Hygiene of Pregnant Animals 407 



tic animals, males habitually consort with pregnant females 

 throughout their pregnancy, and yet abortion is far more rare in 

 these than in the larger animals. The clinical evidence, there- 

 fore, would indicate that it is not harmful to pregnant animals 

 to permit the male to consort with them regularly. 



Admittedly, however, it is dangerous to allow a male to be 

 abruptly turned loose among pregnant females, where he may 

 greatly annoy them and possibl3' cause serious injury. On the 

 contrary, when a male is. permitted to regularly consort with the 

 pregnant females he does not annoy them nor in any way endan- 

 ger the well-being of the fetus in the uterus. 



The quality of food to be recommended for a pregnant animal 

 does not differ essentially from that for any other. There are 

 foods which are not safe for the non-pregnant animal and are 

 equally unsafe for the pregnant female. Pregnant herbivorous 

 animals are most healthful if allowed to graze in pastures, under 

 the most normal conditions possible. It is not highly essential 

 that they should be protected from inclement weather any more 

 than if they were not pregnant. Rain, snow, cold or heat is no 

 more prejudicial to the well-being of a pregnant animal than to 

 that of the non-pregnant. 



Some writers have insisted that certain forms of food, notably 

 those which have been attacked by rust, fungi or molds, are 

 especially dangerous for pregnant animals. This, however, has 

 not been demonstrated clinically. It is quite true that abortion 

 is more common at times among animals which are fed upon a 

 very poor quality of food, but, if we observe other non-pregnant 

 animals which are compelled to subsist upon the same diet, we 

 find that they suffer in a similar way in all respects save the one 

 question of the well-being of the fetus. Both pregnant and non- 

 pregnant animals become emaciated and weak or show other 

 constitutional disturbances as a result of being compelled to live 

 upon such food and occasionally abortion is merely an additional 

 symptom of the injudicious feeding. Special emphasis has been 

 placed at times upon foods which are affected with smut or ergot 

 and they are blamed for producing wide-spread abortion. As a 

 general rule, however, the presence of smut or ergot upon fodder 

 is seized upon merely as an excuse for the presence of abortion, 

 which may generally be properly attributed to other causes. 



