178 AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
OUR FARMERS AND FARMING. 
VALUE OF CORN-STALKS FOR FODDER. 
I cut up all my corn; after repeated ex¬ 
periments and much experience, I am satis¬ 
fied it is the best way. It is better for the 
corn, it is infinitely better for the fodder. I 
should add that some few years back 1 win¬ 
tered a hundred head of cattle, carrying 
them well through the winter on little beside 
the corn fodder from one hundred and forty 
acres of corn, for I do not take the straw 
largely into account, and 1 had not that sea¬ 
son twenty tons of good hay in my barns. 
I annually winter my horses in great part 
on long fodder, nor is its length, when fed in 
cribs or rail mangers in the yard, any con¬ 
siderable inconvenience. We tie the fodder 
in bundles as we husk the corn, using rye 
straw, or broom corn stalks, and put it in 
bunches of a dozen or fifteen bundles, and 
haul as soon after husking as we can, and 
decidedly, then, the best way is to stack in 
the round stack. In cutting up the fodder 
you avoid all risk of danger from the weath¬ 
er. In topping and blading the risk to the 
blades, in bad seasons in particular, is very 
great. Corn may be cut up, and should be, 
as early as the blades can be safely pulled. 
In the case of the premium generously 
offered, in Talbot County, by that accom¬ 
plished, intelligent, and zealous friend of ag¬ 
riculture, Edmund Ruffin, Esq., to ascertain 
which mode of saving fodder is least injurious 
to the corn, the very excellent report of Mr. 
Holliday, of that county, showed, according 
to my recollection, that corn cut up, not 
only lost less in weight than any other pro¬ 
cess of saving the fodder, but actually less 
than when it was left to stand on the stalk in 
the field until gathered. It may be conve¬ 
nient to have a few blades, and certainly it 
often is, but give me as a general rule the 
noble plant as it grew, robbed only of the 
grain, both for the stock and the manure- 
yard, as well as for the subsequent tillage of 
the field on which it grew. The difference 
between topping and blading and cutting up 
corn, would hardly be stated too strong by 
saying, it was the difference between insur¬ 
ing the capacity to winter a good herd of 
stock, and having some blades saved for the 
horses, the work-stock of the farm. 
ORNAMENTAL SHADE TREES. 
Our warm climate, and the length of our 
summers, render shade almost a necessity, 
and there is nothing with which a rural 
home can be embellished and set off to such 
advantage, and at so little expense, as with 
trees and shrubbery. Our native forests 
supply an abundant variety in the tulip pop¬ 
lar, the walnut, the ash, the beech, the elm, 
the cedar, and other varieties; while the 
common black-haw, cultivated as a shrub, 
would be mistaken on the lawn, from its del¬ 
icate and beautiful foliage, for some plant of 
the tropics. The home and its surroundings 
give character to the estate, and are not 
without influence even upon the character of 
those who inhabit that home. Where homes 
are so cheaply made beautiful and pleasant, 
there is no apology for a nude, naked, ex¬ 
posed dwelling, the drapery of trees and 
vines, and shrubbery being as necessary and 
more beautiful than anything with which the 
house can be ornamented within. But this 
is all a truism, and has been repeated much 
more beautifully and impressively a hundred 
times before. Now, for the practical com¬ 
ment—for the rule that, if followed, will pro¬ 
duce the desired results. Every year before 
beginning to plant corn, no matter what the 
exigencies are, let the proprietor say, “ I 
must first plant my trees; my trees first, 
and then my corn,” and taking his team to 
the forest a single day will suffice for “ pitch¬ 
ing” this crop, including one or more trees 
to be set down at every cottage or tenement 
on the estate. He will be surprised to find 
how soon, adhering to his plan every year, 
his grounds will become ornamented with 
beautiful shade trees, enhancing the value of 
his property five hundred per cent, beyond 
any actual expense, while giving him, at the 
same time, a delightful and pleasant home. 
AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL VALUE OF 
RAILROADS. 
The Democracy, a journal recently estab¬ 
lished at Buffalo by an association of gentle¬ 
men, and conducted with a good deal of 
ability, publishes the following table and re¬ 
marks illustrating the value of railroads. 
Upon the ordinary highways, the econom¬ 
ical limit to transportation is confined within 
a comparatively few miles, depending, of 
course, upon the kind of freight and charac¬ 
ter of the roads. Upon the average of such 
ways, the cost of transportation is not far 
from fifty cents per ton per mile, which may 
be considered as a sufficiently correct esti¬ 
mate for the whole country. Estimating at 
the same time the value of wheat at $1 50 
per bushel, and corn at 75 cents, and that 
thirty-three bushels of each are equal to a 
ton, the value of the former would be equal 
to its cost of transportation three hundred 
and thirty miles, and the latter one hundred 
and sixty-five miles. At these respective 
distances from market, neither of the above 
articles would have any commercial value, 
with only a common earth road as an avenue 
to market. But we find that we can move 
property upon railroads at the rate of fifteen 
cents per ton per mile, or for one-tenth the 
cost upon the ordinary road. These works, 
therefore, extend the economic limit of the 
cost of transportation of the above articles 
to 3,300 and 1,650 miles respectively. 
Statement showing the value of a ton of wheat, and one 
of corn, at given points from market, as affected by cost 
of transportation by railroad and over the ordinary road. 
Transportation by Transportation 
railroad, by highway. 
, -*» 
-^ 
/-^ 
-A 
Wheat. 
Corn. 
Wheat. 
Corn. 
Value at market. 
$49 50 
$24 75 
$49 50 
$24 75 
lo miles from market 
. 49 35 
24 60 
48 00 
23 25 
20 
do. 
do. 
. 49 20 
24 40 
40 50 
21 75 
30 
do. 
do. 
. 49 25 
24 30 
45 00 
20 25 
40 
do. 
do. 
. 48 90 
24 14 
43 50 
18 74 
50 
do. 
do . 
. 48 75 
24 00 
42 00 
17 25 
00 
do. 
do. 
. 48 00 
23 85 
40 50 
15 75 
70 
do. 
do. .. 
. 48 45 
23 70 
39 00 
14 25 
60 
do. 
do . 
. 48 40 
23 55 
37 50 
12 75 
90 
do. 
do. >. ... 
. 48 14 
23 40 
36 00 
11 25 
100 
do. 
do. 
. 48 00 
23 25 
34 50 
9 75 
110 
do. 
do. 
. 47 85 
23 10 
33 00 
8 25 
120 
do. 
do. 
. 47 70 
22 95 
31 50 
G 75 
130 
do. 
do . 
. 47 55 
22 80 
30 00 
5 25 
140 
do. 
do. 
. 47 40 
22 65 
28 50 
3 75 
150 
do. 
do. 
. 47 25 
22 50 
27 00 
2 25 
100 
do. 
do. 
. 47 10 
22 35 
25 50 
75 
170 
do. 
do. 
22 20 
24 00 
How wonderfully does the railroad en¬ 
hance the value of farming lands at a dis¬ 
tance from market! American farms, gen¬ 
erally speaking, are very far from market. 
Indeed, New-York is the market for the 
bulk of the northern agricultural products. 
Most English farms have a market nearly in 
sight of them. But ours are for the most 
part so far away, that railroads of long lines 
and long connections instantly double, treble, 
quadruple, and quintuple the worth of grain 
lands near where they run. This has been 
the case in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, 
Wisconsin, and Canada. The President of 
the Nashville and Chattanooga road has 
stated, that the increase in the value of a 
belt of land ten miles wide, lying upon each 
side of that line, was equal to $6 50 per 
acre, or 96,000 for every mile of road, which 
cost the company only $20,000 a mile. It 
has been calculated that the construction of 
the 2,000 miles of railroad in Ohio would 
add to the value of landed property in that 
State three hundred millions of dollars— 
that is, five times the cost of the roads, 
which Avas $60,000,000. The country can" 
stand bankruptcies that come through rail¬ 
road enterprizes, if it can stand any. Of all 
forms they are the least mischievous. 
For the last half dozen years, no business 
in our country has paid so well as farming; 
and there is no class among us half as inde¬ 
pendent and prosperous as our farmers. 
Prices have been high, and, until this year, 
products large. The causes which have led 
to this state of things may be set down as 
permanent. The consumers are increasing, 
and will continue to increase, faster than the 
producers. The tendency of population to 
cities has been noticed for years, and gathers 
new strength with every new decade. A 
comparison of our census returns demon¬ 
strates this. Take the examples of Massa¬ 
chusetts, New-York and Pennsylvania. 
In Massachusetts, from 1820 to 1830, the 
State population increased 16 per cent., 
while Boston increased 30 per cent. From 
1830 to 1840, the State 21 per cent., Boston 
52 per cent.; from 1840 to 1850, the State 34 
per cent., Boston 46 per cent. The following 
table Avill show in our view how the case 
stands with the States we have named and 
the commercial emporiums of those States: 
STATES. 
Years. 
Mass. 
N. Y. 
Penn. 
From 1820 to 1830... 
. 10 
39 
28 
From 1830 to 1840... 
.21 
28 
28 
From 1840 to 1850... 
.34 
CITIES. 
27 
34 
Years. 
Boston. 
N. Y. 
Phila. 
From 1820 to 1830... 
.30 
05 
44 
From 1830 to 1840... 
. 52 
55 
37 
From 1840 to 1850... 
.46 
63 
44 
The increase of population in NeAV-York 
State, from 1840 to 1850, was 668,000. Of 
this increase, New-York had 204,000 and 
Brooklyn, Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, Utica, 
and Troy, had 132,000, giving an increase to 
these seven cities alone of 336,000 or more 
than half the whole increase in the State. 
Besides those mentioned, there are numer¬ 
ous other towns and cities in New-York ; and 
if the whole were embraced in the calcula¬ 
tion, it is doubtful whether the returns would 
shoAV any increase whatever of the farming 
population. 
Farming will undoubtedly be not only the 
surest, but, upon the whole, most productive 
business in which men can engage. There 
is no danger of its being overdone—looking 
simply at the market value of its products. 
The tendency of our population to cities is 
occasioned by a disgust of farming toil and 
its slow gains, which will still continue to 
drive Americans from the soil. There is 
not “ excitement ” enough in it to suit the 
genius and taste of our day. Farming is 
not the work of an hour or a day. Hardy 
frames, careless of exposure to heat and cold 
—well knit muscles and the farming skill 
acquired by years of laborious application to 
farm work—can not be improvised. They 
can be described and lauded in fine spun 
poems and glowing editorials, but can not be 
produced by any such contrivances of ingen¬ 
ious and busy brains. It is very easy for 
New-York editors, fluent of tongue and pen, 
to expatiate, column after column, upon the 
noble pursuit of agriculture, and to advise the 
surplus population of New- York city to move 
instanter on the land. It is easy to imagine 
that a homestead act—a farm free for each 
of the “landless ones”—would immediately 
produce an exodus of all these “surplus” peo¬ 
ple. But these surplus people are gentlemen 
and ladies, four-fifths of whom would be as 
helpless “on the land” as babes just born, 
Avhile the other fifth vastly prefer the luxury 
of loafing to plowing sowing, reaping and 
ingathering—noble and charming as these 
editors represent such occupations to be. 
An eloquent lawyer will address a» agricfll- 
tural society, and tell them to “ venerate the 
plow.” He Avill express his profound amaze¬ 
ment at what he denominates the folly of pa¬ 
rents who, thinking farming “ ungenteel,” 
seek employment behind the counter and at 
