^OTiiiaM::i^oiJ6ll^T)OT^ B^mtfMai^!^^ 



ARTICLE TWO 



No man knows the value of crojis iu the United States that rot 

 for the want of shelter. Although the value is unknown for the 

 reason that its nature is such that it cannot be measured, it is well 

 known that the amount is very large. It is a waste which does nobody 

 any good, and it might be prevented to a large extent. The loss from 

 this source will decrease as barn room increases, because the damage 

 is almost wholly due to the rotting of grain and forage crops left in 

 the fields without shelter. 



Fifty years ago, and even longer than that, the prosperity of 

 Pennsylvania farmers was proverbial, and, almost without exception, 

 those who referred to the prosperity of the farmers spoke at the same 

 time of the large barns which were prominent features of the farms. 

 The sturdy farmers of the Keystone state were often criticized because 

 they built large barns and lived in small houses. That criticism was 

 oftenest heard by travelers from the South, because in the South the 

 opposite was the rule — large residences and no barns at all, except 

 shelter for some of the best horses. An example of this, and a typical 

 example it was, might be seen on the estate of General Washington at 

 Mt. Vernon, Va., where he lived in a house of twenty-four rooms, while 

 liis bam would not hold more than three or four tons of hay. The 

 house and the barn still stand as illustrations of the contrast between 

 Pennsylvania and the country south of the Potomac in the matter of 

 sheltering farm crops. 



In course of years the Pennsylvania farmers grew rich on what 

 they saved by sheltering their hay and grain. That is the logical 

 explanation of their prosperity. Their land was no richer than the 

 Virginia lands south of the Potomac, but while the latter deteriorated 

 from generation to generation, until large tracts were abandoned, the 

 Pennsylvania farms, with their barns large enough to shelter every- 

 thing, increased in fertility and the owners continued prosperous. 



These two states, Pennsylvania and Virginia, are named as examples. 

 It is not claimed that Pennsylvania was better than all other states, 

 or that Virginia was worse than all others, in the matter of taking 

 care of what they raised; but the two policies are illustrated, and that 

 is the point to be made. 



The farmers of the United States are still divided into the two 

 camps, and state lines may be utterly ignored in making the appli- 

 cation. The traveler through almost any section of the country can 

 see for himself the two methods side by side. One farm will have its 

 ample barns, large enough to shelter all the crops. The fields are 

 clean and look fine. The next farm may be sadly in need of roofs to 

 shelter the hay and grain. The crops are left out of doors, shocked, 

 ricked, and stacked in various kinds of heaps, but all of them whipped 

 by wind, beaten by rains, or flattened under the weight of the winter 's 

 snows. 



This is a picture common in practically all parts of this country. 

 The crops are left out of doors for weeks or months. In some of the 

 semi-rainless regions of the West no serious injury follows, because 

 the dry weather lasts long enough to permit the threshing and market- 

 ing of the grain; but east of the Eocky Mountains the summers and 

 autumns have periods of rain, and every rain that falls on grain or 

 forage, after it is harvested, depreciates its value. 



Grain stacks, after periods of rain, are often green with sprouts. 

 Not only is the grain itself spoiled, but the straw is rotten. In some 

 parts of the country, and in unfavorable seasons, the loss is very great. 

 If the damage from that cause were confined to a single farm, or a 

 single county, or even to a single state, it would be less serious; but it 

 extends over dozens of states and is enormous iu the aggregate. 



The hay crop suffers immense deterioriation through decay. It is 

 customary to stack this product out of doors. Farmers who would not 

 think of leaving their wheat and oats exposed to the weather, often 

 overlook the great injury caused to their hay by long exposure to rain 

 and snow. The stacks contain from two to five tons each, and by the 

 middle of winter the entire surface of the stack is rotten. It is thrown 

 away, and the undamaged hay is scattered on the meadow for the 

 cattle to eat and walk over. 



That was the old way of doing it, and unfortunately the old way 

 still continues in many parts of the country, and among farmers who 

 would resent being told that they are not progressive. 



An enormous loss results from the rotting of corn fodder. It is 

 not customary to store fodder in barns. It is bulky and heavy, hard 

 to haul and diflScult to handle. For that reason it is generally left in 

 the field until winter and it is then dragged from beneath the snow 

 and thrown to the cattle. They'eat such of it as is fit, and trample the 

 rest. 



Many farmers who grow large acreage of corn believe that it 

 would not pay to house fodder, because of the amount of barn room 

 required. Corn fodder is the coarsest of the forage crops of this 

 country, and that fact has had much to do with the custom of leaving 

 it in the fields where a high percentage of it is lost by decay before 

 it is fed to stock. 



The belief that roofs to shelter fodder are not profitable is a fallacy, 

 which has come down from past times when many things were believed 

 which are now known to be erroneous. It is close akin to the former 

 fallacy that it did not pay to feed hogs — that they should be left to 

 root for a living and pick up such nuts as they could find in the 

 wood, and then make pork of such as had not starved to death. That 

 belief is now a thing of the past. It pays to take care of hogs, and 

 it will pay to take care of corn fodder. It is a coarse crop, but it is 

 worth millions of dollars, and is too valuable to leave in the fields 



GENERAL WASHINGTON'S Ilursu (_)F IWKXTY FUUK UUOMS 

 MT. VERNON, VA. IT FORMS A REMARKABLE CONTRAST 

 WHEN COMPARED WITH THE INSIGNIFICANT 

 SIZE OF THE BARN. 



GENERAL WASIilNG'lXlNS HAKX STILL STANDING AT MT. VERNON, 



VA. I'J HAS STALLS FOR SIX HORSES AND ROOM FOR 



TWO WAGON LOADS OF HAY. THE PLANTATION 



CONTAINED 8,000 ACRES. 



—31— 



