THE FARMERS' CABINET, 



DEVOTED TO AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE AND RURAL ECONOMY. 



Vol. II.— Ko. 5.] 



Philadelphia, October 3, 1837. 



[Whole No. 39. 



For the Farmers' Cabinet. 

 Reply to questions respecting the "Econo- 

 my of Cutting up Corn." 



In Vol. 2, No. 3, of the Cabinet, I find 

 "questions respecting the economy of cutting 

 up corn." It is asked, " is it, in general, a 

 good practice to cut up corn at all, or to cut 

 up the stalks while the ears are attached to 

 them." However well the suggestions may 

 suit the ideas of economy entertained at Mar- 

 cellus, N. York, they are not calculated to 

 suit those of eastern Pennsylvania. The 

 grand conclusion at which the writer, in his 

 view of not cutting up corn, arrives, is, "a 

 greater quantity and quality of corn, and ex- 

 emption from much toilsome and expensive 

 labor." I will endeavor to answer his five 

 suggestions, as they appear, in rotation, to 

 prove that cutting up corn is preferable, in 

 an economical point of view, to leaving it 

 stand in the field. 



1. He says, " Cutting up corn at any time 

 before the leaves are fully dead, does un- 

 doubtedly injure the crop in some degree, af- 

 fecting it probably both as to quantity and 

 quality." But ears of corn, that have not 

 been injured by frost, will attain such a de- 

 gree of ripeness before the leaves are fully 

 dead, thai cutting it up will in no wise injure 

 either the quantity or the quality of the corn. 

 In nine cases out of ten, where corn ripens 

 without injury from frost, the husks will be 

 dead and the ears turned down, while tlie 

 leaves are comparatively green. Further, it 

 has been satisfactorily proved by experiment, 

 that if corn is cut before it is fully dead, the 

 nourishment obtained from the stalks after it 

 is cut, will produce such a degree of perfec- 

 tion, together with the superiority of the fod- 

 der in this case, as to throw the balance in 

 favor of cutting it before it is fully dead. 



Cab.— Vol. 0.— No. 5. 65 



2. He says, " VV^hen corn is cut up, and 

 the stalks secured in the best manner that 

 they can be, it rarely fails that some of them 

 get down, and thus both the corn and the 

 stalks are damaged by exposure to the wea- 

 ther." In order to prevent the damage of 

 the corn and stalks from exposure to the wea- 

 ther by falling down, I would recommend 

 the very thing here objected to. It rarely 

 fails but a portion of the corn will be blown 

 down by the time it is fit to cut. If it is 

 left uncut till it is sufficiently ripe to husk, 

 sometimes the greater portion of it, during 

 the high winds and rains of autumn, when 

 the ground becomes soft at the root, will be 

 blown down. But if it is cut, and carefully 

 put up in shocks, it will withstand the effects 

 of the wind much better, and be much less 

 liable to be blown down. If exposure to tlie 

 weather be injurious to corn as represented 

 above, there arises another advantage from 

 cutting and shocking it. Where corn is not 

 cut and shocked, every stalk is equally, or ra- 

 ther more exposed to the weather, than those 

 on the outside of the shock; while that in 

 the interior of the shock is protected from 

 any exposure whatever. 



3. "If the stalks be left standing in the 

 field, cattle will consume quite as great a 

 portion of them in the field after the corn 

 is gathered, as they would if they had been 

 cut and gathered to the barn." The consi- 

 deration of the stalks receiving damage from 

 being left standing in the field, and exposed 

 to the weather, has already been sufficiently 

 noticed. Admitting that cattle would con- 

 sume as gr^at a portion of them when left 

 standing in the field, as when gathered to 

 the barn, a disadvantage presents itself in 

 this form. The fodder from every two acres 

 of well grown corn, when properly secured, 



