The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1884-01-04
Pasturing COrn.StaIks.

actuIiuS OOAueCeaihSe
We work for money, ignoble as il
may seem to do SO. Hence the question
uppermost always is: Does it pay? This
is the question that I wish to PROFOUND
in regard to pasturing corn-stalks, and
which | hope to properly answer.
In the great corn-producing localities
it is the common practice to turn the
farm stock, hogs, cattle and sheep into
the field as soon as the corn is gathered
to pasture the stalks This has been
the well-nigh universal practice for SO
long a time that it may appear to be
bordering on impertinence to question
its wisdom. But errors would never be
exposed or truths firmly established
were it not for the war of pens, and
shall beg leave to answer the question
have propounded in the negative.
However, ] am not intending to 90
the length of saying that all corn
should be cut for fodder. / am not
going to argue that it does not pay to
pasture stalks because it would paw
much better to cut the fodder and feed
it. Yet this is a good argument i'll the
acre shocked than from three left stard.
ing till midwinter But in the great
corn producing regions slower is SC
abundant that it may not be good poi-
icy to cut all the corn. There would be
a supply of fodder greater than the de.
mand, if this were done. Consumption
for it could not be found Beyond q
certain limit the cost of harvesting the
fodder would exceed its value; that is,
if SO much of it were harvested the sur
plus for which no market could be
found would reduce the price of all to
less than the cost of cutting. / shall
not say that it does not pay to pasture
stalks because the farmer should cut
and stock them. Yet I am pretty Ger.
tain that he would End it profitable to
cut more for fodder than what he does.
Nor shall found my negative upon
the occasional injury resulting to cattle
from eating stalks. This injury not in.
frequently amounts to death. But
these are exceptional circumstances.
They are not likely to influence those
who have not felt their bitter force.
prefer to found my answer upon broader
grounds. My reasons must be so gen
eral that each reader will feel their
force alike.
Let us first see what is gained by
pasturing stalks, and then what is lost.
In this way, and this only, can we ar.
rive at safe and legitimate conclusion.
Prof. j. w. Sanborn, now OF the Mis-.
souri, Agricultural College, and one oil
the most practical and reliable of scien.
titic investigators, says that ton o.
corn fodder rightly cured and saved is
worth two-thirds of ton of the best
timothy hay. Those who have com.
pared the feeding value of the two il
practical experiments, the most reliable
mode by which to arrive at a conclu.
sion, will very nearly agree with him
An acre of fairly heavy corn will pro.
duce two tons OF fodder, equal in value
to one and one-third tons of the best
hay. 1t might be thought that the
farmer gained this much by pastIlring
the stalks; but in reality he gains much
less. The most palatable and nutritious
part of the stover, and hence the most
valuable part, is the blades. But these
are mostly lost before the cattle have
an opportunity to eat them. OF course
the standing stalks can not be pastured
until the ears are gathered; and in the
latitude of the great corn producing
States this is rarely accomplished be.
fore the first of December. There have
been frosts, hard ones, month before
this. These deaden the blades, and
their hold upon the stalks soon becomes
weak and precarious. Then there are
the fall rains and the ever-present
prairie zephyrs to beat and pull them
loose and cast them upon the ground
where they are lost to the cattle. 1t is
safe to say that three-fourths of this
most valuable part of the stalk is lost
by the time the cattle are turned into
the field.
The remaining parts are the stalk
proper and the husks. The former,
down to the tassel joint has, in ma
jority of cases, followed the blades, and
that left contains very little nutriment,
and of it the cattle will eat very little
while the husks are dry and indigesti-
BILE. And both stock and husk have
been greatly damaged by the weather,
and rendered less palatable, less disgest-
ible, less nutritious and less wholesome.
l know that in some parts of Illinois, al
least, the pasturage of an acre of stalks
can be purchased for from twenty-five
cents to one dollar; and this probably
is not far from its worth.
We have now seen that the farmer
does not gain very much by pasturing
the stalks. Let us see what he loses. ]
have already adyerted to some of these
losses. But these are exceptions. The
greatest and general loss results from
the cattle tramping the ground when it
is soft and wet. 1t is true that the
ground may be frozen; but in nine cases
out of ten it will so happen that part of
the time the ground will be soft and
wet. The damage done by the tramp
ing of cattle at such times is great. 1t
occasions much extra labor in prepar-
ing the ground for the subsequent crop
Or else the planting of that crop in
ground unsuitable for it. / have seen
this often Illustrated in the fields Of nv
neighbors and not infrequently have ]
been taught by it in the bitter school oil
experience. Doubtless many of my
most observant readers have noticed it,
and to the common sense of those who
have not can confidently appeal, fol
they must be convinced by a little
thought that the tramping of cattle,
hogs, sheep or horses on soft ground
must be productive of clods and de-
structiye of the grounds mellowness
and life. am firmly convinced that in
a large majority of cases this damage
exceeds the gain of pasturing. 1t would
be better to cut and shock what was
needed for food and let the balance go
unrastured. John N. Stahl, IN Prairie
Farmer.
Authenticated Potatoes.