MILK EPIDEMICS -Continued.

TABLE II. Scarlatina (Busey and Kober)--Continued.

accident I discovered that a boy not residing at the dairy and who had casually been employed to milk had, just previous to the outbreak and when milking, suffered from a slight sore throat.

Traced to a particular milk derived from a
farm where one of the dairy hands was con-
valescing from scarlet fever.
Traced to a milk farm with no other evidence
except sickness among dairy stock, indica-
tions of recent ulceration on the teats, and
progressive emaciation. Milk supply stopped
and, with exception of one or two sporadic
cases, no further cases arose in that part of
the borough.

This outbreak was traced to a dairy where a
case of scarlet fever had occurred and, as
convalescent, was prematurely permitted to
handle milk and utensils.

This sudden outbreak was traced to a common
milk supply; no evidence of human infection,
but cows suffered from an eruption on udder.
Epidemic traced to a common milk supply from
a farm at which no trace of infection could be
found, except scabs and excoriations of the
udder and teats among cows.
Outbreak connected with a particular milk sup-
ply traced to a dairy where the child of one of
the employees had scarlet fever.
Traced to a certain milk supply, but contami-
nation of the milk not explained, unless due to
a mild cow infection or to a polluted water
supply.

Connected with a certain milk supply, but in-
fection not explained, unless of a bovine
origin.

This epidemic affected members of 94 families
who obtained their milk from a certain farm
where there was no evidence of scarlet fever,
but an epidemic teat eruption among the
milch cows.

Most of the cases confined to customers of a
certain milkman, who derived his supply
from a farm where scarlet fever prevailed.
This limited epidemic invaded 26 houses, 18 of
which had been supplied with the same milk.
No scarlet fever at milk farm, but the cattle
"were found to be all more or less suffering
from febrile disturbance.'

1 Several cases.

143

89

68

97

224

No.

MILK EPIDEMICS-Continued.

TABLE II.-Scarlatina (Busey and Kober)-Continued.

Dr. Shirley F. Murphy. The Lancet, 1894, Vol. II, pp. 449, 910.

1

June, 1877.

Sutton, Surrey.

5

No sickness at farm among men or beasts.
The outbreak affected within 3 days 15 per-
sons in 11 households, in good sanitary sur-
roundings, and all supplied from 1 dairy.
No diphtheria or sore throat at milk farm, but
Mr. Power subsequently raised the question
whether garget in cows might not induce
such changes in the milk as to give diphtheria
to the human subject.
Cases occurred simultaneously at milk farm
and customers. Well water of dairy con-
taminated with sewage matter. Insanitary
drains in the yard where milk cans were
cleansed, and in the floor of the dairy was a
gully leading to an unventilated drain.
No cases of diphtheria at milk farm or dairy;
no sickness among the cows. The water used
at dairy had at times smelled badly, and the
pipe from the sink where milk cans were
cleansed was not properly trapped.

No diphtheria at farm. Water supply very
impure, and one of the cows had lately suf-
fered with garget.

A child had been ill with sore throat at farm
about August 18, and another found with un-
mistakable diphtheria taken sick August 31;
unsanitary conditions, dirty milk cans,
washed over a sink, beneath which was found
a chamber containing excreta; washtub near
milk supply.

Traced to a particular milk supply where no cases of diphtheria existed at farm; in fact, no evidence of infection by human agency.

15

60