47 



To still further study 'the question of the best time to cut standing 

 corn in order to secure the largest yield of corn and fodder, careful cut- 

 tings and weighings were made of corn at different stages of ripeness. 



We fiuil, * * * ill nearly every case, that adjacent rows, cut at intervals of 

 seven to twenty days, show variations, with only two or three exceptions, in seventy- 

 odd cases almost exactly proportionate to the difference in the time of cutting; the 

 largest j'ield of tlie best quality of corn going with the row cut latest. Indeed, we 

 are plainly taught here that corn continues to improve in weight until the very last — 

 after the blades of the plant have been dried up, and quite likelj- blown awaj% and 

 seemingly until the juices of the stalks have been completely sucked up. It is hard 

 to resist the conviction that this can not be a mere coincidence ; that, in short, these 

 figures point to a real principle in the growth of the crop which the farmer can not 

 afford to ignore. « * » Considering then all the facts — the great labor of husking 

 corn from the shock as compared with " picking" it from the standing stalks, the 

 great difficulty in tying, hauling, and stacking, or otherwise securing the fodder crop, 

 and the great waste of fodder in the field and ultimate loss in feeding (which we 

 have demonstrated time and again to amount to 20 to 60 per cent of the stalks) — it is 

 perfectly clear to me that we must raise corn for corn, with no thought of fodder, and 

 corn again which has no higher purpose than the production of fodder. We must, in 

 short, have two corn-fields on every farm, receiving radically different treatment, to 

 correspond with the different purposes for which they are cultivated. 



This seems to me to state with sufficient fullness the argument against the attempt 

 to get" grain and fodder from the same field. The great Kansas staples, corn and 

 sorghum, are unsurpassed fodder-plants when grown and harvested with the single 

 object of making " haJ^" I have come to think, after three years of careful experi- 

 ment with the silo upon the college farm, that it is a necessary part of the machinery 

 of the corn-field. The argument for this view is given in what follows. 



Special value of the silo to Kansas. — Corn and sorghum are, and will 

 probably remain, for Kansas farmers the principal sources of stock food. 

 They will yield two or three times as much nutritive material as tim- 

 othy, clover, orchard grass, or millet on the same area. They may be 

 harvested, cured, and handled with less cost and less waste. A rich 

 crop may be grown for the silo and j)reserved despite either drouth or 

 grasshoppers. 



In reply to the objection often urged against ensilage, on the ground 

 of its expensiveuess as compared with fodder-making in the field, the 

 bulletin urges that while in either caee the corn must be cut up and 

 hauled to the barn or feed place, the silagiug saves the husking, haul- 

 ing, shelling, and grinding of the corn. The overwhelming argument 

 for the silo is that corn and sorghum may by this means be cut, cured, 

 and fed in such time and manner as to give the farmer all of the value 

 that there is in them. 



Locat 107}, size, and construction of silo. — A silo erected inside a barn from 

 the floor to the basement or cellar to the purlin plates is advocated. A 

 silo located in a dry bank or bluff-side would be advantageously situated 

 if the ensilage could be withdrawn at the lowest point of the silo. A 

 silo with a cellar is wholly inadmissible. The experience with stone silos 

 at this Station has been most disastrous, about 50 per cent of the ensi- 

 lage having been lost. 



