Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1900-05-15
EFFECT or WITCH GRASS IN CORN
PRODUCTION.

PRODUCTION.
The writer has had many inquiries In
reference 10 the effect OK witch grass In
growing corn. Every section almost in
New England is troubled by this grass,
and it Is particularly y nuisance In corn
growing. Ii also grows In pastures,
meadows and in all cultivated crops,
spreading rapidly and holding on with =
tenscity thst Is marvellous. Crops grow
ing with an abundant vegetation have =
tendency to destroy it. We are told
that ensiiage corn has done this, but
with US IL has not proved true, and we
have been obliged TO resort to the hoe TO
keep our fields free OF Ii, II the corn Is
cultivated but one way. Ordinary culti-
vators are hardly sufficient TO keep II out
Of the corn where 1t has become firmly
established for years.
We saw from the previous experiment
that weeds or grass in corn must be de
stroyed to produce maximum crops or
even average crops. There are three
reasons for this: First, because they
consume plant food. IL our soils were
iilled with sn abundance Of available
plant food, in sufficient quantity for the
growth of both corn and weeds, there
would not need to be such a constant
war against the latter. But our New
Hampshire soils do not contain this
abundance Of available plant food. The
necessity for commercial fertilizers Is
evidence enough that our soils do not
contain even plant food enough for the
growing Of corn 10 maturity. Second,
weeds keep sunlight and warmth from
the soil The mulched crop In the pre-
ceding experiment was under-yield not
so much because weeds grew, but be-
cause OF the shade and lack Of warmth.
Weeds act in the same way; they shade
the ground and keep Il cool. Third,
weeds are consumers OF water. Small
crops are often produced because Of this
reason alone. One OF the necessary con-
stituents for q maximum crop Is an
abundance Of water. II there Is an in-
sufficient amount of water In the soil the
crop will be short, and the more weeds
in field the larger the amount OF water
consumed.
Realizing the importance OF these facts,
the writer thought IL advisable TO see IL
an increased crop would result IL witch
grass were kept out by the hoe. Two
plots were laid of, the same In every re-
spect. IL Was loan Of average fertil-
ity. On May the plots were planted TO
corn and were given the same cultivs-
ton until June 10. The preliminary cul-
tivstion consisted Of two barrowings
after the corn WAS planted and the use
OF the weeder for three times. On June
10 both plots were cultivated with the
Planet Jr. cultivstor. Witch grass was
quite prominent st this time. One OF
the plots WAS Immediately gone over
with the hand hoe, not ss a cultivator
but simply 10 destroy the grass. On
June 81, July and 90 the same opera
tions were repeated. During the sum-
mer the hoed plot was entirely free of
witch grass, but the other plot WAS mat
ted with Ii between the rows.
The corn was cut and harvested with
the following results: corn stover hoed,
IL ,S43; grain In bushel. 81 g.; unhoed,
9,lSS; grain In bushel, GA.
Conclusion and suggestions:
There Is but one conclusion: Where
soil is badly infected with witch grass IL
is advisable 10 use the Doe IL the horse
eultivator Is not sufficient 10 destroy IL.
In this experiment the increased yield
paid for the labor many times.
IL, instead OF planting the corn In
drills, the method WAS changed 10 that
of planting in hills, the cultivator could
be run both ways and practically all
weeds and witch grass could be destroy
ed.
CHARLES w. BURKErT,
New Hampshire Experiment Station.