100 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



tion, that it is worth more than the whole would be by any 

 other method ; that taking off the top-stalks with their leaves 

 "lets the sun's rays down upon the ears, and hastens the 

 lipening of the grain ; " and that it takes less labor, and is 

 much less expensive, and easier, than to handle in husking, 

 and cart and store the entire crop. In these claimed advan- 

 tages there may be a shade of truth ; but the objection to 

 the method is, first, it is wasteful. Much more than half of 

 the fodder is at and below the ears; and this, for all judi- 

 cious, economical feeding-purposes, is practically thrown 

 away. This objection is not answered by sajdng the cat- 

 tle can consume what they wish in the field, and valuable 

 use is made of the remainder to enrich the soil ; because 

 these stalks — soured, dried, and made brittle and hard by 

 sun and frost, and soaked and washed by rains — can afford 

 little nutriment to the shivering animals, driven by necessity 

 to feed upon them. They will enrich the soil, will exert a 

 most valuable physical influence, especially if ploughed into 

 clayey land; and so would the whole crop. But we can- 

 not afford to grow Indian corn, in the ordinary way, for 

 green-manuring. Economy demands that the whole crop 

 be saved in the best possible condition, used as stock-feed 

 in the barn, and then used to enrich the soil. But the 

 method is also wastefid of grain. Cutting off such a large 

 portion of the active leaves when the corn is quite immature, 

 and letting the sun in, may dry, but cannot ripen, the grain. 

 For this purpose, all the leaves, stalks, and ears should be 

 connected ; and it has been found b}^ trial, that, if the stalks 

 are cut at the roots at the proper stage of growth, the ele- 

 ments they contain will be absorbed, and make sounder, 

 heavier, and more perfect grain, than if they were mutilated 

 by cutting off the top. It is admitted that this is the easiest 

 method of harvesting; but greater ease would be secured 

 by not harvesting at all, or by not planting. The second 

 objection to it is, that the loss in fodder and grain is not 

 compensated by ease, or the labor saved. At the present 

 time, labor-saving, and labor-saving machinery on the farm, 

 are indispensable to enable us to meet and overcome com- 

 petition: but to save labor by neglecting to harvest a crop 

 which has intrinsic value, and has already cost us much, is 

 "saving at the spigot, and wasting at the bunghole." Work, 



