128 



NA TURE 



\ytine 9, 1887 



tissues of persons affected with scarlet fever there occurs 

 the same micrococcus as was present in the cow, both 

 being identical in microscopical and in cultural characters. 

 In the second place, it was found that the action of this 

 microbe on animals is exactly the same as the micrococcus 

 found in the Hendon cows. Calves and mice, after 

 inoculation or feeding with a trace of the growth of both 

 sets of micrococci, become affected with cutaneous and 

 visceral disease similar to human scarlet fever ; in calves, 

 the disease is of the same mild type as in the Hendon cows. 

 I have lately ascertained that milch cows inoculated with 

 the human scarlet fever micrococcus developed readily 

 a disease identical in every respect with the Hendon 

 disease, inclusive of the ulcers on'the teats, and the sores 

 and loss of hair in patches in different parts of the 

 skin. Further, it was shown that from the blood and 

 the tissues of these animals infected with one or the other 

 set of cultivations, the same micrococcus was recovered. 

 I will remind you that, in all infectious diseases which 

 have been proved definitely to be associated with a 

 particular species of microbes, this microbe introduced 

 into a susceptible body thrives and multiplies, and thus 

 sets up the diseased condition, differing of course with 

 the different species of microbes. I think I may after 

 this say that this microbe, Micrococcus scarlattnce, is the 

 cause of human scarlet fever ; further, that it produces in 

 bovine animals a disease identical with the Hendon 

 disease and human scarlet fever, and that consequently, 

 while the cow is susceptible to infection with human 

 scarlet fever, it can in its turn be the source of contagium 

 for the human species, as was no doubt the case in that 

 milk epidemic from the Hendon farm. 



I shall now give a striking piece of evidence well in 

 harmony with what I have mentioned hitherto. In 

 October 1886, Prof. Corfield forwarded to me certain 

 tins of condensed milk, sold under the name of " Rose 

 brand." This milk was under suspicion of having pro- 

 duced scarlet fever in a number of persons that had 

 partaken of it. From one out of three tins of this con- 

 densed milk, I have obtained by cultivation a microbe 

 which in every respect, morphologically and in cultures, 

 is the same as the microbe obtained from the Hendon 

 cows and from human scarlet fever. The action of the 

 microbe of the condensed milk was also tested on animals, 

 calves and mice, and it was found that it produced the 

 identical disease that was produced by the microbe of 

 human scarlet fever, and of the Hendon cows. I may 

 add that this Rose brand of condensed milk is, like all 

 condensed milk, obtained from cows' milk. The Rose 

 brand is a cheap article, and meant for the poorer 

 classes ; probably it has not been sufficiently heated in 

 the tins before sealing the latter ; that this is so can be 

 inferred from the fact that every tin of this brand which ! 

 I opened contained some organisms. Thus, for instance, 

 I find that one tin contained the scarlet fever microbe 

 and another species of micrococcus ; another tin con- 

 tained a harmless species of micrococcus only; and a 

 third tin opened contained a micrococcus and a species 

 of bacillus.^ 



Another piece of interesting evidence concerning the 

 Micrococcus scarlatince is this: there occurred during 

 the beginning of this year a severe epidemic of scarlet 

 fever m Wimbledon. This epidemic was also traced to 

 milk coming from a particular farm. In one of the houses 

 supplied with this milk there occurred cases of scarlet 

 fever amongst human beings, and at the same time a pet 

 monkey, who also consumed a good deal of the milk, 

 became ill ; it died after five days. I had the opportunity 

 to make a post-mortem examination of this animal, and 

 there could be no doubt about its having died of scarlet 

 fever. From the blood of this monkey I obtained by 



«LwJ* f"^*" known that no species of micrococci hitherto known are 

 Sem ire IfllTK "^ * te.nperature of 212° F., i.e. of boiling water ; many of 

 them are killtd by an exposure to i8o°-i9o° F. s. . j 



I cultivation the same micrococcus as was obtained fror 

 human scarlet fever, from the Hendon cows, and fror 

 the condensed milk. Experiments made on animals wit 

 this micrococcus of the Wimbledon monkey showed tha 

 the same disease is produced both by inoculation and b 

 feeding. 



It having been proved, then, that the cow issusceptibl 

 to infection with scarlet fever from man, the next impoi 

 tant question is this. How does the milk of such infecte( 

 cows assume infective power.? Clearly in one of tw( 

 ways : first, either the milk becomes infected by th 

 milker during the process of milking, particles of con 

 tagium being rubbed off the ulcers of the udder or teat 

 or, the milk^^r se is possessed of infective power — that is 

 it being a secretion of a constitutionally diseased animal 

 From previous and from more recent observations, I an 

 inclined to think that both views hold good. 



I now come to the question, How is the spread o 

 scarlet fever by milk to be controlled and checked 

 This question resolves itself into three parts. First 

 prevention of infection of the cow by man, directly o: 

 indirectly ; second, prevention of infection of the cow b} 

 the cow ; and third, destruction of the contagium of th( 

 milk of such cows. 



As regards the first, all those rules which have beer 

 laid down to prevent infection of one human being fron 

 another, of milk or any dairy utensil by contact or other 

 wise with a person suffering from scarlet fever or coming 

 from an infected house, apply also here ; and this part o: 

 the subject comes under the general aspect of the proper 

 sanitary management of dairies, which is acted upon ir] 

 all well-managed dairies. 



As regards the second, viz. prevention of infection ol 

 the cow from the cow, this is obviously more important and 

 more difficult to be carried out. I say obviously, because 

 one cow affected with the disease is capable of com- 

 municating 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 pronounced, such an animal will 

 have to be carefully examined for visceral disease. I 

 need hardly say that amongst the many cutaneous dis- 

 orders 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 con- 

 demned ; 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 suspended, 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 the fact of its being 

 as yet unknown to and unrecognized by them should 

 stimulate them to try to recognize it. 



Now the third question, as to the destruction of the 



I 



