BALCKLEG MORTALITY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8055, 23 February 1906, Page 2

BALCKLEG MORTALITY.

TO TUB KIMTOII. Siu—l have just rend with considerable interest an cxcelU-nt article : on tlic excessive losses from blackleg in "Wednesday's issue of the News, but whilst yo:i have evidently got a good grasp of the question there is one aspect of it that to my mind is the most serious, viz., the l'aet that all this serous loss lias occurred in what was formerly an entirely clean district. I'rior to this year 110 ease of blackleg lias been known of cast of the railway line in this district. Now. through the blundering or negligence of some of the ollicials of the Slate Department there is scarcely a farm but where there have been from two to ten cases, so that the settlers have not only sustained serious loss through the death of their best calves, but they have had the dread disease brought on to their land, so that it is impossible to estimate what loss farmers may sustain in years to come. In any claim for compensation to be made 011 the Government for losses, this phase of the question will have to be kept in view. Tint someone has blundered there is 110 question, in as far as the work of inoculation went on with 110 bad results until n certain parcel ol vaccine came to be used, ivhen the mortality at once rose from [ess than I per cent, to in some eases 50 per cent in individual herds, reaching as high as 00 tor one day's iuoerl.itiou of a few hundred animals. The I a;,'regale for the district, treated with this particular mixture, must run into several hundreds. This direct loss should unquestionably be met by the liovcrnnicnt, and the local branch of the A'./.h.l'. is busy collecting 111 formation. with a view to assist their members iu their efforts to recover this, and 1 am very pleased to see the amount of attention your paper is giving to the question, as it must all help the case oi those unfortunate settlers, who have been the victims of ollk-iai blundering.—l am, etc., Jambs Bodmk, l'rov. President N.X.i'.A. ' Eitham, 22ml Feb,, l'JDli. 11