2 BULLETIN 106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



The loss to the dairy industry is very great, although difficult to 

 estimate. In those cases where fairly good records have been placed 

 at our disposal pertaining to herds where it is aimed to raise and 

 breed all or nearly all heifer calves, as is the case in pedigreed herds 

 of private owners and in the herds of experiment stations, the losses 

 from abortion and sterility fluctuate between 5 and 50 per cent per 

 annum, with an average of perhaps 15 to 20 per cent. But these 

 statistics are deceptive, and not safe for general deductions. These 

 herds consist too largely of heifers, in which abortion and sterility 

 are most common. 



As nearly as we have been able to estimate, an estimate which is 

 admittedly insecure, the annual losses in the dairies of New York 

 from abortion and sterility are approximately 10 per cent, which 

 probably exceeds $5 per cow for the total number in the State, or 

 an approximate economic loss of perhaps $10,000,000 annually. Our 

 inquiries regarding losses in other States, in beef as well as in dairy 

 herds, indicate that there are no material differences in the ratio of 

 losses in the various regions. 



Innumerable reasons have been assigned to account for abortion 

 and sterility in cows. Abortion has been regarded as the result of 

 blows, goring, kicks, slips, falls, various feeds, waters, drugs, etc., 

 and finally, when the abortions are numerous, to contagion. Sterility 

 has been attributed also to a great variety of causes — to the character 

 of the feed or water, to poverty, and overf atness, and, as with abor- 

 tion, when the cases are numerous, to contagion. 



Veterinarians who have investigated abortion in cows in recent 

 years have agreed that in a very large percentage of cases it is due 

 solely to contagion. The British Royal Commission for the investi- 

 gation of this malady believes that more than 90 per cent of the 

 abortions among cows in England are due to contagion, while Bang 

 in Denmark, Hess and Zschokke in Switzerland, and other veterina- 

 rians of Europe hold similar views. Similar views are also held re- 

 garding sterility in cows by Hess of Switzerland, Albrechtsen of 

 Denmark, and other leading investigators. 



The basis of diagnosis relied upon in this report for determining 

 the presence or absence of the granular venereal disease was the visi- 

 ble presence or absence in the mucosa of the vulva of the granular 

 or nodular elevations generally regarded as a result of the infection. 

 The number or size of the nodules visible to the naked eye was not 

 taken into account as determining whether the animal was affected 

 or not. If the nodules were visibly present the animal was classed 

 as affected; if nodules were absent or were not to be detected the 

 animal was marked negative or free. 



