140 ANNUAL REPORT OF TH£ Off. DoC. 



in this State during the past two years in the same way. The fact that the 

 disease has occurred in a large number of widely scattered places and that there 

 have been very few cases in each outbreak, sometimes only two or three, tends 

 to show that the infection is being distributed from some distant point of 

 origin. Where an infectious disease has long been in a district there is evidence 

 of Us spread locally, and tuch evidence is rare in respect to mange of horses. 

 In addition to this evidence, a considerable number of horses that have re- 

 cently been shipped from the West have been found to be suffering from mange, 

 usually in its early stages. 



Mange spreads rather insidiously and the condition is not one to cause 

 alarm to owners of infected horses until after it has progressed considerably. 

 This being the case, it is probable that mange is more widely spread than 

 appears from the cases that have been reported. If so, this will be emphasized 

 by a decided increase in the number of reported cases next year. 



The lime and sulphur wash, made according to the instructions furnished in 

 the report of 1906, is a thoroughly effective and satisfactory remedy for the 

 treatment of horses affected with this disease. All cases of mange, according 

 to law, must be reported to the Secretary of the State Livestock Sanitary 

 Board. Unfortunately, however, veterinarians are not called in, in many 

 cases, to treat horses with mange until the disease is quite advanced and has 

 spread to a number of horses in contact. 



TUBERCULOSIS. During the past year, 1,819 animals afflicted with tubercu- 

 losis have been destroyed. These have come from 878 separate sources in sixty 

 counties. The greatest number of tuberculous cows have come from the coun- 

 ties in which the dairy industry is most highly developed. There is, however, no 

 county in the State that has not been reached by tuberculosis of cattle, al- 

 though there are gr^at differences in the extent of prevalence. 



Most of the work that has been done by the State Livestock Sanitary Board 

 in the repression of tuberculosis of cattle has been done in response to volun- 

 tary requests from the owners of tuberculous cattle or of suspected herds. 

 There is no provision for a general systematic inspection of the cattle of any 

 part of the State. To conduct a systematic, periodical inspection of herds, or, 

 if not of all herds, then of dairy herds, would require a stalf of assistants and 

 an appropriation greatly in excess of those now provided. 



There is in some quarters an urgent demand for the regular inspection of 

 herds producing milk for use as market milk. This demand comes not only 

 from milk consumers and from boards of health, but also from dairymen who 

 are now doing good work, but who have to sell their product in the market 

 in competition with milk produced on farms where no attention is paid to sani- 

 tation. Most of the consumers of milk do not discriminate between clean milk 

 and dirty milk; they take it as it comes and pay the standard market price 

 and ask no questions as to its source or as to the conditions under which it has 

 been handled. If the milk contains a reasonable percentage of cream, if large 

 quantities of visible dirt do not gather in the bottom of the container and if the 

 milk does not sour vrilliin less than one day, the average consumer is satisfied. 

 This lack of discrimination on the part of consumers is discouraging to those 

 dairymen who take an interest in endeavoring to raise the standard of their pro- 

 ducts, who keep their herds free from tuberculosis, their premises clean and 

 sanitary and who enforce the practices indicated by their knowledge of milk 

 hygiene. For such producers to gain no market advantage over the man who 

 has an infected herd and doesn't care, whose premises are dirty, whose utensils 

 are unclean, whose facilities for washing and sterlizing are primitive or non- 

 existent and who supplies milk of low hygienic quality, appears to be unfair 

 to the careful producer. For the encouragement of good producers, it is im- 

 portant that bad unsanitary dairies should be improved or suppressed. This 

 subject is mentioned in connection with the discussion of tuberculosis, not 

 because tuberculosis is the only, or, perhaps, the most important part of the 

 subject of milk hygiene, but because the public is rathi r in the habit of thinking 

 that the eradication of tuberculosis is the first step that should be taken in 

 efforts to improve the quality and wholesomeness of the milk supply. The fact 

 is, that the eradication of tuberculosis from herds is but one of several things 

 that it is necessary to do to place a milk supply on a proper basis. There are 

 other diseases of cattle that are of importance; the sanitary condition of the 

 premises, the purity of the water supply, the equipment of the dairy and its ad- 

 ministration all have to be considered in this connection. It is, however, true, 

 in most cases, that where a herd is free from tuberculosis the other conditions 

 on the dairy farm are good. This is because the dairyman, if sufflciently care- 

 ful to keep his herd fi-ee from tuberculosis or to eradicate tuberculosis, if it 

 has once been introduced, is likely to be so progressive as to keep the various 

 details of his farm and dairy work up to a high standard. Of course this obser- 

 vation does not hold good in localities where there is little tuberculosis of cattle 

 and where the freedom of a herd from infection is a matter of good luck rather 

 than of careful planning and administration. 



While most of the facts in regard to tuberculosis of cattle that are essential 

 to herd owners in their efforts to protect their cattle against this disease are 

 rather widely known, there is still, in some quarters, need for further promul- 



