87 

 38. 



1. September, 1865. 



3. About 4,000. 



4. Good condition. 



5. Six or eight months. 



6. About 10 per cent. 



7. Slightly affected yet (an odd one). 



8. About sixty or seventy. 



9. See No. 7. 

 11. I do. 



39. 



1. February, 1867. 

 3. 1,100. 



5. Six months. 



7. About August. 

 9. Very healthy. 

 11. Yes. 



40. 



1. About 1865. 



3. At present about 600 head. 



6. Say 50 per cent. 



7. The end of 1868. 



8. Impossible to say. 



9. Healthy, but want grass and water. 



10. I have never tried inoculation, and certainly have no faith in it. You might as well 

 inoculate the whole creation ; for horses, dogs, and poultry have suffered and died from 

 the same disease. If the disease has not run too far, I have always found, with milch 

 cows, working bullocks, and horses, that extensive bleeding was generally sufficient to 

 arrest its progress. I have also given nitre. I have not tried antimony, but think it 

 would be useful. 



11. Certainly not. If cattle are infected, inoculation will not cure them ; if not infected, 

 inoculation will only knock the cattle about for nothing. I have about half a dozen 

 cats noAV ill with the same kind of disease. 



41. 



I. Appeared on the 9th December, 186 J;. 



3. 5,000 head. 



4. Eunning on open myall runs, and had never, to my knowledge, any other disease amongst 



them. 



5. I believe the cattle were affected with the disease for months before it showed out ; but 



we had it active, and appeared amongst them five or six mouths. 



6. Every beast in the herd, I bcUeve, more or less. 



7. Five or six months after it broke out, and, with the exception of a few cases the follow- 



ing summer, never seen since, although diseased cattle have passed through the runs 

 several times since, leaving dying cattle on the run. 



8. 15 per cent. 



9. Perfectly free from disease, and have always been so since- the disease left the herd. 



10. Being a person that travels very much, I had good opportunities of judging of the 



effect of inoculating. From hearsay information I had much faith in it, and at some 

 considerable expense prepared to inoculate this herd, when it appeared in the vicinity ; 

 but from what I afterwards saw of the effect of inoculation I never allowed a beast to be 

 operated upon, and have never since seen the slightest reason to doubt the decision I then 

 arrived at— that inoculation was a positive injury. I have remarked that the lungs of 

 every beast I have seen slaughtered for beef on the station (some hundreds) have had 

 the lungs more or less affected with the disease. Shortly after the disease passed over, 

 the affected parts were often a whole lung and part of another— in a Uttlo time more I 

 noticed that the affected part appeared to bo re-forming into a sound lung again. I now 

 can often see where large portions have been evidently recently renewed. Not a beast 

 we slaughter is exempt from the attachment of the lining of the lung to the ribs, more 

 or less. I therefore conclude that all tlie cattle have had it, and got over it ; that as we 

 have never seen it again on the run, although it is known to have passed thi'ough it in 

 travelling cattle several times after it left us ; that cattle once having it never liave it 



again, or at least very seldom. My partner tried inoculation on huncbeds of 



cattle at various times, and found it fail in every case. 



II. Decidedly not ; all owners please themselves. Inoculation does not stop infection, if 



indeed the disease is infectious or contagious. The very di-iving together and about of 

 diseased cattle kills many that would otherwise get over it. 



