Aktii:tjr Hall Adjusting Tiie Ma 
chine Fig. 542. 
1014 . 
AFFLICTED DAIRYMEN AND MILKING 
MACHINES. 
S INCE the milking machines came upon the mar¬ 
ket, we have been interested in finding cases 
where afflicted people who are more or less crip- 
i '< 1 have been able to use the machines in order to 
keep up their 
dairy work. We 
have found a 
number of cases 
w here me n 
brought up from 
boyhood to milk 
cows, have sud¬ 
denly met with 
an accident 
which deprived 
them the use of 
one of their 
hands. As is well 
known, men in 
such a situation 
find it hard to 
take up other 
lines of farming. When a man has milked cows for a 
number of years, it is difficult to take up other work, 
.vet it would seem that the loss of a hand or a portion 
of it, would ruin a man’s ability to milk and thus 
drive him from the dairy business. It would be a 
good test for the milking machine if it would enable 
such people to come back after their accident and 
still be able to take care of Hie cows. We have found 
a number of cases where this very thing has been 
done, and pictures of three such men are given this 
week. The facts are sent us by Mr. Walter E. Cox of 
Pennsylvania. 
Mr. Charles Weaver, of Illinois, lost 
his left arm at the elbow. This loss oc¬ 
curred about IS months ago, and at that 
time he expected that he would be 
obliged to give up his fine dairy, which 
he had started shortly before, and which 
was doing well. He heard of the milk¬ 
ing machine, and made a trial of it. He 
is now milking IS cows in less than an 
hour with this machine. He learned to 
operate the machine and handle the cups 
in a very few days, and in about two or 
three weeks he had the system in opera¬ 
tion perfectly, doing more milking than 
ever before, and taking care of his dairy 
without trouble. It is needless to say 
such a man and his family thoroughly 
believe in a milking machine. 
The next picture, at Fig. 544, shows 
Mr. Cecil Weaver, of Kansas. Ilis 
father is one of the largest milk produc¬ 
ers in the community. Cecil had the 
misfortune to lose a hand several years ago. He 
grieved because he wanted to be a dairyman, and 
felt that this accident had deprived him of his 
earning capacity in that line. It did not seem pos¬ 
sible that a boy with one hand would ever become 
a practical milker. At the present time this boy is 
milking 40 cows by himself, by making use of a 
milking machine. He is thus able to keep up with 
any of the others, while, but for the milking ma¬ 
chine, he would be absolutely out of the race. A 
separate contrivance has been made which is 
strapped over the boy’s injured arm, and this sub¬ 
stitute for a hand enables him to take care of the 
milking machine. The other picture, at Fig. 542, 
shows Mr. Arthur Hall, of Virginia. Mr. Hall lost 
his arm, and yet he is able to use the milking ma¬ 
chine, and conducts a profitable dairy, and is him¬ 
self responsible for milking 30 good cows. As most 
afflicted people of intelligence are able to adapt them¬ 
selves to conditions, Mr. Hall is able to use his knee 
to adjust teat cups to the cows, and does it quickly 
and in good style. We print these pictures of milk¬ 
ing machines in order to encourage others who may 
have met with a serious accident and who, perhaps, 
feel that the loss of a hand has driven them forever 
out of dairy industry. They need not feel this way, 
for the milking machine, as in the case of the men 
here mentioned, may give them opportunity to come 
back and continue their work. They will all tell you, 
however, that the milking machine will not run it¬ 
self. It is a more or less complicated device, and 
needs a careful, intelligent man to handle it prop¬ 
erly. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
a good “rule-of-thumb.” Years of experience with 
trap-nests and the observation of the trap-nest rec¬ 
ords in the laying contest at Storrs have convinced 
me that the farmer-poultryman can select his great 
layers without the expense involved in obtaining ac¬ 
curate individual records with trap-nests. All the 
farmer-poultryman has to do is handle his flock over 
early in October, and band those that he finds are 
then laying. The trap-nests and the contest records 
teach us that practically all, if not all, of the great 
persistent layers are then laying, and that the non¬ 
layers are then all out of commission. By this meth¬ 
od you can avoid the use of the trap-nests, and for 
the purpose stated, duplicate the trap-nester’s work. 
Of course, you cannot by this plan get the individual 
records of each hen. but you can get the cream of 
your flock into the breeding pens, and you can great¬ 
ly improve the laying capacity of your flock. 
THE TOUCH SYSTEM.—Mr. Hunter states that 
“with such pullets the pelvic bones being one finger's 
width apart, indicates that the bird will lay in about 
six weeks’ time; two fingers’ width apart indicates 
that the bird will lay in about four weeks; three 
fingers’ width apart that she will lay directly, if not 
laying.” This is a trifle amusing as a positive rule, 
when you consider the difference in pullets and the 
different ways in which they may be housed and fed, 
and worst of all. the difference in size of different 
people’s fingers. Whose fingers is lie talking about, 
and whose pullets? 
LAYING BREEDERS.—But why discuss pelvic 
bones of pullets when prescribing rules for selecting 
breeders? My experience has taught me to stay 
away from the pullets when selecting breeders. 
Early in October we go through our pens of hens and 
1281 
Winter layers, and it is equally certain that the birds 
which are not late Fall and Winter layers are not 
great layers at all.” This being admitted, what ex¬ 
cuse is there for advising six or seven months’ labor 
with the expensive trap-nest? Why not pick them 
out in the Fall and early Winter and be done with it, 
and not shroud the whole subject with so much mys¬ 
tery? It can be done easily and surely and quickly. 
I know because I do it, and I know that no other 
work on the farm pays as this does. 
fred’k m. peasley. 
FALL SELECTION OF BREEDING HENS. 
RAP-NESTING.—Mr. Hunter’s answer, pub¬ 
lished on page 1477, in response to Mr. Mapes’ 
request for a “rule-of-thumb,” prompts me to 
suggest that Mr. Hunter offers a poor substitute for 
T 
Charles Weaver, His Machines and Milk Crop. Fig. 543. 
band the layers—those whose pelvic bones are wide 
open and loose on their hinges. Our pens contain 
100 hens each. We go into a pen in the dark and 
catch all the hens and put them in crates, then we turn 
up the lanterns to their full capacity and one man 
hands the hens to the man who does the selecting, 
and he passes judgment upon them. Those with 
bright red heads, with wide-apart pelvic bones, 
showing strong vitality and good weight, are handed 
to either of two men supplied with spiral celluloid 
bands, while another man keeps a record of the total 
count and the count of breeders. Those that show 
no promise of profit are put into other crates and 
shipped alive to market, and the others, not chosen 
for breeders, are kept for another year as layers 
when we have room for them. About November 1st 
we will run over these banded breeders and add an¬ 
other band to those that are still laying. This will 
give us a few “crackerjacks,” that we consider very 
valuable. The above method can fairly he called - a 
“rule-of-thumb” and its employment bears no rea¬ 
sonable resemblance to "main strength and stupid¬ 
ness.” 
SHORT-TIME LAYERS.—Your farmer-poultry¬ 
man has not the time to trap-nest his stock the whole 
year, and to do so for any less period would be of 
little use, as it is well known by those familiar with 
trap-nest work that many otherwise promising lay¬ 
ers quit at the end of from five months onward, and 
that some layers making a pooler record for six 
months will, by their persistent work, do more in the 
year than those of greater earlier promise. Mr. Bar¬ 
ron knew whereof he spoke when he advised that we 
trap-nest through the year or not at all, and I have 
no doubt that his experience tallies with that of 
anyone who lias practiced trap-nesting to any ex¬ 
tent. 
FALL ANI> WINTER LAYING.—Mr. Hunter told 
tHe whole ttilth when he wrote: “The birds which 
eve the great layers are certain to be late Fall and 
FIGURING PROFITS—35-CENT DOLLAR. 
I NOTICED the article on page 1149, in which Mr. 
Peasley submits a balance sheet containing the 
results of a number of experiments in growing 
potatoes. And I noticed that, in the first experiment, 
with an investment of only $65, lie made a net profit 
of $55; in other words, a net profit of nearly 85 per 
cent. Apparently this estimate does not take into 
consideration the rental of the land. But, assuming 
this to he $10 an acre, which is bank interest on a 
valuation of $200 an acre, and is certainly enough, 
he still lias a net profit of 00 per cent. And this, 
with potatoes selling at only 75 cents a bushel. Now, 
if Mr. Peasley can make this net profit, it is only a 
lack of management or a lack of business efficiency 
that prevents every other farmer from making a sim¬ 
ilar profit. This being the case, is it not to the ad¬ 
vantage of the farmer to pay such attention to the 
details of his own business rs will enable him to 
make this profit, rather than to grow potatoes at a 
nominal profit, or. even as it is claimed, at a positive 
loss, while he spends his time sitting on a soap hox 
endeavoring to devise some scheme 
wherey he may put the 65 per cent, 
profit that he says the middleman robs 
him of, into his own pocket? 
Now a word in regard to this 65 per 
cent. At the present time I am not 
growing potatoes. Instead, I buy them 
for my own use. Recently I met a far¬ 
mer who was selling potatoes from his 
wagon, and he had just five bushels left. 
He offered them to me at the rate of $1 
a single bushel, or 90 cents, if I would 
take the five bushels. I saw a good 
chance to help in getting rid of the rob¬ 
ber middleman, and so I bought the five 
bushels and went about my way, while 
the farmer drove to my house with the 
potatoes. At night, when I returneel 
home, I found that my wife had also 
bought a bushel of potatoes from the 
grocer, who had obligingly carried them 
down cellar, while the farmer had left 
those that I had bought from him on the 
piazza. I found that she had paid the grocer but 70 
cents a bushel, while I had paid the farmer 90 cents 
for potatoes that were not quite as good. And I 
found, also, that the grocer’s bushel weighed an even 
60 pounds, while the farmer’s bushels weighed but 
from 48 to 51 i>ounds, including the sacks. Now, as a 
matter of information, I would line to know where 
the 65 per cent, that the middlemen are said to have 
robbed someone of, may be found. I am not high 
enough in percentage to locate it. c. o. o. 
Vermont. 
R. N.-Y. — It 
was clearly stat¬ 
ed that the fig¬ 
ures given by 
Mr. Peasley were 
estimated. He 
wanted to learn 
how much fer¬ 
tilizer he could 
afford to use. So 
he put different 
quantities o n 
small plots or 
rows, and figur¬ 
ed the yields out 
to acres. We 
thought this was 
clearly under¬ 
stood. No one 
w o u 1 d expect 
that a full acre 
would work out 
exactly the same 
as a short row, 
but the compar¬ 
ison told the 
needed stor y 
about fertilizers. Cecil Weaver With His Milking 
As for the see- Machine. Fig. 544. 
