73 



12. Deaths about 8 per cent., whether from inoculation or from adranccd disease cannot 



eay. 



13. Favourable. 



14. I should wish my neighbours to inoculate if I had done so, and their herds were badly 

 diseased. 



256. 



1. October, 18G3. 



3. 700. 



4. About 10 per cent, diseased. 



5. Twelve months. 



12. About 3 per cent, deaths. Means of curing, none. 



13. Very few cases of plcuro after inoculation. 



14. In my herd it prevented further infection. Those that were properly inoculated were 

 never affected after. 



15. Yes. 



257. 



1. November, 1865. 



3. 400. 



4. Diseased. 20 per cent. 



5. Six months. 



12. Many deaths occiTrred from swelling— say 5 per cent , but in this instance no remedy 

 was applied ; but many persons assert that the swollen parts should be opened, which 

 has a good effect. 



13. Less died after inoculation than before. 



14. AVe have arrived at the conclusion that inoculation has proved beneficial in cases where 

 the beast had not been diseased before the operation. Great care should be taken in 

 procuring the virus at a proper stage, and should be used as fresh as possible, and 

 never after two days old. Virus in colom- should appear like that of oil, or very light 

 sherry wine. 



15. Yes, if disease appears in herd. 



258. 



1. In 1867, and in Februai-y, 1S6S. 



3. 1,800. 



4. Perhaps about 2 per cent, showed symptoms of disease at the time. 



5. The first lot about a fortnight ; the second lot came a month's journey, the disease 

 being in the mob all the time. I do not know how much longer. 



12. No. .,.,.•. 



13. A little after moculation a few died, which I attribute to the fact of their having been 

 diseased at the time of inoculation ; but after a few days no more deaths occurred. 

 This I found to be the case in both instances. 



14. In every case where I have known cattle to be inoculated they have ceased dying m a 

 short time after— that is to say, in a few days. In several cases I have known inocu- 

 lated cattle to be exposed to the infection, but never knew it to make any difference to 

 them. In my own case, those I inoculated in 1867 mixed with those that came in 

 1868. but I never saw one of them with any appearance of disease. 



15. Cei-tainly not. I do not see how legal proof could be obtained that the cattle were not 

 inoculated. Then the disease may come by infection, but it sometimes seems to come 

 by other ways as well ; and believing that inoculation will prevent the^ disease 

 spreading, it is in any one's power to prevent any great loss among his cattle, even 

 though his neighbom-s may not inoculate. 



259. 



1. 5th November, 1865. 



3. 350. 



4. In good condition ; three in each 100. 



5. Ten days. -i ^ •/• ,.^ ii- 

 12. From excessive swelling. 2 per-centagc. By cutting part of tail off; it the swellmg 



continue, cut the whole of the tail off. I have bad that swelled in the quai'ters that I 

 have cut the rump away 3 inches deep. The cows recovered. 



14. 350 I inoculated. Sixteen cows that I was milking I did not inoculate ; the whole of 

 them died in the autumn. Twenty-four that were not got at the time the herd was 

 being inoculated— one lived out of the twenty-four. There is no clearer proot than 

 the above that inoculation is efficacious. None of the cattle that I inoculated, it 

 recovered, has the disease affected since. 



15. I consider every one ought to inoculate for their own benefit, without compulsion. 



