24 
WARBLE ELY. 
on presence of the condition known as “licked beef,” with the accom¬ 
panying “butcher’s jelly”; and also noting the loss on hide, loss on 
meat, and loss from the warbled animal not answering properly to her 
extra good keep . 
On April 10th, 1889, Mr. James Sparkes, of Wearhead, Dar¬ 
lington, forwarded me the following information regarding loss con¬ 
sequent on bad warble-presence in the case of a heifer he had lately 
sold:— 
“ I recently sold to a butcher here a very good heifer, which turned 
out a much lighter weight than I anticipated from the extra good feed, 
&c., and much surprised to find the poor animal had been one of the 
martyrs, hide considerably reduced in value, and understand some 
parts of the meat had to be scraped to be made presentable. I will 
now take good care this shall not occur again, having procured 
McDougall’s Smear and careful inspection.” 
A few days later, in reply to my request for further details, Mr. J. 
Sparkes wrote me that the butcher had found the badly-warbled animal 
above mentioned:—“Down the spine was frothy, loose, and mattery, 
or suppose in a sort of jelly-state, and (as I said in my last) some of 
the beef to scrape before sending it out. The loss on hide, Id. per lb.; 
suppose that would mean on hide, 5s. 
“ Now, loss in beef fell upon myself, the animal being sold to the 
butcher so much per stone. But (as I said before) the heifer did not 
make near the weight I anticipated from the extra good feed and length 
of the time she had. It should have been at least six stones more, so 
may venture to say, loss in beef and hide from fifty to sixty shillings. 
I never suspected warble-trouble until told by the butcher.” 
How far the altered condition of the surface may affect the taste of the 
meat does not seem certain ; I have only had a few reports on this 
subject, but from these most of the evidence appears to lean to the 
taste being altered. 
In the following notes, kindly procured for me by Mr. McGillivray, 
secretary of the Hide Inspection Society, Newcastle-on-Tyne, from 
butchers of that town, it will be seen two of the writers consider the 
taste to be altered, but the other writer does not:— 
Mr. M. H. Penman, Gateshead, writes:—“Your letter to hand. 
There is nothing nastier than licked beef, and the worst of it is that it' 
is always licked on the most expensive parts, viz., the back, which 
comprises the sirloin and forecliain; and it is quite true that it not 
only gives the beef an unpleasant appearance, but a nasty bitter taste. 
If I knew, I Would not buy a licked beast, supposing I could get it at 
a shilling a stone less.” 
Mr. W. C. Brown, Newcastle, writes:—“ In reply to your note of 
to-day respecting ‘licked beef,’ my experience teaches me that the 
