906 
Zr/ie RURAL NEW-YORKER 
July 20, iniS 
In hot, sultry, summer days what’s more 
annoying to critter or man than blood¬ 
thirsty flies ? It’s easy to be rid of them. 
It’s a simple, short job to spray the herd 
with 
SO-BOS-SO 
KlUFLY 
The cows like it, but flies don’t. It set¬ 
tles fly time worries; makes all stock quiet 
and contented. SO-BOS-SO KILFLY is 
guaranteed not to taint milk, gum hair or 
blister skin. 
Try SO-BOS-SO KILFLY at our risk. W> stand back of 
it. Ask your dealer for it by name — in 
handy-sized containers. 
If he hasn't SO-BOS-SO send us his name 
fc • our special Trial Oflfcr. 
The H. E. Allen Mfg. Co., Inc. 
Box 60 Carthage, N.Y. 
Keep ’em 
Away! 
The fly is a natural 
enemy to dairymen 
and stockmen. A fret¬ 
ting, stamping, worry¬ 
ing animal can’t pro¬ 
duce the most milk or 
flesh. 
Save yourself this fly-time loss. Spray 
once or twice a day with 
1^ _ P I ^ * Keeps stock contented 
1^0“! I b) eeping flies off. 
Guaranteed not to gum 
hair, blister skin or taint milk. No-Fly 
saves worry for man and beast. 
At your dealer’s. Insist on No-Fly, or send 
$1.75 and dealer’s name for full gallon can, 
sprayer and money-back guar¬ 
antee. Sprayer free with 5-gal. 
can ($5.00 prepaid). 
Agents IVanted 
W. D. Carpenter Co. 
Box 50 SYRACUSE, N. Y. 
KEEP LIVESTOCK HEALTHY 
BY USING 
Kreso Dip No. 1 
(STANDARDIZED) 
Easy to use; efficient; economical; kills 
parasites; prevents disease. 
Write for free booklets on the Care of 
Livestock and Poultry. 
ANIMAL INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT OF 
PARKE, DAVIS & CO. 
DETROIT, MICH. 
Write for evidence from 
users and our Trial Offer. 
Ask your dealer for 
our Free Cow Book, 
"Bulletin 32." 
General Laboratories 
Madison,Wis. Oept. 2757 
2^ ^ t » t XI. e d 
:€ t - to i. t lx 
HEAVE^y?aC5 
COMPOUND 
Booklet 
Free_ _ 
S3 Pnckoge siinrnnteed to give satisfaction or mouej 
back. .$1 Package sufficient for ordinary cases. 
MINERAL HEAVE REMEDY CO., 481 Fourth Ave., Pittsburg. Pa 
F/STULA 
R£E~197pa^ 
^terinanj Book) 
FLEMING'S VEST-POCKET 
VETERINARY ADVISER deHoribes BTOiptoma I 
and treatment for nearly 200 vetermary ail- I 
ments, includintr fistula and poll evil in horsog I 
and lump jaw'' in cattle. 67 iiluBtrations, 
197 paaes, durably bound. Write today. A I 
postal briofirs it by return mall, /ree of charge. 
FLEMING BROS., Chemists 
300 Union Stock Yards. CHICAGO. ILL. 1 
The Dr. CLARK STRAINER 
n-iiioves all sediment from milk. No cheese, cloth or wire 
gaii/.o used. Uecommeiuied by Conn. Uair.v Commission- 
tis. Alsv/ used by Slorrs College. C. F. KLINGER, Groton, Conn 
ivi’:':''!'' ■ 
Live Stoct 
■ i ,(i , , 
ltd Da 
. . . 
^ 'll iii 
An Experiment in Pig Feeding 
Use of Self-feeder 
Three import.mt factors in determining 
the 1!)I8 pig crop lye practically settled : 
The number of brood sows farrowing pigs, 
the number of pigs raised per litter, and 
the general condition of these young pigs 
at the beginning of the Summer season. 
The United States Government report 
claims a good margin in numbers of pigs 
raised per litter over average years on ac¬ 
count of favorable weather conditions, 
while the losses from disease are lowest in 
years. The question with which fann¬ 
ers will be most concerned during the next 
six or eight months will be, “What feeds 
are most economical under the iirevailing 
conditions, and what combinations will 
give best re.siiltsV’’ All feeds are costly, 
many are scarce and some are not avail¬ 
able. Wheat products arc extremely 
scarce throughout the country, and likely 
to remain so at least until the new crop 
of small grain is harvested. The major¬ 
ity of hog men know that plenty of corn- 
meal, wheat middlings and oilmeal will 
stated that the pigs on the .‘I per cent 
ration were in medium flesh, while the 
self-fed lot showed a much better condi¬ 
tion. 
Table I. 
Self-fed vs. Hand-fed Pigs on Forage 
Crops—July 25—Oct. 2.3. 
I. 
II. 
Hand-fed 
3 per c’t 
Self-fed 
Ration 
Corn 
Corn 
Tank. 
Tank. 
Number pigs. 
10 
10 
Initial weight Julv 25 
462 
468 
IVeight Oct. 23. 
1.623 
1.160 
I'otal gain. 
1.161 
692 
Da vs fed . 
Feed eaten— 
90 
90 
(’orn. 
3.747.00 
1.8.34.06 
Tank. 
Feed eaten for 100 lb. 
215.00 
136.92 
gain. 
.341.25 
284.82 
.\dditional days re¬ 
quired by Lot 2 to 
make same gain ... . . ■ (j(> 
Table II summarised the results of the 
second peidod of the experiment, or the 
time dating from October 23, when the 
pasture was practically gone, until I)o- 
The Pork Factory llard at Work 
make a fairly satisfactory grain ration 
for growing and fattening pigs, but this 
combination is rather beside the question 
under present prevailing conditions. There 
is little doubt that the cheapest 200-250- 
pound market pig on the late Fall market 
will be the pig which has been fed largely 
on homegrown feed, namely, an abundance 
of green pasture and corn, along with 
some high-protein feed, such as tankage 
or skim-milk. 
In a series of experiments which the 
Animal Husbandry Department of the 
New .Tersey Agricultural Experiment Sta¬ 
tion is conducting to determine the econ¬ 
omy of the self-feeder as to the hand¬ 
feeding of market pigs on forage crops, the 
following figures bear timely interest. In 
this particular trial two lots of 10 pigs 
each were used. Lot 1 was allowed 
shelled corn and 00 per cent protein tank¬ 
age, free choice in the self-feeder, while 
Lot 2 was given a 3 per cent ration (a 3 
per cent ration means a ration equalling 
3 per cent of the animal's live weight) of 
shelled corn (93 per cent) and tankage 
(7 i)er cent). I’.uth lots were allowed free 
access to a mineral mixture of charcoal, 
sulphur, boncmeal, air-slaked lime and 
salt. Water was sui)plied to both lots at 
all times. The purpose of the trial w:is 
to obtain a comparison of the rate and 
cost of gains during the different stages of 
growth and fattening, namely, the first 
period when forage crojis were available, 
and a second period when all animals 
would be ro(iuired to continue on graiyi 
after the pasture season was over. The 
self-fed lot was given access to the corn 
and tankage at all times. The other 10 
pigs were hand fed two times daily, the 
corn and tankage being fed dry and sepa¬ 
rately in cast-iron troughs. 
.Tudging from the figures in Table I the 
self-fed pigs were capable of making the 
greater gains in a given length of time, 
but they also required the more feed for 
each 100 pounds of gain. In other words, 
the hand-fed i)igs made better use of their 
forage crops, thus requiring less grain for 
each loo pounds of gain. It may be bore 
cember 22. when the last lot made their 
required average of 200 pounds per pig. 
At the beginning of this second trial, l.ot 
2 was divided into two lots (2A and 2P>) 
of five pigs each. Lot 2A was given ac¬ 
cess to the self-feeder for the remainder 
of the trial, while 2B was continued on 
full feed of corn and tankage (hand-fed). 
By so doing it was possible to obtain a 
comparative feed cost on pigs which were 
self-fed from Aveaning to market, against 
pigs fed a limited ration during the pas¬ 
ture season, after which they were full fed 
both by the free choice and hand-fed 
methods during the “fattenin'^ off” period. 
Table II. 
October 23—December 22. 
Lot 1 
Lot 2A 
Lot 2B 
Hand-fed finished 
on 
Self- 
Full 
Self-fed 
feeder 
Feed 
Corn 
Corn 
Corn 
Tank. 
Tank. 
Tank. 
Number pigs. . . 10 
5 
5 
Weight Oct. 23..1,623 
579 
581 
Final weight.. .2,015 
1,000 
1,000 
Total gain .... .392 
421 
419 
Food Eaten— 
Corn .1,.321 
1.711 
1,685.04 
Tank. 70 
151 
10!).51 
Tot’l feed eaten.1.391 
1,862 
1.714.55 
Feed for 100 lbs. 
gain . 354.84 
442.99 
428.29 
.\dditional days 
required by 
hand-fed lots. 
29 
38 
During the second period the 
self-fed 
lot continued to gain at about the same 
rate and at only a slight increase in feed 
per 100 pounds gain, while the two lots 
placed on full feed required 442 pounds 
and 428 pounds of feed respectively for 
each ](X) pounds gain. 
Table III shows the time and amount 
of feed required by each of the lots 
throughout the entire experiment. 
Table HI. 
,Tuly 25—December 22. 
Lot 1 I>ot 2A Lot 2B 
Hand-fed finished 
on 
Self- Full 
Self-fed feeder Feed 
Corn Corn Corn 
Tank. Tank. Tank. 
Number pigs... 10 5 5 
Initial weight 
July 25. 402 
Final weight.. .2,015 
Total gain.1..553 
Days on feed. .. 112 
Feed Eaten— 
Corn.,5.008.00 
Tank. 285.00 
Tot’l feed eaten.5.2.52.(K) 
Feed for 100 lbs. 
gain. .344.08 
Additional days 
required b v 
I.ots 2A & 2B . . 
234 
1.000 
770 
141 
2,028.03 
219.00 
2,847.49 
371.73 
29 
234 
1.000 
770 
150 
2 . 002 . 0 (' 
177.97 
2,780.04 
302.92 
38 
While the pigs in Lot 1 required more 
feed for a unit of gain through the pas¬ 
ture season, j-et, taking into account the 
amounts of feed eaten in each of the two 
periods, we find that the self-fed pigs 
consumed a total of 5.2.52 pounds of feed 
to make a final average weight of 200 
. pounds, .3,902 pounds of which was con¬ 
sumed when gaining at the the rate of 341 
pounds of feed for 100 pounds of gain, and 
only 1.391 pounds when gaining at the 
rate of 354 pounds of feed for 100 pounds 
of gain. On the other hand, the straight 
hand-fed pigs consumed a total of 5.627 
pounds of feed in making their required 
200 pounds average. Of this amount hut 
1.871 pounds was eaten during the first 
90 days when the rate of gain was 284 
pounds of feed for 100 pounds of gain 
and 2,050 when the rate of gain was 428 
pounds of feed per 100 pounds gain. This 
difference may also be shown by stating 
that the pigs on the self-feeder made a 
gain of 1.161 pounds when at the rate of 
341 pounds of feed per 100 pounds of gain 
and .392 pounds gain at the rate of 354 
pounds feed per 100 pounds gain, while 
the hand-fed pigs made by 092 pounds 
gain at their low rate of 284 pounds 
feed i)er 100 pounds gain, and 840 pounds 
at this higher rate of 428 pounds feed 
per 100 pounds gain. 
Judging from the figures of Table III 
the advantage of the self-fed pig over the 
hand-fed pig is not so much the saving of 
grain, but the saving of time and labor 
to the farmer. The self-fed pigs were al¬ 
ways ready for market and made their 
required weight 38 days befoi-e the hand- 
fed pigs were ready. This means less 
risk, a shorter time investment in addi¬ 
tion to a great saving of time and labor 
when the pigs feed themselves. While 
supporting figures are not here given, it 
ai>pears to the writ(*r that bad these dif¬ 
ferent lots been placed on the experiment 
dining April and thus received a longer 
pasture season, the results might be 
slightly modified in favor of the hand-fed 
pigs. This, however, would necessitate 
pigs of February farrow in order that 
they receive any appreciable good from 
the forage. 
In conclusion it may be said that corn 
and tankage, self-fed in separate com¬ 
partments of the. self-feeder in conjunc¬ 
tion with good pasture, will supply all 
the requirements for rapid and econom¬ 
ical gains. The addition of wheat 
middlings would undoubtedly prove an 
advantage during the early part of the 
growing and fattening period, but their 
economy would depend largely upon the 
price after the pigs averaged 100 pounds. 
Regarding the advisability of fatten¬ 
ing thin growthy pigs on the self-feeder, 
it appears from the trial that during the 
first 10 days or so the pigs ate more feed 
than they could digest properly. In fact, 
it might be expected that a thin, hungry 
shote of 100 pounds would consume to the 
limit when suddenly given the opportu¬ 
nity after a continued limited ration. It 
would be advisable grac-ially to bring 
such pigs to a full feed neforo allowing 
ncce.ss to the self-feeder, particularly when 
di-y lot feeding. j. m. iitpytick, 
Animal Husbanuimin. 
New Jersey Experiment Station, 
Ration for Pigs 
I have a small bunch of pigs two months 
old that I will feed thihf Summer. I have 
buttermilk at 16c a hundred pounds; corn- 
meal, .$3.85; rye middlings, .$2,80; cake 
meal, ,$2.90; wheat dour (sweepings), 
$3.25; ground oats, .$3.40. Can you from 
this compound make a good, economical 
feed ? F. M. A. 
Pennsylvania. 
Feed pigs what buttermilk they will 
clean up, fixed up in form of slop with a 
mixture of two parts cornmeal, one part 
wheat flour sweepings, and one-half part* 
ground oats. Rye middlings are not very 
satisfactory for pork production, and if 
the cake meal you refer to is cottonseed 
cake it should not be used unless in very 
limited quantities. H. F. J. 
