BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



23r 



farm, where the disease prevails, the lands are improved by euHivation, 

 and there is no ergotized rye in his hay. Yet out of 96 cattle, 40 head 

 of young stock are reported affected with the disease.*' This fact wa.'i 

 the most troublesome of all 1 had to contend with in making my diag- 

 nosis, and I appreciated its importance perhaps as much as my critics* 

 conld have appreciated it. The gentleman's statement is not absolutely 

 correct, however, as there was a small quantity of ergoted rye in tin 

 hay; but still there was so much less than was seen at the other farms 

 as to make it impossible to explain why the cattle here should be affected 

 even to a greater degree than elsewhere. In my preliminary report i 

 explained this by saying that wild rye was known to grow in patches, 

 and that, consequently, hay that was being fed at one time could no'; 

 be considered as exactly the same as that fed three months before. 

 The apparent discrepancy in this case has since been explained, how- 

 ever, in a much more satisfactory manner. Some time last fall Mi 

 Goodrich bought two stacks of hay of Mr. Keith, and it was this hay 

 that he had been feeding to his cattle up to the time of the outbreak o,* r 

 the disease. When this fact was learned the whole matter became per- 

 fectly clear, and what at first appeared the greatest objection to the 

 ergot theory turned out to be one of its strongest supports. 



Then Mr. Beard is mentioned as having fed 75 head of cattle all win 

 ter on hay full of ergot, and escaped with but 5 diseased animals. Mr. 

 Beard, however, had fed his cattle twice a day on corn-fodder, that ia 

 on corn which had been shocked but not husked, and as a natural con- 

 sequence his cattle ate very much less of the hay. 



11 Stranger still for the ergot theory, Mr. Pribbernow fed 195 cattle 

 on millet bay and corn-fodder, and he has 14 of his young stock affected." 

 Here, again, the zeal of the gentleman to make out a case against tho 

 ergot theory has led him to make statements which are not correct 

 Mr. Pribbernow had some very badly ergoted hay, which, he showed 

 me, and told me that he had been feeding it to his cattle ; and, indeed 

 there was plenty of evidence that this was the case from the condition 

 of the feeding yards and racks. It is a facfcj however, that 54 yearlings 

 were fed on millet hay, oats, and corn-fodder in addition to the hay, and 

 that not one of these was affected. The older cattle had been fed more 

 exclusively on the hay, and it was among them alone that the effect ot 

 the ergot was seen. These facts I noted down as they were related ti- 

 me on the spot by Mr. Pribbernow. 



''Another puzzle is presented by Mr. Keith buying 63 head of youn^ 

 stock from Mr. Davis on the 15th of December, and on the 23d nearly 

 all were down with the disease. Keith's hay contains ergotized rye, 

 Davis has had no sickness in his herd." This statement is also very 

 incorrect, and yet it contains a reference to the one unsolved difficulty 

 connected with the Kansas outbreaks. The 63 head of cattle were pur- 

 chased December 10, and as the first cases of sickness on this farm did 

 not occur until the 23d or 24th, and as at the 1st of January there wer. 

 .still less than thirty cases all told on the farm, it is plain that these ani- 

 mals had sufficient time to contract the disease after their purchase. 



The difficulty in regard to the ergot theory at Keith's was in conuee 

 lion with another lot of cattle bought about the 15th or 20th of Decern 

 ber. This lot consisted of 6 yearlings and 2 cows, some of which Mr. 

 Keith asserts were sick within three days and all within eight days, 

 and that they were not fed upon hay during that time, but upon mowe* 

 oats and corn-fodder. He admitted, however, that there was probabl> 

 hay in the racks to which they had access. There was much doubt an 

 to the days on which these wattle were first seen to be lame, and as to 



