THE TUBERCULIN TEST IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
403 
A very serious weakness in the tuberculin test is that it in 
no way aids the physical diagnosis (ordinary examination) in 
indicating the amount of disease present in each individual, as 
3^ou had ample opportunity to observe. On the other hand, 
even though not infallible, the tuberculin test must still be pro¬ 
nounced a most valuable agent in determining the extent of tu¬ 
berculosis in our cattle, for which the physical examination is 
practically valueless ; but, again, it must be emphasized that 
“ the test ” is absolutely no guarantee that a given animal is 
free from tuberculosis f and hence no reliable agent by means 
of which to keep tuberculous cattle out of the State, or farmers 
from purchasing them. With probably but one exception (tag 
No. 9173, belonging to Mr. Merrill), in which the solitary tuber¬ 
cle was dead and calcified, the disease would have gone on ex¬ 
tending, and in the end every one of the other six of the tuber¬ 
culous cows which did not react could become a centre of 
infection to healthy cattle, if in a barn with them. 
I wish to impress on you that in cattle it is the mcinu7'‘e and 
not “sputum ’’ which is and must be considered the dangerous 
factor in tuberculous cattle, and by which the disease is 
spread in stables. This fact is again of vastly more importance 
than the milk or flesh, if the dangers of bovine tuberculosis are 
as claimed by many. On the contrary, cowhej^ds and dairy 
maids are ^ no more prone to tuberculosis than other people. 
The American Indian, who is not a milk consumer, is remark¬ 
ably susceptible to tuberculosis, on domesticatioii. 
Again, do not forget that not one case of tuberculosis in man 
can be attributed to that of cattle with that critical exactness 
which can only be termed “ scientific.” Until every other 
possible cause has been exactly excluded, the verdict of the cow 
must be still that of the Scotch jury, “ Not proven.” The 
State cannot afford to make absolute mandatory laws on such 
evidence and such a verdict, and yet that is just what has been 
done. 
Of the 130 cattle first examined, considering the question of 
tuberculosis alone, and assuming all other conditions as “ mar¬ 
ketable,” every cow but tag No. 9698 would be considered as 
suitable for consumption in Europe, and probably that one as 
“second-class meat,” and the majority of that 130, and all of the 
second lot, the 20 non-reacting cows, would be passed as “ No. 
I ” beef in any market in Europe. 
Not one of those 7 cattle found tuberculous among the 20 
non-reacting could be considered as an immediate source of dan- 
