484 EEPOET OF THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



DISEASES OF GAME BIRDS. 



Hon. Joseph. B. Battelle, collector of customs, Cleveland, Ohio, 

 writing under date of February 15, 1887, speaks as follows of the 

 results of his efforts to domesticate game birds, and the diseases to 

 which they are subject: 



Herewith you will find inclosed report of a. post-mortem on the ruffed grouse (or 

 "pheasants," as they are called in the South), made by Dr. Grinnell, of New York. 

 Permit me to say that since receipt of your letter I have read your reports for 1880, 

 '81, '82, '83, and I find many points in common between the diseases diagnosed in 

 them and the report of Dr. Grinnell. (Of course I speak from a non-professional 

 standpoint.) My interest in this matter grows out of a series of experiments I have 

 been conducting for the past three years looking to the domestication and breeding 

 in captivity of some of our game birds, notably the quail and ruffed grouse, par- 

 ticularly the latter, which are declared by all the authorities to be incapable of do- 

 mestication. These birds appear to be peculiarly susceptible to diseases of the 

 " cholera" type, and my experiments, otherwise very satisfactory, have been sadly 

 interrupted by the loss of six or seven fine grouse through this cause. 



Dr. Grinnell was of the opinion that the birds above alluded to 

 died of avian tuberculosis. He gives the following as the results of 

 his post-mortem examinations: 



On December 23 last I received from Mr. J. B. Battelle, of Toledo, Ohio, the body 

 of a fine specimen of a male ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) with the following- 

 history: The bird came to him from Wisconsin, and had been in confinement six 

 weeks, and up to within thirty-six hours of its death it seemed in fair health. Mr. 

 B. had three of these birds confined in one inclosure, 4 feet wide by 28 feet long, 

 the coop having been occupied two months previously by some other birds. He 

 stated that it had been disinfected and the ground raked over; that the birds were 

 fed from a wooden trough and watered from a tin vessel, and that the place was 

 kept as clean as circumstances would permit. The two remaining birds (hens) were 

 at this time apparently perfectly well. Post-mortem examination showed the fol- 

 lowing condition: Bird well nourished, weighing 18 ounces. The organs showing 

 acute disease were the lower part of the small intestines near the caeca, the liver, 

 and probably the spleen, though the post-mortem changes were so advanced that it 

 was difficult to determine this. The gut was tied together in this region by perito- 

 neal adhesions, which, however, were readily stripped apart. From the outside 

 could be seen numbers of yellowish points or nodules, which were hard and resist- 

 ant to pressure. Upon slitting the gut the nodules seemed to be located in the sub- 

 mucous coat. A very few scattered nodules were found beneath the peritoneal 

 covering of the liver/ Under the microscope these bodies proved to be tubercles 

 with the characteristic cheesy broken-down center, surrounded by the giant, or 

 aggregated, white cells, and in and around these the colonies of bacilli. The diag- 

 nosis of tuberculous peritonitis was made. 



I wrote to Mr. Battelle, stating my diagnosis and belief that the two hen birds 

 would shortly succumb, and requested that they be sent to me as soon as possible 

 after death. On December 30 I received the second bird, a hen. She had likewise 

 died after a twenty-four hours' sickness. Examination showed the same appearances 

 in general, but the tuberculous matter had not developed into true tubercles, but lay 

 attached to the mucous and submucous coats in the same region, exactly resem- 

 bling what Sutton describes as occurring in very acute cases, " irregular, craggy- 

 looking masses of a yellowish white color." This bird was not in as good a condition 

 as the first. The gut was matted, and adhesions were present. The third bird died 

 on January 7, with the same symptoms, but unfortunately was not sent to me. These 

 three specimens represented a wide geographical distribution. The cock came from 

 Wisconsin; the hens, one from Michigan and one from New York. 



The conclusions from these facts seem to be that some birds are more susceptible 

 to the tubercle poison than others. These grouse had every attention given them 

 but undoubtedly became ihf ected from the soil in their cages. The raking up of the 

 ground may have contributed to this. Quail appear to be less susceptible for they 

 live and thrive in captivity when the hygienic surroundings are decidedly bad. At 

 the same time I think that further investigation will show that the mortality among 

 captive quail is due principally to this disease. The question whether, as Nocard 

 holds, birds of the barn-yard become infected from the sputum of tuberculous pa- 

 tients, or man from eating the flesh of diseased birds, is still sub judice. It has been 



