The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1907-11-29

Comparative
When Fed = Healthy rss.s

4; 5 " VI. NJ sst.ss
Il 0ndHR011eur3xo6 Skim MAIL
Healthy p148. 9si.s; ss3 . SIS:
b 4 5;.- Il, 4, 4 4, y,
4, q " .ssi 55,s & 4 D!
vine tubercular tissue. mostly lungs
and iiverk Microscopic 9oxe1lnatione
Of the tubercles were made to verify
the disease. This material was hashedi
insa meat chopper and mixed With the
milk at tina rate of, three to hve pounds
to feed, ~ ..s.. ,s3,.. III
(. The results 81 the Inspection; after
slaughter: show that the pigs Ted 81.
} fected milk were all affected; with
tuberculosis;4. also that lot one; fed
pasteurized milk on timothy posture
had two infected pigs, one case being
SO severe that the carcass was con.
demned. #
Although the pigs Of lots three and
four were always in adjoining pens.
with only an open fence I'd separate
them, none Of the pigs OF lot three
had tuberculosis, while all of lot four
had it, SO it seems that the disease
is. not likely to spread beyond the
limits Of the pen in which the infected
animals are kept. The pigs of lot one
were separated by a lane q rod wide
from the pigs Of lot two, so 1t does
not seem probable that they received
their infection from lot two. It is
possible that the pastures on which
the pigs of lots one and two were kept
had been previously infected with the
tubercle bacillus from pasturing other
stock so affected, and that the two In
fected pigs of lot one contracted the
disease in that way. Or. 1t is possible
that they may have obtained II
through the pasteurized milk, al,
though If they did It is strange the IN
lection was not more general, as every
lot of milk was equally divided among
the four lots of pigs. Frequent tests
of the milk showed that the pasteuri
cation had been thoroughly done. sc
that this source of infection is not at
all probable. OF course. 1t should be
borne in mind that although the piga
were probably free from tuberculosi.
at the beginning of the experiment, II
is not absolutely certain that none
were affected, So. while the exact
source of infection of the two pigs OF
lot one cannot be determined. It seems
most probable that. since none of the
pigs similarly fed in dry lot were in.
fected. the blame should be attached
to other stock that NAV previously
have freouented the pasture of lot one,
The results indicate. however. very
clearly that pigs in a dry lot are nc
more likely to contract bovine tubercu
losis than are pigs In pasture. ettte,
from Yards In which cattle have pre-
viously been kept or from infected
pigs occupying adjoining quarters.
There was. in a general way. abou,
the same degree of infection AMONG
the pigs of lot two ON pasture and lot
four on dry Lot. so that the more IA,
vorable conditions for general thrift
and growth Of the pigs on pasture az.
parentry had no influence with the dis.
ease. Noting the infection of the in.
dividual pigs. It Is seen that everv MIC
infected at all at time of slaughter
was affected in the glands of the ceryi.
cal region: all hut one were affected
in the bronchial region: about 30 per
cent wero affected IN tho nortol and
mesenteric glands: one.hair had az
fected liyers. while only 20, to- 20 ne,
cent. had affected spleens: 20 per cent
! had t,iberculous areas on the insides
of the ribs and other parts Of the
body. and only 20 per cent. had at
fected lungs. It ia. indeed character
istic of the disease in hogs that Il r.
present in the cervical glands r. q !.
present at all and It ia NOT At al, cor
| tain to be found in the lungs
AS has previously been noted the
records Of the weights. feeds and gain,
that wh n n,ss anected , w,th 4 hnv,.
t,herc"losia pr nav show Nv WIN t,,., uos ~.
ward annaarancs M n..a.a.,.,,s o ~.
fsranca from, hea,thu ~. e tsa,a ~. ~,
inc ona,it,es are navort ,eJ, - 80. .sa
event injured az that t,a, ~ , sv.