Vermont farmer. [volume] (Newport, Orleans County, Vt.) 1870-1877, 1874-10-16
General AgrttuIture,
PAsTURING MEADOWS.


The farmer who pastures his permanent
meadows, or meadows that he intends to
NOW after pasturing, in our opinion departs
from true economy and good farming. In
taking from meadow one crop of hay
season, the farmer takes all he is warranted
in taking without making full return in ma
nure. The grass grown upon a meadow af-
ter hsying, if allowed to remain, and rot
upon its surface, partially returns to the
soil the nutritious elements drawn out of it
in the growth Of the season.
We are not certain but that the yield of
grass, on good, deep soil, may be kept up
for several years, simply by allowing all the
grass that grows between moving and win
ter to die, and rot upon the surface. We
may be asked "How can that be possible
If one or two tons of hay are cut and re.
moved from an acre, so much of the con-
stituents OF the soil is removed, and its fer
tility to that extent impaired"
We concede that the ash of the hay Ia
very small per cent Of its weight) is drawn
wholly from the SOIL while its organic mat
ter, its carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitro
gen are derived, proximately or remotely,
from the atmosphere Another considera-
tion the ash which is carried off in the crop
Of hay is not all drawn from the surface soil,
but much of it is drawn by the long roots
from the subsoil.
Again, the nutritious properties drawn
from the subsoi and from the atmosphere,
are not all expended upon the stem that is
! mi ulS tln III
main in the soil, aud, rotting increase the
supply Of vegetable mold, so that while TAX
ing one or two tons of hay from an acre re-
moves few pounds of ASH from soil and
subsoi, 1t may deposit more vegetable mold
near the surface, accessible to growing plants,
than it removes, and it may possibly in.
crease the amount of available ash in the
| surface SOIL
We will now 90 little further and say
that if the aftermath be suffered to grow and
rot upon the soil, the yield Of grass may be
increased for several years. This is not
mere hypothesis, but is founded upon the ac-
tual experience OF many good farmers. 1t
is within the experience of many, that good
meadow land often will go on increasing its
| yield for three or four years, without any
top.dressing with manure, and then perhaps
begin to decline, and this even when part
of the aftermath is fed off, How much longer
might it be expected to keep up its maxi
mum yield were all of the aftermath suffer-
ed to die upon the surface? The amount of
vegetable mold it would gather from the
atmospheric, and the salts it would draw up
from the subsoil, depositing both near the
surface, could not but increase the available
fertility Of the SOIL
There are other potent reasons why per.
manent meadows should never be pastured.
The aftermath remaining affords protection
against injury from drouths and from severe
winters. Clover meadows, and also timothy
in lesser degree, suffer much from hesving
in unfavorable winters. This would be
greatly mitigated, if not entirely prevented,
by the mulch which the aftermath would
afford, and this same mulch would prevent
the evaporation of the moisture in the sur.
face, thus mitigating the effects of drouth 10
the later part Of spring and early part Of
summer.
In addition to these considerations, cattle,
in feeding upon meadows, especially when
softened by rains, tread out the grass more
or less, rendering the surface uneven. 1t
is probable that good natural meadows, il
never pastured, but dressed once in three or
five years with ashes, lime, plaster and bone
dust would 60 on without deterioration,
yielding heavy burdens of grass for a score
or more ofyears.-American Rural Home.
We commend tue ABOVE to the attention
Of readers Of the FARMER. The idea that
it is possible for land to improve for a num-
Der Of years in grass-production, without
manuriug, is sound, however strange it might
appear at first to the mere theorist. We
remember a field which had been moved and
fed in the fall, without manuring, until il
hardly paid for moving. In changing
fences, part of the field was thrown into
the pasture and the rest inclosed with some
fruit trees, and the latter portion steadily
increased in production of grass for several
years, while the portion pastured became
moss.bound and barren.
The land was mucky and rather moist, SO
that the cattle probably injured it more with
their feet than in what they took from it
We do not believe, however, that it pays tC
feed meadows of any kind, either fall OIL
spring, exceptin exceptional instances. A
very small area Of ground devoted to somt
fodder crop will piece out the feed from thu
pasture when the latter fails, and leave tht
meadow, just barred of good crop, without
robbing it of its natural protection FROM thu
frosts of winter, the aftermath.