1909. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
406 
VENTILATION BY DIFFUSION. 
Will you give explanation or plan for 
ventilating cow barn by diffusion system, 
and the advantage over King system? 
Stable is to be 30 by 28 feet, two rows 
of cows, with feeding alley between. 
E. Longmeadow, Mass. m. h. p. 
The diffusion system of ventilation 
is founded upon the laws of nature 
as applied to nearly every animal thart 
breathes. The air is taken into the 
lungs through a single opening, the 
trachea. Science teaches us that only 
about one-fifth of the air contained in 
the lungs is changed each time a cow 
breathes; yet by holding the breath only 
45 seconds the air in all parts of the 
lungs becomes uniform by the- diffusion 
process. Now, to apply the King sys¬ 
tem it would be necessary to punch a 
certain sized hole in the lungs of each 
cow, through which to force out the im¬ 
pure air. We do not think this extra 
hole is necessary either in a cow’s 
lungs or in a stable in which she is 
kept, for -the simple reason that fresh 
air can be supplied by the natural way 
of diffusion, without draughts, and the 
humidity of the air in any stable where 
the diffusion system is properly installed 
is much less than has ever been found 
in any stable ventilated entirely by the 
King system. A wrong principle is 
employed by the King system, which is 
supposed to take the air from near the 
floor, instead of taking the impure air 
and noxious fumes which always rise 
toward the ceiling, therefore should be 
allowed to escape at or above the level 
of the cows’ heads. The cost of the 
diffusion system is very little as com¬ 
pared with the King. It consists of 
inserting muslin covered frames into 
the lower half of each window or over 
openings made for the purpose in the 
side of the stable at least four feet 
from the floor. The amount of cloth 
to be used depends upon the temper¬ 
ature of the stable air, the position 
of the ventilators, the weight of the 
cloth, the velocity of the wind and the 
number of cubic feet of space allowed 
for each cow. I would recommend 
about two square feet of cloth for each 
cow, common cotton sheeting will do. 
but it should be placed mostly on the 
south and east sides of the stable. No. 
10 cotton duck should be used on the 
north and west sides and the tempera¬ 
ture of the stable regulated at 45 to 
50 degrees in Winter. c. s. greene. 
SMALL GRAINS FOR FATTENING HOGS- 
Some time ago we had some musty 
wheat and the miller would only offer 
fifty cents per bushel for it. As corn 
was selling for seventy-five cents per 
bushel we decided to grind the wheat, 
mix it with milk and water with a few 
pounds of oil meal added, and feed it 
to hogs as a slop with corn. We were 
more than pleased with the experiment, 
and we believe we received double as 
much for the damaged wheat as it was 
worth on the market. The hogs ave¬ 
raged 160 pounds each when placed in 
the fattening lot, and in 60 days were 
sold averaging 156 pounds each. As 
there were three or four runts in the 
lot I am confident that some of the ani¬ 
mals gained two pounds each day they 
were on feed, and a farmer who has 
fed a straight corn ration knows that 
very few hogs will gain over one pound 
a day on corn alone. We have found 
that it is not advisable to feed wheat 
alone to fattening hogs, but believe it 
will pay to buy corn as high as 75 cents 
per bushel to balance the ration. A 
stock scales was in the lot with the 
hogs referred to, and they were fre¬ 
quently weighed. As near as I could 
figure I found that each bushel of wheat 
and corn mixed, or a 60-pound bushel 
of the meal, produced 15 pounds of 
pork that sold at $6 per 100 live 
weight. I have often noticed that the 
markets in Buffa'o and other New York 
cities are much higher than in Chica¬ 
go, and as large numbers of hogs are 
shipped east it appears to me that there 
is a wide field open to New York farm¬ 
ers in swine raising. Where land is 
comparatively cheap and a farmer 
would give his attention to raising hogs 
and feeding them a balanced ration I 
believe that he could in a short time be 
independent. There is too much corn 
fed in Illinois, and this is responsible 
more than anything else for the fre¬ 
quent outbreaks of disease that destroy 
thousands of hogs annually in the corn 
belt. n. D. s. 
Illinois. 
COTTON HULLS FOR FEEDING. 
That is the feeding value of cotton 
hulls to cows, young cattle, and fattening 
steers? Is it cheaper at $17 per ton 
than bran at $30 per ton? Of what value 
is it to the soil in the manure? c. B. s. 
Pennsylvania. 
The feeding value of cotton-seed 
hulls for cows or young stock is very- 
small—probably $6 or $8 per ton—but 
I would not advise their use as they 
contain less than two per cent of nitro¬ 
gen. They are worth a little more as 
a feed for fattening steers, but $17 
per ton is more than they are worth 
for any purpose. Bran is cheaper at 
$30 per ton. The manure from a ton 
of these hulls would not be worth more 
than about $2. c. s. greene. 
THE VALUE OF BUCKWHEAT. 
I suggest to the “Protein Club” that 
if buckwheat were raised and the coarse 
ground grain fed in rations to horse 
and cow it will reduce cost. Buck¬ 
wheat middlings, we understand, are 
high in protein. A neighbor tells me 
that Dr. Stnead in the “Tribune 
Farmer” states buckwheat straw is 
higher in protein than wheat bran. We 
can hardly credit this (have not looked 
it up in Government reports either), 
as we fed some last season, and neither 
horses nor cows relished it. We fed 
last season corn and cob meal two 
parts to buckwheat (ground grain) 
one part, and mixed feed one part. 
Our cows never wintered better and 
gave good yield. We sell no milk, us¬ 
ing all here on our poultry plant, and 
make butter from cream, using separa¬ 
tor. Roughage is mixed hay and corn 
fodder run through fodder cutter by 
engine power. Only keeping five cows 
silo would not pay. Next Fall we in¬ 
tend to put in a good mill and grind 
corn and cob, oats and buckwheat, and 
try to balance a ration this way with- 
using running a large grain bill. Bran 
costs $30 per ton. It is the only feed 
we have had to buy all Winter, as 
our farm raises grain for 350 hens, 
four horses and five cows, also pigs 
(from three to 16 at odd times), not 
including sucking pigs. We make the 
buckwheat suggestion for what it is 
worth to other readers; we like it. 
Connecticut. R. b. p. 
R. N.-Y.—There is some mix-up 
about this analysis. The following 
table gives a fair statement of the an¬ 
alysis of buckwheat compared with 
wheat bran. Only the digestible ma¬ 
terials are considered : 
Protein. 
Carbo¬ 
hydrates. 
Pat. 
Wheat bran .... 
. 10 . 
48.5 
3.1 
Buckwheat bran 
. 13.5 
’ 44. 
39 
Whole buckwheat 
. 6.8 
47. 
1.2 
Buckwheat straw 
. 1.4 
36. 
0.4 
Green buckwheat 
. 1.5 
6.6 
0.4 
Thus the buckwheat bran is higher 
in protein than wheat bran, but, of 
course, the straw is not. In many sec¬ 
tions buckwheat is a very profitable 
crop. At the New Jersey Station green 
buckwheat was used as a soiling crop 
with fair satisfaction. 
“Hullo, old man!” exclaimed Dub- 
ley, at the Literary Circle reception. 
“It’s a pleasant surprise to meet you 
here.” “Good of you to say so, old 
chap,” replied Brown “Yes, you see, I 
was. afraid I wouldn’t find anybody 
but bright and cultured people here.” 
—Puck. 
Squelching One Of 
The Users of Abandoned 
DE LAVAL 
Cream Separator Inventions 
Our attention is called to the recent advertisement of the 
Vermont Farm Machine Co., makers of the so-called “ U. S.” 
cream separators, which bristles with assertions likely to convey a 
false impression to those who may have read it. 
They refer to the Houston & Thomson patent in a way to 
imply that DR. DE LAVAL was not the inventor of THE 
FIRST PRACTICAL CONTINUOUS FLOW CENTRIFU¬ 
GAL CREAM SEPARATOR, when they know that the Houston 
& Thomson patent as well as the De Laval patent BOTH belonged 
to the DE LAVAL Company, that a usable machine was never 
built according to the Houston & Thomson patent, and that they 
themselves helped other infringers sued by the DE LAVAL 
Company to have the courts decide that the Houston & Thomson 
patent DID NOT show a continuous separator, even in a technical 
patent sense, let alone a machine capable of practical use. 
They say “ No discarded or abandoned inventions are used in 
the United States separators,” when they know that since 
DE LAVAL separators forced them to abandon their antiquated 
gravity creamers and take up cream separators they have twice 
escaped the penalty of infringement suits brought against them by 
the DE LAVAL Company by narrow legal technicalities alone, 
such as a patent having been taken out by two men together, one 
of whom had added to the inventive work of the other, when the 
American law, different from that of European countries, requires 
two separate patents being taken out in such circumstances. 
And furthermore they know that their so-called “ 1909 
MODEL” machines utilize merely the curved vertical “blade” 
bowl construction of the NOW EXPIRED NINETEEN (19) 
YEARS OLD DE LAVAL PATENT NO. 432,719 ISSUED 
JULY J2, 1890, which “blade” type of bowl construction, while 
DE LAVAL owned, was NEVER GOOD ENOUGH for 
DE LAVAL use,—and that any child can see the " new” U. S. 
utilization cf it now by reference to a copy of the patent obtainable 
from the Commissioner of Patents, Washington, D. C. 
They hark back again to a skimmilk “record” claimed to 
have been made at the Buffalo Exposition in 1901, which 
has been exploded so often that it’s threadbare and at most is 
a pretty ancient basis to seek patronage upon in this progressive 
age in the year 1909. 
They print a “testimonial” letter from a man who has long 
been THEIR OWN AGENT, posing as the “ president ” of a 
little creamery near Poughkeepsie, N. Y., which letter they have 
been simply changing the date of and varying a little from year to 
year for ten years. 
While most of this letter is untrue it is true that this agent of 
theirs did sell a few “ U. S.” machines to patrons ten years ago, hut 
they were sold at half-price, or less, as a sort of “stage-play,” be¬ 
cause of the nearness to the De Laval Works, to farmers who were 
led to believe they were getting “bargains ” at the price, some of 
whom have never used the machines, while others have long ago 
abandoned their use or traded them in at “scrap” values for 
DE LAVAL machines. 
In this connection it may be remarked that in 1908 the DE 
LAVAL agents made competitive “ trade allowances” for more 
abandoned “ U. S.” separators to be thrown into the scrap pile than 
for any other make of separator, even of the trashy “mail order” 
kinds, which bears out the judgment of the agents NOW advertis¬ 
ing “ U. S.” separators at “ mail order ” prices—manifestly putting 
them in their right class. 
We should not devote this much space to the “U. S.” 
machine—which we consider a “dead duck” competitively—but 
for the fact that this kind of advertising by their makers is more or 
less typical of that of would-be competitors generally in their 
desperate effort to keep all 1909 business from going to the 
Improved DE LAVAL machines. 
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR CO 
'42 E. Maimnon Stbkkt 
CHICAGO 
1213 3: 1215 Fn.HKirr Strkkt 
PHILADELPHIA 
Dkumm St Sachamknto Sts. 
SAN FRANCISCO. 
General Oflioes: 
165 Broadway, 
NEW YORK. 
173 177 Wll.MAU SrKKKT 
MONTREAL 
1-* k Ifi Phinckss Stukkt 
WINNIPEG 
107 Pi ast Bt«kkt 
PORTLAND, OREC. 
