ii6 MILK AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH chap. 



In a later report Klein ^ recorded further experiments. He 

 injected cultures of the streptococcus which he called Streptococcus 

 scaiiatinae derived from human scarlatina (either directly or after 

 passage through the calf) into the subcutaneous tissue of the ear 

 of a number of cows. After 4 to 9 days sores and ulcers developed 

 upon the teats. What was taken to be the Streptococcus scarlatinae 

 was recovered from the milk of two of the experimental animals. 

 At post-mortem thei'e was found in the affected animals disease of 

 the lungs, pleura, pericardium, lymph glands, spleen, and kidney. 



Those who opposed the existence of bovine scarlatina brought 

 forward several very important objections. One of the most 

 important was that 30 cows were purchased at the Derby market, 

 but only 3 went to the Hendon farmer. These other cows showed 

 in many cases sore teats, and spread the disease amongst the herds 

 with which they were mixed. "From the first day to the last, 

 while the milk from these cows was being drunk, no case of 

 scarlatina was heard of among the customers of the dairy." ^ 

 Professor Brown maintained that the Hendon disease was not rare 

 but comparatively common in milch cows. 



Power made a special feature of the absence of all possible 

 sources of human scarlet fever. It was subsequently shown that 

 this conclusion could not be maintained, for Axe showed that 

 scarlet fever was present antecedently to and concuiTently with 

 the outbreak at Hendon. Cases were present in the Mead, a 

 low-lying street full of laundries and houses tenanted by the 

 poorest inhabitants of the parish. It formed one side of the 

 incriminated farm within which the cows were housed. 



The above are the essential pathological and epidemiological 

 data upon which the evidence of the existence of bovine scarlet 

 fever rests. As regards the pathological evidence it cannot now 

 be accepted, in the light of present day bacteriological knowledge, 

 that it is in any way conclusive evidence of bovine scarlet fever. 

 Unless we are prepared to accept the organism described as 

 Streptococcus scarlatinae as the organism of scarlet fever all the 

 experiments with such streptococci are not germane to the question 

 of bovine scarlatina. The characters given to this streptococcus 

 are insufficient to differentiate it from the many very numerous 

 types of streptococci now known to be present in both healthy 

 milk and under diseased conditions of udder or teats. With the 

 scanty differentiation tests then available it is not even clear or 

 likely that the same organism was always employed. The ex- 

 perimental work done with the ulcerated teat-scrapings merely 



' Report of Medical Officer, Local Government Board, 1887, p. 203. 



^ Report on JEruptive Diseases of the Teats and Udders of Con-s in relation to 

 Scarlet Fever in Man. Professor Brown, Agi-icultural Department Privy 

 Council Office, 1888. ' 



