102 



10. I should like to have, as the lessee of a run, such encouragement as would justify me 

 in fencing portions of it. If the disease were now to appCcar, I should hesitate about 

 inoculating, owing to the scattered state of the cattle upon the run, and their poor and 

 weak condition. After inoculation I could not watch the effects ; and only strong 

 cattle, in good condition, will bear the terrible knocking about wliich they get, closed 

 up in a crusher to inoculate. 



11. I do not ; but I should be of a different opinion if owners were in such a position as to 

 be enabled to padduck their cattle as they inoculated them, and to keep their ])reeding 

 herds in a condition to bear the hardsliips of yarding and crusliiug incidental to 

 inoculation. 



115. 



1. About March, 1864. 



3. About 6,000 when the disease fkst came in them, half which were inoculated. 



4. Ver}' near all of them fat. 



5. I have seen one or two with the disease within the last two years, and I thiiik the 

 disease existed about four j'ears. 



€. About one-half at the time I had them inoculated. 



7. I cannot answer you this question, as I think the disease may break out at any time, 

 as I have heard of cattle having it of late in the district. 



8. I do not know. 



9. To all appearance in good liealth. 



10. As to this question (general remarks), I think whoever it was that was the promoter 

 of trying to get an Act passed to make stock-owners inoculate their cattle is some 

 person who is on the look-out for a billet ; and if in case this Act should he passed, it 

 •will not be much interest to the country at the present time, and it would be a loss of 

 £1,000 or £2,000 to the present finances of the country. 



11. I think it would l)e useless to pass an Act to make owners of stock inoculate them 

 when they are infected with the disease called pleuro-pneimionia, as I believe, if cattle 

 that have got the disease were inoculated at the time, it would kill every one you done, 

 so I do not consider that an Act should be passed obliguig owners of cattle to inoculate 

 them. 



116. 



TIO. I have never had any disease among my cattle, and have never inoculated. I can 



therefore answer none of the above inquiries. 

 31. I do not think such an Act advisable. 



117. 



1. Not known. 

 .'3. 700, 



4. Apparently healthy. 



5. From the time piu'chased. 

 C). 90 per cent. 



7. May, 1866. 



8. 1,500. 



y. Healthy. , ,. , , , ^ x.i 



10 The number of deaths (1,500), are all the cattle that died on the run ; but more cattle 

 were brought on the run after the 16th and 17th January, 1865, and others were 

 sent off. 

 n. No. 



118. 



1. Early in the year 1863. 



3. From 1,800 to 2,000. 



4. In strong, thriving, healthy condition. 



5. Eighteen months, lingering perhaps two years. 



€ Fully one-third— perhaps from 35 to 40 per cent._ 



7' No memorandum was kept, but about the beginning of i860, except an odd case. 



8. Nearly 4)0— about half those aft'ected. I have generally observed that the greatest 

 mortality was among milkers and working cattle. 



9 Healthy, and in excellent condition. , ^ j. • 



10 Not havino- ourselves inoculated, we do not consider ourselves competent to give 

 evidence as to what was proper intculation or not ; l)ut we observed that many cattle 

 belou"-inn- to our neighbours which had been (on their way) inoculated— so as often to 

 canseloss of tail and were said to have been diseased and recovered— subsequently died 

 of pleuro-pneumonia. It should be also noted that the suffering of the beast from 

 inoculation was generally extreme, and its after appearance often disgusting. AV e did 

 not inoculate, because we considered it would have been very troublesome to ourselves 

 and distressing to the stock ; and the run being large, and there being no public road 



