156 Dr. Klein [May 27, 



milk to be controllecl and clieckcd ? This question resolves itself into 

 three parts. First, prevention of infection of the cow by man, 

 directly or indirectly ; second, prevention of infection of the cow by 

 the cow ; and, third, destruction of the contagium of the milk of 

 such cows. 



As regards the first, all those rules which have been laid down to 

 prevent infection of one human being from another, of milk or any 

 dairy utensil by contact or otherwise with a person suffering from 

 scarlet fever or coming from an infected house, also aj^jjly here ; and 

 this part of the subject comes under the general aspect of the proper 

 sanitary management of dairies which is acted upon in all well- 

 managed dairies. 



As regards the second — viz. prevention of infection of the cow by 

 the cow — this is obviously more important and more difficult of 

 carrying out. I say obviously, because one cow aifected with the 

 disease is capable of communicating it to others in the same farm, 

 and when moved to another farm also to the cows there. The disease 

 in the cow being of a mild character is easily overlooked. The 

 disease in the skin of the cow may be present and slight, or may be 

 absent in its more conspicuous manifestation, whereas the visceral 

 disease is of so mild a character that it requires an expert to diagnose 

 it. When a cow shows the disease of the skin and on the udder well 

 l^ronounced, such an animal will have to be carefully examined for 

 visceral disease. I need hardly say that among the many cutaneous 

 diseases of the cow known and unknown there may be one or the 

 other which bears a resemblance to the cutaneous disorder occurring 

 in scarlatina. Such cutaneous disease must be carefully excluded 

 before an animal is condemned ; but if visceral disease should be 

 diagnosed as well, the animal should be carefully isolated and its 

 milk should not be used. And it must be clear from this that every 

 dairy should be permanently under the supervision of an expert, and 

 in this the veterinary profession should be as eager for the work as 

 the medical sanitary officers are and for some time past have been. 

 But, judging from the attitude assumed by the veterinary authorities, 

 I am afraid the veterinary profession has not yet grasped the full 

 responsibility that rests on them, both towards the general public and 

 the dairy farmers. Instances are on record when on the milk from a 

 particular farm having been proved or even suspected to bear any 

 relation to a scarlet fever epidemic, the business of such farm became 

 temporarily or even permanently susj)ended, and the pecuniary loss 

 of the owner of such farm irrevocable. That the disease in the cow 

 which I have described to you as scarlet fever is as yet unknown to 

 the veterinary profession does not do away with the existence of such 

 disease, and I venture to say that being as yet unknown to and 

 unrecognised by them should be so much more stimulus for their 

 trying to recognise it. 



Now the third question, as to the destruction of the contagium in 

 the milk. This, 1 am glad to say, is very easily carried out. I have 



