View report page

25
This also proving unsatisfactory, all the Dealers were asked to produce:—
1. A Report from a Veterinary Surgeon as to the health of the cows.
2. A Report from the Medical Officer of Health of the District as to
the sanitary condition of the premises.
These particulars were obtained in each instance.
Summarised they were as under:—
No. 1. (Stafford).
Premises.—"In fair condition, some small repairs are required to
"ceiling and wall. Water is being analysed."
Cows.—"Of 19, 17 are in sound health, one has lung disease
"permanent following pneumonia, possibly Tubercular, and another
"emaciated udder doubtful thickened."
In both cases sale is recommended, but no mention is made as to the
necessity for taking precautions to prevent the animals being used for
milk or food elsewhere.
No. 2. (Suffolk).
Cows.—"17 cows in healthy condition."
Premises.—"Sanitary condition defective."
No. 3. (Suffolk).
Premises.—"The cows as a rule are not attended to before being
—"milked, which is done in a portion of a large covered building, the
"cows standing on dry straw, and earth underneath which prevents
"any washing down. The building to which the milk is taken for
"cooling is very small, and somewhat dilapidated. The water is
"of good quality."
Cows.—"There are 25 cows, and of this number 23 are in
"apparently sound, healthy and good condition, the other two have
"indurated udders."
With reference to the samples from Suffolk it was ascertained that the Local
Authority had not made any Regulations under the Dairies, Cowsheds and
Milkshops Order of 1885.
In each case the diseased cows were removed and the sanitary defects
remedied.
These facts furnish an illustration of the laxity that prevails amongst
farmers and milk dealers with regard to their responsibilities to the public in
securing the purity of such an important article of food as milk. Nor are
either these parties likely to take any steps in the right direction unless they