No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 853 



THE SILO AND SILAGE CKOi'S. 



By I'KoF. George C. Watson, Profosor of Agriculture, State College. 



The history of the silo in the United States, in many respects, re- 

 sembles that of other new and important inventions which have 

 tended more or less to revolutionize well-established praqtices 

 and customs of the agricultural people. Many new contrivances 

 are used by seme, successfully, by others with a less degree of 

 satisfaction, and are thoroughly condemned by the most unsuccess- 

 ful. In view of this, it has seemed to me that we can study the 

 development of the appliances and practices which have to do with 

 the preservation of that which we novv recognize as a most import- 

 ant stock food — silage — in order to determine, in some degree at 

 least, whither we are drifting, to discover if we can the direction 

 of modern progress, and to discover if possible some of the forces 

 which are most potent in shaping the development of modern agri- 

 culture. Without attempting to analyze this question sufficiently 

 in detail to determine the slight distinctions between diiferent 

 causes and different effects, it is the object of this paper to liote, 

 if possible, a few of the general tendencies. 



When I accepted an invitation to prepare a brief paper on the 

 subject of silos and silage crops, my thought was to present some 

 phases of the silo question, which may be only suggestive, as to 

 the changes which are indicative of advancement or of retrogression 

 or both. 



There seems to be a general law in nature that marked changes 

 which we recognize as improvements, cannot be obtained without 

 some corresponding sacrifice. That is, we cannot build something 

 out of nothing. Nature has not provided man with means of build- 

 ing without destroA'ing; so the balance between the constructive 

 and the destructive will determine whether progress or retrogres- 

 sion has resulted. Can we not therefore with j)roht look for the 

 changes in American agriculture which have come with the silo, 

 and study as best we can the tendencies that are for good and those 

 that are not so pronounced as to their desirable effects? We are 

 accustomed to judge material things by their effects. We ask of 

 a man what has he done, signifying our willingness to accept his 

 record as a guarantee for future performances. While it is un- 

 doubtedly true that we are often misled by this method of reason- 



