The Southern farm gazette. (Starkville, Miss.) 1895-1909, 1902-07-15
SOUTHERN FARM GAZETTE SakvlIe Miss July 15 1902

KM OALE | L. Stdl hNIIIS'
be necessary to continue concern
trated feeding aud they were
only allowed the short pasturage
with an abundance of hay which
was somewhat drv and woody.
Concentrated food was thought
unnecessary, and in the feverlsh
condition to be absolutely harm
full, their temperature register
ing in the neighhorhocd OF los or
100 Ctls. F. Their food there
fore was chiefly OF a bulky cha'
acIer. the owner relying Impli' =
itiy on the word OF the PARTY from
whom he mrde the purchase that
they were perfectly sale, which
of course meant that there was
no necessity Tor any further
special care in feeding. When
these cattle arrived there was
every evidence from the appear
ance of their feces (manure) CT
their having been fed on cotton
seed meal. which no doubt they
were, during the time they were
under treatment, but ii was not
suggested by the seller to the
purchaser to continue conCen.
trated feed for Il time at least.
y complete change OF food ma
terial both in character and width
of nutritive ratio as indicated was
innocently made. with the result
that two of the bulls were nearly
lost-one from most obstinate
impaction, the other omewhat
similarly affected, but also suf-
fering from an almost-comPlete
collapse, with a subnormal tenn
perature of about hb dogs. F., AND
twas by the greatest attention
that these animals were again
brought to condition promising
recovery. Here is an instance in
which the buyer and seller were
both innocenlv defective IN their
knowledge of the requirements
necessary for success with inoc-
ulated cattle. The seller should
either have not delivered the ami
mails before sixty days after in
oculation or until they had passed
through the second fever period
and appeared healthy and vigor-
Gus or he should have informed
the buyer of their uncertain con-
dition and instructed him to con-
tinue the convalescent dietary
the requisite length of time after
he got the cattle home. Had the
latter been done there would have
been no trouble IN the case in
question at least as the present
owner would have been only too
glad to have done everything in
his power for the safety of his
animals, but he suffered first by
being misled and in the second
place by his want of accurate
information on the subject.
With such source of risk or
danger TO inoculatad cattle,
whether through ignorance or
other wise on the part of those
handling them, we would earn
estly suggest that sellers and
purchasers;sshould more thor
oughlv post themselves with the
requisite in(or matlon on the sub
ject of mmunization necessary
to prevent loss, whic h later means
injury to the business IN i'm mum
lied cattle; that inoc ulated cattle
ought not to be accepted inside
Of sixty days after the operation
unless the buyer is prepared to
continue the proper feeding and
care and appreciates the impor-
lance of such, and that breeders
or dealers should not deliver IN
oculated cattle within the period
stated without firstinfor ming the
purchaser of their insulficientlv
immune condition and advising
him as to the necessity of careful
feeding and attention for the
proper length of time to insure
safety.