4 



From what Las "been said, it will be seen that between the fact of many 

 of the herds being badly diseased when inoculated, the want of correct 

 information at the outset, the blundering of those who tried their best to 

 operate correctly, and the ignorance and recklessness of those so-called 

 professional inoculators, inoculation could not but in many cases be a decided 

 failure ; and the number of failures is not greater than might, under the 

 circumstances, have been expected. 



This is, to some extent, borne out also by the Returns to question 12 in 

 Appendix B (Number of deaths from excessive swelling ?), for where inocu- 

 lation was improperly performed, it not only failed, but generally caused the 

 death of the cattle operated upon. Thus, while the deaths from inoculation, 

 in even large herds where the cattle cannot be regularly examined and 

 attended to after the operation, ought not to exceed 2 per cent— and it is 

 oftener under than over that rate — the Returns shew that in six cases they 

 were 2^ per cent. ; in 13, 3 ; in 1, 3|^ ; in 7, 4; in 13, 5 ; in 1, 5| ; in 

 1,6; in 2, 7 ; in 1, 8 ; in 9, 10 ; in 3, 12 ; in 1, 15 ; in 1, 16 ; and in 1, 75 

 per cent. ; while in 3 cases they are stated as " a great many." These make 

 in all 60 returns in Avliich over 2 per cent, of deaths were caused by inocula- 

 tion ; whUe there are 91< returns which give the deaths from that cause at 2 

 per cent, and under ; and 43 in which there were no deaths at all. Besides 

 these, there are 37 returns which give no information on the subject. There 

 are two portions of the colony, the Monaro and Gwydir districts, in which 

 the losses from or rather after inoculation were particularly severe. Tliis is 

 to be accounted for partly in the herds being very badly diseased when 

 inoculated, and no doubt partly also to the use of improper virus, and to 

 incorrect inoculation. 



The general opinion of owners again with regard to compulsory inocula- 

 tion will be gathered from Appendix C. It there appears that of the owners 

 who inoculated their herds there are 46 neither for nor against legislation ; 

 172 in favor of it ; and 61 against it ; or nearly ^for, to 1 against, inocidation. 

 Of the returns by owners who did not inoculate their herds, there are 39 

 ]ieither for nor against legislation ; 82 in favour of it ; and 101 against it ; 

 or aljout '^for, to 5 against, legislation. Taking the returns again by the 

 owners of both inoculated and uninoculated herds together, there are 85 

 neither for nor against legislation ; 254 in favor of it ; and 162 against it ; 

 or i(])on the whole returns there are more than Qfor legislation, to 4 against it. 



The term " not necessary" has been used by owners in all the three 

 senses of " for," " against," and "neither for nor against" ; and it is entered 

 in these abstracts according to the owner's meaning. 



As there is thus a very large majority of owners in favor of passing an 

 Act to oblige those whose cattle are infected to inoculate them ; and as it is 

 clearly shewn by the result of this inquiry that plcuro-i^neumonia is by 

 means of inoculation a controllable disease, it is recommended that Parlia- 

 ment should be asked to pass an Act which, although it would not make 

 inoculation compulsory, would relieve tlie cattle which were propei'ly 

 inoculated from the restrictions and disabilities to which uninoculated 

 infected stock would under such an Act be liable ; and would thus indirectly 

 tend to make the practice of inoculation universal throughout the colony, on 

 the approach of infection. Thus, while all infected cattle were, as they ought 

 to be, placed in quarantine, and not as they now are allowed to travel in any 

 part of the colony infecting the diiferent herds with which they come into 

 contact, — the time during which ])roperly inoculated cattle should be kept in 

 quarantine should be made shorter, by two-thirds, than that during which 

 uninoculated infected cattle should be (piarantincd, while, on the other hand, 

 properly inoculated cattle should be allowed to travel over infected ground, 

 Avithout being held to be infected. Provision would, in that case, require to be 

 made for the examination and licensing of inoculators, and for a certain fixed 

 brand or mark to denote that the animal bearing it had been dulv inoculated. 



