64 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
hill. In estimating bushels, I have allowed the lawful weight of fifty, 
six pounds to the bushel. 
At the time of harvesting, the corn was husked in the field. The 
forty-six hills from which the stalks had been cut, gave forty-eight 
and a half pounds of ears: and the forty-six hills on which the stalks 
had not been cut, gave sixty-two pounds of ears. The number of 
ears in the two cases was about the same ; those from the uncut hills 
were evidently the best filled out and the most hale ; on a large pro¬ 
portion of them the kernels were so closely wedged in, as to make 
it difficult to bend the ear at all without breaking it. There was 
very little mouldy corn in either case, a few ears were gathered, 
mostly from the cut stalks, but the whole quantity was so small as 
to make it questionable whether cutting the stalks had much effect 
in this particular. 
Both parcels were carefully laid aside in a dry chamber for about 
six or eight weeks, at the expiration of which time they were again 
weighed, and the parcel of ears from the uncut hills had lost in dry¬ 
ing about two per cent more than the other; affording some evi¬ 
dence that the sap continued to circulate for a greater length of time, 
in the uncut than in the cut stalks. The uncut hills, gave 42 lbs. 8 
oz. dry shelled corn, equal to 14 oz. 12| grs. per hill, or 60 bushels 
and 8 pounds per acre. The parcel from the cut hills gave 33 lbs. 
7 oz. equal to 11 oz. 10 grs. per hill, or 47 bushels and 18 pounds 
per acre; making a loss of 12 bushels and 46 pounds per acre, by 
cutting the stalks. Conclusive evidence, that while the sap is in cir¬ 
culation, nature does not assign the stalks an unprofitable office. 
The product of this whole row, taken together, cut and uncut hills, 
was equal to 53 bushels and 41 pounds per acre. 
The product of row No. 3, taken by itself, (containing ninety-two 
hills, on one-half of which the stalks were cut on the same day the 
others were,) would not show the practice of cutting stalks quite so 
destructive in its effects, as that exhibited in row No. 2, its whole 
produce was 77 lbs. 9 oz. dry corn, equal to 55 bushels and 10 
pounds per acre, or 1 bushel and 25 pounds per acre more than row 
No. 2. 
Not satisfied with resting the experiment here, I gathered the corn 
on rows Nos. 1 and 4, (i. e.) the rows each side, next adjoining No. 
2 and 3, and on which none of the stalks had been cut. These rows, 
taken together, contained 186 hills, and their product of dry shelled 
corn was 171 lbs. 13 oz. equal to 14 oz. 12£ grs. per hill, or 60 bu¬ 
shels and 8 pounds per acre, precisely the same average yield as that 
part of row No. 2, on which the stalks had not been cut; this exact 
coincidence, however, I think may be numbered among those cases 
which rarely happen. 
The difference between the two rows on which half the stalks 
were cut, and the two rows on which none of the stalks were cut, 
was 5 bushels 38| pounds per acre. If this difference arose from 
cutting half the stalks, (and I know of no other reason,) then cutting 
the whole, would have reduced the crop 11 bushels and 21 pounds 
per acre, or from 60 bushels and 8 pounds to 48 bushels and 43 
pounds per acre. 
To recapitulate, row No. 2, on which the experiment was com¬ 
menced, taken by itselt is as follows, viz : 46 hills on which the stalks 
had not been cut, gave 42 lbs. 8 oz. dry shelled corn, 
equal to, per acre,..... 60 bush. 8 lbs. 
46 hills from which the stalks had been cut, gave 33 
lbs. 7 oz. dry shelled corn, equal to, per acre,.... 47 “ 18 “ 
Loss by cutting the stalks, per acre, .. 12 bu. 46 lbs. 
The four rows taken together, stand as follows : 
Nos. 1 and 4, on which no stalks were cut, gave an average of, per 
acre,. 60 bu. 8 lbs. 
No. 2 and 3, from which half the stalks were cut, 
gave an average of, per acre,.54 “ 25j “ 
Loss by cutting one-half the stalks per acre, . 5 “ 38 j “ 
2 
On cutting all the stalks, would make a loss equal to, 
per acre,... 11 bu. 21 lbs. 
The difference in the result of the two cases, is 1 bushel and 25 
pounds per acre; or, in the two experiments, (if it may be so term¬ 
ed,) there is an average loss by cutting the stalks, of 12 bushels 5j 
pounds per acre ; a loss quite equal to all the expense of hoeing and 
harvesting, especially when we consider that in hoeing, the labor of 
making hills was dispensed with. 
If I had cut all the stalks, and obtained a crop of forty-eight bu¬ 
shels to the acre, the very fact of having forty-eight bushels, would, 
I think, be considered by farmers generally, in this section of the 
country, as proof positive that the stalks were cut without injury to 
the crop. Or if I had gone one step farther and made large lulls, at 
an additional expense of one dollar per acre, and thereby reduced 
the crop to forty-five bushels per acre, the forty-five bushels would 
be considered sufficient proof, that making hills (which, by the way, 
are usually made equally large and high on wet or dry land, without 
regard to soil or situation,) was labor well laid out. For although 
you occasionally give us a large com story , swollen a little, perhaps, 
by guessing it off in baskets; yet, judging from what we see and 
know about raising corn, we call torty-five bushels per acre, a good 
crop. 
A measured bushel, from the cut hills, weighed 57 lbs. G oz.—one 
pound less than from the uncut; the shrinkage being very near equal 
to the whole loss in weight. 
If this experiment is a fair test, it seems that about twenty per cent, 
or one fifth part of the crop is destroyed, by cutting the stalks in the way 
they are usually cut. If further experiment should establish this fact, 
I think there are few farmers that will hesitate long in deciding 
which is the most valuable, one acre of corn or five acres of top 
stalks. But this twenty per cent is not saved at the expense of 
losing the stalks; they are worth as much, and I think more, all 
things considered, after the corn is harvested, than they are, ga¬ 
thered in the usual way. If, after being bunched up in in a green 
state, they heat or become mouldy, (a case of frequent occurrence,) 
they are utterly worthless, except it be for manure ; I know of no 
animal that will eat them. But after they have once been dried by 
the frost and wind, a subsequent moderate degree of mouldiness 
seems to be no injury. 
The course which I have pursued with them, and for the present 
1 know of no better, has been as follows:—In the first place, they 
are cut off near the ground, and for this purpose a short scythe is 
found the most convenient instrument. The expense of cutting in 
this manner, however, is but a mere trifle, if any, more than cutting 
the stub stalks in the spring, and may with propriety be entered as 
an item of expense against the next crop, for which it is preparing 
the ground. After cutting, they are gathered into bunches of suita¬ 
ble size for binding, and three good sheaves of rye straw, if wet, 
will be sufficient to bind a ton. In gathering them up and laying in 
bunches, an active boy will do as much as a man. In this way, the 
whole expense of gathering, binding and loading, will not exceed 75 
cents per ton. As they are very bulky, for want of barn-room, I 
have them stacked near the barn-yard ; and I think I may safely 
say, that my cattle eat more pounds of stalks from an acre gathered 
in this way, than they would from the same acre, if gathered in the 
usual way. It may be objected to this, that they are not as good and 
nourishing as others; as to that matter, I am not able to say ; but 
if the cattle are good judges in the case, (and I think they ought 
to be admitted as such,) they are quite as good and quite as nou¬ 
rishing, for they are eaten apparently with quite as good a relish. 
In addition to this, they are obtained without breaking off ears or 
breaking down hills in hauling out, occurrences quite frequent in 
the other case. They also furnish more than double the quantity of 
bedding for the yard, an item of no small moment in the list of 
“ creature comforts,” during our cold winters. And last, though not 
least, they make more than double the quantity of manure, the value 
of which will be duly appreciated by every good farmer, without ar¬ 
gument. It may be said that the butt stalks can be gathered after 
harvest, and furnish the same quantity of litter and manure as in 
this case ; that is true; but the expense of gathering both parts in 
that way, from the butts being so short and inconvenient to bind, 
would be three times as much as it is to gather them whole. Thus 
viewing the subject in various points, I think this method of manag¬ 
ing corn stalks is much better than the old one ; and that a little 
observation and experience will convince the most sceptical, that 
this branch of agriculture is not yet brought to a state of perfection; 
that there is yet room for improvement. 
In passing through a field of corn, about the first of September, I 
noticed that my clothes contracted a strong smell of smut, and not 
being aware that I had come in contact with any smutty ears, I was 
led to examine a little to ascertain the cause. I found many of the 
corn leaves nearly covered with rust, (something similar to that ob¬ 
served on the stalks of English grain, preceding a blight,) and inter¬ 
mingled with the rust, was an abundance of very minute blisters of 
