THE U33 0’." COAL ASHES
515 A S-OiL AfiEN‘DMENT

xv" - , 49. m m‘ ’ ‘3
mesh: {62- me wag-res n: M. a.
'j'gf M”... r 1‘”. "as“ 3": '?';"~ 4"
J\’$5L‘i.’£:UB§$N 87 .H- & :56 kau-fiCfi

“33333 LL; we

3947

 

 

Ilflsistocmrflfigthatthe

fluxusenflded

"The Use of Coal Ashes
As A 8011 Amendment"

puumnufllbg

J enes E. Poe

\
haslnwn:mxnpufilunnudsfuflmumwnt
(fl‘dnarequhenunnsfbr

_M._S_.__degree in 8011 Science

 

QM-

RMQGrluofinun'

Date October 7, 1947

I495

 

_ __ - ___ __
r :—

 

. ~_ _

. "_—'_"

'--—‘v—' .

 

 

THE USE OF COAL ASHES AS A SOIL AMENDMENT

by

JAMES E. POE

W

A THESIS

Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Soil Science

1947

ACKNOVLEDGEMENT

The writer expresses his sincere
gratitude to Dr. C. E. Miller for his guid-
ance in this problem.

Appreciation is also rendered to
other members of the Soil Science Department
for their interest and helpful suggestions

throughout the course of the study;

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROCEDURE
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
PLATES
REFERENCES

ADDITIONAL DATA

INTRODUCTION

The literature pertaining to soils reveals very little in-
formation on the value of coal ashes as a soil amendment. 'Ques-
tions regarding the fertilizing value of coal ashes and the ef-
fect of such material on the physical condition of the soil, as
well as the possibilities of toxicity to plant growth have gre-
cuently been asked. The need for coal ashes as a soil amendment
has arisen as a result of the need for some form of organic mat-
ter to replace stable manure which is no longer available in many
localities.

If it is found that coal ashes may result in improvement
of the physical condition of soil and furnish substantial amounts
of available plant nutrients without becoming toxic to plants, the
material will prove to be of value to agriculture.

This experiment deals primarily with the above cuestions
concerning physical and chemical effects of coal ashes on the soil.
The yields of the creps grown on soils treated with coal ashes give

an indication of the degree of beneficial effect of coal ashes as

a soil amendment.

In review of literature, the writer found no literature bear-

ing directly on this problem.

-2-
PROCEDURE

In order to study both the chemical and physical effects of
coal ashes, a Miami Clay loam and an Oshtemo Sandy loam were select-
ed. The Miami Clay loam was selected to study the effect of coal
ashes on structure and tilth as well as on the supply of available
plant nutrients. This soil was neutral in reaction, and in a low
state of fertility. The Oshtemo Sandy loam was acid in reaction,
and was in a very low state of fertility.

Both the Miami and the Oshtemo soils were used in the green-
house phase of the experiment. All field plots were located on the
Miami Clay loam.

The ashes selected were from a common Pocohontas coal burned
in a home furnace. The ashes were screened through a one—quarter
inch sieve and all coarser material discarded.

Treatments were as follows:

1. Check 4. 1000 lbs. 4—16—8 Part.
2. 1" Coal Ashes 5. 1" Coal Ashes

plus 1000 lbs.

4-16-8 Fert.
S. 2” Coal Ashes 6. 2" Coal Ashes

plus 1000 lbs.

4-16-8 Fert.

The ashes added were erual to one inch surface cover and two
inches surface cover on designated plots. Plots 1, ?, and 5 had no
fertilizer. Plots 4, 5, and 6 were fertilized with the ecuivalents

of 1000 pounds of 4—16—8 fertilizer per acre. Fertilizer applica-

tions were doubled in the greenhouse because of the restricted root

grOW'th e

'2'

The two creps grown were snap beans for a seed bearing ve-
getable and red beets for a root bearing vegetable.

Chemical Determinations:

In order to study the effect of coal ashes on the available
plant nutrient content of the soil, 8 partial chemical analysis was
made separately on the coal ashes, the Miami Clay loam, and the Osh-
temo Sandy loam before treatment.

On the Miami Clay loam field plots, samples were taken from
each treatment after harvest. The available plant nutrient content
of the coal ashes, and of each soil and each mixture of coal ashes
and soil, was determined.

The pH was determined in each case by the glass electrode
method. Phosphorus was determined by the method outlined by Bray

o .
and Kurtsz)Potassium was determined according to the "Methods of
2
Soil Analysis For Soil Fertility Investigations,£U)Calcium was de~
termined by the methods outlined by Schallenberger and SimonSS)

Physical Determinations:

Percent total porosity, water helding capacity, and volume
weights were determined of undisturbed samples taken from each plot.
Rain had settled the soil following the previous cultivation before
the samples were taken. The sampler used was a core sampler similar
to the one designed by Bradfield and described by'Baverfl)Samples
were taken to a depth of 0 inches to 2 inches and from a depth of 2
inches to 4 inches. The undisturbed samples were brought into the

aboratory, saturated with water in a vacuum, then weighed. The sat-

urated weight in grams, minus the oven-dry weight in grams, divided

by the volume in mililiters, gave the percent total porosity.

After the saturated weight was obtained, the same undisturb-
samples were placed on suction equivalent to pF 1.6. Weights were
obtained after ?4 hours. This weight minus the oven-dry weight, di-
vided by the oven—dry w ight gave the water holding capacity at
pF 1.6.

. 0 h

The samples were then oven-dried at 110 C. for (4 hours and
weighed. This oven-dry weight divided by volume in mililiters gave
the volume weight.

Crushing strength was obtained by using a method devised by

(4)

Watts and described by Auchinleck, as reported by Hardy. The soil
was kneaded into molds, 5/4 inch in diameter by P inches in length
and molds 5% inches in diameter by 5 inches in length at its upper

O O O O 1 I 0
plastic limit. The bricsettes were oven dried at 110 C. for 48
hours.\ A lever with a known pressure was used to crush the brick-
ettes. The pressure recuired to crush brickettes of the same size
and shape gave a comparative resistance to crushing of the soil from
each treatment.

All physical determinations were made in triplicate.

-5-

GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENTS

The Miami soil for this problem was collected from the field
on the Northeast corner of Grand River Ave. and Ardson Street in
East Lansing. The field showed no signs of recent cultivation. The
vegetative cover was composed of timothy, wild carrot, ragweed and
ouack grass.

The Oshtemo soil was collected from the field Southeast of
the Hichigan State College trailer camp. The vegetative cover was
mostly sheep sorrel.

Both soils were air-dried and passed through a one—cuarter
inch sieve. Samples were taken for chemical determinations.

As previously stated, sufficient ashes were used to be eruive
alent to one inch and two inches surface cover respectively. To the
appropriate nuantity of ashes, enough soil was added to bring the
total weight of soil and ashes to eight and one—half kilograms. The
soil plus ashes and fertilizer for the designated treatments were
thoroughly mixed, brought to 12% moisture and placed in two gallon
glazed jars. There were four replications of six treatments for two
crops on each soil for a total of ninety-six jars. Twenty beet seeds
or ten beans were planted in each jar.

All plants were thinned to 4 per jar after 4 weeks of growth.
The red beets showed definite nitrogen starvation on both soils after
the first six weeks of growth. The enuivalent of 200 pounds NaNOs
per acre was added to all jars growing red beets.

The snap beans were picked after 8 weeks of growth and again

after 10 weeks of growth. The snap bean vines were harvested after

l lmsgram 1. Scheme of Field Plots

__.1.

 

"EST GRAND RIVER AVENUE

 

(C)

(C)

(B)

(B)

(A)

(A)

ARDSON STREET

 

 

 

.5-
and treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____§'___Y. 2' L
A. 2. 3.
filooo lbs. of 1" coal ash s 2' coal
4—16—8 fart. ashes
per acre
2' I
5. 6. 1.
1" coal sshe " coal ash a check
plus 1000 lb . 1118 1000 l .
per acre r acre
1. 2.
check D." coal
ashes
6. In 30
2" coal sshe 1000 lbs. 2" coal
plus 1000 lb . 4-16-8 fart, ashes
4-16—8 fort. Er acre __
w H 1
per acre I
L
I
2. In 6.
1" coal eshe 1000 lbs. 2" ashes pl
, 4-16—8 fem 000 lbs.
per acre 4-16—8 fart
per acre
{’-
1. 3.
check 2" coal ash s

 

 

 

 

 

 

.7-
10 weeks of growth. The red beets were harvested after 11 weeks
of growth. The snap beans and red beets were weighed immediately
after harvest. The bean vines and beet tops were weighed after
being thoroughly air dried.
FIELD PLOTS

The field plots were plowed with a moldboard pIOW'and work-
ed down with a spring tooth barrow. The ashes and fertilizer were
applied to the surface at the stated rates on designated plots and
worked in with a disc.

The plots were 6 feet square with two foot alleyways be-
tween plots. There were two six foot rows of snap beans and two
six foot rows of red beets with eighteen inches between rows on
each plot. The plots were replicated three times for each treat-
ment. There was complete randomization within each block. (Diagram
1). A heavy seeding rate was used for both creps to insure a good
stand. Both crops were thinned to twenty-four plants per row and
three inches between plants. The plots were cultivated uniformly
with a hand cultivator and hoe throughout the growing season.

The snap beans were picked after eight weeks and again after
10 weeks of growth. The snap bean vines were harvested after 10
weeks of growth.

Due to a hot dry period in the middle of the growing season,
the red beets were allowed to grow for 15 weeks before harvesting.

The snap beans and red beets were weighed immediately after
harvest. The snap bean vines and the red beet tops were allowed to

air—dry before weighing.

~8—

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Greenhouse:
Oshtemo Soil:

Both snap beans and red beets showed a-marked increase in
yield due to the aprlication of coal ashes. The beets were more
responsive, but the beans followed the same trend in each treat—
ment. Of particular interest was the fact that the yield of beets
was higher on the plots which received 2 inches of ashes without
.fertilizer than there ?000 pounds of 4—16-8 fertilizer was applied.
In the case of beans, the yields resulting from the application of
ashes, either 1 inch or 2 inches, were greater than were the yields
:here the treatment was 2000 pounds of 4—16-8 fertilizer.

The yield of air-dried bean vines was markedly increased by
the coal ashes, as shown in Table l. The heavier application of
ishes caused a greater increase in yield than did the light appli-
cation. The apnlication of fertilizer increased the yield more
than did the ashes but the greatest increase resulted from the com—
bination of 2 inches of ashes plus 2000 pounds of the 4—16-8. The
yield of air-dried beet tops was increased by 1 inch of coal ashes
but was not further increased by the 9 inch aprlication. Fertilizer
alone resulted in lover yields of beet tops than did the ashes,
either 1 inch or ? inches, but the areates yields resulted from the
combination of fertilizer and ashes.

It is interesting to note that, both crOps considered, the
best treatment was the one which included 1 inch of ashes and ?000

rounds of 4-16-8 fertilizer. While the yields resulting from ashes

'I {it 3E. 1'"

"I!

Irl

 

I.

L

Troa‘bnt 1

-19-
Table l. . Results From Greenhouse Cultures
with

Oshtemo Sandy Loam

 

Weights of Plant Tissue in Grams

 

 

l BEETS BEANS
Total
TREATMENT Fresh Air—Dried 1st 2nd Snap Air-Dried
Roots Teps Picking Picking Beans Vines
1.(Check) 75.0 28.0 107.5 5.0 110.5 22.7
2.(1 inch ) 227.5 44.0 142.5 18.0 160.5 57.2
(Coal Ashes )
5.(2 inches ) 515.5 42.0 148.5 17.5 166.0 41.1
(Coal Ashes )
4.£2000 lbs. ) 245.0 55.0 141.5 15.0 154.5 57.2
4—16-8 )
(Fertilizer )
(per acre )
5.E1 inch ) 474.0 51.0 209.5 12.0 221.5 72.8
Coal Ashes ) .
(plus 2000 )
(lbs. 4-16—8)
(Fertilizer )
(per acre )
e.(2 inches 489.0 59.0 170.0 50.0 200.0 52.7

)
(Coal Ashes )
(plus 2000 )
(lbs. 4.16—8)
(Fertilizer )
.1ner acre _)

-11..

alone were greater where the quantity applied was 2 inches than
where it was 1 inch, the same relationship did not hold where fer—
tilizer was a4plied. The yields of fresh beet roots were slight-
ly lower where the heavier application of ashes was made with fer-
tilizer than where the ash application was at the lighter rate.

In the case of beans, the same relationship was even more striking.

Miami 8011:

The yields of both.beets and beans from the Miami soil in
the greenhouse were a little more erratic than the yields from Oshs
temo soil. The yields of beets, as shown in Table l, were de-
pressed by the application of coal ashes at either rate and were
not affected by the application of fertilizer alone but were in-
creased by applications of both materials.

The yields from the snap beans were more uniform. One inch
of ashes did not increase the yields but there was a slight in-
crease as a result of the 2 inch application. The application of
fertilizer increased the yields more than did the ashes but the
greatest yields were obtained on pots w hich received both fertili-
zer and ashes. Where fertilizer was applied, the larger cuantity
of ashes did not prove more valuable than the smaller cuantity.

Ashes alone did not appreciably increase the dry weight of
the bean vines, but fertilizer did cause an increase and where
ashes were applied in addition to fertilizer, the yields were mark-
edly greater than where the treatment included only ashes.

The yield of dry beet tops was not increased by any of the
treatments. In fact, ashes alone markedly depressed the yields.

Fertiliser alone resulted in yields lower than those obtained from

I A.‘ (ill! I.‘ 11" “lull: Ill..l “Halli ‘ ‘I! III I I‘ll!

 

-13-
Table 2. Results From Greenhouse Cultures
uith

Miami Clay Loam

‘———_ Ant-##—

Weights of Plant Tissue in Grams

 

 

-—___._...._._.._.._. BELTS; _ _ arms
Total
TREATMENT Fresh Air-Dried lst 2nd Snap AirbDried
Roots Tops Picking Picking Beans Vines
1.(Check) 275.5 55.0 149.5 21.0 170.5 55.0

2.El inch )
Coal Ashes) 218.5 52.0 152.0 55.5 167.5 45.0

5.é2 inches ;
Coal Ashes 252.0 59.0 154.0 55.7 187.7 58.0

( 4-16-8
(Fertilizer

4.(2000 lbs. )272.0 45.0 156.0 51.0 207.0 67.0

)

)
(per acre )

5.(1 inch )550.0 58.5 200.0 21.5 221.5 68.0
(Coal Ashes )
(plus 2000 )
(lbs. 4-16-8)
(Fertilizer )
(per acre

570.5 46.0 161.5 55.5 216.8 77.5

6.$2 inches )
Coal Ashes )

(plus 2000 )
élbs. 4-16-6)
Fertiliser )
(per acre )

p14,.—

untreated pots but greater than those from pots which received
ashes without fertilizer. Where fertilizer and ashes were both
applied the top yields did not increase as did the root yields.
This means, of course, that the root-top ratio was increased, an-
other indication that the most desirable treatment for the beet
crop on this soil was the combination of fertilizer and ashes.
Field Plots:

On the Miami clay loam field plots, there were very def-
inite increases in yield due to coal ashes on the unfertilized
plots. The yields of both creps, as shown by Table 5, were highs
er where the treatment was P inches of ashes than where the rate
of application was 1 inch or where the ashes were omitted. In
all cases, the yields as a result of 1 inch of ashes were greater
than were those from untreated plots.

Where coal ashes, plus fertilizer were used, the yields
were less consistent. With beets, fertiliser caused about the
same increase in yield as did 2 inches of ashes but where 1 inch
of ash was applied in addition to the 4—16—8 fertilizer, the great-
est yield of all was obtained. An increase in the rate of ash ap—
plication, in addition to the fertilizer, did not cause a further
increase in’yield. In fact, the heavier application of ash, in ad-
dition to fertilizer, seemed actually to be toxic to the beets.

The bean yields from these plots indicated that there was
a definite toxicity from coal ashes where fertilizer had also been
applied, but none where there was no fertilizer. There was actually

a consistent increase in yield as a result of the ashes applied with-

out fertilizer. The largest bean yields were obtained where ferti—

 

 

.16..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Results From Field Plot
on
Miami Clay Loam
Weights of Plant Tissue in Grams
EEETS _ JBFANS
Total
TREATMENT Fresh Air-Dried lst 2nd Snap Air-Dried
Roots Taps Picking Picking Beans Vines
l.(Chcck) A 479.0 100.0 570.0 46.5 622.5 210.0
B 494.0 114.0 950.0 27.0 977.0 555.0
0 742.0 145.0 561.0 29.0 590.0 '217.0
i§gssgs 571g7 4119.7, 729.6 261.0
2.(1 inch )4 1045.0 166.0 914.0 72.0 966.0 567.0
(Coal Ashes )B 910.0 151.0 752.0 6.0 760.0 277.5
0 556.0 115.0 555.0 55.5 610.5 245.0
Average 657.7 144.7 -— 765.5 502.5
5.(2 inches )A 1625.0 214.0 1004.0 56.5 1060.5 564.0
(Coal Ashes )B 769.0 156.0 751.0 26.0 777.0 275.0
0 1501.0 176.5 775.0 55.0 606.0 529.0
4.(1000 lbs. )A 1694.0 196.0 1111.0 106.0 1219.0 615.0
(4-16-8 )B 1511.0 206.0 999.0 60.0 1059.0 500.0
(Fertilize? )0 742.0 116.5 656.0 75.0 955.0 475.0
(per acre
5.(1 inch )A 2626.0 241.0 959.0 61.0 1020.0 595.0
(Coal Ashes )B 1409.0 164.0 654.0 166.0 1002.0 545.0
(plus 1000 )0 946.0 144.0 755.0 56.0 769.0 545.0
(lbs. 4—16—8)
(Fertilizer )
(per acre
Avernse 1661.7 4186.5_ 957.0, 562.0
6.(2 inches )A 1727.0 211.0 1142.0 52.0 1174.0 476.0
(Coal Ashes )B 1562.0 217.0 952.0 62.0 1024.0 475.0
(plus 1000 )0 11421.0 204.0 766.0 40.0 626.0 510.0
(lbs. 4—16-8)
(Fertilizer)
(per acre
Average 15762? 210-7 1006.0 421.5‘

 

-17...
lizer, withouta mics, was applied. There seems to be no explanation
for the mrent toxicity of the 21 shes in the presence of fertilizer.

The air-dried weight of been vine yields followed the same
pattern of increases and decreases as did the yield of snap beans.

The yields of air-dried beet tops followed a slightly differ-
ent pattern than did the yields of fresh beet roots. Coal ashes,
applied Without fertiliser, at the rate of 1 inch of cover increased
the yields, on an average, from 119.7 grams per pot to 144.7 grams
per pot rhile the 2 inches ap ‘plicstion increased the yields still
further to 185.5 grams. The average yield where fertilizer was ap-
plied V ithout ashes vas a s Lia ahtly lover yield than that obtained as
a result of the 2 inches of ashes. The greatest yield of teps re-
sulted from t11e treatment rith P000 pounds of 4—16—8 fertiliser per
acre zznd 2 inches ofa shes. That yield vs S 210. 7 gra ms per pot.
Soil Studies:

Results from determinations of percent total per sity, rater
|holding capacity, volume weight, and crushing strength were compiled
for each trea cment on the Miami Clay 100 m field plots. There was a
definite increase in percent total porosity due to the addition of
coal ashes to the soil. This increase was confined to the top two
inches of soil vit11 the second two inches of soil showing a decrease
in percent total porosity, as a result of the application of coal
ashes. Results indicated, that the decrease in percent total poro-
sity in the second two inches of soil where coal {shes were applied,
was brought about by the lack of cultive.tion disturbance to the se-
cond two inches of soil where the top two inches of soil was in good

tilth. Even though the plots were thoroughly disced after the ashes

 

 

 

 

.7..-

..
11.1.1 . _
I1 .
1
. .1..
t
iv ‘\ 15 n y .
1 1T11T.1.1 . 1

+¢

. o o . . .

1 .

1 n .‘ullil1l
4 1 1

. . . . .1?»

 

1 m . . . . .
V _
q
_

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v

\.\Y.\‘1. v1.
v 1 . .1 q 9 . .
. . . . . . . ~

. . .
. n . o . . .

_,_
.
c

7

 

 

.114 T 14 I411! 1.
.1 . . . . .
1. 1 _ . .
1lollv|Tl| I. HI? . . Y A. u
s F 1 F
M H . 11urt1 - 114w.1MIHJHwHI
H . . . a . ~
1
.. t v . . . . . .
¢ 10 a u 1 .

 

 

v

)
at

zer
,.
is

i

r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1+YY1111Y7. v wL

11I..11 ..;.11T.i

 

 

“fir~gnrg)

o

v

L‘.
D

1 3191'

 

 

I
J

.fertil

4.
T

for

¢
1

f.
u

 

 

. ._ . . >1
1 .1+ v1lill
. $.11 1 . . .1

..».r?

v .
L 1711.
. DL

 

7., '

 

|r - olv Ill?

. - u u . . . .

. . 1 . . .x 1.
4

u u .11. fl...

 

 

 

 

arm”

 

w

plu
.o

'3

fl}. .

-rlu_

 

1.; . . ..

. T??? -IoleMLlr.

.LI». 1.1.lkl.

. .cnot.n.....

 

 

 

 

1..»1yd

 

 

 

 

filtrdl» r T
P v

 

 

 

fiwia 1

1
. . .

 

dHTTUIHFr

19 Llllvlvllt .

 

‘L’MEF
'3

 

 

.8 fprtil

C'Hl’ssh1

115

“““F
. {0 ‘

 

-1.8-

 

 

 

v-

he

1"

( 2

I',
Cl 8

 

. . . . ~ A
. \1‘0".
r . . . . .
. . . v

. . .

v1vratc\. Allin

. . . .
. . . . . A

. . .
. . . . . .

 

 

b . . r r
p
p . . 1 .
. . ...
v ¢\A.ol4 1
. p . u
. . . o .

 

 

O
I!
‘4

 

 

 

 

1.. . r
.. rbvi

. .....
1
> F
1
1
..
..-... ...
1
.. 11.1..Trv
. .1;
. . . ..
. ..

 

C _
inche.

v

(it-“9'

(

 

v.1.1 .7.»
p, .r.
... .

..r—.. .

 

 

 

...lro|blv|. . LQ. v...

1
...v.Av..

n.1'o¢«f..
1

 

 

 

 

 

ILL

U

l

r'
:6.

.

 

L
p.r....1.
_
.1...»
1
o.»|o.
...1.I‘I
.1

 

 

 

 

 

l‘

.4 D?
n.

L.

Trevi

,L

 

 

 

A s . . . u . t
1 . All-1 0 .
. . .111 I. n

. n u . . . r

.1. \.11\.1r

 

 

 

. 1- . . . .
wi‘11v111. . ¢
1.1 \»I.1. .1. .
v . O v u v v o
. . . . . v .
. . . . . .
. .

n v v V
1 . . .
1. . . . .

 

 

 

 

1.. . 1. A
. .1 1.. I
.1 1 T. .
I 1‘ 1 \ .1

... .v
.1 iv.

ITYY1.
r

.... w . . .
. . . . .
r111.1.1 . .

 

 

. .I.?.¢l. . .‘x v

111 1.1.1.1.1.1 1.

V 9|..11,|t.. .I v .1

 

 

\n. . . o . .
1
[1 . . . .

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . v y . . .
. . . . n . .
1 1t.» y . .

l\.1 . ~ ~ . .

 

'M:

 

 

 

 

 

 

v . . 1 .
a

. . . . l
. . . . V

. . . . .
. . . . .
1 . . o

. .

. A . . .

. . .
b r p b b r r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xvii. . 7-1 ..
TF'ITTA- g
1.1.1.1. 1.1.1.

. 1 .1: . 1 . AHHHH

 

 

 

 

eatmsnt 1

  

2

"1
V.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   

 

 

 

         
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

     

 

 

1
1

a . . 44.1. : 141.1 .4 1111. .134 4 . . 4 11.44142 444.. 44.4 14.4 4444.4: .5431. 4:
.. ... .... 444 .. .. 4. . . . ._ . 1 . __ 444 .41
. 4 _. . . .. ..... . . . ..... - .... _ ..4.. ...4 1.. . .
.. ..... . ... ...4 .. . . ...4.. . ... ... .. 4.. 4. ....... .. ..y... .. .. . .1v117v.o.L..1.. 4... . 4..
. _ .... .... . ... .... . . . . 4 . .. 1 .. . . . . .... . ..... . . . . »4_Y
. . .. ... .. . . 4 . ...4. ... 1 ...... ... . _. 1 . .. 111¢1141 4 ... ...4. ... . ......4 1......4. . .... . 1
. . . .. .... .. ... . .... .<.. .9». . ... . . . 4. .o. . ... .- ..... .. ...... ... . . 1
.4 . ... . .. .. ..4.. . . . ..1.1.o. _. . . fl . .... .vo111.... .... .... .. 4. . ... .. ... 4r. ...... . 1 ..>
.. . . . . . . . . v . .. . . .1“ .1 1 . . w ..4 o » . . 1 . . .4. . . 7.11 1.1. 1 4 . 1 1 o . . . . 1 ... . .. . . . . . . y . .
......4 .. .. 1. . .0 . 4. . 1 . . ....1 ... .. .. . .. ... 1. 111. . ». . .14. ow.
1. .l1vlql.0|.ll|4lol..1.|10lI1. I.|OO l11VIb|I1 l 'IOIOIO ' 4 1. _ 4|: AllOlqul' 1 o 1 ‘I.I [1‘1 1111 I, Icicle- Ii. » 1 1. > 1r . r 4
. .....q... 4 _. . . .. . 4. ... . .4 . . . 4. . 4 .4......111.v.... . ... .411014} ...
..4.....14. . 4. .44.. .....1 .. 4.. . ..41. ...... .. ....1.11. 1..
..4..“... . .44... 44 .. 4 ....4—9. 44...... ~4. .114 . 4.. ...14. 1...,... . .4.. 4.4. ..1.1... .9 ...4..... .... _4 ..4111111 1...
. . . 1. . .. . . 4 . . 4 . p o . 4 . . . .. . . o . 4. . .441 . 4. . .4 . . 1 .. . 4. . o. .. ._ _ . . . v .v . . .11 . . 4 .... . 4. . . _ A ~1+14 . . 4
.444.4 44.. 44.. .41..4.. .4 . 4.1 ...... 4... .4 ..1 . ... .... .1 ...L.4.. 4.. 4. . . .4. ... . .44..o1.. ..4. .44 ...4
1 1 . . ... .4 . o .4. 1+1. ,. . .4 4.. .111. . . o . . 1 . .. . . . 11 1 o .1... L . . . 4. H . 1 1 o . up 1 . .1. 14 .. 4 .4 41m .111.“
......41 44.. .. .411..4.. ..4...... . «1. .4 . .. . 1.. 4 ... 1 ...1 .fl ..4... .. .4. . . .. . 4.. ,.. 4 . .1. 14.4 ’11. 11111...
a.. . . . ... ....1... . .. ...1 ..., . ... . . . . . . 1, ....I ..... .. .. 4 ... ... .. .... .1.. .. ...1 ..
o . . 1 . . .. . .L . .. . .1. 1 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4 . . 1 . 1 . . 4 . . . .. o . . 1 4 . 1.1 . . . 1 1141. .11+a
- 111.1. . mm...
. .. , 1. . 1.. 1.. .. ...v. . .. . ., .. 11. ... ....lHflHl .1 1
. 1 . . . . .. . . . 1 . . 1 o . 1 o 1 1 . ) .Bo . . . . . . . . . . . . . o v . . . . 1 . . .1 o . . .. 1 . . . ... o 1 . 11. .1111 ., . .1 . . . . 1 1 . v 4411111114 rb+
. . v . . 1 .1. . . . . . . . 1 v y . . . . . 11. 1 . . . . o 1 . . 1101 . . . . . . . . .1.11 1 . t 1 p .. . . . . . v1.1 . .19 1 1 . . L . 4
. 1 1 . . . . . 1 1 1 p . . . . 1 1 1 . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . “ . . <1 1 c . . . . . . . . 4 1.111— . 1 . . . . . 0 c1 . . 1 11 1 . . . . 101n11111 .117 O .r 1
. . 1 . _ 4 45' . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . .~ 1 1 1 . a .. .4 . . . 11. o 1 n 1 .. . . . .I. . o 1 1 . , 1 . . ... . . L111 .91 1..... . . 1..
.. .. ..4 ..4. 4 . . ....1..., . .. .... ... ..,....... .. .14 1 1.....
4.. . 4. . 4 m. 4 . .. .4. ._. 1.... . n . v1. .. . . . ”4.1.... .. ...... .- . .41.?111 rfi14L11r: .1110Liervk 15.1.rorLTLI.
1v 116'? All .1 1! III I [1+ 1 II?" . 1—14 II . 1l1| r LF 4 p 1 4 1 1. L
. .14.... ., . .4 ,. ..4111.4 ,. . 4., .,1.4.1..1.. .. ..1..L.11LI.1TH1.. TML1+L$M1N1HIHH
. . 4 4 . .1 .4.4. . . 4 4 . .v L4. .4“-.. .. .... .. _..111..M1.4~+.1
4 c 1 . . . . . . 4 4 . .4 a . 4 . . . 1 . fl 1 .111 . 1 . 1 . L1. .1 9 . . n . . L . . 1 1. 4 . ¢ o .. . . v . 4 I11 4 1 LI. 1 . . +Ir1.
. . . . .. 4....... 4 ......... .......1.... . .T...... . .1911?
4 ...11..4. . . .. ... a... . . ... .. . ..1>1¢11.I.fi1. ...... ....1T.l..4.4 1 4 ...1H4 ...1111111.4
. 4 .
A. v I. .v Iv. ... . A. I 1! . 11 4 v v n n . p _ M: 311?.
.. . .... . ... .. .. . .... . .. . . ..... 11111.0..1.. .. _ ..*.1,111.... . . .
. .r . 4. . . . 11... .. .. 1111.1. . ... 1. 411.... . ..... ....1. .4 . .111 .
4 u 1 , . . 4 . . . . . 1 . , . . . . 1 .1 1 . . 1 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . .1111. v . . . v1. 41 .Y 14 1 1H1+It1|H1H11 ftp p 1. H¢L1+L1}i1!l
\1‘1'.1 _ b 1 11
. . . . .. . .. . . .. .11.. . .. .. .. . 1. 1. F..111H14r41+1«1w1fi4u.11H.111$
. . . . . 1 . . 4 . . 1 . 4 1.1 1. . 1 . . . . . 11.111 11. . . 1. . . . 1 .. .16 . 1 1 . . 1. >119 ? . LA .1111. y tl..1 r 41'1117» . s. .r .
. .. , 1 .I .. . . . . 4. 1 1 . 1. w . 1 1 1 . 1|: 1 . . . 1 1 c 11.1 I 1. 1 . . . . . . . . 1 . 1I1fi1 p o . . . . ~ . 1 y 4 4 +111? 1.1!.1} . T f b . .11. 111.,
4 . 11 . . . . . o 1 1 1 . . 1 p 111. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 1 1 , _ . 1 . t . £11f1g1vlt IIFJ¢11 411.1... I. . . . 11.1.Iblp1f1
.... . .1 9 .—w ....o.. . .1 . 4....... . ....1...1.Iv.v1v..o4..1o 1.1.v1. c 1111?. 1.—.........
- 5:. L . . I1 V . u .u h ‘1‘. . . bv-40171- v»....o. ‘Iulfit c; O1 n v. . . .1‘1.Ov.
. .> ... I . 111.11.... .11 11.... . .-r .1: .1 . 1.1.4.1....
_ . .. ... 4. 1 B. . .1. 1.4 .1. .1 . 1 .171 .. . . .....Io .111. .14.... .4. 1.1.11 1. .. . .
. .. . ... . 4.4. . 1. . ... 1... ... .4.. ...1...I¢l.. 1a.... . ..4.. .lv. .4 . ._ 1. .1111. .. ..
4 . , . ,
‘ l 1 1 4 4
. .. . . . 1 1 . . . ... 11 119.. . . . . .1 11¢ .. .... . 1.... 1.. 11.11.14 .1. 11
. . a .. .. . ., 111... ., . .41.-. .11...... .. .. . . .11... ...
. . . 1. . 1 4 . . 1 . . . . . . . . .1. . 1 1 111111. . 4 1 . 4 1 . {w . . 111 1 1.. . . 1 . . . . . 111 1.1111. ... . . .
. e. . . 1. .1 .11 . . 1.4111 4 . 4... 4 14.111 1111 .....
. . . m. a 1 . . . .111 . . . . . . 1 . . . 1 1 . 4 . . . . 41f1 L . 4 . 1 . 4 . . 4 7.111.111; ..1 4 . . 1 4 .
. . .. ..

 

»
1

4
y

 

 

 

 

 

---14.

1 g;
a
.0041

 

 

1 00

7
...1. .
t

 

 

...—4.
1

P1
D

 

$1of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. kl“
...HH4... 1.1r31v111144+r1:fi%14 11.1.71. 1. .1
L LL .

1 HF» #1114711.

   
   

 

 

 

    

"mm:

d
... 1.1' ’II' ‘0' It- i-1.l"l - >
4 1 . 4 ‘11 1 L . . . . . . . . .1 r1 1L . v. . . o . 1 ._ 4 . . 1. . . 4. .
. . 4
.111: . 1. . .8 4 1 . . . 1 . . 1 1.. . . . .4 . . . . . . . . , . . . . .- 1. . . .
_ . 4
., . 1 . . .. . 1 . 11. . 1 . . . . . . . 1111 1 . . . . . . 1.. .. . .. . 111. 1 . . . .1 1
4 . . e .e .11.. .1.11. . .. 111.11.. .. . .. ..1. ....,..44.
4 . l 141 »
. . . . . . , . 7.1. . 11 . . _ .11 11 . 1 1 . . . v . . . . . . 1 11111. 1 .... .
. 1. 11 . . .1 .1 1 . 111v1 ..l 111 v . .. ...a 1 11 . .0111... ... ..H 1
4 .. . . 1. .. 1 . ..171. .1 ,. . . 11,-. . 1 1 . .1..- . ..11.11111.11L1L1.
. . ~ . . 17 111. 1 1 1 . .1 . . w . . » . p . . . . 1 . . 1 1 1 v . . 11 1 . . 1 1 . . . . . . . O11.» 151v
1) n
11.!
.
. . j 51 . .1 . ._ . 1111.. . .. .. 11.1 . .- ......r.
.
1 . 1111. r . 1 . . v 14 . ‘1. 1 . . . . . 11. . o o o . . . 11.1‘11 . . . . . . . . .611.1 11 I. . 1 . 1

w
1.
11.
14......
-..-.:
. 1
.4...
....
111
11
.1
..11
,..
1
Y1
1
.11
1
..
,.,.
. .
-1
4..
11
1"
7.11.
.11
I 1
4.44...
.- 1
4...
'V
1
y-
11
1...
11
.1 .
T1
...1
.1
1
1...
1
. 1
, _
....
...
,.
...
...?.
.111
1.
.L‘.
..1.
1.1
...,
....
4;.»
1
41..
.. A
r
...
...
1
..
1 ..
.
1'
.4 1
1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1-4--
1 (I19

 

  

. . . . d
. . 4
1. 14 .. . . .1 . . . . 1. 1 . 1 v. . . . 1.1 v.. 1 . . v .17.. 1. 1 . . 111 ...?1 . .174 . . 1. 1 .. >11» . ...9+
4 4

. .. ,111. {I . ...4 .1.........44 .4.........,1..14.111..1..., .... .,.11 ..4 . .4

11114111111 I F 4 4 . .
. 1111 . . 1111 11 . 1 . 11» o .. 1 . v . .. . .. o 11. 41 1. v . . v . . .. . 1.14 11. v: . r o .. .4. o .11 o . v1. . v . >41

. 4

4 .11 £7 .. .. 1.1. . . . . . . . , . .1 . . 1 . . . .. .11 .1. . .4 . .4.,.111.1.. . . . o . ..
1111.. 1 11111 .... 1. 4.1. .4 .1..1.... .... 1...... , ..1......1....11..-.. 1..

 

 

1.1+; LlrfL. .1

L k 4 %

 
    

 

 

b
D
-v-
,1
'1'
oo
11
..
‘11
I
I1
5
LL

   

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 11.1 _ . 1 11 . 1T. 1 . . L .11 11111 . . . 11.111. . . . . 1 .. . 11 . 1 1.1.1 1 . . . . a u
4 . . .1 . 11. . .11. 111 . .. .. ,. . . 11 .11... . . 1.1. . . . T 1. . .. . 1 .. .. 1.1. .. . .. 1 1141.111. . 1.411 44111 1.11 111111414 . . 11411? .1. . . . . L . 4 + 1 .111111b1k1fv11. c
4 4 rHL L .r1 111L111 H11
4 1 1 1 111 1 1 1n 3114.1
. . 1 . . . .1! . 1 .11 . . . 1 1111 . 1. 1 . u . . 1 .1 1 1 . 1 . . . 1 .1 1 . 1 . 1.... 5 41%|? + 1 Llrrvlp ; .1911. 1. 11H 7 b HHIV,.1>L1»IL ..1 tr‘lfixvlé ¢ P p .11
. . v 1 1 . 1 I a ..“11' .. . . c 11. o 1101. . q . . 1.1111. 1111 . 1 . . . 1 1|. .11 1 r . 1111 o . . . . . 1 . . 1 .1111 1.1. 1 . v r. p 1. . 1 . .. - .olrl "1 y. . .5. .1. .151? o 1 ‘ 11.? .1.111. p 11. o p .1? . 4'1
11 .. . 1 . . 1 .11111 . . . 1 011. . .1. 1. 1 . o 111 111115l1101 1 1 r . . . . I . v v . 1 . 11 1 1 . . . . 1 1 9111.4 o 1 1. 1 . . . . r.r11 . . 1 .1 1 v r 1 » .1.11IA . 1 1 . v . ..1111 o r o 415 . ? 11. o .1. ... 1 .11.:
. 4 . 4 _ 4
1, 11.1 . .1111... . ..1..1. .111.1,.. .....11.11 1. . ... . .. . .14 1.. . . . .111 11. .11. ....LR 11.1.1111k1rly; 1>4rL—¢.1. .H1P1flr1w1.1+1.1rl.11111.1~71r.1 1. 141 .r....1
4 4 F 4 1
. . .1 1 . 1 .1111 1 1. . 1 . . . 1 . v .1.1.111.14 . . . .1 . 4 v 1 .LI111 . . . . . .... . . . 11t¢11 1 . .. L 4 H H 1 4r». 1» r1» r .,.r»h1w1 2
_ . . <4 41 J 1 .4 .4. 11 4
. . . 1.1.4 . . ..11. L . 1 .1... .....1..11.......4. ...i...4.. 1.1...., 4....L. 1111. 111+..41r51f1 4.4H711.. .4HFL1HH 444.41uuua1 H11.1.!+.+u1. 11+HHHNAd. 1414141411 1
. . 4 . . 4
4 . 111... .. .. ..1 .1... .. .11.. 1 .4.. ...1114-.1- ..41 . 1. .1 .. 4 v. . 4.1.1.1... 1.1171111. .1.441111111411k..11 . .. 1 1.
4 . .. . .4 . . 4 _
. . . 1 . .1 r1. . . _ 4 1 . . . . .111... 11. 4 , 4 . . . 114 . . . . . .4 . :4 4 . . . . k... . .I.I. . . 1 .. . .. . +1.14. . 1. ...1 1+1 .5 vlkl 111191. ..11u .1. 4 . y ..
4 4 . . 4 4 4.4 .4 _
, .111. . . . 1111 . . . 1.1 1 11 . 4 . . .1. . r111 11 . .11 . .. . 11. 4 . . . . . 1111 . . $111.1 ... 1 .1. ~11? .111117+1 » 4 . ..
4 _ 4 4 4 4 r4. >H L L » T+ .
1' 1r V L 111}
. 4 1 1 ..u
. .1 1 . . . . 1 . . . . 11 I. 1 1 . 1 . |1l . 1 1 11 .11 41. . . . 4 1.. . . . . .1 . . . . 4 . 1 . . 1.1 . 1 .19 1' r41? .1». 4.“
1111.. 4. . . . . . .11 . 1 4 1 .. 11 . 1 1 1. 111. .1 .11 1 1 . .. 1 1 . .I .11. . . 1 1 4a . .1 11. p . .
. 4
. . .11.. . . . _ . . . 1 .1 . . 11111 . . . 11 . .11 . . .. 1 . 1 1 . . . 1 . . . . . 1 T. . .14 . . 1 11 . . . . . . . 1 1 111. . .1 1.1 . 11
.
. .. 1...... .... 1 1. ..111.1 . 4..1|1 .11 7.1 1.1.1.. .1111.......1, 111.... 1.111...- . .1 1r414++++u 1
1 1 . . . . . . .1. 1 . .1. . . . . . .11 . 11.1.1 1 . . . . . 1 , . 1 1 . 1 . 1 , . . 11.1 1. . . . .1111. o 11 .
— . 14 11.1 ’I
. . 11 .1 . . . 1.1. . . 1111.1. .1. .11 .vI. .. .11.... 1. 111.. .1 11.1. .. .1. 111.1. 111 .1... 1.4+.4r14011
. . . 1| 1 . . . .1 1 1 . . . v . . ..1111 . 111 u . . 1% . . . #1 1 . 1 1 o . v11 . . . . . . . 1 . . 11?. . . v . . o 1 r111. . 51111—11
1 .11 . 1.. . . . .11 1 . 1L . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 . . . . . . .1. 11 .1. 1.1. . .11.; 1,1.1r.1br
1 . . . . . . 1 II. . . . . . . . . . 111 I . . . . . . . . . 14191.11 .1! 1..
4 . 1
4
. . . .. . 111 v p. . .111 11 . ..4 . . v 1 . . .1. 4. . . 11 . 1 1.. . . . . 1 [11. 1 751.
. . . . . V .1 .. . 1. . . . 1.1. . . . .11. . 1 . 4. . . . p ...14 . . 4. .1. .1. . .... v . . 1. . . .1 11.. 1.1 11110.1r4 ..
4 4 4 . 4
. . . 1 4 . . 1; . 1 .1 . . 1 . . . . . . .1 .11o«| 1. L 1 . .11. 1 . . . ..v . . r. . . . . 4v 4. 11....+11.r..1+a
4 . .. . . 1.
4.1 . 4 . 1 . . .111 . ..101. . . 1 1 v . . . 1 1 . . 1 . Tr... o . . . . . . r111 . . . . . . . . . 4 4 1 1 . 1.14.. . . 1+. ..7 v v +
...1. ._ .1 .4711...:.1 41.. . .1 ..111.111.14 .. 4.41.1. .44. .1..1....: 1'44
._ 4 4 . . .
441 ..4. .1 .7... .1 114 4.. . 444.111.... .4 .11.! .. .. .... .. .. .... 11.4.4 44 L1..r.
4 4 4
41.4...1 ...111...11 .4 .7...4.1..v.4. 1.1. .4 .4..1.. ..4...1.,...., 11111.4.
. 4 . . . . . . . .
4. . .4. 111 . -11 41. V4. .. 1...4»1..1.: ...4. 1111 14.1..4...1. 4.. .1 .L.L.|.1.4. 41.11.14.414...
1 . . . 1 . . . v 11 . .1111. 4. .1 . . . . . . v . . . . 1 . 4. 1 .1 . . .. . . T1 1 . 1 ..r 11 . . 14 1
4 _ 4 . . . . . 4 . . 4. .4. 14 THH1. ..
} b L F V} b P V
. . . 4 .
4. 4 . 1 . 1 1 . 1 . .11 1 . . . . . . .1 . . 4. 1 1. . . . 1 . 1 1f. . .4
. 4 . .
... . a 41.1. 11. 1 . . .I. . 111 11. v. 1 . . . . . . .1. 1 . 1 . . . . 11.1. 1 . . 1 1 1 4 .. >131. . o .
*. 4 . 1. ... 11.1 11.. ... 4........ .1... . 11.17.. .11. ..11... .
4 4 _ _
4.... . 11.. 1. . . . ... ..1. .. 111.... .1 .1. 1....1. . .111....v
.. 4. .1 1. 1....1... 1.. 1.1.. 11 111... . . 1 v.1..111 . v1...4.
.... 11 . . 1. . ... ..-. 1. .. .1-.. .. -...
.
$110.0 .111... 1..1v...11 .. .111r . . 1111... ... 11.1.1.1. . .1 ..«11. .
11. . 1411.. 111.4... .11.. 47.91.. . ..4. 111.9..1. . L..111....
r1 L yLL >4 p». »r H 4 4 > »>» 1.» > r L .r.»..

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

14

0.0t.

. o

 

5
3

(9 {uni-Inn tn L mm:

3

2

-21..

Results From Physical Determinations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4:.
:: Otofijndms___ _L 2564' he
Water Eat er
P% Total Holding Volume % Total Holding Volume
orosity Capacity We ’ ht Porosity Capacity We ' ht
(a) (51" (a) (113 r_
1.(0heck) A 54.2 52.7 1.05 61.2 55.1 1.24
B 59.8 55.7 1.05 57.9 55.2 1.50
c 56.8 52.5 1.06 56.0 51.5 1.26
[Jerag§_ 5649 55.6 1405 58.5 55.; 1.27
2.(1 inch ) A 55.5 56.1 1.01 56.2 54.4 1.26
(Coal Ashes ) B 65.5 57.6 .97 55.2 51.5 1.54
c 56.0 54.6 1.05 55.0 52.7 1.25
Average 58.5 56.8 1.00 56.1 52.6 1.29
5.(2 inches ) A 60.1 57.2 .96 56.0 50.1 1.55
(0651 Ashes ) B 67.5 56.5 .69 56.4 26.6 1.26
c 61.9 56.1 .95 50.5 26.8 1.55
Average 65.1 56.9 095 55.5 .2302 4L
4.(1ooo lbs. ) A 59.7 51.6 1.06 . 62.7 55.7 1.51
(4—16—8 ) B 51.0 52.9 1.10 61.2 54.4 1.25
(Fertilizer ) c 55.8 55.9 1.05 54.4 55.2 1.29
iversae 55.5 52.2 1&8 59042. 35.1 .28
5.(1 inch ) A 64.7 59.2 1.02 56.2 51.4 1.55
(0651 Ashes ) B 55.4 56.6 1.01 54.1 50.6 1.27
Eplus 1000 ) c 54.9 55.9 1.05 56.1 55.9 1.50
lbs. 4-16-8)
(Fertilizer )
1.. Avera‘fie 57.7 5712 L043 $ .1 52.1 1.50
6.(2 inches ) A 59.7 57.5 1.01 56.6 29.0 1.55
(0651 Ashes ) B 00.2 56.6 1.00 55.6 52.2 1.20
(plus 1000 ) c 66.4 57.6 .68 52.6 27.6 1.44
(lbs. 4-16-8)
(Fertilizer )
Average 62.1 5716 .96 54.9 29.9 51.55

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 50
RELATIVE CR’SHING STREHGTH
MIL? SOIL
Kneaded Ovendried Cylinder
5/4" Diameter by 2" Long 5}" Diameter by 5" Long
TREffI‘LIEI‘I‘ ' kett
1. Check 9.4 Kilogram Feight 541.0 Kilogram Veight

2. 1 inch Ashes

5. 2 inches Ashes

4. Fertilizer

5. 1 inch Ashes
Fertilizer

6. 2 inches Ashes
Fertilizer

7'2 " " 295.0
5.2 i" " 219.0
9'1 " " 552.0
7-4 " " 269.0
5'5 " " 214.0

 

II.

"

 

 

-25—
were applied, it was evident that most of the ashes remained in the
top two inches of soil. hhere ashes were applied, there was practi-
cally no disturbance due to cultivation beneath the t0p two inches
of soil, even though the cultivator was set at the same death in all
plots.

The water holding capacity of the soil at pF 1.6 was affected
in the same manner as was the porosity there coal ashes were applied.

The volume weight varied inversely to percent total porosity
and to water holding capacity.

Crushing strength, or the res'stance to crushing, decreased
where coal ashes were applied. The cohesion between soil particles
of a Miami Clay loan is greater thrn the cohesion between the soil
particles and coal ashes.

Chemical Determinations:

The available plant nutrient content of c061 ashes was
found to be much higher than the available plant nutrient content of
the average soil. The soils which were treated with coal ashes
showed an increase in yield and yet maintained a higher level of
plant nutrients thrn thos soils not treated with coal ashes. The
high pH and the high calcium content of the coal ashes were effect-
ive in raising the pH of the soil. The increases in yields from the
plots receiving coal ashes corresponded to the increased available
plant nutrient content of these soils. The irregular yields on plots
trerted hith coal ashes plus fertiliser annot be explained since no

definite toxicity symptoms were evident.

-24..

Table 6. £33st FROM CEEICPL DETITIIII‘MTIOUS

Samples Collected Before Treatment

Lbs. Per 2,000,000 Lbs. of Soil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pH

Phosphorus Potassium Calcium
Oshtemo Sandy Loam 5.20 40 82 1115
Miami Clay Loam 7.05 10 222 5827
*Screened Pocahontas Coal Ashes 8.00 557 456 12115
Field Plots Miami Clay Loam Samples Collected After Harvest

Pounds Per Acre 77*
TRELEUEIIT pH Pho sphorus Petas sium
1. Check 6.95 15 158
2. 1 inch of Coal Ashes 7.55 50 145
5. 2 inches of Coal Ashes 7.45 115 158
4. 1000 lbs. 4—16-8 Fertiliser 6.90 40 158
5. 1 inch of Coal Ashes plus 7.55 127 150
1000 lbs. 4—16-8 Fertilizer

6. 2 inches of Coal Ashes plus 7.45 218 264

1000 lbs. 4—16—8 Fertilizer

 

——

*Expressed in lbs. of P, K, or Ca per 2,000,000 lbs. of Coal Ashes.

-25-

SUIEIM’LY AIID CONCLUSIONS

This eXperiment indicated that coal ashes could be used as

soil amendment. From the results of the determinations of the

pa

chemical and the physical effects of coal sales on the soil, and
he effects of coal ashes on the yields of beets and beans, the
following conclusions were drawn:

(1) The application of coal ashes to the soil increased the
yields of beets and beans.

(2) Coal ashes contain more available plant nutrients than
the soils studied.

(5) The pH of acid and neutral soils was raised by the ad-
dition of coal ashes.

(4) Coal ashes increased the percent total porosity of the
heavy soil.

(5) Coal ashes increased the water holding capacity at pF
1.6 of the heavy soil.

(6) The heavy soil was more easily tilled where coal ashes

had been applied.

-26..

Plates l—lO. The effect of coal ashes as a. soil amendment as
illustrated after seven weeks of growth.

 

 

I

L__

Plete l. R; beets on Oshtemo Sandy Loam

 

 

 

Plate 2. Snap beans on Oshtemo Sandy Loam

—27-,

on

 

 

L

Plate 5. Red beets on Miami Clay Loam

 

e

“hr _ "
' {lb-{‘1’ «3’9 W0— .f"
- _ .. a". . ‘

 

p
I

 

\
b _ ~—

Plate 4. Snap beans on Miami Clay Loam

 

 

-23-

Plates 5—10. Beets and beans on Miami Clay Loam field plots

 

L _A_., _ _--_

Plate 5. Red beets and Snap beans on Treatments 1 8c 2

!

 

 

 

 

Plate 6. Red beets and Snap beans on Treatments 1 8c 5

-29-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plate 8. Red beets 3nd Snap beans on Treatments 4 8c 5

 

 

 

 

ate 9. Red beets and Snapdbeans on Tiéafisenié 5 & 6—

 

 

 

 

L__.———— _______

Plate 10. Red beets and Snap beans on Block C
heatments 1, 2, 5, 4, 5, 6.

-51..

REFERENCES

(1) Bever, L. D. Methods of Evaluating Soil Structure. Soil
Physics, 1940.

(2) Bray, R. H. and Kurtz, L. T. Determinations of Total, Or~
ganic, end Available Forms of Phosphorus in
Soils. Soil Science, 59; 59-46. 1945.

(5) A Committee, Peech, H. (Chairman)
Hethods of Soil Analysis for Soil Fertility
Investigations, march, 1945.

(4) Hardy, F. J. Cohesion in Colloidal Soils.
Journal of lgricultural Science, 15; 492. 1925.

(5) Schollenberger, C. J. and Simon, R. H. Determinations of EX-
change Capacity and Exchangeable Bases in Soil-
Ammonium Acetate Nethod. Soil Science, 59; 15-
24, 1945.

-52...

ADDITIONAL DATA

The Use of Sardust As A Soil Amendment

1
Other investigators have shown that the decrease in crop

yields due to the application of sawdust to the soil may be over-
come by the audition of nitrogen. The main purpose of this prob-
lem was to compare yields between unfertilized, fertilized, and
fertilized plus nitrogen sardust treatments on a Miami Clay loam.
Treatments were as follows:
1. Check
4. 1000 pounds per acre, 4-16-8 fertilizer
7. 2 inches sawdust
8. 2 inches sawdust plus 1000 pounds per acre, 4-16—
8 fertilizer
9. 2 inches sawdust plus 1000 pounds per acre, 4—16-
8 fertiliser plus two increments of 200 pounds per acre Ammonium
Sulphate.
This problem was run in conjunction with the coal ashes
problem. The same chemical and phy.ica1 properties were determined.
Hethods of preparation, seeding, and harvesting were the same as on

the coal ashe. plots. Two differences in treatment should be noted;

U)

one being that the rate of the sawdust application was ecual to two
inches of surface cover on all sawdust treated plots, the other being
the addition of nitrogen to one fertilised sawdust treatment. There
were only two replications on the sawdust plots. The first incre-

ment of 200 pounds Ammonium Sulfate per acre was applied beside the

Exp. Sta. Tuarterly Bulletin
£118 0 , 1945.

l. Turk, L. M. H ch. Agric
Vol. 26, No.

H r"
V

‘d

J

o

H -
C?
7‘3 o
{‘0

V

~55-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Results From thsical Determinations
Sawdust Plots
0,to 2 inches __
water Water
% Total Holding Volume % Total Holding Volume
TRELTREHT Porosity CapacitY' weight P9225332 Qapggiix ‘Tejght
1. (Check) A 54.2 52.7 1.05 61.2 5501 1.24
B 59.8 55.7 1.05 57.9 55.2 1.50
c 56.8 52.5 1.05 56.0 51.5 1.26
Average 56.9, 55.6 _1.05 58.51 55.2 1.27
4. (1000 lbs. )A 59.7 51.8 1.08 62. 55.7 1.51
(4—16-8 )B 51.0 52.8 1.10 61.2 54.4 1.25
(Fertilizer )c 55.8 55.9 1.05 54.4 55.2 1.29
fivercae 55.5, 52. 1.08 5914, 55.1 1.28
7. (2 inches )A 57.8 54.8 1.05 51.0 50.9 1.27
(Sawdust )B 58.2 45.2 .97 50.1 28.8 1.45
Average 58.0 59.0 1.01 50.5 _29.8 l.3§:
8. (2 inches )A 62.9 45.0 .88 57.1 52.9 1.25
(serdust plus)B 61.1 45.4 .97 48.5 29.6 1.45
(1000 4—16-8 )
(Fertilizer )
1‘79er 62.0 45.2 192 5510 51.2 JOEL
9. (2 inches 3A 57.6 58.2 .97 46.9 28.1 1.58
Sawdust plus B 59.6 41.5 1.00 49.1 28.9 1.40
(1000 lbs. )
(4—16-8 g
(Fertilizer
(plus 400 lbs)
((NH4)2SO4 )
Average 58.6 59.7 .98 48.0 28.5 1.59
Table 8. Results From Relative Crushing Strength
Brickettes wBrickettes
i" 3143" 53;" x 5"
Treatment #1 Average 9.4 Kg. 541.0 Kg.
n £4 " 9.1 Kg. 552.0 Kg.
Average of All Sawdust Plots 5.0 Kg. 205.0 Kg.

 

~54-
row four weeks after planting. The nitrogen was applied-when the
first signs of nitrogen starvation appeared on the foliage. Since
the response to the nitrogen was slow, another increment of 200
pounds Ammonium Sulfate was applied two weeks later.

In the tOp two inc1es of soil, t.he percent total porosity
was increased about 5% due to the adc ditio on of sawdust. The water
holding capacity 108 increased about 8%. The volume weight was
decreased about .09%. The crushing strength, or the resistance to
crushing, was reduced almost 50%.

There 188 very little change in the chemical composition of
t}e soil due to the 7ddition of 53 dust. The one big difference
being the amount of nitrogen assimilated by the increased microor-
ganism activity. This was in evidence even on Ammonium Sulfate
treated plots. During the hot, dry wea her, the beans were stunted
due to the lack of nitrogen.

Sawdust did not appreciably affect the yields of beets. In
fact, this meteri7 l 7lone slightly rec Euced yields. Fhere fertilizer
was applied, yields were markedly greater than where nothing was ap-

Died, but again the mwlic.t1on of sawdust, in addition to fertili-
zer caused a reduction in yield. The greatest yields were obtained
where the treatment included 4—16—8 fertilizer, 2 inches of s7 wdust,
and Ammonium Sulfate fertilizer.

The snap beans were more sensitive than the beats and yields
were greatly decreased w11ere sawdust was ap “lie to the soil. The
beans failed to respond to the addition of nitrogen due to the hot,
dry period which followed the application of t11e Ammonium Sulfate.

Bean yields on all sawdus t plots were much loxer than on the untreat—

8d DlOtSo

 

~56-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. Results From Sawdust Field Plots
on
Miami Clay Loam
Heights of Plant Tissue in Grams
BEETS ‘785155
Total
TREATHEHT Fresh Lir-Dried lst 2nd Snap AirbDried
Roots Tops Picking Picking Beans Vines
l.(Check) A 479.0 100.0 570.0 46.5 622.5 210.0
B 494.0 114.0 950.0 27.0 977.0 555.0
0 742.0 145.0 561.0 29.0 590.0 217.0
__fiyerage 571.7 113.7 729.3 .261.0
4.(1ooo lbs. ) A 1694.0 196.0 1111.0 108.0 1219.0 615.0
(4—16-8 ) B 1511.0 206.0 999.0 60.0 1059.0 500.0
(Fertilizer ) c 742.0‘ 118.5 858.0 75.0 955.0 475.0
(per acre )
Average—7 1515.7 115.5 1070.5 565.0
7.(2 inches ) A 647.0 152.0 565.0 21.0 586.0 201.5
(Sawdust ) B 580.0 99.0 20.0 56.0 456.0 149.0
Averaae 515 115.5‘77 1521.0 175.2
8.(2 inches ) A 990.5 156.0 414.0 47.0 461.0 165.0
Sawdust ) B 1457.0 157.5 655.0 66.0. 698.0 288.0
(plus 1000 )
Elbe. 4.16—8)
Fertilizer )
(per acre )
_Areraee 1215.7 146.7 57%
9.(2 inches ) A 1947.0 272.0 598.0 62.0 660.0 251.0
(Sawdust ) B 2152. 501.0 652.0 85.0 757.0 256.5
(plus 1000 )
(lbs..4—16—8)
(Fertilizer )
(plus 200 )
(lbs. )
. , s
((JH4)2 04 )
“’lvereee 2049.0 286.5 625.0 255.7

 

-57-
The extreme dry reather was detrimental to the formation
of available nitrogen for the growth of beans. The ample mois-
ture for the later maturing beets made possible good results from
the application of savdust plus nitrogen.
The following conclusions were drawn:
(1) Sawdust plus nitrogen is beneficial to crop pro-
duction.
(2) available nitrates were decreased through their

increased assimilation by microorganisms where sawdust had been

appli Gd 0
(5) Beans were starved for nitrogen on sawdust treat—
ed plots.

(4) Moisture was an important factor in nitrate for-
mation on sawdust treated soil.

(5) The physical condition of a heavy soil was made
more desirable for plant growth by the application of sawdust.

(6) Sawdust increased the porosity and water holding
capacity of Miami Clay loam.

(7) Sawdust had very little fertilizing value.

(8) Sawdust plus ample nitrogen gave an increase in

he yield of beets.

-53..

Plates ll 8: 12. The effect of sawdust on fertilized and unfertilized
Miami Clay loam.

I

 

 

LPlat—éILL—“Radbeets and Snap beans on Treeffments 7 E 8.

 

 

 

\
‘
V
!
L*

 

Plate 12. Red beets and Snap beans on Treatments 7 8c 9.

 

. .N
m ...
c . Q ‘a.
01.- . L . .
1
cl“ 0
....‘..

. \
. . >93.
I.. .0. \ ' .
Q; .a .M\+. . . \H‘
I . . D. . . ‘V“ “In” .‘0 a .0! .n“\:“.
. f ... ~ . Q. . . s.
. .V. II . p
. - ,, .. .. 1.1.1: -. ......Afizm ....
. .. d... \ s . Q. “r...~ Q. V... . v ._
. . .Vl‘.\- J y. .

 

 

     

  

.tlJ. 11‘
\.I.v“. r“. u\ ‘ n I
. . I. 7 I: . . . II\\ "
. . . w I . .1 Y...
K5...w.l.ro .. .4 . t 1‘21...’ 511‘ . no. ’rnIleQaéflrws A «\x.“.....r
.B.‘ ..
...»... ...
Q
. ...L. .
.A Jr. .0-
. .
..'
i- . C.
a no...
5 .
s . .
.I .>.f
Q.» I
.0
.1}! -
I! .
.1.)
_ . . l p I. .. .I. .
.‘.. ..
.7 r
A .. .
s .- n.
. 5. v.“ .
. u _. ‘ . a.
.
II .
1
v: . .
. F.
n I ‘ I o
_ a ....1. ..
. _ .. - . ..
.... n s
A.
1 ...... u
. . .I o o
.3, ... _
'I . D I.
. a .5 ..
. a . . ¢ . ... .
O /
§ 5 .
. u . ; . l . I
4 q . .
.. A .
a n . H \
_ r
‘ . . y . . .u
I .I - I r a up». : tn I
r ‘. Q I .
. . . I 4 V
- . . .
I . I
. p .01 .
. f v
\ .
v I 4
. u 1 _ v. . . \ n . u . n . . . .
. r. I ..
I '
. 0 ‘
. o. . L . .
, a .
.. . . .
. . . .. .w
. .l. x...
. r .....JI
. . v .
. . .
a. _
‘~
.~
$3.15)! ...... I... .
in.» m ..
an...” . . may v

   

..P. ...! ”UTE.“

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

I 1 llllllllll ll

3 1193 03175 4900