the control of hacillary wiiite diarrliea. We stood for and preached 

 tlie doctrine of freedom from liacillary white diarrliea. We were 

 honest in our intentions, but somewhere there was a loop-hole through 

 which our aims were not bein.2,- realized. When we met last fall it 

 was with the determination of finding a solution to this problem. 

 After much discussion the motion was carried that thereafter it 

 would be necessary to have a flock tested 100 per cent annually to 

 remain a member. We have completed a year under this ruling and 

 if there is any one requirement that should never be changed it is 

 tliis. Nothing we have ever done has operated more to give us 

 success and prestige, and to place us on a sounder foundation than 

 this one step. It was the only logical step we could take. 



Of the 71 flocks referred to above, 29 were tested for the first time; 

 seven had been tested previous to 1927-28, but not during that season: 

 and 35 had been tested consecutively for two or more years. 



Of the 29 in the first test group, 16 had less than 50 per cent; six had 

 from 50-74 per cent; and seven had from 75 to 99.99 per cent of their 

 flock tested. Twenty of the 29 purchased their original stock from 100 

 per cent tested and non-reacting sources; seven obtained the original 

 stock from sources with histories unknown to this laboratory; one flock 

 originated from a source previously infected but in 1928-29 having a 

 non-reacting report; and one flock came from four different sources. 



Two of the sources of the last mentioned flock have non-reacting test 

 records, one has been infected for several years, and the fourth was 

 without infection several years ago, but has had no test since 1925-26. The 

 flock had 8.20 per cent infection on the first test of the season, and was 

 negative on retest seven weeks later. Less than 10 per cent of the birds 

 were tested and it is reasonable to believe that in the remaining 90 per 

 cent a large amount of infection existed. This is another case where 

 little attention was paid to source of stock in regard to freedom from 

 disease. Furthermore, nothing can be promised the owner of this flock in 

 regard to the result of his test next season. Even if he uses the tested 

 stock to obtain his next season's replacements, he cannot be assured of 

 a non-reacting test in 1929-30. 



This applies not nierelj' to those who had infection on the original 

 test, for even though the sample or partial flock test was non-reacting, 

 there is a strong possibility of infection being present in the untested 

 group. This has proven to be the case in several instances on record. 



The seven flock owners having partial flock tests, non-reacting reports, 

 and testing intermittently, all have flocks ranging in size from 500 to 

 5,000 birds. One of the seven had more than 75 per cent; two had from 

 50 to 74 per cent; and four had less than 50 per nent of their birds tested. 

 None of the seven flocks was 100 per cent tested at any previous test, but 

 all received a non-reacting report at the last previous test. One of the 

 flocks experienced a severe outbreak of pullorum disease in the spring of 

 1928. On the original test, infection was found, and the non-reacting 

 report was based on the last retest of the season. 



This flock owner reported to us that all but 140 of his birds were tested 

 by this laboratory, and these were tested by another laboratory. He also 

 reported that previous to the first test by this laboratory his flock had 

 been retested several times by another laboratory, thus reducing the in- 

 fection considerably before the original test reported by us. 



One might argue from the results obtained by this group of poultry- 

 men, that it is needless to test annually. The reader is referred to the 



