Q. 2863, 
4470, 4560. 
See pars. 69, 
70. 
See Q. 8029 
and text- 
books. 
1, Improved 
hygiene of 
cattle sheds. 
See Q. 2867, 
2868. 
2. The 
exposure, 
sale, and 
disposal of 
diseased 
animals and 
carcasses. 
Q. 4602. 
Q. 8110, 
3. Importa- 
tion of 
animals. 
Xxiv COMMITTEE ON PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND TUBERCULOSIS: 
64. It is doubtful whether this is really so, for the reasons that (1) the apparent 
increase may be due to better recognition, and consequently more frequent notification 
of the disease. (2.} That general hygiene being improved, and this improvement 
having already greatly diminished the tubercular death-rate in places where the 
malady was very prevalent, it is probable that the increasing attention given to hygienic 
requirements will still further reduce its virulence. 
Remedial Measures. 
65. The two points to be borne in mind in considering remedial measures are— 
(1) That the disease can be transmitted to man from the lower animals, and from 
man to the lower animals by one or other of the methods which we have already 
discussed, and especially by the ingestion of tubercular diseased meat or milk. 
(2.) That it spreads from animal to animal. - : 
66. The first of these, being in part dealt with under the Public Health Act, is 
usually considered apart from the measures taken to prevent disease in cattle, but 
though this procedure is perfectly possible with most other diseases of the lower 
animals, it cannot be applied to tuberculosis, for not only is the disease communicated 
from animals to man, but also from man to animals. 
Legislation, therefore, directed to the protection of cattle from tuberculosis should 
at the same time include such measures as will also prevent its communication to man. 
67. In the first place, the question of curative treatment may be dismissed in a few 
words, since no cure or antidote is known for this disease, except in those cases (almost 
entirely confined to the human being) where it is oniy locally manifested, and in which 
consequently its foci can be excised and removed by surgical treatment. 
68. This being so, it is evident that legislation must follow the two lines of— 
A. PREVENTION. 
B. Extirpartion. 
A.—Preventive Measures. 
69. These should include provision for :— 
(1.) Improved hygiene of cattle sheds, §c. (especially in the direction of providing 
proper ventilation, pure water supply, and adequate disinfection of stalls, &c. wherein 
tubercular animals have been kept). This has been partly met in the Dairy and Milk ~ 
Shops Order, but its administration by the local health authorities is at inipai| 
imperfect, and we would suggest that it should be much more stringently enforced, an 
that veterinary inspectors should be given more extended powers of entry into all places 
where animals are kept. hea a 
70. Improvement in the hygienic surroundings of animals should include isolation 
of all suspected cases (see also par. 87), precautions against the flesh or milk of 
diseased animals being given as food to others, eg., to pigs, fowls, &c., and care 
that fodder, litter, and water should not be taken from one animal or stall and given 
to another. ; ede 
71. Our attention has been drawn to the frequency with which animals, obviously 
diseased, sometimes even in the last stage of the malady, are sold in open market. _ 
Although in England and Ireland, under the provisions of the Nuisances Remoyal 
Act as embodied in the Public Health Act, 1885, the medical officer of health or 
inspector of nuisances may seize such animals, yet such seizure is rarely performed. 
72. We find the veterinary inspector has no power to prevent such sales, or to seize 
the beasts for slaughter, since tuberculosis is not included in the Contagious Diseases 
Animals) Act of 1878. i 
73. We further find that there is actually a regular trade in such stock infected with — 
tuberculosis, and that they go by the name of “ wasters” and “ mincers,’ being 
frequently slaughtered in the neighbourhood of the larger towns, to which such ~ 
portions of the meat as are likely to escape the observation of the inspector of 
nuisances, are sent for the purposes of sale among the poorer inhabitants, and — 
especially for the making of sausages. ba) 
74. We are therefore very strongly of opinion that power should be given to the 
veterinary inspector to seize all such animals in fairs, markets, or in transit, 
75. Notwithstanding the uniform prevalence of the disease in Europe and elsewhere, — 
there seems to be no reason to apprehend that, with our present regulations for the 
slaughter of animals at the port of debarkation, and for quarantine of those imported 
