206 THE MILK SITUATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



from contamination by fecal matter. (Dr. Samuel McC. Hamill, Philadel- 

 phia, Pa.) 



There you have the sequel it is all in the first care of milk and cleanliness. 

 (Health officer Scranton, Pa.) 



QUESTION 5. What effect, in your judgment, will insistence upon the tuber- 

 culin test, pasteurization, the bacterial count, the maintenance of a tempera- 

 ture not exceeding 50 F., and requirements as to stabling and cleanliness in 

 the production of milk, have upon the retail price of milJcf 



ANSWERS. 



The question is primarily one of human health and life, and necessary 

 precautions should not be omitted simply because they would increase the 

 price of milk. It is believed, however, that such requirements would not 

 greatly increase the cost. In the city of Washington milk which practically 

 conforms to these requirements is already being sold at only 1 cent a quart 

 over the price of other milk, and the dealers appear to be making a com- 

 mercial success of this business. (Chief Bureau of Animal Industry.) 



A good article is usually somewhat more expensive than a poor one. (Sur- 

 geon General U, S. Army.) 



It is bound to increase the retail price. (Surgeon General U. S. Navy.) 



Insistence on the requirements mentioned will increase the cost of produc- 

 tion and delivery of milk, but the reduction of morbidity will in the end 

 be an economic saving to the community. (Surgeon General Public Health 

 and Marine-Hospital Service.) 



The tuberculin test would cause the loss of about 15 per cent of the cattle. 

 The other changes would add one-half to 1 cent to each quart for ordinary 

 city milk. (Dr. William H. Park, New York, N. Y.) 



An increase of 25 per cent. (Dr. Henry L. Coit, Newark, N. J.) 



It might raise the price 1 or 2 cents. (Dr. R. G. Freeman, New York, N. Y.) 



Might cause temporary increase in cost, but would not be great (Dr. 

 M. P. Ravenel, Madison, Wis.) 



It probably will increase it; it ought to increase it. Present prices are too 

 low for safety and thus for economy. (Dr. C. E. A. Winslow, New York, N. Y.) 



The enforcement of the tuberculin test would not increase the price of land, 

 the price of foodstuffs, the price of stable accommodations, the price of labor, 

 the cost of transportation, or the cost of distribution. It would increase for 

 a while a single item, to wit, me cost of cattle. For purposes of illustration 

 assume that a farmer has a herd of 100 cattle, worth $75 each, making the 

 total value of his cattle $7,500. Interest on this capital at 5 per cent per annum 

 is equivalent to $375. Assume now that the tuberculin test is applied. Twenty 

 per cent of herd react and are killed, and 20 new cows are introduced, tuberculin 

 tested, costing $100 apiece, or 33 per cent more than the value of the original 

 herd before testing. If we disregard the increased value of the herd that has 

 stood the test that arises out of the fact that it has done so, the value of the 

 herd will then be as follows: Eighty cattle, at $75 each, equivalent to $6,000; 

 20 cattle, at $100, equivalent to $2,000 ; total value of herd, $8,000. The interest 

 on this capital at 5 per cent per annum is equivalent to $400. Between the 

 interest in the capital invested on the untested herd and the interest on the capi- 

 tal invested in the tested herd the difference amounts, therefore, to but $25 per 

 annum. This amount is distributed over the entire output of a herd of 100 cows 

 for 12 months. It represents the increased cost to the producer of producing 

 milk from tuberculin-tested cattle. This amount would probably be materially 

 reduced, if not altogether eliminated, by the increased period of usefulness of 

 the tuberculosis-free cattle as compared with those infected with the disease 

 otherwise in the herd. 



Viewing the matter in the light most favorable to the producer, the increased 

 cost of producing milk from tuberculin-tested cows should not amount to more 

 than a small fraction of a cent per gallon. Taking the herd of 100 cows, 

 untested, with $75 per cow, the gross value of the herd would be $7,500. Kill 

 20 per cent of these cows on account of tuberculosis, without remuneration of 

 any kind to the farmer, and appraise the remaining 80 animals as still worth 

 as much as the entire herd, $7,500. Replace the 20 animals that have been 

 destroyed by 20 tuberculin-tested cows, costing $100 per cow, or $2,000. The 

 value of the 100 tuberculin-tested cows would then be $9,500. Five per cent on 

 this investment would amount to $475 per annum, or just $100 per annum more 



