The misery of mastitis in 1883

Nocard and Mollereau were the first to demonstrate that mastitis was caused by a microorganism, later to be named Streptocoocus agalactiae. However, they were also the first to describe the miserable situation of a farm that was chronically affected by the disease. This is also interesting, especially from the point of view of social and economic history of animal disease.

I follow their description here, originally written in French [1].

“The observation to be described here will give insight into this remarkable affection [i.e. chronic mastits], the route it follows in the affected stables and its great tenacity.

In the last month of december [1883] one of us was consulted by a cattle farmer, his client, concerning an illness that prevailed at his farm and that made a great part of the milk that was produced absolutely unfit for consumption. Six years ago the disease appeared at this farm in the form of an induration in one of the milk glands with a serious alteration of the milk that was secreted. A veterinarian who was then consulted believed he had to do with a chronic mastitis and advised embrocations of campher ointments; next the disease hit a great number of the cows of the same stable without the owner asking again for the veterinarian, so that at the moment he called for us the farmer had already wasted almost three hunderd francs of campher ointment. In fact, more than eighty cows were one after the other hit by the same affection despite the ointment and the prayers and all kinds of conjurations that the owner had tried to put to work.

After six years more than half of the cows that had been held in these stables had payed tribute to this formidable disease; three weeks or one month after their purchase an udder began to form knots (a hard knot developed in the gland). The milk that was produced maintained its aspect and external characteristics but only diminished immediately in quantity; next it coagulated faster until it could no longer be kept; it had to be dristibuted among hurried clients. In the end it became watery, gritty, with a yellowish colour, sometimes evil-smelling, only to be brought to the dung-hill. Mixing it with good milk was sufficient to make coagulate the whole of the milk almost immediately. From then on the affected gland had to be considered as lost and the yeld of the cow diminished with one quarter.

When two quarters were hit, it was necessary to bring the animal to the butcher, because the yield of the two healthy quarters did not compensate for the loss of the farmer. In addition, although the general health of the cow seemed not affected, it was more difficult to fatten up, resulting in a cow, bought for giving milk, that was not even good enough for the meat.

One may understand that the exploitation of the cattle farm, continuing under these conditions for six years, was far from giving the benefits that had been expected with good reason.  In addition, the farmer, running out of resources and courage, was on the point of leaving the profession, when he got the idea to consult us.“

And out came the bacteria as a cause of mastitis. And a therapy.

[1] [E.] Nocard en [H.] Mollereau, ‘Sur une mammite contagieuse des vaches laitières.’ Annales de l’Institut Pasteur 1 (1887) 109-126