CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS. 451 



poaeible inconvenience and injury to all concerned, and witli a minimum of expendi- 

 tai'e to tlie State. 



I -would particularly call your attention to the language used by Lis excellency in 

 relation to the line of action to be pursued wlien interested parties have concealed the 

 existence of the disease in their herds. This provision is very important not only to 

 the stock owner, but also to the State, for while the concealnient of the existence of 

 the disease will result in pecuniary loss to the owner of the stock, it, at the same time, 

 greatly increases the danger of infection and the subsequent expense to the State. 

 With your active co-operation in this respect we may hope for the prompt suppression 

 of a disease which, while it has akeady caused a great loss to our stock owners, will, 

 should it become established in our Western States, inflict an incalculable and lasting 

 injury to the stock-raising interests of the whole nation. So far as known, all infected 

 herds in this State have been quarantined and all diseased animals promptly isolated 

 or killed. In the future, as in the past, it will be our duty to cause as little injury and 

 inconvenience to the owners of stock as is consistent with our duties to the State, and 

 to carry out, to the full letter, the directions of his excellency relative to the valua- 

 tion of all stock condemned and killed. 



All reports of supposed infection should be made direct to the office, and all inter- 

 ested are requested to accompany the report with a correct and full account of the 

 location of the herd and the syniptons, in order that all unnecessary expense to the 

 State may be avoided. No special line of action has yet been marked out for applica- 

 tion to cattle in motion from one portion of the State to another, or to those in transit 

 to other States, but it will be the duty of those in charge to cause the least possible 

 inconvenience consistent with the best interests of the State. 



Up to IiTovember 1, 1879, tlie agent of the governor quarantined twenty- 

 seven herds, including four hundred and eight animals liable to infec- 

 tion, and distributed in the following counties : Adaius, one ; Lancaster, 

 four ; York, one ; Bucks, one -, Delaware, four ; Montgomery, five ; and 

 Chester, eleven. Of these herds, eight (one in York, three in Mont- 

 gomery, and four in Chester) were afterwards released from the quaran- 

 tine and pronounced safe from another outbreak, except Jfrom a fresh 

 infection from outside sources. 



As soon as the supposed existence of the disease is reported, each 

 animal in the herd is inspected by a veterinary surgeon in the employ 

 of the State, and if the disease is found to exist is promptly quarantined 

 to prevent its spread to adjoining herds; in order, and if possible, to 

 prevent further contagion in the same herd, all diseased animals are 

 appraised and killed. 



The individual history of these herds is given as follows by the sec- 

 retary : 



No. 1. — In YorJc County, infected by steers bought in Baltimore market. Sis head 

 were either lost by death previous to quarantine, or were killed for the purpose 

 of stopping the disease. The whole herd were more or less affected,, though a num- 

 ber had a very light attack, and when released from quarantine, September 4, were 

 as well as they probably ever will be. A rigid quarantine, which was very much 

 assisted by the local surroundings, and the prompt support of neighboring stock- 

 owners, prevented the disease from infecting other stock; and the killing of diseased 

 animals and the use of disinfectants prevented further loss. 



No. 2, containing twenty cows, two bulls, and ten calves, was quarantined June 

 19. Previous to quarantine four head had died, and after the enforcement of the 

 quarantine fourteen head were killed. With one possible exception, all the animals 

 were affected, and a number of them are now in a condition in which they are worse 

 than useless to the owner. In this case the evidence is strongly in favor of the theory 

 that the owner conveyed the disease to his herd by assisting'in the care of another 

 infected dairy. No spread of the disease to adjoining farms ; but it is quite probable 

 that the disease was carried from this herd to herd No. 8 in the clothing or on the 

 person of the owner, who administered medicine to both herds. This herd has fur- 

 nished an illustration of the disease in one of its worst forms, but is now believed to 

 be clear, but not beyond the danger of infecting other stock. 



No. 3, in Delaware Coimfy, contained fifty head of stock, and iircvioua to quarantine 

 n nnnibpr had died. The probability is that the disease was introduced bv purciiase. 

 After passing into the charge of the State authorities, eleven of the herd were killed. 

 This herd, with Nos. 2 and 7, furnish by far tlie most stubborn cases we have yet mot 

 with. In all three cases every animal had been repeatedly exposed to infection before 



