44 FARM GRASSES OF THE UNITED STATES 



afford to devote good land to this purpose. There is 

 much truth in this contention, particularly in view of 

 the usual method of pasturing in this countrj', which 

 is to throw all the pasture-land into a single inclosure 

 and turn all the stock upon it. When land is pastured 

 in this manner, if it is stocked sufficiently to keep the 

 growth down, the jdeld of forage is small, for a small 

 plant does not make as much growth in a day as a 

 large one. On the other hand, if the amount of stock 

 is too small to keep the growth eaten down, much feed 

 is wasted by trampling, and the grass is eaten closely 

 in some places, while it is left to grow rank and coarse 

 in others. 



The Michigan Experiment Station some years ago 

 determined the relative yield of forage on grass-plats, 

 part of which were kept closel}- clipped, in imitation of 

 pasture, the remainder being treated as meadow, and 

 cut when more fully mature. The yield of forage on 

 the plats treated as meadow was three to four times 

 that of the others. This agrees with the experience 

 of farmers that meadows produce more feed than the 

 same area in pastures. The pradlice of devoting only 

 rough lands to permanent pastures, therefore, seems to 

 be justified — at least in sedlions where farm-land is 

 high-priced. 



Methods of pasturing prevail in many parts of 

 Europe by which much more feed is obtained from the 

 land. There cattle are frequently tethered in such 

 manner that the area they can graze is only sufficient 

 to furnish feed for one day. The next day they are 

 moved far enough to secure another day's feed. In 

 this way grass is eaten clean, and there is little or no 



