550 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. 9 



acre — that from the tops of the same row after be- 

 ing stripped, weighed 1|- lbs. or 96 lbs. to the 

 acre, in the whole 386 lbs. In this county, new 

 lodder is generally sold at the stack lor 50 cents 

 per hundred — 386 lbs. then can be bought at $1.63 

 — whilst the corn, when old, sold for many years 

 past at not less than $3 per barrel. By comparing 

 experiment second with experimeut first, it is seen 

 that by cutting tops, and pulling fodder, 5 bushels, 

 46 lbs. 9 oz. of grain is lost per acre. This at $3 

 per barrel, is worth -S3. 50 — which is expended in 

 order to get $1.63. But it is not clear that the la- 

 bors expended in gathering fodder, is not worth as 

 much or more than the ibdder gathered. It be- 

 comes the Virginia farmers then, to reflect, that for 

 the fodder and tops he is about gathering, he will 

 throw away $3.50 for every acre in his field. 



The product of the third row did not fall below 

 the standard. In this row the tops were not cut, 

 but the Ibdder was pulled; hence the great utility 

 of the top may be seen. 



The fourth row, in which the tops alone were 

 taken off, has turned out entirely different from 

 what I expected. I had been led to believe, from 

 various communications, but particularly one from 

 the pen of Mr. Clarke of Northampton, published 

 in Vol. I. p. 70, of the Cultivator, from the New 

 England Farmer, that the loss from topping corn 

 was very great. The experience of Judge Buel 

 and Lorrain, with that of many anonymous wri- 

 ters, all go in confirmation of this fact. It is then 

 with extreme distrust, that I venture to differ from 

 that opinion, particularly, since that difference will 

 be founded upon this one isolated experiment, and 

 that too, tried on so small a scale. But, since 

 what will hold good as to 20 ears, will to 20,000 

 — and as I am convinced of the perfect accuracy 

 with which this experiment was conducted, I 

 know not what to attribute this increase of grain 

 to, unless it be to the cutting off the tops, particu- 

 larly as it is more than probable that ihe product 

 of these five rows would have been exactly the 

 same, had they been similarly treated. I inter this, 

 first, from the great sameness in the weight of the 

 husks or cobs, looking as if they were cast in the 

 same mould — second, from the like number of 

 ears taken from stalks at the end of each row, 

 whose blades and tops, as I have stated, were 

 left untouched, all weighing in the same notch, 

 when suspended from the hook of a steelyard, 

 with \ lb. notches. The only difference was that the 

 ears from the second row were, in common par- 

 lance, a ''little more down weight" than the rest. 

 Reasoning therefore from the experiment detailed 

 above, I should say that the topping of corn, pro- 

 vided it is not done before the formation of the 

 grain, is attended with a beneficial effect. It may 

 be, that the top having perlbrmed its functious in 

 the support of the tassel, which impregnates the 

 ear, becomes a useless, and possibly a hurtful ap- 

 pendage. For it seems to be a settled principle in 

 vegetable physiology, that after fructification has 

 commenced, no further sustenance is drawn from 

 the soil, but that all the juices which are necessary 

 to the filling up of the grain have been elaborated, 

 and are at this time in the roots and stalk. And 

 I should infer that every thing that is requisite to 

 save those juices from "fermentation is, that there 

 should be a sufficiency of blades through which 

 they may circulate, and be exposed to the atmos- 

 pheric air, by which thev are deprived of their 



noxious principles, and thus fitted to support veg- 

 etable life, exactly as the blood is acted on through 

 the instrumentality of the lungs, in the human 

 system. But should these precious juices, (of 

 which, after fructification has commenced, it is ad- 

 mitted there can be no further supply,) have too 

 great an extent of surface over which they may 

 circulate; the consequence is that they will be ex- 

 posed to inevitable loss from evaporation: while 

 the now useless top being cut off, the very juices 

 that would be expended in its support, or lost 

 through its pores, being diverted from their course, 

 will gently ooze through the cob and become a 

 part of the grain. Each and every part of the 

 maize plant has its different functions to perform, 

 and it seems to be the peculiar office of the top to 

 provide for the maintenance and support of the 

 tassel, and it is in that way alone that it indirect- 

 ly contributes to the general welfare, and not in 

 immediate preparaticn of food for the grain. In 

 proof of this, I have frequently seen, on path sides, 

 stalks whose tops had been drawn out while put- 

 ting forth their tassels, bearing lustier ears than 

 any of their neighbors, whose tops were entire. 

 Nor is this on the principle of increase of size from 

 cmasculasion, as I have a vague idea that the editor 

 of the Farmers' Register has somewhere asserted. 

 This reasoning, though it. may be just when ap- 

 plied to the increased size of the stalk, yet the 

 analogy is lost when extended to the ears. This 

 last proof, however, may be said to be taking the 

 very question under discussion to prove itseltj but 

 it is only taking a fact that may have come under 

 universal observation, to prove that the same fact 

 may exist under different circumstances. 



There is no plant sufficiently alike the maize 

 that I know of, to support my reasoning by analo- 

 gy, but in many of these of different genera, it 

 holds good. Among the annuals, the product of 

 cotton is notoriously increased by topping, though 

 I do not know that the increase extends to the 

 seed: this is the case with most or all of the cu- 

 curbitaceous plants, as cymblins, cucumbers, me- 

 lons, &c. &c. Among perennial, the vine, the 

 currant, the raspberry, &c. &c. are pruned and 

 topped with signal benefit. 



There is one argument which I am afraid the 

 ''followers of nature" will bring forward, that by 

 a certain class, is considered as sufficiently great to 

 upset the most potent reasoning, much less the 

 fabric that I have attempted to rear on so tiny a 

 base — to wit, that since the cutting off of tops 

 causes a greater quantity of corn to be made, why 

 is it that our Maker, (without, irreverence I say 

 it,) after the top has performed its office, does not 

 cause it to wither and die, and drop off just above 

 the ear? To these gentlemen I will simply ob- 

 serve, that never as yet has the Almighty, that I 

 have heard of, (without irreverence 1 say this,) 

 been seen to plant corn in drills, to hoe it, or to 

 plough it, except through the instrumentality of 

 man, and yet even they will not deny but that 

 more corn will be made in this way than if they 

 were to tread too closely in the footsteps of dame 

 nature, and suffer whole ears of corn to plant 

 themselves beneath the stalks where they grow — 

 ;to stand without thinning, and to battle it out, 

 alone and unaided, with the weeds, the crab grass, 

 and the sorrel. 



In this communication there is apparently a con- 

 tradiction, and that too of so stubborn a nature 



