Results of Control Work. 



years from 1897 to 1908 in 1,370 herds with 48,576 animals, of 

 which 14,225 or 29.3% reacted, the amount of infection was re- 

 duced by their work of eradication to such an extent that out of 

 57,660 cattle only 3.1%, that is 1,765 animals, reacted. 



Although the statistics of individual countries having strict 

 measures of eradication (Denmark, Sweden, etc.) appear to show 

 the splendid effects of carefully executed control work, based on 

 scientific principles, and in spite of the fact that the milder modifi- 

 cations, as for instance that of Ostertag, by no means show the 

 same good results, nevertheless measures of too strict requirements 

 cannot be absolutely approved. 



Thus for instance Belgium in 1895 required the destruction within a certain time 

 of all clinically affected and all reacting animals, and in 1896 out of 19,004 cattle 

 examined 9,280 were slaughtered. The difficulty of the execution was lessened by the 

 law of 1897 which required that only the visibly affected animals should be destroyed, 

 a measure which resulted in the destruction of 10,269 cattle with reimbursement 

 amounting to $300,000.00, in 1902 (Hutyra and Marek). 



Theoretically, the most radical eradication measures may pos- 

 sibly be considered as the quickest and most effective, and therefore 

 from an economic standpoint as the best methods for the control 

 of tuberculosis. Owing to the extraordinary spread of this dis- 

 ease in almost all herds, drastic measures however may result in 

 the sudden infliction of such heavy economic losses, not alone 

 through the animals destroyed, but through changes of values for 

 breeding, dairy purposes, meat production, etc., that the stock 

 owners, dealers, consumers, etc., would have good grounds to pro- 

 test against the execution of such methods. 



Therefore it is advisable to adopt Ostertag's method at the ini- 

 tiation of the general work of eradication, and after the stock own- 

 ers have been convinced that the idea is rational following the 

 favorable practical results obtained, then Bang's method may be 

 introduced, unless it is possible to persuade them to employ, at the 

 beginning, the rational execution of Bang's method. In no instance 

 however should destruction of the reacting animals be required 

 in connection with Bang's method. From the standpoint of milk 

 hygiene it does not seem to be justifiable, according to the present 

 status of the question of the infectiousness of the milk of reacting 

 animals, to require their exclusion from the production of milk, 

 unless they show clinical evidence of the disease. 



In spite of the separation of the reacting from the non-react- 

 ing animals, the milk of the reacting group could be marketed, 

 from the standpoint of milk hygiene, with the milk of the other 

 group, without interference, as has been previously practiced, so 

 long as there is no substantial proof offered as to the danger of 

 marketing such milk. 



With the new law on diseases of animals the initiation of 

 eradication, based on uniform legislative measures, has been in- 

 stituted in Germany, and thereby serves as a stimulus to extensive 

 private activity in matters of eradication. 



