1 Manr., 1899.]  QuEENSTEAND AGRIcULTURAD souRNar. 217 
._ _ Lhe fact that these bullocks had high temperatures after their inoculation 
might, I think, be accounted for in four ways-— 
1. That the blood was putrid, and caused some septicemia. (No 
saturation with camphor will keep blood from putrefaction, as I 
have proved.) 
2. That the blood may have contained a foxin (elaborated by the micro- 
parasites during the life of the animal from which it was taken), 
which might have produced a high temperature. But no tempera- 
ture was produced in the animals so treated by Dr. Wynne, nor in 
those which I subsequently did to test his method. ~ 
3. That the fever following the inoculation was an accidental circum- 
stance, and was genuine Texas fever communicated by ticks (if, as- 
I think was the case (2), the bullocks were brought in from a clean 
place to an infested one at about the time the inoculation was 
done), is not improbable. 
4. The camphor may have failed to destroy the life of the microparasites: 
in the virulent blood sent down from Hughenden. If this were 80,. 
it was, to all intents and purposes, “ virulent?’ blood. 
The fact that these two bullocks have proved themselves immune to Texas. 
fever excludes the first suggestion. For we have no evidence that an attack of 
septiccemia protects from Texas fever. 
That their blood has been found capable of setting up the characteristic: 
ever reaction and affording subsequent immunity in other cattle, negatives the 
second supposition. For though the injection of a towin might very possibly 
produce immunity in the animal injected, the blood of that animal would 
certainly not be capable of setting up the characteristic fever reaction in other 
animals into which it was injected, and the blood of these again in yet others,. 
as has been the case with Edwards’ bullocks. Such action involves the presence 
of a living, multiplying organism—quite a different matter to the presence of 
a fomin or an anti-toxin. The question of these substances must therefore be: 
excluded as having no special bearing in this particular case, as distinguished 
from all other cases where blood containing living organisms has been used for’ 
inoculating purposes. 
If we accept the facts as stated, we are driven therefore to adopt the 
hypothesis 3 or 4—viz.: That they had an attack of natural fever from ticks, or 
that the organisms in the blood from Hughenden were not destroyed. I don’t 
know how we can definitely decide between the two. If, however, we adopt 
the view that the organisms in the Hughenden blood were not destroyed by the 
camphor, there can, I think, be no reason for supposing that they were in any 
way attenuated, tor the bullocks were reported to have had very severe attacks 
—quite as severe, I understand,as would on the average be produced in 
animals of their class by injection of blood from an acute case. 
As regards the statements that all cattle inoculated from “ Larry’? and. 
“Tommy’’ have proved immune, and that inoculation with their blood has. 
caused no deaths, I would venture to suggest that we have heard of large herds 
being inoculated, without loss, from other cattle than ‘‘ Larry” and “Tommy.” 
But where the evidence is weak in all such cases is in the fact that the 
immunity of such inoculated cattle has not been crucially tested. 
Inspector Haylock received instructions to test the Messrs. Edwards” 
cattle, by injection of virulent blood into a few head of their inoculated cattle, 
to ascertain whether their herd had been effectually inoculated or not, but I 
learn that as yet no report of such inspection has been forwarded to the: 
Minister. I urged upon the owners about Mackay that such a test was- 
absolutely essential where there was any room for doubt as to the efficacy or 
otherwise of the inoculations that had been done. And that if the cattle had 
been rendered immune it would do no harm, and, if they had not, the sooner the: 
owners were aware of the fact the better it would be. 
