No. 11. 



Removal of Weeds from the Soil. 



343 



For the Farmers' Cabinet. 

 Removal of Weeds from the Soil. 



Mr. Editor, — In the Farmers' Register 

 for April, I find some well-written remarks 

 by the Rev. J. H. Turner, in reply to inqui- 

 ries and strictures addressed to him by an 

 anonymous writer over the signature of "A 

 Young Farmer," one of which has surprised 

 me not a little. That such a question should 

 be asked by any but a farmer, would be suffi- 

 cient to call forth a degree of astonishment — 

 that such a question has been asked, even by 

 a. young farmer, adds greatly to that feeling; 

 but that such a question could be permitted 

 to have weight sufficient to call forth such an 

 answer, from such a man as Mr. Turner, is 

 the most surprising thing of all ! The ques- 

 tion asked is — " Is not the practice of remov- 

 ing the weeds injurious to the land from which 

 they are taken 1" and the answer, no less re- 

 markable and strange, is — " This is very gen- 

 erally considered to be the fact" ! And' al- 

 though the writer adds, " but after looking 

 at the subject in all its bearings, I am decid- 

 edly of a different opinion," he goes on to say, 

 " I do not pretend that the removal of a weed 

 or anything else from the land, can benefit 

 the spot on which it grew." Indeed ! — then 

 I have been taught in a strange school, for I 

 have been made to believe that no good hus- 

 bandman will ever permit anything to grow 

 on his land, save what he plants in it; and 

 that a strong weed growing in a crop of 

 drilled wheat has been known to draw away 

 a great portion of the nourishment from six 

 of the adjoining plants; thus rendering the 

 produce inferior, both in quality and quantity; 

 while Mr. Coke — Lord Leicester — after 

 eighty years of the most successful farming, 

 must indeed be very ignorant, when he con- 

 ceives that his success depends entirely upon 

 his careful cultivation and the eradication of 

 weeds ; and how great must be that ignorance, 

 when we find him, at his grand annual sheep- 

 shearing feast, offering a reward to any one 

 who shall find a weed growing on a thousand 

 acres ! his turnip crop consisting of 700 acres 

 annually. 



Mr. Turner, in advocating the mowing of 

 weeds after harvest for the purpose of furnish- 

 ing litter for the manufacture of manure, 

 eeems to have only this one end in view, for 

 he says, "But what do we accomplish by it 

 (the mowing of the weeds)] We produce a 

 convenient material by which we can keep 

 our stables and hog-pens clean and healthy; 

 making the richest and best manure ; then, it 

 cleanses the field ; and at the next harvest, 

 instead of battering the scythes against hard, 

 dry weeds, there is a beautiful clean surface 

 to cut over; labour therefore is saved, and the 

 crop secured is cleaner and in better condi- 



tion." But not a word does he say as to the 

 exhausting character of these weeds, by which 

 the land must have been drained of half its 

 powers of nutrition — that being the proportion 

 of the weeds to the crop of grain, &c., sown, 

 when the owner does not consider that their 

 presence is exhausting ! Shades of Jethro 

 Tull, and the thousand other successful cul- 

 tivators of the soil, who have been labouring 

 for so many years to convince us both by pre- 

 cept and example that the eradication of 

 weeds is necessary to the well-being of the 

 crop that is cultivated, even at the severest 

 cost of labour and expense, how would you 

 be surprised and astonished to find that there 

 is a spot on the globe — in Virginia — where 

 one of the most prominent of her cultivators 

 cannot pretend to say that the removal of a 

 weed or anything else from the land, can 

 benefit the spot on which it grew ! Ye who 

 have contended that the most sterile soil could 

 be rendered rich merely by pulverization, if 

 no plants were to be permitted to grow upon 

 it; and that weeds are more uniformly ex- 

 hausting, than any artificial crop that can be 

 planted, particularly when they begin to per- 

 fect their seeds, as they all do at the time of 

 harvest ! But, certainly the advocate of the 

 non-exhausting character of weeds has hit 

 upon a very easy mode of farming, which 

 might be expedient for that section of coun 

 try from which he hails; it is, however, with 

 feelings of pride and thankfulness that I add, 

 such a course of cultivation " would not do in 

 these parts," where men are content to earn 

 their bread by the sweat of their brows, and 

 where an enclosure overgrown with weeds is 

 considered a disgrace to its possessor ; no one 

 ever dreaming of asking the question, " Is not 

 the practice of removing the weeds injurious 

 to the land from which they are taken," any 

 more than that the answer would be given, 

 "I do not pretend, that the removal of a weed 

 or anything else from the land, can benefit 

 the spot from which they are taken" — a 

 crude answer, it must be admitted, which if 

 it do not bear the meaning I have attached 

 to it, must mean nothing. 



This is the first time that I have ever heard 

 the growing of weeds advocated; I thought 

 the most that could be said for them was, 

 " What shall I do with my stock after har- 

 vest, if I mow the weeds in my grain stub- 

 bles ■?" — a question which was once asked, to 

 which the reply given was, " grow useful 

 green crops, that will not shed their pernicious 

 seeds on the land to give you the labour of 

 seven years' weeding." But we live in event- 

 ful days, which incline us to fear that the 

 world is no wiser than it was centuries ago 

 — the definition of wisdom being, " the right 

 application of knowledge." W. 



Eastern New York, May 21, 1642. 



