CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS. 377 



tlio largest cattle-dealer aud exporter in Cliicago, and, on consultation, 

 it was concluded, in order to obtain certainty, to send Dr. ¥. W. Pren- 

 tice, Professor of Veterinary Science in the Illinois Industrial Univer- 

 Kity, Champaign, 111., at once to Sublette, where the heifer had come 

 IVom, to make a thorough and searching investigation. Until his re- 

 turn, and the contrary had been proven, the worst of the two possibilities 

 had to bo accepted, as it was not known that swine plague could be 

 communicated to cattle. Dr. Prentice made a thorough investigation, 

 but failed to find any bovine ])leuro-pneumonia, or any trace of its ex- 

 istence ; he learned, however, that the heifer in question had been raised 

 in the hog-lot, among the swine, by the same farmer who shipped her to 

 the stock-yard, and I know that in Sublette and immediate vicinity an 

 immense number of hogs and pigs had died of swine plague in the latter 

 part of last fall and the early i^art of last winter. The absence of any 

 contagious pleuro-pneuraonia, and the fact that the heifer in question 

 had been born and raised on the same farm from which it had been 

 shipped, were sufficient proofs that we had not to deal with the bovine 

 lung plague. Dr. Prentice and myself were therefore able to contradict, 

 on his return, <5ertain perverted statements which had been published 

 in several papers. Still, although fully convinced that we had not to do 

 with a case of contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia, we had not sufficient 

 proof to authorize us to pronounce the morbid changes in question the 

 product of transmitted swine plague. 



When, in compliance with your order, I resumed the investigation of 

 swine plague in May, which had been interrupted in February, it was 

 one of my first attempts to ascertain by experiment whether swine 

 plague can be communicated to cattle or not. On May 26 I bought 

 two healthy heifers, one a common scrub, and about eight or nine months 

 old, and the other a half-breed Jersey, about four months old. The lat- 

 ter, designated as heifer No. 1, was kept in a good pasture on the same 

 farm on which it had been raised, and received, besides grass, some milk 

 while being experimented with. The former, designated as heifer No. 2, 

 being old enough to eat hay, was kept in a good stable in the city of 

 Champaign, and was fed with good hay, oats, chopped feed, and water. 

 Both animals were inoculated in the ear — received each two punctures — 

 by means of a small inoculation -needle, No. 1 with less than a quarter 

 of a drop of blood, and No. 2 with a similar quantity of serum pressed 

 out of an ulceious tumor situated in the scrotum of a recently castrated 

 pig, sick with swine plague. Up to June 5, neither of the heifers 

 showed any symj)tom of disease, but it may be remarked that heifer 

 No. 1, being in a large pasture over two miles from town, could not be 

 visited and examined every day ; but heifer No. 2, being in a stable in 

 town, and therefore always approachable, was examined at least twice 

 every day. 



Juve 5. — Heifer No. 2 appears to he less lively ; its muzzle Im dry and warm, and. the 

 temperature (in rectum) lU:i.5" F. Heifer No. 1 perfectly healtliy. 



June 6. — Heifer No. 2, appetite changeable ; muzzle dry ; temperature 102.6° F. 



June 7. — Heifer No. 2, muzzle moist; otherwise no change; temperature 102.4° F. 



June 8. — Heifer No. 2, muzzle moist ; appetite good. (Broke theremometer, and 

 therefore failed to ascertain temperature.) Heifer No. 1 evidently all right in every 

 respect. 



June 9. — Inoculated heifer No. 2 at 5 o'clock p. m., by means of a hypodermic syringe 

 with half a dniohm of x>ulmonal exudation, obtained from the lungs of a pig belong- 

 ing to Mr. Colb'O, in Camjiaign. The pig was examined immediately after death, and 

 presented all those morbid changes which are characteristic of swine plague. The in- 

 jection was made just behind the shoulder-blade iiito the subcutaneous connective 

 tissue. Heifer No. 1 was inoculated by the same means with one drachm of 1 he same ma- 

 terial. The injection was made into the loose connective tissue of tlie dewlap. The 



