The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1897-07-21
When to Cut Grass for Hay.

Eds. Country Gentleman:-After con-
Guiding and publishing experiments
some eighteen years ago that showed
that between blossom and maturity of
grass, especially of timothy, there was
a marked increase of growth, and that
from blossom to seed formation there
tive effect, L was frequently rallied by
the argument in favor of early-cut hay,
deemed conclusive, that animals do
better on June grass than on hay, and
better than on later grazed pastures.
The fact that June is the great growing
month for the grass crop, when q sur
plus of grass exists, that flies do not
harass at that time, and other factors,
were overlooked.
l am remined of the flood of criti-
cisms by my fourth years experience
with cows at grass. My COWS now
Dune 21), on abundant grass, are CIV
ing twelve or more cans or twenty per
cent less milk than on May 81, when
yet or winter feed. Such has been my
annual experience since returning to
the farm, whether the COWS were fed
grain or not. Facts hat have been &C.
cumulating since these trials by the
writer, at the New Hampshire College
OF Agriculture, are more and more
breaking the force of this and other
similar old arguments favoring early
cutting of crops, hay included, and
those favoring greenness.
In the light of modern Investigations,
we must assume that much or the in=
creased milk flow and growth nf i've
stock on June pasture, come not 80
much from the early stage of growth
and of greenness as from the fact that
the winter starvation rations of the
fathers who launched the argument
were succeeded by a period of greater
plenty and greater warmth. Now the
w~ind-swept interior barns of old times
grain rations added to more generous
lures the question, as decided by June
grass, concerning the right degree of
maturity of crops, and have broken
much of the force of the argument in
favor of greenness.
Haying is upon us, and so is the old
argument in favor of early cutting of
hay; even the old reasoning based on a
half view of scientific data is made the
support VI carly CuttlnS' IL IL not my
purpose to review the facts of science
that bear on this question. 1t may
now at least safely be said that it is not
at all clear that science teaches that
May grass or grass prior to bloom and
eve in bloom is more valuable than
hay at early seed formation. The one
grand argument of so-called science in
favor of early cutting-that a larger per-
centage of protein is se%cured-is based
on the gratuitous assumption that ma
ture has failed to put in the grass crop
the n great resource of wild grant
%nivorous animals, enough of protein.
This argument overlooks the influence
of environment, and assumes that this
class of animals ia not adapted to the
food it receives, for June grass is but
for a brief period of the year. 1t was
formulated before it had been discov-
cred that the heterogeneous matter of
young grass is but partly organized into
protein.
This train of thought suggested by
the response Of the COWS at the milk
pail while ON June grass is by no means
intended to encourage late cutting of
hay, but rather a conservative or middle
ground practice. Trials at the New
Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin State Cole ges fail to support
the dogmatic assertions of both men of
practice and men of science in favor of