EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETINS. 315 



and no tuberculous lesions elsewhere in the body, so far as could be detected by a careful 

 poat-morteni examination, had tor a year previous to her death given oil' tubercle 

 bacilli constantly in her feces. This fact was established by injecting fecal matter 

 into guinea pigs at periods of about a month apart. Some of the guinea pigs so 

 trcatt'cl (licil iiom se|itir disease's, l)iit thosf whii-h witlistooil tlic injeciion tor a f(nv 

 days developed tuberculosis in three, four and five weeks. The source of the tubercle 

 bacilli in this animal must have been the lungs, which were badly diseased, inasmuch 

 as no distinguishable tubercles were found anywhere in the abdominal cavity. On 

 the other hand, feces from the other animals, about twenty in number, never showed 

 the presence of tubercle bacilli by inoculative tests, although these inoculations were 

 made at difl"erent intervals of time, not exceeding two months, in order to establish 

 the presence of any contagion. (See Mysie 44.) 



Tuberculosis of the urinary organs is not very common and yet such cases are occa- 

 sionally met with. Whenever they exist, the urine generally contains the bacilli in 

 greater or less numbers. In our experience with the tuberculous College herd, we have 

 never been able to find tuberculosis in these organs. The urine from these cattle was 

 tested from time to time by inoculation, but in no instance did any of the tests reveal 

 tubercle bacilli. However, in the management of tuberculosis, this means of elimi- 

 nating the disease-virus should not be disregarded. 



Xo avenue of dissemination has been so hotly discussed as that which the udder 

 otlers. It may be that the discussion hinges on the possible presence of tubercle 

 bacilli in the secretions of the udder, and whether, if present, these tubercle bacilli 

 are capable of setting iip tuberculosis in either man or animal. As regards the latter 

 problem, we refer to the preceding pages, in which it has been taken up with the 

 purpose of showing the absolute impossibility of demonstrating it beyond question. 

 Should anyone who is so desirous of drawing general conclusions from a very slight 

 omission in the logical deductions be willing to submit himself to the ordeal of inocula- 

 tion, in one form or another, then we could regard him as sincere in his convictions and 

 not prejudiced lest it may injure him in a commercial sense. From all the cases 

 which have been collected and whicli show an intimate connection between tubeiculous 

 milk and tuberculosis of the human being, I leave it with him who is free from cant 

 and prejudice to draw his own conclusions from the facts presented. The simple 

 question is, can the tubercle bacillus from the bovine species infect man? 



Referring to the former problem mentioned above, I desire to enter into a review 

 of what has been done, not so much because I deem it essential to this bulletin, but 

 because, if the mind has a tendency to be diverted in a direction most pleasing to itself, 

 that agent which would divert it into other directions must be a faithful watch and 

 must constantly keep before that mind the convincing proof which would divert it. 

 This is my excuse for reviewing what has been reviewed and re-reviewed whenever 

 tuborciilns's lips been associated witli milk or milk supplies. 



Perroncito observed in 1892 that milk and butter contained the true bacilli of tuber- 

 culosis. Milk from some tuberculous cows fed by Gerlach to rabbits, pigs and calves, 

 c<mveyed the diseas-e to the animals, while milk from other tuberculous cows failed to do 

 it. Hirschberger succeeded in producing tu'oerculosis by inoculation of rabl)its fourteen 

 times with the milk of twenty-nine tuberculous cows of apparently soimd udder. From 

 sixty-tliree cows selected for their apparently sound udders. Bang produced tuberculosis 

 from the milk of nine of them. The work of Doctors Smith and Kilbourne estab- 

 lished tuberculous milk in three cows out of six with apparently sound udders. Of 

 two cows with tuberculous udders, one gave tuberculous milk and the other did not. 

 Ernst added nuich to our knowledge of this subject by his extensive experiments. 

 His investigations may be summed up in his own language as follows: 



I. E.xaminations were made, by means of the microscope, of the milk from tubercu- 

 lous animals with no disease of the udder, according to veterinary exajuination. 



"There were one hundred twenty-one examinations of cream and milk, tlie specimens 

 coming from tliirty-six different animals. The bacilli of tuberculosis were found in 

 one or more cover-glasses upon nineteen different occasions." 



"These nineteen positive results were obtained from twelve different animals and 

 the bacilli were found in about equal proportion in the milk and creain. — they were 

 seen more than once in milk from the same cow, at different examinations, six times." 



"The bacilli were nctually seen, therefore, in specim.ens from one-third, 3.3 per cent, 

 of the animals examined.'' 



"That these animals were actually affected with tuberculosis, and that the udder 

 was free from disease, was proved in all possible cases by careful post-mortem 

 examinations. These were conducted upon twenty out of thirty-six animals." 



II. riuinea pigs were inoculated with cream and milk. 



