THE CULTIVATOR. 
65 
smut, or something which had the appearance and smell of smut. 
As I had never observed any thing of the kind before, and smut is 
said to be injurious to cattle, I have thought that something of this 
nature might have occasioned the difference of opinion entertained 
by some of your correspondents, last fall, in regard to the utility ol 
feeding milch cows with green corn stalks. Feeding cows witli 
smutty stalks, even if “fed to the full,” would probably tend to dry 
them up; while feeding them plentifully with healthy stalks in a 
green state, would undoubtedly increase their milk. 
In conclusion, I would inquire, if you can (through the columns 
of the Fanner,) give us the detail or result of any experiment made 
to ascertain the damage sustained by pasturing or feeding English 
grain on mowing land. I think this an important subject of inquiry 
to every New-England farmer, and submit it for the purpose ot ob¬ 
taining information. That good crops are sometimes gathered after 
feeding, is well known; but facts are wanted, which will fairly ex¬ 
hibit the effect ol feeding those lands. Allhougli this practice is hand¬ 
ed down to us with the claims of ancient usage for its support, and 
perhaps might have been expedient in former days, yet, from some 
years’ observation, I have little doubt that accurate experiment, 
particularly with English grain and young clover, will prove it to be 
a species of farming similar to that of topping corn stalks, and equal¬ 
ly disastrous in its effects. YVM. CLARK, Jr. 
Northampton, March, 1832. 
Mr. Fessenden- —I was highly gratified with the perusal of the 
leading article in your 38th number, from the pen of Mr. Clark, on 
cutting corn stalks. Experiments like those he has detailed, are of 
great value to the farming interest, and richly entitle those who 
make and publish them, to the appellaiion of public benefactors. I 
beg leave to suggest the cause of the difference in the product which 
resulted from Mr. Clark’s experiments. 
There is a striking analogy between the animal and vegetable 
kingdoms. Food taken into the stomach of animals does not nou¬ 
rish but is prejudicial to health, unless it undergoes the process ol 
digestion. Nor does food nourish the plant until it has been elabo- 
raied by the leaves. Plants, therefore, without leaves cannot grow ; 
but, on the contrary, if defoliated in hot weather, the unelaborated 
sap becomes stagnant, ferments and destroys the vitality of the 
plant. Thus when the tops of corn are cut, the supply of food to 
all the ears above the remaining leaves, is cut off, and the supply is 
materially diminished to those below. A diminished product must 
of course be the consequence. 
I very much regret that Mr. Clark did not carry his experiments 
one step further, and ascertain the relative weight of forty-six hills 
cut with the entire stalks at the time he topped his No. 2. It 
would have decided whether the stalks afford nutriment to the grain 
after they are separated from the roots, and tow hat extent. This 
last lias been my method of harvesting my crop, from an impression 
that I lost by it nothing in the weight of the grain, while 1 gained 
much in the quantity and qualify of the fodder. The objection that 
the stalks mould is not tenable. They will not mould while the 
corn is upon them, if tied above the ears. And if not sufficiently 
dry when the corn is picked, they may be left in stacks till perfectly 
cured; and yet be housed in far better condition than they are by 
the ordinary mode of saving them. It is not the drying that dete¬ 
riorates their value for fodder, but the drenchings "which they get 
when left out till the corn is picked, and the frusis, which diminish 
very much their nutritive properties. If well cured, and especially 
if cut and steamed, cattle eat them freely, and I consider them no 
wise inferior to hay. The grain from the crop secured in my way, 
has weighed sixty and sixty-two pounds the bushel. It is a twelve 
rowed early variety, which I denominate the Dutton corn. 
I have remarked, that the modes of planting corn* or rather the 
distance between the plants, is different in different states. In New- 
England, the distance is greater than in New-York, and greater in 
Pennsylvania than in the former. Mr. Clark’s hills were four by 
three feet, which gave him 3,646 hills, or by my estimate 3,630 on 
the acre. Our Mr. Stimson plants at two and a half feet each way, 
and gets upon the acre 6,989 hills, or nearly double what Mr. Clark 
d°es. I once planted an acre in drills, two rows in a drill, the plants 
six inches apart in the rows, the rows six inches apart, and three 
feet between the centres of the drills, quincunx, and had, if there 
were no vacancies, 30,970 stalks, equal to 7,742 hills on the acre. 
The ground and entire product were accurately measured and weigh¬ 
ed. While the Messrs. Pratts, of Madison, produced 170 bushels 
VOL. I. I 
on the acre, by planting in drills, three rows in each, quincurfx, 
thus, ‘ • ; • and four feet from the centre of the drills. If the 
rows were six inches apark and the plants nine inches in the rows, 
the plants amounted to 43,580, equal to 10,890 hills. Assuming as 
data, that in all the above cited cases each plant produced an ear of 
corn and that the ears averaged one gill of shelled grain, their pro¬ 
duct would be as follows, in bushels and quarts: 
Mr. Clark’s,. 58 bushels, 13 quarts, 
Mr. Stimson’s,. 108 “ 24 “ 
My own, . 120 “ 31 “ 
Messrs Pratts’, ............ 170 “ 
The close planting, whether in hills or drills, requires high ma¬ 
nuring, and the two and three rowed drills, extra labor ; and tne ears 
may withal be somewhat smaller. Yet I nevertheless believe that 
seventy or eighty bushels may be obtained on an acre, with good 
manuring on a genial soil, in our mode of planting, with about as 
littie labor as twenty, thirty or forty bushels, are obtained in the 
New-England or Pennsylvania open method. 
1 have detailed the preceding facts and calculations, not with a 
view to vaunt of our skill or of the fertility of our soil, but to show 
how the large crops of corn have been raked in this state, which 
have been noticed in the papers. 
There is one fact connected with the experiment of the Messrs. 
Pratts, worthy of consideration ; there was not a plant missing, or 
deficient, in their field. They quadrupled their seed: and pulled 
up, as the character of the plants was developed, all but the requi¬ 
site number, reserving the strongest and most promising. It is com¬ 
mon to see corn-fields very deficient in plains and even in entire 
hills. This deficiency often amounts to one-fourth or one-half.— 
The loss incident to this defect may readily be estimated, and great¬ 
ly counterbalances the expense of extra seed, and the labor of thin¬ 
ning the plants. J. B. 
Albany, N. Y. April 9, 1832. 
THE CULTIVATOR, OR HORSE HOE. 
This is an instrument not as much known and used as it deserves 
and ought to be. It is adapted for operations between the plough 
and harrow, and at certain times is much better than either. It is 
half a plough, half harrow and half hoe, and does all these operations 
conjointly. The first process, after corn has come up and is three or 
four inches high, is to use the common harrow upon it. This breaks 
the ground and partially clears it of the weeds or grass. It is soon 
performed, and is very useful to the young plant. The next step 
has been to pass the plough twice through each furrow, throwing 
i he ground from the corn to the centre of the furrow. Now this is the 
time to use the cultivator. It ought, after a few days, to follow the 
harrow, and is much more useful than the plough as well as a great 
saving of labor, because it is necessary to go only once between the 
rows of corn. It cuts as deep as the corn plough and pulverizes the 
soil much better. It tears up and brings to the surface the roots of 
grass which the plough only covers, and by adapting the width of 
the cultivator to the space between the rows of corn, it half hoes 
the corn at the same time, and does the whole work most admirably. 
When there is much grass growing with the corn, it is an extreme¬ 
ly useful instrument, as it pulls it up by the roots and in a great 
measure destroys it. For the Fiorin or Quack roots, with which 
our soil too much abounds, it will be of great service, and it appears 
to me it will be the most effectual remedy for it of any instrument 
we have yet tried. Corn is much sooner dressed with the hand hoe, 
by the half ploughing, hall hoeing operation of the cultivator, when 
it has preceded it. The cultivator is likewise very useful for the 
raising of potatoes, and for ploughing between the rows of turnips, 
and where a clover lay has been turned over to put down to wheat, 
when the plough cannot be again resorted to for tear of disturbing 
the sod—this instrument may be used fora shallow ploughing, which 
it will do much better than can, by any other mode, be effected.— 
Corn is now raised with much less labor than formerly. It was the 
custom to hand hoe a crop two and often three times, and this was 
always an expensive and tedious process. Hoeing is now often 
omitted entirely, and is seldom done more than once: and still there 
are heavier crops of corn raised now than formerly. The process 
of high hilling is not only not necessary, but in a measure injurious, 
and our premium crops of corn have been raised with little hoeing, 
and of course at the least expense. The idea that corn well grown 
jwill blow over by the high winds without the ground is well raised 
i at the foot of each hill, is erroneous. Providence has given to every 
