The Sauk Centre herald., 1911-05-25
Checking VS..
Drilling Corn. i.
BY c. w. Hale, Minnesota
Farmers Institute.

J. j. !. :. !. j. = + !. 1. !. = + !. : X :.
This subject, perhaps. calls forth
more difference of opinion than any
other phase of the corn-growing indus
try Generally speaking, where corn
is to be grown for a given purpose,
the system of planting that would be
better for one farmer would also be
better for another, regardless of their
respective opinions. Therefore, it
would seem practical for corn-groWerS
to make a careful study of this ques-
tion.
The end to be sought is economical
production, on the one hand, and on
the other leaving the farm in as good
condition as possible for succeeding
crops.
Difference of Opinion.
While all seem to agree that, in
general practice, more weeds will go
TO seed in drilled than in checked
corn, "the parting of the way" comes
where some think that the yield of
drilled corn is enough greater to more
than make up for the damage done by
the extra weeds; while others feel
that the extra weeds in the corn, and
the seeds from them, to infest the
land for years to come, do more harm
than is compensated for by any ad-
vantage in drilling.
Effects on Weeas.
AS the corn.crop has been our prin-
cipal crop since we began farming,
we early felt the need of Investigating
this matter.
We soon discovered some features
in drilled corn that we did not like. In
drilled corn, the cultivator ran in the
same track, each cultivator leaving
q row OF. weeds in the corn row which
checked the growth of the corn, and
bothered in doing the farm work later.
This kept the field filed with weed
seeds, and the land would be ridged
too much by the cultivators in trying
to keeps the weeds covered. Then we
tried to compare yields. to determine
the claim made for extra yield in
drilled corn; but the difference in the
soil. or in the number of stalks per
acre, seemed to blind results.
Yields Compared.
We then hunted up all the records
we could from Experiment Stations:
with the result that in some cases the
yield was shown to be little greater
from drilled corn and in other cases
about the same; and some gave bet.
ter yield from checked corn than from
drilled, the yield averaging very slight
ly in favor of drilling. However.
checked corn can be kept clean with
the cultivators, and we feel that the
extra expense of hoeing the drilled
corn costs as much more than the in.
crease of yield in the drilled corn is
worth
In case the drilled corn is not kept
so clean as checked corn (and is 1t
usually, or will it be?) it will yield no
more, and the extra weeds and seeds
will make a balance in favor OF
checked corn.
Drilling for Fodder.
Where fodder is wanted, without re.
gard to corn, of course, drilling is the
system; but we think clover is better
than corn for fodder. For silage corn
drilling may be all right. as the weeds
are cut and hauled off before going to
seed. Still, as corn can be checked as
thickly as five kernels per hill with
out materially decreasing the yield of
shelled corn, as is shown by Expert
ment Station records, one might not
be gcing far wrong to check silage
corn, planting five kernels to the hill.
Some farmers feel that .it is all right
to drill corn one year on a clean
field. This is practically admitting
that weed-seeds accumulate more in
drilled than in checked corn II
seems too bad for a farmer to take
pains, for term of years, to keep
weeds in check. and then plant his
corn in a way that is the very worst
for infesting his farm with weeds.
From our experience and observation.
unless corn can be hoed couple Of
times very cheaply, we feel that check
ing is the most satisfactory. method
of planting corn under average condi-.
tions.
Since the Introduction of the silo
dairying has made more rapid prog.
ress because the silo makes it possible
to carry on dairy work profitably
khro,, oh o,,f tho ontiro yoar