478 EEPOET OF THE BUEEAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



hue of the tissues, which are normally white, rising to an extreme orange around 

 the kidneys; abnormally large, gorged friable spleen, bulging in rounded swellings 

 in its thicker end, and, wfcen torn, like black-currant jam; liver friable and of a 

 deep yellow hue; gall-bladder full of a thick inspissated tarry bile; urine of a deep 

 yellow, and quite red when seen in quantity; petecchia3 011 the bladder, kidneys, 

 mesentery, ornemtum. pleura, pericardium, and endocardium; a portion of the. left 

 lung carnified, and on section presented considerable recent exudation filling the 

 interlobular tissue as well as the pulmonary, and not yet coagulated; irnpaction of 

 the third stomach and some ecchymosis of its leaves; deep port-wine congestion of 

 the folds of the fourth stomach. The blood fluid, when the carcass was opened, 

 soon coagulated into a moderately firm clot. 



I have been thus particular because the State veterinarian, who visited the place 

 August 10, had pronounced the disease "splenic apoplexy." That it was Texas 

 fever is evident from the necropsy, but is also fully borne out by the presence of 

 the ticks, most abundant on those fatally attacked, and absent from those that 

 escaped (that had not followed the trail of the Southern cattle), by the proved 

 wholesomeness of the pasture until the Southern cattle arrived, by the appearance 

 of disease one month after their arrival (the usual incubation of Texas fever), and 

 by the immunity of all cattle removed from the marsh before the advent of the 

 Southern stock, or shortly after that event. 



After consulting with Dr. Irwin, of the local board of health, as to sanitary 

 measures, and especially the seclusion of the infected portion of the marsh from 

 all bovine animals for this season, and obtaining a promise from the Fuller Bros, 

 that they would make good the damage done to other herds, I returned to Chi- 

 cago Thursday night, August 11. 



SUPPOSED ERGOTISM AMONG CATTLE. 



Mr. Emory A. Prior, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, addressed the Depart- 

 ment the following letter in October, 1887: 



Among us certain farmers have of late been growing and feeding largely of corn- 

 stalks, with the double purpose of producing a good flow of milk and greater cheap- 

 ness of the ration. They have been reasonably well satisfied upon these points, but 

 the following exception must be taken to the general success of the plan: One large 

 dairy, varying in size from 25 to 40 cows, but containing of cows, heifers, and calves 

 probably 50 animals, have been fed freely of corn-stalks each winter for three years 

 past. This summer there appeared symptoms that the cows were not thriving. 

 Although food was abundant (pasturage and feed), some of the cows became sore- 

 footed, stiff -jointed, or dried up milk, and later some 7 or 8 cows prematurely 

 dropped their calves. The owners are of the opinion that the cattle were poisoned 

 with smut that is so common upon the corn-plants about here. Their pastures were 

 under-stocked early in the season (1887), and much of the timothy grew up and 

 matured and was afterwards eaten, during a drought, by the cattle. I wish to in- 

 quire whether you think smut dangerous to cows when abundantly present upon 

 stalks fed to them. If it is injurious, what are the symptoms and the remedy for 

 cattle suffering therefrom ? Do you think corn smut, timothy smut, and oat smut 

 have the same effect upon the uterus of animals as ergot ? It is of no small im- 

 portance to us to know the extent of the danger of thus injuring our dairies by 

 feeding smutted corn. We have opinions from scientists that seem to be opposite 

 regarding the use of this smut, one saying " dangerous," another "not dangerous 

 except negatively, being no nutriment therein." 



Dr. Salmon, Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, replied to 

 the above inquiries as follows: 



The question of the effect of corn smut on the health of cows is a very interest- 

 ing one, but the facts bearing upon it are not very definite, and appear to vary from 

 year to year. I am not clear from your statement whether the cows had been fed 

 corn for a short time previous to the appearance of the disease and during its prog- 

 ress. If not, I doubt very much if the corn smut had anything to do with it. In 

 other words, I do not believe that corn fodder fed last winter would affect the health 

 of cows so long afterwards. As you speak of animals pasturing where timothy had 

 been allowed to go to seed, and also refer to the timothy smut, it has occurred to me 

 that the trouble might be due to eating ergotized timothy. I have never seen true 

 smut on this grass, but have frequently seen it affected with ergot. Corn smut, 

 while a different fungus from ergot, has more or less the same principles, but judg- 

 ing from facts which have come under my observation the active principle varies 

 greatly from year to year, and never exists in the same proportion as in true ergot. 



