278 
THE GARGET IN COWS. 
may be able to boast a responsible paternity, and no 
longer wander about the community a films nullius. 
New York, July, 1845. A Member. 
We give place to the foregoing remarks from a 
respected correspondent, without comment, other than 
we wish to have the usefulness and reputation of the 
State Agricultural Society continued and perpetuated. 
But we are persuaded that such continuance will de¬ 
pend wholly on the fairness and intelligence with 
which its proceedings are conducted. We have 
strictly abstained from any direct connection with 
this Society, or indeed with any other, for we disdain 
any personal advantages whatever to be derived from 
them. Our press has ever been an independent one, 
and it is our intention to keep it so. If any one 
chooses to reply to the above, our columns are open. 
Hereafter, we shall have some remarks of our own 
to offer. 
THE GARGET IN COWS. 
A popular opinion respecting this disease, is, that it 
is occasioned by the presence of a full flow of milk 
in the udder, and I wish to state some facts which 
may assist in deciding correctly, the validity of this 
opinion. 
I have for several years been in the habit of hand¬ 
ling the udders of young heifers before calving, with 
decided benefit. In pursuance of this practice, winter 
before last, having a young heifer to calve in the 
March following, I commenced this course as usual, 
and had rendered her quite gentle, when all at once, 
on handling her udder, she gave me notice that I hurt 
it. I suspected the cause, and found on further ex¬ 
amination a hard bunch in the interior of the udder, 
which was evidently the cause of her skittishness. 
The udder at this time indicated but little milk in it. 
Having read of sulphur as being useful to give cows 
while dry with calf, I gave her a few doses and the 
complaint subsided, and no appearance of garget at 
the time of her calving, or in the summer that fol¬ 
lowed. She had a calf this spring about the 20th of 
April, and no appearance of the disease until about 
i week since, when she gave milk badly bloody from 
one teat, the same teat where the bunch was felt 
ibove it last year; and on examination a similar 
mnch was found above this teat. I commenced 
jiving her sulphur, and the complaint appears to be 
subsiding. 
Another fact respecting this disease, took place 
some two or three years since in an old cow. She 
lad been slightly affected with the garget several 
times; but remember it was slight. In drying her 
off the last calf she had (having killed her since), 
and when she was almost dry she had the disease 
much worse than ever. I dosed her with sulphur, 
while she was dry, and no garget appeared when she 
calved, or since while she lived. 
Another idea I would mention is this, that in all 
cases of garget that I have seen, it has only par¬ 
tially affected the udder. It has been concentrated in 
some parts of the udder,either wholly or much worse 
than others. Now I should think, if the pressure of 
the milk was the prime cause of the disease, it would 
be uniform in every part of the udder. 
Again, I have milked my cows for several years, 
wholly myself, and having had one fine cow spoiled 
by the disease, several years since, I have watched 
with intense anxiety all symptoms of this disease, 
and 1 have almost uniformly been able to detect some 
symptoms of the disease before the appearance ol 
bloody or clotted milk. These symptoms are invari¬ 
ably hard bunches either in the interior, or outside of 
the udder or both. Sometimes the notice I had was 
unusual heat in some part of the udder or teats, and 
at others no heat was felt at all on the outside. It 
seems then from all the experience I have had, it is 
a disease somewhat resembling the scrofula in the 
human system. It may indeed be aggravatea by an 
unusual flow of milk. That is reasonable. But the 
question at issue is, whether this is generally the 
most efficient course. 
I find, page 188 of the Agriculturist for June, in 
the proceedings of the American Agricultural Asso¬ 
ciation, this brief statement in reference to disease 
in cattle : “ Many cattle are scrofulous .” 1 cannot 
see that any reference is here made to the disease 
called garget in cows. I hope, however, that com¬ 
munication may yet appear in the Agriculturist, and 
that this communication may excite some of your in¬ 
telligent correspondents to examine this subject, with 
a scrutiny that shall settle this question beyond dis¬ 
pute. It is of no use to tell about mere opinions, 
where demonstration is possible. 
Peru, June 11, 1845. J. H. Jenne. 
The above was handed to me, inasmuch as it 
quotes a remark made by me at the May meeting of 
the American Agricultural Association which was 
reported in this paper, June No. My experience has 
never traced any connection between garget and 
scrofula. It may exist. Garget may be easily removed 
if promptly treated. I am inclined to trace more and 
more diseases to scrofula, as my experience enlarges, 
deeming them only varying forms of scrofula. No 
book on cattle 1 ever read (and I have read every one 
old and new in English and French I ever heard of) 
mentions scrofula. The opinions I have formed 
have sprung from continued observation of the analo¬ 
gy between certain forms of disease in cattle and the 
exhibitions of scrofula in man. The character is 
the same in each. Garget may be scrofulous; but if 
so all the remedies used for it do not cure it, but only 
change its location or its form; and in that case it 
would recur. Scrofula cannot be cured by sulphur ; 
if garget can be, it is not scrofulous. Scrofula is per¬ 
haps never cured, but only suppressed, and remains 
latent. Many diseases are called garget which are 
not; the results, swelling, loss of milk, bad milk, &c., 
are the same —hence the mistake. Some are scrofu¬ 
lous—others not; garget proper is not scrofulous. 
I intend, when I have fully matured my opinions 
as to all the forms of scrofula in-cattle, to publish an 
essay on the subject. At present I am positive that 
all chronic diseases of the liver, the lungs, and of the 
throat, all tumors on the neck and body, all wens, 
nodes, enlargement of the bones, caries of the bones, 
swelling of the joints (not simply on the joints), and 
ulcers of a serious character and spontaneous in ap¬ 
pearance, all hypertrophies, and all permanent indura¬ 
tions of the bag, are scrofulous. xAll sterilities of 
the cow (and most of the bull) which cannot be ac¬ 
counted for, spring from scrofula. I could satisfac¬ 
torily demonstrate this to any well read physician 
who is familiar with scrofula. 
A. Stevens. 
