View report page

40
Starting with the acceptance of the fact that tuberculosis is transmissible
by the agency of milk, it pointed out that any action resulting in the
reduction of the number of tuberculous bovine animals must reduce the risk
of the spread of tuberculosis among the community. Bearing in mind the
importance of securing the continuance of an adequate supply of milk and of
avoiding disorganisation of this industry, the Board in the first place proposed
to deal only with (1) Cows suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, (2) Bovine
animals emaciated from tuberculosis, and (3) Cows proved to be giving
tuberculous milk.
For the first time the Board proposed that such animals should be
slaughtered, and compensation given to the owner. If the animal after
slaughter was found to be healthy, compensation was fixed at the value of the
animal plus 20s. Where tuberculosis was found to exist the compensation
was based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1898, i.e.,
where the animal was in such a condition as to justify the seizure of the entire
carcase and the organs, compensation was to be a sum equal to one-fourth of
the value of the animal, or 2/., whichever sum was the greater after deduction
of half the cost of valuation. For convenience these conditions were
described in the order as " advanced " tuberculosis. In all cases where
tuberculosis was found to exist to an extent which did not justify the seizure
of the whole animal, the compensation was to be a sum equal to three-fourths
of the value of the animal after deduction from this compensation of half the
cost of the valuation.
The order further described the precautions to-be taken with regard to milk
of suspected animals, and made provision for dealing with suspicious animals
in markets, fairs and sales.
The Board laid great stress on the importance of moving with caution in
this matter, and pointed out that while public opinion is favourable to the
adoption of concerted measures designed to check the spread of tuberculosis,
and that any action would be unsatisfactory which failed to make provision
for dealing with the disease in animals, at the same time, heroic measures
would only defeat their own object. They further pointed out that at the
outset of the operations the expenditure of the local authorities would be
heavy, inasmuch as they would have to deal with what might be called
arrears ; but after a few years the expenditure would probably be
considerably less.
In reply to a question addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture
and Fisheries on the 1st September, 1909, asking whether it was still
proposed to issue the Tuberculosis Order of 1909, having regard to the fact
that the Milk and Dairies Bill had been abandoned, it was stated that the
reply was in the negative, but the question of the postponement of its operation
was under consideration.