322 
ON RED-WATER IN CATTLE. 
and I am happy to state that I never knew what it was to lose a 
case. I could wish that some of our professional brethren would 
make a trial of it. 
ON RED-WATER IN CATTLE. 
By Mr. J. D. Harrison, V.S., Ormskirk. 
Seven years have now nearly elapsed since I first endeavoured 
to draw the attention of the profession to the disease in cattle uni¬ 
versally called Red-water. At that time I expressed my convic¬ 
tion that the digestive apparatus, and not the kidneys, were 
the original, and, in fact, the only seat of the disease, and that the 
red colour, &c. of the urine was owing to its containing bile in a 
greater or less quantity, and did not depend upon hemorrhage 
from the kidneys or any other organ for its red or black hue. 
This fact may be easily demonstrated by chemical analysis, or the 
more easily accomplished one of test, viz. the adding of some very 
dilute sulphuric acid to the urine, when, if bile is present, a green 
colour will be the result; and a red, brown, or black (depending on 
the proportion of the strength and abundance of the acid employed) 
if blood is the colouring material. This conviction eighteen years’ 
close observation and extensive practice have confirmed; and in 
the following essay it is my intention to recapitulate the leading 
facts and symptoms upon which I have built my structure and 
based my opinions, in order that the profession may, by their 
calm discussion and consideration, prove or disprove their tenabi- 
lity. I would hope to elicit the opinions of some practitioners of 
even longer standing than myself, and so be an humble means to 
an important end, by directing the future researches of veterina¬ 
rians who may possess more extensive means of following up and 
persevering in the inquiry. 
In the only standard work on “ Cattle” of which we are in pos¬ 
session, and the talented author of which I am proud to number 
amongst my friends, there are described two distinct and separate 
affections—chronic and acute red-water—as diseases to which cattle 
are liable. That such is the fact, I do not feel at all inclined to dis¬ 
pute or deny; yet, as they are two diseases which are produced from 
opposite causes—as they are essentially different in their symptoms, 
and require a difference of treatment, and are entirely referrible to 
different organs, this is a distinction which, I think, in the present 
enlightened state of veterinary science, is inadmissible. I appre¬ 
hend my friend, the author of “ Cattle,” will fully coincide, the more 
especially as he himself acknowledges that the first appertains to 
