When you weed, you allow the crop you planted to have more water and more of the soil nutrients. Yes you arrate the soil, lossening it up for the roots of another plant that you hope will soon provide you with food. But is weeding maybe harming the soil and therfore not the best for the crops? If you take the weed out, you are taking out a plant that has nutrients in it that it took from the ground and you are therefore taking nutrients out of the soil (just like it would be with any plant that is taken out of the soil, whether it is a "weed" or not). I think it would be best to take out the weeds that are crowding out the crops, and put them on top of the soil, acting as a mulch, both decreasing future weeds as well as evaporation. The weeds would then slowly break down and put their nutrients back in the soil. The weeds that are not near the crops I feel should be left alone because taking them out seems unnecessary. However, this also brings up a larger quesiton about "weeds" (plants that you did not plant and you do not want in that spot--did you know that lots plants people concider weeds are actually edible: dandylion is a prime example) and their regeneration. When you pull them out of the soil along with their roots, is it highly likely that if you put the on top of the soil as a mulch that they will "regenerate"? If you use grass clippings as mulch will you soon have grass growing where you mulched?
Anyone have any thoughts?
Do we weed because if we don't, it will reflect badly on us as gardeners (like having a messy bedroom that's on display)? Do we do it because it is human versus "nature" (though we are just as much a product of nature as the tress and the turkeys) and if we allow weeds in the garden that is a product of the human, then we are letting nature "win"? Do we do it because we think it's good for the soil and our plants or do we do it because we can't allow something to grow in an area that is supposed to be under our control?
