The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-05-25
Ensilage.

Ensilage.
"Audl alteram partem.'
AS it is in season now to SOW corn for
fodder corn, we again call attention to
the subject, and give an elaborate article
on the Real Value of Ensilage,' being a
reply of Prof. Armby (whose book on cat
tie feeding we have recently noticed in
these columns to an article of DR.. Bailey,
both articles appearing in the Country
Gentleman. DR.. Bailey has written a
work on Ensilage, practices this system
on his farm in Massachusetts,, and is an
enthusiastic advocate of it. No doubt he
goes too far in his estimates of its value.
We let our readers see the other side in
Prof. Armby's article. 1 must remark
here that while ensilage" has been too
much lauded have no doubt of its value,
and its preference over desiccated fodder
corn. If nothing else should decide in
its favor the saving of the feeding mate
rial in the former over the latter method
is sufficient There is great waste in
cured fodder corn by SCATTERING, exposure
to weather, the refusal of the stock to eat
the dried stalks, and the frequent loss by
attempting to house it. 1t is almost i'm
possible to get it sufficiently cured to
bulk it under shelter An experiment
made by myself and detailed in my re-
view of Prof. Armsby's book Central
Presbyterian of April 81 proves that
cheaper system than that generally adopt
ed, will answer good purpose, and proves
that DR.. Bailey is wrong when he says
that pit without protected sides will
not answer. 1t will answer if the soil is
good red clay. We shall have space for
only portion of Prof Armsby's article
in this number.
In an article entitled Practical Expert
ence with Ensilage, on page 787 of last
volume of the Country Gentleman, Mr..
John M. Bailey reviews my recent article
on the same subject and gives his reasons
Tor dissenting very strongly from the
conclusions there reached I desire to
present here some considerations which I
think show that those conclusions are
substantially accurate, and at the same
time to correct some errors into which
Mr.. Bailey has fallen.
In the first place made no such dam
aging admission as that l knew nothing
whatever concerning ensilage." I do not
claim to know all about it, but I have
read with some care most of the numer-
Gus recent publications on the subject,
including M. Gofart's, and have devoted
some study to those general principles
which determine the value eff all folders.
That knowledge thus obtained is, to a
certain extent, book knowledge 1 free
ly admit. But it would appear that Mr..
Bailey does not considsr such knowledge
as destitute Of all value, since he has
written not a little himself on his favorite
subject.
Next, as to the date of Moser's expert
lments, Even in this age of progress, they
hardly seem to deserve the epithet of
ancient, since they were made Just
three years ago, viz, in 1877-79; that is,
at about the date of the first edition of
M. Gotfarts book and at least two years
after his process had been fully described
IN French agricultural journals. The "pa-
per with an unpronouncable name" in
which an abstract Of the original account
OF the experiments appeared, was pub
lIshed, not two or three years, but less
than three months ago.
Mr.. Bailey's most serious error, how
ever, is the assumption which pervades
MS whole article, that consider Moser' 8
results to have settled the whole question
adversely to the merits of ensiage. En-
sllage is primarily method of preserv-
ing maize fodder for winter use. In this
view OF the case, the advantage of the
method over any other method. is purely
an economic question and one whose
decision, in all probability, will be differ
ent In different localities and under varv-
ing conditions of climate, &c. No one
Is Is, more ready than myself to admit that
MT bailey has made it successful under
1lS circumstances, and to accord him all
"ue donor for making so full a trial of