Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1892-07-05
WHEN TO cur rAy.'
SUBJECT or DISCUSSION ArA riMTns
INSTITUTE.

AZ the Farmers Institute held With
Cu.hncc Grange AZ Riverside last week.
the subject for the DAY was "rhc Hay
Crop" The paper for the forenoon VA.
presented 10y Prof. W. u. Jorian ~
Orono. Who discussed "Esrly ~. late
cut iIsy." lie .aid that u I. prohabl.
that the question 10 the rclAti,. value II
early aud lat. cut hay '. one II less
moment than Il Ia. heretofore bccn re-
garicl. Thls l. so, not because there are
not essential differences In the two kinds
of hay, but because Il 4. ordinarily din.
cult or even Impossible Tor farmer Ia
cut all hl. grass while In bloom and no
Intelligent farmer Il an foolish a. to let
grass all stand until ripe.
The possibilities % the average farm
equipment allow farmers Ia begin cul
ting gr.s. Ia early bloom aud finish bc-
fore too ripe To b. unpalaiabie. WoulJ
u pay to make extraordinary effort or
expense Ia secure all the hay from early
cut gras., that u, before II go"s out ~
bloomf What are the factsl Early and
late cut hay differ In two way.:-in
Kind aud quality.
Grass cut In bloom contain. higher
percentage ~ mineral matter, protsiu or
nltfogcnou. material. aud fat than when
the grass u cut considerably later, While
the latter cut contains relatively more
/ fibre starch aud allied compounds. l,c-
p.atcl analy -es have shown this.
igain. the early cut hay u more dl-
gcsiiblc, that l., more u di.soly~l hy
the digestive juices of the stomach aud
inte.tines. Ia. only American test. ~
the relative digrstlblllty ~ early and
late cut hay aud timothy have been mad.
al the Maine Experiment station. Ia.
average IL the.e trial. with sheep shows
that ~ I.er cent ~ the organic matter of
early cut, aud - per cent of the organic
matter II late cut hay was digr.ted.
On the other hand more hay il OBJ
ttlncd when the grass l. cat from ten Ia
fourteen dsys past bloom than When cut
/ Ia bloom. Ten trial. Ia test this matter.
four II which we're made In New lI.mp.
.hir, by Prof. Sanlorn and siS Ia Maine
aud Irnn.yl,aBls by myself all With
timothy show an average Yield of 2,sSI
pound. when cut In full bloom, aud
J,jC> pounds when cut about two week.
later, a difirrrnc. In favor II the late cut
oi 81 pound. of dry hay ter acre.
There I. NO question but that more
weight II hay I. securi by letting the
grass stand until toward. the period ~
rlpenes.. N, however, We consider the
change In dlgc.tlhility, We fnd that thi.
Increase IN weight doe. not mean cor
responding incrra.e In nuiritlye value,
though accopiing Ia the figure. given
there would It'll De- q balance 20 some
thing over onc hundred pound. of dlg..-
tihlc material Ia favor ~ the late cut
hav. II ..-m. the factor ~ growth I.
II least la part compensated by greater
indigestlbility.
In nine of ia. trials referred Ia above,
which wcr. made for the purpose oi
testing the relative yield of early aud
late cut hay, the hay Was weighed when
stored aud then again after lying In the
NOV for several months. III. average
.hrlnkage of the early cut hay was -
per cent, aud II the late cut, ~ per cent,
the general average being ~ Ter cent.
From this II appears that hay lose.
about one-iiith In weight after storage,
or Ia other wOni., A. Is as good = price
for hay sold directly from the field, a.
/ sIO In IN. winter -IsNi.to Journal.