Of these 1,390 herds (35,559 animals), 107 (11,630 animals) were 

 large and 1283 (23,929 animals) were small. Among the former the 

 reacting animals amounted to 59.8 per cent, and among the latter only 

 32.2 per cent. The better health of the small herds appears distinctly 

 in that part of the table in which they are arranged according to the 

 percentage of reacting animals. While about two-thirds of the large 

 herds contained over 59 per cent of reacting animals and about 

 one- fourth, over 75 per cent, the relative number in the small 

 herds was very much less. In more than one-half of these, 

 the number was under 25 per cent, while not more than one- 

 tenth showed 75 per cent or more. 277 small herds contained 

 only one or two reacting animals. This was true of only four 

 large herds. Finally, 309 herds, i. e., 306 small and 3 large, were 

 quite free from tuberculosis. Of these healthy herds, 69 had from 

 four to ten head while 240 contained 11 to 55 head. The reason for 

 the greater morbidity in the large herds is not very apparent. This 

 may be due to the longer existence of tuberculosis in the large herds. 

 The owners of these began to improve the dairy industry many years 

 ago, often by the importation of foreign cattle, especially from Eng- 

 land. It is quite possible that tuberculosis was introduced among 

 them at this time. 



The longer the disease has existed in a herd the wider would be its 

 distribution. Danger from contagion in common drinking-troughs 

 is greater in large herds because these troughs have been more exten- 

 sively introduced among them. Probably the practice so common 

 in large herds of changing the stalls of animals according to the fod- 

 der given and milk yielded, is a considerable source of infection. 

 The method certainly contributes to the spread of the disease. 



In Jtitland the wide extent of the disease must be due in some 

 measure to the old time fondness of its peasants to barter. 



