DEAR MILK AND POOR
By H. D. WALSTON N a recent debate in the House of Lords, Lord Listowel is re- I ported in Hansard as having said that " our dairy cattle . .
are riddled with disease." (He later modified this language slightly at the instance of the Ministry of Agriculture, but the indictment remained severe enough even so.) He went on to point out " the appalling damage " that this. disease has already caused to " the health and efficiency of thousands of people." In the same debate Lbrd Moran referred to milk as " the keystone of the arch of life," and emphasized its importance in our diet by mentioning that his own father for the last twenty-five years of his life ate and drank nothing but milk. The optimum milk-consumption from the point of view of national health, Lord Bledisloe suggested, was one pint of milk .per head per day, or, in other words, " the national con- sumption should be over two thousand million gallons per annum, the product of over one million additional cows at the present level of yields." The rest of the debate only tended to confirm these two salient facts—that an increase in milk is of paramount importance in our diet, and that the present quality of milk produced in this country leaves much to be desired.
As far as milk consumption is concerned, some interesting points are brought out by figures published under the auspices of the League of Nations before the war. According to these figures, the average consumption in England and Wales was .42 of a pint per day. Finland led easily with 2.46 pints a day, followed by Sweden with 141 pints. The United States consumed just overt pint, Germany about I pint, while Italy was the lowest with only a quarter of a pint. This makes it clear that in spite of our reputedly high standard of living, we were before the war consuming not only rather less than half the amount of milk that nutritionists tell us is desirable from the point of view of our health, but also very con- siderably less than most other civilised countries. Not only in con- sumption were we backward ; in average production per cow, Great Britain, for so long " the stud farm of the world," not only for horses but for cattle also, takes a very low place. Dutch cows lead with an average of 770 gallons per cow per annum, followed by Denmark with 700 gallons, Belgium with 68o gallons, Switzerland with 665 gallons, Germany with 55o gallons, then Great Britain with 53o gallons, and finally France with 400 gallons.
These are the facts. What are the reasons for these facts? Pri- marily disease among our cattle. In the words of the National Veterinary Medical Council in a Report issued in 1940, "the wastage of milk caused by disease among dairy cattle is colossal." EY2rt comparative figures are unobtainable, but it is probable that the milking-life of our cows is something between *three and four years, whereas in the United States it is nearly six years. The inci- dence of tuberculosis in cattle is estimated at 4o per cent., whereas in the United States it is half of x per cent., in Canada 2 per cent., and in New Zealand 41- per cent., and bovine tuberculosis is only one of many diseases to which cattle are susceptible. Some indication of the, havoc that disease causes to the health of our animals is given in the Report of the Loveday Committee on Veterinary Education, where it is stated that "recent estimates put the annual loss to the nation in livestock and livestock products due to animal diseases at not less than £30,000,000."
These figures, which are reinforced by many others of a similar kind, give some indication of the problem, that confronts the milk industry and also suggest why our milk production is so appallingly low, whether compared with the requirements of the nation or with the production of other countries. What steps must we take to improve the position? First and foremost, the cow which prOduces the milk must be healthy, and, in particular, she must be free of tuberculosis, of contagious abortion and of mastitis. This improve- ment can be obtained in part by propaganda among farmers, de- signed to show them the financial benefits that they themselves will get by having a disease-free herd, and also to teach them the elements of hygiene and good management. But more important than the farmer in this respect is the veterinary surgeon. Holland, the country in Europe with the highest average yield per cow, has also, compared with her cow-population, the largest number of veterinary surgeons in practice, while France, with the lowest yield per cow, has the lowest number. Not only this, but Holland has so per cent. more vets. in practice per cow than we have in this country, a ratio almost identical with that of the average yield of her cows as com- pared with ours. Our vets. are few in number, and, what is worse, with certain honourable exceptions they are markedly lacking in skill and interest. How many times has a farmer sent for his vet., to find that he comes ready prepared with a bottle of medicine which he pours down the animal's throat almost before he has had a chance to examine her or ask about the symptoms. If the case is serious, he will probably recommend immediate destruction ; if it is mild, his usual advice will be to turn her out to grass and let Nature do the rest. When the so-called experts so plainly lack know- ledge and interest in modern discoveries, it is not surprising to find the health of our herds at such a low level.
But the story does not end here. Given healthy cattle and first- rate veterinary service, we shall still not be assured of a clean milk supply. We need, in addition, modern equipment which will ensure that the milk, after it has left the cow, does not become contaminated. This means that the building in which the cow is milked must be clean and hygienic, as well as light and airy. It means, too, that there must be facilities for sterilising all dairy equipment, and it means, above all, that there must be an ample supply of cold water for cooling the milk, because, if not cooled, milk produced under the cleanest conditions rapidly becomes unfit for human consumption. Finally, we must have milkers of sufficient calibre to take good care of the animals in their charge, and to make use of the equipment with which they have been supplied. As conditions of labour in . industry improve, it will become increasingly difficult to find men who are prepared to work seven days a week, early in the morning and late in the evening, for a wage which is markedly lower than they could earn in the towns. Now that we realise the im- portance of a clean milk supply, we must be prepared to offer to those engaged in the industry wages which will encourage the right type of man to go into it. Without this the millions which it is pro- posed to spend on research, education and equipment will be to a large extent wasted.
All these proposals cost money, but the ultimate result will be a reduction in the cost of milk to the consumer. Improved health of a dairy cow means a longer life, and therefore lower depreciation, and a higher yield per cow means a lower cost per gallon. Improved equipment in the dairy means less wastage from bad milk, while a higher wage for the milker means greater efficiency, with corres- ponding decrease in costs. at will take many years before the milk industry is reorganised on these lines, and until then we must resign ourselves to being one of the highest-cost milk-producers in the world. For it is well to remember that in x938 the French milk-pro- ducer was getting 5.8 pence per gallon, the American, in spite of considerably higher wages, 8.7 pence, while the English producer was receiving 12.9 pence per gallon.
Previous page
