WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
Peat and its Uses as Fertilizer and Fuel cover

Peat and its Uses as Fertilizer and Fuel

Chapter 17: FOOTNOTES:
Open in WeRead

About This Book

The author examines the formation, varieties, and chemical composition of peat, describing the organic and mineral constituents and the processes that convert plant material into humus. He evaluates peat's agricultural properties—water and ammonia retention, soil structure, temperature effects, nutrient contributions from organic matter and ash, comparisons with stable manure—and identifies potential drawbacks such as acidity or harmful salts. Practical guidance covers excavation, seasoning, and numerous composting methods with manures, guano, ashes, lime, and salts, supported by experiments and regional analyses. The final section assesses peat as a fuel, discussing density, combustion characteristics, and heating value.


KEY                      
A - In this table the matters soluble in water and the nitrogen are calculated to two places of decimals; the other ingredients are expressed in round numbers.
B - Soluble in water.
C - Insol. in water, but soluble in carbonate of soda.
D - Insol. in water and carbonate of soda.
E - Total.
F - Total matters soluble in water.
G - Nitrogen.
H - Nitrogen in per cent. of the organic matter.
  ORGANIC MATTER. INORGANIC MATTER.      
A B C D E B C D E F G H
  1. Lewis M. Norton 20 40 60       40   1.75 1.46 2.25
         Goshen, Conn.                      
  2. Lewis M. Norton 75 15 90       10   2.32 2.58
         Goshen, Conn.                      
  3. Lewis M. Norton 60 35 95         5   2.95 2.23 2.36
         Goshen, Conn.                      
  4. Messrs. Pond & Miles 81 15 96         4   2.03 1.49 1.55
         Milford, Conn.                      
  5. Messrs. Pond & Miles 79 19 98         2   3.97 1.09 1.12
         Milford, Conn.                      
  6. Samuel Camp 53 11 64 18 18 36   3.08 2.58 4.03
         Plainville, Conn.                      
  7. Russell U. Peck 46 37 83       17   3.27 1.96 2.34
         Berlin, Conn.                      
  8. Rev. B. F. Northrop 48 11 59       41   1.88 1.50 2.49
         Griswold, Conn.                      
  9. J. H. Stanwood 75 11 86       14   2.77 1.99 2.15
         Colebrook, Conn.                      
10. N. Hart, Jr. 69 13 82       18   7.75 2.61 3.21
         West Cornwall, Conn.                      
11. A. L. Loveland 43   4 47       53     .85 1.13 2.43
         North Granby, Conn.                      
12. Daniel Buck, Jr. 33 60 93         7   3.58 2.92 3.15
         Poquonock, Conn.                      
13. Daniel Buck, Jr. 41 49 90       10   2.16 2.89 2.23
         Poquonock, Conn.                      
14. Philip Scarborough 61 30 91         9   1.70 1.42 1.57
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
15. Adams White 63 27 90       10   6.78 3.33 3.72
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
16. Paris Dyer 21   5 26       74   2.85 1.12 4.31
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
17. Perrin Scarborough 62   8 70       30 17.59 1.00 1.43
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
18. Geo. K. Virgin 2.48 23   9 35 0.35 11 54 65   2.83 0.72 2.06
         Collinsville, Conn.                      
19. Geo K. Virgin 1.72 14   8 23   .43   2 75 77   2.15 0.51 2.20
         Collinsville, Conn.                      
20. Geo. K. Virgin 1.67 22   8 32   .58   2 66 68   2.25 0.65 2.04
         Collinsville, Conn.                      
21. Solomon Mead 3.70 48   9 60 2.92 11 27 40   6.62 1.70 2.90
         New Haven, Conn.                      
22. Edwin Hoyt 3.05 14   8 26 2.92 21 50 74   6.07 0.48 1.88
         New Canaan, Conn.                      
23. Edwin Hoyt 2.47 14   8 25 1.63 13 60 75   4.10 0.95 3.76
         New Canaan, Conn.                      
24. Edwin Hoyt 1.23 18   9 28 1.79 15 55 72  3.02 1.08 3.82
         New Canaan, Conn.                      
25. A. M. Haling 4.90 75 12 92   .50     7   8   5.40 2.32 2.52
         Rockville, Conn.                      
26. A. M. Haling 4.50 83 10 97   .27     2   3   4.77 1.53 1.57
         Rockville, Conn.                      
27. A. M. Haling 6.24 71   7 84   .82   7   8 16   7.06 3.04 3.64
         Rockville, Conn.                      
28. Albert Day 4.01 76 10 90   .52   1   8 10   4.53 1.36 1.52
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
29. C. Goodyear 2.11 54 12 68   .40   9 22 32   2.51 1.98 2.91
         New Haven, Conn.                      
30. Rev. Wm. Clift 4.56 71 13 88 3.86     8 12   8.42 1.29 1.46
         Stonington, Conn.                      
31. Henry Keeler 2.66 56 15 73   .97   5 21 27   3.63 1.98 2.64
         South Salem, N. Y.                      
32. John Adams 2.37 59 15 76 1.40   2 20 24   3.77 2.44 3.18
         Salisbury, Conn.                      
33. Rev. Wm. Clift 5.93 18   8 32 8.13   7 53 68 14.06 1.44 4.49
         Stonington, Conn.                      


TABLE III.—DESCRIPTION, ETC., OF PEATS AND MUCKS.

No. Color. Condition at Time of Analysis, Reputed Value, etc.
  1. Lewis M. Norton chocolate-brown, air-dry, tough, compact, heavy; from bottom; 3 to 4 feet deep; very good in compost.
  2. Lewis M. Norton chocolate-brown, air-dry, tough, compact, heavier than 1, from near surface; very good in compost.
  3. Lewis M. Norton light-brown, air-dry, coherent but light, from between 1 and 2, very good in compost.
  4. Messrs. Pond & Miles chocolate-brown, air-dry, coherent but light, surface peat, considered better than No. 5; good in compost.
  5. Messrs. Pond & Miles brownish-red, air-dry, very light and loose in texture, from depth of 3 feet, good in compost.
  6. Samuel Camp black, air-dry, hard lumps, half as good as yard manure, in compost equal to yard manure.
  7. Russell U. Peck chocolate-brown, air-dry, is good fresh, long exposed, half as good as barn-yard\ manure.
  8. Rev. B. F. Northrop grayish-brown, air-dry, light, easily crushed masses containing sand, has not been used alone, good in compost.
  9. J. H. Stanwood chocolate-brown, moist, hard lumps, used fresh good after first year; excellent in compost.
10. N. Hart, Jr. brownish-black, air-dry, hard lumps, excellent in compost.
11. A. L. Loveland black, air-dry, hard lumps, contains grains of coarse sand.
12. Daniel Buck, Jr. chocolate-brown, air-dry, coherent cakes, good as top dressing on grass when fresh; excellent in compost.
13. Daniel Buck, Jr. chocolate-brown, air-dry, light surface layers of No. 12.
14. Philip Scarborough   air-dry, after exposure over winter, has one-third value of yard-manure.
15. Adams White chocolate-brown, air-dry, hard lumps, good in compost, causes great growth of straw.
16. Paris Dyer grayish-black, air-dry, easily crushed lumps, largely admixed with soil.
17. Perrin Scarborough chocolate-brown, air-dry,well-characterized "vitriol peat;" in compost, after 1 year's exposure, gives indifferent results.
18. Geo. K. Virgin light brownish-gray air-dry light, coherent, surface peat; sample long exposed; astonishing results on sandy soil.
19. Geo. K. Virgin chocolate-brown, moist, crumbly, contains much sand, four feet from surface.
20. Geo. K. Virgin black, wet.
21. Solomon Mead grayish-brown, air-dry, light, porous, coherent from grass roots; long weathered, good; fresh, better in compost.
22. Edwin Hoyt brownish-gray, air-dry, loose, light, much mixed with soil, good in compost.
23. Edwin Hoyt brownish-gray, air-dry, No. 22 saturated with horse urine, darker than No. 22.
24. Edwin Hoyt brownish-gray, air-dry, No. 22 composted with white fish, darker than No. 23; fish-bones evident.
25. A. M. Haling chocolate-brown, moist, fresh dug.
26. A. M. Haling chocolate-brown, air-dry, No. 25 after two year's weathering.
27. A. M. Haling chocolate-brown, moist, fresh dug, good substitute for yard manure as top-dressing on grass.
28. Albert Day dark-brown, moist, coherent and hard; fresh dug, but from surface where weathered; injurious to crops; vitriol peat. (?)
29. C. Goodyear black, air-dry, very hard tough cakes; when fresh dug, "as good as cow dung."
30. Rev. Wm. Clift chocolate-brown, moist, from an originally fresh water bog, broken into 100 years ago by tide, now salt marsh; good after weathering.
31. Henry Keeler light-brown, air-dry, leaf-muck, friable; when fresh, appears equal to good yard manure.
32. John Adams light-brown, moist, overlies shell marl, fresh or weathered does not compare with ordinary manure.
33. Rev. Wm. Clift dark ash-gray, air-dry, from bottom of salt ditch, where tide flows daily; contains sulphate of iron.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] The oxygen thus absorbed by water, serves for the respiration of fish and aquatic animals.

[3] This sample contained also fish-bones, hence the larger content of nitrogen was not entirely due to absorbed ammonia.

[4] Reichardt's analyses are probably inaccurate, and give too much ammonia and nitric acid.

[5] These analyses were executed—A by Professor G. F. Barker; B by Mr. O. C. Sparrow; C by Mr. Peter Collier.

[6] Shell marl, consisting of fragments and powder of fresh-water shells, is frequently met with, underlying peat beds. Such a deposit occurs on the farm of Mr. John Adams, in Salisbury, Conn. It is eight to ten feet thick. An air-dry sample, analyzed under the writer's direction, gave results as follows:


       
Water 30.62
Organic matter {soluble in water 0.70 }   6.52
{insoluble in water 5.82 }
Carbonate of lime 57.09
Sand 1.86
Oxide of iron and alumina, with traces of potash, magnesia, sulphuric and phosphoric acid 3.91
  100.00

Another specimen from near Milwaukee, Wis., said to occur there in immense quantities underlying peat, contained, by the author's analysis—


Water 1.14
Carbonate of lime 92.41
Carbonate of magnesia 3.43
Peroxide of iron with a trace of phosphoric acid 0.92
Sand 1.60
  99.50

[7] To the kindness of Joseph Sheffield, Esq., of New Haven, the author is indebted for facilities in carrying on these experiments.

[8] At the instigation of Henry A. Dyer, Esq., at that time the Society's Corresponding Secretary.

[9] Derived from the communications published in the author's Report. Trans. Conn. State Ag. Soc. 1858 p.p. 101-153.







PART III.

ON PEAT AS FUEL.


1.—Kinds of peat that make the best fuel.

The value of peat for fuel varies greatly, like its other qualities. Only those kinds which can be cut out in the shape of coherent blocks, or which admit of being artificially formed into firm masses, are of use in ordinary stoves and furnaces. The powdery or friable surface peat, which has been disintegrated by frost and exposure, is ordinarily useless as fuel, unless it be rendered coherent by some mode of preparation. Unripe peat which contains much undecomposed moss or grass roots, which is therefore very light and porous, is in general too bulky to make an effective heating material before subjection to mechanical treatment.

The best peat for burning, is that which is most free from visible fiber or undecomposed vegetable matters, which has therefore a homogeneous brown or black aspect, and which is likewise free from admixture of earthy substances in the form of sand or clay. Such peat is unctuous when moist, shrinks greatly on drying, and forms hard and heavy masses when dry. It is usually found at a considerable depth, where it has been subjected to pressure, and then has such consistence as to admit of cutting out in blocks; or it may exist as a black mud or paste at the bottom of bogs and sluices.

The value of peat as fuel stands in direct ratio to its content of carbon. We have seen that this ranges from 51 to 63 per cent. of the organic matter, and the increase of carbon is related to its ripeness and density. The poorest, youngest peat, has the same proportion of carbon as exists in wood. It does not, however, follow that its heating power is the same. The various kinds of wood have essentially the same proportion of carbon, but their heating power is very different. The close textured woods—those which weigh the most per cord—make the best fuel for most purposes. We know, that a cord of hickory will produce twice as much heat as a cord of bass-wood. Peat, though having the same or a greater proportion of carbon, is generally inferior to wood on account of its occupying a greater bulk for a given weight, a necessary result of its porosity. The best qualities of peat, or poor kinds artificially condensed, may, on the other hand, equal or exceed wood in heating power, bulk for bulk. One reason that peat is, in general, inferior to wood in heating effect, lies in its greater content of incombustible ash. Wood has but 0.5 to 1.5 per cent. of mineral matters, while peat contains usually 5 to 10 per cent., and often more. The oldest, ripest peats are those which contain the most carbon, and have at the same time the greatest compactness. From these two circumstances they make the best fuel.

It thus appears that peat which is light, loose in structure, and much mixed with clay or sand, is a poor or very poor article for producing heat: while a dense pure peat is very good.

A great drawback to the usefulness of most kinds of peat-fuel, lies in their great friability. This property renders them unable to endure transportation. The blocks of peat which are commonly used in most parts of Germany as fuel, break and crumble in handling, so that they cannot be carried far without great waste. Besides, when put into a stove, there can only go on a slow smouldering combustion as would happen in cut tobacco or saw-dust. A free-burning fuel must exist in compact lumps or blocks, which so retain their form and solidity, as to admit of a rapid draught of air through the burning mass.

The bulkiness of ordinary peat fuel, as compared with hard wood, and especially with coal, likewise renders transportation costly, especially by water, where freights are charged by bulk and not by weight, and renders storage an item of great expense.

The chief value of that peat fuel, which is simply cut from the bog, and dried without artificial condensation, must be for the domestic use of the farmer or villager who owns a supply of it not far from his dwelling, and can employ his own time in getting it out. Though worth perhaps much less cord for cord when dry than hard wood, it may be cheaper for home consumption than fuel brought from a distance.

Various processes have been devised for preparing peat, with a view to bringing it into a condition of density and toughness, sufficient to obviate its usual faults, and make it compare with wood or even with coal in heating power.

The efforts in this direction have met with abundant success as regards producing a good fuel. In many cases, however, the cost of preparation has been too great to warrant the general adoption of these processes. We shall recur to this subject on a subsequent page, and give an account of the methods that have been proposed or employed for the manufacture of condensed peat fuel.

2.—Density of Peat.

The apparent[10] specific gravity of peat in the air-dry state, ranges from 0.11 to 1.03. In other words, a full cubic foot weighs from one-tenth as much as, to slightly more than a cubic foot of water, = 62-1/3 lbs. Peat, which has a specific gravity of but 0.25, may be and is employed as fuel. A full cubic foot of it will weigh about 16 lbs. In Germany, the cubic foot of "good ordinary peat" in blocks,[11] ranges from 15 to 25 lbs. in weight, and is employed for domestic purposes. The heavier peat, weighing 30 or more lbs. per cubic foot in blocks, is used for manufacturing and metallurgical purposes, and for firing locomotives.

Karmarsch has carefully investigated more than 100 peats belonging to the kingdom of Hanover, with reference to their heating effect. He classifies them as follows:—

A. Turfy peat, (Rasentorf,) consisting of slightly decomposed mosses and other peat-producing plants, having a yellow or yellowish-brown color, very soft, spongy and elastic, sp. gr. 0.11 to 0.26, the full English cubic foot weighing from 7 to 16 lbs.

B. Fibrous peat, unripe peat, which is brown or black in color, less elastic than turfy peat, the fibres either of moss, grass, roots, leaves, or wood, distinguishable by the eye, but brittle, and easily broken; sp. gr. 0.24 to 0.67, the weight of a full cubic foot being from 15 to 42 lbs.

C. Earthy peat.—Nearly or altogether destitute of fibrous structure, drying to earth-like masses which break with more or less difficulty, giving lustreless surfaces of fracture; sp. gr. 0.41 to 0.90, the full cubic foot weighing, accordingly, from 25 to 56 lbs.

D. Pitchy peat, (Pechtorf,) dense; when dry, hard; often resisting the blows of a hammer, breaking with a smooth, sometimes lustrous fracture, into sharp-angled pieces. Sp. gr. 0.62 to 1.03, the full cubic foot weighing from 38 to 55 lbs.

In Kane and Sullivan's examination of 27 kinds of Irish peat, the specific gravities ranged from 0.274 to 1.058.

3.—Heating power of peat as compared with wood and anthracite.

Karmarsch found that in absolute heating effect

100 lbs. of turfy, air-dry peat, on the average = 95 lbs. of pine wood.
100 lbs. of fibrous, air-dry peat, on the average = 108 lbs. of pine wood.
100 lbs. of earthy, air-dry peat, on the average = 104 lbs. of pine wood.
100 lbs. of pitchy, air-dry peat, on the average = 111 lbs. of pine wood.

The comparison of heating power by bulk, instead of weight, is as follows:—

100 cubic ft. of turfy peat, on the average[12] = 33 cubic ft. of pine wood, in sticks.
100 cubic ft. of fibrous peat, on the average = 90 cubic ft. of pine wood, in sticks.
100 cubic ft. of earthy peat, on the average = 145 cubic ft. of pine wood, in sticks.
100 cubic ft. of pitchy peat, on the average = 184 cubic ft. of pine wood, in sticks.

According to Brix, the weight per English cord and relative heating effect of several air-dry peats—the heating power of an equal bulk of oak wood being taken at 100 as a standard—are as follows, bulk for bulk:[13]


  Weight per cord. Heating effect.
Oak wood 4150 lbs. 100
Peat from Linum, 1st quality, dense and pitchy 3400 lbs.   70
Peat from Linum, 2d quality, fibrous 2900 lbs.   55
Peat from Linum, 3d quality, turfy 2270 lbs.   53
Peat from Buechsenfeld, 1st quality, pitchy, very hard and heavy 3400 lbs.   74
Peat from Buechsenfeld, 2d quality 2730 lbs.   64

These statements agree in showing, that, while weight for weight, the ordinary qualities of peat do not differ much from wood in heating power; the heating effect of equal bulks of this fuel, as found in commerce, may vary extremely, ranging from one-half to three quarters that of oak wood.

Condensed peat may be prepared by machinery, which will weigh more than hard wood, bulk for bulk, and whose heating power will therefore exceed that of wood.

Gysser gives the following comparisons of a good peat with various German woods and charcoals, equal weights being employed, and split beech wood, air-dry, assumed as the standard.[14]