One of five in the Nation and one of thirty-five in the World

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” author unknown

Sunday, June 28, 2020

Dr. James Welch of Clinton – 1965



Dr. James Welch (ISU ’41) of Clinton– WVMA President 1965

During my presidency
       I became President in 1965, succeeding Marion Szatalowicz, and was followed by Bob Houser. During this period, things were running quite smoothly on the whole, but at the same time there were a lot of things going on.
       One thing that was of particular interest to me was the annual meeting, which was always held at the Hotel Schroeder in Milwaukee in January. It seemed that this was usually the coldest weekend of the winter and because our cars would sit out in the open for a couple of days, it resulted in people having more trouble getting home than they did getting there. Those attending, because of their busy schedule in practice, looked forward to this meeting as a much-needed vacation. The drug companies had hospitality rooms with free liquor so the temptation was to gather there and bypass the meetings. This situation was already improving when I became president with less hospitality rooms available, resulting in better attendance at the scheduled programs.
      The 1965 summer meeting was held at the Wisconsin Dells and we tried a different type of meeting; many different topics were introduced which made it pretty inclusive for all types of practices. It was very well attended by 120 veterinarians.
      During this period, the WVMA newsletter was printed about every two months and was edited and mostly written by Bill O'Rourke; Executive Board minutes were reported, as they still are. The main difference is that now the President contributes to each issue, whereas during my term, we only had to write one letter and that was as we were leaving office.  

Herein is a copy of the letter that I wrote:

Clinton, Wisconsin December 1, 1965
       Wisconsin veterinarians are in the midst of a rapidly changing agricultural picture. How we meet this challenge will to a large degree determine the future of the so-called general practitioner.
       In the past, we have had more business than we could adequately care for. Some of our clients received the impression that we did not have the time to properly diagnose and treat their animals; after a seemingly hasty diagnosis, we gave the animal an injection of penicillin and were on our way in a short time. The client decided that it looked so simple that he might as well get a syringe and "miracle" drugs and do the job himself.
      Today we are finding farmers doing business like most other industries since the advent of the production line. The smaller farms are being squeezed out just as the small grocery stores were about thirty years ago. The trend is to get production at its most economical level- where this will end, no one knows.
      The question is, where does the veterinarian fit into this new concept of agriculture? I am of the opinion that the veterinarian not only fits into the picture, but has a very essential and worthwhile place. We all know that an increased population and concentration of animals brings with it an increase in disease problems. Our job is to control and prevent disease so that these larger operations can function - if the veterinary profession does not fulfill this need, someone else will. Each veterinarian will have to work out his own method of meeting this challenge.
       Our state and regional associations should be prepared to give assistance. Veterinarians who have dealt successfully with vertical integration could give valuable assistance. With choice of centrally located conferences, the same program could be presented on two successive days so that in the case of partnerships both partners would be able to reap the benefits.
      This proposed type of program is not completely new in Wisconsin. The 1964 Fall meeting of the Central Wisconsin Veterinary Association was a good start. The Milwaukee Association has seen the need for further education of a more specialized type and has planned its programs accordingly.
      We as individuals can help increase the effectiveness of our educational program with constructive suggestions and active participation. It has been an honor, as well as a challenge, to serve as your President. I wish to extend my sincere best wishes to Dr. Houser for his tenure in office. *

Author’s comments:   The following statements were part of Dr. James Welch’s interview.  Because of the historical significance of his remarks, I have offered them at this time.

Brucellosis
      In the early thirties Dr. Mohlar of the Bureau of Animal Industry was working with Brucella abortus bacteria. He had a tube of Brucella abortus organisms, live bacteria, on his desk which he forgot about, and it became covered up with papers for about six to eight weeks. When he cleaned off his desk he found this tube and began to experiment with it to see if it was alive. He found out that he could vaccinate cows that were free of brucellosis and that they would become immune and wouldn't abort when infected, and that is how the vaccine was developed.
      In Wisconsin, the earliest use of Brucella abortus was in the late thirties; the only way it could be obtained was for someone to go to St. Louis where it was being made and bootleg it into Wisconsin. It wasn't uncommon for whole herds to be vaccinated illegally when an outbreak occurred and it stopped the spread of brucellosis within the herd.
      Prior to development of the vaccine, when studying bacteriology under Dr. Merchant at Iowa State, I dared to remark that a vaccine could probably be developed.
My reason being that in our herd at home we had an outbreak and then there would be a period of six or seven years before it would break out again. Almost all cows rebred would not abort a second time, although they would react to the brucellosis test. I felt that I almost might get an "F" for suggesting to Dr. Merchant that a vaccine for brucellosis could be developed. I feel that the manner in which Wisconsin approached the brucellosis-free state should be a matter of record, as it was so unique.
About 1948 the vaccination program was really taking off; the state began ring-testing herds in 1949 or 1950 and also financed calfhood vaccination. The herds in which positive ring tests occurred were all blood tested, the reactors were identified but weren't forced to be shipped to slaughter. This was an especially wise decision for the southern part of the state because more than 50 percent of the herds tested positive, while the State average was 20 percent. Some herds had as many as 40 percent positive - however, some of the positives were the result of adult vaccination of entire herds where an outbreak had been identified. The target date for shipping all reactors was 1955. By vaccinating calves and farmers culling out known reactors the number of ring-test positive was very low before 1955, less than five percent, and when blood tested most of these herds had two or less cattle to ship to slaughter. This saved both the farmers and the state a tremendous amount of money.
       My practice, centered at Clinton, was only five miles from the Wisconsin/Illinois state line and cattle were moved freely between the two states. I am sure that some of the reactors ended up in Illinois. However, I was not aware of any new herds in Illinois becoming infected at that time, because most of the cattle that were shuffled were positive as the result of adult vaccination. Surprisingly, many cattle vaccinated as adults were testing clean after three or four years. 
        In 1965, the BAI (which later became the FDA) was trying to get Wisconsin to quit vaccinating because of the possibility that the vaccination would result in a few positive reactions when they were tested. Dr. Sam McNutt and I were appointed to represent Wisconsin by attending the National BAI meeting in Lansing, Michigan, in October to try to figure out how we could continue the vaccinations in Wisconsin.
        There had been 17 outbreaks of brucellosis in Wisconsin in 1964 - 16 of which had been traced to imported cattle. My argument was that if the cattle weren't vaccinated what would happen if Wisconsin got a "hot dose" of brucellosis and it started spreading - there wouldn't be any immune cattle and we would be in terrible shape. The committee dealing with this question took my recommendation and canceled the requirement that Wisconsin quit vaccinating.
       I received a letter of commendation from Don McDowell, the Director of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, but the commendation which meant the most to me came from Dr. McNutt who had been on the faculty and working in research when I was a student at Iowa State. He wrote me a letter complimenting me on what had been accomplished. On July 14 (prior to the meeting in Lansing) the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture had a big banquet to celebrate the state being declared "Certified Brucellosis Free," and if we could no longer vaccinate, this would really have been a blow to the progress which had been made.
        Also, it should be noted that during the mid-sixties, we were approaching the final stages of using live virus (either attenuated or regular live virus) vaccine for hog cholera, and it was dwindling down so that we could use only BTV, etc. This was a major forerunner of states becoming cholera-free and eventually the elimination of it nationwide.

Author’s comments:  During this interview, Dr. Welch told the following story to Dr. Frank Gentile, Dr. Quint Metzig and myself.  These were Dr. Welch’s additional comments in his explanation of the meeting in Lansing, Michigan.  “I was involved in the experimental use of Strain 19 in Wisconsin to halt the spread of Brucellosis in cattle.  A five-state conference was held in Lansing, Michigan and was attended by the Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Industry (BAI) from Washington, D.C. (it later became the FDA).  During the heated discussions that followed the report given by Dr. Sam McNutt and myself, the Chief of the BAI left the meeting and went back to Washington, D.C.   We were told that about two weeks later, the chief either resigned or was the fired from his post.” *



No comments:

Post a Comment