7io 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XI, No. 13 
that neighborhood, took all the animals they could get, and, under the 
circumstances, the owners did not take pains to point out the animals 
affected with trembles, although doubtless many such were used, and 
yet there were, so far as known, no bad results. 
BACTERIA NOT THE CAUSE OF IEENESS IN ANIMATS FED WITH 
EUPATORIUM URTICAEFOLIUM 
Cultures were made from the blood of bull 663 and calf 668 and from 
the milk of cow 122. In connection with the feeding experiments with 
cow 699 and calf 700 and sheep 368 and 369, cultures were made from 
the skin, liver, spleen, feces, and milk. From these cultures were isolated 
the individual organisms, where any were found. Out of all these cul¬ 
tures two of the bacteria bore some resemblance to the Bacterium lacti - 
morbi of Jordan and Harris, but it seemed reasonably certain both from 
the morphological and cultural characters that they were not identical 
with it. The one that showed the most resemblance to Bad. laciimorbi 
was inoculated into dogs with no results. It should be noted, too, that 
bull 663 showed toxic symptoms of illness from autoclaved material, and 
sheep 309 was killed on plants treated in that manner. 
These experiments, while not sufficient in number for positive proof, 
make it probable that it is a toxic substance in the plant which causes 
the illness, and not the presence of pathogenic bacteria. 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POISONING BY EUPATORIUM URTICAEFO¬ 
LIUM AND MILK SICKNESS 
There is no question that E. urticaefolium is poisonous and produces a 
line of symptoms closely resembling those said to be typical of milk 
sickness in cattle and other animals. Most of the so-called milk-sick 
cases in cattle occur in localities where E . urticaefolium grows. Field 
cases seen by the writers have the same symptoms as those which have 
been observed in experimental animals and have been diagnosed as 
intoxication by E. urticaefolium. There seems little doubt that many 
if not most cases of milk sickness or trembles in cattle are caused by this 
plant. It does not follow, however, that all cases of milk sickness are 
produced by E. urticaefolium. 
Somewhat extended bacteriological investigations by the writers of 
this paper, the results of which will be reserved for another paper, 
appear to substantiate the claim of Jordan and Harris that there is a 
bacterium widely disseminated in the soil and on plants, which, under 
certain conditions—conditions for the most part unknown—produces a 
disease in man and animals, in which symptoms are exhibited which 
appear to be those of milk sickness. 
Very much more work is necessary in order to clear up the subject, 
and definite plans have been made for extended work to this end; but 
it seems highly probable at this stage of the investigation that under 
