484 Prevention of Epizootic Abortion in Cattle, [sept., 



eradication of epizootic abortion it would certainly be neces- 

 sary to place restrictions on the pregnant animals known to 

 have been exposed to risk of infection as well as on the cows 

 that have actually aborted, but it would not be advisable to 

 attempt to deal with the disease in that way at the outset. 

 At first the admittedly less effective plan of placing restric- 

 tions only on the sale and movement of cows that have 

 aborted would appear to be preferable, because the more 

 drastic method would in many cases involve a heavy loss on 

 the owners of infected herds, and probably would not receive 

 the hearty support of owners in general. On the other hand, 

 the evidence laid before the Committee tends to show that 

 compulsory notification, and enforced temporary isolation of 

 cows that have aborted, would be viewed with approval by 

 the majority of stock-owners. 



In order to decide whether any reported case of premature 

 calving has been the result of infection or not, notification 

 would have to be followed by a veterinary inquiry on behalf 

 of the Local Authority for the purposes of the Diseases of 

 Animals Acts. Such inquiry would not need to be repeated 

 in the event of further cases of abortion occurring on 

 premises upon which the disease has been found upon 

 veterinary inquiry to exist within a period of less than three 

 months from the date of the last reported case of premature 

 calving, since it would be justifiable to infer that the later 

 cases were due to contagion. It would, however, be open 

 to the owner to produce satisfactory veterinary evidence that 

 such was not the case, and thus to secure the withdrawal of 

 the restrictions affecting such animals. 



Such an arrangement would sensibly curtail the number 

 of veterinary inquiries to be made on behalf of the Local 

 Authority, and would materially reduce the cost of enforcing 

 the restrictions without inflicting any undue hardship on the 

 stock-owner. All that would be necessary would then be 

 that a period should be fixed during which cases of premature 

 calving occurring on infected premises should be regarded 

 as cases of epizootic abortion without further veterinary 

 inquiry on behalf of the Local Authority. Such period can 

 only be fixed tentatively, but after a lapse of three months 

 from the last case of abortion on any premises, the presump- 



