FARMERS' REGISTER— CUTTING CORN TOPS. 



245 



The difference in the result of the two cases, is 

 1 bushel and 25 pounds per acre; or, in the two ex- 

 periments, (if it may be so termed,) there is an 

 average loss by cutting the stalks,. of 12 bushels 

 6| pounds per acre; a loss quite equalto all the ex- 

 pense of hoeing and harvesting, especially when 

 we consider that in hoeing, the labor of making 

 hills was dis|)enscd with. 



If I had cut all the stalks, and obtained a crop 

 of forty-eio-ht bushels to the acre, tlic very (act ol' 

 having forty-eight bushels, would, I think, be con- 

 sidered by larmers generally, in this section of the 

 countr}', as proof positive that the stalks were cut 

 without injury to the crop. Or if I had gone one 

 step farther and made large hills, at an additional 

 expense ol one dollar per acre, and thereby re- 

 duced the crop to furty-live bushels per acre, the 

 forty-five bushels would be considered sufficient 

 proof, that making hills (which, by the way, are 

 usually made equally large and high on wet or 

 dryland, without regard to soil or situation,) was 

 labor well laid out. For although 3"ou occasional- 

 ly give us a large corn s/orj/,.swollen a little, per- 

 haps, by guessi)}g it off in baskets; yet, judging 

 from what we see and know about raising corn, 

 wc call forty-five bushels per acre, a good crop. 



A measured bushel, from the cut hills, weighed 

 67 lbs. 6 oz. — one pound less than from the iincutj 

 the shrinkage being very near cqucil to the whole 

 loss in weight. 



If this experiment is a fair test, it seems thai 

 about twenty per cent., or one-fifth part of the crop 

 is destroyed, by cutting the stalks in the ivay they 

 are usually cut. If further experiment shoidd es- 

 tablish this fiact, I think there are few farmers that 

 will hesitate long in deciding which is the most 

 valuable, one acre of corn or five acres of top 

 stalks. But this twenty per cent, is not saved at 

 the expense of losing the stalks, they are worth as 

 much, and I think more, all things considered, 

 after the corn is harye.sted, than they are, gathered 

 in the usual way. If after being bunched up in a 

 green state, they heat or become mouldy, (a case 

 of frequent occurrence,) they are utterly worthless, 

 exce])t it be for manure; I know of no animal that 

 will eat them.. But alter they ha^-e once been 

 dried by the frost and wind, a subsequent moderate 

 degree of mouldiness, seems to be no injury. 



The course which I have pursued with them, 

 and for the present I know of no better, has been 

 as follows: In the first place, they are'cut off near 

 the ground, and tor this purpose a short scythe is 

 ibund the most convenient instrument. The ex- 

 pense of cutting in this manner, however, is but a 

 jiiere trifle, if any, more than cutting the stub 

 stalks in the spring, and may with propriety be 

 entered as an item of expense against the next 

 crop, tor which it is preparing the ground. Afrer 

 cutting, they are gathered into bunches ot' suitable 

 size ihr binding, and three good sheaves of rye 

 straw, if wet, will be sufficient to bind a ton. In 

 gatliering them up and laying in bunches, an 

 active boy will do as much as a man. In this way, 

 the Avhole expense of gathering, binding and load- 

 ing, will not exceed 75 cents per ton. As they 

 are very bulky, for want o£iarn room, I have 

 them stacked near the barn*'ard; and I think I 

 may sately say, that my cattle eat more pounds of 

 stalks from an acre gathered in this way, than 

 they would from the same acre, if gathered in the 

 usual way. It may be objected to this, that they 



are not as good and nourishing as others; as to 

 that matter, lam not ableto.say; but if the cattle 

 are good jud<2:es in the case, (and I think they 

 ought to be admitted as such,) they are quite as 

 good and qu-ite as nourishing, for they are eaten, 

 apparently, with quite as good a relish. In addi- 

 tion to this, they are obtained without breaking 

 off ears or breaking down hills in hauling out, oc- 

 currences quite frequent in the other case. They 

 also furnish more than double the quantity of bed- 

 ding for the yard, an item of no small moment in 

 the list of ''creature comforts," during our cold 

 winters. And last, though not least, they make 

 more than double the quantity of manure, the 

 value of which will be duly appreciated by every 

 good farmer, without argument. It may be said 

 that 'iie but stalks can be gathered af\er harvest, 

 and furnish the same quantity of lifter and manure 

 as in this case; that is true; but the expense of 

 gathering both parts in that way, from the buts 

 being so short and inconvenient to bind, would be 

 three times as much as it is to gather them whole. 

 Thus viewing the subject in various points, I think 

 this method of managing corn stalks is much bet- 

 ter than the old one; and that a little observation 

 and experience will convince the most sceptical, 

 that this branch of agriculture is not yet brought 

 to a state of perfection, that there is yet room for 

 improvement. 



In passing through a field of corn, about the 

 first of September, I noticed that my clothes con- 

 tracted a strong smell of smut, and not being aware 

 that I had come in contact Avith any smutty ears, 

 I was led to examine a little to ascertain the cause. 

 I found many of the corn leaves neariy covered 

 with rust (something similar to that observed on 

 the stalks of English grain, preceding a blight,) 

 and intermingled with the rust, was an abundance 

 of very minute blisters of smut, or something 

 which had the appearance and smell of smut. As 

 I had never observed any thing of the kind before, 

 and smut is said to be injurious to cattle, I have 

 thought that something of this nature might have 

 occasioned the diflerence of opinion, entertained 

 by some of your correspondents, last fall, in regard 

 to the utility of feeding milch coavs with green 

 corn stalks. ' Feeding cows with smutty stalks, 

 even if "fed to the full," would probably tend to 

 dry them up; while feeding them plentitully with 

 healthy stalks in a green state, \vould undoubtedly 

 increase their milk, . 



Mr. Fessenden — I was highly gratified with 

 the perusal of the leading article in your 38th No. 

 from the pen of Mr. Clark, on cutting corn 

 stalks. Experiments like those he has detailed, 

 are of great value to the farming interest, and 

 richly entitle those Avho make and publish them, 

 to the appellation of public benefactors. I beg 

 leave to suggest the cause of the difference in the 

 product which resulted from Mr. Clark's experi- 

 ments. 



There is a striking analog}^ between the animal 

 and vescetable kingdoms. Food taken into the 

 stomach of animals does not nourish, but is pre- 

 I judicial to health, unless it undergoes the process 

 j of digestion. Nor does food nourish tlie plant 

 until it has been elaborated by the leaves. Plants, 

 therefore, Avithout leaves cannot groAv; but, on the 

 contrary, if defoliated in hot weather, the unelab- 

 orated sap becomes stagnant, feiTnents, and de- 



