American Agriculturist, June 7, 1924 
537 
My Experience with T B 
A Plow Handle Talk, 
H. E. COOK 
temperature reaction. 
W E have recently 
completed an¬ 
other regular tuberculin test of our herd 
of 128 head with one reactor. I consider 
this an especially good showing consider¬ 
ing that we are constantly making addi¬ 
tions to the herd. 
Of course every animal is tested before 
coming into the herd, but some are 
pretty sure to get by or to develop later. 
Here is the his¬ 
tory of this par¬ 
ticular cow. She 
was brought into 
the herd last 
August from a 
tested, clean 
herd. She was 
tested before we 
accepted her. 
Then in Novem¬ 
ber following she 
was tested again, 
passing clean. 
This spring she 
had a pronounced 
subcutaneous 
Where was the 
infection source? Did the germs lie dor¬ 
mant from the original herd—and I bought 
the entire herd? Did she get it from 
some animal in our own herd since last 
August or did the tuberculin go wrong? 
I wish I knew. 
Where Does Infection Come from 
Out of six cows brought in as additions 
to the herd, one cow reacted. There is no 
comment worthwhile on this animal 
except to say that she was one of four 
that were said to have been the only ones 
ever kept or owned on the farm and were 
raised there. How could this one have 
become infected while the others remain 
apparently sound? 
My twelve years of experience have 
shown that herds that have been raised 
on the farm and to which no purchased 
animals from outside have been added 
will be clean or so very bad that one will 
be suspicious of infection. As a locality 
we seem to be comparatively clean. Very 
seldom is a cow brought in from other 
sections and it is generally known that 
sections showing a high percentage of 
disease are large buyers of cattle from 
other parts. Then why don’t we stop 
buying and raise all of our stock? There 
is no doubt in my own mind but that 
plan would tend to a rapid cleaning up, 
and if owners would periodically (once a 
year) tuberculin test their stock the 
disease would quickly disappear. 
Why We Don’t Raise Calves 
Some one asked me recently why we 
didn’t follow the plan if it had these 
advantages. Well, we did until very 
recent times and maybe we would be 
happier now to do that way, but we have 
a market for a good deal more milk than 
we could produce if a considerable part 
of our feeds and shelter was given over to 
stock raising. Our labor cost is high and 
a lot of farmers can grow the stuff cheaper 
than we can. 
“But,” said my questioner, “when you 
raise them you know what you are getting 
and when you buy them you don’t.” 
“Well, sir,” I said, “I haven’t any 
more knowledge of care or ingenuity than 
lots of other folks and I know that so far 
I don’t seem to find a common model for 
the best cows when I buy them, and on 
the other hand, the cows I have raised 
seemed at times to have blanks among 
ijt them.” 
What are we going to do about this 
T B matter anyhow? Are we really 
making progress with present methods, 
taking the State and nation as a whole? 
Yes, I think we are, but the goal is a long 
way ahead, and a lot of money will be 
spent in getting there. Should the whole 
State participate in the loss? Yes, at the 
present price of milk and milk products 
they certainly should. They are simply 
adding a very small amount to the present 
By H. E. COOK 
price paid for milk 
and its products. If a 
profitable price were paid and the con¬ 
sumers demanded tested cows, farmers 
would not object tp carrying the burden, 
■which is of course, wffiere it belongs and 
the only permanent, logical way to keep 
our herds clean. 
For a dairyman making grade B milk 
at' present wholesale prices there is 
required no inconsiderable loyalty to have 
his herd tested. If the milk he is produc¬ 
ing is pasteurized before the consumer 
gets it, the consumer is protected. At 
the same time we are as a whole riding to 
destruction if everyone is selfish and 
takes a chance. Dairies and areas of 
tested stock are already commanding 
extra prices as I know from personal 
experience in buying. 
My Experience with Veterinarians 
So far as my experience has gone, the 
percentage of efficiency on the part of the 
State and both State and private veterin¬ 
arians employed, has been high. I could 
relate incidents and elaborate on them, 
magnifying the bad instead of the good in 
them and make out a rather bad state of 
affairs. But when I lay my whole T B 
experience over upon my own conduct and 
other pieces of business in which the 
human equation becomes the determining 
factor, I find there is not much difference 
after all. Most of us, you know, measure 
the conduct of others by 100 per cent, 
efficiency and our own by what we do, 
leaving out percentages. I have bought 
cattle out of accredited herds and had 
reactors therefrom and could easily 
reason that someone had been careless or 
dishonest or both, but I should feel guilty 
afterwards. 
Referring to accuracy and dishonesty— 
in the early days of our own farm testing 
we had practically a clean herd until a 
suspicion arose among interested parties 
that our tests were not correct. As a 
result many veterinarians were com¬ 
manded but the herd was still clean. My 
relation to and acquaintance with veterin¬ 
arians tu.s been, for a farmer layman, quite 
wide both in official and private practice, 
and they have proved themselves very 
high-grade men in every way. And these 
men must ever be the bulwark of safe, 
worthwhile tuberculin testing. If the 
human equation involved is safe, how 
about tuberculin, is it as a diagnostic 
agent equally as safe? I do not know 
whether or not it is 100 per cent, safe— 
what is? We have had several no lesion 
cases that is, they were no lesions, so far 
as the usual post mortem goes in the 
investigation. Veterinarians high in 
authority feel safe in saying that lesions 
are somewhere in the body when a reac¬ 
tion is recorded and maybe they are right. 
Anyhow, the percentage is so near the 
100 per cent, mark and verified by post 
mortem that we have about quit our 
objection to tuberculin as a diagnostic 
agent. 
Now a word as to methods. There are 
TRY A Neu) Improved 
DE LAVAL 
Side-bg- Side 
with any or every other 
cream separator made be¬ 
fore reaching the conclu¬ 
sion that any other ma¬ 
chine is good enough, or 
that you can afford to 
buy or use it. 
SEE the machines side- 
by-side first, and if see¬ 
ing leaves any doubt then 
TRY them side-by-side. 
Do your own choosing 
after having done so. 
Remember that the 
best separator means 
more than any other ma¬ 
chine on the farm, a sav¬ 
ing or a loss twice-a-day 
every day in the year, 
and that the better ma¬ 
chine will last twice as 
long as the inferior one. 
Sold on easy terms 
or installments. 
See your De Laval 
agent at once. 
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY 
NEW YORK CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO 
165 Broadway 29 E. Madison Street 61 Beale Street 
two accepted plans—the subcutaneous 
and the intradermal. The eye or ophthal¬ 
mic has in and of itself hardly any 
standing in court—it seems to have only a 
guess check as a companion piece to the 
intradermal, often 'called the tail test. 
My personal judgment as determined by 
a rather mild experience, and some 
investigations would be worth no more 
than “a scrap of paper” if brought into 
court, is about like this. Both tests are 
each as a whole probably about equally 
accurate. Each in connection with the 
other has added value. The subcu¬ 
taneous deals entirely with temperatures 
and there are at times influences other 
than T B that disturb temperatures. 
Last November we had a bunch of dry 
cows running free in a pen. Before 
taking the initial temperatures the pen 
was littered with an unusual amount of 
straw of which the cows ate freely, 
bringing on indigestion and high tempera¬ 
tures followed. The after-injection tem¬ 
peratures were about normal, but the 
New York Board of Health held them for 
a re-test which they passed. 
At another time we had a rise of 
temperature at the eighth post injection 
Keeping roadsides clean is a hard but worthwhile job 
temperature in a single cow. The veterin¬ 
arian in charge did not, on general 
principles, believe that reaction tempera¬ 
tures were ever delayed so far from 
injection which was in this case 22 hours 
and so he put her under suspicion. She 
was segregated for a period of 90 days and 
retested with the intradermal, passing 
clean. This was four years ago, and the 
cow is still in the herd. 
Avoid Temperature Influences 
The New York Board of Health requires 
the 24-hour subcutaneous test at least 
when the cows are brought into the herd. 
The intradermal as I have previously said 
avoids these varying temperature prob¬ 
lems and it is difficult to avoid them. 
Lack of water, over-eating of hay or any 
other dry feed, lack of ventilation during 
the test have their influences upon 
temperature. Rarely of course where a 
positive reaction is certain, but they do 
lead to suspicion sometimes, and when 
the veterinarian is one of those who lives 
up to the theory that there is no such 
thing as a suspicious animal, he has to 
condemn. During a test it is always my 
particular task to see to it that the 
temperature influences I have mentioned 
are obviated, and while many years of 
experience have made me feel that I am 
something of an expert in this one charge, 
I do sometimes miss. 
In conclusion I believe the present 
Federal and State plans may be as good 
as circumstances will warrant. We must 
not forget that those in charge must spend 
a part of their energy and money along 
educational lines, which just that much 
retards action as expressed in any plan of 
reducing the disease; that indemnities 
must be provided in justice to cattle 
owners and to guarantee a continuation of 
the work; that farmers should stand by. 
with moral and financial backing; and 
lastly that you and I know exactly how 
to have and to keep a clean herd and that 
it is the only animal disease of which this 
much can be said and it is comparatively 
easy to do it after we are decided to go 
ahead. 
