348 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



cases, it has j,^aiiu'il a finn footing. Once knowinfr its prespiice, it is pos8il)le to check 

 it l)y iiit('llij,'ciit, jicrsistciit ami systciiiatic ticatiiicnt. 



Wliat attitude the Stale should hear toward the eradication of tuherculosis may 

 he many sided, hut inasmuch as the State is hound to protect its citizens aj^ainst disease 

 as well as against crime, if it lies within its power, and to protect the property of its 

 i'itizens. it must he a duty of this Stale to accomplish as much as is possihle in 

 riddinj,' itself of tuherculosis. Thus far, we must all he aj,need. Most ot the states 

 of the Union liave, in one way or another, manifested their interest in tuberculosis. 

 In other diseases of tlie luiman family and of cattle, they liave done much toward 

 restriction. Why is it not )iossihle, therefore, to restrict tuberculosis? 



W'c (iiid such states as Maine. New Ilampsliire. Connecticut, Rhode Ishuid, I'ennsyl- 

 vania and others re<piire tliat all animals enterinjx tlie State nuist he submitted to 

 the tuberculin test. France, Bel^iium, ])enmark and Canada are some of the countries 

 that also follow this custom. Such a provision of the State law may tend to checlc 

 the disease in a small way, but wliere so mucli of llu' disease is found within the 

 V)orders of the State, unless there is f^reat importation, this method must fail to l>o a 

 very important factor. It is true that if cattle used for breedinji could be subjected 

 to the tuberculin test before entering the State, there would be much gained, and yet 

 we believe that nearly every stockman who is sufliciently progressive to import blooded 

 stock will be progressive enough to have his imiiortations tested before taking them 

 into his herd. If tliis is not done, the stockman runs a very serious lisk. If stock- 

 feeders bring stock into the State simply for the purpose of feeding and then turn tliem 

 back to the large slaughtering houses of Chicago or elsewhere, where they are subjected 

 to government inspection, the necessity for testing with tuberculin these beef animals 

 is not so apparent. Again, if these same animals came from states where the disease 

 is niore rife than in Michigan, there would be some cause for testing, but most of 

 these animals come from the western states where there is less tuberculosis, conse- 

 quently the percentage of tuberculosis will not be increased. It is usually true, also, 

 that the neighboring states adjacent to our borders possess about the same percentage 

 of tuberculosis among cattle as our own State. They are all lighting with about the 

 same degree of intensity as ^lichigan and will douljtless overcome the disease as rapidly 

 as this State. With the exception, therefore, of imported breeding cattle which may 

 be taken care of in another manner, there is no great need of placing barriers about 

 Michigan. When the generality of tuberculosis is taken into account, the testing of 

 imjjortcd cattle seems to be of questionable utility; however, tlie international impor- 

 tations are so comparatively few that it may be wise to place this check. Denmark, 

 possessing thirty to fcu'ty per cent of tuberculous cattle, tests imported cattle from a 

 -country having only fifteen per cent. The wisdom is only seen in the rare possibility 

 of some imported tuberculous animal getting into a herd free from tuberculosis, and 

 this we maintain is a matter which the individual stock-grower should be held re- 

 sponsible for. He should either demand that the animal be tested before purchased 

 -or he should test the animal himself. If there were places of entry for animals 

 passing from one state to another, this plan might also be feasible. International ex- 

 change has this advantage. But it does not seem feasible and it does not seem 

 possible that the results would satisfy the expense account, to establish interstate 

 •quarantine, so that it will be effective. 



The State management of tuberculosis within its borders is a matter of considerable 

 importance. The farmer cannot be held responsible at the present time for tubercu- 

 losis in his herd and the State, on the other hand, is responsible for the health of its 

 citizens, consequently it becomes a problem of adjustment between farmer and State. 

 The State cannot with equity step in and destroy the inoperty of the farmer wantonly 

 without due compensation, and the farmer cannot demand of the State that it take the 

 tuberculous animals off his hands and pay him for the same. The State would 

 not be right in making a demand of the farmer that he test his cows, even, or the 

 farmer demand of the State that it test his cows. It seems, therefore, that as long as 

 it is a matter of adjustment, each should assume part of the responsibility. The 

 State on its part should be willing to fxirnish the services of a competent man for test- 

 ing, to furnish the tuberculin and to assist the farmer by means of competent meat' 

 inspectors and instructions in the management of tuberculous animals, while the farmer 

 ■on his part should permit his herd to be tested, those animals showing physical signs of 

 the disease to be .slaughtered and those which still look vigorous to be maintained in 

 isolation for breeding purposes or fattened and killed for the market, subject to 

 inspection by competent inspectors. This should be a voluntary agreement between 

 farmer and State. This can be economically accomplished only through a competent 

 State officer who will have authority to appoint competent deputies in various parts 



