650 Agricultural Gazette of N.S.TF, [Aug. 3, 1908. 



obtained cliiclly from their gardeiiin<^ proclivities — I am inclined to agree with Mr. Atlalo, 

 the naturalist, who, in commenting on this transference of disease, hits va'ry haril at 

 "the harndess and unnecessary house cat " as a go-between for infectious tliseases. 



We have, liowever. to concern om-selves with the poultry aspect, and, unfortunately, it 

 is too little recognised among the generality of j>oidtry-keepers what danger there is 

 surrounding an outbreak of vindent diphtheria among tiicir birds. I have always insisted 

 that, diiectiy an attack of this occurs, the utmost caution is recjuired. for one central 

 instance has the gravest possibilitie.- among all the birds of the neigiibourliootl, and, as 

 now shown, may be also a menace to human life. The? safest and cheapest remedy ia to 

 isolate any mopy bird, and, at the least confirmation of suspicious throat, to kill, and burn 

 the body right away. iJurying in (piicklime not less than 3 feet deep is good, but not so 

 linal as burning; tiien to set the iiouse sanitarily in good ortler. 



Commonly with cottage ami farm i)oultry — and it is here that most diplitheritic cases 

 occur — tlie procedure is to bring the moping, dcjcctetl ])aticnt into the kitchen, and put it 

 in an open basket on the fire- hearth, to become an object for compassion, and surreptitious 

 fontlling, by the children of the family. A few days later one of the youngsters may 

 be down with dipiithei'ia, and the doctor, not knowing there is the decomfjosing body of a 

 diseased cliicken on the adjacent dunghill or ashpit, ascribes the cause to some other 

 quarter; and as the parents are unaware of wliat the bin! dieil of, and that it was 

 " catching," the true origin of the child's illness is never traced. 



When it is remembered that fowls are scavengers by nature, and if the opportunities 

 occur will feed largely on garbage acquired in questionable ])laces, and drink of the filthiest 

 j)uddle. it is not to be wondered at that in some cases the combination of foul food and 

 water with foul roosting-j)laces sets up this loathsome disortlei-. JJouljtless tiie time will 

 arrive, and will be welcomed, when fowl diphtheria and fowl diseases will be made notifiable 

 diseases under tlie Diseases of Animals Acts, for they are apt to be quite as devastating 

 among poultry as, say, swine fever among pigs; and much the same restrictions should 

 be brought to bear ujjon their keejjers. An im]iost placed by authority on a farm or 

 village where the disease is rife, to prevent the removal of birds for sales or shows, and 

 enforcing the destruction of eggs and infected fowls, would cause the small necessary 

 attention to cleanliness to be observed that the poultry retpiired. 



Mention of swine fever calls to mind the great affinity between it and f(^\vl diphtheria, 

 and the question has been raised whether or not they are the same complaint in two 

 diilerent animals. 



It will be most frequently found that when one is on a farm the other is ()revalent also; 

 but whether this is a coincidence dependent ujjon the common fact that both originate 

 amid dirty surroundings and filth, or whether the one animal contracts it from the other, 

 is uncertain. One American ])athologist, who had also been struck by the possibility of 

 the two diseases being very closely rclatetl, says, in a report upon " Fowl Dii)iitheria," 

 " from the other {i.e., a di])htheritic fowl) were obtained pure cultures of a bacillus not 

 distinguishable from that of swine plague." 



In this country we can hardly hope to progress far into the history of poultry diseases 

 imtil official aid in the shape of grants for laboratory and experimental work and pub- 

 lisiiing is given; and anyone conversant with the information at tlie ilis))osal of ])oultry- 

 keepers in some other countries, and com|)aring it with that contained in our meagre 

 and frequently absurd text- books o-\ ])ouitry complaints, cannot fail to reahse how far we 

 lag behind. I daresay it has come to the knowletlge of very few poultry- keepers here 

 that definite experiments have been made in the United States of America by Dr. Veranus 

 Moore, with the object of ascertaining the contagion risk of fowl diphtheria, and as far 

 back as lS!t5 the j)roofs were amiile. The animals inoculated by virus direct from 

 diphtheritic jjoultr}' inchuied rabbits, white mice, grey mice, cavies, and healthy fowls. 

 Taking the results as tabulated, rabbits were very susce])tible and died in one to fourteen 

 days; mice in four to six days; cavies developed the bacillus, ant! were then chloroformed 

 for examination; healthy fowls seemed to be the least impressible, and in many cases, 

 after showing the disease, they recovered. 



Continuing, the same authority, in a ])aragraph headed " The Relation of Diphtheria 

 in Fowls to Public Health," admits that a com])arison of the organisms of hunuiu diph- 

 theria with those of fowl dii)litheria shows the two to be very dissimilar. Notwithstanding 

 this, the liability of human beings to contract fowl diphtheria and vice verxd is evident, 

 and he proceeds to give chapter and verse of cases, in both hemis])heres, embracing about 

 fifty deaths in all, each attributed, by various pathologists, to a form of diphtheiia com- 

 municated by the ))resence of diphtheritic fowls, and he sums uji : '" Tlie indiscriminate 

 handling of cliickcns, especially by children, and the exposure of fowls lo the infection 

 of diphtheria in the human species, whereby they become carriers of the virus, should 

 be strenuouslv avoided." 



