Veterinary Journal. DEVOTED TO THE DIFFUSION OF VETERINARY KNOWLEDGE. THE following article is in reply to several queries, which lately apperaed in the Michigan Farmer-the quereis are in italics. An individual complains that he has lost a number of young pigs, and enquires if "luck or chance has any thing to do with raising the same? We answer, if a man by chance, or otherwise, is lucky enough to have studied physiology, or even attended a few lectures on the subject, the information obtained might enable him to become a successful raiser of this description of live stock; otherwise luck or chance has little, if any thing, to do with the matter. "Must pigs come in a particular time of the moon!" The moon has no sort of influence on the destiny of young pigs, (although some persons entertain antiquated notions on this subject,) they are under the influence, and of course are amenable, to, the same laws of health, disease and death that apply to the eventful period in the life of man. Disease and premature death are penalties attending the non-observance of the same. Neither our ancestors, nor the present parental race, that we are aware of, have ever paid any attention to moonshine, as affecting the welfare of their anticipated or future progeny. There exists a good deal of poetry about the moon's influence, but very little reality: as an illustration of the former we quote an author whose name has escaped our memory, who runs on in this style: "Meet me by moonlight alone, And then I will tell you a tale,- Now in a serious'mood, the question arises. Does not lunar rays affect some persons, after the manner of the sun's rays. The former, by reflecting light, and the latter by radiating heat? The answer to this question lies in the facts that there are two conditions necessary for the development of disease. FIRST.-Predisposition, existing in the individual. SECOND. The application of a specific cause: and vice versa. As an example of the first proposition we remark: that if a man, or animal, of the sanguine temperament-predisposed, as each are known to be, to cerebral congestion,-are exposed to the rays of a tropical sun, we may, under certain circumstances, expect congestion of the brain. And the second proposition is involved in the first, inasmuch as a specific cause of this kind is inoperative in the absence of predisposition. Should the moon therefore exercise any pathological power over any species of animality, we may safely conclude that there exists on the part of the latter, some peculiar susceptibility to external agencies, which, in the ordinary state of health, are inoperative in inducing disease. This susceptibility may be the result of previous disease, or a loss of equilibrium in the vital forces. The causes of the same are to be sought for among the popular evils of domestication. But why need we assign such unfortunate results, as those complained of, to the moon, when other causes, too glaring to escape our notice, exist. Here for example is an illustration of one of them :— The sow in her aboriginal condition produces but one litter yearly, and less in number, too, than the litter of her domesticated and pampered sister. The former is rarely seen with the male except at the usual period. Under the management of men, who convert every thing into gold, the breeding sow is urged to bring forth two; and some persons contend that they have procured three litters, in the course of twelve months. If such flagrant violations of the reproductive laws are constantly occuring, can we wonder that nature should assume her empire and refuse to sustain animals that might libel the workmanship of the Creator. It were better that a few should die rather than annihalate the race. "Is the month of March a bad one for pigs to be born?" That depends entirely on the care they have after birth. April is probably a better period to usher in the young than during the boisterous month of March. Yet should the litter appear in the colder season, we must counteract the effects of the same and provide comfortable quarters for the juveniles. Their health does not depend so much on the season of the year, as it does on the care and attention they receive after birth. "Is beech shack good for pregnant sows?" Yes, provided the sow has a grist mill within her stomach, and it were capable of grinding or pulverizing the same into suitable material for the manufacture of chyme, chyle and blood. Otherwise the feat might overtax the digestive organs, and thus react on the reproductive. Now it is generally known that the condition of such an animal will not admit of extraordinary use of the digestive, without reacting on the nervous and reproductive systems. Consequently such indigestible food as beech shack must injure the breeding sow. Some, however, may contend that wild pigs partake of and thrive on the same. True, but we must bear in mind that the domesticated sow is a very different animal when compared with the wild original; slops, semi-putrid garbage, down cellar and unventilated locations, are operative in disturbing the equillibrum of the system, and increasing a morbid appetite. Hence the former gradually loses those keen instincts indicative of wild animals, who exhibit extraordinary sagacity in selecting food, both as regards its quantity and quality. Having in a brief manner answered the queries, we shall offer a few pertinant remarks on THE BREEDING SOW. Should the sexual organs of the sow be in an excessive state of activity, producing two or three litters per annum, the effect is to weaken the individual fabric of the parent, and obtain a lot of scrofulous, flat-sided pygmies, who never make good breeders, and, in fact, are not worth the trouble of raising. Fat and plethoric sows make poor breeders, from the fact that when the nutritive function is very active in supplying the waste of the system and depositing fat, the reproductive is comparatively dormant, and is not generally aroused until the fat and flesh of the animal is reduced, so that a sort of equillibrum shall exist between the functions of nutrition and reproduction. Our readers are probably aware that it is very difficult to impregnate a fat sow, or fatten a prolific breeder. The same is true of the human subject. A moderately fed population, the Irish for example, multiply much faster than the more pampered and wealthy classes. So, that moderately fed animals, in fair condition, are the best for breeding purposes. It is wisely ordained therefore, that the exercise of purely animal functions shall either be destructive to their instruments, or the multiplication of animals shall be restricted; for in the case of the sow, she being endowed with extraordinary prolific powers, if some sort of limit was not established, there would be danger of the world becoming a universal piggery. M. Vauban has made some curious calculations, which seems to confirm this assertion. He considers that the sow is naturally a long lived animal, living to the age of twenty years or more; capable of receiving the male before she is twelve months old, and of giving birth to two litters a year. He calculates twelve at a litter, and excludes the males which are as numerous as the other sex. The result is that in the course of eleven years, which is equivalent to ten generations, there would be six millions of pigs. Extend the calculation to the twelfth generation and we have a greater number than all Europe is capable of maintaining; and were the calculation extended to the thirteenth generation, there would be as great a number as would people (pigify) the whole world. With powers of production great as this animal in its domesticated state possesses, it will appear that, let the consumption be ever so great, the largest means will exist for supplying it. A PLEA IN DEFENCE OF SWINE. Swine have, at certain periods in the history of the world, been considered unclean creatures, of gross habits, &c. If they are unclean and of gross habits, their owners are more to blame than they. How can we expect to teach them better habits, while confined in cellars and other locations, where they are often compelled to wallow knee deep in mud and excrement, dragging out a woeful existence in the midst of a perfect hot-bed of filth, respireing an atmosphere concocted from the decomposition of a pest hole. And their food, what shall we say of that? It is too beastly to describe, yet the cravings of an appetite not naturally morbid, but otherwise, compel them to convert their stomachs into living cess-pools. Some persons consider any system of management good enough for, hogs. How then can we expect them to improve, either in habits or condition? Hence if domesticated swine have lost their natural instincts and acquired filthy habits, the blame should fall on their keepers. We know from experience, that if young pigs are kept in clean locations—not brutalized-and fed on good wholesome diet, they will refuse to partake of some of the horrid stuff called swill. They will exercise the same sagacity in the selection of nice morsels, as the wild originals are known to manifest. The idea originating with the Egyptians, Jews and Mahommedans, that the use of swine's flesh was an abomination, and its touch pollution, is nothing more than prejudice—has no foundation in fact. That it is the cause of Scrofula and leprosy, as some contend, we emphatically deny. For the very persons who most abhor pork, and consequently abstain from its use the Jews-were the greatest sufferers from the above diseases. Then again, Jewish historians have |