Hog Cholera and Its Phevention. 139 



that results have been deadly and almost entire herds have 

 been lost. But careful investigation, and thorough analysis 

 of the serum used have proved, or would have proved, that 

 where the simultaneous method was employed the simple 

 serum treatment only should have been used, and in both 

 cases the serum itself had lost part if not all of its potency. 



In May, 1911, with 172 head of hogs, young and old, on 

 hand, cholera broke out in our herd. We immediately 

 began the use of serum, injecting not only the hogs already 

 sick with the disease, but also those that had been exposed. 

 The effect of the treatment was to check the progress of 

 the disease, and our losses were confined to those animals 

 that had become badly infected before the serum was used. 

 We came out of the siege with 127 animals, having lost 

 forty-five — eight mature hogs and thirty-seven pigs. Com- 

 pare these results with those of one of our neighbors whose 

 herd was attacked by cholera shortly after our herd became 

 infected. He had 165 animals, young and old, at the begin- 

 ning, and he came out of his trouble with only five head 

 remaining — two sows and three pigs. He did not believe 

 in the serum treatment or in its virtue as a preventive. 

 Note the comparative results and draw your own con- 

 clusions. 



This outbreak of cholera in our own herd led us to adopt 

 the policy of permanently immunizing every animal. Those 

 that had recovered from the disease were already immune. 

 Those that had never shown sickness, even though they had 

 previously been given the simple serum, were subjected to 

 the simultaneous treatment. This practice we rigidly ad- 

 here to. All young pigs from immune parents, before being 

 weaned, and all new. stock brought into the herd, unless 

 we are positive it has already been treated, are likewise 

 given the simultaneous treatment. And in giving the treat- 

 ment we have never lost a single animal as a result of such 

 treatment, and up to the present time we have treated up- 

 wards of 1,300 animals. In this, however, we have been 

 singularly fortunate. Statistics show that ordinarily a loss 

 of from two to five per cent of the animals treated may be 

 looked for. But even this is iasignificant when compared 

 with losses that commonly follow an outbreak where the 

 treatment is not employed. 



