0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

28 > Image 28 of Annual report. 1926

Part of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station

X. i e gs Y i 22, Thirty-ninth Ammo-Z Report A L ` of this infection had been noted in the United States, these i i A four cases having been reported from this laboratory. 5 ` Infectious Abortion of Cows and Mares. Seven hundred * I ; i and Hfty-nine samples of blood from 62 herds of cows were tested for infectious abortion. The bacterin treatment for Q this disease was administered to 785 head of cattle on 29 farms, i V tg and 55 head of cattle on seven-farms received treatment in the form of a vaccine. The results obtained in the treatment of cattle for this disease are quite encouraging. Sixty-five p I samples of blood were tested for infectious abortion of mares. _ Fourteen aborted fetuses were examined, but B. abortivo 1 equinus, the organism causing large outbreaks of infections i i abortion of mares, was not isolated from any of these speci- { mens. A streptocoecus was isolated from five fetuses. Bacter- Q in, made from the B. aJbortivoequinus, was administered to _ ` ` 1565 mares on 52 farms. Seventy samples of blood from swine i _ { were tested for infectious abortion and 335 head of swine were 2. if vaccinated against abortion with baeterin prepared at this t ? laboratory. Investigations show a variation in agglutination , tests for infectious abortion of cows when different strains of i I Bacterium abortus (Bang) are used as antigen. This phase of , the problem is receiving further attention. ` 3 I-Iogging Down Corn with and without Supplements. The . Y _ , . results of this years tests indicate that it is profitable to supple- -i J iiient corn, whether the supplement is a protein, a mineral i 3 U mixture, or both combined. The addition of salt was of some L ` i advantage, tho not marked. Tankage proved superior to all V ig i..=.;; ` other forms of supplement. The males made a slightly better Ei: B? * - gain per head than the females, producing 44.16 pounds of pork l per head, or an average daily gain of 1.53 pound as compared up ` with 37.14 pounds of pork produced by the females with an `w- -~~- . average daily-gain of 1.35 pound. (V { ._ t Range for Pork PI0ducti011._ Pigs farrowed and raised on i tg new ground made faster growth, had less sickness and the sows E]- raised a larger number of pigs per litter than those cared for on the old piggery grounds. \Vhen treated for worms, the usual large number of round worms were expelled from the ti; *+Q; lg ; if we? e $1 L.!