346 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER, 



MAT 13, 1835, 



are important questions which demand the serious 

 consideration of botanists. 



The worm taken from the root, very unfortu- 

 nately, made his escape, but another of a smaller 

 size was aftei-wards found in the same garden. It 

 is preserved in alcohol, but very much reduced in 

 size, being originally about three inches in length, 

 and now about one and a half. 



Thomas B. White. 



jYewburyport, May 4, 1835. 



[By the Editor.] 



We have no recollection of having before seen, 

 heard or read of an insect of the above description. 

 We apprehend that he is a nondescript, not having 

 had the honor of obtaining the notice of the ento- 

 mologist. We are glad to learn that one of the 

 species is preserved in alcohol, and wish it might 

 lie submitted to the inspection of Dr T. W. Harris, 

 Librarian of Harvard University, whose acquaint- 

 ance with entomology might enable him to describe 

 ithe enemy, and prescribe a remedy against his 

 ravages. 



[For the New England Farmer.] 

 CULTURE OP CORN. 



Mr Fessenden — About two years since I gave 

 ■you some account of two experiments in planting 

 corn. The result of one went to show that our 

 cornfields do not usually have a sufficient stock of 

 plants, and the other, that nothing is gained by 

 giving the hills a greater distance oneway, than 

 the other. On the latter point perhaps the prac- 

 tice of farmers in this vicinity is different from 

 that of others. Here we see fields planted, with 

 rows from two and a half, to three and a half feet 



•distant, and hills from four to six or seven feet dis- 

 tant in the row, thereby making the distance 



rnearly, and in some instances more than double 



-one way than it is the other. The origin or reason 

 of ifhis practice, I have never learned, but see no 

 objection to it, except the additional labor neces- 

 sary in cultivation. 1 believe it is moderately 

 getting mil of use. Respecting the first, that of 



r stocking the ground, I have since inade further ex- 

 periments both in regard to distance between hills, 

 and number of stalks in a hill, and if you think 

 its details may be useful or interesting to your 

 readers, it is at your service. 



Corn is usually planted here in hills, and the 

 general impression among farmers, I believe, is, 

 that without reference to the distance between 

 'hills, it is a matter of little consequence whether 

 there be three or four stalks in a hill. Perhaps 

 the majority prefer four stalks, yet some good far- 

 mers give the preference to three, and three are 

 probably as many as our cornfields will usually 

 average, if the missing hills are taken into the 

 account. 



The ground selected for the experiment, was a 

 light sandy loam, that had been in pasture perhaps 

 thirty years. After j)loughing and rolling, about 

 twenty cart-buck loads to the acre, of coarse barn- 

 yard manure were spread on the furrows and har- 

 rowed in. Five parcels of ground, of three rows 

 each, were then laid out at the several distances, 

 of 2 feet 6 inches, 2 feet 9 inches, 3ft. 3 ft. 3 in. 

 and 3 feet 6 inches, each parcel separated by an 

 intermediate row, to prevent the nocesity of re- 

 sorting to an average on the outside rows, in cal- 

 culating the product of the ground per acre. The 

 distance between the hills in the row was, in all 

 cases, equal to the distance between the rows of 

 the same parcel ; and in each parcel one row was 



to have three, one to havefour, and the other to 

 have five stalks in a hill. Tlierows, about twelve 

 rods in length, were laid out, and the hills marked 

 off, at exact distances, with little trouble, by means 

 of a simply constructed gage. The corn planted 

 was an early twelve rowed kind, called the Golden 

 Sioux. Six to eight kernels were put in a hill, 

 and the stalks afterwards pulled out to the requi- 

 site number ; in all cases leaving the best ones 

 standing, which gave some advantage in the se- 

 lection, to the hills of smallest number. The in- 

 termediate rows and those on either side had gen- 

 erally about four or five stalks in a hill, with hills 

 at distances to correspond nearly with their neigh- 

 bors. In the selection of soil, manuring and cul- 

 tivation, all were supposed to have an equal chance. 

 The ground was kept level, and sowed with grass 

 seed the last time of hoeing. 



When harvested, the produce of each row was 

 carefully weighed in the field, and noted down 

 immediately, and seventy pounds of dry well ri- 

 pened ears estimated to make a bushel of shelled 

 corn. 



The following table will show the order in 

 which the rows were planted, and perhaps will 

 exhibit the method pursued and the result, better 

 than can be done by description ; and also afford 

 opportunity to detect any error that may have 

 been admitted in the estimates. 



nills Hills stalks Prod, 

 per in per of 

 acre. row. hill. row. 



^'l^- Sh'dcorn 



3 47 lbs. 9oz. 6? dms.54:).44p 



4 49 9 12§ 56 67 



5 52J lot CO 74 



Ground 



No. Dis. to each 



hill. 



1 2 ft. 6 in. 5 ft. 3 in. 6970 80 



2 (t (f li «t 



3 .< .. << ■. 



4 Intermediate or dividing row. 



5 2 ft. 9 in. 7 ft. 6J in. 5760 72 



6 " " " " 



y (t C( II H 



8 Intermediate. 



9 3ft. 9 ft. 4840 OC 



10 " •' " " 



11 '■ " " " 



12 Intermediate. 



13 3 ft. 3 in. 10ft. 6Jin. 4124 60 



14 " " " " 



15 " " " " 



16 Intermediate. 



17 3 ft. 6 in. 12 ft. 3 in. 3556 57 



18 " " " " 



19 " " " " 



It will be seen in every case that the hills of 

 three stalks, produced less than those of four, and 

 those of four less than those of five. In this view 

 it may be considered as five experiments all giving 

 the same result, notwithstanding some of the hills 

 occupied but about half the quantity of ground 

 usually given them in our field culture. The av- 

 erage of five rows one from each parcel is as 

 follows, viz. 



Three stalks in a hill, 46 bushels 14 lbs. per acre. 

 Four stalks in a hill, 52 bushels 42 lbs. " " 

 Five stalks in a hill, 54 bushels 20 lbs. " " 

 The difference of average between three and 

 five stalks is 8 bushels 6 lbs. per acre. 



It vvill be seen also, that in every instance but 

 one, or eleven limes in twelve, diminishing the 

 distance between the hills increased the product of 

 the ground. The average of each parcel is as 

 follows, viz. 



Three feet six inches between hills gjve 

 41 bushels 14 lbs. per acre. 



Throe feet three inches, 44 bu. 57 lbs per acre. 

 Three feet, 51 bu. 49lhs. " " 



Two feet nine inches, 55 bu. 45 lbs. " " 

 Two feet six inches, 57 bu. 36 lbs. « " 

 The difference of product between the average 

 of hills at 2 feet 6 in. and that of hills at 3 feet 

 6 inches is 13 bushels 22 lbs. per acre. 



Row No. 17 had the least number of stalks ])er' 

 acre and gave the smallest product, 38 bushels 

 18 lbs. The number of stalks in this row per 

 acre (for there was not one missing) was probably 

 equal to the number usually standing in our 

 fields and the product would be considered, in 

 common seasons, a fair cro]) for land and manure 

 of like quantity and quality. Row No. 3 had the 

 largest number of stalks per acre, and gave the 

 largest product viz., 60 bushels 74 lbs. This 

 difference appears to have been made by the dif- 

 ference in the number of stalks, as is evident frorn 

 the fact that tlie ]uoduce of the other thirteen 

 rows, varied from these, and from each other in 

 different degrees, somewhat according to the num- 

 ber of stalks, and distance of hills, with one ex- 

 ception. No. 14 with hills (of four stalks) at 3 

 feet 3 inclies distant gave 1 bushel 22 pounds less 

 thtm No. 18 with hills (of four stalks) at 3 feet 

 6 inches distance. This exception to the general 

 result is a case in point showing that the same 

 crop is not always, and in all cases to be expected 

 even from the same soil, season, and mode of cul- 

 ture ; and gives evidence if such be wanted, that 

 a single experiment should not be relied upon 

 as fully establishing any rule or method of culti- 

 vation. 



Row No. 17 gave a product equal to 22 bushels 

 56 pounds per acre more than Row No. 3, or, 

 a gain of about sixty per cent, apparently by in- 

 creasing the number of plants per acre. Perha|)s 

 a part of the gain, however, is only in appearance. 

 Most likely a hill with five stalks would extend its 

 roots in search of food somewhat farther than a 

 hill with four or three stalks, and if so, among 

 weaker neighbors, it would occupy inore than its 

 allotted portion of ground, while they would oc- 

 cupy less than theirs. If this be a cause of part 

 of the difference, it may be difliicult to tell how 

 much deduction should be made, (though prob- 

 ably whatever is made should be from the 8 bushels 

 6 pounds difference of product between three and 

 five stalks,) but having the facts before you, Mr 

 Editor, you or your readers can guess as well as 

 myself whether, after makuig a liberal allowance 

 for that or any other supposable cause, there was 

 not a large and substantial gain by increasing the 

 number of stalks per acre. 



That the gam would have been as great on all 

 other soils, 1 am by no means prepared to say ; 

 indeed, on many, I am confident it would not. I 

 apprehend it is only rich and good soil, well adapt- ' 

 ed to the growth of corn, that will bear thick 

 planting, and even then vei-y much depends on the 

 kind of corn ; that of larger growth must have 

 more distance. Cold land, perhaps, will not bear 

 the .shade of thick planting, and poor light land 

 most certainly will not bear the exhaustion. Thick 

 planted corn also suffers soonest and severest by 

 drought. 



I have stated the case, perhaps with more mi- 

 nuteness than may be thought necessary, and shall 

 leave it with you, Mr Editor, to strike out all oi- 

 any part, as you shall think best. 



During the past year nMich has been said in the 

 Farmer, by way of objection to large corn cobs — 

 a popular, objection, surely ; but will you tell us, 

 Mr Editor, why a large cob is not as good as a 

 small one ; or, what is about the same thing, why 

 a long one is not as good as a short one, and 

 whether we may not as well expect to raise beef 

 without bones, as corn without cobs ? I have 

 supposed that the larger and longer the ears were 



