(e) "Is the foremilk discarded?" Nearly all our best dairymen were found to answer "yes"; others had never heard of such a practice. Result, I have yet to find anyone complaining this summer of milk having been found sour in the morning. I was taught to milk, discarding the foremilk, and told the reason why, so was fortified to reply to any question along that line. But time does not permit of further explanation. So much for the Vermont crusade.

2. The second comment is correlative to the milk and cream supply, and is suggested, both by Doctor Jordan's paper, and by an article in a recent (April, 1909) quarterly issue of The British Journal of Tuberculosis, by Doctor Birgir Oeverland, district physician of Meraker, Norway, entitled, "Human and Bovine Tuberculosis." The startling statement that cattle are infected by human beings, and that persons afflicted with bovine tuberculosis are more curable than that acquired from another human being, supported by statistics extending from 1885, I thought might supplement the remarks of the speaker of the evening, and assist the one to follow me. As Doctor Oeverland puts it: "Does man infect cattle, or do cattle infect man, or can they both infect each other?"

To quote Doctor Oeverland: "When Koch and Von Behring, in their lectures, had urged contradictory views as regards the relation between human and cattle tuberculosis I began, within my own district, to compare the results of tuberculin tests on cattle with the number of known cases of tuberculosis in the people living on the same farms; for I thought that if the two kinds of the disease were two different varieties, which could not be transferred from one species to another, the appearance per cent of cattle tuberculosis would be the same, whether regard be had to the farms where no human tuberculosis could be found or to those where the disease was also found amongst the people. If, on the other hand, cattle tuberculosis was the predominant source of infection to man, it might be expected that human tuberculosis would in the main be found to be confined to the farms where there were reacting cows. Since the commencement of my investigations many researches have shown that cattle and man can mutually infect each other with their more or less heterogeneous bacilli. I therefore determined to ascertain, if possible, whether it is a rare or frequent occurrence on our Norwegian farms for cattle and man to infect each other."

Omitting the historical data, interesting though it is, the results of his observations are tabulated under four headings, as follows:

(a) "Farms where no positive tuberculin test in the live stock has occurred and where I have not been able to find a case of tuberculosis among the occupants; 41 barns with 434 animals." Nothing to compare. (b) "Farms with no positive tuberculin test in the live stock, but with cases of tuberculosis among the occupants; 22, with 222 animals." Shows that the disease may and does occur among the occupants of the farm, although the cattle are not infected.

(c) "Farms with positive tuberculin test in the live stock, but with no tuberculosis among the occupants; 13, with 201 animals (16 reacted)." Showing that cattle may be infected, and it is not always certain that symptoms of the disease can be found among the people.

(d) "Farms with positive tuberculin test in the live stock and with cases of tuberculosis among the occupants; 21, with 300 animals (35 reacted)." Shows the disease under 21 instances afflicting man and cattle.

The résumé gives the percentages of the groups; but, in the total of 1157 animals, only 51 gave a positive tuberculin reaction, or 4.4%. The Doctor concludes, notwithstanding the 21 instances to which reference is made, that it is utterly impossible to form any opinion as to the infecting agent, but quotes two examples:

(a) "A girl, formerly healthy and of a healthy family, becomes a milkmaid on one of these farms where previously no tuberculosis had been recognized; she contracts tuberculosis, returns to her home, and dies one year later. At her home two of the other children are infected from her, and they subsequently die. On the farm where she was a milkmaid the live stock is examined two years after her death, and two of the cows react. The cattle had been examined with a negative result before the girl had come to the farm." Did the girl bring the disease to these cattle?

(b) Another instance cited would seem to reply in the affirmative. Here is the story in the Doctor's own words: "Such a case we have, in my opinion. The cattle were tested in 1901, with a negative result. About that time a new tenant came to the farm, and in his family some cases of tuberculosis occurred, after which he moved from the farm. When the cows were tested once more, in 1906, three of the animals which had been tested in 1901, reacted. The fact that in this case also some of farmer's own children exhibited suspicious symptoms, may be due to infection from the cowhouse, but also—and that is perhaps more likelyfrom the persons, who afterward died, with whom they had played. Mr. President and gentlemen, I thank you for your courtesy.

Dr. E. J. Fish, South Royalton, Vt.

I am not quite certain whether it will be proper or permissible for me to raise my voice in this audience, being an ex-health officer. I was not fortunate enough to hear all of Professor Jordan's paper but I took a great deal of interest in the part which I did hear. He called attention to and suggested some things with regard to milk supplies which we should all take home with us and act upon. I simply want to speak of the local conditions in my part of the state. The same conditions obtain in our town as obtain in other towns, I have no doubt. Attention has been called to defects in the law whereby forty or fifty cows could be kept by a man in the little town of Bennington, selling milk to his

neighbors without complying with the conditions provided by the State Board of Health. I know when that bill was first introduced it was intended that all sellers and producers should conform, but there were a good many farmers in the house and when it was proposed that they have a right to sell to the neighbors, it had to be accepted in order to get the bill through. It was fought against, of that you may be sure, but the fight was not victorious. It was intended as you may all know, that there should be a square deal for all. A great deal of milk is sold from diseased animals. There is a great deal of disease caused in that way. Only yesterday morning I was at our railroad station and what I saw there yesterday has been repeated before. The milk cans are brought into the station. (I think the city end of the business is all right. I have some idea of the excellence of the work done by the inspector of Boston and I know he is trying very hard to see that everything is properly handled.) These cans which I have just said arrived at the station, I suppose had been properly cleaned when shipped. They were thrown onto the platform of the station. They landed helter-skelter fashion. The stoppers rolled out and rolled into horse manure in the street. I saw the owner of the cans come along, pick up the stoppers, brush them off on his sleeve, and replace them in the cans. If the milk inspector of Boston refuses to accept milk handled in such a way, I hope it will have a good effect upon the Vermont farmers. I always hesitate when I go to Boston and see a sign placarded in a restaurant-Pure Vermont Milk.

Dr. C. M. Ferrin, Essex Junction, Vt.

In connection with our creamery I would say they receive cream from different parts of the town, in fact separators from three towns, and it is brought to our creamery and the milk from a large number of farmers from Essex and Williston is brought there and made into butter. Every morning I see streams of men, women and children going down to this creamery to get their supply of milk and cream. They carry the cans with them. Some have cream and others milk. The question is whether the farmer or creamery has a license to peddle the milk from house to house, but still they sell it direct from the creamery. Is this just and right? The other day I was talking with a farmer who has a slaughterhouse on his farm and carries meat to markets in Burlington. His place of butchering was filthy. I was laboring with him in regard to cleaning the place up and he found some fault with the law and said: "Why not inspect these farmers around here? I keep my milk clean and my utensils clean and all that, but my neighbors, whose stables and cows are filthy, carry milk to the creamery even from cows whose calves are only two days old." I tell you these things but I suppose they are some of the things which we cannot help. I know of one place where milk was sold, the stables were in a filthy condition. They did not peddle their milk from house to house, but supplied their patrons with milk; they will not

take out a license. Another farmer who has six cows peddles butter from house to house at Essex and Burlington. It seems to me the laws should be changed so as to reach these people in some way.

Dr. E. R. Clark, Castleton, Vt.

I suppose all human nature is somewhat alike. We find in our section there are two classes of people, those that do and those that don't. We have two classes of producers of milk in our town. When this subject was first agitated, the producers did not understand the necessity of the case. They did not realize certain things that were not necessary in former conditions of handling dairy products. They did not understand or realize the necessities that arise for strictly clean utensils, where milk must be kept 108 hours before it reaches the consumer. It is necessary to treat milk in a different way where it is drawn this morning and made into butter the next day. I find this to be the case that as soon as the better farmers, the men who are interested in getting the most they can out of their products, are educated up to the requirements they are going to do everything they can to better the conditions of production and a great many of them are now taking a great deal of pride and pains in fixing up their places.

Stephen N. Nutting, Westminster, Vt.

When this question came up about having buttermilk and skim milk pasteurized, I knew it was going to put creameries to a good deal of expense and I did not know what the quality of the product returned would be, after it went through the required process. So I went to the State's Attorney and asked him this question-Does buttermilk or skim milk sold to one farmer who does not feed the product to calves or cows, but to hogs, have to be pasteurized? He said: "No. If you will take notice, the law says: where buttermilk or skim milk is returned to the patron it must be pasteurized, but where it is not returned to him it does not need to be."

My attention has been called several times to the condition of the milk cans returned from Boston. They are returned with a terrible odor. It seems to me there should be a law to compel an inspection of these milk cans before they are returned to the farmer. Massachusetts officials will say they won't buy milk from Vermont or New Hampshire unless it is pasteurized. These farmers are sending into Boston pure milk, but the Massachusetts people are not looking after the milk cans which they return to the farmer. The cans are washed by machinery, stoppers replaced while cans are warm. I don't think there is a man in this audience who could stand the smell from those cans for five minutes without an ill effect.

With regard to the prevailing conditions which Dr. Ferrin spoke of I think after the thing has got to work and the farmer finds out it is

better for his cows to have clean stables, they will be exceedingly glad that these laws have been enacted.

Dr. E. S. Albee, Bellows Falls, Vt.

I don't think that we can quite say that we have certified milk. I don't think we will get it up to that standard this year nor in two or three years. The upward road has been rather slow. We must be lenient in scoring the dairies. I have sent up forty odd samples of milk to the State Laboratory and I think only five were reported dirty. I don't know whether that is a fair average or not, but that was the number reported dirty from Bellows Falls.

Stephen N. Nutting.

Dr. Albee and I worked on the same territory and these matters have been talked over a great many times together. In coming up here and talking them over with Mr. Stillson of Bennington, he tells me how he does in his town, in regard to licensing. However, I would like a little further information. The Doctor and I have only taken a license from the peddler and not the farmer. Mr. Stillson tells us he takes a license from the farmer as well as the peddler. I feel as though all matters of this nature should be alike throughout the state and I would like to have an opinion which I could work upon.

Dr. C. S. Caverly.

As perhaps most of you know, the State Board of Health, together with the Cattle Commissioner, have taken up the subject of pasteurization of skim milk and buttermilk of creameries. There has been considerable criticism of the rulings of the State Board and the Cattle Commissioner. They are jointly required by the law to formulate rules for the pasteurization of this milk. There has been considerable criticism in the newspapers in regard to the effect of the product upon calves and pigs to which it has been fed. The State Board, and I presume the Cattle Commissioner, have had the impression that it was more or less newspaper talk or was at least considerably exaggerated. This, by the way, is not a measure which comes directly under the control of the State Board of Health. It is an adjunct of the Cattle Commission law. The Cattle Commissioner is the one who really has the authority over these creameries and is given enforcement of this law. I wrote him some time ago asking him to give me a statement of the matter which could be read here at this school and I have two letters from him. The first tells me that he, the cattle commissioner, is very ill and has not been able to give his personal attention to this work for several months, but he has one or more men on the road who are looking after this with other details of his work. He says that the man he has had on the road for the last three months visited the creameries in six counties of the state and he has never known