Vol. LXII1. No. 2832 
NEW YORK, MAY 1 , 1904. 
81 PER YEAR. 
WATERING COWS IN THE BARN. 
Which System—Basin or Trough ? 
There are two systems of watering cows so as to have 
water constantly before them. In one little tubs or 
basins are placed for each cow, with pipes arranged so 
that water may be kept in them at all times. In the 
other a trough of cement is made in front of where the 
cows stand, and the water is let into this when desired. 
We are often asked which is the better system. Will 
you tell us which system you prefer, and why? 
Arguments for Cement Trough. 
1 prefer the system of watering in a cement trough. 
My principal objection to the automatic devices keep¬ 
ing water before the animals all the time, are the cost 
and danger of getting out of order and, far more im¬ 
portant, the difficulty of keeping such tubs or basins 
in a thoroughly clean and sanitary condition. I am 
aware that it has been claimed that having water con¬ 
stantly before the cow leads to increased production 
of milk, but with cement troughs the animals can be 
watered with so very little labor that it is perfectly 
feasible to offer water as many times a day as I think 
it can possibly be, 
needed, and I do not 
believe that the au¬ 
tomatic devices will 
lead to the produc¬ 
tion of a sufficiently 
larger quantity of 
milk to cover the 
increased cost of 
install ation and 
maintenance. I am 
awar e further that 
some object to wa¬ 
tering in long 
troughs out ot 
which a number 
of animals drink, 
through fear that in 
the event of conta¬ 
gious disease, such 
as tuberculosis, it 
may be conveyed 
from one to the 
other through the 
medium of the 
drinking trough. 
This is doubtless a 
possibility, but with 
the tuberculin test 
it seems to me it is inexcusable that a cow should be 
kept in a herd until she becomes a center of infection. 
Our experience here certainly fails to indicate any 
danger from this source. wm. p. brooks. 
Mass. Agl. College. 
The Basin System Preferred. 
Our barn is fitted mostly with single basins, 
although we have some that are double. Both 
kinds are iron with porcelain lining; they do 
not rust, and are easily cleaned. The single 
basins have a lip on inside all around (they are 
round, water entering at side) to prevent lapping, but 
our experience teaches us that cows only lap when 
basins are wrongly placed, so that it is hard work for 
the cow to get a good drink. The basins are behind 
the manger and the cows fastened with swing stan¬ 
chions so that the cow can drink when she likes, and 
she likes to quite often. The basins keep clean from 
hay, etc., because back of the manger. We clean them 
out about once a month. The water comes in at one 
end of the barn and is constantly running through the 
main pipe, which is much better than having water 
come only from a small tank, and drawn out only as 
the cows drink, so then unless there are valves in the 
basin (and they do not work Jong), as soon as one cow 
drinks it lowers water in her neighbor’s basin so each 
cow does not always get fresh water. We like this 
system better than having a cement manger where the 
cows only get water when you have cleaned the man¬ 
ger and let it on. If the cows are not all “straight,” 
and we are sorry to say there s.eem to be lots of them 
that are not, there is more contamination in the 
cement manger plan. Cows are not likely to get water 
more than twice a day, and then not always when 
wanted. Did you ever see a man who had this system 
water his cows the last thing at night? Yet we find 
cows drink heavily them. Our cows have fresh water 
when they want it, and this cannot always be sa-id of 
the cement mar.ger plan. We sold a cow to a neigh¬ 
bor this week that was giving us 32 to 34 pounds of 
milk daily. He feeds much heavier than we do, but 
the cow has shrunk quite a bit, and we think because 
she only gets water once a day, whereas before she 
had it at her pleasure. One objection to the basin 
system, while it has bothered us a little, has caused 
much trouble this Winter and a good deal of milk 
shrinkage; this is that they do freeze up in very 
PROSPECT HILL FARM. HOME OF II. G. MANCHESTER. Fig. 159. 
cold weather, but we prefer to take some precautions 
and run our chances with this system. 
H. G. MANCHESTER. 
The Cement Trough is Sanitary. 
The so-called self-watering devices are comparative¬ 
ly simple in construction, are automatic in operaton, 
and require little or no attention to keep them in order 
and further supply the animal with water at any and 
all times. An occasional animal will contract the 
mischievous habit of constantly lapping water, to the 
detriment of her digestion, and more or less of the 
fodder gets into the water making it foul after a little 
time, if the attendant grows careless in clearing the 
basin. The cement trough is perfectly sanitary, 
which is its main advantage. It requires all the 
animals to drink at the same time and in a compara¬ 
tively short time, and it entails more work on the 
herdsman, and work that must be done regularly and 
without neglect. In short, it makes another “chore.” 
There is little objection to turning the cows out into 
a sunny, well-sheltered yard for water. 
[Prof.] H. II. WING. 
Neither System “the Best.” 
Probably nine out of ten who have water in the barn 
use some of the patented buckets, and the other one- 
tenth use either the permanent or a movable trough. 
We have for a number of years used the last named. 
It has the advantage over the others of always being 
clean, and the water in it fit for a man. The buckets 
have the disadvantage of getting grain and feed in 
them, and so if not given great care, become nau¬ 
seous. The permanent cement manger used for water 
has the advantage of pure water if cleaned thoroughly 
each time before using, and there is some protection 
to keep cows from putting their front feet into it. 
They must be provided with an outlet with strainer, 
so that surplus water after watering may be quickly 
drained off. As I see this question to-day we have not 
yet adopted the best plan. The buckets are used so 
largely because they save time, and that is an im¬ 
portant factor, and like rigid stanchions, will con¬ 
tinue to be until something corresponding to the 
swing stanchion is offered that combines cleanliness 
and efficiency. I have seen very many barns where 
these buckets were slimy and revolting. They can be 
cleaned and should be washed out frequently. Really 
the medium for wa¬ 
tering is largely a 
question of taste, 
desire and peculiar 
environment of the 
stable. Any system 
suiting the owner 
is desirable, and so 
much ahead of auy 
other way that it 
makes perhaps the 
best paying invest¬ 
ment on a dairy 
farm. If there were 
any results on rec¬ 
ord giving increas¬ 
ed yield from con¬ 
stant water supply 
over twice or three 
times a day, it 
would of course 
settle all in favor of 
buckets. We need 
some system of 
combining the 
labor-saving advan¬ 
tage of the buckets 
and the cleanliness 
of the movable 
trough. I have not been able as yet to solve the ques¬ 
tion E - COOK - 
Likes the Buckets Best. 
I use the bucket system for watering my cattle. I 
like it better than the trough system for the reason 
that it occupies less room and is less liable to stop¬ 
page or obstruction from material getting into it. 
There is an individuality about it for each cow that 
I like. There is, in my judgment, little or no danger 
from overflowing or flooding when using the buckets, 
but in the case of the trough, if an obstruction gets 
into the trough at any one point, it might stop it so 
that it would overflow and flood the stable. 
New York Com. of Agriculture. c. a. wieting. 
Favors Constant Supply. 
At the Dellhurst Farms we believe in and practice 
the system of keeping the water before the cattle all 
the time. It is surprising how frequently, when thus 
supplied with good fresh water, the cattle will drink 
it, and it is safe to say that no animal in our stables 
is suffering for water when it is within reach any 
hour of the day or night. We have not observed the 
other method to which you refer closely enough to be 
able to analyze its demerit. It seems to me the com¬ 
mon sense advantages are all on the side of continu¬ 
ing to have the water available, provided the supply is 
clean and fresh. dei.liiurst farms. 
