1836.] 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



551 



that, to borrow a figure from yourself; Mr. Editor, 



1 am afraid that I shall be unable even to "neu- 

 tralize" it: it is this — in commenting on experi- 

 ment third, I showed the great utility of the tops 

 in feeding the grain of that row, just as much as 

 the tops and fodder both did in the standard row: 

 and yet in the whole of a very long argument 

 since, it has been my whole drift and aim to prove 

 that they were not only of no utility in feeding the 

 grain, but that they were absolutely hurtful, wast- 

 ing the food that was laid up lbr the use of the 

 grain. These, things conflict more in appearance 

 than reality: for it should be remembered that I 

 have not denied that the tops nourished the corn 

 when alone on the stalk, but have only asserted 

 that they take from the support, of the corn, when 

 fodder and tops both are left on the stalk. This 

 will be evident by contrasting experiment first and 

 lburth, for in the first where there were tops and 

 fodder both, the corn would have made to the 

 acre only 26 bushels 14 pounds — whilst the fourth, 

 in which the tops were taken off and the fodder 

 left entire, yielded 28 bushels 38 pounds — thus 

 clearly proving that the tops had either wasted, or 

 eaten, themselves, (no matter which, so far as the 

 corn is concerned,) the Ibod that would have raised 



2 bushels and 24 pounds of corn. The only thing 

 that can be deduced from their taking such good 

 care of the corn when committed solely to their 

 charge, as in experiment third, so that it did not 

 fall below the standard, as did row the second 

 when left destitute of both fodder and tors, is, 

 that they are like some shepherd's dogs that I 

 have read of. who would invariably eat the sheep 

 when left to the care of the shepherds and them- 

 selves, but would guard them faithfully when en- 

 trusted to themselves alone. To be serious — as in 

 organized beings, when one organ is destroyed, its 

 place is in a great measure supplied by another — 

 e. g. when persons have lost the use of their 

 hands, they have been known to make up this de- 

 ficiency by using their feet and lips, so as to sew, 

 to knit, to cut most beautifully in papers, perform- 

 ing many mechanical operations with skill and 

 dexterity. The loss of eyesight has been supplied 

 by the senses of touch, and of hearing, &c. &c. 

 And in plants, when the stem is broken from the 

 root, in many instances the branches take their 

 places, even becoming converted into radicles: so 

 in the Indian corn, when the lower blades, in 

 which I contend the sap is principally prepared 

 for the nourishment of the grain, are stripped off 

 the upper ones, in a great degree assume their office, 

 assisting in the circulation of the sap, they so far 

 change their nature as to absorb more from the 

 atmosphere than they give out by their pores. 



To reduce these facts and deductions to praclice, 

 (which, however, I should not advise any one to 

 do, without lurther experiment, from their bein«; 

 so contrary to received opinion,) it seems to me 

 that a farmer would get most grain to top his corn, 

 and let his fodder stand. But since Eastern Vir- 

 ginia is not a grass growing country, and our 

 horses and mules cannot live upon grain alone, it 

 is a difficult matter to get a substitute for fodder, 

 particularly for those who will not, or cannot raise 

 clover. Farmers in this situation should make it 

 an invariable rule when they pull their fodder, to 

 leave the tops standing, and vice versa, in cutting 

 tops they should suffer the lower blades to stand: 



in no case whatsoever should the same stalks be 

 deprived of both fodder and tops. 



But in my opinion we should be great gainers 

 in changing our practice at. once, and apply the 

 hoe to the root, of the stalk about the middle of 

 September, with all its fodder and tops entire. 

 The difference in grain between this mode of top- 

 ping is only 27 pounds per acre, which is worth 

 about as many cents, while the value of the fod- 

 der is to be taken in consideration, which can be 

 saved nearly as well by cutting down the stalks, as 

 by stripping the blades. This was evident from 

 experiment the fifth, for when the corn was ga- 

 thered from that parcel, on the 10th of November, 

 the fodder on the stalks was sweet and well cured, 

 though it had stood exposed to a great deal of 

 rainy damp weather, which prevailed throughout 

 the latter part of September, and first part of Oc- 

 tober of that year. The great saving of labor in 

 gathering your fodder, your tops, and cutting 

 down your corn (which has to be done soon or 

 late) by one operation, should likewise enter into 

 the calculation. Besides, you gain a very valua- 

 ble food in your stalks, by cutting them while 

 teeming with saccharine matter. This practice is 

 not novel: it is carried out to a great extent in the 

 northern states, and the experience of your cor- 

 respondent Agricola, goes to prove that it is equal- 

 ly successful, as far south as Alabama. In addi- 

 tion to this, those farmers who follow the. absurd 

 practice of sowing wheat after corn, will be ena- 

 bled by it to clear their ground for the wheat crop 

 much earlier than they otherwise could, which is 

 by no means an inconsiderable object in some 

 years. In fine, to cut short fifty reasons that are 

 springing up in my mind in support of this me- 

 thod, I see no earthly cause why the cutting up of 

 corn before perfectly hard should not be attended 

 with the same beneficial effects as it obviously is 

 in the wheat and rye crops. This has been proved 

 by the experiments of Monsieur Procquez, in an 

 article translated p. 759, Vol. II. Farmers' Register 

 from the Journal $ Agriculture etc. des Pays-Bas. 



I will take this occasion to mention two facts, 

 coming under my observation, which seem to me 

 to conflict, with some of the principles advanced 

 in the Essay on Calcareous Manures. In the 

 month of October walking by a brick-kiln that 

 had been burnt the preceding year, and irom 

 which nearly all the bricks had been removed, 1 

 was surprised to see a most luxuriant growth of 

 sorrel (Rumex acetosa) on the outer wall of the 

 kiln, two feet from the ground. I suspected that 

 its roots drew nourishment from some particles of 

 soil, or charcoal that might have accidentally have 

 lodged between the bricks. But upon examination, 

 I found crumbled pieces of brick on the surface of 

 the wall, through which the roots penetrated, 

 without, paying much attention to them, only now 

 and then sending out. a few fibres to forage. On 

 coming to those that were sound, they adhered to 

 their sides, after penetrating the crevices between 

 the rows and layers: nor was there a particle of 

 soil, or anything else, perceptible to the naked eye, 

 that could have afforded them food. After re- 

 moving the sound brick, the entire plants came 

 away, without any thing at all adhering to their 

 roots. The earth of which the bricks were made, 

 was taken three feet from below the surface — and 

 even had there been any vegetable acid at so great 

 a depth, I presume that it would have been ex- 



