View report page

25
0/215.—Samples of milk taken from a cow which was considered to have a suspicious udder,
and also a bulk sample, proved to be negative. It is assumed that the offending animal was removed
from the herd prior to the Veterinary Surgeon's inspection.
0/216.—On 22nd May, 1931, the Veterinary Officer inspected the farm. He took 4 samples of
milk from individual cows which he thought might be suffering from tuberculosis, but these individual
samples were negative. On 22nd June, 1931, the Veterinary Officer divided the farmer's herd of
cattle into 3 groups, and took a mixed sample of milk from each group. One of these samples from a
group of 9 cows proved to be positive ; the samples from the other 2 groups were negative.
Subsequently the Veterinary Officer paid another visit to the farm with the view of sampling
individually the 9 cows in the positive group, but 3 cows had been removed by the farmer and the
remaining 6 cows were negative to the tuberculosis test.
The following letter, dated 20th October, 1931, has been received from the Medical Officer of
Health of Warwickshire relative to this matter:—
" In reply to yours of the 8th instant, the Clerk of the Council communicated with
Mr. C. on 1st August, 1931, referring in his letter to the animal he disposed of at the cattle
market on the 22nd July, and which Mr. C. admitted had shown signs of losing flesh and had
developed a cough, and drew attention to his responsibility under the Tuberculosis Order.
The Clerk of the Council in his letter said:—
' You will no doubt appreciate that under the above Articles, you are liable
for prosecution for failing to report the animal above referred to.
This Local Authority, however, do not propose to institute legal proceedings
against you in this instance, but I am to warn you that in the event of a similar
occurrence the necessary legal proceedings will be instituted under the Articles
referred to above.'
The animal referred to was sold for slaughter on July 22nd, but unfortunately I have
not been able to obtain particulars of the condition of the animal ' post-mortem.' I think,
however, it can quite safely be concluded that this was the source of tubercle in the milk.
The last bulk sample of the remaining six cows, you will no doubt remember, proved negative."
0/221.—The Veterinary Surgeon took samples which proved negative. He arranged to take
further samples from 4 animals, which were dry at the time of the inspection, when they were again
milking. The Inspector visited the farm and sampled two of the cows, which were previously dry,
but the samples proved to be negative. He found one cow had been slaughtered and another had
been sold.
0/230.—The Veterinary Surgeon took samples. One sample taken from an individual cow
was found to be positive and the case reported under the Tuberculosis Order, 1925.
0/245.—The Veterinary Surgeon inspected the farm. The result of investigations not to hand
at time of going to print.
In 40 instances the result of the examination proved negative. In 3 instances the guinea pig
inoculated with a sample of milk succumbed to an acute infection by some organism contained in the
milk other than tubercle bacilli.
Meat Inspection.—The Inspectors visit the slaughter-houses at the times set apart for
slaughtering and examine the carcases and organs for evidence of disease. Shops and stalls are
also kept under close observation.

Inspection and Supervision of Other Foods.—Inspections were made of all the bakehouses
and other premises in the district where food is prepared.
The 54 bakehouses in the district were inspected on 146 occasions, Notices being served in
18 instances for minor contraventions of the Factory and Workshop Acts.