View report page

( 70 )
competent for the results observed; and, in considering
this question, I came to see that a hypothesis of cowcausation
would fit the facts that needed explanation as
well as, or even better than, any other hypothesis. If
only it could be believed that a single cow of this herd of
60 to 70 cows had been for a limited time capable of
affording specifically infected milk, there was nothing in
the routine of the farm dairy arrangements inconsistent
with the milk of such single cow having been distributed
among the churns consigned from the farm to London;
and this in such a manner as to infect simultaneously the
milk service of each London dairy supplied from the farm,
and during a certain limited period a considerable proportion
of that service.
"At this stage of my thought on the subject I took the
farmer into confidence, and got him to consider with me
whether any new condition could have entered into his
business about the second week in January, and if so, what
the nature of it could have been. On reference to his
books we found that one of his cows, due to calve on the
27tli December, had calved subsequently to, but within ten
davs of, that date, and had come into milking: for business
J / >
purposes three or four days after calving. So far as we
could judge, this calving constituted the sole new element
introduced into the milk business of the farm for a considerable
period before the milk became infective. Certainly,
with this exception, no cow came freshly into milk
between mid-November and the end of January. Respecting
the health of the particular cow the farmer could say
nothing, except that he had not heard of her having had
any ailment; while the cowman, who had charge of this
and of ten other cows, professed to be unable to remember
the date and particulars of her calving; he even failed to