ia AeDAUORKEY A /REPORT. > xi 
35. Isolation and disinfection have undoubtedly considerable sanitary:value: They @- 7350, 
tend to limit the progress of the disease, and in some measure to palliate its results, orm 
but no evidence has been brought before us to show that they can be thereby regarded . 
as a sufficient remedy for the evils which we have to confront. Those:who have laid 
the greatest stress upon their efficacy, have only done so with the proviso that they 
should be employed in connection with some other more rigorous treatment, such as 
inoculation or slaughter. We find, however, that slaughter of all diseased animals; 
combined with isolation of those in contact, has hitherto failed to eradicate the disease: 
RD 
" 
é ares 
(2.) Inoculation. 
36. A large portion of our inquiry has been devoted to a searching examination of 
inoculation, as we feel that tle appointment of the Committee was chiefly due to the 
representations of those who believed they had’ found in inoculation an alternative 
to the policy of stamping out by slaughter, as hitherto adopted. hy 
37. There was a general agreement amongst all the witnesses we examined, both Nature of 
scientific and practical, as to the method of performing the operation. The fluid taken °Peton. 
from the lung of ‘the freshly-killed animal is conveyed into the system’ ofthe 
animal operated upon by a seton or incision at the end of the tail; but wé find a 
considerable difference of 6pinion amongst those witnesses as to the ease or difficulty 
of performing the operation. Most of the English and Scotch witnesses alleged that Q 4439. 
the operation’ was one of considerable delicacy, and requiring the presence of a 
skilled operator, whilst, on the other hand, we found that in the colonies and in the 
London dairies it is constantly performed by the stockowners or their ‘¢mployés, Q- 4089- 
without the intervention of any professional assistance. The per-centage of deaths 
that, directly or indirectly, ‘resulted from the operation is not considerable, the 
general opinion being that it would never exceed 4 per cent. In many instances, how- 
ever, the animal lost the whole or part of the tail from inflammation consequent upon 
the operation. ‘The advocates of inoculation, however, do not regard these drawbacks 
as outweighing its advantages. |" been Re 
38. The practice of inoculation, as a means of prevention, has never been generally Inoculation 
adopted in this country, whilst it has been extensively carried out in the Australian in Colonies. 
and African Colonies for at least a quarter of a century. ‘This fact is probably due 
to the exceptional circumstances attending the ownership of stock in the colonies. 
The large extent of the runs, the great ‘size of the herds, the absence of power of 
isolation, and the want of strict inspection and control, the constant liability ‘of Q- 67. 
Gattle to disease owing to the practice’of driving large mobs of fat stock (in almost @- 5451-55. 
all of which pleuro-pneumonia exists) from inland districts to the markets of Melbourne, 
Sydney, &c., compelled the stockowners to practise inoculation, as the only means at 
their disposal to limit and modify, if they could not entirely destroy, the disease. 
‘39. In this country inoculation is at the present time’ principally carried out in the 
dairies and cowsheds of the Metropolis, Hdinburgh, and Glasgow, and in the counties 
of Lanark, Perth, and Fife. Throughout the country districts of England’ it has 
hitherto found littse favour. : sage 
40. On a careful examination of the evidence given by the advocates of inoculation in poubtful 
this country, both lay and’ professional, we cannot fail to be struck by certain results of 
prominent features which diminish considerably the value of that evidence. ‘© inoculation. 
(ist.) We find a general ignorance as to the previous history of the ‘animals 
- operated upon, a point which is of gréat importance, in view of the long period Q. 6640, 
~ during which the disease may lie’ dormant, and the possibility that the animal 
inoculated might ‘be already diseased, although apparently healthy. From the Q. 5887-8, 
evidence laid before us it also appears, that cattle have been known to contract 5921,6563-5, 
the disease after apparently successful inoculation. 
(2nd.) In the dairies of London and Edinburgh, where inoculation is largely 
practised, the life of the animal is in general so short that it affords us ‘no & og? 
reliable kuowledge as to the immunity from disease conferred by inoculation, 99¢5_-73, 
and in cases where the animal is released from confinement, we have very vague 
information as to its subsequent career. . : 
'(8rd.) But the point’ which above all others militates against our obtaining an 
accurate idea of the exact prophylactic value of inoculation, is the fact that it is not Q. 5828-30, 
~ generally practised in this country, except in cases where an outbreak of pleuro- 640. 
pneumonia has actually occurred.’ The mode of treatment adopted under such 
b 2 
