4 CONTROL BULLETIN NO. 157 



One case involves an old poultry range that was being used as a pasture. A 

 poultry house that once stood on the range burned down. Nobody paid any atten- 

 tion to the pile of ashes except a few head of livestock who found the taste of some- 

 thing in the ashes to their liking, only to die later of lead poisoning. Subsequent 

 investigation disclosed that the poultry house apparently had contained a few old 

 pails still holding lead paint in lethal amounts. 



In another instance a number of cows broke through a fence and wandered 

 over to a dump. Some of the cows ate a material that caused their death. Analysis 

 of the stomach contents of these cows showed the presence of massive quantities 

 of lead arsenate. A sample of some material from the dump was found to be a 

 mixture of sulfur, lime, inert material, and lead arsenate. 



In a third case, the Control Service received a large jar containing the stomach 

 contents of two heifers and a small jar with the stomach contents of a third heifer. 

 Here again it was almost obvious that poisoning was the cause of death, since the 

 animals involved had broken through a fence and had access to an area where 

 insecticides were stored and mixed. A sample of the insecticide that the animals 

 were supposed to have eaten was found to be lead arsenate. The stomach contents 

 in the large jar also contained large amounts of lead arsenate. However, the con- 

 tents in the small jar contained only lead and no arsenic, indicating that the third 

 animal, unlike the other two, died of paint poisoning. 



After the results were reported to the veterinarian, he admitted that, following 

 the broken fence incident, the animals were moved to another farm where the 

 third animal died shortly afterwards. It was presumed all three animals had died 

 because of the same poison eaten at the first farm. This was disproved when an 

 examination of the second pasture disclosed the presence of a partially filled paint 

 pail evidently thoroughly licked by some animal. 



These cases prove the point that when the hazards connected with the handling 

 and disposal of insecticides are being considered, it should be borne in mind that 

 livestock sometimes do break fences. Therefore, insecticides and other toxic 

 materials should be so used, stored, and disposed of that they are inaccessible to 

 livestock under any reasonable circumstances. 



As one easy preventive measure, farmers should make it a practice each spring 

 to inspect thoroughly all pastures and other areas frequented by livestock to make 

 certain that no harmful materials are present. If the pasture adjoins a road, weekly 

 inspections should be made, preferably on Monday morning, along the fence near 

 the road. To some people traveling along a country road a pasture fence seems to 

 be an inviting target over which to throw the week's accumulation of rubbish, which 

 may include insecticides and paint pails. 



Possibly, the veterinarians, the Extension Service, the feed dealers, the Con- 

 trol Service, and others interested in the farmer's problems can do a better educa- 

 tional job in helping the farmer prevent some of the future livestock losses under 

 circumstances similar to those cited here. 



It must be gratifying to the veterinarian when he makes a correct diagnosis 

 in a poison case in which elusive and somewhat contradictory diagnostic factors 

 may be involved. The chemist, too, finds a certain satisfaction in the sense of a 

 job well done when he identifies and measures the toxic ingredient that caused 



