Commissioner of Agriculture 817 



England in 1870, in the most extensive of all American out- 

 breaks, did a single farm develop the disease in spring, after the 

 long winter frost. If these claims were better founded than they 

 are, they would not apply to the case before us, as the daily removal 

 and disinfection of the manure is a condition of the non-slaughter 

 method. 



We have already seen how loosely and ineffectively the Euro- 

 pean veterinary sanitary laws have been drawn and administered, 

 and the advocacy of the restriction of the slaughter clause to spe- 

 cial conditions — as in infected imported animals at a landing, 

 one or a few infected herds in a state or large district, an infected 

 herd on an open range or in such proximity to other herds that 

 the protection of the latter becomes impossible, chronic disease 

 in one or more animals in a previously diseased herd which will 

 permanently depreciate such animals or render them unprofitable, 

 etc. The conservative method does not mean that other precautions 

 shall be relaxed, but rather that isolation in its fullest and broadest 

 meaning will be more rigidly carried nut. As we are no longer 

 trusting to slaughter, we can the less afford to take any risks as 

 regards the isolation and destruction of the infection. 



INCIDENTAL EVILS OF THE SLAUGHTER RULE 



But we must not ignore the further serious dangers that are 

 inseparable from the compulsory slaughter rule. 



1. It begets antagonism to the veterinary sanitary work. One 

 man has a valuable dairy herd, which, by the exercise of great care 

 and outlay, he has purified and preserved from tuberculosis, con- 

 tagious abortion, and other communicable diseases; they have 

 been selected and bred to secure not only a large yield, but a high 

 percentage of butter fat. He has his premises tit ted for the 

 bottling and delivery of pure standardized milk, which brings 

 him a lucrative income, when suddenly this rule descends on him 

 like a stroke of doom. His treasured herd must go underground, 

 his whole splendid dairy apparatus must be rendered useless, his 

 milk contracts can no longer be filled, and perhaps he becomes liable 

 for damages. With such a destructive and ruinous fate hanging 

 over him, can it be wondered at if our dairyman is slow to report 

 the disease, or if he even takes measures to conceal its existence ? 

 JSTo indemnity for his slaughtered herd can ever reimburse him 

 for his losses. 



