THE INTRADERMAL TUBERCULIN TEST. 
317 
almost unnecessary. Without it we would have been entirely 
unable at any reasonable expense to make the tests of the small 
scattered herds furnishing dairy products, for instance, to the 
city of Columbia. With the use of the intradermal test we 
have tested over 700 lots of cattle for this city, many of which 
contained one, two or three animals. Except for the intrader¬ 
mal test coming to our rescue, we should have been compelled to 
abandon our plans for the eradication of tuberculosis in the State 
of Missouri. 
For several years we have wished, and almost prayed, for 
some more satisfactory and expedient method of testing cattle 
for tuberculosis than the old temperature test. We have dili¬ 
gently tried out every test that has been mentioned in veterinary 
literature. As soon as what is known as the “ eye test ” was 
announced we gave it a thorough trial, and found it inaccurate. 
About the same time we tried out the method of scratching the 
skin, and inoculating the scratch with tuberculin, or what was 
known as the “ skin test.” This also fell far short of accuracy. 
It only took a few trials to discover that both of these were un¬ 
reliable. 
Naturally, when the intradermal test was announced, we 
longed for it to be a success, but were very skeptical about it. 
We, therefore, began its use with extreme caution. We had so 
little faith in it that we never thought of using it at all, except 
to compare to the temperature test before any animal was con¬ 
demned. Results were surprisingly satisfactory from the begin¬ 
ning. We looked for a chance to give it a severe trial. For this 
purpose we selected an old herd which we reasonably expected 
to be badly diseased with tuberculosis. Fifty-nine of the old 
animals in the herd were given the intradermal test. One re¬ 
action resulted. We were about ready to discard this test with¬ 
out further trial, but we followed up in a few days with the 
subcutaneous test, and, strange to say, got a slight temperature 
reaction in the same animal and no others. The reaction from 
the intradermal test was more marked than that from the tem¬ 
perature test, the latter giving what is ordinarily considered a 
