develops his own technic, this being largely a matter of personal 
preferences and local conditions. The same result can doubtless be 
obtained by any one of numerous variations in technic, and results 
are what count. 
Stirring With Stick May Fail 
The most simple and direct method of examining feces macro- 
scopically for evidence of parasitism consists in poking about in the 
manure with a stick or something of the sort for objects resembling 
worms. It is what the farmer usually does and what the veterinarian 
not uncommonly does. It must be admitted that occasionally one 
finds parasites in feces in this manner, but it must also be admitted that 
this is the least satisfactory method of examining feces. Parasites 
embedded in feces are easily overlooked and non-parasitic objects 
smeared with feces are easily mistaken for parasites. It is possible 
for horse manure to contain hundreds of worms and not one worm 
to be found by such technic. 
Technic Must Conform to Given Specimens 
To determine whether worms are present in feces, information 
which may be desired after the administration of an anthelmintic, 
one should adapt one’s technic to the nature of the feces. The 
physician has a comparatively simple task in examining human feces, 
since these feces are made up mostly of finely comminuted material 
and a very small amount of large coarse material. The veterinarian 
has no such simple task. Dog and cat feces are somewhat com¬ 
parable to human feces, but they contain more coarse material in 
many cases. Swine feces usually contain yet larger amounts of coarse 
material. Sheep and goat feces are commonly in hard pellets which 
must be broken up to permit of an examination of the comminuted 
vegetable material composing these pellets. Cow manure is usually 
soft enough to be easily examined, but its bulk is a disadvantage. 
Horse manure contains much coarse vegetable material and the 
manure for one day is bulky enough to require about a day’s work 
to examine it carefully and completely for worms. 
13 
