70 
D. E. SALMON. 
the liberal sum of $500 a day, the net profit to those conduct¬ 
ing the inoculations would be $9,500 a day. The inoculation 
of but a small portion of the hogs in the chief hog-raising 
States of the country would therefore yield a profit to the 
inoculator of about $3,000,000 per annum, a sum which is suf- 
ficent to account for many of the enthusiastic and exagger¬ 
ated statements of the benefits to be derived from inoculation 
which have appeared in public prints. 
It has been shown by our experiments and by those of 
other investigators, that if a sufficient dose of virus is given 
to produce any degree of immunity the hog will be more or 
less stunted, and if the strong virus is used, there is great 
danger of infecting the ground. Now, these two faults are 
inherent in the method ; they cannot be avoided, and it is 
impossible to so improve the operation as to overcome them. 
About a year ago an attempt was made to demonstrate the 
success of inoculation by inoculating one thousand hogs be¬ 
longing to farmers in Nebraska. There had been quite a 
controversy between parties in that State for more than a 
year as to the merits of the operation, and undoubtedly every 
precaution known to the operators was practiced to secure a 
succcessful issue for this experiment. 
The director of these experiments afterwards reported in 
the Nebraska State Journal of December 16, 1888, that one 
party who had 260 hogs inoculated had lost 220. Another 
farmer who had 46 inoculated lost “ nearly all.” Still another 
who had 121 inoculated lost “a large number,” while a fourth 
who had 93 inoculated, lost “ all but 18 or 20.” It is evident 
from these statements that out of the 1,000 hogs inoculated, 
the loss was very little, if any, less than 400 head. The dis¬ 
ease in these cases appeared in the inoculated herds from ten 
to fifteen days after the inoculation, and was evidently intro¬ 
duced in most if not in all cases by this operation. 
These experiments show that inoculation is attended with 
very considerable danger to the health and lives of the ani¬ 
mals operated upon. It is no doubt possible to so reduce the 
dose of the virus as to prevent this heavy mortality following 
the inoculation, but in that case the protection would be cor- 
