97 

 90. 



1. About October, 186G. 



3. Having lost a great number of cattle from the drought in the summer of 18G5, I 



suppose the number to be about 1,500. 



4. In fair eondition, and some very good. 



5. About eighteen months. 



6. I suppose about 20 per eent. 



7. About April or May, 1868. 



8. As parts of my runs arc very scrubby, I am not able to give actual number, but 



suppose about 300. 



9. In very good condition, and appears healtliy. 



10. The disease was very slow for months — few deaths in the month ; it then attacked 



small mobs, and nearly carried the whole off. Other small mobs that mixed with them 

 did not lose above one" or two, and some none. I thought several times it had left, 

 when a few more would die. 



11. I am of opinion that owners, now seeing the benefit of inoculation, will have it done 



for their own advantage, without being compelled to do it. 



91. 



1. Somewhere about October, 1865, as near as we can recollect. 



3. About 2,500. 



4. In fair good condition for New England cattle. 



5. About six mouths. 



6. We believe the cattle were all affected more or less, as we never slaughter a beast but 

 the left lung has been more or less affected, but they appear to fatten as well now as 

 before infection. 



8. About 10 per cent. 



9. Perfectly free from pleuro or any other disease, as far as we can see. 



10. We may here remark that, as tlie cattle are perfectly free from disease, that we would 

 not wish to inocidate, and at the present time would not know where to get vims, 

 unless we went some distance and made inquiry where cattle were diseased ; and, to shoot 

 one that had the disease and take the virus, would of course amount to cattle-steaUng 

 or virus-stealing. We believe that if the disease called pleuro appears first as an 

 antispecific disease, it would be well to inocidate all calves as they are branded, if 

 virus could be preserved for any length of time to do so, and let those general 

 herds go without inocxdation that have not been done. 



11. Our bchef is that owners will do their utmost to preserve their herds, without an Act 

 being passed as above ; but if inocidation docs prevent the disease, no doubt but owners 

 will inoculate, but we never did inoculate, and our herd appeared to do as well or even 

 better than those that have been done, and our herds are doing as well now as before 

 the disease appeared in this district. 



92. 



1. I have not inoculated any since 1863 ; before I inoculated, I noticed that a few (three or 

 four head) had the disease in February of that year. 



3. About 200. ^. . , P ^^ J 



4. When cattle first showed disease they were in good store condition ; as they lattenecl 



the disease earned them off quicker. 



5. About two vears, during which time all that got it severely died, and it takes about that 



time to go riia;ht through a herd large or small, but the greatest amount of deaths will 

 take place the first summer. it. i 



6. I think all cattle that did not take infection from inoculation got the disease, some only 

 very slightlv. n u 



7. Left my cattle 1861. \Miat did not die of cattle bought in 1867, got fat and were all sold. 



8. Fifteen out of fifty store cattle— 1867 and 1868. 



9. Healthy. I fattened and sold any that had a very severe attack of disease ; they are 



always delicate after. 



10. I am'strongly of opinion that inoculation, if properly done, is a sure preventative to 



disease. My cattle that were properly iuoculated, and the cattle that had the disease 

 but recovered, and all their iucrease, were running with diseased cattle for a season, and 

 not a single beast took the disease from the store cattle ; this I can be sure of, because 

 the herd^is smaU, and the cattle all very quiet. Inoculation from bad virus is useless, 

 and inoculation with strong virus will kill as large a pcr-ccntage as is likely to die irom 

 the disease in large herds. 

 H 



