FORTY-FIRST ANNUAL CONVENTION 165 



attack of the disease does not confer permanent immunity, and 

 so the disease might reappear in the same animals from time 

 to time. All of that figured together makes it more economical 

 to slaughter the animals and get rid of the disease. It would 

 be an unwarranted reflection upon the science of today to say that 

 you could not handle an outbreak of foot and mouth disease on 

 certain farms without slaughtering the animals. Certainly it 

 could be done, if the facilities are adequate for enforcing the 

 right kind of quarantine for a sufficient length of time, and that 

 good medical and surgical treatment for the animals be pro- 

 vided. Such treatment is often necessary, and it is also neces- 

 sary to hold recovered animals in quarantine for a long time, at 

 least four or five months, as some recovered animals are carriers 

 of the disease, the same as certain people are carriers of typhoid 

 fever for a long time after they have recovered. Cattle that 

 have passed through foot and mouth disease are supposed to be 

 suspicious for at least five months. In one instance a bull is sus- 

 pected of carrying germs of the disease two and one-half years 

 after passing through it. That seems a long time and a little- 

 doubtful, but we do know some animals are suspicious for four 

 to five months afterwards. Suppose your herd was not slaugh- 

 tered, and you incurred all the expense and suffered all the in- 

 convenience of a long quarantine, who would want to buy your 

 animals? Prospective buyers would be suspicious of them, and 

 probably go to herds that never had the disease to make their 

 purchases. 



Certainly we can prevent the spread of disease from certain 

 farms, but when it comes to handling the disease generally in a 

 community, a state or a nation, it is not the most economical way 

 to handle the disease in the beginning of an outbreak such as wc 

 have in this country at the present time. 



If we were in the same position as Germany now, we would 

 probably use the same methods that Germany does in attempting 

 to control and prevent the spread of the disease as much as pos- 

 sible. It would be folly for Germany to attempt to eradicate 

 foot and mouth disease by our method of slaughtering as it 

 would be for us in this country to attempt to eradicate hog 



