1 Sepr., 1898. ] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 235 
regulations referring thereto discussed, they being of such vital importance 
in the interest of agriculture and national economy both in Prussia and Hesse. 
They also recommended a liberal distribution of Tuberculin in cases where 
inoculation had failed. A motion was also carried, recommending that it would 
be desirable that the cost of inoculation should be borne by the State. 
‘ 
Tick Fever, 
Dr. Stoney Hunr, Government Pathologist, writing to Mr. P. R. Gordon, 
Chief Inspector of Stock, on the subject of the protective value of inoculation, 
Says :— : 
Yeppoon, Rockhampton, 
8th July, 1898. 
The experiment I mentioned to you, of testing once more the protective 
value of inoculation by exposing inoculated animals in a place where 
susceptible cattle are known to promptly contract the fever and die, has, 
through various accidental circumstances, not turned out so completely 
satisfactory as one could have wished: accidents, which seem inevitable under 
the conditions in which the experimenting has to be done, have, as so 
frequently happens, come in to spoil the results. Jourteen bullocks and a 
bull, all of which had been inoculated some time ago at Mr. Archer’s cattle 
station on the Gladstone road, were brought thence on the 4th June, and 
exposed for test purposes in a virulently infested spot at Gracemere. 
Unfortunately, they effected their escape soon afterwards, and got amongst the 
peach-poison on the adjacent hills, with the result that several of them 
got very sick. One (No. 1) became blind and fell into an old shaft, 
whence he could not be extracted. A second (No. 8) died directly from the 
results of the peach-poison: he never had any fever whatever. A third (No. 
6), that had shown symptoms of poisoning for some days, eventually developed 
high temperature and died—or, at least, disappeared—for neither he nor his 
carcass could be found, though the man in charge assures me he is certainly 
dead, and is convinced that he died of “ tick fever.’ All the others remain 
pertcetly well, though covered with ticks. None of them have had any signs 
of the fever. For the purpose of report, these accidents have, of course, to a 
great extent spoilt the experiment. Still, I think it is of value for our own 
information. When we remember that of the 10 not inoculated Boolburra 
cattle exposed some time ago in this same paddock ald got high fever, and 6 
died, and of the 7 adult cattle brought from St. Helens all had high fever 
and 4 died, the protective value of the inoculation of 14 bullocks 
and the bull employed in this experiment is, I think, evident, for one only out 
of the 15 animals had any fever at all. That one died; but how far its 
illness and death were directly or indirectly due to the peach-poisoning is quite 
uncertain. Let us, however, say he certainly died of Texas Fever. Hyen 
then the results are very strongly in favour of inoculation, thus :— 
Of the not inoculated cattle from Boolburra and St. Helens placed in this 
paddock some time ago, 100 per cent. had fever; of these inoculated cattle 
placed in the same paddock, only 7 per cent. had fever. 
Of those not inoculated cattle, 60 per cent. succumbed ; of these inoculated, 
only 7 per cent. succumbed. 
Hence the inference, even from this most unlucky experiment, appears to 
be that where 100 per cent. of susceptible cattle will contract fever, only 7 per 
cent. inoculated will do so—or a difference, in this respect, of 93 per cent. in 
favour of inoculated animals. And that where 60 per cent. of susceptible 
eattle willsuccumb, only 7 per cent. of inoculated will do so—or a saving in the 
death-rate of over 50 per cent. 
