Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1910-03-25

of milk are suspicious. they can ask the
dairyman to show his inspection certificate
for those that have been passed. II there
is no kick coming from the dairymen, II Is
because they are reimbursed for the loss Of
cattle. Fifty dollars for grades and SIS
for registered cows Is ample, for some Of
the shippers would not bring this amount
at the abattoirs. The men who have lost
their cows must 90 out of the milk BUSH
ness. out of the District, or replenish their
stock by importing cows from Maryland or
Virginia, where they can be had fresh"
for $40 or $50.
Now, here is where DR.. Johnson scents
trouble, for he sees that the authorities are
monkeying with an endless chain. Hear
him:
"lf the government is to pay for tuber-
culOus cows, the District will offer a most
excellent market for cows thus affected"
II surely will be. whether thus affected"
or not. Because If the Maryland and Vir-
einia COW which the dairyman buys has
passed the State test, why should he be
imprisoned and fined" should the Federal
inspectors condemn itH The chain will be
set in motion at the next inspection. because
close stable confinement and long period
of milk-giving Ga fertile cause) will surely
develop this disease.
II would produce better results II the de-
partment would limit the milking period,
and enforce pure-air treatment for cows.
Yet one could hardly expect our scientist
to do a safe, sane, and tame thing like
this. The doctor also adds:
The test is accurate in diagnosis" Well,
doctors differ. Those who do not believe in
II contend that the best tuberculin is worse
than bad. But have no space to quote
its opponents. Among its advocates can
not find one who claims for the test abso-
lutte accuracy, and Prof. A. d. Melvin, chief
of the bureau Of animal industry, says in
Bulletin 35l. 1908:
Some of the tuberculin on the market
is impotent and worthless" He might
have added, land dangerous"
A Maryland vet told me the government
serums were no better than the seed il
distributed; and there you are again. FL
bridge Gerry saw its iii effects, and would
not keep COW on his estate that had
been tested.
Once while abroad his son had them
tested, and on his return home he had
them all converted into beef. bought an
imported heifer % years ago, and from her
have built up little herd of my own
breeding. Having no say in the matter.
my cows were subjected to the test ten
days ago. They were given a clean bill,
yet would have willingly paid $40 each,
rather than have had them tempered with.
Many States have abolished compulsory
testing. For one thing, there was too much
collision between vets" and the owners.
lhave attempted to show that the farmer,
the dairyman, and the butcher suffer little
financial loss from killing under the test
but where stands the consumer in the
fight He is taxed twice. First, to pay the
owners loss second (the supply being cur
talled), he pays more for his meat and his
milk.
Perhaps have not fully illustrated the
part the butcher plays in the Act A few
years since sold for $50 Jersey COW
what we call fat stripper. The same
butcher came out last winter and offered
me only $50 for another. | insisted that
she was in better condition than the one
he paid $50 for, and beef now higher He
said:
"Oh. yes but run the risk of having her
meat tanked, and without indemnity. The
other day had nice fat heifer on my
BENCH when along comes a smart young
Aleck from the department, who ordered
me take her of, as she showed tuberculosis
in her brisket called TO my stall five or
six of the best butchers in the market. who
were ready to swear that il was pea fat,
but 1t was no use, she had to 90 to the
lime pit"
Now the fat COW which was sold by me
at loss of $40 helped that butcher to
work profit at both ends of the trans
action, for, doubtless he said to his GUS
toners, have to raise the price on this
COW because ! must make enough on the
good meat to pay for what lose from in
spection. The reader can easily see that
the butchers lose nothing from meat inspec-
ton. "Rube" and the consumer pay the
bill. Nor is there any truth in the quoted
statement made by the meat packers, viz,
that they lost $15.000.000 last year from
meat inspections. Their agent walking
through the cattle cars can tell almost to
fraction what percentage of them would be
thrown out and makes his bid to the cat
tie owner cover the loss, and gives the
same reason for offering lower price than
my butcher gave to me.
A. T. G0LDSBOR0UGH