PLEUROPNEUMONIA ERYSIPELATODES. 
325 
the following conditions should be, in each individual case, given 
with the greatest exactness : the exact number of cattle present in 
each stable or drove; the exact number inoculated; the exact 
number of animals by which inoculation’s reaction has been ob¬ 
served ; the exact time which has elapsed between the diagnosti- 
cation of the pest and the inoculation; remarks whether the 
veterinarian had anticipatory suspicions of the presence of the 
disease among the cattle in question ; how, when and where the 
lymph for the inoculation was procured, and how the same was 
treated or preserved until used, the instruments used, and the 
locality at which each animal was inoculated ; the number of ani¬ 
mals and distinguishing characteristics of the same, by which in¬ 
oculation’s reaction was apparent; the loss directly resulting from 
inoculation; the number diseased, and number of cases ending 
lethally by the natural disease after the inoculation, with the time 
which has elapsed in each case since the latter had taken place.” 
(I recommend the careful consideration of the above conditions to 
my American colleagues.— Translator.) 
Prof. Piitz remarked that Herr Pimpau, who, by the way is 
one of the largest and best educated and observing cattle breeders 
in Saxony, is incorrect when he thinks the majority of Saxon 
veterinarians hold opposite views to himself with regard to the 
value of inoculation. The veterinary literature of the last ten 
years is rich in communications, the majority of which speak for 
the protective power of inoculation. The meeting of the Central 
Veterinary Union, for Saxony, Tliuring and Anhalt, held in Halle, 
March 20th, ’78, discussed this question very earnestly, and em¬ 
phatically coincided with the views of Rimpau and other agricul¬ 
turists. With a majority of 50 to 6 it was asserted that: 
“ Inocidatiori , according to our present experience, offers pro¬ 
tection against the natural disease.” 
Negatived, “ that the inoculation exerted any influence upon 
animals previously diseased with the natural disease.” Also, “ that 
the artificial disease exerted any influence in the extension of the 
pest.” 
Affirmed further, “ that the inoculated disease caused much 
less sacrifice of property than the natural one.” 
