OUR DOMESTICATED ANIMALS. 67 



of the subject, I can only remark, in passing, that valuable 

 articles on this subject have appeared in the Manchester 

 Guardian and in Chambers's Journal. The subsidiary- 

 question as to the alleged diminution of cattle and 

 sheep over large areas devoted to the rearing of 

 game has also received ample attention in the pages 

 of the Field. 



Limiting myself to the injurious results of para- 

 sitism in relation to the supply of flesh for food, I 

 have at once to declare my conviction that the supposed 

 disastrous effects from this source have been greatly over- 

 rated, and further, that it is altogether a mistake for in- 

 spectors to condemn as unfit for human food meat which 

 has been taken from rot-affected sheep. In this view I 

 am cogently supported by the statements of Dr. Eowe, 

 a large sheep farmer, who, writing in the Melbourne 

 Leader for Oct. 19, says : " The mere presence of flukes 

 in the viscera of any animal is no proof that it is unfit for 

 human food ; and for the inspectors of slaughterhouses 

 to adopt such a test of wholesome food would be a great 

 mistake. It would afford no protection to the public 

 against unhealthy food, would increase the price of 

 animal food, and be ruinous to our farmers and graziers. 

 If the consumption of fluky beef and mutton were pre- 

 judicial to the health of man, there would be very few 

 people alive in this part of the colony ; for, to my certain 

 knowledge, they have had no other animal food to live 

 upon for the last twenty-five years; and for physical 

 ability I believe they may be compared favourably with 

 any other part of Australia." 



Exactly so. Everyone is prepared to admit that watery 

 (or what Dr. Rowe calls " fluky") mutton, procured from 

 animals which are far gone in the disease, cannot be either 



f2 



