278 Abstract RejwTt of Agricultural Discussions. 



The Discussion.* 



Col. Challoneu : Would it not be well to substitute burning for 

 burying, esi^ecially as fire is a great purifier ? 



Professor Simonds : Burning was tried in 1714, but it was found so 

 offensive tbat it could not be carried out. 



Sir John Johnstone, M.P., agreed witb the Professor that it was to 

 prevention, and not cure, tliat attention should be directed. Some 

 persons had recommended the frequent washing of the nostrils or the 

 mouth with certain antisej)tics. 



Professor Simonds did not think any advantage could arise from the 

 application of tar, or some cleaner substance of the same kind, to the 

 muzzle of an animal, or from the mere washing of the nostrils, seeing 

 that morbific matter mingled with the atmosphere, and was inhaled 

 with it. No doubt the disease might be said to be contagious ; but 

 the infectious matter mingling with the atmosphere affected animals 

 within a certain range; and, considering that with every breath an 

 animal might inhale a certain quantity of morbific matter, he could 

 see no advantage from the ajiplicatiou of an antiseptic to the mouth or 

 nostrils. 



Lord Faversham said another thing which had been tried in the 

 North of England was the suspending of camphor bags round the 

 necks of animals ; in all the cases with which he was acquainted, the 

 animals had escaped the disease, although it existed perhaps within a 

 mile. Having heard of this remedy some time ago, ho had recourse 

 to it himself on two farms, and as yet none of his animals had had the 

 disease, which was actually within half a mile of one of those farms. 

 As regarded iron, the Professor was doubtless aware that the water of 

 the district around Tunbridge Wells was strongly impregnated with 

 that substance. He understood that the plague had not existed within 



* Professor Simonds has reported to the Privy Council the results of two subse- 

 quent visits to Mentmore on Feb. 22 and March 3. 



On or before Feb. 22nd, with a view to limiting the number of cases, the 

 unaffected animals (94 out of 119) "were placed in small lots in 9 different yards 

 distant from each other, temporarily fitted up on the south side of a plantation " 

 (these arrangements were good), and it was determined to try Mr. Worms' remedy 

 on all these animals as a prophylactic agent. At that date Prof. S. reported 

 respecting the 25 taken out for special treatment : — unaffected, 1 1 ; affected, but not 

 severely, 5 ; dead, 5 ; dying, 4 = 25. On March 3, Prof. S. reported that the 11 

 regarded by Mr. Worms as having been cured, but returned by himself as 

 unaffected on Feb. 22, had all been attacked, and nine had died ; out of the whole 

 25 severed for treatment, 20 had died, and numbers 2, 8, 9, 11, and 19 were 

 convalescent. 



Id the remainder of the herd a fearful havoc had likewise taken place. In one 

 extemporised yard, out of 24 cows 10 were dying, and the remainder were more 

 or less affected. " In the 8 other yards were 35 heifers, all of which were affected, 

 several were dying, and 3 were dead." In sheds were found 5 heifers in a sinking 

 state. In courts lay the bodies of 13 cows and heifers which had been shot, and 

 two more animals were then under sentence of death. None of these animals were 

 destroyed by the orders of the local authority. The general state of these animals 

 was such that in a few days scarcely one of them may be expected to be alive. 

 All treatment had been abandoned for some time, and the animals left to their 

 fate. The disease had unhappily spread to other homesteads on the estate. — 

 P. H. F. 



