsp;That tubercular diseaso is by far the most fatal of all the diseases to which the populationof this country is subject, and is one of the chief factors in the high death rate of this burgh, where this class of disease has produced 17^,42 per cent, of all the deaths registered since 1855.

11.nbsp; nbsp;That, inasmuch as tho rosoarclios of the most eminent medical and veterinary pathologists of our time havo demonstrated that tuberculosis is communi-cable from animal to animal, it is reasonable to conclude and indeed in accordance with observations, that it is communicable from the bovine species to man by tho use of the milk or flesh of all'ectcd animals, and it is, therefore, highly expedient that the Legislature should make provision, cither by an amendment of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, or otherwise, th.it bovine animals suffering from tuberculosis may be slaughtered and their carcases destroyed, so that the public may be protected from tho sale or distribution of the milk or flesh of such animals for human food.

R v

12.

Memomal of the Magistrates and Council op the Burgh of Paisley on the subject of tuberculosis.

To the Most Noble the Mauqtjess of Lottiian, K.T., amp;o., amp;o.,Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland. Tho Memorial of the Magistrates and Council of the Burgh of Paisley, as the Commissioners of Police thereof. Humbly showeth,

1. That your Memorialists are the local anthorioy in aid burgh, under tho Public Health (Scotland) Act, o 5400raquo;.

314

COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TÜBERCU10SI8:

May it therefore please your Lordship to receive anbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Table 3.

deputation from your Memorialists in regard to the _Rnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _f _Carca _affeoted _with _{TüB]5Ecul0SI}. _oon.

matter now eubmittod to your consideration, and there-nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'-^Ij tT wJlaquo;Jklaquo;-Ä Älaquo;laquo;, i .* t.laquo;laquo;!!laquo;-ilaquo;* S!

after to institute such proceedings as may speedilynbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nt datonbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^gnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ynbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'

result in the legislation sought in the presentnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;cunent aate.

Memorial. And, as in duty bound, they will ever pray.

Signed by me, Provost of the said burgh and Chairman of the local authority thereof, as authorised by and in name and on behalf of the Memorialists.

(Signed) Robert Cociikan,

Provost. Paisley, 26th January 1888.


Year.	Month,	No. of Carcases of			Total Number of	Remarks.
Year.	Month,				Total Number of	Remarks.
		Beef.	Pork.	Veal.	Carcases.
1887	January -	2			_a
raquo;	February -	5		-	5	i
raquo;	March -	2			3
jraquo;	April	6			6
it	May-	3		2	5
raquo;gt;	June-	2			2
	July - -August	1 6	--		1 6
raquo;	Septembei-	3	1		1
raquo;gt;	October -	6			6
V	November -	8		-	8
raquo;	December -	1		-	4
Total for year 1887		48 17	1	2	51
IPgS	January -	48 17	1
gt;raquo;	February -	10	1
u	March	7
raquo;	April	5
raquo;	May-	6
Total for five' months of '88.'		45	1		46
Grai	id total	93	2	2	97

13. -

Paper handed in by Henry D. Little-john, M.D., respecting Tuberculosis in Edinburgh.

Ta.bm 1.

Edinburgh, Public Health Department.

Deaths under five years from Tuberculosis during the past ten years.


Years.	Total Deaths in the City.	¹One Week.	1 3	o a O	1	Total Deaths under five Years.	Kate per Cent.
1878 -	4,676	5	9	120	159	293	6-2
1879 -	4,195	5	19	120	151	295	7-0
1880 -	4,694	6	25	142	162	335	7-1
1881 -	4,308	7	24	103	157	291	6-7
18S2 -	4,292	6	19	123	183	281	6-5
1883 -	4,275	3	17	133	137	290	6-7
1884 -	4,556	6	27	144	144	321	7-0
188S -	4,241	9	16	130	151	306	7'2
1886 -	4,555	8	19	150	149	326	7-1
1887 -	4,824	8	27	141	140	316	6'5
Total-	44,616	63	202	1,306	1,483	3,054	6-8

Hemky Thomas Moore,

Assistant Inspector of Markets. Edinburgh, 28th May 1888.

Certified by HENRy D. Littlejoun, M.D.,

Medical Officer of Health.

Table 2.

Total Deaths from Tabes MESEitTKniCA and Tubehcular Meningitis during 10 years, 1876-1885. Scotland.

No. III.1888.

Board of Supervision,

Edinburgh, 7th May 1888. Sir, I am directed to transmit, for the information of the local authority, the annexed copy of a report by Dr. Littlejohn, medical officer of the board, dated 30lh March, on the prevalence of tuberculosis in cattle, and the consequent danger to human beings. The local authority will observe that the disease in question depends largely on the unsanitary conditions of byres or cowsheds. The necessity, in connexion with this disease, of enforcing the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk Shops Order is therefore apparent; and the board desire to direct the special attention of the local authority to the importance of making a thorough inspection of all the byres or cowsheds within their district, with the view of seeing that the requirementraquo; of the Order are complied -with.

1 am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

John Skelton. To the Clerk or Sanitary Inspectornbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Secretary,

of the local authority under the Public Health Act.


	Tabes Mesentorica.	Tubercular Meningitis.
Under 3 months	620	568
li .. . -	745	1,805
12	1,194	3,519
2 years -	2,395	8,788
raquo; 3 -	1,277	1,730
t #9632; #9632;	726	1,220
., 6 .. '	508	949
	7,466	18,16raquo;

gt;

API'KM IM X

31 ß

Q₍ Kepojit to l.ho Uoaki) of SuPDinksioN ou TuaiDUcuiosis

(.iioviuo).

This iHhohhü of outtlo Ims only of lutu years attnioted much attention. Itocoutly the diHoovury of a buoillas iu tho tubercnlous matter iu tbo oraans of bhe oow, cBpoci-ally in tho adder, und also its dotoctiou iu thu milk of unimals so alleotod, has lud to tVosh iuvostigationH. Those have proved that this disease (Bimilar bo plitliisia oc oonsumption in the human Hubjoot), is üommuuicabic from cattle to some of the othor animals, and prosnm-ably to man, although this lias not boon ostablishod.

Looking to tho largo annual mortality ia man from phthisis and its allied tuberoulous or sorolulous diseasos, the question ol' the possibility of tho comimmication of tuberculosis by tho milk drawn i'rom animals ull'ootcd with this disease, becomes ono of great national importance. As yet, however, no notice has bcou taken of this disease in any of the Acts of Parliament relating to maladies affecting the lower animals. quot;

Bovine tuberculosis is ossoutially a chronic' disorder, and it may, as in man, lust for yours before it proves fatal. It may also, us in man, undergo a spontaneous cure. No fact is more romarkablo than that there is no disease which is apparently so curable as phthitds. 1 hardly ever open a body of a person dying from an injury or disease, but traces of the previous existence of tubercle in the lungs are found, and it is apparent that this disease has boon urrostod and a euro effected. Similar oases are seen in cattle, but more seldom, as in this country the animal is slaughtered for food before the process of cure can be completed.

Bovine tuberculosis thus differs widely from cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or swine fever,the diseasos specially named in Acts of Parliament. These are of an acute character, run a rapid course, and admit of being-early recognised, whereas it is often quite impossible to detect the first stages of tuberculosis, so insidious are its advances. The primary symptoms may also easily ho mistaken for various othor disorders. Ultimately, however, emaciation sets in. This alarms the farmer or dairyman, and tho animal is hurried to the shambles before its leanness becomes so marked as to render its carcase -unmarketable. In fact, tho dairy inspector, in going his rounds, has his attention first of all directed to the affected cow by this emaciation, which leads him to suspect, but only to suspect, the presence of tubercle. There is, however, ono part of tho animal which unmis- takably points to the presence of tho disease, and that'is the udder, in a certain number of cases, but not iu all, the udder is affected, and when this occurs no doubt nocd be entertained as to the cause of the leanness. It is especially in these cases that tho milk is alleotod, and that the bacillus of tubercle can be detected iu it with tho microscope.

It is true both of man and of animals that, in all aouto diseases, the secretion of mjlk is sensibly diminished, and is ultimately entirely arrested. Unfortunately this is not the case with tuberculosis or phthisis ; tho patient, although emaciated, still continues to supply this secretion in a condition capable of communicating the disease, especially to tho young.

It is rare, however, as we have said, that matters arc allowed to prooeed so far; the dealer or dairyman knows his interests better, and tho animal is at once sent to be slaughtered for human food. When the carcase is examined, tho usual evidence of the existence of tubercle in tho lungs and other organs is amply aftbrdedthe /lesh of the animal being, however, in this early stage, rarely so alleotod as to attract the notice of unskilled persons. It is thus possible by means of trickeryremoving the diseased organs, and then forwarding the carcase to a saleroom or marketto attempt (too often suocessfully), to soil the animal as lit for human food. In all parts of tho country whore the inspection is not strict, and espocially where there are no public slaughtor-housos, this diseased moat is sold with impunity, and with great risk to the public.

Some parts of Scotland appear to be more infected than others. Thus in tho west. Paisley has taken the lead in agitating tho question of tho prevention of this disease, and has been followed by Glasgow and Edinburgh. During tho month of January of this year I observed, in my official capacity, that no fewer than 17 carcases had been condemned and destroyed as affected with tuberculosis ut our Edinburgh abattoirs, and there can be little doubt but that those would have been sold . for human food had there boon no strict inspection in tho city.

Cattle inspectors, unfortunately, have at present no power to seize for inspootion any animals exposed for o 5400!?,

sale iu a public umrkot, although their conditiou may bo such us at once to suggest the presunco of tuberelo. The owners, lluding their obancea of a sale thus on-dangored in such a city as Edinburgh, move on Ihoir infected animals with impuuity to somo other market where the inspootion is not so stringent, and thus the disease is dissimulated over the country.

It has boon proposod, in order to prevent) this, to include tuborcalosis among those disousos iu tho Contagious Diseasos (Animals) Act for which compensation may bo granted for timeous notifloation, and it is hoped by this moans to induce farmers and others to bring their cattle earlier to market for the purposu of being slaughtered; but, as has boon stated, this disoaso, cUfi'er-ing widely from those acute diseases already mentioned, is, in its first stages, not readily diagnosed, and heavy expense would, in my opinion, be incurred by the indiscriminate slaughter that would result. And there is an important fact which must not bo overlooked, and which is true of this disease, whether bovine or Imman. ami that is, that it. is largely dependent on insanitary conditions for its development and spread. It has boon ascertained with regard to phthisis in man, that by moans of drainage of tho soil, thus producing a drier atmosphere, and by improvement of dwellings generally, this disease has boon greatly lessoned, in amount over considerable districts of tho country; and in the same manner it is beliovea that, were byres and cowhouses properly supervised by local authorities, and existing powers fully exorcised as to structure, ventilation, drainage, and 'Water-supply, this bovine scourge would bo greatly diminished, and might ultimately be almost eradicated.

Tho two questions connected with this disease which have assumed national importance, are (1) the limitation of tho food supply from the prevalence of tuberculosis among our herds and dairy stocks ; and (2) the risk attending- tho sale of milk from tuberculous cows.

First. So far as my own experience goes iu my biweekly examinations at the Edinburgh abattoirs, tho disease is largely on the increase, and similar reports come from all parts of the country, and there can be no doubt that in all classes of cattle, tuborcnlosis is now universally prevalent. In all cases except those ex hibiting the earliest appearance of the disease, it is tho practice of our abattoir inspectors to condemn the animal. But these, brought openly to the abattoir, constitute a small proportiou of affected animals. The present state of the law is unfortunately so defective, that our hispectors have no power to deal with animals in byres or exposed for sale in our public markets, and reasonably suspeeted to bo labouring under tins disease. Tho remedy proposed is to include tuberculosis in the list of diseases specially mentioned in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878. The Privy Council undoubtedly have the power to add the name of any disease affecting live stock; but if that would involve compensation to the owner of tho animal and a heavy tax on the ratepayer, it cannot be recommended, as this disease is known to dopend largely on insanitary con-ditious of the byre or cowshed, for which the tenant and proprietor are directly responsible. Again, the Legislatm-o, by various Aots of Parliament, culminating in tho quot;Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk Shops Order of 1885,quot; has placed ample powers in tho hands of tho local authorities of the country for so regulating- tho sanitary state of dairies and cowsheds, as practically to abolish the conditions known to favour tho origin and spread of the disease. What in my opinion is wanted in Scotland, is either,

A.. An extension of tho quot; Nuisances Itemoval (Eng-quot; land) Act Amendment with respect to tho seizure of quot; Diseased and unwholesome Meat, 1863,quot; in which any animal exposed for sale or for preparation for sale may be examined by tho medical officer of health or iuspeotoi- of nuisances ; and if the animal appear to be diseased, unsound, unwholesome, or unfit for tho food of man, the medical oilicer of health, amp;o., may seize the animal, and have it carried away to be summarily dealt with by .a justice. This Act when passed only applied to England, but was extended in 1869 to Ireland; or,

13. The insertion, in the Burgh Police Bill at present passing through Parliament of a clause similar to that which since 1877 lias been iu force in Crcenock, In this local Police Act it is provided, that any cattle all'octcd with, or labouring under any infectious or contagious disoaso, exposed or offered for Hale or attempted to bo brought through any street or into any market or fair, may be seized by any inspector or

S 8

See dix

Appon-No. 1.

See clix

Apneu-No.4.

See (li\

Appcn-No 2,

Sob

Appon-Nu.S,

^----

#9632; .i

~W*

316

#9632; OOMMITTKK ON PLEURCHPNRUMONIA AND TÜBEUOÜLOSI8 I

See Appendix No. 4.

constable, oxaminod by a veterinary surgeon, and the seiznre reported to a magistrate, amp;o.

Either of those enactraunts, if extended to the whole of Scotland, would enable local authoritica to deal promptly with this disease iu oircumstancos whore at present they are helpless. Dairy cows, which are special suflbrors, are exposed in our markets in large numbers. These would be eflectually dealt with under these clauses, and the dairymen would at onco find it to bo their interest so to improve the sanitary surroundings of their stock as to prevent the inroad and spread of disease.

As to the Second Question, there can bo no doubt as to the risk run by the community by the sale of milk from a daiiy containing a single affected animal. Lately, the presence of the bacillus of tuborcnlnsis has been proved to exist in the milk of afl'octed cows, and such milk has been produced in open court. I am informed by our dairy inspectors, and I am otherwise aware of the fact, that they have no power under any existing Act to interfere and prevent the milk of the suspected animal being sold for human food, much less to order the removal of the animal for examination, and, if necessary, for slaughter. Our local Acts are all nndoubtedly defective in this respect, but this is hardly to be wondered at when we remember that it is only of late that science has discovered the peculiar bacillus of tuberculosis, and has shown us that it exists in the milk of affected cows.

The latest Government Act is also defective; for while it is provided in the ^;' Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk quot; Shops Order, 1885,quot; that if disease exists in a dairy among the stock, the milk of a diseased cow is not to be mixed with other milk or sold for human food, the word quot; diseasequot; unfortunately is quot; to have the same quot; meaning as in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) quot; Act, 1878,quot; which, as I have already pointed out, does not include tuberculosis.

I have therefore to urge upon the Board (1), the importance of such an enlargement of the definition of the term '^ diseasequot; in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, as to include tuberculosis; (2), the extension to Scotland of the short quot;Amendment Actquot; relating to the seizure of diseased animals in open markets, and in byres or cowsheds, which at present only applies to England and Ireland; and (3), the peremptory enforcement of the provisions of the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk Shops Order, 1885, with a view to stamping out, by means of improved sanitation, this infectious disease.

Henky D. Littlijohn, M.D. Edinburgh, 30th March 1888.

.... in order to have the same dealt #9632;with by a justice ; and if it shall appear to the justice that any

such animal.....is diseased, or unsound, or

unwholesome, or unfit for the food of man, he shall order the same to be destroyed,quot; amp;o. amp;o.

#9632;

APPENDIX No. 8.

Gbeknock Police Act, 1877, Clause 230. quot; In case any cattle infected with or labouring under power to

any infectious or contagious disease* he exposed or offered for sale, or bo brought or attempted to be brought

seize

diseased

imttla.

through any street or into any market or fair, any inspector, collector, or constable may sei/.e any such cattle, and cause the same to be inspected by a veterinary surgeon, and may report such seizure to any magistrate ; and such magistrate may, after hearing the evidence, either order such cattle to be restored, ur direct the same to be forthwith destroyed or otherwise disposed oj.' Penalties follow.

* No definition in the Act of what are infectious or contagious diseases.

APPENDIX 3a.

#9632;

The Dundee Police and Improvement Consolidation section 258. Act, 1882, contains a similar clause to that given in Appendix 3, as taken from the G-reenock Local Act,

with this important alteration, that the disease from

which the cattle are suffering is stated to be quot;within quot; the meaning of the Contagious Diseases (Animals)

Act, 1878,quot; and thus tuberculosis is excluded.

See Appen dix No, 1.

Prohibition of Infected Milk.

Gives power to the sheriff, on certificate from the s_ection 2U. medical officer to prohibit the sale of xnilk where quot; infectious disease quot; exists in a dairy.

But in the interpretation clauses, quot; infectious disease quot; Page 10. is held to mean quot; small-pox, cholera, typhus, typhoid, quot; scarlet, relapsing, continued and puerperal fever, quot; diphtheria and such other disease as the Commissioners quot; may from time to time declare to be infectious.quot;

See Appen. dix No. 2.

APPENDIX No. 4.

The Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk Shops Oedee of 1885.

Existence of Disease among Cattle, quot; 15. If at any time disease exists among the cattle in a dairy, or cowshed, or other building, or place, the milk of a diseased cow therein

quot; a shall not be mixed with other milk, and quot; amp; shall not be sold or used for human food, and quot; c shall not be sold or used for food of swine or other animals, unless and until it has been boiled.quot; In this Order, terms have the same meaning as in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, which bears, quot; ' disease' means cattle plague (that is tosay, rinder-quot; pest, or the disease commonly called cattle plague), quot; contagious pleuro-pneumonia of cattle (in this Act quot; called pleuro-pneumonia), foot-and-mouth disease, quot; sheep-pox, or sheep scab.quot;

Diseases.

APPENDIX No. 1.

Cobtagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, Section 32.

quot;The Privy Council may from time to time make such general or special orders as they think fit . . . . . for the following purposes.quot;.....

(xxxiii.) quot; For extending for all or any of the purposes ' of this Act, the definition of disease in this Act, so quot; that the same shall for those purposes comprise any '' disease of animals in addition to the diseases mentioned quot; in this Act,quot; which are as follows:Cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, sheep-pox, or sheep scab.

In Animals Order of 1886,Glanders, farcy, swine fever, and anthrax.

Additional

diseases.

14.

20 amp; 27 Viet c. 117. s. 2.

APPENDIX No. 2.

An Act to amend the Nuisances Bcmoval Act for England, 1855, with respect to the seizure of Diseased and unwholesome Meat, 28th July 1863.

Extended to Ibeland, 11th August 1869.

quot; The medical officer of health or inspector of nuisances may at all reasonable times inspect and examine any animal .... exposed for sale, or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale, and intended for the food of man, .

. . . . and in case any such animal.....

appear to him to be diseased or unsound, or unwhole-soiiic, or unfit for the food of man it shall be lawful for stich medical officer of health, or inspector of nuisance?, to seize, take, and carry away the same .

Letter from Professor MoOall to Dalmellington Iron Company.

Be Tuberculosis.

83, Buccleuch Street, Glasgow, Gentlemen,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;29th June 1883.

I beg to enclose herewith Professor Cooke s analyses of the four samples of water taken by me on the 9th instant from the water supply on the farm of Ashentree, Patna.

Prom the analyses it is apparent that none of the waters is suitable for drinking purposes; they are so strongly alkaline and impregnated to such an extent with carbonate of sodium, and cattle consamo such a largo quantity.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , . laquo;

Of the four waters, No. 1. from the spring, is by far the best, and No. 2, from the dam, by much the worst.

32 * 33 Viet. e.108

Inspection.

#9632;

#9632;#9660;quot;V;

AITKNDIX.

317

No. 3 is better than No. 2. and No. 4 (the water as It comes on to the farm) is better again than No. 3.

Now, what I would raquo;uggest m that Nob. 2 and 3 be done raquo;way with, and that can easily be elleoted by ruimiiiß them in a close drain past the farna steading. As it is also evident that allowing the water on this farm lt;o rlaquo;lt;rf as in a dam ßreatly increases its alkalmo and deleterious properties, spooml care should be taken to keep it always flowing, and all dams and appliances for storing it up done away with.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;fci '

Turning now our attention to the Ayrshire cattle on the farm, we are informed that for several years past two or three animals, young as well as old, have yearly died, and all exhibiting the same symptoms as the diseased animals on the farm at the time of our opening the investigation. We are also informed that the mortality is greatest in tho months of February and March, that tho animals ailing make a little better after going to grass, and that purchased animals, young or old, fall victims to the disease in about a twelvemonth after their arrival on the farm. This history points to a local cause, and, taken in connexion with the analyses of tho drinking water, would at first sight appear satisfactorily to explain the whole circumataiices, but, if we carry our investigation further, we find that there is another important, if not the most important, factor in the case. My instructions being to exhaust the subject, and permission having been granted to slaughter one of the affected animals, I did so upon the occasion of my second visit, 16th instant. This animal was a black milch cow, mnoh emaciated, evidently labouring under the same disease as several other animals in the herd, and in a more pronounced torm. In a public market or in a city byre, with its short cough and emaciated appearance, this animal would have been declared a quot; piner,quot; that is, an animal affected with tubercular disease, but in the absence of the physical signs of consolidation of the lungs on auscultating the chest, surrounded by a number of animals all showing the same symptoms, and on an isolated upland farm, I hesitated in my diagnosis. Ihe animal, however, was killed, the blood examined with the microscope as it flowed from the neck, and, as was to have been expected, the quot;red corpuscles were smaller in size and deficient in number as compared with the blood of a healthy subject. No organisms were detected in it, and all that could be alleged regarding the blood simply amounts to this, that it was anaemic, hut if a stronger lens had been used it might have been otherwise. On laying the abdomen Mid chest open, abundant evidences were forthcoming that the animal had laboured under quot; general tuberculosis for a length of time, almost every organ and tissue being the seat of tubercle. Specimens of the disease as affecting the lungs, peritoneum, liver, lymph-glands, udder, amp;c., were removed to Glasgow for microuccpic

nspection after suitable staining and preparation, ana the microscope has oinoe demonstrated the presenoo of quot; tubercle bacilliquot; both in tho lungs and udder. Now, those quot;tubercle bacilliquot; are small living or-ganisms, apparently contained in the breath, and exhaled from the lungs of affected animals and consumptive persons, for it has been proven by numerous experiments that sound cattle, guinea-pigs, monkeys, rabbits, amp;c., can be made to contract the disease (tuberculosis) by inhaling the breath of animals so affected. Then, again, by inoculating sound animals with crushed tubercle, or introducing tuberonlar matter into the stomach, the disease can be transmitted with great facility. The milk of a tuberculous cow has also been proven to propagate the affection to young animals, and it is the opinion of the most eminent medical men that bovine tuberculosis and human tuberculosis are one and the same disease, and that children may become affected through drinking the milk of tubercular cows.

Tho disease, then, so fatally affecting the cattle at Ashentree is beyond a doubt quot; tuberculosis,quot; and the point for solution now is to what extent has the water supply to do with the presence and propagation of that

disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , . , , ^ .^ u

That the water is bad cannot be denied, but it would be contrary to all that is known of quot; tuberculosisquot; to allege that the water could either originate, or continue to propagate, the disease. But, while I would exonerate the water from originating or propagating the disease, still I entertain the opinion that its deleterious action has so undermined the constitution of the cattle as to make them an easy prey to the action of the parasites or organisms termed quot; tubercle bacilli.quot; The constitution of an Ayrshire milk cow is about one of the worst to resist tubercular disease, for the large quantity of milk which this breed of cattle give, of itself, is a great drain on the conlaquo;titu ion, and, as is well known, any condition which lowers the general tone of the system, hut moro odueoially sets up irritation and disease of the lungs and stomach, powerfully predisposes to quot;tubercular

Now that the nature of the disease has been ascertained, and that the diseased animals are affecting the sound, if the Oontagious Diseases (Animals) Act had included this malady, I would have advised immediate slaughter of all animals showing the slightest symptoms of infection, and the granting of compensation to the proprietor. But it does not do so (the sooner the local authorities apply for its inclusion the better), and I regret to add that I know of no measures less painful and expensive to eradicate the malady and preserve the lives of the non-affected cattle.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient Servant, (Signed) James McOall.

#9632;

wer to ze

#9632;eased ttla.

action 258.

ection 241. 'age 10.

The Dalmellington Iron Company.

';.






	'





	#9632;amp;#9632;
. i



#9632;: #9632;:gt;





:		;'



		^



	* ¥





-				.

i

			* I







		CONTENTS.				I

i



laquo;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; *raquo;* *						Page

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE REPORT ....... SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT BY PROFESSOR HORSLEY					m
					- xxvn



nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;#9632;

		*raquo; ,**

*

-

#

laquo;





	#9632;f '*
			#9632;





	APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.

	Departmental Committee to inquire into and report upon the nature and extent of pleuro-pneumonia in the United Kingdom, and the effects of inoculation and other preventive measures on that disease; also, to inquire into the nature and extent of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom, and the means to be adopted to arrest its progress : Jacob Wilson, Esq. Sir G. Macpherson Grant, Bart. J. Bowen Jones, Esq. P. Stirling, Esq. Victor Horsley, Esq., F.R.O.S. Professor Brown, C.B. J. Naper, Esq. Richard Dawson, Esq., is appointed to act as secretary to the Committee. Approved. (Signed) CRANBROOK. April 16, 1888.

	Lord Cloncnrry is nominated in the place of J. Naper, Esq., who is unable to attend.

	Approved. (Signed) CRANBROOK.

	April 19, 1888.





	0 84003, Wt. 7607,











R E P 0 R T.

to the lord president op the council. Mt Lord, 1. Your Lordship having been pleased by your letter of instruction, dated 16th Referenöe. April 1888, to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into, and to report upon, the nature and extent of pleuro-pneumonia in the United Kingdom, and the effects of inoculation and other preventive measures in that disease; and also to inquire into the nature and extent of tuberculosis in the united Kingdom, and the means to be adopted to arrest its progress, 2.nbsp; We have now the honour to report that immediately upon receiving your Lordship's commands we proceeded to the duties thus imposed upon us. 3.nbsp; We met for the first time on the 17th of April, and thereupon commenced taking evidence, and continued our meetings from time to time up to the 4th of June. During that interval we sat for 17 days and examined 44 witnesses, as hereafter described.

4. Total Number of Witnesses, 44.

England (13).

Mr. J. Dunne Mr. C. Stephenson, F.R.C.V.S. Mr. A. Dean Mr. J. Williams Bell Mr. R. Bruce Mr. Woodroof, M.R.C.V.S. Mr. Alexander - Mr. W. Stratton - Mr. Low - Mr. Latter Mr. Tisdall Mr. A. Lingard - Mr. Allender	Chief Constable Veterinary Surgeon Parmer -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.. Farmer -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . Parmer and Stock Dealer -Vet. Surgeon Cowkeeper Tenant Farmer Justice of the Peace Clerk, Divisional Committee, L.A. -Dairyman -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . M.R.C.S., D.P.H., Camb. -Managing Director, Aylesbury Dairy Co.	Cumberland and Westmoreland Northumberland. Lincolnshire, Dorsetshire. Yorkshire. London. London. Wilts. Kent. Bromley, Kent. Kensington. London. Horsham, Sussex.

Scotland (16).

Mr. Spreull, F.R.C.V.S. - Mr. Cunningham, M.R.C.V.S. Mr. Rutherford, F.R.C.V.S. Mr, W. Cairns - Mr. Swan Mr. Stenhouse, junr. Mr. Biggar Mr. T. Elliot Mr. A. Mitchell - Mr. Duthie Prof. McFadyean, M.B., B.Sc, and CM. Mr. Speir Mr. Drummond Forbes -Mr. Peel Ritchie, M.D. -Mr. Littlejohn, M.D. Prof. MoOall, F.R.C.V.S.	Veterinary Inspector for Borough Veterinary Surgeon Veterinary Surgeon Dairyman - Live Stock Salesman Farmer Farmer Farmer President, Shorthorn Society Farmer Royal Veterinary College - Farmer Landowner President, College of Surgeons Medical Officer of Health - Principal, Vet. College	Dundee. Edinburgh. Edinburgh. Edinburgh. Edinburgh. Midlothian. Dalbeattie. Galashiels. Alloa. Perthshire. Edinburgh. Lanarkshire. Perthshire. Edinburgh. Edinburgh. Glasgow.



XU		OOMMITTKIO ON Pr.BURO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS

Value of inoculation. Q. 6624-27 Q, 7074.	circumstances is as follows:The animals which are diseased, or suspected of being diseased, are slaughtered, whilst the rest of the herd are subjected to inoculation. 41.nbsp; nbsp;It is therefore impossible to determine what eii'ect, if any, inoculation has had in suppressing such an outbreak in this country, inasmuch as, in a large majority of cases, we cannot be certain that after the slaughter had been carried out any diseased animals were left on the premises which would be likely to continue the disease. It might therefore be open to assumption that, even if inoculation had not been practised, the spreading of the disease would have been equally checked by the slaughter of the diseased or suspected animals. 42.nbsp; On the other hand, the advocates of inoculation not unfairly point out that, in cases where inoculation may be said to have failed, such a result might have been attributable to the inefficient manner in which the operation was performed. This is a frirther illustration of the uncertainty and doubt which we have found throughout the whole of the evidence regarding the practice of inoculation. 43.nbsp; While we cannot deny that inoculation, in itself, is valuable, as a palliative and preventive method of treatment, it is clear to our minds that its employment in this country is impracticable, as with the present knowledge on this subject at the command of veterinary science, and under the recognised position of agriculture, it is impossible to employ this method under the only conditions that might render its operation successful. These conditions include : (a.) Performance of the operation by competent men, specially appointed for the purpose in all parts of the United Kingdom; (b.) Its employment universally and compulsorily upon all cattle above three months old. Therefore, even if accompanied by other measures, it cannot be depended on as an efficient means of exterminating pleuro-pneumonia. 44.nbsp; nbsp;Throughout our Australian, New Zealand, and South African Colonies inoculation has been practised on an extensive scale for a long period, but neither universally nor compulsorily, and has been proved incapable of extirpating pleuro-pneumonia. Most of the colonial witnesses, whom we examined at great length, were of opinion that, without inoculation, the disease would have spread more widely and more rapidly than it did, whilst some considered that it arrested the disease in their herds. It is plain that some importance is attached to inoculation in the colonies, from the fact that in many cases inoculated cattle command a higher price than those on which the operation had not been performed. 45.nbsp; From the evidence of the colonial witnesses, however, it is quite certain that their advocacy and practice of inoculation is based upon, and limited to, the special circumstances of their respective countries, to which we have above referred ; for it will be seen, on a perusal of the evidence, that they universally admitted that, were the conditions of stock-owning in the colonies similar to those which prevail in England, with its small herds, greater power of detection and isolation, they would unhesitatingly adopt compulsory slaughter as the surest and most economical means of exterminating the disease. 46.nbsp; It must be taken into account that in America the feeling against inoculation is so pronounced, that any animals, bearing the trace of the operation, are only admitted into the country under a quarantine which is practically prohibitive. 47.nbsp; Further evidence of the inadequacy of inoculation, as hitherto practised, to eradicate pleuro-pneumonia is furnished by the history of the disease in the Netherlands. In that country pleuro-pneumonia has been known to exist since 1833 (it was, indeed, from thence that the disease was first brought to the United Kingdom in 1840), and from that period until 1885 it prevailed to an enormous extent, -and the injury it inflicted will be readily understood, when we remember that Holland possesses a larger head of stock per acre than any other country in the world. In the Report of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council for 1885 will be found an interesting account of the progress and treatment of the disease in the Netherlands. 48.nbsp; We have, with your Lordship's approval, and the sanction of Her Majesty's Treasury, summoned before us M. Lameris, one of the Government veterinary surgeons, residing at the Hague. In view of the fact that Holland is the only country in the world from which, after having obtained a good foothold, pleuro-pneumonia has been eradicated, the evidence of this gentleman possesses considerable interest and importance. 49.nbsp;From the evidence of M. Lameris it appeared that for many years inoculation was practised by owners of cattle, and so impressed were they by the benefits which
Q. 8930. Eesult in Colonies.
Q. S465-6T
Q. 6724-8, 6771-5.
America Q. 4741-6. The Nether lands.



XIV				COMMITTEE ON PLEÜKO-PNBUMONIA AND TUBEUOULOSIS:

Kepoils. Q. laquo;493-5. Q. laquo;536, 8147.			subordinate inspectors, if any. Prom an adoption of this system we believe that mucli advantage would ensue. 56.nbsp; nbsp;We regret to have found great want of knowledge on the part of inspectors of Local Authorities, in reference to the diseases of live stock, in this and other countries, which are annually reported on in the Veterinary Reports of the Agricultural Department. We consider that all the Eeports relating to this subject should be distributed, as they are issued, to Local Authorities, for their own information and that of their inspectors. We also think that it would be advisable that the Consular Reports, referring to outbreaks of cattle disease in foreign countries, should be published as they are received, and issued in a similar manner. 57.nbsp; nbsp;The third of the antagonistic influences to which we allude is. the inability or disinclination of the Local Authorities to define the meaning of the term quot; contact.quot; It must be admitted that there are considerable difficulties in the way of determining with accuracy this expression. We have found conflicting evidence as to the distance to which the disease might be carried from one animal to another; some witnesses put 1,000 yards as a safe distance, whilst others believe that a small space, such as the breadth of a road or a thick hedge, would be sufficient protection. These opinions, of course, only refer to animals living in the open air, where the general conditions are natural and healthy, and the poisonous breath is largely diluted. In covered buildings, where thorough ventilation is seldom found, the poisonous exhalations dwell in a more concentrated form, and are more readily conveyed from one animal to another. The uncertainty as to the definition of contact has produced great want of uniformity of action, by enabling Local Authorities to interpret it with greater or less laxity according to their own feelings or prejudices. It must also be remembered that it was not until the issue of the recent Order of Council, dated March 10, 1888, that the slaughter of animals in contact was made compulsory, instead of being left, as hitherto, to the discretion of Local Authorities. It is not therefore surprising that amongst conflicting interests, financial or otherwise, and under the influence of preconceived opinions, there should have been total absence of uniformity of action, and in many districts a lack of vigorous treatment. 58.nbsp; nbsp;The compulsory slaughter clauses of the Order of Council of March 1888 are as follows :
quot; Contact.raquo; Q. 6510, 7500, 3720, 4219. Q. 4219, 3720, 6510-12, 6603-7. Q. 4039.
Q. 4622, 5202, 5177, 0189, 6530-33. Compulsory slaughter order.

n i

\|l	Rkugliter Uubiin.	in	Slaughter of Cattle exposed to mfection of Pleuro-Pneumonia. quot; 1.(1.) A local authority shall cause all cattle being or having been in the same field, shed, or other place, or in the same herd, or otherwise in contact, with cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia to be slaughtered within ten days after the fact of their having been so in contact has been ascertained or within such further period as the Privy Council may in any case direct. quot; (2.) A local authority shall cause all cattle which have been certified by an inspector of the Privy Council to have been in any way exposed to the infection of pleuro-pneumonia to be slaughtered within such period as the Privy Counöil may direct. quot; (3.) All cattle by this article required to be slaughtered shall be kept in a shed or other place approved by the Privy Council, and shall not be moved therefrom except for slaughter as herein-after provided.quot; In order to meet the difficulty of more correctly defining the term quot; contact,quot; we are of opinion that Article 1. of the Slaughter Order, 1888, should be amended by the addition, after the words quot; pleuro-pneumonia,quot; of the words quot; or being or having been quot; otherwise exposed to the infection thereof.quot; 59. In the case of Dublin, to which we desire especially to refer, nearly 1,500 animals have recently been slaughtered under this order. A post-mortem examination of their carcases was made under the supervision of Mr. Hedley, the travelling inspector under the Irish Privy Council, and it is important to notice that in many animals, which presented no obvious external appearance of disease, there were found extensive indications of pleuro-pneumonia. This instance is so remarkable that we desire to give it in detail. The entire number of animals slaughtered was 1,486, of which 956 were found upon a post-mortem examination to be healthy, and 530 diseased ; of these 530, 174 were found to show symptoms of recent disease, whilst no less than 356 are described as quot;old cases.quot; We may explain that quot;old cases quot;are those in which the animals after having been attacked by pleuro-pneumonia have apparently recovered, although a cyst had been formed in the lung. When it is remembered that each of these quot;old casesquot; may be capable, in certain circumstances, and for an uncertain
\|l	Q. 8560-70.
Q. 4108, 4112, 7087-9.

*



REPonr,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; xix

	II. TUBERCULOSIS.	II

Nature of the Disease. 1.nbsp; nbsp;This disease, technically known by the term tuberculosis, or tubercle, is so-called Nomencla-because it produces in the tissues of most warm-blooded animals small inflammatory ^tn-lumps or knots, the Latin word for which, as originally applied by Celsus, was quot; Tuberculum.quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; [#9632;jjj 2.nbsp; nbsp;The disease is known in the United Kingdom by different names, according to the parts of the body it may happen to attack, or according to the kind of lesions itnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;j, produces, or finally according to its general effect on the body. Thus, it is commonly \|; calleä phthisis or consumption, pining, and ivasting (the animal being called a quot; waster quot;), scrofula, strumous disease, cheesy inflammation of the lungs, caseous pneumonia, caseous f broncho-pneumonia, tubercular pleurisy, the grapes, the grape disease (Grerman perlsucht), consumption of the bowels, tabes mesenterica, tubercular meningitis. 3.nbsp; For many years most of these conditions were supposed to be different diseases; we now know for certain that they are all forms of one and the same process, and caused by a microbe, i.e., a parasitic micro-organism, which, growing in the tissues, gives rise to the tubercles, and which, by reason of its being thrown off from the diseased animal in quantity, renders the malady a contagious one. ;#9632; Tuberculosis, therefore, exists only in those localities where the microbe happens to be endemic, that is, however, in all European countries, and can only occur in an animal by reason of the microbe being introduced into its system. The microbe, or bacillus, thus forms the poison or virus of the disease. 4.nbsp; The great discovery that the tubercles or foci of the disease contained a virus or poison capable of producing the malady when inoculated into the lower animals was first made by Klencke in 1843, but first described at length and placed on an undeniably firm basis by Villemin in 1865. The nature of the poison itself remained unknown until it was discovered by Koch, in 1881, to be a rod-shaped microbe. 5.nbsp; He found that this rod-shaped microbe was of a length* about equal to or less than the diameter of a red-blooded corpuscle. When magnified very highly and stained with certain dyes, it presents a dotted appearance, showing that the protoplasm forming its body is interrupted. This condition of the protoplasm is supposed further
			#9632; I
to indicate its reproduction by spores or seeds, such seeds or spores of microbes having, it is well known, greater vitality that the adult rod. 6.nbsp; This greater vitality of the spore, and the viability of the rods are, of course, vitality and points of the utmost importance, since, if the mucus, or saliva, or expectoration of an power of animal or human being suffering from tuberculosis be dropped upon the ground, ^^sls_I^quot;₁^CQ_bdeg; flooring, or furniture of a room or shed, it is obvious that such secretions are, in proportion to the effect which exposure at the temperature of the air and drying may have in destroying the organisms and their spores, a source of danger to other animals			#9632; I
			if
		' ' I
or human beings who may accidentally take up the poison. From this it follows that the temperature of the air and drying for a very long period determine thenbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i survival or death of the infective microbes. These points, therefore, require careful consideration and examination.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; \| 7.nbsp; The temperature which is most favourable to the growth of the microbe is that of the ordinary heat of the body of a warm-blooded animal, namely, from 37deg; to 38deg; 0. = from about QS'S⁰ to lOOS⁰ Fahrenheit, but if the temperature falls to about 82deg; Fahrenheit such growth ceases. Though, however, cold thus prevents its development, it does not kill it, whereas if it be kept at a temperature of about 107'ö⁰Fahrenheit for several weeks the organism gradually becomes exhausted and dies. 8.nbsp; It is obvious from these facts that, if bacilli or their spores be scattered on the ground or elsewhere at the ordinary temperature of the outer air in our climate, i i

* Some very slight differences hnve been shown to exist in the dimensions and the distribution in the body of the bacilli tuberculosis found in the human and bovine disease respectively. All authorities regard these differences to bo duo to the difference of soil in the two cases, and that no difference in the nature of the organism is thereby indicated. o 2		! . \l



XX					COMMITTEE ON PLEUBO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS;

ll.i *:	Q. 4898, 5098, 8085, 880c Paragraphs 24, 69, et seq. Food of the bnciiluB.			they will not grow although they may fall upon a suitable soil. On the other hand, they will not be killed, and, moreover, the temperature of some dairy sheds in the summer may approach the point at which the development of the organisms outside the body would be possible. It is only, therefore, under these latter circumstances to be feared that in this country these tubercle microbes will grow and develop outside the body. 9.nbsp;The other condition, drying, is, in the case of most microbes, a very important one, since few resist dessication. Numerous experiments, however, have been made upon expectoration containing the bacilli. Such expectoration has been dried during very considerable periods, viz., several months, and has also been successively dried and moistened for similar periods, and yet the bacilli have not been killed, and when inoculated into animals they have actively produced the disease. 10.nbsp; It is abundantly evident, therefore, that the infectious discharges of a tubercular animal remain actively virulent in this climate for a long time after they have been cast from the body, and that stalls and sheds may thus become a source of danger unless thoroughly cleansed. 11.nbsp; nbsp;The bacillus, under ordinary circumstances, of course flourishes upon the living tissues of the animal it attacks, but its discoverer, Koch, showed that it could be cultivated artificially upon various purified, i.e. sterilised, animal fluids, such as the serum of blood, amp;c. 12.nbsp; The tubercle bacillus does not attack all domesticated animals equally. Arranging them in order of respective liability to the disease, they are as follows: Man.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Groats. Milch cows.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Sheep. Fowls.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Horses. Rodents.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Oarnivora, i.e., dogs, cats, amp;c. (very rarely). Pigs. 13.nbsp; From this it appears that the organism grows most readily in those animals which are omnivorous and herbivorous, 14.nbsp; In all cases the female sex suffers more than the male, and in certain forms of the malady, as is common to all microbe diseases, young animals are more sensitive and more easily attacked than adults. 15.nbsp; Further, certain unhealthy conditions cause a predisposition to contract the disease and receive the poison. Such are (1.) Starvation. (2.) Deficiency of oxygen by bad ventilation. (3.) Exhausting secretions, e.g., prolonged lactation, (4.) Possibly heredity {viie infra. Modes of transmission of the virus. Art. 29), (5.) Certain foods (asserted, but very doubtful), 16.(1,) Of these, starvation is very important, since it causes degeneration of the tissues, and diminishes thereby their resistance to the growth of the parasitic microbes, 17.(2,) The deficiency of oxygen by want of ventilation has been for very many years recognised to be a fertile source of predisposition to tubercular infection, and to be very favourable to the transmission of the virus from one individual to another. This is so notorious that reference need only be made to the instances recorded in works on Hygiene to substantiate the statement, 18,(3,) Exhausting production of milk can be easily understood to effect, as seen in the gradual emaciation, amp;c, of milch cows by the constant loss of the fat, albumen, and salts contained in the milk, just those degenerative changes which reduce the vital resistance of the animal. It is consequently very probable that the especial proclivity of milch cows to contract the disease is, to a considerable extent, due to this factor as well as to that expressed in Article 17, 19.(4,) The well-known influence of heredity in perpetuating tuberculosis among stock is attributed by some to the transmission from parent to offspring, not of the actual virus, but of a condition of tissue which is peculiarly favourable to the development of that organism. This view is naturally but a hypothetical one. Still, as it is held by many authorities, it is here stated. See also Arts. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. 20.(5.) Some foods, i.e., grains, amp;c,, have been imagined to favour the occurrence of tuberculosis, but this is extremely problematical.
I		Animals attacked.
11			Circum-stances predisposing an animal to attack.
I III I ii
r
$



q. 3932, 3G34, 7551.		_xvilnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;COMMITTEE ON I'LEUEO-PNETJMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS: 32.nbsp; nbsp;Against this view of the infection of the ovum and embryo it has been suggested that the diseaso-produoing influence of the bacillus would prevent the 'ovum from arriving at maturity. 33.nbsp; nbsp;Whichevor view be accepted, the solution of the practical problem, as tar as it is connected with this part of the subject, is easy, as all breeders have discovered the infinite risk of breeding from tuberculax- stock (see also Articles 79-80). 34.nbsp; nbsp;It has also been stated that in and in breeding will, of itself, give rise to the disease. This is, of course, erroneous, but, no doubt, such breeding in one line predisposes to general infection if the virus is at any time introduced into the herd.

I ; it	Ac Treatment, par.67	Mode of Attack and Distribution of the Disease within the Body. 35. The disease, as already referred to, may attack the body of an animal in two different ways.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ., ,.,., ^ -,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;n 36nbsp; nbsp; It may, for instance, be introduced into the blood, and be distributed generally over the body, spreading so rapidly as to make its entry difficult of discovery, and to gain for it under this condition the name of acute or general or miliary tuberculosis. 37nbsp; nbsp; On the other hand, it may, as already stated, affect for a considerable time only the point of entry and the neighbouring lymphatic glands, becoming subsequently distributed over the body from these latter. This is called in the first instance local 38.nbsp; nbsp;Local tuberculosis is also occasionally seen to follow the circumstances which usually produce general tuberculosis; thus in cattle the malady shows itself locally under the form known as grapes, where the pleura is alone attacked, this condition differing markedly from the form in which the alveoli of the lung itself are crammed with the tubercles and the other organs also affected.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _ 39.nbsp; nbsp;Local tuberculosis is more common in man than in the lower animals. In him it frequently attacks one point whatever be the mode of its original introduction into the body. In cattle this is very exceptional. 40.nbsp; nbsp;The distribution of the disease in the body is difficult to connect with any special mode of introduction of the virus, save perhaps inhalation. 41nbsp; nbsp; Undoubtedly, in cattle the luna-s and pleura; and the serous membranes generally are the favourite seats of the malady; any and each of the other organs being occasionally affected. In pigs it commonly attacks the glands in the neck. In rodents the spleen the liver, the lungs, and the bones. In fowls the nose, mouth, and the spleen. In horses, the glands, and in man, the glands, the lungs, the joints, and the nervous system.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . . #9632;, -, , 42nbsp; nbsp; Possibly, this predilection for the lungs, spleen, joints, amp;c. is dependent upon the rate of the circulation in those parts,_ the tubercle bacillus certainly appearing to grow best where the circulation is least vigorous.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -, _n ^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .r 43.nbsp; nbsp;The distribution of the disease and the bacilli in the body closely afiects the question of the use of tubercular meat as food. 44.nbsp; It appears that the marrow of the bones is affected at an early period, and that the bacilli may be present therein in considerable quantity before they discover themselves by changes obvious to the eye.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ,-. j- 45nbsp; nbsp;Evidence also has been laid before us to show that, although rarely, the disease may affect the flesh, and that the ordinary methods of cooking are often insufficient to destroy the bacilli buried in the interior of the limbs. 46nbsp; nbsp;Further, although the bacilli may be found but rarely m the flesh, still the chance of their being present either there or in the blood is too probable to ever allow of the flesh of a tubercular animal being used for food under any circumstances, either for man or the lower animals. 47.nbsp; The tubercles or inflammatory patches produced by the bacilli m their growth m the tissues differ rather according to their seat, and the acuteness of the disease. 48.nbsp; If the malady is very acute and generalised in its course, the organs will be found riddled with small greyish knots, varying in size from one twenty-fifth of an inch (dust shot) upwards.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;e 49.' If the disease is more chronic, these small tubercles coalesce, the centres o£ the conioint patches thus formed become degenerated into cheesy masses, while the outer börder becomes hard, tough, and fibroid. This tough fibrous tissue of the tubercular nodule is well seen in the grape-like nodules of the ploural tubercles in cattle. Finally, the cheesy matter may become stony hard from the deposit of lime salts within it. This occurs when, owing to the death of the bacilli, amp;c., the disease ceases
I ; it	See Question and Appendix.
:raquo;#9632;	See Question and Appendix.
fill
I
#9632;i i


t'\p?' ^.

	#9632; BBPOBT.	XXVU

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON TUBERCULOSIS. By Professor Horslet. The foregoing Report on tuberculosis -which I have signed is entirely in aocordance with my vTws^gon the subject so far as it goes; but there are two points upon which I consider further legislation to be absolutely necessary. These are 1.nbsp; Breeding. 2.nbsp; Notification of the existence of the disease. 1. Breeding. Tuberculosis is notorious, even among the laity, as a disease which is transmitted from mS to offspring. This is a fact with which cattle breeders are specially Wir and which find! strong expression in the evidence attached to this Report C her' S Inerally-received truth has been completely confirmed by the results of 2 entific invesSS* as is also duly set forth in the Report Considering, therefore, Zexte^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;of this point, I think that the act of wittingly breedmg from InimauTaffS Should be made an indictable offence. The only objection that can beTi to such legislation, which if effected would prevent the dissemination of the dLTe amongcattl! in this country, is that, owing to the present state of want of knowledgTamong cattle owners and even veterinary surgeons of the early symptoms Srphvlcal signs on examination, of this disease, prosecutions would occasionally oclr in cases i which no fault could properly be attributed to the owner, and that, therefore, such prosecutions would be needlessly vexatious. Con Jdering, however, the extreme rarity with which such cases would occur and that as S tL mltter of non-notification each case would be tried before district magistrates on Town merits, this objection is deprived of the force it might have			!*W
			t
			I II t

2. Notification of the Existence of the Disease. This noint requires no explanation, since it is clear that unless the veterinary inspectors or authorities receive information of occurrence of diseases it is impossible rensure tLThorough carrying out of the provisions of the Contagious Diseases ^tdllfberate non-notification should be punished cannot be doubted by anyone. Obiection howeveMo legislation in this direction has been put forward on the same SdsltZe upon which the prevention of breeding from diseased animals was KnWfld As however I consider that these objections have been already shown to C^no weight rrommend that both the forbiddal of breeding from diseased animals! and Te notification of the disease, should be included m any legislation tor tuberculosis.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _vi0T0R _H0RSLEylt;



44 Parliament Street, Westminster, S.W., Tuesday. April 17th, 1888.

\M

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE				\i

ON

PLEUROPNEUMÜN1A AND TUBERCULOSIS,				ir
PLEUROPNEUMÜN1A AND TUBERCULOSIS,				I

PRESENT :				I

Mr. JACOB WILSON in the Chair. Inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Pkokessor Brown, C.B. Mr. Bowkn-Jones. ....nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; jnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Professor Horsley, F.K.S. Mr. P. Stirling (of K.ppendav.e).nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ ^ _DAwgoN) ^^^^

				il
The Hon. P. L. Vakder Byl called and examined.			Hon, P L. V. Byl.	il
i. (Chairman.) You area member of the Legislative Council of Cape Colony P-Yes; and 1 have lately visited, I believe, every Bnt.sh Colony, and have made a study of farming and stock breeding m _;he hope that I would gain some information toi the benefit of my own Colony. 2 You have been specially interested in agriculture in the Cape P-Yes, I have been an agriculturista farmerall my life.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . j .i, 3.nbsp; And as such you are deeply interested in the diseases of stock ?-Ye_S; everything connected with the diseases in stock.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 4.nbsp; You have devoted special attention to pleuro- TTntbiTe^Volaquo; quot;ravels kept this in vie. and made it a special subject of consideration wherever you went V_Yes, wherever I met with the d.sease I have studied it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . i.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; lt;.* 6. As a matter of fact, does this d.sease exist to any considerable extent in the Cape Colony ?-Not m the old colony just now. It was very bad; but with laquo;eat care beitowed by farmers in preventing d.seased Sock being taken about, I may say that it has nearly died out in the old colony. But in the Transvaal and	11 Has slauo-hter been attempted at all ?No ;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;------ but slaughler is done whenever the disease breaks out n April 1888, on a farm. The first animal discovered to be diseased----------- is immediately slaughtered, or within a few days. 12. And is tiie slaughtering order applied to the diseased animal only, or to animals in contact ?Only to the animal diseased. 13nbsp; nbsp; What are the preventive means which you especially adopt?Well, the animal that is attacked is immediately separated from the others. If you are under the impression that the disease has got a good bite of the animal already you smite it immediately, and inoculate the rest with the diseased lung. 14nbsp; nbsp;Is it your experience that the disease can be readily detected in its earliest stages?If you see your stock turned out in the morning and see them coming in at nigl.t, you can detect it immediately. I should say the animal is detected in four or five days if it has the disease on it; perhaps sooner if you ready take Darticular notice. 15. Are the herds in the Cape Colony generally l_arg_e pNo, they are not large. ) 6. What is the typical size of a herd ?Some 400 or 500 of what we call mixed.
Free State it is bad still. I recently met several herds in the Transvaal diseased. 7 In what direction has special care been exercised t Merely by farmers being very particular not to allow diseased cattle to go about their homesteads or to permit them to run on their lands. 8. And have they used any special means ol prevention ?As far as the Legislature is concerned ? 9nbsp; nbsp;Well, legislative or practical meanstSiO, wlaquo; have not taken any special meanssimply used our own energy and effected our purpose by not allowing diseased cattle to travel over the grounds. 10nbsp; nbsp;And were those energies devoted to the prevention of the disease or to the destruction of the animals ?To preventive means. o 54008.		17 Various ? Yes; they would include cows, young oxen, and calves. I would look upon 500 as being the stock of a well-to-do farmer. 18.nbsp; I presume the oxen are used for draught purposes?Yes, and for slaughtering as well. 19.nbsp; nbsp;What would you consider the minimum size of a herd ?They vary a great deal. For instance, you would have farmers with perhaps a dozen head only, perhaps some with only six, and up to 100 and 200, and so on. 20.nbsp; And they would also bo mixed ?Yes. What we call small farmers would only have a few cows and a team of 10 or 12 head of oxen. A		'



OOMMITTEK ON ^UO-i'M^OMA Araquo;U TOBKUOÜL08I8

*i (-ml*	Hon. P. X. F. laquo;yl 17 ApriUsa?.	21.nbsp; Arc those animal, enclosed or in the opon?- _No thoy are raquo;OBÜy ^^1 ^quot;outoealc of the 22.nbsp; Therefore, in the case oi laquo;#9632; .Hsea.0, the whole country jlaquo; ^.^J ^ *.; ÄoÄ.raquo;raquo;quot; #9632;gt;raquo;quot;^b' quot;quot;^li,quot;^lu,l quot;'** -Iz'HäÄuÄ-ä quot;='quot; ^to ^c^1,1ⁱquot;^ofquot; helping hand in case ot disease. laquo;' Jeak oull would g^quot;P.^0V-'quot;^^ laquo; 0^0 uUock, and after ^^^ ^ Wm a hand to the proper Plaquo;^quot;^/J^i o^ate hi. stock. ''T.ZTytf SJl water B.ppl_y?-No. our waSs^UV/'Su^MoAA the midland district f^^^ ^^STour --S and Us and vine-summer most o oui ^ _bl. _ed _t0 _UBe waler; m Sr^rStalaquo;^ Lea week and our in the western provinces, and in the miQiau quot;1?! 'ÄÄd in laquo; neW,.,laquo;raquo;.raquo;... raquo;f river. laquo;Jo certain medicines, but we navt.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;; above the brush of the tail.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . 30 Do vou cut the hair off? iNo, 1 pu^ little'sinquot; after soaking j^ith ^ ^v^be matter that has run away from the lung,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ ^if IT Do'you'genhat matter from the lung itself ?-No it genmlfy runs away i-^diately after it h tin Sn immediately there is a running from ^ 83 Do you mean from the entire uncut lung ?- ^Yl4 From the surface ?-^e8, but I generally givit two or three ^quot;^quot;^^^^ _?_Of course th ¹¹ ST ^iieS^^one, of course, by the stoc nwnor ?#9632;Yes. nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; * 37 You do not wait for a veterinary su^eon ?_No; we have only one or two surgeons in the who ^C038'And you inoculate by dipping some threads ?Ycs.'generally a little bit of twme. 30 About what thickness ?-The ordinary twine it a knot to P^^andld? it as delicately a ^ Se to do Ä atUk the bone; by tying,9 possible ^t0 '^1o ⁿquot;^t . _t _hav0 ^ effect upon A!' wte'tl^Aa^ _r/lt lose*?ilaquo;lt;l I have known the tail to drop oft. ^tel\ In bK that you avoi.l the bone, I uml.^s	lump on the tail from which the hair springs ?-Yos, ^Ält tÄr some three inches above that ump there is no bone ?-Yes, I know hat 43 So that you push up through the fibrous _B,_r⁴uoture and til BklaVl fa ^.^il ^Ct the string to a part of the skm that is left. iUat would be^San eighth of an inch from the surface whore ¹ ^quot;AnTS' it completely through with an orSaiT needle ?-Yes, I put it right through and give 11 ittle knot, and then, if the animal, after four or five days, should swell a great deal 1 generally have the an^al eaught and draw the seton and open it so as to allow any matter to runoff. Of com so tbev swell sometimes to an enormous size. 46 Have you taken any particular notice as to the nreciBe time that elapses between the perfomauce ol bis noculatlon and the time when the effects begm 0 manifest thomselves ?-My ^7 l^ Z because it, is such an 'W^}^ Z^quot;* attacked, but I daresay it takes effec in pe. haps eio-ht or nine days. 1 could not say positively. 40. But presumably with those arge herds you inotlate and turn them loose aga n Wes. those large herds of large properties generally run night and ^da47 And consequently you would not know at _TOw' laquo;articular time the effects begin to manifest ilC?-No, my memory is failing me b₌it is such an age since my herd was last attacked. It is abSit 12 or 13 years since I last inoculated my ^Cat48.quot; Then you spoke just now of experimenting uCately wdth inoculation and with the mternal remedies ?With the internal drugs. 49nbsp; nbsp;Were those drugs given with the idea of taking the place of inoculation ?-It was only trying to find another cure, or a better one.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, 1 a 50nbsp; nbsp;But were they given to the inoculated animals ? No, to animals that were not inoculated. 51.nbsp; What drugs were used ?-Some farmers used what we call at the Cape Swedish tar. Diseased lung water is also sometimes used. 52.nbsp; Given internally ?-Yes. Others even tried ^ÖS quot;nave you any records as to the effects of those other preventives?-The people that made those exmriments always said that they hud met w. success, but their ixperiraents were never carried out by other individuals than themselves. 64 But those who did try them seemed to be satisfied with the _re₈ults?-Well,Inever saw an anmial that was dosed. It was mostly done by our farmers S the ea tem provinces, and the information I go quot;as through the public prints quot;that so-and-so had done that,quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, 55. (Chairman.) You have no personal experience ⁰ mTlProfessor Brown.) Then you said that when you have an outbreak in a herd, whether large or small you say that you take every precaution to pre ven 'the extension of the disease. What measures Said you adopt in a country like yours where you hwe no means cf isolating the animals so as to prevent ho extension of the disease?-! will give you one wS The first time the disease broke out amongst catt e, after two days I slaughtered the animal Ztwa attacked. I inoculated my cattle, and my cattle were placed in the same kr.ml-an open shed-everv^ight; and without fumigating the place, or unyüdng of that kind, we had not a second one ^S.Vutwhatlwant to get from you is this, quot;Ot vvhh regard to the cattle which you had protected in t af way! but in regard to the action of the rest of the counts beoaase the news would probably spread that PhS disease, ^yournelghb^^laquo;^ prevent infection taking place, would not they ^-Uur Ke are generally herded, and the order is to get
m
:l
*I '**
r
m
m
m
m
yolaquo; to meaTthlt yoi/inoculateimmed.ately above that

ft ll



il PI #9632; ft¹ i	OOMMITTEB ON PI^ÜRO-PNKÜHONIA AND TOBEROULOSI8 =

	Hon. I'. L. V. Byl 17 ApiiU888.	5 t nnvlaquo;v heard of an animal an animal to recover ?-t novel neau. recovering.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, _f _u0^ _a thing; In ⁰¹ laquo;#9632; No #9632; wraquo;,M U Iraquo; Pquot;t 1quot;'deg; 'quot;' 'quot;'M'quot;deg; ^cftse , ,r c..- /; ^ You sav that you used every we have nothing of the kind. that really protective measures are taken fies. iVr You snoke of inoculating your cattle. Did that would be just as good. 106. That would be equally g⁰⁰V, yquot; i n7 flavo vou tried that yourselt r¹ x es. ISquot; And you were satisfied that as far as your herd was concerned the result was satisfactory ?- _c^ A quot;-nd laquo;p-^o- do yolaquo; see rtocÄu-Tol^^e^^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; day and quot;f U You do ?-Yes ; but there are herds that perhaps you would not see for perhaps a week, that is on large stock farms. 112nbsp; nbsp;You spoke of herds of 500 or 6O0 head ?-pÄs the o^ner would not see those cattle once a week The foreman sees them every day. 113nbsp; nbsp;The point I want to get at is that Buppo8 ng there s an outbreak and a herd is inoculated, what ength of time would it be before either the owner or his foreman saw the cattle again. Are we to under-otnml that thev would run for a week and nobody see them or Je wo to understand that every night, or eveiT alternate night, they would be broaght in never kraaled. 1 hey are in laquo;-'quot;r TVlaquo;, nrdinarv marking, or castrating the young bulls. The ordinary Ä used for ploughing or doing farm work are brought in every night.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^v,* 111 And those brought in are used only laquo; draught cattle?-Yes; and the others do not come into the kraal at all, they run night and day. 115 What would be the result o an outbreak thev would not be seen for a week -No ; and Sans the owner would be away and would not row^Pan_ything raquo;bout it at all until the news was sent quot;^Sothat^isonlya^ln^s^le t^lTSSg^mi;^ out within 8 or Äiles of Ms fa^grm would at once quot;g ^laquo;ffi	ught farther, and whenever the dj^id break would he prepared to inoculate ns stock nbsp; nbsp;Down to what ago do you inoculate (-llmvo lated calves, not laquo;ucking from their mothers, 10 to 12 days old. nbsp; nbsp;You inoculated weaned calves i¹xeamp;. . Have you over lost any from the effects of AmUh^nevor died under the experiment in own herd^-There is no poison in the fluid lieve there is poison in the fluid when old and al is very badly diseased. When an animal I would not risk the lung.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , i raquo; v. 1. You do not run virus from the auiraal that has ÄTteause you are under the impression that the s of the animal that has died is then poisonous ?- 23. But that the virus taken from an ammal ghtered at the beginning of the d.seaso is safe ?- fperttly safe as inoculated matter and will i likely S cause the death of the animal on ich it is⁷ used ?-Certainly not I would never ommend virus from a dead animal. 25 Do you find with many of your animals that inoculated that inflammation was so excessive as cause the loss of the tail ?--SeverL 126.nbsp; In what proportion ?I should say d6 per t, lost their tails.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9830; 5 Tsr 127.nbsp; Not more than 33 per cent. ?JNo 128.nbsp; You inoculated your whole herd ?Yes, and hers as well.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 129 Was this a breeding herd i¹1 es. 30 When did vou consider it safe to bring mask.to that herd?-laquo; the herd was inoculated my own farm under my own superintendence 1 ould not mind putting them in at once. 131. You would not mind putting them in at once? IS'That is to say, that you would not mind going o a neighbour or a dealer that you believed had oocl stock ; or would you consider that there was any sk in going and getting breeding cows and brmg-them into yout own herd and m.x.ng them?-fmine were inoculated then I would not mind ; but would not say that mine would not transfer the disease to the uninoculated. 133. You would not say that they would ?They misht carry the disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; -ist 134 But you would not consider it a quot;f,^?- think it is risky. If I was really a large stockholder I would not do it. I would buy three or four head of Tti for slaughtering. It would not be worthwhile to keep them sepamll, but I _woui_d ot go and cast them into a large herd for a month or six weeks. U5 (Frofessor Horsley.) That is only on account of being preliminarily aftected ?-Yes, prehmmanly. I would be afraid that they might carry the disease not their body but in their outer coat, or they might get it from the kr^al that they ^0^ and hey m\|!ht transfer it to the healthy animals, and they miffht pick it up through dung or straw. 136. (Mr. Stirling.) You said that you inoculated all the rest of your herd. Are you satisfied that none of the herd lid the disease latent in them ?-I was under the impression that they were not affected ^yet137. You think that you could tell them?Yes, because I would have removed the cattle affected from ^Islf'How would you tell?-From the staring of the coat: and turn the animal out and drive him 300 or 400 yards and make him gallop and let his lungs nlav well. If he is diseased ho will stand and cough hnmedlately, and there will be a large extension of hTnostrils, and you will see him open his mouth to try and get it through the mouth as well as through ^m^Do^8, you test the temperature?-No, never.

% - m

nfii'
m
m
m
t#
t#			But there was always a fever on them.


*wmmmm*	*smmmmM*	m^mrnmmumwm^mmmmK^iw.i.i w i

m











			H



MINUTES OF EVIUBNOK.

animals ?-l do not quite laquo;atl.or at what you aro		Mr. A, Spreull.

ot them huve been.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_0Xneiicnce uover dis- 'quot;S. I. th.,. not ,.laquo;nl..._rl Piraquo; laquo;t iquot;lt;laquo;laquo;llaquo;raquo;raquo;^?_I pre.laquo;mo It i. WJ ^muc'''i'':'quot;'aiferent to dlff.- TA -?laquo;S to^o. 1.. Bo, I kooraquo; o owraquo; deg;l:i-o%rtfÄÄ5tÄ* fourprofesrionaonotado^itnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^ ^ 208 1 ut is it the opmonbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _who _ha8 ^ adopted H ?-I do laquo;^üt ^kraquo;^_n _it _out. _Tho _m8jority ÄÄW trÄt fnoculation arc in favour zv:^c^^'-- ^kiiiing ^the subjects of it.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ., . ppy _otii_er _Way ₂^J10. Ami, quot;f quot;^ r^. M,o..w.n.edlo gi ,ou.roqraquo;.torforaquo;'quot; raquo;raquo;#9632; ^ _out , _hole ^t.X?fÄ.-_äd.to_ho ._o the operation m the pastnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _means L, by po.l-mo.leraquo; raquo;#9632;raquo;#9632;raquo;raquo;^ .,., j _mul216. I 'Iraquo; oot quot;to to k.U nynbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ ^^ StoÄÄy . ,1 i. raquo;toy i.y raquo; laquo;at* r ._rptoto.laquo;' afri jl/. quot;quot;quot;quot;,. i_nt ₀f Symptoms, but it is pun srCdÄLrif uUi^tion-^^^ Ihelreathing of the laquo;mma j^oÄtsrHr- CerSr-' No'animal with an encyst.nent ^bÄUlaquo; ^ y^0U can discover any f 220.nbsp; nbsp;But IKlaquo;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Jnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _that ! _can. of cncystment?No, i ao i jnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 221.nbsp; It appearlaquo;, ^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;	''''S'l am not driving at anything, but to ascortaiu ₂₅ _Aprll _im, the facts. Yolaquo; Bay that It is necessary to have an ---------- ⁱⁿ⁰2ÄÄut^?7^^discovei' ^'?^the ^,,calthy unfmi you a nnot discover oncystment m its primary Tund^eloped form ?-Tliero is some difficulty. ^ 224. Therefore, my question ^Woh you üitt noraquo; nswor is this: in that stage of growth ot encyst menth Wealthy animal and%he encysted animal^ on a par ?-You must regard thorn as such u..t.l such time as von prove them to bo otherwise. 225 You V on further to say that quot;i you get laquo; an encysted or diseased lung, kill the animal ?- ^Ce28^ft6^nlBut is it not your experience that a great many animals aro enc/sted laquo;-t laquo;ever arc ki led o wUh the leLr. trace of encystment V-Üccidodly, or ^^fHavT^uTeVer discovered an encysted animal af.efslaulhtoi^vhich was thought ^ ^re 1 whetheidiscaseilaquo; present or not; and in th a way 1 weed these all out, and there is none left alter the %rWe^\tnt:f;u consider thatincc^- £Äi^^rfe^r£ outbieaKs ^oelnfc quot; ?_The only source that wc ^bti Tu to quot;yC'Sraquo; P-laquo;gt;y laquo;laquo;'I laquo; could not find that out you could not help it, and it quot; would not matter, as no harm can ensue ?-That quot; aJsTJyou then wish us to understand that an encyst anSal, having once had to d-ase and i ..,ilaquo;Pfl anvthinjj then it has done no harm. 234 Ä as you know it has not done any harm ? _No harm has been done in this way. 285 But do you not regard it as an clement ot dangt ?-Perhaps ild be if there; but, if not, then no harm is done. 236 But the animal would be still quot;raquo;Wo'Tf?' when^n animal once has the disease It never takes it ^^ That is not only your own opinion but it is borne out by experience is it notP-Yes, by experience that I have had. 238 (Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Is that the disease itself or ?£ inoculated disease ?_I have not seen the disease occur after inoculation. pneumonia ? 20* Yes?Never,		*\f%*
			r
			11

			^:!
			I
ältrS-ÄÄ regarded as healthy



8		COMMITTEK ON rLEURÜ-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. A, Spreidl, 35 April I laquo;88.	2-U. You Bay hero that quot;inoculation in the hands of cue man is ono thing and inoculation in the handa of another man is another tiling quot; ?Yes. 242.nbsp; Therefore) I would gather, in spite of what you said before, that it appears a delicate operation ? That is the result of hearsay. 243.nbsp; nbsp;Only you put it so in your evidence at Edinburgh ?But it is put in as the result of what I have heard. 244.nbsp; It does not say so ?I do not protend to say what it is in the hands of other men; but I understand from admissions that have been made that it has been unsuccessful. 245.nbsp; But it is rot stated here as an ipse dixit of itself ?Well, it is stated in that way ; I have heard admissions from one who has been unfortunate. 246.nbsp; With regard to the period of safety, do you consider that 56 days is a period after disease which you would regard as safe?It is quite safe with inoculation ; it is more than sufficient with inoculation ; it is not sufficient without it. 247.nbsp; What is the longest interval that you have known after which an outbreak has taken place ?I knew recently an outbreak which took place on the 55th day. There were succeeding instances with the same herd at about equal distances, and had these cattle not been slaughtered, my opinion is that it would have gone on lingering still, dropping off oue by one. That was the case of Fenton, of Dronley. It began with a single case that was not declared, and about six weeks afterwards a second occurred, and that was declared. On the strength of that the owner denied strenuously that he had the disease, and he was like putting me in the wrong with my farmer friends. The result was that he was like carrying the point up to the 5i(th day, but he was obliged to admit it after that. 248.nbsp; You would therefore consider that it would be dangerous to allow an animal to go at large not inoculated after 56 days ?I would consider it much more dangerous than if they were to go at large if they were inoculated animals. 249.nbsp; Let us put inoculation out of the way. What is the longest period of an outbreak in an uninoculated _capethe last previous case, for instance ?I could not give you anything else but what 1 have done just now. 250.nbsp; But that was an inoculated case ?-No, there was no inoculation. That is the longest period I have remembrance of at this moment. 251.nbsp; What is the longest period in an inoculated _C,J_C ?About 16 days. I tva quoting from my own ex\|iericnce. 252.nbsp; You have never heard of anything approaching a year or 15 months?In inoculation? 253.nbsp; nbsp;In a non-inoculated herd ?Do you refer to the outbreak originally ? 254.nbsp; nbsp;Yes ?I am not referring to an original outbreak at allthe incubationbut to the space of time which I have found to elapse between the outbreak of disease and the next case. 255.nbsp; That, is what I mean. You have never heard of a case in the same herd without any further encystnicnt ?I huve heard of them within six months. 256.nbsp; Never a year?I heard once of two years ; but I was rather sceptical. 25'7. Hut never more than two years ?No, I don't think so. 258.nbsp; Would you think it a desirable act on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undertake experiments in inoculation ?Certainly, I think it is desirable. 259.nbsp; Could that be easily carried out ?It could be ; but it would be expensive. 260.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think it a simple Operation ?Yes, as far as the conducting of the operation is concerned. 261.nbsp; And what class of professional men would be most suitable to conduct the experiments ?Those who have tried it before and have had experience of it. 262.nbsp; And how long would you think it would take to do it?It all depends upon what you want to prove.		2G3. We want to prove everything that can be proved ?If you want to go into a sciontitic investigation you would want some experts. 264. Do you consider it would be a satisfactory state of things without such men ?No, I think it would be dfcsirable to have them. 205. Let us have the most thorough investigation, if you have any at all, but how long do you think it ought to extend over ?I could not give an opinion. 266.nbsp; nbsp;We have regarded Mr. Spreull as an expert ? Yes, in one way, but not as regards the pathological and physiological conditions of the lung. I do not set myself up as an authority on microbes and bacteria. 267.nbsp; But you have set yourself up as an authority, and we regard you as an authority here ?This is as to the practical part of it. 268.nbsp; From your point of view, how long do you think it would take to conduct a satisfactory series of experiments such as would be really satisfactory to the country at large ?Well, in regard to the practical point of whether it would be successful in arresting disease one month would be quite sufficient in any ordinary outbreak. 269.nbsp; nbsp;But you have told us already that even 56 days are not enough?Without inoculation. If you are to inoculate you will stop it. 270.nbsp; nbsp;But you must conduct the experiments to show both sides in order to prove anything satisfactory ? I do not know when I would satisfy my neighbours; I know when I would satisfy myself. 271.nbsp; Then you want to satisfy yourself with regard to inoculation only, but you do not want to show the reverse ?I cannot tell what time it would take in order to trace the life history of those microbes. 272.nbsp; You admit there is a difficulty? I admit that I do not like to say anything about the life history of them, or the time necessary to demonstrate it. 273.nbsp; You think it desirable that we should have the history of them, and that we ought to know more than we do at present ?Certainly, if you do not grudge the expense. 274.nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that it is a desirable thing to get at the bottom of this question and to investigate the whole scientific and practical part of it?Yes; knowledge is always desirable. 275.nbsp; nbsp;Considering the importance of this question to the country, to stock owners, and to the public at large, do you consider that a thorough investigation and inquiry both of a scientific and practical nature is desirable ?Certainly. 276.nbsp; nbsp;And in order to embrace the whole question I presume it could not be done in a very hurried manner ?Certainly, it could not be done in a hurried manner, if you include the whole question. 277.nbsp; You would not think it very desirable to take one portion only ? The practical portion is very easily demonstrated. 278.nbsp; nbsp;But that is not the whole question ?No, not by a long way. 270. In page 44 of your evidence you give the case of 380 cows and other animals inoculated. Now, I presume that the whole history of the case ought to be stated to prove your conclusions ?I have no case of 380 cows ; that is a cumulative amount. 280.nbsp; nbsp;Then you say, quot;The animals that became quot; diseased and had to be killed were all previously quot; diseased quot; ?Yes. 281.nbsp; nbsp;And ''not a single encysted case occurred quot; among all the remainder of them quot; ?I have already told you so. 282.nbsp; How do you know that?So far as I have gone by making post-mortem examinations. 28.'?. These wore not killed ?The bulk of them were killed. 284.nbsp; You say, quot; Among all the remainder of thorn quot; ? So far as 1 am aware. 285.nbsp; Those were not killed?1 can only say so now, almost all of them have been killed. I cannot say that they are all killed yet, but the majority are.
I
lit
*



TO		COMMTTTKK ON riiKUKO-X'NKUMONIA ANÖ TUBQBOUIiOSIB I

Mr. A. Spreull. 35 April 1888.	331.nbsp; How muny nioio?Well, ono of our Edinburgh men. 332.nbsp; 1 thought that you meant the Lociil Authorities. But why do you say tlmt I am against inoculation ? I understood you were from the tenour of the letter written in your name to tiie Dundee Town Cousricil. I was led to understand that you were against inoculation altogether. 333.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr, Stirling.) This letter signed by Mr. Peel, you moan ?Yes, a quotation from a report by Professor Brown. 334.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Tlmt referred to the report of 1886?I do not know -what report it is taken from; but it was given as your opinion, and your opinion was taken in regard to the question of whether we would be allowed, or rather whether you would recommend inoculation. I think that was how it was put, if I remember rightly. 335.nbsp; nbsp;You say here, quot; If I saw the proper exudate quot; of pleuro-pneunoonia I would have no difficulty in quot; distinguishing it quot; ?Yes, 336.nbsp; How do you distinguish the exudate of pleuro-pneumonia from any other exudate ?Weil, if I did not know that it was inoculated perhaps I might have some little difficulty in distinguishing it; but having inoculated the animals with the virus one has no difficulty in recognising the proper lesion when we see it. 337.nbsp; What you mean is the exudation from the inoculated tail?Yes, from the inoculated tail, while in the tail I refer to. 338.nbsp; You say an animal that dies from inoculation dies from blood poisoning ?Yes. 339.nbsp; And, therefore, I concluded that you would trace any case of death from inoculation to the fact of the matter being of a septic character ?Not necessarily ; it might be a superabundance of microbes of pleuro-pneumonia or some other microbe, such as bacilli. 340.nbsp; Would you expect if you put a perfectly pure matter containing only the virus of pleuro-pneumonia that the septic organisms would get into the animal ?They are not long in developing. It becomes a question whether they are not present to a greater or less extent always. I believe that that is so. Of course I am not to set myself up as an authority on bacteriology. 341.nbsp; You said just now that you would hesitate to recommend compulsory inoculation of healthy animals because you might be accused of spreading the disease ? Yes. 342.nbsp; Do you know any authorities who say that inoculation does spread the disease ?No, I never heard anyone say so; but there might be a possibility. I only put that in a hypothetical sense. I do not say that anyone has said so. 343.nbsp; In England no one has said that there is any risk ?No. 1 had no special reason for saying that. I only say so that we might not go one step further than is warranted by our present knowledge. 344.nbsp; nbsp;But putting on one side any risk of false charges, would you recommend compulsory inoculation of all healthy stock ?No. 345.nbsp; You would not?No, I do not think so; I think it is sufficient for the present purposes to inoculate when the disease has already broken out. 346.nbsp; What are the present purposes ?What are the present purposes, to get rid of the disease, of course. 347.nbsp; To get rid of the disease ?Yes. 348.nbsp; Would not that be the aim of inoculation under any circumstances ?Certainly ; but the one is of a very much more limited scale than the other; and you do not usually take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 349.nbsp; But, supposing your present purpose is so far successful that you get rid of all the disease that you OftS discover, would not there still be a great risk of the nninoeulated cattle getting it through an undiscovered centre ?Well, there are some eases that are very difficult to trace. I grant you that. 350.nbsp; And, therefore, to provide against those accidental cases and the recurrence of disease, you would inoculate ?Logically, the inoculation all over is quite		correct. I do not object to it unless on the ground of being expensive. 351.nbsp; nbsp;Would you think there would he any objection on the part of stock owners to compulsory inoculation ?Some would object. 352.nbsp; The owners of podigroe stock would, perhaps, object ?Yes, they would very likely object. Some of the owners of dairy stock would object too. 353.nbsp; But, supposing that inoculation were made compulsory, would you think it necessary to attach to that system the condition that the animals should not bo removed for a certain period, or that the animals should not be moved during the rest of their lives ? I do not care which of the conditions you impose if inoculation were made compulsory, either to restrict them for 12 mouths, or make a restriction for the remaining portion of their lives. In our neighbourhood it would not make very much difference. As a rule, their average life does not exceed 12 months after date of purchase. They pass off as fat cattle at the end of 12 months with very few exceptions. 354.nbsp; nbsp;That, of course, applies exclusively to dairy animals ?To dairy stock and feeding stock also, as a rule. 355.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing you were to adopt that system of practical imprisonment for life to dairy stock, you would not bo able to distinguish between the animals belonging to tiie dairy stock and those simply belonging to the healthy herds of the country ?Inoculated animals could be branded and registered. There arc some districts that export a great number of cattle, and those are the districts which ought to be put under more restrictive measures than such a district as where I am located, because it is from those breeding districts that the disease mostly comes to us. For instance, in the west of Scotland, where a groat many cows are bred every year, we have got the majority of our cases of disease from the west of Scotland, from Sbirlitigshire and Ayrshire, and that neighbourhood. 356.nbsp; nbsp;Would you look upon the inoculated animal as a suspected animal ?I would not. 357.nbsp; Would the fact of an animal being inoculated suggest to you that it was from an infected herd ? Yes, but if inoculation was made eovnpulsory in all herds that would not be so. 358.nbsp; But at the present moment without knowing about the inoculated animals, what would you say ? At the present moment 1 would come to the conclusion that it had been in a herd infected with disease, because I do not know of any person who has gone in for inoculation except he had already had disease. 359.nbsp; Then the fact of the animal coming from the infected herd would he reasonable ground for suspicion ?Not if inoculated, 360.nbsp; Then if you were Governor-General of Canada you would not hesitate to admit inoculated animals from this country ?If it was successfully inoculated 1 consider it quite laquo;afe. 361.nbsp; How do you know whether it is successfully inoculated ?I can only judge by the experience 1 have had. I say that up to the present time that 1 have not seen a cast! of disease in an inoculated animalhence my confidence in inoculation. 362.nbsp; I am asking you to put yourself in the position of the Governor-General of Canada, and that you are required to decide whether cattle shall come from this country or not. You say you would lot in inoculated cattle from this country if Hiiccessfully inoculated ? Yes; but the difficulty, if I am Governor-General of Canada, is that I would have very little means of practically knowing. 363.nbsp; Under such circumstances what would you do ?I might regard them with suspicion so far as the practice was only carried out during the presence of disease. If it was general then I would take it as a matter of course. 364.nbsp; If the inoculation were general you would let those animals into the country ?Certainly. 365.nbsp; If you were simply cliarged with the business of stamping out the disease, would you adopt the
#9632;
If I
I' m
*I'**

I



14			OOMMITTUE ON I'UCUKO-l'NKUMONIA ANraquo; TUllKllflU)SI8:

Mr. A. Sprenll. 25 April 1888.		to give a more careful examination in the individual case.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _v 478. The first tiling is tho appoumnco .-'yes. 474.nbsp; And his breatliing ?Yes, obaerving the breatli und seeing if ho coughs. 475.nbsp; Do you employ tho driving test?xes, it necessury wo drive him around tho court and if wo find that ho begins to cough then we catch him, and if wo find disease we hill him at once. 476.nbsp; Do you think the driving test invariably shows you whether it is diseased ?Certainly not. The driving test would only show that there was bronchial Irritation in tho lungs, sufficient irritation in tho lungs to produce a cough. 477.nbsp; How much disease in the lungs would it show ? Would it reveal a patch two inches in diameter ? It might if coming in contact with some of tho bronchial tubes. 478.nbsp; Then you rely more upon the driving test as showing bronchial irritation rather than a comparatively extensive pleuro-pneumonia ?Certainly. 479.nbsp; Can you tell by anything else ?There is an unthrifty appearance of the hair, and the skin begins to get hide-bound. 480.nbsp; nbsp;With regard to the temperature ?We always take the temperature whenever we are suspicious. Temperature is one of the most important things to go by.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 481.nbsp; nbsp;Would you then find by the temperature the presence of a small patch ?If an encystment it would not reveal anything. 482.nbsp; If there is disease, and a patch about two inches in diameter, would it not ?As small as you like, it would reveal that ; it reveals it very early while in the act of forming or about to assume the act of form- in⁰quot;. ^SS. As soon as the animal is inoculated with the poison its temperature begins to rise ?Whenever the febrile symptoms show themselves the temperature is elevated. 484.nbsp; If you take another disease, take rabies, and inoculate rabies, the animal's temperature does not rise during the time that the disease is incubating in it; it only begins to rise as soon as the animal shows other symptoms which can easily be recognised. Is it in your experience that in pleuro-pneumonia we have a rise of temperature very soon after the animal has come in contact with the poison ?Oh, no I would not think that; but perhaps some weeks or months afterwards ; probably five or six weeks before it became affected.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, 485.nbsp; nbsp;Then what would you believe to be the incubation period ?As a rule, six weeks to two months; but there are cases, such as I have mentioned, from the date of the purchase of the uniraal that brought the disease to the date at which the disease was recognised ; varying up to about 10 months. In the two last outbreaks the diseased cow was purchased in one case in the beginning of July or end of June, and in tho other case in'the month of May, and they were only declared infected the one last week and the other only a fortnight before. 486.nbsp; nbsp;They were declared infected on account oi another animal taking it?Yes; but while that was so I must say also that when the cases were killed we found that they were almost invariably cases of encystment that had gone on for a considerable length of time. 487.nbsp; nbsp;Am I to understand that in those cases ot so-called long periods of incubation, there was any possibility of tho animal having been affected by it beforehand or subsequently ?These were cases where the animals were healthy until the purchase of this particular animal, which had been found to be the real cause of bringing the disease, and proved to bo encysted after killing. ' 488. And in all the cases of long incubation the animal had encystment shown to be present as the origin of the disease ?Yes. 489. And there was no possibility of the disease		or veterinary surgeon ?I never knew of any case of disease been brought in by a herdsman or veterinary surgeon. It has always been brought by an aniraal. I consider that tho disease spreads while in the active stage, though often it does not show until later on. 490.nbsp; Do you think that inoculation, if practised upon an animal that is in the initial stage of the disease, that that inoculation will increase the activity of the disease ?Yes, 491.nbsp; nbsp;You spoke of a possibility of cultivating the virus. Do you know of any recent work in which that is done successfully ?Yes, the work that Professor Brown gave me the last time I was here. Mr. Power's. It is a very good thing. It seems altogether to be very good and clear on the subject. 492.nbsp; You do not know anything beyond that ? No ; but it seems to me very like what it should be, according to my information gained both by experience and from other veterinary literature on the subject. 493.nbsp; Prom your experience, do you think that if an animal has encystment that it is infective if that encystment is old ?I do not think that after a certain stage that encystment does spread the disease. 494.nbsp; Could you give the Committee an idea of what that stage is ?I cannot say positively, probably six months; I could not say exactly. We do not know when the encystment loses its power to infect. 495.nbsp; Could you say, from the appearance of the encystment. how that is ?No, but my opinion is that after a certain time the active, live bacteria or micro-cocci of the disease die, and it is then become incapable of propagating the disease, that they become more the germs of putrefaction that are present, that these have no specific action whatever, but are more developed from the process of decay going on. 496.nbsp; From what you said just now you believe yourself that there is no possibility of the virus being quot;conveyed on the skin of an animal ?I have never known of a case of the kind. It would stand to reason that if virus were spread on the skin of an animal and come in direct contact that it would produce its effect. 497.nbsp; You said a little while ago, and most people believe it, that it was conveyed by the atmosphere? Atmospheric agency is the only one potent in spreading the disease. 4^{)8. But you have known a clean animal that has been put into a byre and that has become infected, and that other animals have caught the disease ?No, I have not known of such a case. 499.nbsp; Have you ever seen inoculation practised by subcutaneous injection ?No. 500.nbsp; The duration of protection you said ) on believed yourself to be, from Mr. Nunn's observation, two years ?That is the only one of undoubted authenticity. 501.nbsp; nbsp;What is your experience ?I have not seen anything from my inoculations, but have been perfectly protected for the period that they have been allowed to exist afterwards. 502.nbsp; What is the practical disadvantage and injury to cattle due to inoculation raquo;Some people object to the tips of the tail going off. That is a sentimental objection. That is not of much account. 503.nbsp; nbsp; That is just the point. You do not regard the loss of the tip of the tail as a serious loss to the animal in depriving it of protection from flies ?I do not think it is of any very great consequence whatever. 504.nbsp; Of course, it would not'be in dairies, but it cattle are out in the fields the flies are annoying ? They seem to do quite as well without them. Some of my friends thought they would not be able to protect themselves from the flies; but thoy found that the animalp with the tip of the tails taken off were just as well able to get rid of the flies as the others. 505.nbsp; Then you say, from your experience, that the actual loss due to inoculation, that is to say, to accidents of inoculation, is only one in 400 ?1 have only lost one out of 420 from the result of inoculation itself. 506.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) I understood you to say just now in answer to Professor Horsley that you thought

m
t. -.^
r
III kW m
III kW m	having been brought in by a cattloman or a herdsman



M	18		OOMMITTEK ON PLEUBO-PNMOUMONIA AND TUDKBCUL08I8:

C. Cimnitig' hum, V.S. 25 April 1888-		nooossavy. I Imvo soon instances of that kind, and I had, but last your, u caso where In a certain district we had three outbreaks, In which inoculation was per-formod, surrounded by other farms, and wo did not inoculate tlio healthy adjoinlna farms or dairies, and wo succeeded in doing away with the diseaseit never spread any furtherwithout the inoculation ot the surrounding healthy stock. 629. I notice that you used the word quot; dairy. Uo you wish to indicate'to the Committee that your own oxporience is confined to dairy farms so far as this disease is concerned ?Not chiefly confined to dairy farms.. I have had other experience of breeding stock, several instances among stock. 6.'50. Do you consider that dairy cows in Ml milk are more susceptible than others ?I do. 631.nbsp; At what stage do you think after the disease has disappeared from the farm it would be safe to reiu-troduce fresh stock ?After inoculation ? 632.nbsp; nbsp;Yes ? -My practise is to inoculate the healthy animals, and I generally try to get the premises at least three months closed or isolated after inoculation. I think the promises might be freed within two months, but I prefer three months, and if possible four months. 633.nbsp; Upon what facts in your experience is that opinion based ?In almost all the outbreaks I have had, after inoculation the animals stand the 56 days, or three months or four months, if we can get this additional time, and then immediately afterwards some of my inoculated stock have been sold and a fresh lot of cows, not inoculated, brought in amongst them, and the latter stand perfectly healthy, and I have not had any recurrence of disease. 634.nbsp; Have you ever known an instance of disease being conveyed by individuals, by the herdsman or veterinary surgeon ?No. 635.nbsp; nbsp;And is it your experience that these outbreaks take place more frequently in winter than summer, or the reverse ?Spring is the most common time with me; February to May. 636.nbsp; Do you find that you are equally sucoesstul in inoculation during the whole time of the year ? No, I like mild moderate weather ; if too hot or too cold it is not favourable. 637.nbsp; But you do not find that generally in the spring ? -But that is the time I have generally found the out-		tho promises. Well, I believe, there is still a great deal of the contagion left on tho premises. Attor . stamping out you have to reintroduce fresh stock into the previously iulectod premises without any inoculation Of course under the inoculating process we inoculate all tho stock and close the premises for at least 047 Have you road tho evidence taken before the Highland Society ?No, I have not read it. 648nbsp; nbsp; Have you ever read any of the results ot the experiments at the Brown Institute ?No, I simply confine myself to my own practieul experience ot inoculation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,, , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;e__, 649nbsp; nbsp;Therefore, if you are told that men ot your own profession had carried out important experiments, that they found it impossible to communicate disease other than by direct contact, you would not think that that would be in accordance with your experience^ No There are instances without doubt that, alter stamping out, if uniuoculated stock be put into the premises again, the disease will break out. 050 It would be very valuable to hear the instances to which you refer ?I have none of my own. I have never had any.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . 651.nbsp; Have you ever had a case in your practice where such a thing occurred ?No; but I have known of two instances of friends of my own. 652.nbsp; Could you give us the names of those gentlemen?Mr. Aitkcn, of Dalkeith, and Professor Williams, and I think Mr. Rutherford ; but I am not so sure about Mr. Rutherford. I have never had instances in my own practice.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_ , .. j enc 653.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) You said you inoculated 6Ub animals ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 654.nbsp; What class of animals ? Were they chiefly dairy cows?Principally dairy cows. __ , ,. 655.nbsp; Were there any young stock ?Yes, breeding 656.nbsp; Up to what age?All ages. 657.nbsp; What has become of this stock, do you know f Most of them were dairy cows, and have been sent fat to slaughter.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; #9632; e 658.nbsp; Have you any record of any examination ot those dairy stock ?After slaughter ? . . , 659.nbsp; Yes. Any post-mortem examination .-'JNo, they passed out of my hands. 660.nbsp; You are perfectly unable to say what the condition of the lungs were at the time of slaughterlaquo;' Yes, at the time of slaughter, but those animals never did any harm or produced disease at home. Whatever state their lungs were in they never produced pieuro-pneumonia in their district, and I see no reason why they should produce it elsewhere. 001. You said there were 18 outbreaks. Was there fresh stock mixed with these 506 animals atter your inoculation ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;laquo; r i. #9830; 602 And you have never known ot a iresb outbreak ?Not after the three months. I have never known of a fresh outbreak. Inoculated stock and fresh stock have stood side by side; I have seen them often.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, T 663 When you were called in to examine a neru, what 'tests did you put to them?-I go generally around the animals and take a very careful look at them. Sometimes by this simple means we can pick out the unhealthy ones.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , o 664. From what circumstances do you judge i From their appearance, generally. They show an unhealthy appearance in their coat, and are not well filled up in their stomachs. Then we take the thermometer to them, 665nbsp; nbsp;What range of temperature do you consider a sign of disease ?Unless in very sultry weather, in which case T have seen even healthy cows up to 103, between 103 and 104 I look upon them with sus- 666nbsp; nbsp;Would you proceed to recommend them for slaughter under the Act ?It depends entirely on circumstances. Of course we do not depend upon the thermometer entirely, I find other circumstances raise the temperature.

#9632;#9632;A
* '#9632;
#9632;I 0:		breaks occurring. 638.nbsp; And that is the most important time tor inoculation ?But we never inoculate without disease. 639.nbsp; You say that the outbreaks occur in the spring, but as a matter of fact you prefer to inoculate in the mild weather. Therefore you are inoculating in the spring when the weather is somewhat inconvenient for your operation ?Oh, yes. Of course in February and March we sometimes have very bad weather, unfavourable to inoculation. 640.nbsp; nbsp;Am I to understand that you consider that stamping out by slaughter is the correct principle for all diseased animals ?Yes, aifeeted animals. 641.nbsp; You would not go so far as to say probably, that you had equal faith in inoculation for exterminating the disease?1 do not understand the question. 642.nbsp; You would not go so far us to say that you had equal faith in exterminating disease from the country by inoculation as you would by slaughter ? 1 simply advocate the inoculation of infected animalsnot healthy animals. 643.nbsp; nbsp;I am speaking now of animals in contact ?1 would not advise the slaughter of animals in contactI advise inoculation of them. 644.nbsp; nbsp;Would you bo as likely to get rid of the diseasby inoculating the animals in contact as you would by slaughtering them ?Taking the other things intconsideration, I think we would. I prefer inoculation 645.nbsp; nbsp;It is not what you prefer; but does your experience lead you to believe that it would be equallefflcnoiouB; is that so ?-1 believe it would, takinother things into consideration. 646.nbsp; nbsp;Wiiat arc the things that you wish to take intconsideration ?When we stamp out the whole of
litt
m
herd we kill the healthy and diseased alike, and empty

I



22			COMMITTED ON PLKUUO-X'NEUMONIA ANIgt; TÜBRK0ULOSIS:

C. Cunningham, V.S. 25 April 188fl.		looking over my books I could find other instances ; but that is the only one that oocim to me just now. 160. Was that before 1S78 ?Yes. 761 (Mr. liowen-Jones.) I think I gatheml trom your remarks that you do not consider the ÖÖ days are sufficient to render a herd free from liability to contagion ?-My own opinion is that it is rather a short time. T like another month, or perhaps two, it 1 can get it ; but I have cleared the promises at the end of 56 days and have seen no bad effect. 702 Why do you consider this extra time is required ?I think the longer time that wo have the better.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, 763. Do vou think the germs'remain on the premises or that the germs remain in one of the animals i More in the animals than in the premises, lake a case where there had been three or four or halt-a-dozen diseased animals in the premises, and the others are inoculated. That produces a sort of mild fever, which requires time to subside and for everything to settle down. That is the only reason. I think the 06 days rather short, and I like a little longer time. 764 Then you do not consider that animals are really free from contagion under four months.''1 es. I have seen it less than that,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 765.nbsp; I understood you have seen cases m which they arc safe in two months; hut you told us just now that you considered four months was a better period ? Yes, it is a better period.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ 766.nbsp; I)o you consider they are safer at four months thaji at two months?Yes. 767.nbsp; You stated just now that you objected to stamping out because the disease is left in the premises ; is that so ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . 768 Is not disease left on the premises after inoculation ?That brings a point out that I cannot explain but I can state the fact that people bring in fresh stock not inoculated into inoculated premises and they do not take the disease, whereas in former times when brought in in that kind oi way they would have taken the disease readily. Under inoculat on our people now, with impunity, bring in fresh cattle sooner than they used to do long ago when the premises were cleaned out.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_aA_a,.~ 769 Is it your contention that inoculation rendeis animals entirely safe from contracting the disease a-rain ?As far as my experience goes it is. quot;770. Do you mean to say they never have it a second time ?-I have never seen it, that is all 1 have ^g0771 ^6aWhat is your personal experience with animals that are inoculated ; how long have you known them to live without having disease ?-What I have already Btated is that I have never seen a cow that i nave inoculated take plouro-pneumonia afterwards. 772. Has any animal that you have inoculated lived two years after you have inoculated it^1 should say that they have lived at least 18 months. 773 Then your experience only enables you to say that inoculation is a safeguard for 18 months P-Yes, so far as my experience goes. 771 And you know nothing as to whether it is a safeguard for any longer period ?-No I have had no opportunities for testing it. If I had been in a breeding district five or mx years ago I would have tested it, but unfortunately I am not m a breeding district, and therefore I have not had an opportunity of testing it. 775. After an outbreak in the byre I suppose you usually disinfected ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ - . _in _nrn 776 Would any disinfection bo sufficient to prevent a fresh outbreak after the removal of all diseasecattle ?According to the gentlemen that I hav mentioned it was not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; g t l, ., 777. But from your own experience i'l havnever seen it come from the premises themselves.stated that I had never seen an instance of the kindbut I had heard of instances where it apparently ha 778 Yolaquo; recommend inoculation not slaughterin		should not you carry that out universally right through the country; if it is right in one case why should it not be in the other ? There is a very great difference. In the one ease you have the stock directly exposed to the contagion and diseased animals amongst them. In the other instance you have perfectly healthy animals with no disease near them. 1 think it is quite time enough to inoculate when the disease comes about the premises. 779.nbsp; Then you admit that you would never get rid of the disease by inoculating only a portion of the herds of the country ?I do not say that. 780.nbsp; Why, does it come in again ?It comes into my district from other parts where inoculation is not practised, principally from Wishaw, and sometimes from Cumberland, and sometimes from Ireland. Irish cows, Cumberland cows, and West of Scotland cows are the animals that in my opinion have brought the disease to my district. 781.nbsp; nbsp;If you can attest that, if you can get rid ot disease by inoculation, on what grounds do you disapprove of inoculation being carried out compulsonly throughout the country ?Because I think it is unnecessary.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 782.nbsp; But you say that disease comes in from the country now ?Yes. What I contend is this : that if inoculation was practised in Cumberland, and Ireland, and the West of Scotland, the same as Mr. Rutherford and myself do itI will only speak for our two selves the disease would very rapidly disappear from these districts. 783.nbsp; Do you say that inoculation cures disease in your district ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . 784.nbsp; If inoculation was practised in other districts from your point of view would it not cure disease in those districts ?Yes. 785.nbsp; If it was therefore practised compulsonly, would it not cure the whole of the kingdom ?But the inoculation is, of course, attended with certain little drawbacks, you very often lose a little bit of the end of the tail, for instance. 786.nbsp; Would it stamp out the disease in the whole of the country ?I believe it would. 787.nbsp; nbsp;Then why do not you recommend it ?Simply because of the inconveniences attending inoculation. Of course when you inoculate very often you have to take off a few inches at the end of the tail, perhaps you may kill an animal or disfigure an animal. 788.nbsp; nbsp;[Chairman.) Might that not occur in all _cases ?_If _We could perform inoculation successfully without leaving any blemish or endangering the life of the animal I would say make inoculation universal. But seeing that to produce the proper effect we have to innoculate rather severely, and as inoculatiou thus performed entails occasional disfigurement and occasional death, I would not recommend it universally. 789.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.) Inoculation in some cases 1 suppose does not take effect, does it ?Rarely, if the lymph is good ; it depends very much indeed upon the lymph. 790.nbsp; Suppose an animal was exposed to the disease and inoculation did not take, would not the germs of the disease still remain in that animal?I do not l^now. 791.nbsp; Then I will say quot; might it,quot; not quot; would itquot; ? __It might. I will put it in this way : some of the cows that I have inoculated do not take as you say ; I have done them two or three times, and still they will not take. According to your view that animal has the seeds of disease on it, consequently when a non-inocnlatcd animal is put beside that animal the non-inoculated animal should take the disease, but it does not ; fresh uninoculated cattle are put beside such animals and remain healthy. 792. In case of doubt whether an animal has pleuro or not, would not slaughter be more effectual than inoculation ?No; say the case we have been mentioning is a doubtful case, and has not taken inoculation, and you think it has the seeds of the disease on it, the best plan may be to put another animal beside that one. If another cow stands unharmed besiae
,rl

im
#9632;i '4
lllli
lllli	diseased cattle and diseased herds, logically, why

11



2S				OOMMITTEK ON ri.EVRO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS I

Mr.E. Rutherford, F.R.C. V.S. 26 April 1888.		920. I undorstood yon in one of your answers lo statothat in preventing or endeavouring _to prevent discuso you mainly depended on inoculation, is that so?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; raquo; i i ii i 921 Have you tried the system of isolation, by which I mean going through the herd frequently with a thermometer, and separating all those which _sivcau indication of rise of temperature ?-l have; 1 tried that persistently for four years, simply because my clients would not acreo to inoculate. 1 was			the lung in the transition stage, between the (Irst Mid second stage. Just after the exudate has been poured out into that 'portion of the lungs which in colour ia salmon coloured. At that time the exudate is about the colour of pale sherry, and is plastic m handling it; absolutely free from smell, ami is perlectly pure and in a semi-liquid condition. 932 How long would yon consider that fit tor use after you have taken it ?I have used it when it has been eight days old, and no smell could be detected about it to indicate that it was wrong, and yet 1 found it to fail (an instance of this occurred lately in Glasgow) ; and I have used it when it was four days old and found it succeed. So, 1 would say, when it is absolutely pure, free from decomposition, from the first to the fourth day, it can be used with safety, after that it cannot be used with safety j but it must not bo used if there is the slightest taint of change setting in in its constituent parts, if there is decomposition setting up.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;t, 933.nbsp; I conclude that you are aware that, even when you take it fresh from the lung in the way you describe, the fluid contains a large number of septic organisms ?It may; I have not examined it under the microscope myself. I can only speak to the results ot it used under certain conditions. 934.nbsp; nbsp;After you have inoculated an animal a certain period elapses, does it not, before any swelling begins? Yes, it does. 935.nbsp; Do you find any rise of temperature ?A very immaterial rise. 936.nbsp; nbsp;Then the statement, that the temperature rises to the fever height, is not true in your experience? It is not true. 937.nbsp; By saying that the operation confers inununity when it is successfully performed, what do you mean exactly by the word ?I mean in the wordquot; immunity that it will not contract the disease, or give the (llSGfiSC 938.' That it is absolutely protected, do you mean ? I think so. J have absolutely no knowledge whatever of a single instance to the contrary. 939.nbsp; Do you know of any other form of protective inoculation of which you can say, namely, that it is absolutely protective rNo, I do not. 940.nbsp; It is not true of vaccination, is it ?It is not. 941.nbsp; Nor of inoculation as a protection against anthrax ?No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. , , 942.nbsp; Nor black quarter?No. Cur animals live such a shoit life, as a rule, that I should think myself, if ever it wns put to the test by experiments, it will be found practically to be the case. I think it might be answered in this way, is it usual for a veterinarian to meet with pleuro-pncumonia occurring twice in the same animalthe true disease ? I cannot produce inoculation twice in the same animal, and 1 have tried that many times. I may infer from that being the case they are proof against the disease. 943.nbsp; Have you heard of other persons succeeding ? No ; it has always failed with me, and I have tried it many a time.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 1 944.nbsp; Then you have not heard of anybody succeed-in.r iri getting the results twice from the same animal ?1 have not, and I do not think it is very likely; on account of my experience, that if they have been properly inoculated the first time a successful lesion is established subsequently. 946, Did you say that the operation was rather a delicate one ?I said one requiring care ; there is a little difference between the word requiring delicacy and requiring care. There is no great delicacy required ; it merely requires a man who will apply intelligently to the operation a certain amount of intelligent skill. 946. We had a Colonial gentleman here two days ngo, who told us that ho always operated upon his own stock, and he adopted roughly the method which you have described, only that he put the seton of twine dipped in the virus, which he seemed to collect, as you proposed, out of a sherry-coloured or salmon-coloured portion of the lung, and he did it merely
*, ,::'*			forced to do that, I had no other way of doing the work ; that was the line of practice then, 922, What was the result ?The result wns simply the aradual growth and spread of the disease. 923nbsp; nbsp;Then you did not find that that system arrested the disease ?-I did not, not a bit. 1 was not satisfied that it had the slightest effect upon it. 924nbsp; nbsp;During your experience with inoculation what results' have you gained?-! have never tfamp;f arrest an outbreak. There was only one outbreak m mv life where I never came to a satisfactory conclusion, and that was where the inspector on the tenth or twelfth day after inoculation stepped in and killed the lot. I never got a chance cf coming to a roncluslon about that. But my remarks, of course apply lo the aggregate results and the individual results also of nearly 150 outbreaks. 005 Have you known any instances of inoculated animais, that is to say, animals that you have rnocu-lated yourself, taking the disease afterwards ?Not alter 1 had pronounced them safe. 926nbsp; nbsp;That would be after an interval of about three weeks, 1 think you said ?_Three weeks practically; hut there are isolated cases that you are not satisfied about which might be a month or five or six weeks but there are a very lew of those, I should think not one in five hundred.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, . j' #9830; 927nbsp; nbsp; What would you take to be the indication that the animal is .afe ?-Än absolute success ully developed lesion in the first place, quot; umlorm temperature, normal temperature tin oughout the whole course of the progress of the inoculated phenomena, and milking, feeding, and thriving well, say, for instance, for three weeks, at the very outside a month after inoculation. Those animals, m my experience, are absolutely safe 5 but that is not the case hero there is any falling off from that, and any failure of that. 1 have had one or two in my lifeprobably three, not very many more-and I have exp amed it to mUf by the thread having accidental y been .tripped of the virus, or from the animal itselt beuig the subject of the disease and my having failed to detect it, even though 1 had been examining it very carcfnllv. Another thing may account tor it, having cccas Sally experimented-rather, I would not like to uTlhe word quot; experiment quot;-but having occasion sdlv used dry lymph.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .-57 lt;128 How do you perform the operation?-! opiate, as you are aware, at the tip of the tail-hquot;n e 01' turftce. I pass for about an inch and a haloi inch and three-quarters in ^^ the dn.ctioof the tail itself-not across transversely, but in thLSon of the tail-a worsted thread saturated witthe virus, which must be absolutely pure. , . 920 Do you adopt the plan of making an incision-No- 1 have tried all these plans, and 1 have abandoned'them all, simply because there is not uniform quot;quot;'m ' Is there any objection which strikeraquo; you paikiilarlv to the method of incision winch is the mocommon method ?-I think there are two objectionsXfis t.s that the virus maybe washed away, anthe second is that there is an advantage in a breaina/much as U sets up a direct and immediate locitatmn, which, in this disease 0 pleuro-pneuniona ticula ly, leads to localisation ot the exudate. ¹ 031 Then as to the virus; what do you conridto be quot;'pure virusquot;?-Pure virus should be takVon an'animal that, with the exception o beipleuro-pncunionia, should be otherwise healthy.
llP¹'
#9632;' -.4
#9632;i raquo;
#9632;i raquo;	should also be aken from au animal from a portion of



30		OOMSUTTKK ON PLEUUO-PNEUMONIA. AND TUBBB0CLO8I81

Mr. R. llullierford, F.lt.C.V.S. 26 April 1888.	965. You know of courso that under the Order in Council when the whole of the animals are slaughtered, and the place has been disinfected, he may bring in f'rlt;!sh stock as soon he likes?I have heard that. I do not think you would get very many dairymen in Edinburgh or Leitli who would venture to put them in again. Ö66. Do you object yourself to putting animals in a place that has been disinfected ?I must confess I do in a groat many places. 1)67. Do you believe that the infection remains in the byre ?I do. 968.nbsp; nbsp;Have you any facts which you can give to the Committee in support of that view ?I have not noted down facts; but I have a distinct impression in my mind, as the result of a largo number of years' experience of the disease, of numberless instances of the reappearance of the disease ai'ter entirely clearing out a place and a now fresh stock being brought in. It may be said that wo brought the disease in again that we brought a fresh case of disease; but the same thing has happened in numbers of instances in different places. 969.nbsp; (Chairman.) Can you give mo one instance? I really could not give you the names out of a large number of clients. I could give you many instances, but I think Mr. Cairns, who has to be examined, is one instance. 970.nbsp; Has any instance recently occurred of that kind ?No, that does not occur now. Whenever wo have a case of pleuro-pneumonia at present we always inoculate,and, if possible, for a month or two afterwards, and then a fresh stock will come in for that very reason. 971.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) Are you aware that from 1872 to 1878 we tried at the Veterinary College to induce the disease in every conceivable way ? I have read some of the experiments. 972.nbsp; Later still we tried it at the Brown Institute ? No, I am not aware of that either. I should say that the surroundings of the Veterinary College and the surroundings of the Brown Institute are much too healthy, and the buildings in much too good order, to easily retain the contagion subsequently communicated. 973.nbsp; Those experiments included every possible method that anybody could suggest of inducing the disease with the morbid products of it; everything short of bringing the animals in contact with a living diseased one ?Still, it is a sort of negative proof of that in the face of the results of years and years of observation not of one institution hut of a great number of owners, all of whom have found in their experience that the disease very often breaks out, and there is no other mode of explanation except that the place itself is contaminated. 974.nbsp; Is there any evidence in those cases where disease has broken out in a fresh lot that some of the animals were not affected at the time that they were introduced ?As far as inquiry has shown they came out of perfectly healthy stocks. In the instances that have come to my knowledge when¹. I made the inquiry there were no traces of the disease where they came from, 975.nbsp; But you cannot refer us to any special case, you say ?1 cannot; but un the other hand, as supporting your contention, it would be only fair for me to say that in the vast majority of the outbreaks that I have dealt with, except those cluster areas that I have had the most bother with, the one result has been (and I have had any numbers of instances) that pleuro-pneumonia has been annihilated, in the great majority, in the premises, and fresh stock brought almost immediately afterwards, and no more disease after 9 or 10 years. 976.nbsp; Is that your general experience ?Yes. 977.nbsp; nbsp;You understand that I do not deny the possibility of disease being communicated by mediate contagion, 1 merely wish to put it clearly that I cannot get any evidence of it, and that we have utterly failed in our experiments to produce it. Do you		know that inoculation has been practised in various parts of Europe and America and Australia for a good many years ?Yes, 1 know all about that. i)78. Do you know of any instances in which it has been successful in stamping out the disease ?No. Of course I do not know the French mode of operating exactly, but I know that the French admit that their operation has not been successfully conducted. They say so. Conneau, at a meeting of the Central Society in Paris lately, said undoubtedly that they themselves had been working on wrong lines. But there can bo no doubt that they are now progressing in the matter and adopting inoculation with much more vigour and very much more successfully, but that is only lately. 979.nbsp; Do you know that the disease is still rife, and has been ever since Doctor Wilhems commenced his operations in Belgium ?I believe they have pleuro-pneumonia more or less there ; but I do not know tho system, and I do not know if it is as vigorously carried out as I would insist upon. I cannot sec how (and I think you would admit it, but I do not ask you to admit it), if we are going to stamp out the disease in an area by the vigorous administration of preventive measures, if the same principleif the same practicebe applied to every disease, why tho disease should not be annihilated ?it is not logical to say otherwise. 980.nbsp; But still you know, as a matter of fact, that it has not been successfully pursued in other countries which have tried it for a very large number of yearsthat in those countries it has not had the efieet of stamping out the disease rI believe not; but I qualify my answer by saying that I do not know the system on which they work. 981.nbsp; (Chairman.) Are you aware that there are recurrent cases of disease in all these different countries ?Yea, I have heard so. 982.nbsp; (Professor Brown.) Notwithstanding all the evidence which is against the operation, do you, from your own experience, consider it, irrespective of any other consideration, the best thing to do for the purpose of stamping out the disease ?I think so. I think it is the best thing for the country to do; I do really; and I see no difficulty whatever in carrying it out. 983.nbsp; nbsp;(Lord Cloncurry.) The Chairman asked you if you considered that cattle would run the risk of contagion from an adjoining farm, and should be inoculated, and you said, quot; Yes, if they were in ad-quot; joining byres, but not in another state of things quot; ? If there had been an attack on the other side I would most certainly inoculate. 984.nbsp; nbsp;Have you known cases where the disease has spread to the stock in another farm, across tho fence, in the open airI am not speaking now of byres, but of an open fence ?It is quite a common thing in Australia. 985.nbsp; nbsp;Have you not heard of it in Scotland ?Yes ; bu t still there is a long distance where animals could not have been in contact, where apparently it has been carried by atmospheric influence. 986.nbsp; About your own district of Edinburgh you told the Chairman you could not recommend the occupation of an adjoining byre with tho disease on the other side of the fence ?It would depend entirely upon the distance. If they were at a distance which I considered unsafe, and tho wind was perhaps carrying the contagion in that direction, I would advise them to inoculate. I did so lately. At Fithie, in Forfarshire, where I was called to deal with an exceedingly bad outbreak, one that has been existing for a very long time, I found a very bad state of matters indeed. There wore about 30 or 40 young cattle, with a road dividing them from the actual presence of tho disease and actual contact with it, a farm road only, it was not a public road, but there was a field, und those youngsters going there, and there was a road, and there wero the premises that wore badly diseased. In dealing with the premises itself and with tho animallaquo; inside, I deemed it advisable to
Jk
M

I



32		COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBEBOUIOSIS 1

Mr.B. Rutherford, F.R.C.V.S. '26 April 1888.	1017.nbsp; nbsp;Will every animal take plouro-pneumonia ? No. 1018.nbsp; Would those animals be exempted under your scheme ?No, and they should be destroyed, if suspected old subjects. If the animal will not accept inoculation, it is probably a subject of the disease; it should bo carefully examined at intervals and its fate determined by the result. There are very few such cases that there need be any doubt about, and when there is a doubt I would destroy. 1019.nbsp; Will an animal that is clean sometimes not take inoculation?No, I do not think so; an animal that is clean, that has never had pleuro in its life will undoubtedly accept inoculation. 1020.nbsp; You say you do not think so; are you certain ?I have always found them to do it. 1021.nbsp; Have you never known an instance where an animal has not taken it ?No. 1022.nbsp; Is that the experience of the veterinary profession generally ?They have no experience in this matter. The whole profession have not any experience in this matter to speak generally, largely, and definitely on that point. 1023.nbsp; Vaccination does not always take with an infant, why should inoculation always take with an animal?It is the case that it does. One thing you may depend upon is this that if they will not take inoculation they will not contract the disease ; it is impossible for an animal to resist inoculation and subsequently to contract the disease. 1024.nbsp; nbsp;1 do not see why it should be ?Because the liability to contract the disease shows that the food upon which the germs live within the body is there, and they would convoy the artificial disease that is niduced by inoculation in the presence of that food quite as readily as they would the true disease or via verso. 1025.nbsp; Docs a spurious inoculation ever take place in an animal that may pass muster as inoculation ? Yes, there are spurious inoculations; that is to say, cases where inoculation has not been properly performed ; for instance, the lymph may be bad and there may bo a number of instances of that sort. In inoculating a herd or a large number of animals you do not get in every instance identically the same local appearances, but that does not lead yon to believe that the animal has not accepted inoculation. Yon are satisfied, and you may probably remain satisfied, that the animal has accepted it if you are satisfied that you have used proper virus. With the majority of the animals upon whom you have operated you may get certain substantial results, and if on the almost daily direct examination of those eases where you have not those substantial results, but only partly so, you have a uniform temperature, that animal in every other respect thriving and doing perfectly well, you may be certain that this is an animal in which the susceptibility has not been so strong, and that it remains absolutely protected quite as much as the others who have exhibited a very much severer lesion. Speaking about the lesion as evidence of inoculation, you know some of the lesions are exceedingly mild ; you simply have an eruption round the seat of the operation extending about 4 or 5 inches, which subsides about the 14th or 16th or 17th day. In other cases the lesion may extend up the tail and affect the soft tissues in the neighbourhood of the anus and vulva and produce death, and the animals in both cases may have been operated upon in identically the same way and not an atom more of virus used; but still you would get these different results. 1026.nbsp; An animal that has been imperfectly inoculated would be liable to contract the disease, would not it ?Yes, that animal would not be inoculated at all. 1027.nbsp; nbsp;You have told us that a spurious inoculation did sometimes show itself ?What I mean by spurious inoculation is not what I have been just describing. Spurious inoculation is where animals have been inoculated with virus that was not vims; with lymph mat was not lymph.		1028.nbsp; Then that would not be protected, I assume ? No. I have had to deal with frequent outbreaks whore inoculation has been said to have been performed and had not been performed. 1029.nbsp; nbsp;Then such nnimals would bo liable to contagion, would not they?Yes; undoubtedly the disease never went from amongst them until I afterwards inoculated them, 1030.nbsp; Then that would be another class of animals that would be exempted under your scheme ?There would not be any chance of their being exempted if every veterinarian applied the operation correctly. The proper thing to do is to lay down a system of operation which must be followed. 1031.nbsp; Would the veterinary community want training to a higher degree and to a greater state of efficiency than they are now before the animals would safe ?No; the veterinary inspectors at the present time have to make themselves cognisant of the application of the laws, for instance, the present Contagious Diseases Law, and this would simply be a rider to that. Instead of slaughtering everything they would have to bracket quot; inoculation quot; in the Act and carry it out under a certain system. It would not require any very great amount of education to enable them to overtake that. 1032.nbsp; nbsp;But you say that the operation is not effectually performed now sometimes?It is not sometimes. 1033.nbsp; Then those animals would be excepted ?I do not say that at all. it would be for the local authorities to satisfy themselves that their officers were fitted for the duties ; and I say it is for the local authorities to see that they know their duties. 1034.nbsp; nbsp;If this class of animals that I have mentioned had germs of disease through being in contact with others, would they be liable to communicate it to other animals ?Yes, undoubtedly. 1035.nbsp; If this class of animals are liable to communicate the disease, how will inoculation extirpate it from this country ?I have always extirpated it in every outbreak that I have dealt with. 1036.nbsp; How can you extirpate it if these animals are liable to give it ?Which ones ? 1037.nbsp; We will take an animal that has been inoculated, and that may take the disease after two years ? I do not think that is likely, unless the operation has been wrongly done. 1038.nbsp; You do not think it likely, but it may ? Deal with the disease again if it breaks out. I have had such cases and always succeeded in getting rid of the disease. 1039.nbsp; They would not extirpate it that way ?You cannot be certain to extirpate it by slaughtering, on the same reasoning, because in dealing with every outbreak our knowledge of the spread is so indefinite that you cannot be certain after having destroyed and slaughvered out a herd that you have slaughtered out the disease. 1040.nbsp; The law provides for punishment in the case of outbreaks which are not notified to the authorities, does not it ?I am very much afraid that the law will not overtake every case, especially in Ireland. 1041.nbsp; That line of argument amounts to this, that the law wants strengthening in order to make compulsory slaughtering more effectual ?It does; but any amount of strengthening the law will not affect the spread of the disease from infected animals so long as we are not absolutely certain as to the mode of its spread and the length, or rather the area over which it may spread itself, and its mode of communication. I mean the insidious and long incubative nature of the disease. 1042.nbsp; That seems to me more an argument against inoculation rather than against slaughter ?No. 1043.nbsp; How can you entirely free the country from disease by inoculation, when you cannot perform inoculation without the virus of the disease?In every outbreak you have the means of annihilating it. You have in the infected animals a material which would encounter that disease in every outbreak.
Ml*



M		laquo;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;raquo; OOMMITTEK ON rLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS;

Mr. It. Rutherford, F.R.C.V.S. 26 April 1888,	safe when at tho same time I informed the owner that they had the disease. 1062.nbsp; Then you directly traverse Mr. MeGall's account ofthat animal ?Yes. 1063.nbsp; Do you adhere to the statement you made a short time ago, that your practice in inoculation has been very much confined to dairy stocks in and about towns ?Yes. 1064.nbsp; I know the class of bjiildings outside the burgh boundary ; they are very much contracted ? Yes. 1063. More generally than the breeding and the farming stocks in this country ?Yes, 1066.nbsp; I think you made a very strong statement on another point, namely, that it pays farmers better to sell out all their cattle. Do you adhere to that ?I have hoard of them saying so. 1067.nbsp; Is that a general statement?I do not think it would be a very general statement. I have heard them say so. J 068, Would you be surprised to hear of people who have known dairymen say that it is not a bad thing to slaughter out all their cattle ?I have heard dairymen say so, but only where they purchased cheap cattle nnd had not much of a business at stake. 1069.nbsp; Then your remark would apply to both ? Yes. 1070.nbsp; Then the question of slaughtering out from an economical point of view might be as good for the dairyman as it was for the farmer ?No, not with respectable men. It is only people of a very low moral character in that respect who would suggest such a thing. 1071.nbsp; I suppose there is some morality in the farmer as well as in the dairyman ?I say in both instances it would only be those who had a poor idea of what they owed to their fellowmen. 1072.nbsp; As regards the slaughter system, I have heard it suggested that that would be so obnoxious to the farmers that they would conceal the disease and would not report the disease ; would you apprehend that ?I have not had sufficient experience of farmers to say whether they would be inclined, as a rule, to report or to hide ; but I have sufficient experience of dairymen to say that the majority of them would endeavour to hide it. I have not their authority for saying this, but I have that knowledge of the men from my long contact with them. 1073.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman.) Does your distrust in the dairymen reporting a case apply equally to the big men as to the little men ?Much more to the big ones, for this reason, that they have a much larger stock and a very much larger business to meet the daily demand for milk. Little dairymen can easily get their supply from their neighbours. 1074.nbsp; (Sir G. Macpherson Grant.') As to infection remaining in the byre, you said, I think, that the dairyman's business is destroyed by the slaughter of the animals from which he makes his profit by milk, and he cannot fill his byres again ?I think very few would really. 1075.nbsp; Very few would ?Yes, not for some time afterwards. There lately is a very strong feeling in Edinburgh, after a long experience of the disease in old times, that the disease has a tendency to hang about the place. 1076.nbsp; About what length of time do you think a byre would be unsafe ?I might answer you as 1 answered a local authority some time ago about it. I think very much depends upon the nature of the building, the roofing, the flooring, and the walls; old loose roofs, old walls, old flooring and clay floors, and clay fixings about the troughs, and tho like of that, are ready means of affording a lodgment for an exhaled virus. Walls that are well plastered, and tho cemented stalls, good roofs, and the like of that, and floors that generally can be flushed with water, are comparatively safe. 1077.nbsp; nbsp;Would you consider it safe for a farmer to introduce fresh stock into a building where there had been pleiiro ?T think an ordinary building would		not be very safe for about three months. 1 liavo always thought tho present time, two months, is too little. 1078,nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Horsley.) I understood from an answer that you have given that you do not consider pleuro-pneumonia to be indigenous to Great Britain ? No; it is not so very old in Great Britain, about 40 or 50 years. 1079.nbsp; Do you think that if tho amount of it now existing were stamped out anyhow that it would recur unless imported ?No, it would not if there was a quarantine period before introducing fresh stock into infected places. 1080,nbsp; nbsp;What do you think to be the common source of the disease as regards Scotland?I havo found Ireland to be that chiefly, and during tho last few years largely the North of England. 1081,nbsp; Not the Continent; do not you havo cattle from the Continent ?No ; not that I am aware of. 1082.nbsp; Further, with regard to what you said about infection of byres, I gather that what you wanted to convey to the Committee was that if the virus fell upon the place where the floor was faulty, and consequently might be damp, the virus would be preserved ?I do not think there must bo any moisture about. I think the moisture would destroy it. I rather think that the explanation is this, that it is expired and finds a lodgment in some Ipose dust, probably in the walls ; it gets dislodged from that and ultimately finds its way into the respiratory organs again. I am afraid that is it. 1083.nbsp; I gathered from your evidence to the Highland Society that you thought desiccation would kill it ?Yes ; drying it artificially does kill tho virus from the lungsthat is, the liquid virus. 1084. Then if the virus fell into the crannies of a byre among the dust it would be dry too, would not it ?I would suppose so, but there may be a difference in the process. The fact remains that if you inoculate with worsted threads saturated with liquid virus taken from the lung, dried on sheets of paper, and kept for a certain time under any system you like, the results are very uncertain indeed. I got results, but not satisfactory results. 1085.nbsp; nbsp; Did I understand you that you would be able to supply the Committee with the facts of byres having been infected with pleuro-pneumonia in the way you indicate from this lodgment ?No ; unfortunately I have not got notes of any in particular, but the facts remain very strongly on my mind that cases of that sort have arisen in my practice. 1086.nbsp; Perhaps I am asking you too much, but do you remember in those cases in which such a condition appears to have occurred that in any of the cattle which were killed in the outbreak the disease appeared to be old, to be encysted ?No ; new cases. 1087.nbsp; Always new ?Cases newly visited with the disease. 1088.nbsp; Then you would not say that if the disease appeared to be smouldering in them, as it were, that that was in consequence of infection which had encysted ?Had that been so I should have condemned the mode of inoculation at once as being a possible factor. 1089.nbsp; What do you believe to be the mode of infection ; do you think, as a rule, it is by the air ? Yes; it is respired. 1090.nbsp; Do you believe it is possible for a herdsman to carry the virus on his clothes ?I do not. 1091.nbsp; You described to us the kind of lymph you used and where you have obtained it from. Have you ever used lymph that contained matter ?No, I have avoided it. I have known others do so and have bad results. You see there arc records of that havino' been done in other countries by inexperienced men, nnd you havo the results. Of course no sensible man #9632;would do such a thing. I say no more than that. It is my opinion that pleuro-pneumonia lymph will not stand attenuation ; it differs in that respect from any other animal poisonthe poison of rabies and numbers of other poisons will stand attenuationweakening to

I

lb.



:58		COMMITTKl?	ON PIKUnO-PHEUMONIA ANT) TUUEBOULOSIS

JMr. Ä. Hutlierforil, F.U.C.V.S. 2laquo; April 1888.	in sheds ?No, I think they arc equally liable. The only difference is this, that lu sheds it spreads inuch more rapidly, I think, and in fields the area of the spread is nuich greater. 1173.nbsp; Do you not think the conditions under which the two sots of animals are kept and fed tend to make one more liable than the other ?I think not. The actual contact is quite enough, I think. 1174.nbsp; I mean the actual conditions under which animals are now. I want you to include the feeding ? __I think that lias nothiug to do with it. 1175.nbsp; Nothing to do with it ?Nothing whatever. 1176.nbsp; Has the unnatural system of feeding dairy cattle anything to do with it ?It has nothing whatever to do with the spread of the disease. It is simply the housing. It is more difficult to treat dairy cows, simply because they arc more likely to go wrong from the operation itself, and not from anything else. 1177.nbsp; nbsp;What age of stock do you chiefly deal with ? All ages. 1178.nbsp; Can you tell me what is the longest length of life of any quot;beast that you have inoculated that you know of ?I have often inoculated them 9 and 10 years old. 1179.nbsp; After your inoculation how long have you known an animal to live ?All our dairy cows we have slaughtered in a year or two afterwardssay, two years afterwards at the outside. 1180.nbsp; Therefore two years will he about the extent? __Yes ; I have also inoculated bullocks, fattening bullocks, which of course may have been kept for a long time, but certainly not more than two years. 1181.nbsp; Suppose that you were made the responsible person for issuing the orders of the Government of this country, and there was just this condition, that you were to get over the disease as soon as possible, I think you said that you would advocate inoculation thoroughly ?Yes. 1182.nbsp; Would you attach any condition to that inoculation; I mean by that, would you attach any condition that animals were to be shut up in quarantine for a year ?No, the present quarantine regu-latious are ample, taking 50 days as a minimum period. 1183.nbsp; nbsp;Or a shorter time after inoculation?No. In the case of dairy stock and feeding, for instance, it would not be necessary to attach any conditions, unless it were simply to satisfy people's scruples, nothing else. 1184.nbsp; nbsp;{Chairman) Why would it not be necessary to attach conditions, especially in dairy cattle? Simply because they are under all circumstances slaughtered out whenever they are fat; there are no special conditions required. I would allow them to purchase in as rapidly as they liked so soon as ever they were fat; I would allow them to go out. 1185.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling.) Would you allow them to go out from the dairy into the fields after inoculation ? Yes, three or four weeks afterwards. 1180. In fact, you would place no restrictions of imprisonment beyond the three weeks after inoculation ? None whatever, as I think they can go out in the summer in numbers of instances immediately after the operation. There would bo no fear of their spreading the disease ; the only question would bo whether they would injure themselves. 1187.nbsp; nbsp;I think you wish to say something about breeding stock ?I apprehended when you asked that question just now that it might mean that there was a limited area question again rising up, and I was going on to say that to satisfy foreign nations like Canada you might isolate these animals for a certain time after you are satisfied that there is no fear. 1188.nbsp; nbsp;Otherwise, except with the idea of trying to satisfy foreign nations, yon would have no objection to the cattle three weeks after inoculation being allowed to go into the fields ?Three weeks after inoculation, yon know, is not much ; we would like it longer, call it n month; I have often put them out in three weeks, however,			1189. {Mr. liawen-Jones.) Would they get free from it in a month ?A month would give them a much bettor chance. I have called it three weeks, but you might call it a month to cover all contingencies. 1100. {Mr. Stirling.) You have spoken of experiments being advisable and very desirable in order to obtain thorough information on certain points. Have you formed any idea in your own mind as to how Ionquot; these experiments would need to be carried on in order to satisfy veterinary science ?I do not think it would require to be carried on to satisfy veterinary science so much as to satisfy the authorities, the Government or the Government advisers. Professor Brown, for instance, and his colleagues. To my mind there is only one point to be definitely settled; it is absolutely positive that inoculation arrests the disease; it is absolutely positive that an animal healthy at the time of inoculation will not afterwards contract the disease and will not give it to another, so that these points are all definitely settled. 1191.nbsp; {Chairman.) In whose mind are those points definitely settled, because I believe that is not universally accepted as yet ?I think you will find that the majority of those who have studied the matter must accept that. 1192.nbsp; nbsp; {Mr. Bowen-Jones.) We get conflicting opinions in this report of the Highland Society as to the points which you say have been definitely settled ?~However, these minor points are very easily settled. The point which to my mind must be settled by a series of experiments conducted in the face of the disease is whether, under a vigorous system of dealing with the disease, killing the diseased, killing the suspected and inoculating the remainder, it is possible for any to be left that are capable of afterwards communicating the disease, and whether they have actually communicated the disease or can do it. That is the one point. I hold that if inoculation is successfully and vigorously carried out such animals cannot exist, and if the worst came to the worst, and occasionally from a mistaken operation one or two here and there did escape and cause an outbreak somewhere else, put the same thing in operation again; inoculate, and you arrest the thing at once, but it would not occur very often, it would be exceedingly seldom. It never occurred with me, and I do not think it would occur so frequently as to become a question that would ever be a serious one. 1193.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Stirling) The question was how long do you suppose the experiments would take ?How would you propose to carry them out ? 1194.nbsp; You have recommended the experiments, and we want to know what you would consider satisfactory experiments?Simply attack outbreaks. The Government are aware of every outbreak that takes place, let the outbreaks be chosen from those in the cities or in the country. Place those outbreaks in the hands of experienced inoculators whose work would be taken notice of by a Commission appointed on the _Spotgt;_a Commission that you can depend upon, composed of scientific and agricultural commissioners, and let them watch the result. After a given time slaughter up or follow the animals one by one until they were finally slaughtered to see if such a thing as a disease in a limited area did exist, and also to watch if any animals had contracted the disease from those that were pronounced to be safe. 1195.nbsp; Could you furnish the Committee later on with a paper showing how you would propose to deal this question ?Yes, I will do so with the greatest pleasure. 1196.nbsp; What would you suppose would bo the number of animals required to satisfy veterinary science generally that those points had been proved which you think should be proved ? Are you aware that it has been stated that it would require about 500 or 600 animals at least, or even a thousand animals, and would cost about 50,O00Z.?I do not think it would require anything of the kind. I think you simply require a few outbreaks, say, for instance,
#:
laquo;,
11

I. f^; #9632;



*0		COMMITTEE O!raquo; PLEUBO-VNKUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS I

Mr. H. IMIurford, F.R.O.V.S, Jll April 1888.	1231.nbsp; J)o you beliüVü, therefore, from your own experience thftt the system that you have adopted is the most efficacious ?Yes, I have found it so. 1232.nbsp; But you have not seen any oilier i¹X es, i have. For four years I dealt with it In my own practice, when I first came from India For four years I tried a system of isolation and killing out those I suspected us fast as I could, but 1 (lid not succeed.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 1233.nbsp; Have you never seen any other operator poi-f_()rm ?_l have seen other operators perform, fc or instance, I have seen one or two whom I have been mslructiucr. I have seen them operate while 1 Have been standing by, and I have seen them subsequently operate, and do it with great proficiency, but not very many, not above half a dozen. I have seen nobody ⁶ ^S1234. You have told us that you think that one year would be ample for the purpose of the experiments ?I think so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , 1235. You have also told us that you regard with distrust and suspicion every inoculated animal tor the next two years ?No, I never said that. 1236nbsp; nbsp; Would you think it a complete experiment unleJs you could trace the animal to its death ?No, \ou would require to do that. 1237nbsp; nbsp;And ought you not, to make that experiment quite complete and satisfactory to the country at		knew it or not, but the speakers said it was well known, and they knew of the disease being present. That statement never was contradicted. 1248.nbsp; nbsp; Was that conversation made public ?It was a public meeting, and I think there were; reporters present; it was reported afterwards in the papers, but it never was contradicted. 1249.nbsp; [Chairman.) Do you know when the last outbreak in Cumberland was?No, 1 do not; but there wore a lot of veterinary surgeons present at that time. 1250.nbsp; Do you know anything more upon that point ?I know the names of n lot of them. I daresay I could find some of the printed statements. I know one man said deliberately that he knew the disease for a fact to be existing in one stock of about 300 for three years ; he named the stock. 1251.nbsp; You said, if you inoculated an animal with plenro-pueuraonia in its system, the disease would develop itself within three' weeks?Yes, it would; generally earlier, 1252.nbsp; Is it true, then, that in Mr. Salmond's outbreak in Glasgow, referred to by Mr. McCall, that, although you inoculated on February the 9th, cases occurred as late as the 9th of April, two months after inoculation ?That statement does not convey to you the actual facts of the case. It is an incomplete statement; very incomplete indeed, and a very misleading statement. There actually were three lots of
II	largo, both scientific and otherwise, to make it a very complete and scientific investigation ?-Yes ; I think you cannot make it too complete.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;....laquo; 1238. And it should also be in the hands of scientihc men?Entirely.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , . 1239nbsp; nbsp;There is much, I presume, that you admit also with regard to the germs and other matters ot a scientific nature?-! think that is of secondary importance. I think the first thing to do is to establish to the satisfaction of the Government and ot agriculturists who are directly interested the economical, value of inoculation in every point. Its scientific aspect can be gone into afterwards. Its economical value is the first thing.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;_ 1240nbsp; nbsp; But it would not bo a complete experiment unless both the economical and the scientific were fully examined, would it ?-Only with this difference, that the scientific can be conducted in office and the other has to bo done in the sheds and in the actual presence of the disease.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;,,,. . i t, ,.= 1241nbsp; nbsp; Yet you have said that the Ldinburgh buyeis have been supplied in modern times with diseased stock brought from Ireland and the North of England ? __Yes 1242nbsp; nbsp; Would you tell me from what part of the North of England they come ?I attended a meeting at Carlisle about 18 months ago where there were over a dozen veterinary surgeons assembled, and where this subject came up. it was broadly stated, and it never was challenged, that to their knowledge pleuro-pneumonia had been more or less in existence in Cumberland for three years.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^ v ,.,k 1243.nbsp; Since that time yon say that from the North of England disease has been constantly coming ^Jt was at that time. I think it is falling offi_ now. I think it is better now. I think that meetings pro-ecpdings aroused public feeling. 1244.nbsp; Have yon had any cattle coming from the North of England since that time which has brought the disease?-! made the figures up to last year. 1245 What time last year?The time ot these outbreaks ; that would bo about summer-time, but they were not nearly so bad as they had been a year ⁶1246 Was there more than one outbreak in Edin-bimth) notin Cumberland ?-Yes. The animals came from Cumberland, but at the meeting I refer to it was stated that the disease was more or less in Cumberland. Some laquo;aid that they knew of places where it had been for three years. 1247. (Mr. Bowcn-Jones.) Do you mean that these outbreaks were not reported to the Cumberland authorities?-! do not know whether the authorities			1253. Then do you imply that the returns which are sent by the local authorities cannot be correct ?I have no doubt that they are correct to this extent, that that is the date on which Professor McCall put them down, but my explanation of the case is a very different one. There were actually three lots of cows in that man's premises ; that is to say, there was the lot that I inoculated; there was a lot. that was left simply because they were unfit for inoculation and were subsequently inoculated; and there was the lot that he purchased in to be inoculated immediately after the outbreak was reported. 1254. I want to ask you whether any of the cattle inoculated on February 9th showed the disease on April 9th ?Yes, they did; but they were reported by me, not very many days after the inoculation, to the owner. I have over and over again said that it must not be held that, because cattle do not exhibit the disease at the time of inoculation and examination, they are free from it; but I say this, that before a given time they will exhibit it. These animals did exhibit it, and they were pointed out by me to the owner for him to do his part; that is to say, bring them to Mr. McCall's notice. He never did so, and I do not think Mr. McCall was attending the byres as closely as 1 was; I was in the byres every other dav almost. 1255.nbsp; Have yon any experience of tuberculosis in cattle ?A practical experience. 1256.nbsp; nbsp;What do you mean by a practical experience in contradistinction to a scientific experience ?That there are those who meet with the disease in their own practice, and there are those who have made tuberculosis a scientific studya study of research. I have not done the latter, and 1 have met constantly with the former. 1257.nbsp; nbsp;Do you believe this is a disease which is on the increase ?Yes. 1258.nbsp; Do you consider it hereditary ?Yes. 1259.nbsp; In your practice have you observed it in the calves from tuberculous cows ?No. I have never examined calves at all, for we are never called in to treat calves ill dairy practice; they arc generally all simply fed on milk, and made into veal at once. 1260.nbsp; Can yon trace the increase to any special ₍,_ause ?Not unless it is breeding from animals who are already the subject of the disease themselves. 1261.nbsp; nbsp;{Mr. Bowen-Jones.) It is hereditary, then, in that wny ?Yes. 1262.nbsp; nbsp;(Chairman?) Do you think it is likely to result from in-breeding ?I think that is so.

i'm



44			COMMITTEE ON PliEUKO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS:

Mr. W. Cairns. 26 April 1888.		five and the three cows, some of the old stock took the diseaseof course it luul been on thornand they were killed that week. 1382.nbsp; nbsp;But those three eows, were they at any time in the shed while they had diseased cows with them ? __They were in the byre with cowraquo; that luul the disease. 1383.nbsp; With those that had the disease ?They had it then, but we did not know it at the time. We had		14 of the old stock left, and of course we did not try inoculation upon them until wo saw how it would work. 1384.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling.) How many animals wero slaughtered with disease in your last outbreak? Only one or two so far as I remember. 1385.nbsp; Only one or two?Yes. 1386.nbsp; And were all the rest inoculated ?Yes.

m			The witness withdrew. Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

FOURTH DAY.

Triday, 27th April 1888.

I 'v. ,			PRESENT: Mn. JACOB WILSON in the Chair.

LOEI) Cl-ONCUURY. Sir Gr. Macphkrson Grant, Bart. Mr. P. Stirling (of Kippendavie).					Professor Brown, C.B. Professor IIoHSLEquot;i(, P.R.S.
					Mr. R. Dawson, Secretary.

f	Mr. T. Swan. 27 April 1888.	Mr. Thomas Swan (of Edinburgh) called and examined.
		13S7. {Chairman.) You are carrying on business in conjunction with your brother as a live stock agent in Edinburgh ?Yes. 1388.nbsp; What length of time huve you been in business?The firm has been established nearly 50 years. 1389.nbsp; Can you tell the Committee what is the nature of your business?Onr business is exclusively a commission onethat is, receiving stock for sale on eominission, and also buying them on commission. 13S0. Am 1 correct in saying that you have experience in cattle beyond the stock of the United Kingdom?We sell from America, Canada, Scandinavia, and all the foreign parts that send to this country all the countries which consign here. 1391.nbsp; And your business is in connexion with both fat and lean stock ?Exactly. 1392.nbsp; Can you give the Committee an idea of the number of cattle that pass through your hands during the year?We sell just now, which is the off season, about 1,200 a week, and sometimes during the autumn we get as far as 3,500 a week. 1393.nbsp; And of that stock you naturally include a good many Irish cattle?A great number. 1394.nbsp; Now, seeing that you have considerable dealings with cattle of various kinds and of all breeds, have you had much experience of cattle diseases generally ?1 have. 1395.nbsp; And has your attention been directed to pleuro-pneumonia in particular?Ever since I have been in business. 1396.nbsp; nbsp;Has pleuro-pneumonia as a disease been in existence ever since you have been in business, more or less ?I think so. 1397.nbsp; nbsp;Are you also a farmer ?Yes. 1398.nbsp; Are you interested in any way in dairy farming ?No. 1399.nbsp; nbsp;From what district in your experience have you observed the introduction of pleuro pneumonia most frequently ?Well, generally speaking, I have			not noticed any particular district. I have sometimes seen it break out amongst cattle from all districts. 1400.nbsp; I suppose you are speaking just now of home cattle?No; I am speaking generally. 1400laquo;. If I may put it in another form, I will ask you to what do you attribute the more frequent outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in Scotland ?To climatic influences in a great degree. 1401.nbsp; Do you desire to convey to the Committee that you are of opinion that pleuro-pneumonia can be originated spontaneously ?In some cases I have known it to be so. 1402.nbsp; And you think it is not confined to contagion only ?I do not think so. 1403.nbsp; Is there anything in the present system of farming compared with former times that in your opinion induces more frequent outbreaks ?I do not think so. 1404.nbsp; Have you much experience of cattle coming into Glasgow rYes, very large. 1405.nbsp; And you sell cattle in Glasgow?Every week. 1406.nbsp; Does pleuro-pneumonia very frequently occur there ?It has occurred, hut very seldom in an epidemic form ; it is the same there as everywhere else. 1407.nbsp; And to what cause do you attribute the outbreaks in Glasgow ?The outbreaks in Glasgow frequently occur amongst the dairy stock. I do not think there has been any cattle stopped at Glasgow for their coming there with pleuro-pneumonia. I have never known cattle slaughtered at the port of Glasgow by importing that diseose. 1408.nbsp; Prom what countries are cattle imported into Glasgow ?From Ireland and Canada and from America. The American cattle, as you are a#are, are confined at York Hill. The Canadians, after a quarantine of twelve hours, are treated as home cattle. 1409.nbsp; In your experience have you been able to trace any outbreak in Glasgow to cattle coming from Ireland ?I have not.
m

It



56			COMMITTEE ON Pl.EUUO-PNKUMONIA AND TUBKUOULOSISI

i	Mr. J Slenhuuse, jun. 27 April 1888.	with as he loses a veiy large number of UIb aoimals, but ho keeps up his supply by obtaining the milk Iron, the country. Have yon miy such system ot which you could avail yourself? We never had occasion to adopt the system, because we have never had a case of wholesale slaughter. 1827.nbsp; But if you had that dlffloulty to face, is there any system which would enable you to keep your contracts, because that is most important during tho time that you are replacing your stock ?I would suppose that both my father and myself had 70 cows inoculated, and supposiujj that both stocks should be killed out the demand that he and I would have to meet could not be supplied. 1828.nbsp; That is to say, that in the case ot 140 co\vs being slaughtered in any part of Scotland you could not in any way meet the deficiency ofmilk?1 do not know as to any part of Scotland, but we could not m the immediate neighbourhood of Edinburgh where dairy cows are kept and they send the milk direct to the consumer in the vans. It would be a different thing in Dumfries where they have creameries, yon might got any quantity of milk, but they will not take milk by rail from us. 1829 In your district you could not get compensation in consequence of the deficiency which would have arisen ?No.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , j i 1830.nbsp; (Chairman.) Are you aware that during the past two years a system of selling milk to large towns bv sending it to very considerable distances by rail has extended to Ayrshire, Dumfriossbire, ar.d Krrkcud-brightsbire and the west of Scotland ?I understnid so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; 1831.nbsp; Not only into Scotland but for long distances into lingland ?---I understand so. 1832.nbsp; Therefore, it would not be a very great inconvenience for the dairyman if driven to get milk from these sources ?1 could not possibly get it. 1833.nbsp; Have you ever tried?It could not be done. 1834.nbsp; Have you ever tried ?I have not. 1835.nbsp; Professor Brown has told you that in the case of any disturbance in the milk trade in London, where they are quite as particular as in other parts, all this has been met and is constantly being met by getting it from very considerable distances ?They get so much milk by railways it would be very easily met in London.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;., 1836.nbsp; Therefore it is possible to get milk by railway which has been refrigerated and which is carried with great precision ?Not in my case. 1837.nbsp; nbsp;I am not asking you that. Do you say that it is possible to get it, and are you aware that it is done ?Certainly I am.		1838nbsp; nbsp;Do you think that any exporiraents are necessary to further develop the information upon plcuro-pneumonia ?-I think that it would be well for the authorities hero to get all the information from, Scotland that we have hud exjwrionce ot. 1839nbsp; nbsp;I am not confining my question to Scotlaml but to all parts of tho world, and I ask you if the whole subject of plcuro-pneumonia should be investigated and every possible information gathered from cxperiinents?Most assuredly. 1810. Do you think that that might be a costly business ?Well it might if you extended it tar, but I do not think it necessary to take in the whole. Our experience is perfectly sufficient without going further afield.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,. o * 1841.nbsp; Do you think that the experience that hcot-land has gathered is sufficient for tho whole of the United Kingdom ? Wo are speaking of the whole nation, for wo have us much interest as you in pleuro-pneumonia ?That is a pity for us. 1842.nbsp; Do you not think that we should have further investigation into the disease ? Do not you think that experiments are of importance ?It the English people wish it, but-we are perfectly convinced. 1843 Your Scotch professors even admit that there is a great deal to be leurued ; do you consider that there is nothing more to be learned ?As far as we are concerned I say that our veterinary practitioners did not believe in inoculation a few years back, but now that it has been so successful they believe in it, and it has been adopted with success, and I do not know what more we want. 1844.nbsp; Now do you say that we learned all that we want?In reference to saving life and tho most economical way of doing it I think wo have. 1845.nbsp; And that experitneuts are not necessary? In England perhaps they are.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; '. 1846.nbsp; lam speaking of the nation at largo?Wo cannot have too much information as far as that g^0eSgt;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. a i 1847.nbsp; After your outbreak were you quite satisfied with the valuation of the diseased stock that wero slaughtered ?There was no valuation. 1848.nbsp; Of the seven slaughtered ?Yes. 1849 Were you satisfied with the valuation? The value was put on ; the original cost price was taken and so much deducted for the time that (hey were in milk. I was satisfied, that being the system oone upon. There was so much deducted for the time that they had been giving milk from the original cost. They were sold and the salvage given to the local authorities to defray the cost.


Tho witness withdrew.

Mr. J. Biggar.			Mr. James Biggab called and examined.
Mr. J. Biggar.					1859.nbsp; nbsp;What number of cattle do yon keep, as a rule, upon your farms?About 100 head in summer, but we have frequently twice that number in winter.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632; ,nn u i 1860.nbsp; nbsp;Then may we assume that the 1UU neaa represent the breeding herd ?Not entirely. 1861.nbsp; nbsp;A largo portion?We have 25 breeding cows and their produce. 1862.nbsp; Then you purchase in the grazing cattle t Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . 1863.nbsp; I believe you have had some experience in pleuro-pneumonia ?Yes, I have, unfortunately. 1864.nbsp; Have you had more than one outbreak ? No, only one. 1865.nbsp; nbsp;When did that occur ?In June of 1886. 1866.nbsp; Is that the outbreak which is generally known as tho Chupelton outbreak ?Yes. 1867.nbsp; What distances are your farms from each _otl_iel. ?The buildings are about three-quarters of a mile apart. The land is divided by the main road, a public road. 1868.nbsp; Do you keep a definite stock upon each farm and quite separate, so that there is no interchange?
iM		1850. ( Chairman.) I believe you live at Grange, near Dalbeattie, in Kirkcudbrightshire ?Yes. 1861. And you occupy two farms of 650 acres i I am a partner in these with my firm, 1852.nbsp; You are interested in those two tarrns i Yes. 1853.nbsp; Of 650 acres?Yes. 1854.nbsp; You are a breeder of Galloway cattle i¹ That is so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; .,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, e #9830;), 1855.nbsp; You have already given evidence betöre tue Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, I believe ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,. . . ^ 1850. And your evidence is embodied in tue pamphlet I hold in my hand ?Yes. 1857nbsp; nbsp;Does it fairly represent your opinions r'i believe it does; but I was disappointed with the form in which' the report came to me. 1 had to spend considerable pains in the revision ot it. Still i think it is not sufficiently clear on many points. 1858nbsp; nbsp;Then wo understand that some of the points in this report lo not convey quite your opinion as you desire that they should ?I do not think that the facts or the opinions are quite clearly stated.

					X



60			OOMMmaiä ON PLEUKO-l-NKUMOMA AND iuBBBOuLOSIS I

Mr. J. Higgar. 27 April 1888.		14/., or 201., if Bold as dairy oowb, and tlgt;ey only venllso 5/. or 6/. for the carcase there Is a loss ot the difference to the community.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. ,. m i 1967.nbsp; But there would bo no loss to the individual dairyman ou that ground, would there v^Ho would be Jt advantage perhaps in not be ng able to ooutinue his business. There would be an interruption to Ins business which inoculation does not make. T behove, Mt present.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; _f ., 1968,nbsp; You have no experience, have you, ot tnc ideas of the customersthe consumers of the milk as to the effects of inoculation ?-T have no expor.ence ^0f1969. Do you think it probable that if the people know that they were taking milk from inoculated cattle, they would have any sentimental objeolaquo;laquo;laquo; traquo; it ?-i think that quite likely sentimental ob^ct.ons ^VtoTyou probably know that if there is a hint in the present day that a cow has an eruption on its udder or teats the man's business is stopped at once, have you heard of tliat?-No; I have not heard of Sat particularly, but I know the sort of objections that vou are alluding to.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , ^ .i * i, 1971. You laquo;aid just now that you thought that the inoculated cattle should be watched till they were slaughtered?-! was only referring to cattle that were inoculated experimentally. 1972nbsp; nbsp;Then you mean by that cattle which are inoculated merely for the purpose of experiment?- Oortuinlv 1973nbsp; nbsp;And vou do not consider it a necessary precaution in regard to the possibility of those animals carryingdiseasewiththem?No, Idonot. 1974nbsp; nbsp;And of course you do not apprehend that the inoculation will render the animals 1quot;laquo;laquo;^ '-I believe there is no risk from the 'noculation itself. I ,lo not think the disease could be transmitted in that way ; I believe not, but I do not know. 1075 From vom- own experience it seems that an animal may be quot;inoculated in perfectly good faith by the operator, and that the animal at the ^Ume* may be in a diseased condition, the disease quot;ot ^be ng dev-eloped perhaps for some weeks to claquo;⁶ quot;J ^ not in my experience seen any cases of thatkmdthey may have occurred in the experience of others. 1976.nbsp; In the case of this bull which was sent tCanada, if that animal had been inoculated betöre h eft your premises, would not that have been a_instaice ?-'l would not have considered it at all satif he had been iuocukted on my premises to Inushipped that ball at all until a sufficient tune haÄ to bo a guarantee of health; I would nevehave thought of shipping after inoculation. 1977.nbsp; nbsp;Not after inoculation?Not at nil; ce tainly not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , 1078 Why not?-1 would have thought if hebe a risk, as is stated, that an animal may ^ quot;^quot;^f under a misapprehension that it is healthy androcs not to be healthy-I believe that if a periofXee or four months were allowed to elapse durinwhich that animal was kept in quarantine, as it weithe lapse of that three or four months would shoand prove whether the animal was sound or not. 1Ö79 But in the case of your bull there wassuspicion whatever, was there ?-None whatever. 1980. Presuming that it had been a conditionthe par of the purchaser that it should be inoculawould have been inoculated, but nevcrthelelaquo;,		kept it, theuP-No; there had been no suspicion of 1982 T am talking of your own bull. You ought to know whether there was any suspicion or not in that case ?There was no suspicion at the tiino lie ⁶ 1983 Then I, will ask you what you would have done after inoculating that bull ?Let him go. 1984. And the bull would have gone to Canada all the same with the disease in the system; do you consider that the inoculation would in such a case be any protection to it ?I suppose not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , , 1985 (Lord Cloacurry.)* With regard to the bullock that you had a suspicion of, I understand you bought him some time in February or March and be was then thriving well, and you sold him. A butcher killed him and he told you afterwards that the lungs wore bad ?He did.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;i u;i 1986. You thought from that that perhaps ho had brought the disease ?--l think there was ft possibility ⁰ 1987 Do you mean to tell the Committee that that strange bullock you brought in, was actually herded and kept with your pedigree cows ?No. gt; 988 Then if it is true that pleuro-pneumoma can only pass from one boast lo another by actual contact, that bullock could not have given the disease to your cows, I suppose?-! think it is possible that food which might have been refused by this bullock in his sick or unhealthy condition might have been removed, and, to save waste, put before those cows. 1989nbsp; nbsp;But as a matter of fact he was not kept in the same byre ?-No; but in the same premises. 1990nbsp; nbsp;What sort of distance then was this bullock kept from the pedigree cows, how far oft was Ins place?There is a feeding passage which runs along in front of these bullocks where they are tied. It runs at right angles into a feeding passage which runs in front where the cows are tied. 1991nbsp; nbsp; They were under the same roof?Under the same roof, and a passage along the front of the feeding place runs at right angles into a passage along the front of what we call our herd byre. I he distance might be 30 feet or 35 feet. 1992.nbsp; Is there a partition between these two passages ?There is a door but no partition. 1993.nbsp; Is the door generally kept closed at night and so forth?I cannot say that it is generally kept 1994 Why did you slaughter a healthy calf, he-cause yon had an opinion of the cows that they luul no disease, on of any kind ?-! protested against it, t was ordered by the inspector to bo slaughtered, T had no choice ; I protested that he would find tins calf was '''S: Then, in fact, do yon say that was a case vvhers the veterinary inspector made a mistake?He did make a mistake. 1996. He thought he recognised pleuro-pnemnoma, and he was wrong ?-He judged simply from the slight increase of temperature; there was a very light increase of the temperature in this animal. The She was passed. I said, quot;If the mother is quot;passed, this calf must he healthy; it was horn m quot; this box and was never in contact with the others. I think the fact of laquo;he calf being so very young would account for the slight increase of temperature. 1997. Do vou think he had noting to guide him except that this three weeks old calf had the high temperature; do you think he had^that nndjo .Hhor
*ft!-' ^:*

	would have carried the disease into another part of 1 . void; do I understand that if your farm were m u perfectly healthy state and I bought some cows of vo a? g, that I never have any cows Drought on L my Inn unless they are inoculated, that ^u vvou hink it necessary to keep the inoculated ^ima ⁸ four months after the purchase before yon would semi them to me VCertainly not.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,, , , 1981 I will suppose that that particular bull bad hoensnt to Canada, the condition being that before you sent it you should inoculate it, would you have
					reason	for ordering the slaughter, as far as you know ?
K'ilaquo;					He had no Other reason whatever. 1998.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Brown.) Do you know what the temperature wa8?108-l or 2,1 believe. 1999.nbsp; (Lord Clomurry) Was the inspector a local mnn, or was he a man you brought down of your own accord to assist in the matter ?-l am not qmte stire quot;n that point; without being perfectly sure, I hink it was Mr. Manuel who found ^e tomporflture higl., and who said he thought it was infected. Ho was

						_



til		i i
MINUTES OP EV1DEN0K.		i i

careful to err on the sale side, and would not pass the slightest incrcaso of temperature. 2000. (Sir G. Maophmon Grant.) With regar.1 to your breeding stock, at all events, 1 do laquo;o under-stand you to recommoml inoculation P^P' quot; ^ of laquo;n outbreak of the disease I think you old laquo; that you did not in buying cattle fö^u'flaquo; raquo;Jquot;! we of your stock ?-No; wo do quot;^ ^^^Vquot;^'^ have never inoculated exoeot In the Instance of this outbreak. We were advised ''7 ^ Bu.hraquo;ford. I consulted him on the point, and he said quot;I do not laquo; think there is any necessity for inoculation. 2001.-You have not given us any reason why you do not recommend inoculation, except the lact that iuocnlation would interfere with fraquo;^1 tJt a America?-Another reason might be stated hat a proportion of the cattle may be disfigured Oy he loss of the tails; in our case it was a sinal proportion. Jome 20 peV cent., which lost their tai s. Besides, iTave this confidence, that if an outbreak of disease we to occur in my herd we could stop 1 now with the loss, perhaps, of two or three animals, and that prompt inoculation would save all the others. 2002. Would the loss of a certain portion of the tail interfere very much with the sale ot your cattle ^ _It would disfigure the animal m Ihe eyes of t e buyer Pedigree cattle do not look well With any shortness of that kind. But if Americans re wi -in- to receive inoculated cattle, there would bo no other disability attaching to the animal except the appearance.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 2003. As regards yourself, am I right in supposing, after vour experience of the inoculation ol your valuable herd, that you are in this position-that you are ^ satisfied as to the value of inoculation that you prefer to run the risk of an outbreak from any cause feeling so sure that you can stamp it ou with the loss of perhaps, two or three diseased animals sooner than put this inoculation in force, as you bring in fresh cattle at any time. If you are so satisfied with the value of inoculation, what is the reason that prevents you employing it annually or regularly ? Is the only reason you can give us the one that you are so saUs-fled that if you get an outbreak you can stamp it out S once and with less loss ?_Another reason is that I have to calculate the chances of an outbreak, ihe chances of our having an outbreak, judging from the past, are exceedingly small. We ^e only hadwi hin the last 10 years these four cases ot outbreaks that occurred in Kirkcudbrightshire. 2004.nbsp; nbsp;In one year?-In one year. ^7 ^b^ad raquo; been controlled. We had not had an outbreak tor 10 vears previously, and during the 50 years experiencKy father there had never been anything ot thkind on our farm. 2005.nbsp; nbsp;(Professor Hordey.) Where do you say thabullock came from that you thought was the source oyour outbreak ?-We bought him in the local auctio mart four miles off.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ....nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 2006 Had you nothing with him; no papeis tshow where he came from?No; that is not th custom.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . i it o 9007 Then you could not trace him at nut'tool the trouble of going to the auctioneer and founthat he was exposed by a dealer. I went to thdealer and asked him if he could give me from hbooks any information as to where he got the paticular animal. He said, quot; No.quot; I was not abletrace beyond that he came by this man. I may sthat after buying this bullock one of my neighbouremarked what a promising and healthy animalseemed to have got. He said, raquo; That is a very niquot; thriving bullool 51 think that bullock will do wquot; with you quot; He made that special remark abothis particular animal. I maybe quite wrongattributing this outbreak to this animal, but it was tonly thing I could connect with it. 2008 You spoke of a neighbour who had an obreak on his farm approximately about the same t	2009 Do you know whether be bought an animal MrJ^u-about tiie same time that you did ?-I do raquo;Ot thinJM ^ ₁₈₈₈did I do not think he could account lor his outbreak----------- through the introduction of laquo;laquo;7 0'^lquot;^le,^to_P(^h,8fc_tf1_fl ooio Did the same man who looked after the ca lie in the one byre attend to the pedigree stock In ho other P-Previous to the outbreak the same party ^off 'You tt no cows, 1 believe, from the inocu- ^^l^lSquot; mi'-nsider the loss of the tails was any practical disadvantage to the cows I me.m u beating off flies and that sort of thing?-No, 1 should ¹ 2018deg; [Mr. SHrling.)* From what you have said to Professor Brown and SirGoorgo Macpherson/.raut^you aro clearly in favour of a system * W^}-?' I want to put it to you from a business point ol view speaking as a breeder, whether you would lose most hy tour herd being slaughtered out and you receiving tU uU compensation as allowed under the Act for the animals that wore not diseased, or whether you tuld löse most by the loss of your trade to America from inoculation if you had your choice -I piao t cally had my choice when wo had the outbreak. I reS very much with myself whether we wou d slau hter them out or inoculate them. That entirely depends upon how you value certain strains of blood Swl.etf.er you ?hink you ^^P¹^⁶ ^^ thought that I would rather run the risk ot sav ng the animals, if possible, and we succeeded in saving then? A hisstage there is nothing to prevent the produce of these animals after the lapse of two years ^be2tflÄtaB a breeder of pedigree ^ock youare satisfied from ker expevience that you took the ^ht course for yourself ?-Yes, I would not hesitate to ^olfA'same thing occurred ^in, would you act in the same manner?-! would immed.atelj ^^oJrThen I gather from what you say that the real question turns upon the matter of valuation Supposing that it is not pedigree slock bu tat is ordinary Itock, that is to say, store cattle, brought in Ke fed, a flying stock; what would you; answer be thenP-is an individual, as the owner of tins stock t miUt perhaps on the whole be rather beter to have Ihem slaughtered; rather more pro^ble to have them slaughtered and replaced than to have them noculaedt but the money difference would be small recausoldonotthinkthattho efiects of inoculation e very prejudicial to the health of the animals 201? Yo i say, as the owner of the animal, you _WonW prefer that; but do I understand that you wou d prefer that from a sense of greater security, o because yon would feel that you would get yom money value, and that there would be very little bssTn monJy ?-There would be very little loss in 'ToTs Then from that answer apparently as a breeder you would not consider that the closing up o you herd for 50 days on account of the inoculation loul cause you very serious loss?-! would not confer that I serious objection, or hesitate about submitting to it; not in the slightest.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , . 2019. Have you had anything to do with dairy ^am Spiking, then, of flying stock, you jould perhaps consider it best that these should be BlauSred ?-There might be a small advantage. It would not be very considerable I would not very much care which plan was adopted. 2021. Supposing it was left to your dechion ?_I the sfodt were fat, if they were fit for heel, I would say that it would be the most economical way to let laquo;mch cattle go straight to the shambles. 2)22 Then you must know that you cannot always _ffet a Stock with 50 or 00 head of cattle m the same An Vy are in ^s, one lot is ready to seh and the other lot is being fed up?-I would ais	iff
		!
		\
		: I
		i
		m
		\
as yon did ?Yes.		\



70			COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-rNBUMONIA AND TUBEUCULOS1S :

fnquot;.i	Mr. A. Mitchell a May 188raquo;.	orders to having inoculivtion introduced into Scotland ? I think they were better slaughtered even with the loss. I think that the first loss is the easiest on these occasions. 2298.nbsp; nbsp;(Sir G. Macpherson Grant.) About the Act of 1878,1 think you told us that the principal fault, that you had to find in it was the want of uniformity ? Yes. 2299.nbsp; Would you suggest anything to the Committee ?I think that the Government should issue an order binding upon every county, the same order. 2300.nbsp; That is to say, that you would diminish the power that the local authorities have at present, and place more power in the hands of the Government or the Privy Council ?Yes, for the purpose of having uniformity. For instance, if wo saw we are going to lake cattle from a certain quarter, we should be compelled to say that no disease was there. 2301.nbsp; I was going to ask you whether you would take the power of making the regulations for the local movement of cattle from the present local authorities and give them to a central authority ?I think so. 2302.nbsp; As well as the question of slaughter ?Yes, and I think that it would be a good thing if the Government had an inspector o\\ two to go into the different counties to see if they were keeping up to t.he regulations; to look after the whole of us. 2303.nbsp; We have had a suggestion made here by a previous witness that there might be a sort of parliament, as he described it, of representatives from the different local authorities. Have you considered any scheme of that sort ?-I have not. 2304.nbsp; Therefore, you are not prepared to give an opinion ?That is quite new to me. 2305.nbsp; You are not prepared to agree to a proposal of that kind ?It might be all right, but I have not thought of it. 2306.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Horsley.) You said that your opinion was decidedly in favour of slaughter as against inoculation ?Yes. 2307.nbsp; But what experience have you had of inoculation of animals ?I have had no personal experience. I never saw a beast inoculated. The only animals inoculated have been those six in our byre. 2308.nbsp; What do you base your opinion upon ? That if you slaughter the diseased animals you get to the bottom of the disease, and if you continue the inoculation it may go on ad infinitum. 2309.nbsp; You prolong the thing if you inoculate ? Yes; and we are never sure. One animal may take the virus, and another animal may not, just in the same way as a man that is vaccinated with the cow poxsometimes it holds, and sometimes it does not hold; and the same way with the virus in pleuro-pneumonia. I have no experience of it; but my opinion is that we will not get clear of it until we kill them out. 2310.nbsp; If wo suppose, for the sake of argument, as you have had no experience, that the slaughter is the basis of the experiments, what restrictions would you propose to put on cattle coming into the country to prevent the breaking out of the disease again ?Do you mean from foreign cattle ? 2311.nbsp; Yes. Take Scotland, for instance; supposing you had some outbreak of disease in Scotland, and you get rid of it by slaughtering, how do you propose to prevent cattle coming from Ireland and the Continent, and bringing it in again ?You must have some good security that those animals have come from sound stock. 2312.nbsp; What measures would you propose to ascertain their soundness?I would have an inspection, and have certificates as well. 2313.nbsp; Do you believe in the present system of certificates ?Perhaps they are not so stringent as tliey should be. I would make them as stringent as you could make them. 2314.nbsp; Do you think then it is possible to rely upon certificates, considering that human nature is what it is ?I think that if you had certificates, and that you		could rely upon them, it would bo good enough ; but it depends very much from whom you get the certificates, 2316. Then you do not rely upon it. Do you think that a plan which was suggested to us of branding the cattle with initial marks indicating the place that they come from would be superior ?It can do no harm. I never heard of it before. 2316.nbsp; It is the system practised in Australia ?It is something new to me. 2317.nbsp; Have you any proof or belief that the disease comes from Ireland ?Well, I have been told a good deal more than I have seen myself. I have told you that I have not had disease for 30 years, and that diseased stock, I think, came from Ireland. They came from a Dumfriesshire man, and I have heard lots of people complain of Irish cattle. 2318.nbsp; (Mr. Stirling) Do you say that yon have come to the conclusion that slaughtering would be best, because you think that it is the best method of stamping out the disease ?It is a sure method. 2319.nbsp; It is a sure method provided you can guarantee the disease is not re-introduced by new stock ?Yes. 2320.nbsp; Would you admit that there would be a great difficulty in getting that guarantee ?It will be very difficult, but it may be done with stringent rules and making them properly. 2321.nbsp; You have no experience of inoculation? None. 2322.nbsp; Then you have no personal knowledge of any case where an inoculated beast has conveyed the disease to another animal ?I have not. 2323.nbsp; nbsp;Supposing that veterinary science was satis-fled that the disease coidd not be carried from an inoculated to an uninoculated beast, would that alter your opinion as to the advisability of slaughtering ? It would depend upon the veterinary surgeons. 2324.nbsp; I did not say surgeons ; I said science ? I do not know. 2325_t Do you mean by that, that if the mass of the veterinary profession of the country took that view you would not agree with them ?I would still have my own views upon that. 2326.nbsp; You would not be prepared to trust to veterinary science ?Not so far as that. We often hear of doctors differing. 2327.nbsp; Yes, that is true; but I put it that if the mass of the profession were of that opinion ?Perhaps two or three were worth all the rest put together, 2328.nbsp; I think you said, in answer to a question by the Chairman, that you had noticed no derangement of the milk supply in your neighbourhood ?I have no doubt whatever' of parties getting milk from certain dairies; they are not very large dairies; 10 or 12 cows at an average in the town, I have no doubt that when these animals were taken away that the people would be inconvenienced for a day or two, until they had arranged for a fresh supply. But I never heard of anyone being very much put about. We have had no complaints. 2329.nbsp; Does not it strike you that, if this order bo carried out, it will mean a very serious loss, not so much to the consumer or the dairyman who has only six or eight cows, but the dairyman who has perhaps 50 or 60, or 100 cows. Will that not mean a very serious loss to such dairymen ?The loss may be far worse if you go on inoculating, and the milk becoming not sound; and, more than that, lots of families, on hearing of dairy stock being inoculated, cease taking the milk at once. 2330.nbsp; That is mere supposition ?I would not do it myself; I would not take milk from a dairy that had a diseased cow. 2331.nbsp; But I am not supposing a place where diseased cows are kept?If they are stamped with inoculation upon them, what can the milk be ? 2332.nbsp; You are under the belief that an inoculated cow must be a diseased cow ?Where the inoculation is it must be diseased. The cow must be diseased to a certain extent, or there would be no use for the inoculation. It would not take in the virus.
m

k
*:sect;-v*



f'.'		72		OOMMITTHB ON Vl.BURO-VNl'IÜMONIA ANü TUBEBOULOSIS

I* I	Mr. G. M. Allimder, 3 Muy 1Ü88.		2372.nbsp; In what year ?In 1869. , , _TT ... 2373.nbsp; And you continued there how long i¹Until 1867, about seven or eight years. 2374.nbsp; nbsp;Whnt was your general system ot tanning t The production of butter.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , ,_oa. 2375.nbsp; Did the outbreak of the cattle plague in 18bo have any influence on your management ?Yes, I sold every head of cattle I had immediately 1 heard 2370. And did you subsequently give up your farm there ?I did.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. _ ,,.,.., 2377.nbsp; nbsp;What was your next move rI estabusnea the Aylesbury Dairy Company in the early part of 18G6. 2378.nbsp; And since that time, 22 years or more, you have been the managing director of that company ? Yes. 2379 How was London supplied with milk previous to this time ?Principally from cows kept in London until they were nearly all destroyed at the timlaquo;; of the cattle plague in 1865. 2380.nbsp; nbsp;Do you mean to convey to the Committee your opinion that the cattle plague in 1865 was the direct cause of London being supplied from the country instead of from cowsheds in the city i¹I es, I do not, however, suppose that London could now be supplied from cowsheds in London, quite apart from any regulations and laws to the contrary, because London is now so very much larger. But that in the first instance caused milk to be brought to London from the country.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. i u 2381.nbsp; From how many cows does the Aylesbury Dairy Company derive its supply of milk ?I should say about 4,000.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;tw i 2382.nbsp; nbsp;That is entirely from the country ?Lntirely from the country, with the exception of about a fortnight in the vear, for the Jews during Passover. They require to have the cows milked in the presence of one of their own people, and at that time we keep a few cows in London because the Chief Eabbi will not permit any Jew to travel during the Passover, so that he could not see the cows mUked at the farm. 2383.nbsp; And they are purchased specially for that purpose, are they ?Specially for that purpose. Every vessel that is used must be newnever used before for any purposeevery tin that is used, milking pails, and everything, are inspected by the official from the Synagogue to see that they are new ; and he sees the cows milkfd, and he has labels with Hebrew characters upon them, with which he seals every can before it is sent to the house of the strict Jews. 2384.nbsp; What becomes of the cows afterwards ?As a rule they are sold; they are simply purchased for that purpose.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , 2385.nbsp; From what distance do you receive most ot your milk ?In the winter we go as far as Cheshire, From 70 to 80 miles is about the limit during summer. 2380. In conpequence of taking so much milk from so many different sources, and necessarily over so larquot;e an area, do you exercise any conlrol other than over the actual quality of the milk ?Yes ; we never take milk from any farm until that farm has been inspected by our engineer, and also by the medical officer of health for the district, as to the water supply, condition of buildings, and all sonitary questions connected with the farm; and we refuse, I should say, two out of three farms. 2387.nbsp; With regard to the quality of the milk, have yon a daily check upon that ?Yes. We have our own laboratory, in which last year over 20,000 analyses were made. 2388.nbsp; nbsp;Is it done upon any special system ?Yes. 2389.nbsp; Is it done daily ?It is done daily. 2390.nbsp; From every farm?Yes. Our analyst is solely in our employ, and he is a Vice President of the Society of Public Analysts; he does not work for anyone else ; wo have our own laboratory. 2391.nbsp; Have you observed whether the principle of feeding has any great influence upon the milk supply ?		2392. In quality, of course ?In quality it aftects the fat, but it does not greatly affect the solids not fat. 2393,. But can your analyst detect at once the fat in comparing the milk of one farm with another ? Yes. For instance, if a farmer runs out of cake or other food for a few days we notice a diminution in the per-centago of fat. 2394.nbsp; Have you had any experience of cowkeeping in London ?Yes. 2395.nbsp; For how many years?Prom 1872 until the second outbreak of cattle plague in London, which, I think, was in 1877. When the second outbreak took place in London we stopped, and did not resume for some years until five or six years ago. We found increasing difficulties in supplying the demand for the quantity of milk for our Jewish customers, and we renewed our license for our sheds in London, and kept a few cows, generally about a dozen. 2396.nbsp; Whilst you kept cows in London as a source of supply, had you any experience of outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia ? Yes, very considerable experience. 2397.nbsp; Had you considerable losses thereby ?Yes, in the first instance. We bought the sheds, we took the man's stock and bought other cows, and we had to clear all, or nearly all, out in consequence of pleuro. 2398.nbsp; nbsp;Was your treatment of a curative or preventive character ?After we had pleuro-pneumonia, which was then so prevalent all over London, we placed our sheds and the cows entirely in the hands of the late Mr. Priestman, who had a very large cattle practice amongst the dairy people. He was a great advocate for inoculation, and we allowed him to do just as he pleased. He had merely a note sent to him from the office when cows were purchased, and he used his own discretion as to when he went. He generally went within a fortnight to the sheds to inoculate the cows within a fortnight after we purchased them. 2399.nbsp; What was your first experience, did you clear off your cows?They chiefly died. 2400.nbsp; What happened to the rest ? There was a whole clearance, do you mean?No, we had our sheds entirely cleared but once. 2401.nbsp; And after that Mr. Priestman began to inoculate ? Yes, and as we purchased cows he inoculated them. 2402.nbsp; How many years did that continue? I think, probably between two and three years. 2403.nbsp; Did that inoculation apply to the whole stock, or only to the animals in contact?For all. When we purchased three or four or half-a-dozen cows, Mr. Priestman was notified, and he inoculated them. 2404.nbsp; Had you much loss amongst the cows from inoculation ?quot;We lost animals from the actual operation of inoculation, once or twice, I think. Once I remember, and, I think, more. We lost tails. 2405.nbsp; In spite of inoculation did the disease still continue or diminish?It continued. 2406.nbsp; And what did you do after that, did you persevere in inoculation ?Our experience is a matter of history, because it is referred to in the veterinary reports of the Agricultural Department. Wc had several instances of cows being attacked, so long as a year after inoculation, and frequently three or four months. 2407.nbsp; Did you persevere with the inoculation ? No, we abandoned it entirely. 2408.nbsp; After two years ?Between two and three years. 2409.nbsp; What preventive measures did you then adopt ?We established a system of observing internal temperature. 2410.nbsp; Did you apply this test to all your cows ? Every cow in the place. 2411.nbsp; How frequently?I cannot say whether it was two or three times a week, but it was regular on the same day, it was all tabulated. The cows were numbered and entered in a book, in the left-hand
M 3

#9632;f'!laquo;!
m
In quality ?

Iquot;



I'

74		COMMITTKK ON I'LKUUO-l'NEUMONIA AND TUBBBOULOSIB :

Mr. G. if. Allender. raquo; May 1888.			had time in so short a period as over two or three
	in December. Of course the demand in tlio London		had time in so short a period as over two or three
	dSMOU at the West End is greatest. Comparing a		years.
	dSMOU at the West End is greatest. Comparing a
	week at the end of Juno with a week at the end of August, the demand is rather less than one half. 2449.nbsp; quot;Would the system of compulsory slaughter tend to increase the price of milk quot;i¹Not to the public.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ._ffi 2450.nbsp; Have you formed any opinion ot the dim-cultics resulting from slaughter compared with inoculation ?No. 2451.nbsp; nbsp;Do you consider that compensation lor slaughter should be paid from local or Imperial sources ?Imperial. 2452.nbsp; nbsp;In conjunction with that would you think that the administration of the Act ought to bo Imperial rather than local ?Yes. 2453.nbsp; But you must have some local machinery ? Yes; under headquarters. 2454.nbsp; In addition to your ordinary business have yon any commercial relations with foreign countries with reference to the live stock of the farm?Yes; we export whenever wo can get a chance. 2455.nbsp; What effect do you think the frequent outbreaks of pleiiro-pneumonia have upon the breeders of other countries ?The existence of it is fatal to trade with foreign countries ; and I think that we should have a very great increase in business if foreigners could be sure that the Government would take it in hand and free the country. We have done it with foot-and-mouth disease, and that has encouraged foreigners to come here to a great extent. 2456.nbsp; With what countries have you recently been trading with stock ?France, Germany, India, and, with other stock, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and South America. 2457.nbsp; Are you aware of the objection that foreign importers generally entertain with regard to the inoculation of animals for pleuro-pneumonia ? I believe they have a very strong objection indeed ; in fact, they will not admit them for a very considerable period after inoculation. 2458.nbsp; Do you consider, if by any means the health of cattle in this country could be assured, that not only the home breeder but the consumer also would be very greatly benefited ?Yes, I think so. 2459.nbsp; If that be so, then what, in your opinion, would be the best thing, in the interests of the nation at large, to be done under present circumstances ? To clear out pleuro-pneumoniato stamp it out. 2460.nbsp; {Mr. Stirling.) You said in one of your early answers that the Aylesbury Dairy Company had 4,000 cows ?No; we have 40 or 50 farms from which we take milk ; and sometimes in some seasons of the year it runs to a greater number. 2461.nbsp; How many farms do you suppose you have had to refuse as not passing the inspection of which you spoke ?I should think two out of three. 2462.nbsp; From what cause? Principally from the water supply. 2463.nbsp; From the badness of the water supply ? Yes. 2464.nbsp; You lay stress on the water supply?We have the water analysed from every source from which they use it, and it is a very rare thing to get a good water supply on a farmto find a safe water supply. 2405.nbsp; In speaking of the time when you tried inoculation for pleuro, how many years ago was that ? It would be in 1872, 1873, and 1874. 2406.nbsp; nbsp; Had Mr. Priestman much experience in inoculation ?A very large one i he did the whole of the work of London. 2467. One of the largest ?The largest. 2168. Did I understand you to say that you once or twice lost cattle from the effects of inoculation ? Yes, 1 have once or twice; the inflammation proceeded so fai			2470.nbsp; Well, the animals that you inoculated m the arlier part of your experiment at the time when you ere trying inoculation, they were with you, I supose, to the extent of a couple of years ?But we ever possessed them so long if we had an attack, he animals would always be cleared out. 2471.nbsp; I thought in 1872, 1873, and 1874 you tried inoculation ?Yes. 2472.nbsp;But what did you do with the cow that was inoculated ?If she was attacked with pleuro-pneumonia she was sold; we never gave her a chance of recovery. 2473.nbsp; Did you ever have a case of a cow that was inoculated being attacked with pleuro-pneumonia ? Severalmany, very many. 2474.nbsp; Then the inoculation had not taken properly ? __Yes; Mr. Priestman considered it had taken properly. Mr. Priestman was perfectly satisfied with his cases, and I think in answering this question before, that I mentioned cases of twelve months to three months and four months. 2475.nbsp; After inoculation ?Yes; we did not control Mr. Priestman's movements in the slightest j he had carte blanche, 2476.nbsp; Then, when you gave up inoculation and took to the system of using the thermometer and registering the temperature of the cows, I understand you sold every beast when the temperature began to rise to 104 ?When the temperature rose to 104 and was maintained at that we sold the animal. 2477.nbsp; Then you virtually sold your animals before you were certain that they had pleuro-pneumonia ? Yes, 2478.nbsp; For that reason you never had another outbreak of the disease ?Certainly. 2479.nbsp; In your experience of the country districts would the dairy farmers not find it very difficult, in the event of their cows being slaughtered, to get a milk supply suddenly ? Individually farmers might be inconvenienced. 2480.nbsp; Therefore if this slaughtering order was carried out throughout the country generally, would it not mean a good deal of inconvenience and loss to the individual dairy farmers throughout the country ? Well, if a man is sending the milk from a given number of cows to London, and these cows are slaughtered by order, of course he could no longer send the milk. 2481.nbsp; It would be a clear loss to him of his whole business?No; he would be compensated^ and he could purchase fresh cows as soon as his premises were clear. 2482.nbsp; But we have been told by a dairyman that he would lose his business because it would go else-#9632;^jre ?_i do not see that. I am only speaking from our own case. If a man's farm was sufficiently well managed it would not be so. We have a clause in our contract that a farmer shall not, under a very heavy penalty, send us any milk from a cow that is ailing in any way or that is under physic. We also have a clause that his contract shall not be put in force against him _kif he is unfortunately unable to supply on account of an outbreak of disease. If it were a well-conducted farm, as soon as he again put himself in a position to send the milk we should not only take it, but we would be bound to take it under our contract. 2483. Then you spoke of the disadvantage that the breeders in this country were under owing to the restrictions of other countries and their dislike to receive inoculated cattle. Do you think that if the animals in dairies were only moved from the dairy to the slaughter-house in consequence of inoculation, do you think that those disabilities would not be removed ?There would be no objection provided that
t I
1^

					wo did not send inoculated animals to tlie Colony.
2469. It proceeded upwards. But did you ever know a case where the disease broke					wo did not send inoculated animals to tlie Colony.
						We only have to deal with the animals that we wish
time iu an inoculated animal? No, we scarcely						to send.



76			COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AMD TUBERCULOSIS!

Mr, G. M. Allender. 3 May 1388		risk of uleui'oi¹That in not a question which I can answer; it is purely a matter of legislation on the other side.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . . . 2517.nbsp; nbsp;(Mr. Stirling.) I want to ascertain it you probably would approve the inoculation ?No, I do 2518.nbsp; (Mr. Botoen-Jones.) You tell the Committee that some of the cows that were properly inoculated contracted pleuro-pneumonia a year after the inocu-lution ?I believe there is one case on record as near us possible one year after inoculation. 2519.nbsp; And from your knowledge of the disease, do you tliink it possible that that animal, or those animals, as the case may be, had contracted the disease betöre thev came into your shed ?No ; I think they con-tracted it afterwards, after being inoculated and being exposed to animals that had it, and therefore took it although inoculated.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;... ,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;., , 2520.nbsp; I suppose you do not wish it tobe considered that yoiir temperature test was a means of ridding you of pleuro-pneumonia ?Decidedly I do. 2521.nbsp; You do?Most certainly. 2522.nbsp; And why do you advocate stronger measures ? Well I think tliis could be donethat a very considerable check could be kept by observing carefully the temperature, but I query whether it would be wise from a practical point of view. For instance, if it were, put to me : quot; You have got pleuro in 'lt; your herd ; we slaughter only the animals actually quot; suffering, and we will put your herd under obser-quot; vation. and we will take the temperature, and quot; merely slaughter the cows as we find their tem-quot; perature becomes high ; we will give you the choice laquo; of doing that or slaughtering at once. I should laquo;ay quot; Slaughter at once, and relieve me from being laquo; under observation.quot; As long as you are under official observation you would be boycotted, and, therefore, from a trader's point of view, I should take it that it would be better to slaughter at once. 2523.nbsp; nbsp;You stated you never had an outbreak ot pleuro after you took the temperature precautions ? I mean a number of animaisan outbreakI do not mean a single animal. 2524.nbsp; That leads up to whnt I was going to ask you What per-centage of the cows were sold that attained a temperature of 104?All that exceeded 104deg;. 2525.nbsp; Did you continue selling at 104 temperature up to the time that you abandoned the dairy in		2532.nbsp; Do you consider there would be any groat waste of meat to the consumers of the country by slaughtering out cattle that had been in contact with those affected by disease ?No, because the difference in value between lenn and fat stock is now not great. Feeding stuffs are so cheap that milking animals are kept in much better condition than formerly. 2533.nbsp; And in your dairy they are always fat ? Yes, anyone of our cows may be sold. 2534.nbsp; And very little loss would arise, would it? Very little.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;. 2535.nbsp; (Lord Cloncurry.) With respect to those cows which you kept for the use of the Jews. When they have served their purpose do you sell thorn as a matter of fact to the butcher or to other dairymen ? We sell them to a dealer; very probably the dealer from whom we purchased them. 2536.nbsp; And you do not know whether he sells them to another dairyman or a butcher ?No ; in fact, if we could got a man to rent them to us we should hire them. 2537.nbsp; Would there bo any great hardship or any great difficulty in keeping cows once affected with pleuro-pneumonia in a dairy for milking purposes, and never allowing them to go out except for slaughtering purposes ?There would be no loss. 2538.nbsp; No loss to the dairy owner ?No, because they all keep them iu good condition. 2539.nbsp; And therefore the dairyman, if he was required to have his cow killed as soon as she ceased giving milk, would suffer no hardship ?No great hardship. 2540.nbsp; And that law might be passed for the whole country ?I think so.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;... 2541.nbsp; Were you able to trace the previous history of any of those cows when they became diseased ? There was not the slightest chance. 2542.nbsp; In the matter of pleuro-pneumonia, have you any experience in cattle other than dairy cows in the case of an outbreak ?No. 2543.nbsp; Only cows ?Only cows. 2544.nbsp; nbsp;{Professor Brown.) About the outbreak which occurred ill March, 1874, in your cowsheds at Bayswater, do you happen to recollect that at that time when you bought in a fresh animal they were always put in another shed before they were inoculated ?They were.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, , j 2545.nbsp; And they were never moved from that shed until Mr. Priestman said that they were fit ?That was so. It held about eight cows. 2546.nbsp; Do you remember also that in one lot of six cows which you bought in November, 1873, that Mr. Priestman suspected that some of them had come from an infected herd ?No, I do not remember. 2547.nbsp; That in the third lot of six cows which you purchased at the end of 1873 and in the early part of February, 1874, one of the lot after inoculationthey were all inoculated and kept apart till the time that they recoveredwas taken ill, but afterwards recovered, and was subsequently put into the shed ?I have not any personal recollection of it, for, of course, having a lot of other work to attend to, and having placed the matter entirely in Mr. Priestman's hands, I left it very much to him and to the people who had charge of it. 1 could not remember so far back the particulars of any individual animal. 2548.nbsp; But you will probably remember that during the whole of that time for some months I was watching the sheds and noting the precautions that were taken for the inoculated animals, and making observations with a thermometer and taking drawings of the animals' tails in difierent conditions ?I do not remember that case. I remember placing the sheds at your disposal. 2549.nbsp; I ask the question in this form to get the matter out. Do you recollect that on the 6th March another animal of the same lot was attacked with illness which afterwards turned out to be pleuro-pneumonia ?I recollect some very interesting circumstances attaching to one or two lots of cows, but I have no mental record of it and I do not know that
i'-
I'-
ll	London ?Yes.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . , , 2526. And it is fair to assume that you did not stamp out the disease? We did not abandon the dairy in London from fear of keeping cows ; there was not the slightest fear with regard to pleuro-pneumonia. We abandoned the dairy suddenly at a very few hours' notice. There was a second outbreak in 1877. 2627.nbsp; Of cattle plague ?Yes, I heard of it in the forenoon and before night every animal that we possessed in our sheds in London had been sold, and 1 sold them for what I could getfor a lump sum. 2628.nbsp; You made that clear before ?I did not tear of continuing to keep them in London. I considered that if we continued to keep them in London we could check pleuro by continuing the observation of the temperature.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;, ^r -a 2529.nbsp; Your expression now confarms what i saia before, that you could only keep pleuro in cheek, but not get rid of it, by acting upon the system pursued with regard to the temperature ?Oh, no, only in check.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; . 2530.nbsp; Do you think there would be any dimcuity in supplying the temporary wants of the public in milk, in case of stamping out by slaughtering?! think not. I have not the slightest doubt that it would be made use of to raise the price, but I see no difficulty.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; , , i n . x i 2631. If a dairyman unfortunately had all hm stock slaughtered, would not it be possible to make subcontracts with neighbours to supply any contract he
ll	had entered into ?I think so.