The Waikato Times.

Waikato Times, Volume XIV, Issue 1222, 29 April 1880, Page 2

The Waikato Times.

r _ Efjual and exact justice to all men, Of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political. Here shall the Press the People's 1 ight maintain, Unawed by influence and unbribed by {Jtiin.

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1880.

It was a grave mistake \yhicli, in *"ffiie early days o£ pleuro-pneumonia j • Aifctr^lifc, i Jett . the owners of cattle to set their faces against * 4n»cttlati©fr as- a pi'eventfvefthmigh perhaps a najburaL ,pne r considering how little the real nature of the disea.se _ was understood, even by ffctelftnary at that period of its history. TJhe best authorises now are in favor of not- regarding it as a local disease, originating in, and confined to, the lungs and pleurae. It may indeed never reach the second or third stage and affect the lungs, but exhaust itself in the first or febrile stage; and it is on this fact that the efficacy of inoculation is basted. Nor were Australian stock-owners alone in their ■prejudice. iThe highest veterinary authorities at home had, previous td the introduction of pleuro-pneu-monia into Victoria in 1858, been divided in opinion on this matter. Professor Garagee, than whom there is no higher authority, was for some time opposed to inoculation, and his earlier enunciations are sometimes ijupted by its opponents now, forgetful of the fact that for many years past no stronger advocate among scientific men for its practice pan 'be ' found. Mr Priestman, another grea^ authority, is referred ijp l>y/ Cjfciief Inspector Bruce in his Report >to the, New South Wales -Government on this disease. Mr Prfestnian was a veterinary surgeon haying ,a large practice in London, and he too was at one time opposed to the operation, and only commenced it when he found that his ordinary practice, which had been principally among dairy cows affected with pleuro-pneumonia, was leaving him through the dairymen inoculating their cows and thus saving them from infection. We may state, on t^he same authority, that about this time Professor Gamgee, then Principal of the new Veterinary College, " London, suggested an enquiry with regard to the practice of inoculation for plenro-pneumonia in the London dairies, which revealed the startling fact that of 32 dairymen who had inoculated their cattle there were 30 decidedly in favor of the practice. But, while in Europe, in 1872, acting on behalf of the New South Wales Government in the collection of information on the diseases of cattle, Mr Bruce did not confine himself to the experience of stockowners ancj veterinary surgeons in Crreat Britain. At home the advancement of veterinary knowleclge arid the preyention of diseases in cattle had been left almost entirely to private enterprise and individual ! effort,' 1 while in nearly every State on the continent of Europe veterinary schools and colIjl^jliachbeen: established for;many and liberally endowed, many .of; Ithe. professors . at these colleges being m,en of the very highest standing, 1 knowing the ' anatomy of the' animal and their work as well as the best medical men know the human subject and the proper treatment of. disease. And here Mr Bruce met with nothing but evidence in favor of the. value of inoculation. He visited Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria, France, anil Italy in the latter end of 1872, having been accredited through the influence of the Agent-General of New IjWth Wales to the several British Ambassadors in the coun.trjps mentioned. This secured for liim introductions to the heads of the Veterinary Departments in these countries. " These gentlemen," says Mr Bruce in his report, "in every "'(instance took great pains to supply "me with the information I re- " quired. With regard to pleuro- " pneumonia and its treatment they, " one and all, expressed themselves " decidedly in favor of inoculation ; " and, on learning from my letter to " the Veterinarian the manner in i( which our cattle are kept and " managed, strongly recommended "its practice in Australia. In fact " they went so far as to say that "no veterinary authority of any " note now disputed the efficacy of " inoculation." This is strong evidence in favor of the practice, nor does it appear a new theory suddenly arrived at and yet unproved. It was in 18.72, ■oW readers will remember, that Mr Bruce, the Chief Inspector of Stock for New South Wales, visited Europe for thepurpose of instituting the enquiries referred to in his report. But about nine years previous to this, namely in the July of 1863, the first International Veterinary Congress was held at Hamburg, and, at the suggestion of Professor Gamgee, of London, a resolution was there passed, " That all cattle " suspected of being infected with " pleurO'pneumonia should be in- " oculated." At this same meeting, while not a single voice was raised against ino6ulation, some of the members of the Congress, including such men as Professors Gerlach and Hertwig (of 'Berlin), Roll (of Vienna), Niklas (of .Munich), ,Haubner (of Dresden), Gamgee, and others, went so far as to propose that a law should be passed making the operation compulsory in all cases. So much for the experiences of both, scientists and practical stock-

owners in Europe. In our last article we went sotiiewhat fully into Ausstralian excellences, yet did but skim tShe-<v*st "amount of evidence collected from some hundreds of returns furnished by stockowners in New South Wales, to that Government, and published in the Parliamentary papers of the colony for the year 1875-6. The testimonials accumulated in that report in favor of inoculation are simply overwhelming, and no dispassionate man carefully studying thorn could cometOany'other conclusion than that inoculation is the one remedy for the disease. Fourteen hundred copies of the Government circulars were distributed by jthe' inspectors of Stock among owners possessed 6f more- than 200 head of cattle. Only 554 replies were received, and of these 282 from owners who had inoculated their cattle, 272 from those who had,' not inoculated. In the case of the former the greater part of these replies convey the required information, but an. T most pi. the latter they a*e Very meagre and incomplete. The former does not include, moreover, all Vhp,' practised ; for many owners oi large Therds who had on former occasions reported on inoculation did not do so in' 1875. Had they done so ? returns it is estimated would have been received to the number of at least 400 from those practising inoculation. We find the number of cattle inoculated by tffose " 28& owners returned at 394,137, and the published report • estimates that it may be safely assumed that in New South Wales alone a million head of cattle had been inoculated up to that time. The answer to the two 1 questions, first " the : 'state of the cattle when inoculated/ and secondly, "the time when the pleuro left the herds after inoculation" are specially interesting. To» the ft"* 8 * question 57 owners make no return ; 32 had no disease; 178 reported that their cattle were infected in different degrees from 1 to 90 per- cent. ; ,5 reported cattle variously diseased; 19 that they had different losses in deaths of from 1 to 50 per cent, before they inoculated," *nd 7- stated they were losing from 2 to 20 a-day, and others from 10 to 12 weekly. In answer to the 1 second question, namely, the Idate after inoculation at which pleuro left the herd, we find 66 owners make no reply ; 35 say " at once," "very soon," or, "in a few days ;" 85 say from 1 to 4 weeks ; 34, from 4to 8 weeks ; 27, from 2 to 3 months ; 5, from 3 to 4 months : 5, from 4 to 9, months, 2, five years and a long time ; and 16 reply " not yet," " never," and "seldom"— Thus, in only 28 cases was the date over three months, and a reference to the owners replies on these 28 cases — too long to enumerate in full — shows that there were special reasons. In some cases the herds were badly diseased when inoculated and in others but partially inoculated, or inoculated oattle subsequently introduced, while in five only of the twenty-eight were there no apparent reasons for. the long duration, of the disease. The time the disease had existed in the herds before being operated upon is also another matter to be considered. Fifty-three owners do not say ; 25 state they had no disease ; 34 inoculated directly they saw the disease; 183 at various periods, ranging from a few days to 12 months after the outbreak, and 7 from 18 months to 18 years. it is considered," says the report, " that the disease had existed "in the majority of the inoculated " herds for the lengthened periods " mentioned previous to their inocu- " lation, its comparatively speedy " disappearance after the operation, •' generally in one or two months, " could not possibly be attributed to " any other cause than the efficiency "of inoculation." The returns from the owners of inoculated herds are very meagre, and to the question, asking how long disease-has existed in the herds, only 60 replied ; several returned as answers various periods under seven weeks ; 9. from 2to 5 months; 26, from 6 to 12 months; 18, from 18 months to 10 years. Of losses by death, in 32 cases returns are given as ranging from slight to 5 per cent. ; in 6 cases from 7to 10 per cent. ; in 9 cases from 12 to 20 per cent. ; in 9 cases from 23 to 40 per cent. ; and in 9 cases from 40 to over 50 per cent. In conclusion, we would draw the attention of our readers to the fact, as stated in the report, " That while "all the returns by owners who "inoculated (with a few excep- " tions which have been explained) " show that the disease did not last "in a herd in which the cattle had " all been inoculated more than three " or four months, it did so in those " which had not been inoculated for " periods ranging from one month "to ten years, and in some it is re- " ported as still existing, and having " done so all along, This is the " case also with respect to the inocu"lated and uninoculated cattle in " the herds in which the inoculation " was only a partial one, and ac- " counts for almost all the cases of '•protracted duration of disease in " inoculated herds. That there ex- " ists such a marked difference in " the duration of the disease in in- " oculated and uninoculated herds " none — not even the opponents of " inoculation — have attempted to " deny,; and it is utterly impossible "to account for, this difference on " any other supposition than that "a true and perfect inoculation " takes place, and the disease is thus " made to run its course in a mild "form through tfye whole of the

" eattte* inoculated in a very much "shorter time than if they had not •Hbfeeja inpcula<ted, and the disease " altered to ta&e its bourse." /