This is a modern-English version of Peat and its Uses as Fertilizer and Fuel, originally written by Johnson, Samuel W. (Samuel William). It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.






PEAT AND ITS USES,


AS


FERTILIZER AND FUEL.





BY


SAMUEL W. JOHNSON, A. M.,


PROFESSOR OF ANALYTICAL AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY, YALE COLLEGE.





FULLY ILLUSTRATED.





NEW-YORK:

ORANGE JUDD & COMPANY.

245 BROADWAY.





Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by

ORANGE JUDD & CO.,

At the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New-York.




Lovejoy & Son,
Electrotypers and Stereotypers
15 Vandewater street N. Y.

Lovejoy & Son,
Electrotypers and Stereotypers
15 Vandewater Street, New York







TO MY FATHER,

MY EARLIEST AND BEST

INSTRUCTOR IN RURAL AFFAIRS,

THIS VOLUME

IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED.

S. W. J.







CONTENTS.

           
Introduction vii
PART I.Origin, Types, and Chemical Properties of Peat.
  PAGE
  1. What is Peat? 9
  2. Conditions of its Formation 9
  3. Different Kinds of Peat 14
    Swamp Muck 17
  Salt Mud 18
  4. Chemical Characters and Composition of Peat 18
  a. Organic or combustible part 19
  Ulmic and Humic Acids 19
  Ulmin and Humin—Crenic and Apocrenic Acids 20
  Ulmates and Humates 21
  Crenates and Apocrenates 22
  Gein and Geic Acid—Elementary Composition of Peat 23
  Ultimate Composition of the Constituents of Peat 25
  b. Mineral Part—Ashes 25
  5. Chemical Changes that occur in the Formation of Peat 26
PART II.On the Farming Uses of Peat and Swamp Muck.
  1. Characters that adapt Peat for Agricultural Use 28
  A. Physical or Amending Characters 28
  I. Absorbent Power for Water, as Liquid and Vapor 31
  II. Absorbent Power for Ammonia 32
  III. Influence in Disintegrating the Soil 34
  IV. Influence on the Temperature of Soils 37
  B. Fertilizing Characters 38
  I. Fertilizing Effects of the Organic Matters, excluding Nitrogen 38
  1. Organic Matters as Direct Food to Plants 38
  2. Organic Matters as Indirect Food to Plants 40
  3. Nitrogen, including Ammonia and Nitric Acid 42
  II. Fertilizing Effects of the Ashes of Peat 46
  III. Peculiarities in the Decay of Peat 50
  IV. Comparison of Peat with Stable Manure 51
  2. Characters of Peat that are detrimental, or that need correction 54
I. Possible Bad Effects on Heavy Soils 54
II. Noxious Ingredients 55
  a. Vitriol Peats 55
  b. Acidity—c. Resinous Matters 57
  3. Preparation of Peat for Agricultural Use 57
  a. Excavation 57
  b. Exposure, or Seasoning 59
  c. Composting 62
  Compost with Stable Manure 63
  Compost with Night Soil 68
  Compost with Guano 69
  Compost with Fish and other Animal Matters 70
  Compost with Potash-lye & Soda-ash; Wood-ashes, Shell-marl, Lime 72
  Compost with Salt and Lime Mixture 73
  Compost with Carbonate of Lime, Mortar, etc. 75
  4. The Author's Experiments with Peat Composts 77
  5. Examination of Peat with reference to its Agricultural Value 81
  6. Composition of Connecticut Peats 84
  Method of Analysis 86
  Tables of Composition 88-89-90
PART III.—Peat as Fuel
  1. Kinds of Peat that Make the Best Fuel 92
  2. Density of Peat 95
  3. Heating Power of Peat as Compared with Wood and Anthracite 96
  4. Modes of Burning Peat 102
  5. Burning of Broken Peat 103
  6. Hygroscopic Water of Peat-fuel 104
  7. Shrinkage 105
  8. Time of Excavation and Drying 105
  9. Drainage 106
10. Cutting of Peat for Fuel—a. Preparations for Cutting 107
  b. Cutting by Hand; with Common Spade; German Peat Knife 108
  Cutting with Irish Slane—System employed in East Friesland 109
  c. Machines for Cutting Peat; Brosowsky's Machine; Lepreux's Machine 113
11. Dredging of Peat 115
12. Moulding of Peat 116
13. Preparation of Peat-fuel by Machinery, etc 116
  A. Condensation by Pressure 116
  a. Of Fresh Peat 116
  Mannhardt's Method 117
  The Neustadt Method 119
  b. Of Air-dried Peat—Lithuanian Process 120
  c. Of Hot-dried Peat—Gwynne's Method; Exter's Method 121
  Elsberg's Process 125
  B. Condensation without Pressure 127
  a. Of Earthy Peat 128
  Challeton's Method, at Mennecy, France 128
  Challeton's Method, at Langenberg, Prussia 130
  Roberts' Method, at Pekin, N. Y. 132
  Siemens' Method, at Bœblingen, Wirtemberg 134
  b. Condensation of Fibrous Peat—Weber's Method; 135 Hot-drying Gysser's Method and Machine 140
  c. Condensation of Peat of all Kinds—Schlickeysen's Machine 144
  Leavitt's Peat Mill, Lexington, Mass 146
  Ashcroft & Betteley's Machine 148
  Versmann's Machine, Great Britain 150
  Buckland's Machine, Great Britain 151
14. Artificial Drying of Peat 152
15. Peat Coal 157
16. Metallurgical Uses of Peat 162
17. Peat as a Source of Illuminating Gas 165
18. Examination of Peat with regard to its Value as Fuel 167





INTRODUCTION.


In the years 1857 and 1858, the writer, in the capacity of Chemist to the State Agricultural Society of Connecticut, was commissioned to make investigations into the agricultural uses of the deposits of peat or swamp muck which are abundant in this State; and, in 1858, he submitted a Report to Henry A. Dyer, Esq., Corresponding Secretary of the Society, embodying his conclusions. In the present work the valuable portions of that Report have been recast, and, with addition of much new matter, form Parts I. and II. The remainder of the book, relating to the preparation and employment of peat for fuel, &c., is now for the first time published, and is intended to give a faithful account of the results of the experience that has been acquired in Europe, during the last twenty-five years, in regard to the important subject of which it treats.

In 1857 and 1858, the author, serving as the Chemist for the Connecticut State Agricultural Society, was tasked with investigating the agricultural uses of the abundant deposits of peat or swamp muck found in the state. In 1858, he submitted a report to Henry A. Dyer, Esq., the Corresponding Secretary of the Society, outlining his findings. In this work, valuable sections of that report have been restructured and, along with a lot of new content, make up Parts I and II. The rest of the book, which covers the preparation and use of peat as fuel, is published for the first time and aims to provide an accurate account of the experiences gained in Europe over the last twenty-five years regarding this important topic.

The employment of peat as an amendment and absorbent for agricultural purposes has proved to be of great advantage in New-England farming.

The use of peat as a soil enhancer and absorber for farming has shown to be very beneficial in New England agriculture.

It is not to be doubted, that, as fuel, it will be even more valuable than as a fertilizer. Our peat-beds, while they do not occupy so much territory as to be an impediment and a reproach to our country, as they have been to Ireland, are yet so abundant and so widely distributed—occurring from the Atlantic to the Missouri, along and above the 40th parallel, and appearing on our Eastern Coast at least as far South as North Carolina[1]—as to present, at numberless points, material, which, sooner or later, will serve us most usefully when other fuel has become scarce and costly.

There’s no doubt that, as a fuel source, it will be even more beneficial than as a fertilizer. Our peat-beds, while they don’t take up so much land that they become a burden and a disgrace to our country like they have in Ireland, are still so plentiful and widely spread—found from the Atlantic to the Missouri, along and above the 40th parallel, and on our Eastern Coast at least as far south as North Carolina[1]—that they provide, at many locations, resources which, sooner or later, will be extremely useful to us when other fuel becomes rare and expensive.

The high prices which coal and wood have commanded for several years back have directed attention to peat fuel; and, such is the adventurous character of American enterprise, it cannot be [Pg viii]doubted that we shall rapidly develop and improve the machinery for producing it. As has always been the case, we shall waste a vast deal of time and money in contriving machines that violate every principle of mechanism and of economy; but the results of European invention furnish a safe basis from which to set out, and we have among us the genius and the patience that shall work out the perfect method.

The high prices of coal and wood over the past few years have drawn attention to peat fuel. Given the bold spirit of American innovation, there's no doubt that we will quickly enhance the machinery needed to produce it. As has always been true, we will likely waste a lot of time and money trying to create machines that ignore basic principles of mechanics and efficiency. However, the advancements made in Europe provide a solid foundation to start from, and we have the talent and perseverance needed to develop the ideal method.

It may well be urged that a good degree of caution is advisable in entering upon the peat enterprise. In this country we have exhaustless mines of the best coal, which can be afforded at a very low rate, with which other fuel must compete. In Germany, where the best methods of working peat have originated, fuel is more costly than here; and a universal and intense economy there prevails, of which we, as a people, have no conception.

It’s definitely wise to be cautious when starting a peat venture. In this country, we have endless supplies of high-quality coal that is available at a very low price, making it tough for other fuels to compete. In Germany, where the most effective peat extraction methods were developed, fuel is more expensive than here, and there is a widespread culture of saving that we, as a society, can’t fully understand.

If, as the Germans themselves admit, the peat question there is still a nice one as regards the test of dollars and cents, it is obvious, that, for a time, we must "hasten slowly." It is circumstances that make peat, and gold as well, remunerative or otherwise; and these must be well considered in each individual case. Peat is the name for a material that varies extremely in its quality, and this quality should be investigated carefully before going to work upon general deductions.

If, as the Germans themselves acknowledge, the peat issue there is still quite tricky in terms of costs and revenue, it’s clear that, for now, we need to "take our time." It’s the circumstances that determine whether peat, and gold too, are profitable or not; these factors must be thoroughly examined in each specific case. Peat refers to a material that varies greatly in quality, and this quality should be carefully assessed before drawing any general conclusions.

In my account of the various processes for working peat by machinery, such data as I have been able to find have been given as to cost of production. These data are however very imperfect, and not altogether trustworthy, in direct application to American conditions. The cheapness of labor in Europe is an item to our disadvantage in interpreting foreign estimates. I incline to the belief that this is more than offset among us by the quality of our labor, by the energy of our administration, by the efficiency of our overseeing, and, especially, by our greater skill in the adaptation of mechanical appliances. While counselling caution, I also recommend enterprise in developing our resources in this important particular; knowing full well, however, that what I can say in its favor will scarcely add to the impulse already apparent among my countrymen.

In my account of the various processes for working with peat using machinery, I've shared all the cost data I've been able to find. However, this data is quite limited and not entirely reliable when applied to American conditions. The lower labor costs in Europe make it harder for us to interpret foreign estimates accurately. I tend to believe that this is more than balanced out in the U.S. by the quality of our workforce, the energy of our management, the efficiency of our supervision, and especially by our greater skill in adapting mechanical tools. While I advise caution, I also encourage initiative in developing our resources in this important area, fully aware that what I say in its favor will likely not add to the existing enthusiasm among my fellow countrymen.

"Samuel W. Johnson.

Samuel W. Johnson.

Sheffield Scientific School,
Yale College, June, 1866.

Sheffield Scientific School,
Yale College, June, 1866.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The great Dismal Swamp is a grand peat bog, and doubtless other of the swamps of the coast, as far south as Florida and the Gulf, are of the same character.

[1] The great Dismal Swamp is a vast peat bog, and surely other swamps along the coast, stretching down to Florida and the Gulf, are similar.







PART I.

THE ORIGIN, VARIETIES, AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERS OF PEAT.


1. What is Peat?

What is Peat?

By the general term Peat, we understand the organic matter or vegetable soil of bogs, swamps, beaver-meadows and salt-marshes.

By the general term Peat, we mean the organic matter or plant soil found in bogs, swamps, beaver meadows, and salt marshes.

It consists of substances that have resulted from the decay of many generations of aquatic or marsh plants, as mosses, sedges, coarse grasses, and a great variety of shrubs, mixed with more or less mineral substances, derived from these plants, or in many cases blown or washed in from the surrounding lands.

It’s made up of materials that come from the decomposition of many generations of water or marsh plants, like mosses, sedges, rough grasses, and a wide range of shrubs, combined with various mineral substances, which come from these plants or are often blown or washed in from the nearby land.

2. The conditions under which Peat is formed.

2. How Peat Forms.

In this country the production of Peat from fallen and decaying plants, depends upon the presence of so much water as to cover or saturate the vegetable matters, and thereby hinder the full access of air. Saturation with water also has the effect to maintain the decaying matters [Pg 10]at a low temperature, and by these two causes in combination, the process of decay is made to proceed with great slowness, and the solid products of such slow decay, are compounds that themselves resist decay, and hence they accumulate.

In this country, the production of peat from fallen and decaying plants relies on having enough water to cover or soak the plant material, which limits the amount of air that can reach it. This water saturation also helps keep the decaying material [Pg 10] at a low temperature. Together, these two factors slow down the decay process significantly, resulting in solid products of this slow decay that are resistant to further decay, allowing them to build up over time.

In the United States there appears to be nothing like the extensive moors or heaths, that abound in Ireland, Scotland, the north of England, North Germany, Holland, and the elevated plains of Bavaria, which are mostly level or gently sloping tracts of country, covered with peat or turf to a depth often of 20, and sometimes of 40, or more, feet. In this country it is only in low places, where streams become obstructed and form swamps, or in bays and inlets on salt water, where the flow of the tide furnishes the requisite moisture, that our peat-beds occur. If we go north-east as far as Anticosti, Labrador, or Newfoundland, we find true moors. In these regions have been found a few localities of the Heather (Calluna vulgaris), which is so conspicuous a plant on the moors of Europe, but which is wanting in the peat-beds of the United States.

In the United States, there doesn't seem to be anything similar to the vast moors or heaths found in Ireland, Scotland, northern England, northern Germany, Holland, and the high plains of Bavaria. These areas are mostly flat or gently sloping land that is covered with peat or turf that can be 20 to sometimes 40 or more feet deep. In the U.S., peat-beds are found only in low areas where streams are blocked and create swamps, or in bays and inlets along saltwater where the tide provides the necessary moisture. If we head northeast to places like Anticosti, Labrador, or Newfoundland, we find true moors. In these regions, a few sites of Heather (Calluna vulgaris) have been discovered, which is a prominent plant on the moors of Europe, but it's absent in the peat-beds of the United States.

In the countries above named, the weather is more uniform than here, the air is more moist, and the excessive heat of our summers is scarcely known. Such is the greater humidity of the atmosphere that the bog-mosses,—the so-called Sphagnums,—which have a wonderful avidity for moisture, (hence used for packing plants which require to be kept moist on journeys), are able to keep fresh and in growth during the entire summer. These mosses decay below, and throw out new vegetation above, and thus produce a bog, especially wherever the earth is springy. It is in this way that in those countries, moors and peat-bogs actually grow, increasing in depth and area, from year to year, and raise themselves above the level of the surrounding country.

In the countries mentioned above, the weather is more consistent than here, the air is more humid, and the intense heat of our summers is hardly experienced. The greater moisture in the atmosphere allows bog-mosses, the so-called Sphagnums, which have an amazing ability to absorb water (and are therefore used to keep plants moist during transport), to stay fresh and grow throughout the entire summer. These mosses decay underneath and produce new growth above, forming a bog, especially in places where the ground is spongy. This is how, in those countries, moors and peat-bogs actually expand, getting deeper and larger from year to year, and rising above the level of the surrounding land.

[Pg 11]Prof. Marsh informs the writer that he has seen in Ireland, near the north-west coast, a granite hill, capped with a peat-bed, several feet in thickness. In the Bavarian highlands similar cases have been observed, in localities where the atmosphere and the ground are kept moist enough for the growth of moss by the extraordinary prevalence of fogs. Many of the European moors rise more or less above the level of their borders towards the centre, often to a height of 10 or 20 and sometimes of 30 feet. They are hence known in Germany as high moors (Hochmoore) to distinguish from the level or dishing meadow-moors, (Wiesenmoore). The peat-producing vegetation of the former is chiefly moss and heather, of the latter coarse grasses and sedges.

[Pg 11]Prof. Marsh tells the writer that he has seen a granite hill in Ireland, near the northwest coast, topped with a peat layer several feet thick. Similar situations have been noted in the Bavarian highlands, in areas where the atmosphere and ground are damp enough for moss to grow, largely due to the frequent fogs. Many European moors rise above their edges toward the center, often reaching heights of 10 to 20, and sometimes even 30 feet. Because of this, they are referred to in Germany as high moors (Hochmoore) to differentiate them from the flat or dish-shaped meadow-moors (Wiesenmoore). The vegetation that produces peat in the former mainly consists of moss and heather, while the latter consists of coarse grasses and sedges.

In Great Britain the reclamation of a moor is usually an expensive operation, for which not only much draining, but actual cutting out and burning of the compact peat is necessary.

In Great Britain, reclaiming a moor is typically a costly process, as it requires not just extensive drainage but also the actual removal and burning of the dense peat.

The warmth of our summers and the dryness of our atmosphere prevent the accumulation of peat above the highest level of the standing water of our marshes, and so soon as the marshes are well drained, the peat ceases to form, and in most cases the swamp may be easily converted into good meadow land.

The warmth of our summers and the dryness of our atmosphere prevent peat from building up above the highest level of the standing water in our marshes. Once the marshes are properly drained, peat formation stops, and in most cases, the swamp can be easily turned into good meadow land.

Springy hill-sides, which in cooler, moister climates would become moors, here dry up in summer to such an extent that no peat can be formed upon them.

Springy hillsides, which in cooler, wetter climates would turn into moors, dry up in summer here to such an extent that no peat can form on them.

As already observed, our peat is found in low places. In many instances its accumulation began by the obstruction of a stream. To that remarkable creature, the beaver, we owe many of our peat-bogs. These animals, from time immemorial, have built their dams across rivers so as to flood the adjacent forest. In the rich leaf-mold at the water's verge, and in the cool shade of the standing trees, has begun the growth of the sphagnums, sedges, and va[Pg 12]rious purely aquatic plants. These in their annual decay have shortly filled the shallow borders of the stagnating water, and by slow encroachments, going on through many years, they have occupied the deeper portions, aided by the trees, which, perishing, give their fallen branches and trunks, towards completing the work. The trees decay and fall, and become entirely converted into peat; or, as not unfrequently happens, especially in case of resinous woods, preserve their form, and to some extent their soundness.

As we've noted, our peat is found in low areas. In many cases, it started accumulating when a stream was blocked. We owe many of our peat bogs to the remarkable beaver. These animals have been building dams across rivers for ages to flood nearby forests. In the rich leaf mold at the water's edge and in the cool shade of the standing trees, sphagnum moss, sedges, and various aquatic plants begin to grow. As they decay each year, they quickly fill the shallow edges of the still water, and over time, they gradually take over the deeper areas, supported by the trees that decay and contribute their fallen branches and trunks to complete the process. The trees rot and fall, turning entirely into peat; or, as often happens, especially with resinous woods, they maintain their shape and some degree of soundness.

In a similar manner, ponds and lakes are encroached upon; or, if shallow, entirely filled up by peat deposits. In the Great Forest of Northern New York, the voyager has abundant opportunity to observe the formation of peat-swamps, both as a result of beaver dams, and of the filling of shallow ponds, or the narrowing of level river courses. The formation of peat in water of some depth greatly depends upon the growth of aquatic plants, other than those already mentioned. In our Eastern States the most conspicuous are the Arrow-head, (Sagittaria); the Pickerel Weed, (Pontederia;) Duck Meat, (Lemna;) Pond Weed, (Potamogeton;) various Polygonums, brothers of Buckwheat and Smart-weed; and especially the Pond Lilies, (Nymphœa and Nuphar). The latter grow in water four or five feet deep, their leaves and long stems are thick and fleshy, and their roots, which fill the oozy mud, are often several inches in diameter. Their decaying leaves and stems, and their huge roots, living or dead, accumulate below and gradually raise the bed of the pond. Their living foliage which often covers the water almost completely for acres, becomes a shelter or support for other more delicate aquatic plants and sphagnums, which, creeping out from the shore, may so develop as to form a floating carpet, whereon the leaves of the neighboring wood, and dust [Pg 13]scattered by the wind collect, bearing down the mass, which again increases above, or is reproduced until the water is filled to its bottom with vegetable matter.

In the same way, ponds and lakes are being taken over; or, if they’re shallow, completely filled in by peat deposits. In the Great Forest of Northern New York, a traveler has plenty of chances to see how peat swamps form, thanks to beaver dams, the filling of shallow ponds, or the narrowing of flat river channels. The formation of peat in deeper water relies heavily on the growth of aquatic plants other than those already mentioned. In our Eastern States, the most noticeable ones are the Arrowhead (Sagittaria), Pickerel Weed (Pontederia), Duckweed (Lemna), Pondweed (Potamogeton), various Polygonums, which are related to Buckwheat and Smartweed; and especially the Pond Lilies (Nymphœa and Nuphar). The latter grow in water that’s four or five feet deep, with thick, fleshy leaves and long stems, and their roots, which fill up the muddy bottom, can be several inches wide. Their decaying leaves, stems, and large roots, whether living or dead, pile up below and gradually raise the pond’s bed. Their living foliage, which often covers the water almost entirely over areas of land, provides shelter or support for other more delicate aquatic plants and sphagnums that spread out from the shore, potentially forming a floating carpet, where the leaves from nearby woods and dust [Pg 13] blown in by the wind gather, weighing down the mass, which then grows above again, or gets reproduced until the water is completely filled with plant matter.

It is not rare to find in our bogs, patches of moss of considerable area concealing deep water with a treacherous appearance of solidity, as the hunter and botanist have often found to their cost. In countries of more humid atmosphere, they are more common and attain greater dimensions. In Zealand the surfaces of ponds are so frequently covered with floating beds of moss, often stout enough to bear a man, that they have there received a special name "Hangesak." In the Russian Ural, there occur lakes whose floating covers of moss often extend five or six feet above the water, and are so firm that roads are made across them, and forests of large fir-trees find support. These immense accumulations are in fact floating moors, consisting entirely of peat, save the living vegetation at the surface.

It's not unusual to find patches of moss in our bogs that cover deep water, creating a deceptively solid appearance, as hunters and botanists have often discovered the hard way. In regions with more humid climates, they are more common and can grow larger. In Zealand, the surfaces of ponds are often covered with floating beds of moss that can be strong enough to support a person, leading to them being given a special name, "Hangesak." In the Russian Ural, there are lakes with floating moss that can rise five or six feet above the water and are solid enough to create roads on them, where large fir trees can flourish. These massive formations are essentially floating moors, made entirely of peat, except for the living plants on the surface.

Sometimes these floating peat-beds, bearing trees, are separated by winds from their connection with the shore, and become swimming peat islands. In a small lake near Eisenach, in Central Germany, is a swimming island of this sort. Its diameter is 40 rods, and it consists of a felt-like mass of peat, three to five feet in depth, covered above by sphagnums and a great variety of aquatic plants. A few birches and dwarf firs grow in this peat, binding it together by their roots, and when the wind blows, they act as sails, so that the island is constantly moving about upon the lake.

Sometimes, these floating peat beds that have trees can get separated from the shore by the wind and turn into floating islands. There's a swimming island like this in a small lake near Eisenach in Central Germany. It's about 40 rods wide and made of a felt-like layer of peat that's three to five feet deep, topped with sphagnum moss and a wide variety of aquatic plants. A few birch trees and dwarf firs grow in this peat, and their roots hold it together. When the wind blows, the trees act like sails, making the island move around the lake all the time.

On the Neusiedler lake, in Hungary, is said to float a peat island having an area of six square miles, and on lakes of the high Mexican Plateau are similar islands which, long ago, were converted in fruitful gardens.

On Lake Neusiedl in Hungary, there’s said to be a peat island that covers an area of six square miles, and on the lakes of the high Mexican Plateau, there are similar islands that were transformed into productive gardens long ago.

[Pg 14]3. The different kinds of Peat.

3. Types of Peat.

Very great differences in the characters of the deposits in our peat-beds are observable. These differences are partly of color, some peats being gray, others red, others again black; the majority, when dry, possess a dark brown-red or snuff color. They also vary remarkably in weight and consistency. Some are compact, destitute of fibres or other traces of the vegetation from which they have been derived, and on drying, shrink greatly and yield tough dense masses which burn readily, and make an excellent fuel. Others again are light and porous, and remain so on drying; these contain intermixed vegetable matter that is but little advanced in the peaty decomposition. Some peats are almost entirely free from mineral matters, and on burning, leave but a few per cent. of ash, others contain considerable quantities of lime or iron, in chemical combination, or of sand and clay that have been washed in from the hills adjoining the swamps. As has been observed, the peat of some swamps is mostly derived from mosses, that of others originates largely from grasses; some contain much decayed wood and leaves, others again are free from these.

There are significant differences in the types of deposits found in our peat bogs. These differences include color, with some peats being gray, others red, and some black; most, when dry, are a dark brown-red or snuff color. They also vary greatly in weight and texture. Some are solid, lacking fibers or any signs of the vegetation they came from, and when dried, they shrink considerably and form tough, dense clumps that burn easily and make great fuel. Others are light and airy, retaining that texture when dried; these contain mixed plant material that hasn't decomposed much yet. Some peats are almost completely free of minerals, leaving just a small percentage of ash when burned, while others have significant amounts of lime or iron in chemical form, or sand and clay that have washed in from nearby hills. As noted, the peat from some swamps mainly comes from mosses, while that from others mostly comes from grasses; some contain a lot of decayed wood and leaves, while others are free of these materials.

In the same swamp we usually observe more or less of all these differences. We find the surface peat is light and full of partly decayed vegetation, while below, the deposits are more compact. We commonly can trace distinct strata or layers of peat, which are often very unlike each other in appearance and quality, and in some cases the light and compact layers alternate so that the former are found below the latter.

In the same swamp, we often see various differences. The surface peat is light and filled with partially decayed plant material, while the layers beneath are more solid. We can usually identify clear strata or layers of peat, which can look and feel very different from each other. In some cases, the light and compact layers alternate, with the lighter ones appearing beneath the denser ones.

The light and porous kinds of peat appear in general to be formed in shallow swamps or on the surface of bogs, where there is considerable access of air to the decaying matters, while the compacter, older, riper peats are found [Pg 15]at a depth, and seem to have been formed beneath the low water mark, in more complete exclusion of the atmosphere, and under a considerable degree of pressure.

The lighter, more porous types of peat seem to form in shallow swamps or on the surface of bogs, where there's a lot of air getting to the decaying material. In contrast, the denser, older, more mature peats are found [Pg 15] at greater depths and appear to form below the low water mark, with much less exposure to the atmosphere and under significant pressure.

The nature of the vegetation that flourishes in a bog, has much effect on the character of the peat. The peats chiefly derived from mosses that have grown in the full sunlight, have a yellowish-red color in their upper layers, which usually becomes darker as we go down, running through all shades of brown until at a considerable depth it is black. Peats produced principally from grasses are grayish in appearance at the surface, being full of silvery fibres—the skeletons of the blades of grasses and sedges, while below they are commonly black.

The type of plants that grow in a bog greatly influences the qualities of the peat. Peats that mainly come from mosses thriving in full sunlight have a yellowish-red color in their top layers, which usually darkens as you go deeper, shifting through various shades of brown until it turns black at significant depths. Peats primarily made from grasses appear grayish on the surface, packed with silvery fibers—the remains of grass and sedge blades—while further down, they are typically black.

Moss peat is more often fibrous in structure, and when dried forms somewhat elastic masses. Grass peat, when taken a little below the surface, is commonly destitute of fibres; when wet, is earthy in its look, and dries to dense hard lumps.

Moss peat usually has a fibrous texture, and when dried, it creates somewhat elastic clumps. Grass peat, when dug just below the surface, typically lacks fibers; when wet, it looks earthy and dries into dense, hard lumps.

Where mosses and grasses have grown together simultaneously in the same swamp, the peat is modified in its characters accordingly. Where, as may happen, grass succeeds moss, or moss succeeds grass, the different layers reveal their origin by their color and texture. At considerable depths, however, where the peat is very old, these differences nearly or entirely disappear.

Where mosses and grasses have grown together in the same swamp, the peat is changed as a result. When grass replaces moss, or moss replaces grass, the different layers show their origins through their color and texture. However, at deeper levels, where the peat is very old, these differences mostly or completely disappear.

The geological character of a country is not without influence on the kind of peat. It is only in regions where the rocks are granitic or silicious, where, at least, the surface waters are free or nearly free from lime, that mosses make the bulk of the peat.

The geological makeup of a country affects the type of peat found there. It's only in areas with granite or siliceous rocks, where the surface waters are mostly free from lime, that mosses dominate the peat.

In limestone districts, peat is chiefly formed from grasses and sedges.

In limestone areas, peat mainly comes from grasses and sedges.

This is due to the fact that mosses (sphagnums) need little lime for their growth, while the grasses require much; [Pg 16]aquatic grasses cannot, therefore, thrive in pure waters, and in waters containing the requisite proportion of lime, grasses and sedges choke out the moss.

This is because mosses (sphagnums) need very little lime to grow, while grasses need a lot. [Pg 16]Aquatic grasses can't thrive in pure water, and in water that has the right amount of lime, grasses and sedges outcompete the moss.

The accidental admixtures of soil often greatly affect the appearance and value of a peat, but on the whole it would appear that its quality is most influenced by the degree of decomposition it has been subjected to.

The accidental mixtures of soil often significantly impact the look and worth of peat, but overall, it seems that its quality is most affected by how much decomposition it has undergone.

In meadows and marshes, overflowed by the ocean tides, we have salt-peat, formed from Sea-weeds (Algæ,) Salt-wort (Salicornia,) and a great variety of marine or strand-plants. In its upper portions, salt-peat is coarsely fibrous from the grass roots, and dark-brown in color. At sufficient depth it is black and destitute of fibres.

In meadows and marshes, flooded by ocean tides, we have salt-peat, created from seaweeds (Algæ), salt-wort (Salicornia), and a wide range of marine or coastal plants. In its upper layers, salt-peat is coarse and fibrous from grass roots and is dark brown in color. At greater depths, it becomes black and lacks fibers.

The fact that peat is fibrous in texture shows that it is of comparatively recent formation, or that the decomposition has been arrested before reaching its later stages. Fibrous peat is found near the surface, and as we dig down into a very deep bed we find almost invariably that the fibrous structure becomes less and less evident until at a certain depth it entirely disappears.

The fact that peat feels fibrous shows that it formed relatively recently, or that the decomposition process was stopped before it reached its later stages. Fibrous peat is found near the surface, and as we dig deeper into a very thick layer, we almost always notice that the fibrous structure becomes less and less clear until it completely disappears at a certain depth.

It is not depth simply, but age or advancement in decomposition, which determines these differences of texture.

It’s not just the depth, but also the age or stage of decomposition that determines these texture differences.

The "ripest," most perfectly formed peat, that in which the peaty decomposition has reached its last stage,—which, in Germany, is termed pitchy-peat or fat peat, (Pechtorf, Specktorf)—is dark-brown or black in color, and comparatively heavy and dense. When moist, it is firm, sticky and coherent almost like clay, may be cut and moulded to any shape. Dried, it becomes hard, and on a cut or burnished surface takes a luster like wax or pitch.

The "ripest," most perfectly formed peat, where the decomposition has reached its final stage,—which, in Germany, is called pitchy-peat or fat peat (Pechtorf, Specktorf)—is dark brown or black, and is relatively heavy and dense. When it’s moist, it feels firm, sticky, and holds together almost like clay, making it possible to cut and shape it into any form. Once dried, it becomes hard and on a cut or polished surface, it has a shine similar to wax or pitch.

In Holland, West Friesland, Holstein, Denmark and Pomerania, a so-called mud-peat (Schlammtorf, also Baggertorf and Streichtorf,) is "fished up" from the bottoms [Pg 17]of ponds, as a black mud or paste, which, on drying, becomes hard and dense like the pitchy-peat.

In Holland, West Friesland, Holstein, Denmark, and Pomerania, a type of mud-peat (Schlammtorf, also Baggertorf and Streichtorf) is "harvested" from the bottoms [Pg 17]of ponds, appearing as a black mud or paste that, when dried, hardens and becomes dense like pitchy-peat.

The two varieties of peat last named are those which are most prized as fuel in Europe.

The two types of peat mentioned last are the ones that are most valued as fuel in Europe.

Vitriol peat is peat of any kind impregnated with sulphate of iron (copperas,) and sulphate of alumina, (the astringent ingredient of alum.)

Vitriol peat is any type of peat soaked with iron sulfate (copperas) and aluminum sulfate (the astringent part of alum).

Swamp Muck.—In New England, the vegetable remains occurring in swamps, etc., are commonly called Muck. In proper English usage, muck is a general term for manure of any sort, and has no special application to the contents of bogs. With us, however, this meaning appears to be quite obsolete, though in our agricultural literature—formerly, more than now, it must be admitted,—the word as applied to the subject of our treatise, has been qualified as Swamp Muck.

Swamp Muck.—In New England, the organic material found in swamps and similar areas is commonly referred to as Muck. In standard English, muck is a broad term for any type of manure and isn't specifically related to swamp contents. However, this broader meaning seems to be quite outdated here. Although it has been stated in our agricultural literature—once more frequently than now—that the term relates specifically to the topic of our study as Swamp Muck.

In Germany, peat of whatever character, is designated by the single word Torf; in France it is Tourbe, and of the same origin is the word Turf, applied to it in Great Britain. With us turf appears never to have had this signification.

In Germany, peat of any kind is referred to as Torf; in France, it is Tourbe, and the same root word is used in Great Britain as Turf. Here, turf has never had this meaning.

Peat, no doubt, is a correct name for the substance which results from the decomposition of vegetable matters under or saturated with water, whatever its appearance or properties. There is, however, with us, an inclination to apply this word particularly to those purer and more compact sorts which are adapted for fuel, while to the lighter, less decomposed or more weathered kinds, and to those which are considerably intermixed with soil or silt, the term muck or swamp muck is given. These distinctions are not, indeed, always observed, and, in fact, so great is the range of variation in the quality of the substance, that it would be impossible to draw a line where muck leaves off and peat begins. Notwithstanding, a [Pg 18]rough distinction is better than none, and we shall therefore employ the two terms when any greater clearness of meaning can be thereby conveyed.

Peat is definitely the right term for the material that comes from the breakdown of plant matter under or saturated with water, regardless of its appearance or properties. However, we tend to use this word specifically for the purer, denser types that are suitable for fuel, while the lighter, less decomposed or more weathered kinds, along with those mixed with soil or silt, are referred to as muck or swamp muck. These distinctions aren't always followed, and in fact, the quality of the substance varies so much that it's impossible to clearly define where muck ends and peat starts. Still, a [Pg 18]rough distinction is better than none, so we'll use both terms when it helps clarify the meaning.

It happens, that in New England, the number of small shallow swales, that contain unripe or impure peat, is much greater than that of large and deep bogs. Their contents are therefore more of the "mucky" than of the "peaty" order, and this may partly account for New England usage in regard to these old English words.

It turns out that in New England, there are a lot more small, shallow swales that hold unripe or impure peat than there are large, deep bogs. As a result, what they contain is more "mucky" than "peaty," which might explain the way New Englanders use these old English words.

By the term muck, some farmers understand leaf-mold (decayed leaves), especially that which collects in low and wet places. When the deposit is deep and saturated with water, it may have all the essential characters of peat. Ripe peat, from such a source is, however, so far as the writer is informed, unknown to any extent in this country. We might distinguish as leaf-muck the leaves which have decomposed under or saturated with water, retaining the well established term leaf-mold to designate the dry or drier covering of the soil in a dense forest of deciduous trees.

By the term muck, some farmers refer to leaf-mold (decayed leaves), particularly that which gathers in low and wet areas. When the accumulation is deep and soaked with water, it can resemble peat. However, as far as I know, ripe peat from such sources is not commonly found in this country. We could call the leaves that have decomposed in or under water as leaf-muck, while keeping the term leaf-mold to refer to the dry or drier layer of soil in a dense forest of deciduous trees.

Salt-mud.—In the marshes, bays, and estuaries along the sea-shore, accumulate large quantities of fine silt, brought down by rivers or deposited from the sea-water, which are more or less mixed with finely divided peat or partly decomposed vegetable matters, derived largely from Sea-weed, and in many cases also with animal remains (mussels and other shell-fish, crabs, and myriads of minute organisms.) This black mud has great value as a fertilizer.

Salt-mud.—In the marshes, bays, and estuaries along the coastline, large amounts of fine silt collect, brought down by rivers or deposited from seawater, which is more or less mixed with finely divided peat or partially decomposed plant matter, largely from seaweed, and often also with animal remains (mussels and other shellfish, crabs, and countless tiny organisms). This black mud is highly valuable as a fertilizer.

4. The Chemical Characters and Composition of Peat.

4. The Chemical Properties and Composition of Peat.

The process of burning, demonstrates that peat consists of two kinds of substance; one of which, the larger [Pg 19]portion, is combustible, and is organic or vegetable matter; the other, smaller portion, remaining indestructible by fire is inorganic matter or ash. We shall consider these separately.

The process of burning shows that peat is made up of two types of substances; one, the larger [Pg 19]part, is flammable and is organic or plant material; the other, smaller part, which can’t be destroyed by fire, is inorganic matter or ash. We will look at these separately.

a. The organic or combustible part of peat varies considerably in its proximate composition. It is in fact an indefinite mixture of several or perhaps of many compound bodies, whose precise nature is little known. These bodies have received the collective names Humus and Geine. We shall employ the term humus to designate this mixture, whether occurring in peat, swamp-muck, salt-mud, in composts, or in the arable soil. Its chemical characters are much the same, whatever its appearance or mode of occurrence; and this is to be expected since it is always formed from the same materials and under essentially similar conditions.

a. The organic or combustible part of peat varies significantly in its proximate composition. It's actually an indefinite mixture of several or possibly many compounds, whose exact nature is not well understood. These compounds have been collectively referred to as Humus and Geine. We will use the term humus to refer to this mixture, whether it’s found in peat, swamp muck, salt mud, composts, or arable soil. Its chemical characteristics are largely similar, regardless of its appearance or how it occurs; and this is expected since it is always formed from the same materials and under essentially similar conditions.

Resinous and Bituminous matters.—If dry pulverized peat be agitated and warmed for a short time with alcohol, there is usually extracted a small amount of resinous and sometimes of bituminous matters, which are of no account in the agricultural applications of peat, but have a bearing on its value as fuel.

Resinous and Bituminous matters.—If you mix dry, crushed peat with alcohol and warm it for a short period, you generally extract a small amount of resinous and occasionally bituminous materials. While these are not important for agricultural uses of peat, they do affect its value as a fuel.

Ulmic and Humic acids.—On boiling what remains from the treatment with alcohol, with a weak solution of carbonate of soda (sal-soda), we obtain a yellowish-brown or black liquid. This liquid contains certain acid ingredients of the peat which become soluble by entering into chemical combination with soda.

Ulmic and Humic acids.—When we boil the residue left after treating it with alcohol in a weak solution of sodium carbonate (sal-soda), we get a yellowish-brown or black liquid. This liquid contains certain acidic compounds from the peat that become soluble by reacting with soda.

On adding to the solution strong vinegar, or any other strong acid, there separates a bulky brown or black substance, which, after a time, subsides to the bottom of the vessel as a precipitate, to use a chemical term, leaving the liquid of a more or less yellow tinge. This deposit, if obtained from light brown peat, is ulmic acid; if from [Pg 20]black peat, it is humic acid. These acids, when in the precipitated state, are insoluble in vinegar; but when this is washed away, they are considerably soluble in water. They are, in fact, modified by the action of the soda, so as to acquire much greater solubility in water than they otherwise possess. On drying the bulky bodies thus obtained, brown or black lustrous masses result, which have much the appearance of coal.

When you add strong vinegar or any other strong acid to the solution, a large brown or black substance forms. After a while, this substance settles at the bottom of the container as a precipitate, leaving the liquid with a yellowish tint. This deposit, if derived from light brown peat, is ulmic acid; if from [Pg 20]black peat, it is humic acid. These acids, when precipitated, do not dissolve in vinegar; however, once the vinegar is washed away, they dissolve significantly better in water. In fact, they are altered by the action of the soda, gaining much greater solubility in water than they normally have. When you dry the large masses obtained, they become brown or black shiny chunks that resemble coal.

Ulmin and Humin.—After extracting the peat with solution of carbonate of soda, it still contains ulmin or humin. These bodies cannot be obtained in the pure state from peat, since they are mixed with more or less partially decomposed vegetable matters from which they cannot be separated without suffering chemical change. They have been procured, however, by the action of muriatic acid on sugar. They are indifferent in their chemical characters, are insoluble in water and in solution of carbonate of soda; but upon heating with solution of hydrate of soda they give dark-colored liquids, being in fact converted by this treatment into ulmic and humic acids, respectively, with which they are identical in composition.

Ulmin and Humin.—After extracting the peat with a solution of sodium carbonate, it still contains ulmin or humin. These substances cannot be obtained in their pure form from peat because they are mixed with various degrees of partially decomposed plant matter, which cannot be separated without undergoing a chemical change. They have, however, been produced by the reaction of hydrochloric acid with sugar. They are neutral in their chemical properties, insoluble in water and in sodium carbonate solution; however, when heated with a sodium hydroxide solution, they produce dark-colored liquids, essentially converting into ulmic and humic acids, which are identical in composition.

The terms ulmic and humic acids do not refer each to a single compound, but rather to a group of bodies of closely similar appearance and properties, which, however, do differ slightly in their characteristics, and differ also in composition by containing more or less of oxygen and hydrogen in equal equivalents.

The terms ulmic and humic acids don't refer to just one compound, but to a group of substances that look and behave similarly. However, they do have slight differences in their characteristics and vary in composition by containing different amounts of oxygen and hydrogen in equal proportions.

After complete extraction with hydrate of soda, there remains more or less undecomposed vegetable matter, together with sand and soil, were these contained in the peat.

After fully extracting with soda hydrate, there’s some leftover undecomposed plant matter, along with sand and dirt if they were present in the peat.

Crenic and apocrenic acids.—From the usually yellowish liquid out of which the ulmic and humic acids have been separated, may further be procured by appropriate [Pg 21]chemical means, not needful to be detailed here, two other bodies which bear the names respectively of Crenic Acid and Apocrenic Acid. These acids were discovered by Berzelius, the great Swedish chemist, in the water and sediment of the Porla spring, in Sweden.

Crenic and apocrenic acids.—From the typically yellowish liquid from which ulmic and humic acids have been extracted, two additional substances can be obtained through suitable [Pg 21]chemical methods, which don't need to be elaborated on here. These substances are called Crenic Acid and Apocrenic Acid. They were discovered by Berzelius, the renowned Swedish chemist, in the water and sediment of the Porla spring in Sweden.

By the action upon peat of carbonate of ammonia, which is generated to some extent in the decay of vegetable matters and is also absorbed from the air, ulmic and humic acids are made soluble, and combine with the ammonia as well as with lime, oxide of iron, etc. In some cases the ulmates and humates thus produced may be extracted from the peat by water, and consequently occur dissolved in the water of the swamp from which the peat is taken, giving it a yellow or brown color.

By the action of ammonium carbonate on peat, which is produced to some degree during the breakdown of plant material and is also taken in from the air, ulmic and humic acids become soluble and combine with the ammonia along with lime, iron oxide, and other substances. In some instances, the ulmates and humates formed can be extracted from the peat by water, resulting in them being dissolved in the water of the swamp where the peat is collected, giving it a yellow or brown hue.

Ulmates and Humates.—Of considerable interest to us here, are the properties of the compounds of these acids, that may be formed in peat when it is used as an ingredient of composts. The ulmates and humates of the alkalies, viz.: potash, soda, and ammonia, dissolve readily in water. They are formed when the alkalies or their carbonates act on ulmin and humin, or upon ulmates or humates of lime, iron, etc. Their dilute solutions are yellow, or brown.

Ulmates and Humates.—We are particularly interested in the properties of these acids and their compounds that can form in peat when it's used in composts. The ulmates and humates of alkalies, such as potash, soda, and ammonia, dissolve easily in water. They are created when these alkalies or their carbonates interact with ulmin and humin, or with ulmates or humates of lime, iron, etc. Their diluted solutions appear yellow or brown.

The ulmates and humates of lime, magnesia, oxide of iron, oxide of manganese and alumina, are insoluble, or nearly so in water.

The ulmates and humates of lime, magnesia, oxide of iron, oxide of manganese, and alumina are insoluble or almost insoluble in water.

In ordinary soils, the earths and oxides just named, predominate over the alkalies, and although they may contain considerable ulmic and humic acids, water is able to extract but very minute quantities of the latter, on account of the insolubility of the compounds they have formed.

In regular soils, the minerals and oxides just mentioned prevail over the alkalis, and while they might have significant amounts of ulmic and humic acids, water can only extract very small amounts of the latter due to the insolubility of the compounds they’ve formed.

On the other hand, peat, highly manured garden soil, leaf-mold, rotted manure and composts, yield yellow or brown extracts with water, from the fact that alkalies are here present to form soluble compounds.

On the other hand, peat, well-fertilized garden soil, leaf mold, decomposed manure, and composts produce yellow or brown extracts with water because alkalies are present to create soluble compounds.

[Pg 22]An important fact established by Mulder is, that when solutions of alkali-carbonates are put in contact with the insoluble ulmates and humates, the latter are decomposed; soluble alkali-ulmates and humates being formed, and in these, a portion of the otherwise insoluble ulmates and humates dissolve, so that thus, in a compost, lime, magnesia, oxide of iron, and even alumina may exist in soluble combinations, by the agency of these acids.

[Pg 22]An important fact established by Mulder is that when alkali carbonate solutions come into contact with insoluble ulmates and humates, the latter break down; soluble alkali-ulmates and humates are produced, and in these, part of the otherwise insoluble ulmates and humates dissolve, allowing lime, magnesia, iron oxide, and even alumina to exist in soluble combinations within a compost, thanks to these acids.

Crenates and Apocrenates.—The ulmic and humic acids when separated from their compounds, are nearly insoluble, and, so far as we know, comparatively inert bodies; by further change, (uniting with oxygen) they pass into or yield the crenic and apocrenic acids which, according to Mulder, have an acid taste, being freely soluble in water, and in all respects, decided acids. The compounds of both these acids with the alkalies are soluble. The crenates of lime, magnesia, and protoxide of iron are soluble, crenates of peroxide of iron and of oxide of manganese are but very slightly soluble; crenate of alumina is insoluble. The apocrenates of iron and manganese are slightly soluble; those of lime, magnesia, and alumina are insoluble. All the insoluble crenates and apocrenates, are soluble in solutions of the corresponding salts of the alkalies.

Crenates and Apocrenates.—Ulmic and humic acids, when separated from their compounds, are almost insoluble and, as far as we know, fairly inactive substances. With further changes (combining with oxygen), they convert into or produce crenic and apocrenic acids, which, according to Mulder, have an acidic taste, are easily soluble in water, and are definitely acids. The compounds of both of these acids with alkalis are soluble. The crenates of lime, magnesia, and iron(II) oxide are soluble, while the crenates of iron(III) oxide and manganese oxide are only slightly soluble; the crenate of alumina is insoluble. The apocrenates of iron and manganese are slightly soluble, while those of lime, magnesia, and alumina are insoluble. All the insoluble crenates and apocrenates dissolve in solutions of the corresponding alkali salts.

Application of these facts will be given in subsequent paragraphs. It may be here remarked, that the crenate of protoxide of iron is not unfrequently formed in considerable quantity in peat-bogs, and dissolving in the water of springs gives them a chalybeate character. Copious springs of this kind occur at the edge of a peat-bed at Woodstock, Conn., which are in no small repute for their medicinal qualities, having a tonic effect from the iron they contain. Such waters, on exposure to the air, shortly absorb oxygen, and the substance is thereby [Pg 23]converted into crenate and afterwards into apocrenate of peroxide of iron, which, being but slightly soluble, or insoluble, separates as a yellow or brown ochreous deposit along the course of the water. By further exposure to air the organic acid is oxidized to carbonic acid, and hydrated oxide of iron remains. Bog-iron ore appears often to have originated in this way.

Application of these facts will be provided in the following paragraphs. It should be noted that the crenate of ferrous oxide is often found in significant amounts in peat bogs, and when it dissolves in spring water, it gives the water a mineral-rich quality. Abundant springs of this type can be found at the edge of a peat bed in Woodstock, Connecticut, which are well-known for their medicinal properties, offering a tonic effect due to the iron content. These waters, when exposed to air, quickly absorb oxygen, and this substance is subsequently [Pg 23]converted into crenate and then into apocrenate of ferric oxide, which is either slightly soluble or insoluble, causing it to form a yellow or brown ochre-like deposit along the flow of the water. With continued exposure to air, the organic acid oxidizes into carbonic acid, leaving hydrated ferric oxide behind. Bog iron ore often seems to have formed in this manner.

Gein and Geic acid.—Mulder formerly believed another substance to exist in peat which he called Gein, and from this by the action of alkalies he supposed geic acid to be formed. In his later writings, however, he expresses doubt as to the existence of such a substance, and we may omit further notice of it, especially since, if it really do occur, its properties are not distinct from those of humic acid.

Gein and Geic acid.—Mulder used to think that there was another substance in peat which he named Gein, and that it was transformed into geic acid through the action of alkalies. However, in his later writings, he showed uncertainty about the existence of this substance, so we can skip any further discussion about it, especially since, if it does exist, its properties aren't different from those of humic acid.

We should not neglect to remark, however, that the word gein has been employed by some writers in the sense in which we use humus, viz.: to denote the brown or black products of the decomposition of vegetable matters.

We should not forget to note, however, that the word gein has been used by some writers in the same way we use humus, namely: to refer to the brown or black products of the decomposition of plant materials.

It is scarcely to be doubted that other organic compounds exist in peat. As yet, however, we have no knowledge of any other ingredients, while it appears certain that those we have described are its chief constituents, and give it its peculiar properties. With regard to them it must nevertheless be admitted, that our chemical knowledge is not entirely satisfactory, and new investigations are urgently demanded to supply the deficiencies of the researches so ably made by Mulder, more than twenty years ago.

It’s hard to doubt that other organic compounds are present in peat. However, we currently have no knowledge of any other components, while it seems clear that the ones we’ve described are its main ingredients and provide its unique characteristics. That said, we must admit that our chemical understanding isn’t completely satisfactory, and new research is urgently needed to fill the gaps in the studies conducted by Mulder over twenty years ago.

Elementary Composition of Peat.

Basic Composition of Peat.

After this brief notice of those organic compounds that have been recognized in or produced from peat, we may give attention to the elementary composition of peat itself.

After this quick overview of the organic compounds found in or made from peat, we can focus on the basic composition of peat itself.

[Pg 24]Like that of the vegetation from which it originates, the organic part of peat consists of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen. In the subjoined table are given the proportions of these elements as found in the combustible part of sphagnum, of several kinds of wood, and in that of a number of peats in various stages of ripeness. They are arranged in the order of their content of carbon.

[Pg 24]Similar to the plants it comes from, the organic part of peat is made up of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. The table below shows the proportions of these elements found in the combustible parts of sphagnum, various types of wood, and different peats at different levels of maturity. They are listed in order of their carbon content.

           
  Analyst. Carbon. Hydrogen. Oxygen. Nitrogen.
  1—Sphagnum, undecomposed Websky 49.88 6.54 42.42 1.16
  2—Peach wood, undecomposed Chevandier 49.90 6.10 43.10 0.90
  3—Poplar wood, undecomposed Chevandier 50.30 6.30 42.40 1.00
  4—Oak wood, undecomposed Chevandier 50.60 6.00 42.10 1.30
  5—Peat, porous, light-brown, sphagnous Websky 50.86 5.80 42.57 0.77
  6—Peat, porous, red-brown Jæckel 53.51 5.90 40.59
  7—Peat, heavy, brown Jæckel 56.43 5.32 38.25
  8—Peat, dark red-brown, well decomposed Websky 59.47 6.52 31.51 2.51
  9—Peat, black, very dense and hard Websky 59.70 5.70 33.04 1.56
10—Peat, black, heavy, best quality for fuel Websky 59.71 5.27 32.07 2.59
11—Peat, brown, heavy, best quality for fuel Websky 62.54 6.81 29.24 1.41

From this table it is seen that sphagnum, and the wood of our forest trees are very similar in composition, though not identical. Further, it is seen from analyses 1 and 5, that in the first stages of the conversion of sphagnum into peat—which are marked by a change of color, but in which the form of the sphagnum is to a considerable extent preserved—but little alteration occurs in ultimate composition; about one per cent. of carbon being gained, and one of hydrogen lost. We notice in running down the columns that as the peat becomes heavier and darker in color, it also becomes richer in carbon and poorer in oxygen. Hydrogen varies but slightly.

From this table, it's clear that sphagnum and the wood of our forest trees have very similar compositions, although they're not identical. Additionally, analyses 1 and 5 show that in the early stages of converting sphagnum into peat—which are characterized by a change in color, while the shape of the sphagnum is mostly maintained—there's only a slight change in the ultimate composition; about one percent of carbon is gained, and one of hydrogen is lost. As we look down the columns, we see that as the peat becomes denser and darker, it also becomes richer in carbon and poorer in oxygen. The hydrogen content varies only slightly.

As a general statement we may say that the ripest and heaviest peat contains 10 or 12 per cent. more carbon and 10 or 12 per cent. less oxygen than the vegetable matter from which it is produced; while between the unaltered vegetation and the last stage of humification, the peat runs through an indefinite number of intermediate stages.

As a general statement, we can say that the most mature and dense peat contains 10 or 12 percent more carbon and 10 or 12 percent less oxygen than the plant matter it comes from. Meanwhile, the peat goes through countless intermediate stages between the unaltered vegetation and the final stage of humification.

[Pg 25]Nitrogen is variable, but, in general, the older peats contain the most. To this topic we shall shortly recur, and now pass on to notice—

[Pg 25]Nitrogen levels vary, but generally, the older peats have the highest content. We will come back to this topic shortly, and now let's move on to address—

The ultimate composition of the compounds of which peat consists.

The final makeup of the compounds that make up peat.

Below are tabulated analyses of the organic acids of peat:—

Below are the tabulated analyses of the organic acids found in peat:—


  Carbon. Hydrogen. Oxygen.
Ulmic acid, artificial from sugar 67.10 4.20 28.70
Humic acid, from Frisian peat 61.10 4.30 34.60
Crenic acid 56.47 2.74 40.78
Apocrenic acid 45.70 4.80 49.50

It is seen that the amount of carbon diminishes from ulmic acid to apocrenic, that of oxygen increases in the same direction and to the same extent, viz.: about 21 per cent., while the hydrogen remains nearly the same in all.

It is observed that the carbon content decreases from ulmic acid to apocrenic, while the oxygen content increases in the same direction and to the same extent, about 21 percent., while the hydrogen stays nearly constant in all.

b. The mineral part of peat, which remains as ashes when the organic matters are burned away, is variable in quantity and composition. Usually a portion of sand or soil is found in it, and this not unfrequently constitutes its larger portion. Some peats leave on burning much carbonate of lime; others chiefly sulphate of lime; the ash of others again is mostly oxyd of iron; silicic, and phosphoric acids, magnesia, potash, soda, alumina and chlorine, also occur in small quantities in the ash of all peats.

b. The mineral part of peat, which turns into ashes when the organic material is burned away, varies in both amount and composition. Typically, a bit of sand or soil is present in it, and this often makes up a significant part. Some peats leave behind a lot of calcium carbonate when burned; others mainly have calcium sulfate; while the ashes of others are mostly iron oxide. Silicic acid, phosphoric acid, magnesia, potash, soda, alumina, and chlorine are also found in small amounts in the ashes of all peats.

With one exception (alumina) all these bodies are important ingredients of agricultural plants.

With one exception (alumina), all these substances are essential components of agricultural plants.

In some rare instances, peats are found, which are so impregnated with soluble sulphates of iron and alumina, as to yield these salts to water in large quantity; and sulphate of iron (green vitriol,) has actually been manufactured from such peats, which in consequence have been characterized as vitriol peats.

In some rare cases, peats are discovered that are so saturated with soluble sulfates of iron and aluminum that they release these salts into water in large amounts; and sulfate of iron (green vitriol) has actually been produced from such peats, which have therefore been labeled as vitriol peats.

[Pg 26]Those bases (lime, oxide of iron, etc.,) which are found as carbonates or simple oxides in the ashes, exist in the peat itself in combination with the humic and other organic acids. When these compounds are destroyed by burning, the bases remain united to carbonic acid.

[Pg 26]Those substances (lime, iron oxide, etc.) that are present as carbonates or simple oxides in the ashes are found in the peat itself in combination with humic and other organic acids. When these compounds break down due to burning, the substances remain bonded to carbonic acid.

5.—Chemical Changes that occur in the formation of Peat. When a plant perishes, its conversion into humus usually begins at once. When exposed to the atmosphere, the oxygen of the air attacks it, uniting with its carbon producing carbonic acid gas, and with its hydrogen generating water. This action goes on, though slowly, even at some depth under water, because the latter dissolves oxygen from the air in small quantity,[2] and constantly resupplies itself as rapidly as the gas is consumed.

5.—Chemical Changes that occur in the formation of Peat. When a plant dies, its transformation into humus usually starts right away. When it’s exposed to the air, the oxygen combines with its carbon to form carbon dioxide, and with its hydrogen to produce water. This process continues, although slowly, even at some depth underwater, because water dissolves small amounts of oxygen from the air,[2] and continuously replenishes itself as fast as the gas is used up.

Whether exposed to the air or not, the organic matter suffers internal decomposition, and portions of its elements assume the gaseous or liquid form. We have seen that ripe peat is 10 to 12 per cent. richer in carbon and equally poorer in oxygen, than the vegetable matters from which it originates. Organic matters, in passing into peat, lose carbon and nitrogen; but they lose oxygen more rapidly than the other two elements, and hence the latter become relatively more abundant. The loss of hydrogen is such that its proportion to the other elements is but little altered.

Whether it's exposed to air or not, organic matter undergoes internal decomposition, and some of its elements turn into gas or liquid. We've observed that mature peat is 10 to 12 percent richer in carbon and significantly lower in oxygen than the vegetable matter from which it comes. As organic matter transforms into peat, it loses carbon and nitrogen; however, it loses oxygen more quickly than the other two elements, making those two relatively more abundant. The loss of hydrogen is such that its ratio to the other elements doesn’t change much.

The bodies that separate from the decomposing vegetable matter are carbonic acid gas, carburetted hydrogen (marsh gas), nitrogen gas, and water.

The gases that come from the decaying plant material are carbon dioxide, methane (marsh gas), nitrogen gas, and water.

Carbonic acid is the most abundant gaseous product of the peaty decomposition. Since it contains nearly 73 per cent. of oxygen and but 27 per cent. of carbon, it is [Pg 27]obvious that by its escape the proportion of carbon in the residual mass is increased. In the formation of water from the decaying matters, 1 part of hydrogen carries off 8 parts of oxygen, and this change increases the proportion of carbon and of hydrogen. Marsh gas consists of one part of hydrogen to three of carbon, but it is evolved in comparatively small quantity, and hence has no effect in diminishing the per cent. of carbon.

Carbonic acid is the most common gas produced from the decay of peat. Since it has almost 73 percent oxygen and just 27 percent carbon, it is [Pg 27]clear that its release increases the carbon content in the remaining material. When water forms from decaying matter, 1 part hydrogen combines with 8 parts oxygen, which raises the levels of carbon and hydrogen. Marsh gas consists of 1 part hydrogen to 3 parts carbon, but it is produced in relatively small amounts, so it doesn’t significantly reduce the percent of carbon.

The gas that bubbles up through the water of a peat-bog, especially if the decomposing matters at the bottom be stirred, consists largely of marsh gas and nitrogen, often with but a small proportion of carbonic acid. Thus Websky found in gas from a peat-bed

The gas that bubbles up through the water of a peat bog, especially when the decomposing materials at the bottom are disturbed, is mostly made up of marsh gas and nitrogen, usually with only a small amount of carbon dioxide. This is what Websky discovered in gas from a peat bed.


Carbonic acid 2.97
Marsh gas 43.36
Nitrogen 53.67
  100.00

Carbonic acid, however, dissolves to a considerable extent in water, and is furthermore absorbed by the living vegetation, which is not true of marsh gas and nitrogen; hence the latter escape while the former does not. Nitrogen escapes in the uncombined state, as it always (or usually) does in the decay of vegetable and animal matters that contain it. Its loss is, in general, slower than that of the other elements, and it sometimes accumulates in the peat in considerable quantity. A small portion of nitrogen unites with hydrogen, forming ammonia, which remains combined with the humic and other acids.

Carbonic acid, on the other hand, dissolves quite a bit in water and is also taken up by living plants, which isn't the case for marsh gas and nitrogen; this is why the latter escapes while the former does not. Nitrogen typically escapes in its uncombined form during the decay of plant and animal matter that contains it. Its loss is generally slower than that of the other elements, and it can sometimes build up in the peat in significant amounts. A small portion of nitrogen combines with hydrogen to form ammonia, which stays bonded with humic and other acids.







PART II.

ON THE AGRICULTURAL USES OF PEAT AND SWAMP MUCK.


After the foregoing account of the composition of peat, we may proceed to notice:

After the previous explanation of how peat is made, we can now move on to discuss:

1.—The characters that adapt it for agricultural uses.

1.—The characters that modify it for farming purposes.

These characters are conveniently discussed under two heads, viz.:

These characters are conveniently discussed under two categories, namely:

Those which render it useful in improving the texture and physical characters of the soil, and indirectly contribute to the nourishment of crops,—characters which constitute it an amendment to the soil (A); and

Those that make it beneficial for enhancing the texture and physical qualities of the soil, while also indirectly helping to nourish crops—qualities that make it an amendment to the soil (A); and

Those which make it a direct fertilizer (B).

Those that serve as a direct fertilizer (B).

A.—Considered as an amendment, the value of peat depends upon

A.—Considered as a change, the value of peat depends on

Its remarkable power of absorbing and retaining water, both as a liquid and as a vapor (I):

Its impressive ability to absorb and hold onto water, both as a liquid and as a vapor (I):

Its power of absorbing ammonia (II):

Its ability to absorb ammonia (II):

[Pg 29]Its effect in promoting the disintegration and solution of mineral ingredients, that is the stony matters of the soil (III): and

[Pg 29]Its role in breaking down and dissolving mineral components, which are the solid materials in the soil (III): and

Its influence on the temperature of the soil (IV).

Its effect on soil temperature

The agricultural importance of these properties of peat is best illustrated by considering the faults of a certain class of soils.

The agricultural significance of these characteristics of peat is best shown by looking at the limitations of a specific type of soil.

Throughout the State of Connecticut, for instance, are found abundant examples of light, leachy, hungry soils, which consist of coarse sand or fine gravel; are surface-dry in a few hours after the heaviest rains, and in the summer drouths, are as dry as an ash-heap to a depth of several or many feet.

Throughout the state of Connecticut, there are many examples of light, leachy, dry soils, which are made up of coarse sand or fine gravel. They dry out within a few hours after heavy rain, and during summer droughts, they can be as dry as an ash heap for several feet deep.

These soils are easy to work, are ready for the plow early in the spring, and if well manured give fair crops in wet seasons. In a dry summer, however, they yield poorly, or fail of crops entirely; and, at the best, they require constant and very heavy manuring to keep them in heart.

These soils are easy to work with, become plow-ready early in the spring, and if well-fertilized, produce decent crops in wet seasons. However, in a dry summer, they perform poorly or may not yield any crops at all; and, at their best, they need constant and very heavy fertilizing to stay productive.

Crops fail on these soils from two causes, viz.; want of moisture and want of food. Cultivated plants demand as an indispensable condition of their growth and perfection, to be supplied with water in certain quantities, which differ with different crops. Buckwheat will flourish best on dry soils, while cranberries and rice grow in swamps.

Crops fail in these soils for two reasons: lack of moisture and lack of nutrients. Cultivated plants need water in specific amounts for their growth and success, which varies with each type of crop. Buckwheat thrives best in dry soils, while cranberries and rice grow in wetland areas.

Our ordinary cereal, root, forage and garden crops require a medium degree of moisture, and with us it is in all cases desirable that the soil be equally protected from excess of water and from drouth. Soils must be thus situated either naturally, or as the result of improvement, before any steadily good results can be obtained in their cultivation. The remedy for excess of water in too heavy soils, is thorough drainage. It is expensive, but effectual. It makes the earth more porous, opens and maintains [Pg 30]channels, through which the surplus water speedily runs off, and permits the roots of crops to go down to a considerable depth.

Our typical cereal, root, forage, and garden crops need a moderate amount of moisture, and it's important that the soil is protected from both too much water and drought. Soils need to be in this state either naturally or through improvements before we can achieve consistent good results in farming. The solution for excess water in overly heavy soils is proper drainage. It can be costly, but it works effectively. It makes the soil more porous, creates and maintains [Pg 30]channels for excess water to drain quickly, and allows crop roots to grow to a significant depth.

What, let us consider, is the means of obviating the defects of soils that are naturally too porous, from which the water runs off too readily, and whose crops "burn up" in dry seasons?

What, let's think about, is the way to fix the problems of soils that are naturally too porous, where water drains away too quickly, and whose crops "burn up" in dry seasons?

In wet summers, these light soils, as we have remarked, are quite productive if well manured. It is then plain that if we could add anything to them which would retain the moisture of dews and rains in spite of the summer-heats, our crops would be uniformly fair, provided the supply of manure were kept up.

In wet summers, these light soils, as we’ve noted, are quite productive if properly fertilized. It’s clear that if we could add something to them that would hold onto the moisture from dews and rains despite the summer heat, our crops would be consistently good, as long as we maintain the supply of fertilizer.

But why is it that light soils, need more manure than loamy or heavy lands? We answer—because, in the first place the rains which quickly descend through the open soil, wash down out of the reach of vegetation the soluble fertilizing matters, especially the nitrates, for which the soil has no retentive power; and in the second place, from the porosity of the soil, the air has too great access, so that the vegetable and animal matters of manures decay too rapidly, their volatile portions, ammonia and carbonic acid, escape into the atmosphere, and are in measure lost to the crops. From these combined causes we find that a heavy dressing of well-rotted stable manure, almost if not entirely, disappears from such soils in one season, so that another year the field requires a renewed application; while on loamy soils the same amount of manure would have lasted several years, and produced each year a better effect.

But why do light soils need more manure than loamy or heavy soils? We can explain this: first, the rain that quickly soaks through the loose soil washes away the soluble nutrients, especially nitrates, which the soil can't hold onto. Secondly, because the soil is so porous, air gets in easily, causing the organic matter in the manure to decompose too quickly. As a result, the volatile components like ammonia and carbon dioxide escape into the atmosphere, which means they aren’t available for the crops. Because of these combined factors, a large amount of well-rotted stable manure often almost completely disappears from light soils in just one season, meaning that the field will need more the following year. In contrast, the same amount of manure on loamy soils would last several years and produce better results each year.

We want then to amend light soils by incorporating with them something that prevents the rains from leaching through them too rapidly, and also that renders them less open to the air, or absorbs and retains for the use of crops the volatile products of the decay of manures.

We want to improve light soils by mixing in something that stops rain from washing through them too quickly, and that also makes them less exposed to the air, or absorbs and holds onto the nutrients from the breakdown of fertilizers for the benefit of crops.

[Pg 31]For these purposes, vegetable matter of some sort is the best and almost the only amendment that can be economically employed. In many cases a good peat or muck is the best form of this material, that lies at the farmer's command.

[Pg 31]For these purposes, some type of plant material is the best and almost the only improvement that can be used cost-effectively. In many cases, good peat or muck is the best form of this material available to the farmer.

I.—Its absorbent power for liquid water is well known to every farmer who has thrown it up in a pile to season for use. It holds the water like a sponge, and, according to its greater or less porosity, will retain from 50 to 100 or more per cent. of its weight of liquid, without dripping. Nor can this water escape from it rapidly. It dries almost as slowly as clay, and a heap of it that has been exposed to sun and wind for a whole summer, though it has of course lost much water, is still distinctly wet to the eye and the feel a little below the surface.

I.—Its ability to absorb liquid water is well known to every farmer who has piled it up to cure for use. It holds water like a sponge and, depending on its porosity, can retain 50 to 100 percent or more of its weight in liquid without dripping. This water doesn’t escape quickly either. It dries nearly as slowly as clay, and a pile of it exposed to the sun and wind for an entire summer, while it has obviously lost much water, still feels and looks distinctly wet just below the surface.

Its absorbent power for vapor of water is so great that more than once it has happened in Germany, that barns or close sheds filled with partially dried peat, such as is used for fuel, have been burst by the swelling of the peat in damp weather, occasioned by the absorption of moisture from the air. This power is further shown by the fact that when peat has been kept all summer long in a warm room, thinly spread out to the air, and has become like dry snuff to the feel, it still contains from 8 to 30 per cent. (average 15 per cent.) of water. To dry a peat thoroughly, it requires to be exposed for some time to the temperature of boiling water. It is thus plain, as experience has repeatedly demonstrated, that no ordinary summer heats can dry up a soil which has had a good dressing of this material, for on the one hand, it soaks up and holds the rains that fall upon it, and on the other, it absorbs the vapor of water out of the atmosphere whenever it is moist, as at night and in cloudy weather.

Its ability to absorb water vapor is so significant that more than once in Germany, barns or enclosed sheds filled with partially dried peat, which is used as fuel, have burst due to the swelling of the peat in humid weather caused by the moisture it absorbs from the air. This capability is further demonstrated by the fact that when peat has been kept all summer in a warm room, spread out thinly to the air, and feels like dry snuff, it still contains between 8 and 30 percent (average 15 percent) of water. To thoroughly dry peat, it must be exposed to boiling water for some time. It’s clear, as experience has shown repeatedly, that no typical summer heat can dry out soil that has received a good layer of this material since, on one hand, it absorbs and retains the rain that falls on it, and on the other, it draws in water vapor from the atmosphere whenever it's humid, such as at night or during cloudy weather.

When peat has once become air-dry, it no longer manifests this avidity for water. In drying it shrinks, loses [Pg 32]its porosity and requires long soaking to saturate it again. In the soil, however, it rarely becomes air-dry, unless indeed, this may happen during long drouth with a peaty soil, such as results from the draining of a bog.

When peat is once air-dry, it no longer shows a strong desire for water. In the drying process, it shrinks, loses [Pg 32]its porosity, and takes a long time to fully soak up water again. However, in the soil, it usually doesn't become air-dry, unless it happens during a prolonged drought with peaty soil, like what happens when a bog is drained.

II.—Absorbent power for ammonia.

II.—Ammonia absorbent power.

All soils that deserve to be called fertile, have the property of absorbing and retaining ammonia and the volatile matters which escape from fermenting manures, but light and coarse soils may be deficient in this power. Here again in respect to its absorptive power for ammonia, peat comes to our aid.

All soils that can be considered fertile have the ability to absorb and hold onto ammonia and the volatile substances released from decomposing manures, but lighter, coarser soils might lack this ability. Once again, when it comes to its capacity to absorb ammonia, peat proves to be beneficial.

It is easy to show by direct experiment that peat absorbs and combines with ammonia.

It’s easy to demonstrate through direct experimentation that peat absorbs and interacts with ammonia.

In 1858 I took a weighed quantity of air-dry peat from the New Haven Beaver Pond, (a specimen furnished me by Chauncey Goodyear, Esq.,) and poured upon it a known quantity of dilute solution of ammonia, and agitated the two together occasionally during 48 hours. I then distilled off at a boiling heat the unabsorbed ammonia and determined its quantity. This amount subtracted from that of the ammonia originally employed, gave the quantity of ammonia absorbed and retained by the peat at the temperature of boiling water.

In 1858, I took a specific amount of air-dry peat from the New Haven Beaver Pond (a sample provided by Chauncey Goodyear, Esq.) and added a measured amount of dilute ammonia solution, mixing them occasionally over 48 hours. After that, I distilled off the unabsorbed ammonia at boiling temperature and measured how much was left. The difference between the initial amount of ammonia I used and what remained gave me the quantity of ammonia that the peat absorbed and held at boiling water temperature.

The peat retained ammonia to the amount of 0.95 of one per cent.

The peat held onto ammonia at a level of 0.95 of one percent.

I made another trial at the same time with carbonate of ammonia, adding excess of solution of this salt to a quantity of peat, and exposing it to the heat of boiling water, until no smell of ammonia was perceptible. The entire nitrogen in the peat was then determined, and it was found that the dry peat which originally contained nitrogen equivalent to 2.4 per cent. of ammonia, now yielded an amount corresponding to 3.7 per cent. The [Pg 33]quantity of ammonia absorbed and retained at a temperature of 212°, was thus 1.3 per cent.

I conducted another test at the same time using ammonium carbonate, adding excess of this salt solution to some peat and heating it in boiling water until there was no detectable ammonia smell. The total nitrogen in the peat was then measured, and it was found that the dry peat, which originally had nitrogen equivalent to 2.4 percent. of ammonia, now produced an amount that corresponded to 3.7 percent. The [Pg 33] amount of ammonia absorbed and held at a temperature of 212° was therefore 1.3 percent.

This last experiment most nearly represents the true power of absorption; because, in fermenting manures, ammonia mostly occurs in the form of carbonate, and this is more largely retained than free ammonia, on account of its power of decomposing the humate of lime, forming with it carbonate of lime and humate of ammonia.

This last experiment most closely represents the true power of absorption; because, in fermenting manures, ammonia mostly exists as carbonate, and this is retained more effectively than free ammonia, due to its ability to break down the humate of lime, forming carbonate of lime and humate of ammonia.

The absorbent power of peat is well shown by the analyses of three specimens, sent me in 1858, by Edwin Hoyt, Esq., of New Canaan, Conn. The first of these was the swamp muck he employed. It contained in the air-dry state nitrogen equivalent to 0.58 per cent. of ammonia. The second sample was the same muck that had lain under the flooring of the horse stables, and had been, in this way, partially saturated with urine. It contained nitrogen equivalent to 1.15 per cent. of ammonia. The third sample was, finally, the same muck composted with white-fish. It contained nitrogen corresponding to 1.31 per cent. of ammonia.[3]

The absorbent power of peat is clearly demonstrated by the analyses of three samples sent to me in 1858 by Edwin Hoyt, Esq., from New Canaan, Conn. The first sample was the swamp muck he used. In its air-dry state, it contained nitrogen equivalent to 0.58 percent of ammonia. The second sample was the same muck that had been under the flooring of the horse stables and had been partially saturated with urine. It contained nitrogen equivalent to 1.15 percent of ammonia. The third sample was the same muck composted with white fish. It contained nitrogen corresponding to 1.31 percent of ammonia.[3]

The quantities of ammonia thus absorbed, both in the laboratory and field experiments are small—from 0.7 to 1.3 per cent. The absorption is without doubt chiefly due to the organic matter of the peats, and in all the specimens on which these trials were made, the proportion of inorganic matter is large. The results therefore become a better expression of the power of peat, in general, to absorb ammonia, if we reckon them on the organic matter alone. Calculated in this way, the organic matter of the Beaver Pond peat (which constitutes but 68 per cent. of the dry peat) absorbs 1.4 per cent. of free ammonia, and 1.9 per cent. of ammonia out of the carbonate of ammonia.

The amounts of ammonia absorbed, both in lab and field experiments, are small—ranging from 0.7 to 1.3 percent. The absorption is primarily due to the organic matter in the peats, and in all the samples tested, the amount of inorganic matter is significant. Therefore, the results more accurately reflect the ability of peat to absorb ammonia if we focus solely on the organic matter. When calculated this way, the organic matter from the Beaver Pond peat (which makes up only 68 percent. of the dry peat) absorbs 1.4 percent. of free ammonia, and 1.9 percent. of ammonia from the carbonate of ammonia.

[Pg 34]Similar experiments, by Anderson, on a Scotch peat, showed it to possess, when wet, an absorptive power of 2 per cent., and, after drying in the air, it still retained 1.5 per cent.—[Trans. Highland and Ag'l Soc'y.]

[Pg 34]Similar experiments by Anderson on a Scottish peat showed that when it was wet, it had an absorptive capacity of 2 percent. After drying in the air, it still held onto 1.5 percent. —[Trans. Highland and Ag'l Soc'y.]

When we consider how small an ingredient of most manures nitrogen is, viz.: from one-half to three-quarters of one per cent. in case of stable manure, and how little of it, in the shape of guano for instance, is usually applied to crops—not more than 40 to 60 lbs. to the acre, (the usual dressings with guano are from 250 to 400 lbs. per acre, and nitrogen averages but 15 per cent. of the guano), we at once perceive that an absorptive power of one or even one-half per cent. is greatly more than adequate for every agricultural purpose.

When we look at how tiny an ingredient nitrogen is in most manures—about half to three-quarters of one percent in stable manure—and how little of it, like guano for example, is typically used for crops—only about 40 to 60 lbs. per acre (since usual applications of guano range from 250 to 400 lbs. per acre, with nitrogen making up only about 15 percent of the guano)—we quickly realize that an absorptive capacity of one or even half a percent is more than enough for all agricultural needs.

III.—Peat promotes the disintegration of the soil.

III.—Peat decomposes the soil.

The soil is a storehouse of food for crops; the stores it contains are, however, only partly available for immediate use. In fact, by far the larger share is locked up, as it were, in insoluble combinations, and only by a slow and gradual change can it become accessible to the plant. This change is largely brought about by the united action of water and carbonic acid gas. Nearly all the rocks and minerals out of which fertile soils are formed,—which therefore contain those inorganic matters that are essential to vegetable growth,—though very slowly acted on by pure water, are decomposed and dissolved to a much greater extent by water, charged with carbonic acid gas.

The soil is a reservoir of nutrients for crops; however, only some of what it holds is immediately usable. In fact, most of it is locked away in non-soluble forms, and it only becomes available to plants through a slow, gradual process. This transformation is primarily facilitated by the combined action of water and carbonic acid gas. Almost all the rocks and minerals that make up fertile soils—which contain the inorganic substances essential for plant growth—are very slowly affected by pure water, but they are decomposed and dissolved much more effectively by water that contains carbonic acid gas.

It is by these solvents that the formation of soil from broken rocks is to a great extent due. Clay is invariably a result of their direct action upon rocks. The efficiency of the soil depends greatly upon their chemical influence.

It is through these solvents that soil forms from broken rocks. Clay is always a direct result of their action on rocks. The quality of the soil largely depends on their chemical effects.

[Pg 35]The only abundant source of carbonic acid in the soil, is decaying vegetable matter.

[Pg 35]The main source of carbonic acid in the soil comes from decaying plant material.

Hungry, leachy soils, from their deficiency of vegetable matter and of moisture, do not adequately yield their own native resources to the support of crops, because the conditions for converting their fixed into floating capital are wanting. Such soils dressed with peat or green manured, at once acquire the power of retaining water, and keep that water ever charged with carbonic acid: thus not only the extraneous manures which the farmer applies are fully economized; but the soil becomes more productive from its own stores of fertility which now begin to be unlocked and available.

Hungry, leachy soils, lacking in organic matter and moisture, cannot provide enough of their native resources to support crops because they lack the conditions needed to convert their fixed assets into usable resources. When these soils are treated with peat or green manure, they gain the ability to retain water and keep that water infused with carbon dioxide. As a result, not only are the external fertilizers that the farmer uses fully utilized, but the soil also becomes more productive as its own reserves of fertility start to be unlocked and made available.

Dr. Peters, of Saxony, has made some instructive experiments that are here in point. He filled several large glass jars, (2-½ feet high and 5-½ inches wide) with a rather poor loamy sand, containing considerable humus, and planted in each one, June 14, 1857, an equal number of seeds of oats and peas. Jar No. 2 had daily passed into it through a tube, adapted to the bottom, about 3-¼ pints of common air. No. 3 received daily the same bulk of a mixture of air and carbonic acid gas, of which the latter amounted to one-fourth. No. 1 remained without any treatment of this kind, i. e.: in just the condition of the soil in an open field, having no air in its pores, save that penetrating it from the atmosphere. On October 3, the plants were removed from the soil, and after drying at the boiling point of water, were weighed. The crops from the pots into which air and carbonic acid were daily forced, were about twice as heavy as No. 1, which remained in the ordinary condition.

Dr. Peters from Saxony conducted some insightful experiments relevant to the topic. He filled several large glass jars (2.5 feet high and 5.5 inches wide) with a rather poor loamy sand rich in humus and planted an equal number of oat and pea seeds in each jar on June 14, 1857. Jar No. 2 had about 3.25 pints of regular air pumped into it daily through a tube at the bottom. No. 3 received the same amount of a mixture made up of air and carbon dioxide, with the latter making up one-fourth of the mixture. No. 1 remained untreated, meaning it was in the same condition as the soil in an open field, with no air in its pores except for what entered from the atmosphere. On October 3, the plants were taken out of the soil, dried at boiling point, and weighed. The crops from the jars where air and carbon dioxide were regularly supplied were about twice as heavy as those in No. 1, which stayed in the usual condition.

Examination of the soil further demonstrated, that in the last two soils, a considerably greater quantity of mineral and organic matters had become soluble in water, [Pg 36]than in the soil that was not artificially aërated. The actual results are given in the table below in grammes, and refer to 6000 grammes of soil in each case:—

Examination of the soil further showed that in the last two samples, a significantly greater amount of mineral and organic materials had dissolved in water, [Pg 36] than in the soil that was not artificially aerated. The actual results are provided in the table below in grams, referring to 6000 grams of soil in each case:—


ACTION OF CARBONIC ACID ON THE SOIL.

ACTION OF CARBONIC ACID ON THE SOIL.

       
Substances soluble in water, etc. No. 1,    
Without No. 2, No. 3,
Artificial Common Air and
Supply of Air Carbonic
Air. Added. acid added.
Mineral matters 2.04   3.71   4.99
Potash 0.07   0.17   0.14
Soda 0.17   0.23   0.28
Organic matters 2.76   4.32   2.43
       
Weight of Crops 5.89 10.49 12.35

It will be seen from the above that air alone exercised nearly as much solvent effect as the mixture of air with one-fourth its weight of carbonic acid; this is doubtless, in part due to the fact that the air, upon entering the soil rich in humus, caused the abundant formation of carbonic acid, as will be presently shown must have been the case. It is, however, probable that organic acids (crenic and apocrenic,) and nitric acid were also produced (by oxidation,) and shared with carbonic the work of solution.

It can be seen from the above that air alone had almost as much solvent effect as a mixture of air with one-fourth its weight of carbon dioxide. This is likely partly because when air enters humus-rich soil, it leads to the formation of carbon dioxide, which will be demonstrated shortly. However, it’s also likely that organic acids (like crenic and apocrenic) and nitric acid were produced through oxidation and contributed to the process of dissolution alongside carbon dioxide.

It is almost certain, that the acids of peat exert a powerful decomposing, and ultimately solvent effect on the minerals of the soil; but on this point we have no precise information, and must therefore be content merely to present the probability. This is sustained by the fact that the crenic, apocrenic and humic acids, though often partly uncombined, are never wholly so, but usually occur united in part to various bases, viz.: lime, magnesia, ammonia, potash, alumina and oxide of iron.

It's almost certain that the acids in peat have a strong decomposing and eventually solvent effect on the minerals in the soil; however, we don't have specific information on this and can only present it as a likelihood. This is supported by the fact that crenic, apocrenic, and humic acids, while often partially uncombined, are never completely so; they typically occur partly combined with various bases, such as lime, magnesia, ammonia, potash, alumina, and iron oxide.

The crenic and apocrenic acids (that are formed by the oxidation of ulmic and humic acids,) have such decided acid characters,—crenic acid especially, which has a strongly sour taste—that we cannot well doubt their dissolving action.

The crenic and apocrenic acids (which are created by the oxidation of ulmic and humic acids) have such distinct acidic properties—especially crenic acid, which has a very sour taste—that we can hardly question their ability to dissolve substances.

[Pg 37]IV.—The influence of peat on the temperature of light soils dressed with it may often be of considerable practical importance. A light dry soil is subject to great variations of temperature, and rapidly follows the changes of the atmosphere from cold to hot, and from hot to cold. In the summer noon a sandy soil becomes so warm as to be hardly endurable to the feel, and again it is on such soils that the earliest frosts take effect. If a soil thus subject to extremes of temperature have a dressing of peat, it will on the one hand not become so warm in the hot day, and on the other hand it will not cool so rapidly, nor so much in the night; its temperature will be rendered more uniform, and on the whole, more conducive to the welfare of vegetation. This regulative effect on temperature is partly due to the stores of water held by peat. In a hot day this water is constantly evaporating, and this, as all know, is a cooling process. At night the peat absorbs vapor of water from the air, and condenses it within its pores, this condensation is again accompanied with the evolution of heat.

[Pg 37]IV.—The impact of peat on the temperature of light soils treated with it can often be really significant in practical terms. A light, dry soil experiences large temperature swings, quickly responding to shifts in the atmosphere from cold to hot and back. During summer afternoons, sandy soil can get so hot that it's almost unbearable to touch, and it's also in these soils that the first frosts occur. If such a soil, prone to extreme temperatures, is treated with peat, it won't get as hot during the day and won't cool down as quickly or as much at night. Its temperature will stay more consistent overall, which is better for plant health. This temperature regulation is partly due to the water stored in peat. On hot days, this water continually evaporates, which, as everyone knows, cools things down. At night, the peat absorbs water vapor from the air and condenses it in its pores, a process that releases heat.

It appears to be a general, though not invariable fact, that dark colored soils, other things being equal, are constantly the warmest, or at any rate maintain the temperature most favorable to vegetation. It has been repeatedly observed that on light-colored soils plants mature more rapidly, if the earth be thinly covered with a coating of some black substance. Thus Lampadius, Professor in the School of Mines at Freiberg, a town situated in a mountainous part of Saxony, found that he could ripen melons, even in the coolest summers, by strewing a coating of coal-dust an inch deep over the surface of the soil. In some of the vineyards of the Rhine, the powder of a black slate is employed to hasten the ripening of the grape.

It seems to be a general, though not absolute, fact that darker colored soils, all else being equal, tend to be the warmest or at least maintain the most favorable temperature for plant growth. It has been repeatedly noted that on lighter colored soils, plants grow faster if the ground has a thin layer of some black substance on top. For example, Lampadius, a professor at the School of Mines in Freiberg, a town in the mountainous region of Saxony, discovered that he could ripen melons even in the coolest summers by spreading a one-inch layer of coal dust over the soil. In some vineyards along the Rhine, a powdered form of black slate is used to speed up grape ripening.

Girardin, an eminent French agriculturist, in a series of experiments on the cultivation of potatoes, found that the [Pg 38]time of their ripening varied eight to fourteen days, according to the character of the soil. He found, on the 25th of August, in a very dark soil, made so by the presence of much humus or decaying vegetable matter, twenty-six varieties ripe; in sandy soil but twenty, in clay nineteen, and in a white lime soil only sixteen.

Girardin, a notable French farmer, conducted a series of experiments on growing potatoes and discovered that the [Pg 38]time it took for them to ripen varied by eight to fourteen days, depending on the type of soil. On August 25th, he found twenty-six varieties ripe in rich dark soil, which had a lot of humus or decaying plant material; in sandy soil, there were only twenty varieties; in clay, there were nineteen; and in a white lime soil, just sixteen.

It cannot be doubted then, that the effect of dressing a light sandy or gravelly soil with peat, or otherwise enriching it in vegetable matter, is to render it warmer, in the sense in which that word is usually applied to soils. The upward range of the thermometer is not, indeed, increased, but the uniform warmth so salutary to our most valued crops is thereby secured.

It’s undeniable that adding peat to light sandy or gravelly soil, or enriching it with organic matter, makes it warmer in the way that’s typically meant when talking about soils. While the actual temperature doesn't go up, the steady warmth that’s so beneficial for our best crops is achieved.

In the light soils stable-manure wastes too rapidly because, for one reason, at the extremes of high temperature, oxidation and decay proceed with great rapidity, and the volatile portions of the fertilizer are used up faster than the plant can appropriate them, so that not only are they wasted during the early periods of growth, but they are wanting at a later period when their absence may prove the failure of a crop.

In sandy soils, stable manure breaks down too quickly because, for one reason, at very high temperatures, oxidation and decay happen fast, and the volatile parts of the fertilizer get used up quicker than the plants can take them in. This means not only are they wasted during the early growth stages, but they are also missing later on when their absence can lead to a failed crop.

B. The ingredients and qualities which make peat a direct fertilizer next come under discussion. We shall notice:

B. The ingredients and qualities that make peat a direct fertilizer will be discussed next. We will take note of:

The organic matters including nitrogen (ammonia and nitric acid) (I):

The organic materials including nitrogen (ammonia and nitric acid) (I):

The inorganic or mineral ingredients (II):

The mineral ingredients

Peculiarities in the decay of Peat (III), and

Peculiarities in the decay of Peat (III), and

Institute a comparison between peat and stable manure (IV).

Compare peat and barn manure (IV).

I.—Under this division we have to consider:

I.—In this section, we need to think about:

1. The organic matters as direct food to plants.

1. Organic matter serves as direct nutrition for plants.

Thirty years ago, when Chemistry and Vegetable [Pg 39]Physiology began to be applied to Agriculture, the opinion was firmly held among scientific men, that the organic parts of humus—by which we understand decayed vegetable matter, such as is found to a greater or less extent in all good soils, and abounds in many fertile ones, such as constitutes the leaf-mold of forests, such as is produced in the fermenting of stable manure, and that forms the principal part of swamp-muck and peat,—are the true nourishment of vegetation, at any rate of the higher orders of plants, those which supply food to man and to domestic animals.

Thirty years ago, when Chemistry and Vegetable [Pg 39]Physiology started being applied to Agriculture, scientists strongly believed that the organic components of humus—meaning decayed plant material, which is found to varying degrees in all good soils and is plentiful in many fertile ones, like the leaf-mold of forests, what’s produced from fermenting stable manure, and the main part of swamp-muck and peat—are the real nutrients for plants, especially the higher-order plants that provide food for humans and livestock.

In 1840, Liebig, in his celebrated treatise on the "Applications of Chemistry to Agriculture and Physiology," gave as his opinion that these organic bodies do not nourish vegetation except by the products of their decay. He asserted that they cannot enter the plant directly, but that the water, carbonic acid and ammonia resulting from their decay, are the substances actually imbibed by plants, and from these alone is built up the organic or combustible part of vegetation.

In 1840, Liebig, in his famous work on the "Applications of Chemistry to Agriculture and Physiology," expressed his view that these organic substances don't nourish plants directly but only through their decay products. He claimed that they can't be absorbed by the plant itself, but rather, the water, carbon dioxide, and ammonia produced from their decay are the actual substances taken in by plants, and it's from these that the organic or combustible part of vegetation is formed.

To this day there is a division of opinion among scientific men on this subject, some adopting the views of Liebig, others maintaining that certain soluble organic matters, viz., crenic and apocrenic acids are proper food of plants.

To this day, scientists are divided on this subject; some support Liebig's views, while others argue that certain soluble organic substances, such as crenic and apocrenic acids, are essential nutrients for plants.

On the one hand it has been abundantly demonstrated that these organic matters are not at all essential to the growth of agricultural plants, and can constitute but a small part of the actual food of vegetation taken in the aggregate.

On one hand, it has been clearly shown that these organic materials are not at all necessary for the growth of agricultural plants and can only make up a small portion of the total nutrition that plants use overall.

On the other hand, we are acquainted with no satisfactory evidence that the soluble organic matters of the soil [Pg 40]and of peat, especially the crenates and apocrenates, are not actually appropriated by, and, so far as they go, are not directly serviceable as food to plants.

On the other hand, we have no solid evidence that the soluble organic materials in the soil [Pg 40] and in peat, especially the crenates and apocrenates, are not actually used by plants and, as far as they go, are not directly beneficial as food for them.

Be this as it may, practice has abundantly demonstrated the value of humus as an ingredient of the soil, and if not directly, yet indirectly, it furnishes the material out of which plants build up their parts.

Be that as it may, experience has clearly shown the importance of humus as a component of the soil, and even if not directly, it still provides the material from which plants create their structures.

2. The organic matters of peat as indirect food to plants. Very nearly one-half, by weight, of our common crops, when perfectly dry, consists of carbon. The substance which supplies this element to plants is the gas, carbonic acid. Plants derive this gas mostly from the atmosphere, absorbing it by means of their leaves. But the free atmosphere, at only a little space above the soil, contains on the average but 1/2500 of its bulk of this gas, whereas plants flourish in air containing a larger quantity, and, in fact, their other wants being supplied, they grow better as the quantity is increased to 1/12 the bulk of the air. These considerations make sufficiently obvious how important it is that the soil have in itself a constant and abundant source of carbonic acid gas. As before said, organic matter, in a state of decay, is the single material which the farmer can incorporate with his soil in order to make the latter a supply of this most indispensable form of plant-food.

2. The organic matters of peat as indirect food to plants. Almost half of the weight of our common crops, when fully dry, is made up of carbon. The substance that provides this element to plants is carbon dioxide. Plants mainly get this gas from the atmosphere, absorbing it through their leaves. However, the air just above the soil contains, on average, only about 1/2500 of its volume in this gas, while plants thrive in air that has a higher concentration. In fact, when their other needs are met, they grow better as the concentration increases to 1/12 of the air's volume. These points clearly show how crucial it is for the soil to have a constant and abundant supply of carbon dioxide. As mentioned earlier, organic matter, in a state of decay, is the only material that farmers can mix into their soil to ensure a supply of this essential form of plant food.

When organic matters decay in the soil, their carbon ultimately assumes the form of Carbonic acid. This gas, constantly exhaling from the soil, is taken up by the foliage of the crops, and to some extent is absorbed likewise by their roots.

When organic matter breaks down in the soil, its carbon eventually turns into carbonic acid. This gas, which continuously rises from the soil, is absorbed by the leaves of the crops and, to some degree, is also taken in by their roots.

Boussingault & Lewy have examined the air inclosed in the interstices of various soils, and invariably found it [Pg 41]much richer (10 to 400 times) than that of the atmosphere above. Here follow some of their results:

Boussingault & Lewy studied the air trapped in the spaces between different soils and consistently found it [Pg 41]much richer (10 to 400 times) than the air in the atmosphere above. Here are some of their findings:


CARBONIC ACID IN SOILS.

Soil Carbonic Acid.

       
Key:
A - Volumes of Carbonic acid in 100 of air in pores of Soil.
B - Cubic feet of air in acre to depth of 14 inches.
C - Cubic feet of Carbonic acid in acre to depth of 14 inches.
D - Volumes of Carbonic acid to 100 of air above the soil.
E - Cubic feet of air over one acre to height of 14 inches.
F - Cubic feet of Carbonic acid over one acre to a height of 14 inches.
Designation and Condition of Soil. A B C
Sandy subsoil of forest 0.24   4,326     14
Loamy subsoil of forest 0.82   3,458     28
Surface soil of forest 0.86   5,768     56
Clayey soil of artichoke field 0.66 10,094     71
Soil of asparagus bed, unmanured for one year 0.79 10,948     86
Soil of asparagus bed, newly manured 1.54 10,948   172
Sandy soil, six days after manuring, and three days of rain 2.21 11,536   257
Sandy soil, ten days after manuring, and three days of rain 9.74 11,536 1144
Compost of vegetable mold 3.64 20,608   772
Carbonic Acid in Atmosphere D E F
  0.025 50,820     14

From the above it is seen that in soils containing little decomposing organic matters—as the forest sub-soils—the quantity of carbonic acid is no greater than that contained in an equal bulk of the atmosphere. It is greater in loamy and clayey soils; but is still small. In the artichoke field (probably light soil not lately manured), and even in an asparagus bed unmanured for one year, the amount of carbonic acid is not greatly larger. In newly manured fields, and especially in a vegetable compost, the quantity is vastly greater.

From the above, it’s clear that in soils with little decaying organic matter—like the subsoil in forests—the amount of carbonic acid is about the same as what’s found in an equal volume of the atmosphere. It's higher in loamy and clay soils, but still relatively low. In the artichoke field (likely light soil that hasn’t been recently fertilized), and even in an asparagus bed that hasn’t been fertilized for a year, the amount of carbonic acid isn’t much larger. In newly fertilized fields, especially those with vegetable compost, the quantity is significantly higher.

The organic matters which come from manures, or from the roots and other residues of crops, are the source of the carbonic acid of the soil. These matters continually waste in yielding this gas, and must be supplied anew. Boussingault found that the rich soil of his kitchen garden (near Strasburg) which had been heavily manured [Pg 42]from the barn-yard for many years, lost one-third of its carbon by exposure to the air for three months (July, August and September,) being daily watered. It originally contained 2.43 per cent. At the conclusion of the experiment it contained but 1.60 per cent., having lost 0.83 per cent.

The organic materials that come from manures, or from the roots and other leftovers of crops, are the source of carbon dioxide in the soil. These materials continuously deplete as they release this gas and need to be replenished. Boussingault discovered that the rich soil of his kitchen garden (near Strasburg), which had been heavily fertilized from the barnyard for many years, lost one-third of its carbon after being exposed to the air for three months (July, August, and September), despite being watered daily. It initially contained 2.43 percent. By the end of the experiment, it contained only 1.60 percent., having lost 0.83 percent.

Peat and swamp-muck, when properly prepared, furnish carbonic acid in large quantities during their slow oxidation in the soil.

Peat and swamp muck, when properly prepared, produce a lot of carbon dioxide during their slow breakdown in the soil.

3. The Nitrogen of Peat, including Ammonia and Nitric Acid.

3. The Nitrogen in Peat, including Ammonia and Nitric Acid.

The sources of the nitrogen of plants, and the real cause of the value of nitrogenous fertilizers, are topics that have excited more discussion than any other points in Agricultural Chemistry. This is the result of two circumstances. One is the obscurity in which some parts of the subject have rested; the other is the immense practical and commercial importance of this element, as a characteristic and essential ingredient of the most precious fertilizers. It is a rule that the most valuable manures, commercially considered, are those containing the most nitrogen. Peruvian guano, sulphate of ammonia, soda-saltpeter, fish and flesh manures, bones and urine, cost the farmer more money per ton than any other manures he buys or makes, superphosphate of lime excepted, and this does not find sale, for general purposes, unless it contains several per cent. of nitrogen. These are, in the highest sense, nitrogenous fertilizers, and, if deprived of their nitrogen, they would lose the greater share of their fertilizing power.

The sources of nitrogen for plants and the true reason why nitrogenous fertilizers are valuable are topics that have sparked more discussion than any other issues in Agricultural Chemistry. This stems from two factors. One is the uncertainty surrounding certain aspects of the subject; the other is the significant practical and commercial importance of nitrogen as a key and essential ingredient in the most valuable fertilizers. Generally, the most valuable fertilizers, commercially speaking, are those that have the highest nitrogen content. Peruvian guano, ammonium sulfate, sodium nitrate, fish and bone meals, and urine cost farmers more per ton than any other fertilizers they purchase or produce, with the exception of superphosphate of lime, which is not sold for general use unless it contains several percent of nitrogen. These are, in the truest sense, nitrogenous fertilizers, and without their nitrogen, they would lose much of their fertilizing effectiveness.

The importance of the nitrogen of manures depends upon the fact that those forms (compounds) of nitrogen which are capable of supplying it to vegetation are comparatively scarce.

The significance of nitrogen in fertilizers lies in the fact that the forms of nitrogen that can provide it to plants are relatively rare.

[Pg 43]It has long been known that peat contains a considerable quantity of nitrogen. The average amount in thirty specimens, analyzed under the author's direction, including peats and swamp mucks of all grades of quality, is equivalent to 1-½ per cent. of the air-dried substance, or more than thrice as much as exists in ordinary stable or yard manure. In several peats the amount is as high as 2.4 per cent., and in one case 2.9 per cent. were found.

[Pg 43]It's long been known that peat has a significant amount of nitrogen. The average quantity found in thirty samples, analyzed under the author's supervision, which includes peats and swamp muck of various quality levels, is about 1.5 percent of the air-dried substance, which is more than three times the amount found in regular stable or yard manure. In some peats, the amount is as high as 2.4 percent, and in one instance, it reached 2.9 percent.

Of these thirty samples, one-half were largely mixed with soil, and contained from 15 to 60 per cent. of mineral matters.

Of these thirty samples, half were mostly combined with soil and contained from 15 to 60 percent. of mineral matters.

Reducing them to an average of 15 per cent. of water and 5 per cent. of ash, they contain 2.1 per cent. of nitrogen, while the organic part, considered free from water and mineral substances, contains on the average 2.6 per cent. See table, page 90.

Reducing them to an average of 15 percent of water and 5 percent of ash, they contain 2.1 percent of nitrogen, while the organic part, considered free from water and mineral substances, contains on average 2.6 percent. See table, page 90.

The five peats, analyzed by Websky and Chevandier, as cited on page 24, considered free from water and ash, contain an average of 1.8 per cent. of nitrogen.

The five peats, analyzed by Websky and Chevandier, as cited on page 24, which are free from water and ash, contain an average of 1.8 percent. of nitrogen.

We should not neglect to notice that peat is often comparatively poor in nitrogen. Of the specimens, examined in the Yale Analytical Laboratory, several contained but half a per cent. or less. So in the analyses of Websky, one sample contained but 0.77 per cent. of the element in question.

We shouldn't overlook that peat is often relatively low in nitrogen. Of the samples analyzed at the Yale Analytical Laboratory, several had only half a percent. or less. In Websky's analyses, one sample had just 0.77 percent. of the element in question.

As concerns the state of combination in which nitrogen exists in peat, there is a difference of opinion. Mulder regards it as chiefly occurring in the form of ammonia (a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen), united to the organic acids from which it is very difficult to separate it. Recent investigations indicate that in general, peat contains but a small proportion of ready-formed ammonia.

As for the state of nitrogen in peat, opinions differ. Mulder thinks it mainly exists as ammonia (a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen), combined with organic acids that are hard to separate. Recent studies suggest that, overall, peat has only a small amount of readily available ammonia.

The great part of the nitrogen of peat exists in an insoluble and inert form: but, by the action of the [Pg 44]atmosphere upon it, especially when mixed with and divided by the soil, it gradually becomes available to vegetation to as great an extent as the nitrogen of ordinary fertilizers.

The majority of the nitrogen in peat is in an insoluble and inactive form. However, when the [Pg 44]atmosphere interacts with it, particularly when it's mixed and broken down by the soil, it slowly becomes accessible to plants, much like the nitrogen found in regular fertilizers.

It appears from late examinations that weathered peat may contain nitric acid (compound of nitrogen with oxygen) in a proportion which, though small, is yet of great importance, agriculturally speaking. What analytical data we possess are subjoined.

It looks like recent studies show that weathered peat may have nitric acid (a compound of nitrogen and oxygen) in a small but significant amount for agriculture. The analytical data we have is included below.


PROPORTIONS OF NITROGEN, ETC., IN PEAT.

PROPORTIONS OF NITROGEN, ETC., IN PEAT.

           
    Analyst. Total
Nitrogen.
Ammonia,
per cent.
Nitric Acid.
1—Brown Peat Air dry (?) Boussingault 2.20 0.018 0.000
2—Black Peat Air dry (?) Boussingault Undetermined 0.025 Undetermined
3—Peat Dried at 212° Reichardt[4] Undetermined 0.152 0.483
4—Peat Dried at 212° Reichardt Undetermined 0.165 0.525
5—Peat Dried at 212° Reichardt Undetermined 0.305 0.241
6—Peat Dried at 212° Reichardt Undetermined 0.335 0.421

Specimens 3, 4 and 5, are swamp (or heath) mucks, and have been weathered for use in flower-culture. 3 and 4 are alike, save that 3 has been weathered a year longer than 4. They contain respectively 41, 56 and 67 per cent. of organic matter.

Specimens 3, 4, and 5 are swamp (or heath) mucks that have been aged for use in flower cultivation. Specimens 3 and 4 are similar, except that 3 has been aged for a year longer than 4. They contain 41%, 56%, and 67% organic matter, respectively.

Sample 6, containing 86 per cent. of organic matter, is employed as a manure with great advantage, and probably was weathered before analysis. It contained 85 per cent. of organic substance.

Sample 6, which has 86 percent of organic matter, is used as fertilizer with great benefits, and was likely weathered before analysis. It had 85 percent of organic substance.

More important to us than the circumstance that this peat contains but little or no ammonia or nitric acid, and the other contains such or such a fraction of one per cent. of these bodies, is the grand fact that all peats may yield a good share of their nitrogen to the support of crops, when properly treated and applied.

More important to us than the fact that this peat has little to no ammonia or nitric acid, and the other has a fraction of one percent of these substances, is the key point that all peats can provide a good amount of their nitrogen to support crops when treated and applied correctly.

Under the influence of Liebig's teachings, which were logically based upon the best data at the disposal of this distinguished philosopher when he wrote 25 years ago, it [Pg 45]has been believed that the nitrogen of a fertilizer, in order to be available, must be converted into ammonia and presented in that shape to the plant. It has been recently made clear that nitric acid, rather than ammonia, is the form of nitrogenous food which is most serviceable to vegetation, and the one which is most abundantly supplied by the air and soil. The value of ammonia is however positive, and not to be overlooked.

Under the influence of Liebig's teachings, which were logically based on the best information available to this distinguished philosopher when he wrote 25 years ago, it [Pg 45]has been believed that the nitrogen in a fertilizer needs to be converted into ammonia to be available for plants. Recently, it has become clear that nitric acid, not ammonia, is the form of nitrogen that is most beneficial for plant growth and is the one most abundantly supplied by the air and soil. However, the value of ammonia is still significant and should not be overlooked.

When peat, properly prepared by weathering or composting, is suitably incorporated with a poor or light soil, it slowly suffers decomposition and wastes away. If it be wet, and air have access in limited quantity, especially if lime be mixed with it, a portion of its nitrogen is gradually converted into ammonia. With full access of air nitric acid is produced. In either case, it appears that a considerable share of the nitrogen escapes in the free state as gas, thereby becoming useless to vegetation until it shall have become converted again into ammonia or nitric acid. It happens in a cultivated soil that the oxygen of the air is in excess at the surface, and less abundant as we go down until we get below organic matters: it happens that one day it is saturated with water more or less, and another day it is dry, so that at one time we have the conditions for the formation of ammonia, and at another, those favorable to producing nitric acid. In this way, so far as our present knowledge warrants us to affirm, organic matters, decaying in the soil, continuously yield portions of their nitrogen in the forms of ammonia and nitric acid for the nourishment of plants.

When peat, properly prepared through weathering or composting, is mixed with poor or light soil, it gradually decomposes and breaks down. If it’s wet and air can only get in limited amounts, especially when mixed with lime, some of its nitrogen slowly turns into ammonia. With ample access to air, nitric acid is produced instead. In both cases, a significant amount of nitrogen escapes as gas, becoming useless to plants until it’s transformed back into ammonia or nitric acid. In cultivated soil, there’s usually more oxygen at the surface, which decreases as you go deeper until you reach the organic matter layer. Sometimes the soil is saturated with water, and other times it’s dry, creating conditions that alternately favor the formation of ammonia or nitric acid. Thus, as far as we currently understand, organic matter decaying in the soil consistently releases nitrogen as ammonia and nitric acid, which nourishes plants.

The farmer who skillfully employs as a fertilizer a peat containing a good proportion of nitrogen, may thus expect to get from it results similar to what would come from the corresponding quantity of nitrogen in guano or stable manure.

The farmer who cleverly uses peat with a decent amount of nitrogen as fertilizer can expect similar results to what they'd get from the same amount of nitrogen in guano or manure.

But the capacity of peat for feeding crops with, [Pg 46]nitrogen appears not to stop here. Under certain conditions, the free nitrogen of the air which cannot be directly appropriated by vegetation, is oxidized in the pores of the soil to nitric acid, and thus, free of expense to the farmer, his crops are daily dressed with the most precious of all fertilizers.

But the ability of peat to provide nitrogen to crops doesn’t end here. Under certain conditions, the free nitrogen in the air, which plants can’t directly use, is converted in the soil’s pores into nitric acid. This means that, at no cost to the farmer, his crops are continuously supplied with the most valuable fertilizer.

This gathering of useless nitrogen from the air, and making it over into plant-food cannot go on in a soil destitute of organic matter, requires in fact that vegetable remains or humified substances of some sort be present there. The evidence of this statement, whose truth was maintained years ago as a matter of opinion by many of the older chemists, has recently become nearly a matter of demonstration by the investigations of Boussingault and Knop, while the explanation of it is furnished by the researches of Schœnbein and Zabelin. To attempt any elucidation of it here would require more space than is at our disposal.

This collection of useless nitrogen from the air and transforming it into plant food can't happen in soil lacking organic matter; it actually needs some form of plant remains or decomposed substances to be present. The validity of this claim, once considered just an opinion by many older chemists, has recently been nearly proven through the work of Boussingault and Knop, with the explanation provided by the studies of Schœnbein and Zabelin. Attempting to explain it here would take more space than we have available.

It is plain from the contents of this paragraph that peat or swamp muck is, in general, an abundant source of nitrogen, and is often therefore an extremely cheap means of replacing the most rare and costly fertilizers.

It is clear from this paragraph that peat or swamp muck is generally a plentiful source of nitrogen and is often a very inexpensive way to replace the rarest and most expensive fertilizers.

II.—With regard to the inorganic matters of peat considered as food to plants, it is obvious, that, leaving out of the account for the present, some exceptional cases, they are useful as far as they go.

II.—Regarding the inorganic components of peat viewed as nutrients for plants, it's clear that, aside from a few exceptional cases that we won't consider right now, they are beneficial to some extent.

In the ashes of peats, we almost always find small quantities of sulphate of lime, magnesia and phosphoric acid. Potash and soda too, are often present, though rarely to any considerable amount. Carbonate and sulphate of lime are large ingredients of the ashes of about one-half, of the thirty-three peats and swamp mucks I have examined. The ashes of the other half are largely mixed with sand and soil, but in most cases also contain [Pg 47]considerable sulphate of lime, and often carbonates of lime and magnesia.

In the ashes of peat, we usually find small amounts of lime sulfate, magnesium, and phosphoric acid. Potash and soda are also often present, although usually not in large quantities. Carbonate and sulfate of lime are significant components of the ashes from about half of the thirty-three peats and swamp muck samples I’ve examined. The ashes from the other half are mostly mixed with sand and soil but generally also contain [Pg 47] notable sulfate of lime, and frequently carbonates of lime and magnesium.

In one swamp-muck, from Milford, Conn., there was found but two per cent. of ash, at least one-half of which was sand, and the remainder sulphate of lime, (gypsum.) In other samples 20, 30, 50 and even 60 per cent. remained after burning off the organic matter. In these cases the ash is chiefly sand. The amount of ash found in those peats which were most free from sand, ranges from five to nine per cent. Probably the average proportion of true ash, viz.: that derived from the organic matters themselves, not including sand and accidental ingredients, is not far from five per cent.

In one muddy area in Milford, Conn., only 2% of the material was ash, with at least half of that being sand, and the rest was sulfate of lime (gypsum). In other samples, 20%, 30%, 50%, and even 60% remained after burning off the organic matter. In these instances, the ash mainly consisted of sand. The amount of ash in the peats that had the least sand ranged from 5% to 9%. The average amount of true ash, which comes from the organic matter itself and excludes sand and other additives, is likely around 5%.

In twenty-two specimens of European peat, examined by Websky, Jæckel, Walz, Wiegmann, Einhof and Berthier, eleven contained from 0.6 to 3.5 per cent. of ash. The other eleven yielded from 5.3 to 22 per cent. The average of the former was 2.4, that of the latter 12.7 per cent. Most of these contained a considerable proportion of sand or soil.

In twenty-two samples of European peat examined by Websky, Jæckel, Walz, Wiegmann, Einhof, and Berthier, eleven had ash content ranging from 0.6 to 3.5 percent. The other eleven had ash content from 5.3 to 22 percent. The average for the first group was 2.4, while the average for the second group was 12.7 percent. Most of these samples contained a significant amount of sand or soil.

Variation in the composition as well as in the quantity of ash is very great.

Variation in both the composition and the amount of ash is quite significant.

Three analyses of peat-ashes have been executed at the author's instance with the subjoined results:

Three analyses of peat ashes have been conducted at the author's request, with the results listed below:


ANALYSIS OF PEAT-ASHES.

Peat-ash analysis.

       
  A. B. C.
Potash   0.69     0.80        3.46
Soda   0.58 -  trace.
Lime 40.52   35.59        6.60
Magnesia   6.06     4.92        1.05
Oxide of iron and alumina   5.17     9.08      15.59
Phosphoric acid   0.50     0.77        1.55
Sulphuric acid   5.52   10.41        4.04
Chlorine   0.15     0.43        0.70
Soluble silica   8.23     1.40 }  
Carbonic acid 19.60   22.28 }   67.01
Sand 12.11   15.04 }  
  99.13 100.74 100.00

A was furnished by Mr. Daniel Buck, Jr., of Poquonock, Conn., and comes from a peat which he uses as fuel.

A was provided by Mr. Daniel Buck, Jr., of Poquonock, Conn., and comes from a peat that he uses as fuel.

[Pg 48]B was sent by Mr. J. H. Stanwood, of Colebrook, Conn.

[Pg 48]B was sent by Mr. J. H. Stanwood from Colebrook, Connecticut.

C was sent from Guilford, Conn., by Mr. Andrew Foote.[5]

C was sent from Guilford, Connecticut, by Mr. Andrew Foote.[5]

A and B, after excluding sand, are seen to consist chiefly of carbonates and sulphates of lime and magnesia. III. contains a very large proportion of sand and soluble silica, much iron and alumina, less lime and sulphuric acid. Potash and phosphoric acid are three times more abundant in C than in the others.

A and B, after taking out sand, mainly consist of carbonates and sulfates of lime and magnesia. III. has a lot of sand and soluble silica, along with a lot of iron and alumina, less lime, and sulfuric acid. Potash and phosphoric acid are three times more plentiful in C than in the others.

Instead of citing in full the results of Websky, Jæckel and others, it will serve our object better to present the maximum, minimum and average proportions of the important ingredients in twenty-six recent analyses, (including these three,) that have come under the author's notice.

Instead of fully citing the results from Websky, Jæckel, and others, it will be more helpful for our purpose to present the maximum, minimum, and average proportions of the key ingredients from twenty-six recent analyses (including these three) that the author has reviewed.


VARIAIONS AND AVERAGES IN COMPOSITION OF PEAT-ASHES

VARIATIONS AND AVERAGES IN THE COMPOSITION OF PEAT ASHES

  Minimum.   Maximum.       Average.
Potash 0.05 to   3.64 0.89 per cent.
Soda none to   5.73 0.83 per cent.
Lime 4.72 to 58.38 24.00 per cent.
Magnesia none to 24.39 3.20 per cent.
Alumina 0.90 to 20.50 5.78 per cent.
Oxide of iron none to 73.33 18.70 per cent.
Sulphuric acid none to 37.40 7.50 per cent.
Chlorine none to   6.50 0.60 per cent.
Phosphoric acid none to   6.29 2.56 per cent.
Sand 0.99 to 56.97 25.50 per cent.

It is seen from the above figures that the ash of peat varies in composition to an indefinite degree. Lime is the only ingredient that is never quite wanting, and with the exception of sand, it is on the average the largest. Of the other agriculturally valuable components, sulphuric acid has the highest average; then follows magnesia; then phosphoric acid, and lastly, potash and soda: all of these, however, may be nearly or quite lacking.

It’s clear from the figures above that the ash from peat varies in composition to an unclear extent. Lime is the only element that is always present, and aside from sand, it is generally the most prevalent. Among the other agriculturally valuable components, sulphuric acid has the highest average content; next is magnesia, followed by phosphoric acid, and then potash and soda. However, all of these can be nearly or completely absent.

[Pg 49]Websky, who has recently made a study of the composition of a number of German peats, believes himself warranted to conclude that peat is so modified in appearance by its mineral matters, that the quantity or character of the latter may be judged of in many cases by the eye. He remarks, (Journal fuer Praktische Chemie, Bd. 92, S. 87,) "that while for example the peats containing much sand and clay have a red-brown powdery appearance, and never assume a lustrous surface by pressure; those which are very rich in lime, are black, sticky when moist, hard and of a waxy luster on a pressed surface, when dry: a property which they share indeed with very dense peats that contain little ash. Peats impregnated with iron are easily recognized. Their peculiar odor, and their changed appearance distinguish them from all others."

[Pg 49]Websky, who has recently studied the composition of several German peats, believes he can confidently say that peat is so altered in appearance by its mineral content that the amount or type of minerals can often be assessed just by looking at it. He notes, (Journal fuer Praktische Chemie, Bd. 92, S. 87), "that, for example, peats that contain a lot of sand and clay have a reddish-brown powdery look and never develop a shiny surface under pressure; those that are very high in lime are black, sticky when wet, hard, and have a waxy shine when pressed dry: a characteristic they also share with very dense peats that have little ash. Peats that are soaked in iron are easy to identify. Their distinct smell and altered appearance set them apart from all others."

From my own investigations on thirty specimens of Connecticut peats, I am forced to disagree with Websky entirely, and to assert that except as regards sand, which may often be detected by the eye, there is no connection whatever between the quantity or character of the ash and the color, consistency, density or any other external quality of the peat.

From my own studies on thirty samples of Connecticut peats, I have to completely disagree with Websky and state that, aside from sand—which can often be seen—there is no link at all between the amount or type of ash and the color, texture, density, or any other external quality of the peat.

The causes of this variation in the ash-content of peat, deserve a moment's notice. The plants that produce peat contain considerable proportions of lime, magnesia, alkalies, sulphuric acid, chlorine and phosphoric acid, as seen from the following analysis by Websky.

The reasons for the differences in the ash content of peat deserve a moment's attention. The plants that create peat have significant amounts of lime, magnesia, alkalis, sulfuric acid, chlorine, and phosphoric acid, as shown in the following analysis by Websky.


COMPOSITION OF THE ASH OF SPHAGNUM.

COMPOSITION OF THE ASH OF SPHAGNUM.

Potash 17.2
Soda 8.3
Lime 11.8
Magnesia 6.7
Sulphuric acid 6.5
Chlorine 6.2
Phosphoric acid 6.7
Per cent. of ash, 2.5.

The mineral matters of the sphagnum do not all [Pg 50]become ingredients of the peat; but, as rapidly as the moss decays below, its soluble matters are to a great degree absorbed by the vegetation, which is still living and growing above. Again, when a stream flows through a peat-bed, soluble matters are carried away by the water, which is often dark-brown from the substances dissolved in it. Finally the soil of the adjacent land is washed or blown upon the swamp, in greater or less quantities.

The mineral contents of the sphagnum don’t all [Pg 50] become part of the peat; however, as the moss breaks down below, a significant amount of its soluble materials is absorbed by the living and growing plants above. Additionally, when a stream passes through a peat bog, soluble substances are carried away by the water, which is often dark brown due to the dissolved materials in it. Lastly, the soil from nearby land is washed or blown onto the swamp in varying amounts.

III.—The decomposition of peat in the soil offers some peculiarities that are worthy of notice in this place. Peat is more gradual and regular in decay than the vegetable matters of stable dung, or than that furnished by turning under sod or green crops. It is thus a more steady and lasting benefit, especially in light soils, out of which ordinary vegetable manures disappear too rapidly. The decay of peat appears to proceed through a regular series of steps. In the soil, especially in contact with soluble alkaline bodies, as ammonia and lime, there is a progressive conversion of the insoluble or less soluble into soluble compounds. Thus the inert matters that resist the immediate solvent power of alkalies, absorb oxygen from the air, and form the humic or ulmic acids soluble in alkalies; the humic acids undergo conversion into crenic acid, and this body, by oxidation, passes into apocrenic acid. The two latter are soluble in water, and, in the porous soil, they are rapidly brought to the end-results of decay, viz.: water, carbonic acid, ammonia and free nitrogen.

III.—The breakdown of peat in the soil has some unique characteristics that are worth mentioning here. Peat decays more slowly and evenly compared to the organic materials from stable manure or what you get from turning under sod or green crops. This makes it a more consistent and long-lasting benefit, especially in lighter soils, where regular organic fertilizers tend to disappear too quickly. The decay of peat seems to follow a specific sequence of steps. In the soil, particularly when in contact with soluble alkaline substances like ammonia and lime, there is a gradual transformation of the insoluble or less soluble into soluble compounds. As a result, the inert materials that resist the immediate dissolving effect of alkalies absorb oxygen from the air and form humic or ulmic acids that can dissolve in alkalies; the humic acids are converted into crenic acid, which then, through oxidation, changes into apocrenic acid. The latter two are water-soluble, and in porous soil, they are quickly broken down into the final products of decay: water, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and free nitrogen.

Great differences must be observed, however, in the rapidity with which these changes take place. Doubtless they go on most slowly in case of the fibrous compact peats, and perhaps some of the lighter and more porous samples of swamp muck, would decay nearly as fast as rotted stable dung.

Great differences must be noted, however, in how quickly these changes happen. Undoubtedly, they occur most slowly in the case of fibrous compact peats, and some of the lighter, more porous types of swamp muck might break down almost as quickly as decomposed stable manure.

It might appear from the above statement, that the [Pg 51]effect of exposing peat to the air, as is done when it is incorporated with the soil, would be to increase relatively the amount of soluble organic matters; but the truth is, that they are often actually diminished. In fact, the oxidation and consequent removal of these soluble matters (crenic and apocrenic acids,) is likely to proceed more rapidly than they can be produced from the less soluble humic acid of the peat.

It might seem from the above statement that the [Pg 51] effect of exposing peat to the air, as happens when it’s mixed with the soil, would increase the amount of soluble organic matter. However, the reality is that these amounts are often actually reduced. In fact, the oxidation and subsequent loss of these soluble matters (crenic and apocrenic acids) likely happen more quickly than they can be generated from the less soluble humic acid in the peat.

IV.—Comparison of Peat with Stable Manure.

IV.—Comparison of Peat with Stable Manure.

The fertilizing value of peat is best understood by comparing it with some standard manure. Stable manure is obviously that fertilizer whose effects are most universally observed and appreciated, and by setting analyses of the two side by side, we may see at a glance, what are the excellencies and what the deficiencies of peat. In order rightly to estimate the worth of those ingredients which occur in but small proportion in peat, we must remember that it, like stable manure, may be, and usually should be, applied in large doses, so that in fact the smallest ingredients come upon an acre in considerable quantity. In making our comparison, we will take the analysis of Peat from the farm of Mr. Daniel Buck, Jr., of Poquonock, Conn., and the average of several analyses of rotted stable dung of good quality.

The fertilizing value of peat is best understood by comparing it to a standard manure. Stable manure is clearly the fertilizer whose effects are most widely recognized and appreciated, and by placing the analyses of the two side by side, we can quickly identify the strengths and weaknesses of peat. To accurately assess the value of the ingredients that are present in small amounts in peat, we need to remember that, like stable manure, it can and usually should be applied in large quantities, so that even the smallest ingredients contribute significantly to an acre. For our comparison, we will use the analysis of peat from the farm of Mr. Daniel Buck, Jr., of Poquonock, Conn., and the average of several analyses of rotted stable dung of good quality.

No. I, is the analysis of Peat; No. II, that of well rotted stable manure:—

No. I, is the analysis of Peat; No. II, that of well-rotted stable manure:—


    I.    II.
Water expelled at 212 degrees 79.000    79.00
Organic matter. {Soluble in dilute solution of carbonate of soda   7.312 } 14.16
{Insoluble in solution of carbonate of soda 12.210 }
Potash   0.010    0.65
Soda   0.009      -
Lime   0.608      0.57
Magnesia   0.091      0.19
Phosphoric acid   0.008      0.23
Sulphuric acid   0.082      0.27
Nitrogen   0.600      0.55
Matters, soluble in water   0.450      4.42

To make the comparison as just as possible, the peat is [Pg 52]calculated with the same content of water, that stable dung usually has.

To make the comparison as fair as possible, the peat is [Pg 52]calculated with the same moisture content as stable dung typically has.

We observe then, that the peat contains in a given quantity, about one-third more organic matter, an equal amount of lime and nitrogen; but is deficient in potash, magnesia, phosphoric and sulphuric acids.

We see that the peat has, in a certain amount, about one-third more organic matter, the same amount of lime and nitrogen; but is lacking in potash, magnesia, phosphoric, and sulfuric acids.

The deficiencies of this peat in the matter of composition may be corrected, as regards potash, by adding to 100 lbs. of it 1 lb. of potash of commerce, or 5 lbs. of unleached wood-ashes; as regards phosphoric and sulphuric acids, by adding 1 lb. of good superphosphate, or 1 lb. each of bone dust and plaster of Paris.

The shortcomings of this peat in terms of composition can be fixed by adding 1 lb. of commercial potash or 5 lbs. of unwashed wood ashes to every 100 lbs. for potash needs; for phosphoric and sulfuric acids, you can add 1 lb. of quality superphosphate or 1 lb. each of bone meal and plaster of Paris.

In fact, the additions just named, will convert any fresh peat, containing not more than 80 per cent. of water and not less than 20 per cent. of organic matter, into a mixture having as much fertilizing matters as stable dung, with the possible exception of nitrogen.

In fact, the additions just mentioned will turn any fresh peat containing no more than 80 percent water and no less than 20 percent organic matter into a mixture that has as much fertilizer as stable manure, possibly except for nitrogen.

It is a fact, however, that two manures may reveal to the chemist the same composition, and yet be very unlike in their fertilizing effects, because their conditions are unlike, because they differ in their degrees of solubility or availability.

It is a fact, however, that two fertilizers may show the same composition to a chemist, and yet be very different in their fertilizing effects, because their conditions are different, and because they vary in their levels of solubility or availability.

As before insisted upon, it is true in general, that peat is more slow of decomposition than yard-manure, and this fact, which is an advantage in an amendment, is a disadvantage in a fertilizer. Though there may be some peats, or rather swamp mucks, which are energetic and rapid in their action, it seems that they need to be applied in larger quantities than stable manure in order to produce corresponding fertilizing effects. In many cases peat requires some preparation by weathering, or by chemical action—"fermentation"—induced by decomposing animal matters or by alkalies. This topic will shortly be discussed.

As mentioned before, it’s generally true that peat decomposes more slowly than yard manure. This characteristic is beneficial when it comes to amendments, but it's a drawback as a fertilizer. While some peats, or more accurately, swamp mucks, can be quite effective and act quickly, they often need to be used in larger amounts than stable manure to achieve similar fertilizing results. In many situations, peat requires some sort of preparation, either by weathering or through a chemical process—like “fermentation”—caused by decomposing animal matter or by alkalis. This topic will be discussed shortly.

We adopt, as a general fact, the conclusion that peat is inferior in fertilizing power to stable manure.

We accept, as a general fact, that peat is less effective as a fertilizer than stable manure.

[Pg 53]Experience asserts, however, with regard to some individual kinds, that they are equal to common yard manure without any preparation whatever.

[Pg 53]Experience shows, however, that certain types are just as effective as regular compost without any need for preparation.

Mr. Daniel Buck, of Poquonock, Conn., says, of the 'muck,' over-lying the peat, whose composition has just been compared with stable manure, that it "has been applied fresh to meadow with good results; the grass is not as tall but thicker and finer, and of a darker green in the spring, than when barn-yard manure is spread on."

Mr. Daniel Buck, from Poquonock, Conn., says that the 'muck' lying on top of the peat, which has just been compared to stable manure, "has been applied fresh to meadows with good results; the grass isn't as tall but is thicker and finer, and a darker green in the spring, than when barnyard manure is spread."

A swamp muck, from Mr. A. M. Haling, Rockville, Conn., "has been used as a top-dressing, on grass, with excellent results. It is a good substitute for barn-yard manure."

A swamp muck from Mr. A. M. Haling in Rockville, Conn., "has been used as a top-dressing on grass with great results. It’s a great alternative to barnyard manure."

A peat, from Mr. Russell U. Peck, of Berlin, Conn., "has been used fresh, on corn and meadow, with good effect."

A peat from Mr. Russell U. Peck of Berlin, Conn., "has been used fresh on corn and meadow, with good results."

Of the peat, from the 'Beaver Pond,' near New Haven, Mr. Chauncey Goodyear, says, "it has been largely used in a fresh state, and in this condition is as good as cow dung."

Of the peat from the 'Beaver Pond' near New Haven, Mr. Chauncey Goodyear says, "it's been mostly used fresh, and in this state, it's just as good as cow dung."

Mr. Henry Keeler, remarks, concerning a swamp muck occurring at South Salem, N. Y., that "it has been used in the fresh state, applied to corn and potatoes, and appears to be equal to good barn manure:" further:—"it has rarely been weathered more than two months, and then applied side by side with the best yard manure has given equally good results."

Mr. Henry Keeler notes about a swamp muck found in South Salem, N.Y., that "it has been used fresh on corn and potatoes and seems to be as good as quality barn manure." He adds, "it has rarely been aged for more than two months, and when applied alongside the best yard manure, it has produced equally good results."

A few words as to the apparent contradiction between Chemistry, which says that peat is not equal to stable dung as a fertilizer, and Practice, which in these cases affirms that it is equal to our standard manure.

A few words about the apparent contradiction between Chemistry, which states that peat is not the same as stable dung as a fertilizer, and Practice, which in these cases claims that it is equivalent to our standard manure.

In the first place, the chemical conclusion is a general one, and does not apply to individual peats, which, in a few instances, may be superior to yard manure. The [Pg 54]practical judgment also is, that, in general, yard manure is the best.

In the first place, the chemical conclusion is a general one and doesn't apply to every type of peat, which in some cases may actually be better than yard manure. The [Pg 54]practical judgment also suggests that, overall, yard manure is the best.

To go to the individual cases; second: A peat in which nitrogen exists in as large a proportion as is found in stable or yard manure, being used in larger quantity, or being more durable in its action, may for a few seasons produce better results than the latter, merely on account of the presence of this one ingredient, it may in fact, for the soil and crop to which it is applied, be a better fertilizer than yard manure, because nitrogen is most needed in that soil, and yet for the generality of soils, or in the long run, it may prove to be an inferior fertilizer.

To look at the specific cases: second, peat that contains nitrogen in a similar amount as what's found in stable or yard manure, if used in larger quantities or if it acts longer, might produce better results for a few seasons just because of this one component. In fact, it might be a better fertilizer for the soil and crop it's used on, particularly if that soil needs nitrogen the most. However, for most soils, or in the long term, it could turn out to be a worse fertilizer.

Again; third—the melioration of the physical qualities of a soil, the amendment of its dryness and excessive porosity, by means of peat, may be more effective for agricultural purposes, than the application of tenfold as much fertilizing, i. e. plant-feeding materials; in the same way that the mere draining of an over-moist soil often makes it more productive than the heaviest manuring.

Again; third—the improvement of soil quality, by addressing its dryness and excessive porosity with peat, can be more beneficial for farming than using ten times the amount of fertilizers, i. e. materials that nourish plants; similarly, simply draining overly wet soil often increases its productivity more than applying heavy amounts of manure.

2.—On the characters of Peat that are detrimental, or that may sometimes need correction before it is agriculturally useful.

2.—On the negative characteristics of Peat that may sometimes require adjustment before it is suitable for agriculture.

I.—Bad effects on wet heavy soils.

I.—Negative impacts on saturated heavy soils.

We have laid much stress on the amending qualities of peat, when applied to dry and leachy soils, which by its use are rendered more retentive of moisture and manure. These properties, which it would seem, are just adapted to renovate very light land, under certain circumstances, may become disadvantageous on heavier soils. On clays no application is needed to retain moisture. They are already too wet as a general thing.

We have emphasized the benefits of peat when it comes to improving dry and leachy soils, making them better at holding moisture and nutrients. While these qualities are ideal for refreshing very light land under the right conditions, they can actually be problematic for heavier soils. Clay soils, for example, don’t require anything to help retain moisture since they are usually already too wet.

Peat, when put into the soil, lasts much longer than stubble, or green crops plowed in, or than long manure. [Pg 55]If buried too deeply, or put into a heavy soil, especially if in large quantity, it does not decay, but remains wet, and tends to make a bog of the field itself.

Peat, when mixed into the soil, lasts much longer than stubble, green crops that are tilled in, or even long manure. [Pg 55]If it’s buried too deep or added to heavy soil, especially in large amounts, it won’t break down; instead, it stays wet and can turn the field into a bog.

For soils that are rather heavy, it is therefore best to compost the peat with some rapidly fermenting manure. We thus get a compound which is quicker than muck, and slower than stable manure, etc., and is therefore better adapted to the wants of the soil than either of these would be alone.

For soils that are quite heavy, it's best to mix peat with some fast-fermenting manure. This creates a mix that works faster than regular muck but slower than stable manure, making it better suited to the needs of the soil than either one alone.

Here it will be seen that much depends on the character of the peat itself. If light and spongy, and easily dried, it may be used alone with advantage on loamy soils, whereas if dense, and coherent, it would most likely be a poor amendment on a soil which has much tendency to become compact, and therefore does not readily free itself from excess of water.

Here, it's clear that a lot depends on the type of peat. If it's light, spongy, and dries easily, it can be beneficial on loamy soils when used alone. However, if it's dense and compact, it's probably not a good amendment for soils that tend to compact, as those soils don't easily drain excess water.

But even a clay soil, if thorough-drained and deeply plowed, may be wonderfully improved by even a heavy dressing of muck, as then, the water being let off, the muck can exert no detrimental action; but operates as effectually to loosen a too heavy soil, as in case of sand, it makes an over-porous soil compact or retentive. A clay may be made friable, if well drained, by incorporating with it any substance as lime, sand, long manure or muck, which interposing between the clayey particles, prevents their adhering together.

But even clay soil, if well-drained and deeply plowed, can be greatly improved with a heavy layer of muck. When the water drains away, the muck won’t have any negative effects; instead, it effectively loosens heavy soil. In the case of sandy soil, it makes overly loose soil more compact or moisture-retaining. With proper drainage, clay can become crumbly by mixing in substances like lime, sand, compost, or muck, which create space between the clay particles and stop them from sticking together.

II.—Noxious ingredients.

II.—Harmful ingredients.

a. Vitriol peat. Occasionally a peat is met with which is injurious if applied in the fresh state to crops, from its containing some substance which exerts a poisonous action on vegetation. The principal detrimental ingredients that occur in peat, appear to be sulphate of protoxide of [Pg 56]iron,—the same body that is popularly known under the names copperas and green-vitriol,—and sulphate of alumina, the astringent component of alum.

a. Vitriol peat. Sometimes, there’s a type of peat that can harm crops when applied fresh because it contains a substance that has a toxic effect on plants. The main harmful ingredients found in peat seem to be sulfate of iron, commonly known as copperas or green vitriol, and aluminum sulfate, which is the astringent part of alum.

I have found these substances ready formed in large quantity in but one of the peats that I have examined, viz.: that sent me by Mr. Perrin Scarborough; of Brooklyn, Conn. This peat dissolved in water to the extent of 15 per cent., and the soluble portion, although containing some organic matter and sulphate of lime, consisted in great part of green-vitriol.

I found these substances already formed in large quantities in only one of the peats I've examined, specifically the one sent to me by Mr. Perrin Scarborough from Brooklyn, Conn. This peat dissolved in water to about 15 percent., and while the soluble portion contained some organic matter and gypsum, it was mostly made up of green vitriol.

Portions of this muck, when thrown up to the air, become covered with "a white crust, having the taste of alum or saltpeter."

Parts of this muck, when tossed into the air, get coated with "a white crust, tasting like alum or saltpeter."

The bed containing this peat, though drained, yields but a little poor bog hay, and the peat itself, even after weathering for a year, when applied, mixed with one-fifth of stable manure to corn in the hill, gave no encouraging results, though a fair crop was obtained. It is probable that the sample analyzed was much richer in salts of iron and alumina, than the average of the muck.

The bed with this peat, even though drained, only produces a small amount of low-quality bog hay, and the peat itself, after aging for a year, when used with one-fifth stable manure for corn planting, didn't show any promising results, even though a decent crop was harvested. It's likely that the sample analyzed was much richer in iron and aluminum salts than the typical muck.

Green-vitriol in minute doses is not hurtful, but rather beneficial to vegetation; but in larger quantity it is fatally destructive.

Green vitriol in small amounts is not harmful, but actually beneficial to plants; however, in larger quantities, it can be deadly.

In a salt-marsh mud sent me by the Rev. Wm. Clift, of Stonington, Conn., there was found sulphate of iron in considerable quantity.

In a salt marsh mud sent to me by Rev. Wm. Clift from Stonington, Conn., there was a significant amount of iron sulfate found.

This noxious substance likewise occurred in small amount in swamp muck from E. Hoyt, Esq., New Canaan, Conn., and in hardly appreciable quantity in several others that I have examined. Besides green-vitriol, it is possible that certain organic salts of iron, may be deleterious.

This toxic substance was also found in small amounts in swamp muck from E. Hoyt, Esq., in New Canaan, Conn., and in barely noticeable quantities in several others I've looked at. In addition to green vitriol, it’s possible that some organic iron salts could be harmful.

The poisonous properties of vitriol-peats may be effectually corrected by composting with lime, or wood-ashes. By the action of these substances, sulphate of lime, [Pg 57](plaster of Paris) is formed, while the iron separates as peroxide, which, being insoluble, is without deleterious effect on vegetation. Where only soluble organic salts of iron (crenate of iron) are present, simple exposure to the air suffices to render them innocuous.

The harmful effects of vitriol-peats can be effectively neutralized by mixing them with lime or wood ashes. Through this process, gypsum (plaster of Paris) is created, while iron turns into peroxide, which is insoluble and doesn’t harm plants. If only soluble organic iron salts (crenate of iron) are present, just leaving them out in the air makes them harmless.

b. The acidity of Peats.—Many writers have asserted that peat and muck possess a hurtful "acidity" which must be corrected before they can be usefully employed. It is indeed a fact, that peat consists largely of acids, but, except perhaps in the vitriol-peats, (those containing copperas,) they are so insoluble, or if soluble, are so quickly modified by the absorption of oxygen, that they do not exhibit any "acidity" that can be deleterious to vegetation. It is advised to neutralize this supposed acidity by lime or an alkali before using peat as a fertilizer or amendment, and there is great use in such mixtures of peat with alkaline matters, as we shall presently notice under the head of composts.

b. The acidity of Peats.—Many writers have claimed that peat and muck have a harmful "acidity" that needs to be fixed before they can be effectively used. It's true that peat contains a lot of acids, but except maybe in the vitriol peats (those that include copperas), they are either very insoluble or, if they are soluble, they change quickly by absorbing oxygen, so they don't show any "acidity" that could be harmful to plants. It's recommended to neutralize this supposed acidity with lime or an alkaline substance before using peat as a fertilizer or amendment, and there is a lot of benefit in mixing peat with alkaline materials, as we will discuss shortly under the topic of composts.

By the word acidity is conveyed the idea of something hurtful to plants. This something is, doubtless, in many cases, the salts of iron we have just noticed. In others, it is simply the inertness, "coldness" of the peat, which is not positively injurious, but is, for a time at least, of no benefit to the soil.

By "acidity," we mean something that can harm plants. This harm often comes from the iron salts we just mentioned. In other cases, it’s just the inactivity or "coldness" of the peat, which isn't really harmful, but for a period, it doesn't help the soil either.

c. Resinous matters are mentioned by various writers as injurious ingredients of peat, but I find no evidence that this notion is well-founded. The peat or muck formed from the decay of resinous wood and leaves does not appear to be injurious, and the amount of resin in peat is exceedingly small.

c. Resinous matters are discussed by various authors as harmful components of peat, but I see no proof that this idea is justified. The peat or muck created from the decomposition of resinous wood and leaves doesn’t seem to be harmful, and the amount of resin in peat is very minimal.

3.—The Preparation of Peat for Agricultural use.

3.—How to Prepare Peat for Agricultural Use.

a. Excavation.—As to the time and manner of getting out peat, the circumstances of each case must [Pg 58]determine. I only venture here to offer a few hints on this subject, which belongs so exclusively to the farm. The month of August is generally the appropriate time for throwing up peat, as then the swamps are usually most free from water, and most accessible to men and teams; but peat is often dug to best advantage in the winter, not only on account of the cheapness of labor, and from there being less hurry with other matters on the farm at that season, but also, because the freezing and thawing of the peat that is thrown out, greatly aid to disintegrate it and prepare it for use.

a. Excavation.—The timing and method for extracting peat depend on the specific circumstances of each case. I’d like to share a few tips on this topic, which is primarily related to farming. Typically, August is the best month for harvesting peat since the swamps are usually less waterlogged and easier for people and teams to access. However, peat is often best dug in winter, not only because labor is cheaper and there’s less urgency with other farming tasks at that time, but also because the freezing and thawing of the excavated peat helps break it down and prepare it for use.

A correspondent of The Homestead, signing himself "Commentator," has given directions for getting out peat that are well worth the attention of farmers. He says:—

A writer for The Homestead, who goes by "Commentator," has shared some valuable tips on how to extract peat that farmers should definitely pay attention to. He states:—

"The composting of muck and peat, with our stable and barn-yard manures, is surely destined to become one of the most important items in farm management throughout all the older States at least. One of the difficulties which lie in the way, is the first removal of the muck from its low and generally watery bed; to facilitate this, in many locations, it is less expensive to dry it before carting, by beginning an excavation at the border of the marsh in autumn, sufficiently wide for a cart path, throwing the muck out upon the surface on each side, and on a floor of boards or planks, to prevent it from absorbing moisture from the wet ground beneath; this broad ditch to be carried a sufficient length and depth to obtain the requisite quantity of muck. Thus thrown out, the two piles are now in a convenient form to be covered with boards, and, if properly done, the muck kept covered till the succeeding autumn, will be found to be dry and light, and in some cases may be carted away on the surface, or it may be best to let it remain a few months longer until the bottom of the ditch has become sufficiently frozen to bear a team; it can then be more easily [Pg 59]loaded upon a sled or sleigh, and drawn to the yards and barn. In other localities, and where large quantities are wanted, and it lies deep, a sort of wooden railroad and inclined plane can be constructed by means of a plank track for the wheels of the cart to run upon, the team walking between these planks, and if the vehicle is inclined to 'run off the track,' it may usually be prevented by scantlings, say four inches thick, nailed upon one of the tracks on each side of the place where the wheel should run. Two or more teams and carts may now be employed, returning into the excavation outside of this track. As the work progresses, the track can be extended at both ends, and by continuing or increasing the inclination at the upper end, a large and high pile may be made, and if kept dry, will answer for years for composting, and can be easily drawn to the barn at any time."

"The composting of muck and peat, along with our stable and barnyard manures, is definitely going to be one of the most important aspects of farm management, especially in the older States. One of the challenges we face is getting the muck out from its low, often watery bed. To make this easier, in many places, it’s cheaper to dry it out before hauling by starting an excavation at the edge of the marsh in the fall, making it wide enough for a cart path, and spreading the muck out on the surface on either side, on a floor of boards or planks, to stop it from soaking up moisture from the wet ground underneath. This broad ditch should be dug deep and long enough to get the needed amount of muck. Once it’s laid out, the two piles can be easily covered with boards, and if done right, the muck can be kept covered until the next autumn. It will then be dry and light enough to be carted away on the surface, or it might be better to let it sit a few more months until the bottom of the ditch is frozen enough to support a team; at that point, it can be more easily loaded onto a sled or sleigh and taken to the yards and barn. In other areas, where large amounts are needed and the muck is deep, a kind of wooden railroad and inclined plane can be set up using a plank track for the cart wheels to run on, with the team walking between these planks. If the vehicle tends to ‘run off the track,’ that can usually be prevented by putting four-inch thick boards nailed to one of the tracks on each side of where the wheels should go. Two or more teams and carts can then be used, going back into the excavation outside of this track. As the work continues, the track can be extended at both ends, and by raising the incline at the upper end, a large pile can be built up, which, if kept dry, can be used for years for composting and easily drawn to the barn at any time."

b. Exposure, weathering, or seasoning of peat.—In some cases, the chief or only use of exposing the thrown-up peat to the action of the air and weather during several months or a whole year, is to rid it of the great amount of water which adheres to it, and thus reduce its bulk and weight previous to cartage.

b. Exposure, weathering, or seasoning of peat.—In some situations, the main or sole purpose of exposing the piled-up peat to the air and weather for several months or an entire year is to eliminate the excess water that clings to it, thereby reducing its volume and weight before transporting it.

The general effect of exposure as indicated by my analyses, is to reduce the amount of matter soluble in water, and cause peats to approach in this respect a fertile soil, so that instead of containing 2, 4, or 6 per cent. of substances soluble in water, as at first, they are brought to contain but one-half these amounts, or even less. This change, however, goes on so rapidly after peat is mingled with the soil, that previous exposure on this account is rarely necessary, and most peats might be used perfectly fresh but for the difficulty often experienced, of reducing them to such a state of division as to admit of proper mixture with the soil.

The overall effect of exposure, based on my analyses, is to decrease the amount of matter that can dissolve in water, making peats more similar to fertile soil. So instead of having 2, 4, or 6 percent of water-soluble substances like they did initially, they end up containing only about half of those amounts, or even less. However, this change happens so quickly once peat is mixed with the soil that prior exposure is usually unnecessary. Most peats could be used fresh, if not for the common challenge of breaking them down into small enough pieces for proper blending with the soil.

[Pg 60]The coherent peats which may be cut out in tough blocks, must be weathered, in order that the fibres of moss or grass-roots, which give them their consistency, may be decomposed or broken to an extent admitting of easy pulverization by the instruments of tillage.

[Pg 60]The solid peats that can be removed in tough blocks need to be weathered so that the fibers from moss or grass roots, which give them their texture, can decompose or break down enough to allow for easy grinding with farming tools.

The subjection of fresh and wet peat to frost, speedily destroys its coherence and reduces it to the proper state of pulverization. For this reason, fibrous peat should be exposed when wet to winter weather.

The exposure of fresh and wet peat to frost quickly breaks down its structure, turning it into a fine powder. For this reason, fibrous peat should be left outside in winter weather when it’s wet.

Another advantage of exposure is, to bring the peat into a state of more active chemical change. Peat, of the deeper denser sorts, is generally too inert ("sour," cold) to be directly useful to the plant. By exposure to the air it appears gradually to acquire the properties of the humus of the soil, or of stable manure, which are vegetable matters, altered by the same exposure. It appears to become more readily oxidable, more active, chemically, and thus more capable of exciting or rather aiding vegetable growth, which, so far as the soil is concerned, is the result of chemical activities.

Another benefit of exposure is that it helps the peat undergo more active chemical changes. The deeper, denser types of peat are usually too inert ("sour," cold) to be directly beneficial for plants. By being exposed to air, it gradually gains properties similar to the humus in soil or stable manure, which are organic materials that have also been altered by exposure. It seems to become more readily oxidized, more chemically active, and thus better able to promote or support plant growth, which, in terms of soil, results from chemical processes.

Account has been already given of certain peats, which, used fresh, are accounted equal or nearly equal to stable manure. Others have come under the writer's notice, which have had little immediate effect when used before seasoning.

Account has already been given of certain peats, which, used fresh, are considered equal or nearly equal to stable manure. Others have come to the writer's attention that have had little immediate effect when used before seasoning.

Mr. J. H. Stanwood says of a peat, from Colebrook, Conn., that it "has been used to some extent as a top-dressing for grass and other crops with satisfactory results, although no particular benefit was noticeable during the first year. After that, the effects might be seen for a number of years."

Mr. J. H. Stanwood mentions a type of peat from Colebrook, Conn., stating that it "has been somewhat used as a top-dressing for grass and other crops with good results, although no specific benefits were noticeable during the first year. After that, the effects can be observed for several years."

Rev. Wm. Clift observes, concerning a salt peat, from Stonington, Conn.:—"It has not been used fresh; is too acid; even potatoes do not yield well in it the first season, without manure."

Rev. Wm. Clift notes about a salt peat from Stonington, Conn.:—"It hasn’t been used fresh; it’s too acidic; even potatoes don’t grow well in it the first season, without fertilizer."

[Pg 61]The nature of the chemical changes induced by weathering, is to some extent understood so far as the nitrogen, the most important fertilizing element, is concerned. The nitrogen of peat, as we have seen, is mostly inert, a small portion of it only, existing in a soluble or available form. By weathering, portions of this nitrogen become converted into nitric acid. This action goes on at the surface of the heap, where it is most fully exposed to the air. Below, where the peat is more moist, ammonia is formed, perhaps simply by the reduction of nitric acid—not unlikely also, by the transformation of inert nitrogen. On referring to the analyses given on page 44, it is seen, that the first two samples contain but little ammonia and no nitric acid. Though it is not stated what was the condition of these peats, it is probable they had not been weathered. The other four samples were weathered, and the weathering had been the more effectual from the large admixture of sand with them. They yielded to the analyst very considerable quantities of ammonia and nitrates.

[Pg 61]The chemical changes caused by weathering are somewhat understood, especially regarding nitrogen, the most crucial nutrient for fertilizers. The nitrogen in peat is mostly inert, with only a small part available in soluble form. Through weathering, some of this nitrogen gets converted into nitric acid. This process occurs at the surface of the heap, where it's most exposed to the air. Below, where the peat is wetter, ammonia is created, likely from the reduction of nitric acid and maybe from the transformation of inert nitrogen as well. Referring to the analyses on page 44, it's clear that the first two samples contain very little ammonia and no nitric acid. Although it's not mentioned how these peats were treated, it’s likely they hadn’t undergone weathering. The other four samples had been weathered, and this weathering was more effective due to the significant mix of sand with them. These yielded considerable amounts of ammonia and nitrates in the analysis.

When a peat contains sulphate of protoxide of iron, or soluble organic salts of iron, to an injurious extent, these may be converted into other insoluble and innocuous bodies, by a sufficient exposure to the air. Sulphate of protoxide of iron is thus changed into sulphate of peroxide of iron, which is insoluble, and can therefore exert no hurtful effect on vegetation, while the soluble organic bodies of peat are oxydized and either converted into carbonic acid gas, carbonate of ammonia and water, or else made insoluble.

When peat contains harmful amounts of iron(II) sulfate or soluble organic iron salts, these can be transformed into other insoluble and harmless substances with enough exposure to air. Iron(II) sulfate is changed into iron(III) sulfate, which is insoluble and won’t damage plants, while the soluble organic compounds in peat are oxidized and either turned into carbon dioxide, ammonia, and water, or made insoluble.

It is not probable, however, that merely throwing up a well characterized vitriol-peat into heaps, and exposing it thus imperfectly to the atmosphere, is sufficient to correct its bad qualities. Such peats need the addition of some alkaline body, as ammonia, lime, or potash, to render them salutary fertilizers.

It’s unlikely that just piling up a well-defined vitriol-peat and exposing it to the air is enough to fix its negative qualities. Such peats require the addition of some alkaline substance, like ammonia, lime, or potash, to make them beneficial fertilizers.

[Pg 62]c. This brings us to the subject of composting, which appears to be the best means of taking full advantage of all the good qualities of peat, and of obviating or neutralizing the ill results that might follow the use of some raw peats, either from a peculiarity in their composition, (soluble organic compounds of iron, sulphate of protoxide of iron,) or from too great indestructibility. The chemical changes (oxidation of iron and organic acids), which prepare the inert or even hurtful ingredients of peat to minister to the support of vegetation, take place most rapidly in presence of certain other substances.

[Pg 62]c. This brings us to composting, which seems to be the best way to fully utilize all the benefits of peat while avoiding or neutralizing the negative effects that might come from using certain raw peats, either due to specific aspects of their composition (like soluble organic compounds of iron and sulfate of protoxide of iron) or their excessive durability. The chemical changes (oxidation of iron and organic acids) that convert the inactive or potentially harmful components of peat into something beneficial for plant growth happen most quickly in the presence of certain other substances.

The substances which rapidly induce chemical change in peats, are of two kinds, viz.: 1.—animal or vegetable matters that are highly susceptible to alteration and decay, and 2.—alkalies, either ammonia coming from the decomposition of animal matters, or lime, potash and soda.

The substances that quickly cause chemical change in peat fall into two categories: 1. animal or plant materials that are very prone to change and decay, and 2. alkalis, such as ammonia produced from the breakdown of animal matter, or lime, potash, and soda.

A great variety of matters may of course be employed for making or mixing with peat composts; but there are comparatively few which allow of extensive and economical use, and our notice will be confined to these.

A wide range of materials can definitely be used to create or mix with peat composts, but there are relatively few that offer extensive and cost-effective options, so we will focus on those.

First of all, the composting of peat with animal manures deserves attention. Its advantages may be summed up in two statements.

First of all, the composting of peat with animal manures deserves attention. Its advantages can be summarized in two statements.

1.—It is an easy and perfect method of economizing all such manures, even those kinds most liable to loss by fermentation, as night soil and horse dung; and,

1.—It’s an easy and effective way to make the most of all kinds of fertilizers, even those that are most likely to be lost through fermentation, like human waste and horse manure; and,

2.—It develops most fully and speedily the inert fertilizing qualities of the peat itself.

2.—It enhances the dormant fertilizing properties of the peat itself most effectively and quickly.

Without attempting any explanation of the changes undergone by a peat and manure compost, further than to say that the fermentation which begins in the manure extends to and involves the peat, reducing the whole nearly, if not exactly, to the condition of well-rotted dung, and that in this process the peat effectually prevents the loss of nitrogen as ammonia,—I may appropriately give [Pg 63]the practical experience of farmers who have proved in the most conclusive manner how profitable it is to devote a share of time and labor to the manufacture of this kind of compost.

Without explaining the changes that a peat and manure compost goes through, other than to note that the fermentation starting in the manure spreads to the peat, bringing the whole mixture close to the state of well-rotted dung, and that during this process, the peat effectively prevents nitrogen loss as ammonia,—I can fittingly present [Pg 63]the practical experiences of farmers who have clearly demonstrated how beneficial it is to invest time and effort in producing this type of compost.

Preparation of Composts with Stable Manure.—The best plan of composting is to have a water tight trench, four inches deep and twenty inches wide, constructed in the stable floor, immediately behind the cattle, and every morning put a bushel-basketful of muck behind each animal. In this way the urine is perfectly absorbed by the muck, while the warmth of the freshly voided excrements so facilitates the fermentative process, that, according to Mr. F. Holbrook, Brattleboro, Vt., who has described this method, much more muck can thus be well prepared for use in the spring, than by any of the ordinary modes of composting. When the dung and muck are removed from the stable, they should be well intermixed, and as fast as the compost is prepared, it should be put into a compact heap, and covered with a layer of muck several inches thick. It will then hardly require any shelter if used in the spring.

Preparation of Composts with Stable Manure.—The best way to compost is to create a watertight trench, four inches deep and twenty inches wide, in the stable floor, right behind the cattle. Every morning, put a bushel-basketful of muck behind each animal. This way, the urine is completely absorbed by the muck, and the heat from the fresh manure helps the fermentation process. According to Mr. F. Holbrook of Brattleboro, Vt., who described this method, much more muck can be effectively prepared for use in the spring compared to traditional composting methods. When removing the dung and muck from the stable, they should be mixed thoroughly, and as soon as the compost is ready, it should be placed in a compact heap and covered with a layer of muck several inches thick. This will require little to no shelter if used in the spring.

If the peat be sufficiently dry and powdery, or free from tough lumps, it may usefully serve as bedding, or litter for horses and cattle, as it absorbs the urine, and is sufficiently mixed with the dung in the operation of cleaning the stable. It is especially good in the pig-pen, where the animals themselves work over the compost in the most thorough manner, especially if a few kernels of corn be occasionally scattered upon it.

If the peat is dry enough and powdery or free from tough clumps, it can be used effectively as bedding or litter for horses and cattle because it absorbs urine and mixes well with dung during stable cleaning. It’s particularly useful in pig pens, where the pigs turn the compost thoroughly, especially if a few kernels of corn are occasionally scattered on it.

Mr. Edwin Hoyt, of New Canaan, Conn., writes:—"Our horse stables are constructed with a movable floor and pit beneath, which holds 20 loads of muck of 25 bushels per load. Spring and fall, this pit is filled with fresh muck, which receives all the urine of the horses, and being [Pg 64]occasionally worked over and mixed, furnishes us annually with 40 loads of the most valuable manure."

Mr. Edwin Hoyt, from New Canaan, Conn., writes:—"Our horse stables have a movable floor and a pit underneath that can hold 20 loads of muck at 25 bushels per load. In spring and fall, we fill this pit with fresh muck, which collects all the urine from the horses. By occasionally mixing and working it over, we get 40 loads of the most valuable manure each year."

"Our stables are sprinkled with muck every morning, at the rate of one bushel per stall, and the smell of ammonia, etc., so offensive in most stables, is never perceived in ours. Not only are the stables kept sweet, but the ammonia is saved by this procedure."

"Our stables are cleaned out every morning, with one bushel of waste removed from each stall, and the smell of ammonia, which is usually so unpleasant in most stables, is never noticed in ours. Not only are the stables kept fresh, but this method also saves the ammonia."

When it is preferred to make the compost out of doors, the plan generally followed is to lay down a bed of weathered peat, say eight to twelve inches thick; cover this with a layer of stable dung, of four to eight inches; put on another stratum of peat, and so, until a heap of three to four feet is built up. The heap may be six to eight feet wide, and indefinitely long. It should be finished with a thick coating of peat, and the manure should be covered as fast as brought out.

When you want to make compost outdoors, the typical approach is to start with a bed of aged peat, about eight to twelve inches thick. Then, cover it with a layer of stable manure, which should be four to eight inches deep. Add another layer of peat on top, and keep repeating this until you've built a pile that’s three to four feet high. The pile can be six to eight feet wide and can be as long as you need. To finish, top it off with a thick layer of peat, and cover the manure as soon as you bring it out.

The proportions of manure and peat should vary somewhat according to their quality and characters. Strawy manure, or that from milch-cows, will "ferment" less peat than clear dung, especially when the latter is made by horses or highly fed animals. Some kinds of peat heat much easier than others. There are peats which will ferment of themselves in warm moist weather—even in the bog, giving off ammonia in perceptible though small amount. Experience is the only certain guide as to the relative quantities to be employed, various proportions from one to five of peat for one of manure, by bulk, being used.

The amounts of manure and peat should change a bit based on their quality and characteristics. Straw manure, or manure from dairy cows, will "ferment" less peat than fresh dung, especially when that dung comes from horses or well-fed animals. Some types of peat heat up more easily than others. There are peats that will start to ferment on their own in warm, moist weather—even in the bog, releasing ammonia in noticeable but small amounts. Experience is the only reliable guide for the right proportions to use, with various ratios from one to five parts peat for one part manure, by volume, being applied.

When the land is light and needs amending, as regards its retentive power, it is best to make the quantity of peat as large as can be thoroughly fermented by the manure.

When the soil is light and needs improvement in its ability to retain moisture, it's best to use as much peat as can be fully composted with the manure.

The making of a high heap, and the keeping it trim and in shape, is a matter requiring more labor than is generally necessary. Mr. J. H. Stanwood, of Colebrook, Conn., writes me:—

The creation of a tall pile, and maintaining it neat and organized, takes more effort than most people realize. Mr. J. H. Stanwood from Colebrook, Conn., writes to me:—

[Pg 65]"My method of composting is as follows: I draw my muck to the barn-yard, placing the loads as near together as I can tip them from the cart. Upon this I spread whatever manure I have at hand, and mix with the feet of the cattle, and heap up with a scraper."

[Pg 65] "Here’s how I compost: I bring my waste to the barnyard, stacking the loads as close together as possible when I tip them off the cart. On top of this, I spread any manure I have available, mix it in with the cattle's hooves, and pile it up using a scraper."

Peat may be advantageously used to save from waste the droppings of the yard.

Peat can be effectively used to prevent the waste of yard droppings.

Mr. Edwin Hoyt, of New Canaan, Conn., says:—"We use muck largely in our barn-yards, and after it becomes thoroughly saturated and intermixed with the droppings of the stock, it is piled up to ferment, and the yard is covered again with fresh muck."

Mr. Edwin Hoyt, from New Canaan, Conn., says:—"We use muck a lot in our barnyards, and after it gets completely soaked and mixed with the animals' droppings, we pile it up to let it ferment, and the yard is covered again with fresh muck."

Mr. N. Hart, Jr., of West Cornwall, Conn., writes:—"In the use of muck we proceed as follows: Soon after haying we throw up enough for a year's use, or several hundred loads. In the fall, the summer's accumulation in hog-pens and barn cellars is spread upon the mowing grounds, and a liberal supply of muck carted in and spread in the bottoms of the cellars, ready for the season for stabling cattle. When this is well saturated with the drippings of the stables, a new supply is added. The accumulation of the winter is usually applied to the land for the corn crop, except the finer portion, which is used to top-dress meadow land. A new supply is then drawn in for the swine to work up. This is added to from time to time, and as the swine are fed on whey, they will convert a large quantity into valuable manure for top-dressing mowing land."

Mr. N. Hart, Jr., of West Cornwall, Conn., writes:—"When using muck, we do the following: Soon after we finish haying, we stockpile enough for a year's use, which is several hundred loads. In the fall, we spread the summer’s accumulation from hog pens and barn basements onto the mowing fields, and bring in a generous supply of muck to spread on the bottoms of the basements, preparing for the season of stabling cattle. Once this muck is well soaked with the runoff from the stables, we add a new supply. The buildup from the winter is typically used on the corn crop, except for the finer parts, which are used to top-dress the meadow land. We then bring in a new supply for the pigs to work through. This is topped off from time to time, and since the pigs are fed whey, they turn a large amount into valuable manure for top-dressing the mowing land."

A difference of opinion exists as to the treatment of the compost. Some hold it indifferent whether the peat and manure are mixed, or put in layers when the composting begins. Others assert, that the fermentation proceeds better when the ingredients are stratified. Some direct, that the compost should not be stirred. The general testimony is, that mixture, at the outset, is as effectual [Pg 66]as putting up in layers; but, if the manure be strawy, it is, of course, difficult or impracticable to mix at first. Opinion also preponderates in favor of stirring, during or after the fermentation.

A difference of opinion exists regarding how to treat the compost. Some people believe it doesn't matter if the peat and manure are mixed or layered when composting begins. Others argue that fermentation works better when the ingredients are layered. Some suggest that the compost shouldn't be stirred. The general consensus is that mixing at the beginning is just as effective [Pg 66] as layering; however, if the manure contains a lot of straw, it can be difficult or impossible to mix initially. Most opinions lean towards stirring during or after fermentation.

Mr. Hoyt remarks:—"We are convinced, that the oftener a compost pile of yard manure and muck is worked over after fermenting, the better. We work it over and add to it a little more muck and other material, and the air being thus allowed to penetrate it, a new fermentation or heating takes place, rendering it more decomposable and valuable."

Mr. Hoyt says:—"We believe that the more frequently a compost pile of yard manure and muck is turned after it ferments, the better it is. We mix it up and add a bit more muck and other materials, allowing air to circulate through it, which starts a new fermentation or heating process, making it easier to break down and more valuable."

Rev. Wm. Clift, writes:—"Three or four loads of muck to one of stable manure, put together in the fall or winter in alternate layers, forked over twice before spreading and plowing in, may represent the method of composting."

Rev. Wm. Clift writes:—"Three or four loads of muck for every load of stable manure, stacked in alternating layers during the fall or winter, turned over twice before spreading and tilling in, can be seen as the composting method."

Mr. Adams White, of Brooklyn, Conn., proceeds in a different manner. He says:—"In composting, 20 loads are drawn on to upland in September, and thrown up in a long pile. Early in the spring 20 loads of stable manure are laid along side, and covered with the muck. As soon as it has heated moderately, the whole is forked over and well mixed."

Mr. Adams White, from Brooklyn, Conn., does it differently. He says:—"In composting, 20 loads are brought onto upland in September and piled up in a long stack. Early in the spring, 20 loads of stable manure are placed alongside it and covered with muck. Once it has heated up a bit, everything is forked over and mixed well."

Those who have practiced making peat composts with their yard, stable, and pen manure, almost invariably find them highly satisfactory in use, especially upon light soils.

Those who have experience making peat compost using their yard waste, stable, and pen manure usually find it very effective, especially on light soils.

A number of years ago, I saw a large pile of compost in the farm-yard of Mr. Pond, of Milford, Conn., and witnessed its effect as applied by that gentleman to a field of sixteen acres of fine gravelly or coarse sandy soil. The soil, from having a light color and excessive porosity, had become dark, unctuous, and retentive of moisture, so that during the drouth of 1856, the crops on this field were good and continued to flourish, while on the contiguous land they were dried up and nearly ruined. This [Pg 67]compost was made from a light muck, that contained but three per cent. of ash (more than half of which was sand), and but 1.2 per cent. of nitrogen, in the air-dry state—(twenty per cent. of water). Three loads of this muck were used to one of stable manure.

A few years ago, I saw a huge pile of compost in Mr. Pond's farmyard in Milford, Conn., and observed how he used it on a sixteen-acre field of fine gravelly or coarse sandy soil. The soil, which was light in color and overly porous, transformed into dark, rich, and moisture-retentive earth. During the drought of 1856, the crops in this field thrived while those on nearby land dried up and nearly perished. This [Pg 67] compost was made from a light muck that had only three percent of ash (more than half of which was sand) and just 1.2 percent of nitrogen, when air-dry—(twenty percent of water). Three loads of this muck were used for every load of stable manure.

Here follow some estimates of the value of this compost by practical men. They are given to show that older statements, to the same effect, cannot be regarded as exaggerated.

Here are some estimates of the value of this compost from practical experts. They're provided to demonstrate that previous statements with the same implications can't be considered exaggerated.

Mr. J. H. Stanwood, of Colebrook, Conn., says:—"Experiments made by myself, have confirmed me in the opinion that a compost of equal parts of muck and stable manure is equal to the same quantity of stable manure."

Mr. J. H. Stanwood, from Colebrook, Conn., says:—"Experiments I conducted have strengthened my belief that a compost made of equal parts muck and stable manure is just as effective as the same amount of stable manure."

Mr. Daniel Buck, Jr., of Poquonock, Conn., remarks:—"8 loads of muck and 4 of manure in compost, when properly forked over, are equal to 12 loads of barn-yard manure on sandy soil."

Mr. Daniel Buck, Jr., of Poquonock, Conn., says:—"8 loads of muck and 4 of composted manure, when properly mixed, are equivalent to 12 loads of barnyard manure on sandy soil."

Rev. Wm. Clift, of Stonington, Conn., writes:—"I consider a compost made of one load of stable manure and three of muck, equal in value to four loads of yard manure."

Rev. Wm. Clift from Stonington, Conn., writes:—"I believe a compost made from one load of stable manure and three loads of muck is equivalent in value to four loads of yard manure."

Mr. N. Hart, Jr., of West Cornwall, Conn., observes of a peat sent by him for analysis:—"We formerly composted it in the yard with stable manure, but have remodeled our stables, and now use it as an absorbent and to increase the bulk of manure to double its original quantity. We consider the mixture more valuable than the same quantity of stable manure." Again, "so successful has been the use of it, that we could hardly carry on our farming operations without it."

Mr. N. Hart, Jr., from West Cornwall, Conn., remarks on some peat he sent for analysis:—"We used to compost it in the yard with stable manure, but we've remodeled our stables and now use it as an absorbent and to double the bulk of manure. We find the mixture more valuable than the same amount of stable manure." Additionally, "the use of it has been so successful that we could hardly manage our farming operations without it."

Mr. Adams White, of Brooklyn, Conn., states:—"The compost of equal bulks of muck and stable manure, has been used for corn (with plaster in the hill,) on dry sandy soil to great advantage. I consider the compost worth more per cord than the barn-yard manure."

Mr. Adams White, of Brooklyn, Conn., says:—"The mix of equal parts muck and stable manure has been really beneficial for corn (with plaster in the hill) on dry sandy soil. I believe this mix is more valuable per cord than barnyard manure."

[Pg 68]Night Soil is a substance which possesses, when fresh, the most valuable fertilizing qualities, in a very concentrated form. It is also one which is liable to rapid and almost complete deterioration, as I have demonstrated by analyses. The only methods of getting the full effect of this material are, either to use it fresh, as is done by the Chinese and Japanese on a most extensive and offensive scale; or to compost it before it can decompose. The former method, will, it is to be hoped, never find acceptance among us. The latter plan has nearly all the advantages of the former, without its unpleasant features.

[Pg 68]Night Soil is a substance that has, when fresh, very valuable fertilizing qualities in a highly concentrated form. However, it is also prone to rapid and almost total decay, as I have shown through analyses. The only ways to fully utilize this material are to use it fresh, like the Chinese and Japanese do on a large and often unpleasant scale, or to compost it before it spoils. The former method, hopefully, will never be accepted by us. The latter option has almost all the benefits of the former without the undesirable aspects.

When the night soil falls into a vault, it may be composted, by simply sprinkling fine peat over its surface, once or twice weekly, as the case may require, i. e. as often as a bad odor prevails. The quantity thus added, may be from twice to ten times the bulk of the night soil,—the more within these limits, the better. When the vault is full, the mass should be removed, worked well over and after a few days standing, will be ready to use to manure corn, tobacco, etc., in the hill, or for any purpose to which guano or poudrette is applied. If it cannot be shortly used, it should be made into a compact heap, and covered with a thick stratum of peat. When signs of heating appear, it should be watched closely; and if the process attains too much violence, additional peat should be worked into it. Drenching with water is one of the readiest means of checking too much heating, but acts only temporarily. Dilution with peat to a proper point, which experience alone can teach, is the surest way of preventing loss. It should not be forgotten to put a thick layer of peat at the bottom of the vault to begin with.

When the waste falls into a pit, it can be composted by simply sprinkling fine peat over the surface once or twice a week, as needed, meaning as often as a bad smell occurs. The amount added can be from two to ten times the volume of the waste—the more within that range, the better. When the pit is full, the mixture should be removed, mixed thoroughly, and after a few days of standing, it will be ready to use as fertilizer for corn, tobacco, etc., in the ground, or for any purpose that guano or similar fertilizers are used. If it can't be used right away, it should be made into a compact pile and covered with a thick layer of peat. When it starts to heat up, it should be monitored closely; if the heat becomes too intense, more peat should be mixed in. Watering it down is a quick way to reduce excessive heat, but it's only a temporary solution. Mixing in peat to the right level, which you’ll learn through experience, is the best way to prevent loss. Don’t forget to put a thick layer of peat at the bottom of the pit to start with.

Another excellent plan, when circumstances admit, is, to have the earth-floor where the night soil drops, level with the surface of the ground, or but slightly excavated, [Pg 69]and a shed attached to the rear of the privy to shelter a good supply of peat as well as the compost itself. Operations are begun by putting down a layer of peat to receive the droppings; enough should be used to absorb all the urine. When this is nearly saturated, more should be sprinkled on, and the process is repeated until the accumulations must be removed to make room for more. Then, once a week or so, the whole is hauled out into the shed, well mixed, and formed into a compact heap, or placed as a layer upon a stratum of peat, some inches thick, and covered with the same. The quantity of first-class compost that may be made yearly upon any farm, if due care be taken, would astonish those who have not tried it. James Smith, of Deanston, Scotland, who originated our present system of Thorough Drainage, asserted, that the excrements of one man for a year, are sufficient to manure half an acre of land. In Belgium the manure from such a source has a commercial value of $9.00 gold.

Another great plan, when conditions allow, is to keep the ground where the waste drops level with the surface or only slightly dug down, [Pg 69] and to have a shed attached to the back of the toilet to store a good supply of peat and the compost itself. Start by laying down a layer of peat to catch the waste; enough should be used to soak up all the urine. When this is nearly saturated, sprinkle more on, and repeat the process until you need to remove the buildup to make space for more. Then, about once a week, take the whole mix out to the shed, mix it well, and form it into a compact pile, or spread it as a layer on top of a few inches of peat and cover it up with more peat. The amount of high-quality compost that can be made in a year on any farm, with proper care, would surprise those who haven't tried it. James Smith from Deanston, Scotland, who developed our current system of Thorough Drainage, claimed that one person's waste in a year is enough to fertilize half an acre of land. In Belgium, the manure from this source has a commercial value of $9.00 gold.

It is certain, that the skillful farmer may make considerably more than that sum from it in New England, per annum. Mr. Hoyt, of New Canaan, Conn., says:—

It’s clear that a skilled farmer can earn quite a bit more than that amount in New England, per annum. Mr. Hoyt, from New Canaan, Conn., says:—

"Our privies are deodorized by the use of muck, which is sprinkled over the surface of the pit once a week, and from them alone we thus prepare annually, enough "poudrette" to manure our corn in the hill."

"Our toilets are deodorized with muck, which we sprinkle over the pit's surface once a week, and from them alone, we prepare enough "poudrette" each year to fertilize our corn in the hill."

Peruvian Guano, so serviceable in its first applications to light soils, may be composted with muck to the greatest advantage. Guano is an excellent material for bringing muck into good condition, and on the other hand the muck most effectually prevents any waste of the costly guano, and at the same time, by furnishing the soil with its own ingredients, to a greater or less degree prevents the exhaustion that often follows the use of guano alone. The quantity of muck should be pretty large compared [Pg 70]to that of the guano,—a bushel of guano will compost six, eight, or ten of muck. Both should be quite fine, and should be well mixed, the mixture should be moist and kept covered with a layer of muck of several inches of thickness. This sort of compost would probably be sufficiently fermented in a week or two of warm weather, and should be made and kept under cover.

Peruvian Guano, which is very useful when first applied to light soils, can be composted with muck for even better results. Guano is a fantastic material for improving muck, and on the flip side, the muck effectively prevents wasting the expensive guano. Additionally, by providing the soil with its own nutrients, it helps to avoid the depletion that often happens when using guano alone. The amount of muck should be quite large compared [Pg 70]to the guano—one bushel of guano can be composted with six, eight, or ten bushels of muck. Both should be finely ground and well mixed; the mixture should be moist and covered with a layer of muck several inches thick. This type of compost would likely be fermented enough within a week or two of warm weather, and it should be prepared and kept sheltered.

If no more than five or six parts of muck to one of guano are employed, the compost, according to the experience of Simon Brown, Esq., of the Boston Cultivator, (Patent Office Report for 1856), will prove injurious, if placed in the hill in contact with seed, but may be applied broadcast without danger.

If you use no more than five or six parts of muck for every part of guano, the compost, based on the experience of Simon Brown, Esq., from the Boston Cultivator, (Patent Office Report for 1856), could be harmful if it comes into direct contact with the seeds in the hill, but it's safe to spread it over the area.

The Menhaden or "White fish", so abundantly caught along our Sound coast during the summer months, or any variety of fish may be composted with muck, so as to make a powerful manure, with avoidance of the excessively disagreeable stench which is produced when these fish are put directly on the land. Messrs. Stephen Hoyt & Sons, of New Canaan, Conn., make this compost on a large scale. I cannot do better than to give entire Mr. Edwin Hoyt's account of their operations, communicated to me several years ago.

The Menhaden or "White fish," which are caught in large numbers along our Sound coast during the summer, or any type of fish, can be mixed with muck to create a strong fertilizer without the unpleasant odor that occurs when these fish are placed directly on the ground. Messrs. Stephen Hoyt & Sons, from New Canaan, Conn., produce this compost on a large scale. I can’t do better than to share Mr. Edwin Hoyt's detailed account of their operations, which he shared with me several years ago.

"During the present season, (1858,) we have composted about 200,000 white fish with about 700 loads (17,500 bushels) of muck. We vary the proportions somewhat according to the crop the compost is intended for. For rye we apply 20 to 25 loads per acre of a compost made with 4,500 fish, (one load) and with this manuring, no matter how poor the soil, the rye will be as large as a man can cradle. Much of ours we have to reap. For oats we use less fish, as this crop is apt to lodge. For corn, one part fish to ten or twelve muck is about right, while for grass or any top-dressing, the proportion of fish may be increased."

"During this current season (1858), we've mixed about 200,000 white fish with around 700 loads (17,500 bushels) of muck. We adjust the proportions a bit depending on the crop the compost is meant for. For rye, we apply 20 to 25 loads per acre of a compost made with 4,500 fish (one load), and with this fertilizer, no matter how poor the soil is, the rye will grow as tall as a person can cradle. A lot of it we have to harvest ourselves. For oats, we use fewer fish since this crop tends to fall over. For corn, a mix of one part fish to ten or twelve parts muck is about right, while for grass or any top-dressing, the amount of fish can be increased."

[Pg 71]"We find it is best to mix the fish in the summer and not use the compost until the next spring and summer. Yet we are obliged to use in September for our winter rye a great deal of the compost made in July. We usually compost the first arrivals of fish in June for our winter grain; after this pile has stood three or four weeks, it is worked over thoroughly. In this space of time the fish become pretty well decomposed, though they still preserve their form and smell outrageously. As the pile is worked over, a sprinkling of muck or plaster is given to retain any escaping ammonia. At the time of use in September the fish have completely disappeared, bones and fins excepted."

[Pg 71]"We’ve found that it’s best to mix the fish in the summer and not use the compost until the next spring and summer. However, we have to use a lot of the compost made in July for our winter rye in September. We typically compost the first batch of fish in June for our winter grain; after that pile has sat for three to four weeks, we turn it thoroughly. During this time, the fish break down quite well, although they still keep their shape and smell really bad. As we turn the pile, we add some muck or plaster to capture any escaping ammonia. By the time we use it in September, the fish have totally broken down, except for the bones and fins."

"The effect on the muck is to blacken it and make it more loose and crumbly. As to the results of the use of this compost, we find them in the highest degree satisfactory. We have raised 30 to 35 bushels of rye per acre on land that without it could have yielded 6 or 8 bushels at the utmost. This year we have corn that will give 60 to 70 bushels per acre, that otherwise would yield but 20 to 25 bushels. It makes large potatoes, excellent turnips and carrots."

"The effect on the soil is to darken it and make it more loose and crumbly. As for the results of using this compost, we find them extremely satisfactory. We have produced 30 to 35 bushels of rye per acre on land that could have only yielded 6 to 8 bushels at most without it. This year, our corn is expected to yield 60 to 70 bushels per acre, whereas it would have only produced 20 to 25 bushels otherwise. It also grows large potatoes and excellent turnips and carrots."

Fish compost thus prepared, is a uniform mass of fishy but not putrefactive odor, not disagreeable to handle. It retains perfectly all the fertilizing power of the fish. Lands, manured with this compost, will keep in heart and improve: while, as is well known to our coast farmers, the use of fish alone is ruinous in the end, on light soils.

Fish compost, when prepared this way, is a consistent mixture that has a fishy smell but isn't offensive or rotten, making it acceptable to handle. It fully retains all the nutrients from the fish. Fields fertilized with this compost will stay healthy and improve over time; however, as our coastal farmers know well, using just fish can lead to long-term damage on light soils.

It is obvious that any other easily decomposing animal matters, as slaughter-house offal, soap boiler's scraps, glue waste, horn shavings, shoddy, castor pummace, cotton seed-meal, etc., etc., may be composted in a similar manner, and that several or all these substances may be made together into one compost.

It’s clear that any other easily decomposable animal byproducts, like slaughterhouse waste, soap maker’s leftovers, glue scraps, horn shavings, shoddy, castor bean pulp, cotton seed meal, etc., etc., can be composted in the same way, and that several or all of these materials can be combined into one compost.

[Pg 72]In case of the composts with yard manure, guano and other animal matters, the alkali, ammonia, formed in the fermentation, greatly promotes chemical change, and it would appear that this substance, on some accounts, excels all others in its efficacy. The other alkaline bodies, potash, soda and lime, are however scarcely less active in this respect, and being at the same time, of themselves, useful fertilizers, they also may be employed in preparing muck composts.

[Pg 72]When it comes to compost made from yard waste, guano, and other animal products, the alkali, ammonia, created during fermentation significantly boosts chemical reactions, and it seems that this substance, in many ways, outperforms all others in its effectiveness. The other alkaline materials, potash, soda, and lime, are also quite effective in this regard, and since they are beneficial fertilizers on their own, they can also be used to prepare muck composts.

Potash-lye and soda-ash have been recommended for composting with muck; but, although they are no doubt highly efficacious, they are too costly for extended use.

Potash-lye and soda-ash have been suggested for composting with muck; however, while they are undoubtedly very effective, they are too expensive for regular use.

The other alkaline materials that may be cheaply employed, and are recommended, are wood-ashes, leached and unleached, ashes of peat, shell marl, (consisting of carbonate of lime,) quick lime, gas lime, and what is called "salt and lime mixture."

The other alkaline materials that can be used cheaply and are suggested include wood ashes, both leached and unleached, peat ashes, shell marl (which is made up of calcium carbonate), quick lime, gas lime, and what is known as "salt and lime mixture."

With regard to the proportions to be used, no very definite rules can be laid down; but we may safely follow those who have had experience in the matter. Thus, to a cord of muck, which is about 100 bushels, may be added, of unleached wood ashes twelve bushels, or of leached wood ashes twenty bushels, or of peat ashes twenty bushels, or of marl, or of gas lime twenty bushels. Ten bushels of quick lime, slaked with water or salt-brine previous to use, is enough for a cord of muck.

When it comes to the proportions to use, there aren't any strict rules, but we can definitely learn from those who have experience in this area. For example, you can add twelve bushels of unleached wood ashes, twenty bushels of leached wood ashes, twenty bushels of peat ashes, or twenty bushels of marl or gas lime to a cord of muck, which is about 100 bushels. Meanwhile, ten bushels of quick lime that has been slaked with water or salt-brine before using is sufficient for a cord of muck.

Instead of using the above mentioned substances singly, any or all of them may be employed together.

Instead of using the substances mentioned above individually, any or all of them can be used together.

The muck should be as fine and free from lumps as possible, and must be intimately mixed with the other ingredients by shoveling over. The mass is then thrown up into a compact heap, which may be four feet high. When the heap is formed, it is well to pour on as much water as the mass will absorb, (this may be omitted if the muck [Pg 73]is already quite moist,) and finally the whole is covered over with a few inches of pure muck, so as to retain moisture and heat. If the heap is put up in the Spring, it may stand undisturbed for one or two months, when it is well to shovel it over and mix it thoroughly. It should then be built up again, covered with fresh muck, and allowed to stand as before until thoroughly decomposed. The time required for this purpose varies with the kind of muck, and the quality of the other material used. The weather and thoroughness of intermixture of the ingredients also materially affect the rapidity of decomposition. In all cases five or six months of summer weather is a sufficient time to fit these composts for application to the soil.

The muck should be as fine and lump-free as possible and must be mixed well with the other ingredients by shoveling. The mixture is then piled into a compact heap, which can be about four feet high. Once the heap is formed, it’s good to add as much water as the mixture can absorb (this can be skipped if the muck [Pg 73]is already quite damp), and finally, the entire heap is covered with a few inches of pure muck to keep moisture and heat in. If the heap is made in the spring, it can sit undisturbed for one to two months, after which it’s best to shovel it over and mix it thoroughly. It should then be built up again, covered with fresh muck, and allowed to sit as before until it’s fully decomposed. The time needed for this can differ based on the type of muck and the quality of the other materials used. The weather and the level of thorough mixing of the ingredients also significantly influence the speed of decomposition. Generally, five to six months of summer weather is enough time to prepare these composts for use in the soil.

Mr. Stanwood of Colebrook, Conn., says: "I have found a compost made of two bushels of unleached ashes to twenty-five of muck, superior to stable manure as a top-dressing for grass, on a warm, dry soil."

Mr. Stanwood of Colebrook, Conn., says: "I've found that a compost made of two bushels of unleached ashes mixed with twenty-five bushels of muck is better than stable manure for top-dressing grass on warm, dry soil."

N. Hart, Jr., of West Cornwall, Conn., states: "I have mixed 25 bushels of ashes with the same number of loads of muck, and applied it to ¾ of an acre. The result was far beyond that obtained by applying 300 lbs. best guano to the same piece."

N. Hart, Jr., of West Cornwall, Conn., says: "I mixed 25 bushels of ashes with the same amount of muck and applied it to ¾ of an acre. The results were way better than applying 300 lbs. of the best guano to the same area."

The use of "salt and lime mixture" is so strongly recommended, that a few words may be devoted to its consideration.

The use of "salt and lime mixture" is highly recommended, so it's worth taking a moment to discuss it.

When quick-lime is slaked with a brine of common salt (chloride of sodium), there are formed by double decomposition, small portions of caustic soda and chloride of calcium, which dissolve in the liquid. If the solution stand awhile, carbonic acid is absorbed from the air, forming carbonate of soda: but carbonate of soda and chloride of calcium instantly exchange their ingredients, forming insoluble carbonate of lime and reproducing common salt.

When quicklime is mixed with a saltwater solution (sodium chloride), a chemical reaction occurs, producing small amounts of caustic soda and calcium chloride, which dissolve in the liquid. If the solution sits for a while, it absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, creating sodium carbonate. However, sodium carbonate and calcium chloride quickly swap their components, resulting in insoluble calcium carbonate and regenerating common salt.

[Pg 74]When the fresh mixture of quick-lime and salt is incorporated with any porous body, as soil or peat, then, as Graham has shown, unequal diffusion of the caustic soda and chloride of calcium occurs from the point where they are formed, through the moist porous mass, and the result is, that the small portion of caustic soda which diffuses most rapidly, or the carbonate of soda formed by its speedy union with carbonic acid, is removed from contact with the chloride of calcium.

[Pg 74]When the fresh mix of quicklime and salt is combined with any porous material, like soil or peat, it causes, as Graham has shown, an uneven distribution of caustic soda and calcium chloride from where they are created, through the moist porous substance. The outcome is that the small amount of caustic soda that spreads the fastest, or the sodium carbonate formed by its quick reaction with carbonic acid, is taken away from the calcium chloride.

Soda and carbonate of soda are more soluble in water and more strongly alkaline than lime. They, therefore, act on peat more energetically than the latter. It is on account of the formation of soda and carbonate of soda from the lime and salt mixture, that this mixture exerts a more powerful decomposing action than lime alone. Where salt is cheap and wood ashes scarce, the mixture may be employed accordingly to advantage. Of its usefulness we have the testimony of practical men.

Soda and baking soda dissolve more easily in water and are more alkaline than lime. Because of this, they interact with peat more effectively than lime alone. The reason this lime and salt mixture is more powerful at breaking down materials than lime on its own is due to the formation of soda and baking soda. Where salt is inexpensive and wood ashes are hard to find, this mixture can be used advantageously. Practical experts have confirmed its effectiveness.

Says Mr. F. Holbrook of Vermont, (Patent Office Report for 1856, page 193.) "I had a heap of seventy-five half cords of muck mixed with lime in the proportion of a half cord of muck to a bushel of lime. The muck was drawn to the field when wanted in August. A bushel of salt to six bushels of lime was dissolved in water enough to slake the lime down to a fine dry powder, the lime being slaked no faster than wanted, and spread immediately while warm, over the layers of muck, which were about six inches thick; then a coating of lime and so on, until the heap reached the height of five feet, a convenient width, and length enough to embrace the whole quantity of the muck. In about three weeks a powerful decomposition was apparent, and the heap was nicely overhauled, nothing more being done to it till it was loaded the next Spring for spreading. The compost was spread on the plowed surface of a dry sandy loam at the rate of about [Pg 75]fifteen cords to the acre, and harrowed in. The land was planted with corn and the crop was more than sixty bushels to the acre."

Says Mr. F. Holbrook of Vermont, (Patent Office Report for 1856, page 193.) "I had a pile of seventy-five half cords of muck mixed with lime in a ratio of half a cord of muck to a bushel of lime. The muck was brought to the field as needed in August. A bushel of salt was dissolved in enough water to slake six bushels of lime down to a fine dry powder, slaking the lime only as fast as required and spreading it immediately while warm over the layers of muck, which were about six inches thick; then a layer of lime, and so on, until the pile was about five feet high, a convenient width, and long enough to hold all the muck. After about three weeks, noticeable decomposition occurred, and the heap was carefully mixed, with nothing else done until it was loaded the next spring for spreading. The compost was spread on the freshly plowed surface of a dry sandy loam at approximately [Pg 75]fifteen cords per acre and harrowed in. The land was planted with corn, yielding more than sixty bushels per acre."

Other writers assert that they "have decomposed with this mixture, spent tan, saw dust, corn stalks, swamp muck, leaves from the woods, indeed every variety of inert substance, and in much shorter time than it could be done by any other means." (Working Farmer, Vol. III. p. 280.)

Other writers claim that they "have broken down this mixture—spent tan, sawdust, corn stalks, swamp muck, leaves from the woods, and really every type of inactive substance—in much shorter time than it could be done by any other means." (Working Farmer, Vol. III. p. 280.)

Some experiments that have a bearing on the efficacy of this compost will be detailed presently.

Some experiments that relate to the effectiveness of this compost will be explained shortly.

There is no doubt that the soluble and more active (caustic) forms of alkaline bodies exert a powerful decomposing and solvent action on peat. It is asserted too that the nearly insoluble and less active matters of this kind, also have an effect, though a less complete and rapid one. Thus, carbonate of lime in the various forms of chalk, shell marl,[6] old mortar, leached ashes and peat ashes, (for in all these it is the chief and most "alkaline" [Pg 76]ingredient,) is recommended to compost with peat. Let us inquire whether carbonate of lime can really exert any noticeable influence in improving the fertilizing quality of peat.

There’s no doubt that the soluble and more active (caustic) forms of alkaline substances have a strong decomposing and solvent effect on peat. It’s also claimed that the nearly insoluble and less active materials of this kind have an impact too, although it’s less complete and slower. For example, carbonate of lime in the different forms of chalk, shell marl,[6] old mortar, leached ashes, and peat ashes (as it is the main and most "alkaline" [Pg 76] ingredient in all these) is suggested to be composted with peat. Let’s investigate whether carbonate of lime can really have a noticeable effect on improving the fertilizing quality of peat.

In the case of vitriol peats, carbonate of lime is the cheapest and most appropriate means of destroying the noxious sulphate of protoxide of iron, and correcting their deleterious quality. When carbonate of lime is brought in contact with sulphate of protoxide of iron, the two bodies mutually decompose, with formation of sulphate of lime (gypsum) and carbonate of protoxide of iron. The latter substance absorbs oxygen from the air with the utmost avidity, and passes into the peroxide of iron, which is entirely inert.

In the case of vitriol peats, lime is the cheapest and most effective way to eliminate the harmful sulfate of protoxide of iron and improve their negative qualities. When lime comes into contact with sulfate of protoxide of iron, the two substances break down and form sulfate of lime (gypsum) and carbonate of protoxide of iron. The latter substance quickly absorbs oxygen from the air and turns into peroxide of iron, which is completely inactive.

The admixture of any earthy matter with peat, will facilitate its decomposition, and make it more active chemically, in so far as it promotes the separation of the particles of the peat from each other, and the consequent access of air. This benefit may well amount to something when we add to peat one-fifth of its bulk of marl or leached ashes, but the question comes up: Do these insoluble mild alkalies exert any direct action? Would not as much soil of any kind be equally efficacious, by promoting to an equal degree the contact of oxygen from the atmosphere?

Mixing any soil material with peat will help it break down and make it more chemically active because it allows the peat particles to separate from each other, letting air in. This improvement can be significant when we add one-fifth of peat's volume in marl or leached ashes, but the question arises: Do these insoluble mild alkalies have any direct effect? Wouldn't any type of soil work just as well by increasing the contact with oxygen in the atmosphere?

There are two ways in which carbonate of lime may exert a chemical action on the organic matters of peat. Carbonate of lime, itself, in the forms we have mentioned, is commonly called insoluble in water. It is, however, soluble to a very slight extent; it dissolves, namely, in about 30,000 times its weight of pure water. It is nearly thirty times more soluble in water saturated with carbonic acid; and this solution has distinct alkaline characters. Since the water contained in a heap of peat must be considerably impregnated with carbonic acid, it follows that [Pg 77]when carbonate of lime is present, the latter must form a solution, very dilute indeed, but still capable of some direct effect on the organic matters of the peat, when it acts through a long space of time. Again, it is possible that the solution of carbonate of lime in carbonic acid, may act to liberate some ammonia from the soluble portions of the peat, and this ammonia may react on the remainder of the peat to produce the same effects as it does in the case of a compost made with animal matters.

There are two ways that calcium carbonate can chemically affect the organic materials in peat. Calcium carbonate, as we've noted, is usually considered insoluble in water. However, it does dissolve to a very small extent, specifically in about 30,000 times its weight of pure water. It's nearly thirty times more soluble in water that is saturated with carbonic acid; this solution has distinct alkaline properties. Since the water in a peat pile is likely to be significantly infused with carbonic acid, it follows that [Pg 77] when calcium carbonate is present, it must create a very dilute solution that can still have some direct effect on the organic materials in the peat over a long period. Additionally, it's possible that the solution of calcium carbonate in carbonic acid may help release some ammonia from the soluble parts of the peat, and this ammonia could react with the rest of the peat, producing effects similar to those seen in compost made with animal matter.

Whether the effects thus theoretically possible, amount to anything practically important, is a question of great interest. It often happens that opinions entertained by practical men, not only by farmers, but by mechanics and artisans as well, are founded on so untrustworthy a basis, are supported by trials so destitute of precision, that their accuracy may well be doubted, and from all the accounts I have met with, it does not seem to have been well established, practically, that composts made with carbonate of lime, are better than the peat and carbonate used separately.

Whether the theoretically possible effects actually lead to anything practically significant is a question of great interest. It's often the case that opinions held by practical people, not just farmers but also mechanics and artisans, are based on such unreliable foundations, and supported by tests that lack precision, that their accuracy can be seriously questioned. From all the accounts I've come across, it doesn't seem to be well established that composts made with lime are better than using peat and lime separately.

Carbonate of lime (leached ashes, shell marl, etc.), is very well to use in conjunction with peat, to furnish a substance or substances needful to the growth of plants, and supply the deficiencies of peat as regards composition. Although in the agricultural papers, numerous accounts of the efficacy of such mixtures are given, we do not learn from them whether these bodies exert any such good effect upon the peat itself, as to warrant the trouble of making a compost.

Lime carbonate (like leached ashes and shell marl) works really well with peat to provide essential substances for plant growth and to compensate for peat's compositional shortcomings. While many agricultural reports discuss the effectiveness of these mixtures, they don't clarify whether these ingredients actually benefit the peat itself enough to justify the effort of making a compost.

4.—Experiments by the author on the effect of alkaline bodies in developing the fertilizing power of Peat.

4.—Experiments by the author on how alkaline substances enhance the fertilizing ability of Peat.

During the summer of 1862, the author undertook a series of experiments with a view of ascertaining the effect of various composting materials upon peat.

During the summer of 1862, the author conducted a series of experiments to determine how different composting materials would affect peat.

[Pg 78]Two bushels of peat were obtained from a heap that had been weathering for some time on the "Beaver Meadow," near New Haven. This was thoroughly air-dried, then crushed by the hand, and finally rubbed through a moderately fine sieve. In this way, the peat was brought to a perfectly homogeneous condition.

[Pg 78]Two bushels of peat were collected from a pile that had been exposed to the elements for a while on the "Beaver Meadow," near New Haven. This was completely air-dried, then manually crushed, and finally sifted through a fine sieve. In this manner, the peat was made perfectly uniform.

Twelve-quart flower-pots, new from the warehouse, were filled as described below; the trials being made in duplicate:—

Twelve-quart flower pots, freshly stocked from the warehouse, were filled as outlined below; the tests were conducted in duplicate:—

Pots 1 and 2 contained each 270 grammes of peat.

Pots 1 and 2 each contained 270 grams of peat.

Pots 3 and 4 contained each 270 grammes of peat, mixed-with 10 grammes of ashes of young grass.

Pots 3 and 4 each contained 270 grams of peat, mixed with 10 grams of ashes from young grass.

Pots 5 and 6 contained each 270 grammes of peat, 10 grammes of ashes, and 10 grammes of carbonate of lime.

Pots 5 and 6 each contained 270 grams of peat, 10 grams of ashes, and 10 grams of calcium carbonate.

Pots 7 and 8 contained each 270 grammes of peat, 10 grammes of ashes, and 10 grammes of slaked (hydrate of) lime.

Pots 7 and 8 each contained 270 grams of peat, 10 grams of ashes, and 10 grams of slaked lime.

Pots 9 and 10 contained each 270 grammes of peat, 10 grammes of ashes, and 5 grammes of lime, slaked with strong solution of common salt.

Pots 9 and 10 each contained 270 grams of peat, 10 grams of ashes, and 5 grams of lime, mixed with a strong solution of table salt.

Pots 11 and 12 contained each 270 grammes of peat, 10 grammes of ashes, and 3 grammes of Peruvian guano.

Pots 11 and 12 each contained 270 grams of peat, 10 grams of ashes, and 3 grams of Peruvian guano.

In each case the materials were thoroughly mixed together, and so much water was cautiously added as served to wet them thoroughly. Five kernels of dwarf (pop) corn were planted in each pot, the weight of each planting being carefully ascertained.

In each case, the materials were mixed together thoroughly, and just enough water was carefully added to wet them completely. Five kernels of dwarf (pop) corn were planted in each pot, with the weight of each planting being precisely measured.

The pots were disposed in a glazed case within a cold grapery,[7] and were watered when needful with pure water. The seeds sprouted duly, and developed into healthy plants. The plants served thus as tests of the [Pg 79]chemical effect of carbonate of lime, of slaked lime, and of salt and lime mixture, on the peat. The guano pots enabled making a comparison with a well-known fertilizer. The plants were allowed to grow until those best developed, enlarged above, not at the expense of the peat, etc., but of their own lower leaves, as shown by the withering of the latter. They were then cut, and, after drying in the air, were weighed with the subjoined results.

The pots were placed in a glass case inside a cool greenhouse,[7] and were watered as needed with clean water. The seeds sprouted on schedule and grew into healthy plants. These plants were used to test the effect of calcium carbonate, slaked lime, and a salt and lime mixture on the peat. The guano pots were used to compare with a well-known fertilizer. The plants were allowed to grow until the best developed ones had increased in size, not at the cost of the peat, but by using their own lower leaves, which were seen to wither. They were then cut, dried in the air, and weighed, resulting in the following outcomes.


VEGETATION EXPERIMENTS IN PEAT COMPOSTS.

Plant experiments in peat composts.

           
KEY
A - Weight of crops in grammes.
B - Comparative weight of crops, the sum of 1. and 2. taken as unity.
C - Ratio of weight of crops to weight of seeds, the latter assumed as unity.
           
Nos. Medium of Growth. A B C
  1 } Peat alone.   1.61 }   4.20   1   2-½
  2 }   2.59 }
  3 } Peat, and ashes of grass, 14.19 } 32.44   8 20-½
  4 } 18.25 }
  5 } Peat, ashes, and carbonate of lime, 18.19 } 38.44   9 25-½
  6 } 20.25 }
  7 } Peat, ashes, and carbonate of lime, 21.49 } 42.22 10 28-½
  8 } 20.73 }
  9 } Peat, ashes, slaked lime, and salt, 23.08 } 46.42 11 30-½
10 } 23.34 }
11 } Peat, ashes, and Peruvian Guano, 26.79 } 53.78 13 35-½
12 } 26.99 }

Let us now examine the above results. The experiments 1 and 2, demonstrate that the peat itself is deficient in something needful to the plant. In both pots, but 4.2 grammes of crop were produced, a quantity two and a half times greater than that of the seeds, which weighed 1.59 grammes. The plants were pale in color, slender, and reached a height of but about six inches.

Let’s take a look at the results mentioned above. Experiments 1 and 2 show that the peat is lacking something essential for the plants. In both pots, only 4.2 grams of crop were produced, which is two and a half times more than the seeds, which weighed 1.59 grams. The plants were pale, thin, and only grew to about six inches tall.

Nos. 3 and 4 make evident what are some of the deficiencies of the peat. A supply of mineral matters, such as are contained in all plants, being made by the addition of ashes, consisting chiefly of phosphates, carbonates and sulphates of lime, magnesia and potash, a crop is realized nearly eight times greater than in the previous cases; the yield being 32.44 grammes, or 20-½ times the weight of [Pg 80]the seed. The quantity of ashes added, viz.:—10 grammes, was capable of supplying every mineral element, greatly in excess of the wants of any crop that could be grown in a quart of soil. The plants in pots 3 and 4 were much stouter than those in 1 and 2, and had a healthy color.

Nos. 3 and 4 clearly show some of the shortcomings of the peat. By adding a supply of minerals found in all plants through the addition of ashes, which mostly consist of phosphates, carbonates, and sulfates of lime, magnesia, and potash, the yield is nearly eight times greater than in the previous cases; the harvest being 32.44 grams, or 20.5 times the weight of [Pg 80]the seed. The amount of ashes added, 10 grams, was sufficient to provide every mineral element, far exceeding the needs of any crop that could be grown in a quart of soil. The plants in pots 3 and 4 were much sturdier than those in 1 and 2, and they had a healthy color.

The experiments 5 and 6 appear to demonstrate that carbonate of lime considerably aided in converting the peat itself into plant-food. The ashes alone contained enough carbonate of lime to supply the wants of the plant in respect to that substance. More carbonate of lime could only operate by acting on the organic matters of the peat. The amount of the crop is raised by the effect of carbonate of lime from 32.44 to 38.44 grammes, or from 20-½ to 25-½ times that of the seed.

The experiments 5 and 6 seem to show that lime carbonate significantly helped turn the peat into plant food. The ashes alone had enough lime carbonate to meet the plant's needs for that substance. Additional lime carbonate would only work by interacting with the organic matter in the peat. The crop yield increased due to the effect of lime carbonate from 32.44 to 38.44 grams, or from 20-½ to 25-½ times the amount of the seed.

Experiments 7 and 8 show, that slaked lime has more effect than the carbonate, as we should anticipate. Its influence does not, however, exceed that of the carbonate very greatly, the yield rising from 38.44 to 42.22 grammes, or from 25-½ to 28-½ times the weight of the seed. In fact, quick-lime can only act as such for a very short space of time, since it rapidly combines with the carbonic acid, which is supplied abundantly by the peat. In experiments 7 and 8, a good share of the influence exerted must therefore be actually ascribed to the carbonate, rather than to the quick-lime itself.

Experiments 7 and 8 show that slaked lime has a greater effect than the carbonate, as we would expect. However, its impact doesn’t exceed that of the carbonate by much, with the yield increasing from 38.44 to 42.22 grams, or from 25-½ to 28-½ times the weight of the seed. In fact, quick-lime can only be effective for a very short time, as it quickly combines with the carbonic acid, which is abundantly provided by the peat. Therefore, in experiments 7 and 8, a significant part of the observed influence must actually be attributed to the carbonate rather than to the quick-lime itself.

In experiments 9 and 10, we have proof that the "lime and salt mixture" has a greater efficacy than lime alone, the crop being increased thereby from 42.22, to 46.42 grammes, or from 28-½ to 30-½ times that of the seed.

In experiments 9 and 10, we have evidence that the "lime and salt mixture" is more effective than lime alone, increasing the crop from 42.22 to 46.42 grams, or from 28.5 to 30.5 times the amount of seed.

Finally, we see from experiments 11 and 12 that in all the foregoing cases it was a limited supply of nitrogen that limited the crop; for, on adding Peruvian guano, which could only act by this element (its other ingredients, [Pg 81]phosphates of lime and potash, being abundantly supplied in the ashes), the yield was carried up to 53.78 grammes, or 35-½ times the weight of the seed, and 13 times the weight of the crop obtained from the unmixed peat.

Finally, experiments 11 and 12 show that in all the previous cases, a limited supply of nitrogen restricted the crop. When we added Peruvian guano, which only works through this element (its other components, [Pg 81]phosphates of lime and potash, are already plentiful in the ashes), the yield increased to 53.78 grams, which is 35.5 times the weight of the seed and 13 times the weight of the crop produced from the unblended peat.

5.—The Examination of Peat (muck and marsh-mud) with reference to its Agricultural Value.

5.—The Examination of Peat (muck and marsh mud) regarding its Agricultural Value.

Since, as we are forced to conclude, the variations in the composition of peat stand in no recognizable relations to differences of appearance, it is only possible to ascertain the value of any given specimen by actual trial or by chemical investigation.

Since, as we have to conclude, the differences in peat composition don’t relate to differences in appearance, we can only determine the value of any specific sample through actual testing or chemical analysis.

The method by practical trial is usually the cheaper and more satisfactory of the two, though a half year or more is needful to gain the desired information.

The method by practical trial is generally the less expensive and more effective option of the two, although it usually takes six months or more to gather the necessary information.

It is sufficient to apply to small measured plots of ground, each say two rods square, known quantities of the fresh, the weathered, and the composted peat in order, by comparison of the growth and weight of the crop, to decide the question of their value.

It’s enough to apply known amounts of fresh, weathered, and composted peat to small measured plots of land, each about two rods square. By comparing the growth and weight of the crop, we can determine their value.

Peat and its composts are usually applied at rates ranging from 20 to 40 wagon or cart loads per acre. There being 160 square rods in the acre, the quantity proper to a plot of two rods square (= four square rods,) would be one half to one load.

Peat and its composts are typically used at rates between 20 and 40 wagon or cart loads per acre. Since there are 160 square rods in an acre, the amount suitable for a plot of two rods square (which equals four square rods) would be half to one load.

The composts with stable manure and lime, or salt and lime mixture, are those which, in general, it would be best to experiment with. From the effects of the stable manure compost, could be inferred with safety the value of any compost, of which animal manure is an essential ingredient.

The composts made with stable manure and lime, or a mixture of salt and lime, are generally the best ones to experiment with. The effects of the stable manure compost can safely indicate the value of any compost that includes animal manure as a key ingredient.

One great advantage of the practical trial on the small scale is, that the adaptation of the peat or of the compost to the peculiarities of the soil, is decided beyond a question.

One major benefit of conducting a small-scale practical trial is that the adjustment of the peat or compost to the peculiarities of the soil is determined without a doubt.

[Pg 82]It must be borne in mind, however, that the results of experiments can only be relied upon, when the plots are accurately measured, when the peat, etc., are applied in known quantities, and when the crops are separately harvested and carefully weighed.

[Pg 82]However, it's important to remember that the results of experiments can only be trusted when the plots are measured accurately, when the peat and other materials are used in known amounts, and when the crops are harvested separately and weighed carefully.

If experiments are made upon grass or clover, the gravest errors may arise by drawing conclusions from the appearance of the standing crop. Experience has shown that two clover crops, gathered from contiguous plots differently manured, may strikingly differ in appearance, but yield the same amounts of hay.

If experiments are conducted on grass or clover, serious mistakes can occur by making conclusions based on the appearance of the standing crop. Experience has shown that two clover crops, harvested from adjacent plots with different fertilizers, can look very different but yield the same amount of hay.

The chemical examination of a peat may serve to inform us, without loss of time, upon a number of important points.

The chemical examination of peat can quickly provide us with valuable information on several important issues.

To test a peat for soluble iron salts which might render it deleterious, we soak and agitate a handful for some hours, with four or five times its bulk of warm soft water. From a good fresh-water peat we obtain, by this treatment, a yellow liquid, more or less deep in tint, the taste of which is very slight and scarcely definable.

To test peat for soluble iron salts that could make it harmful, we soak and stir a handful for a few hours in four or five times its volume of warm soft water. From a good fresh-water peat, this process gives us a yellow liquid, varying in shade, with a very mild and almost indistinguishable taste.

From a vitriol peat we get a dark-brown or black solution, which has a bitter, astringent, metallic or inky taste, like that of copperas.

From a vitriol peat we get a dark-brown or black solution, which has a bitter, astringent, metallic, or inky taste, similar to that of copperas.

Salt peat will yield a solution having the taste of salt-brine, unless it contains iron, when the taste of the latter will prevail.

Salt peat will produce a solution that tastes like salt brine, unless it has iron in it, in which case the taste of the iron will be stronger.

On evaporating the water-solution to dryness and heating strongly in a China cup, a vitriol peat gives off white choking fumes of sulphuric acid, and there remains, after burning, brown-red oxide of iron in the dish.

On evaporating the water solution to dryness and heating it strongly in a China cup, a vitriol peat releases white, choking fumes of sulfuric acid, and after burning, there is brown-red iron oxide left in the dish.

The above testings are easily conducted by any one, with the ordinary conveniences of the kitchen.

The tests mentioned above can be easily performed by anyone using typical kitchen tools.

Those that follow, require, for the most part, the chemical laboratory, and the skill of the practised chemist, for satisfactory execution.

Those that follow mostly need a chemical lab and the expertise of a skilled chemist to be done properly.

[Pg 83]Besides testing for soluble iron compounds, as already indicated, the points to be regarded in the chemical examination, are:—

[Pg 83]In addition to testing for soluble iron compounds, as mentioned earlier, the key aspects to consider in the chemical analysis are:—

1st. Water or moisture.—This must be estimated, because it is so variable, and a knowledge of its quantity is needful, if we will compare together different samples. A weighed amount of the peat is dried for this purpose at 212° F., as long as it suffers loss.

1st. Water or moisture.—This needs to be measured, since it varies so much, and knowing its amount is important if we want to compare different samples. A weighed portion of the peat is dried at 212° F until it stops losing weight.

2d. The proportions of organic matter and ash are ascertained by carefully burning a weighed sample of the peat. By this trial we distinguish between peat with 2 to 10 per cent. of ash and peaty soil, or mud, containing but a few per cent. of organic matter.

2d. The ratios of organic matter and ash are determined by carefully burning a weighed sample of the peat. Through this test, we differentiate between peat with 2 to 10 percent. of ash and peaty soil, or mud, that contains only a few percent. of organic matter.

This experiment may be made in a rough way, but with sufficient accuracy for common purposes, by burning a few lbs. or ozs. of peat upon a piece of sheet iron, or in a sauce pan, and noting the loss, which includes both water and organic matter.

This experiment can be done in a simple way, but it's accurate enough for everyday needs, by burning a few pounds or ounces of peat on a piece of sheet metal or in a saucepan, and taking note of the weight loss, which includes both water and organic matter.

3d. As further regards the organic matters, we ascertain the extent to which the peaty decomposition has taken place by boiling with dilute solution of carbonate of soda. This solvent separates the humic and ulmic acids from the undecomposed vegetable fibers.

3d. As for the organic materials, we determine how much peaty decomposition has occurred by boiling it with a diluted solution of sodium carbonate. This solvent separates the humic and ulmic acids from the undigested plant fibers.

For practical purposes this treatment with carbonate of soda may be dispensed with, since the amount of undecomposed fiber is gathered with sufficient accuracy from careful inspection of the peat.

For practical purposes, this treatment with baking soda can be skipped, since the amount of undecomposed fiber can be accurately determined through careful inspection of the peat.

Special examination of the organic acids is of no consequence in the present state of our knowledge.

Special examination of organic acids doesn’t matter much with what we currently know.

4th. The proportion of nitrogen is of the first importance to be ascertained. In examinations of 30 samples of peat, I have found the content of nitrogen to range from 0.4 to 2.9 per cent., the richest containing seven times as much as the poorest. It is practically a matter of great [Pg 84]moment whether, for example, a Peruvian guano contains 16 per cent. of nitrogen as it should, or but one-seventh that amount, as it may when grossly adulterated. In the same sense, it is important before making a heavy outlay in excavating and composting peat, to know whether (as regards nitrogen) it belongs to the poorer or richer sorts. This can only be done by the complicated methods known to the chemist.

4th. The amount of nitrogen is extremely important to determine. In tests of 30 peat samples, I found the nitrogen content to range from 0.4 to 2.9 percent, with the richest one having seven times as much as the poorest. It's crucial to know, for instance, whether a Peruvian guano actually contains 16 percent nitrogen as it should, or only one-seventh of that amount, which can happen if it’s heavily adulterated. Similarly, before spending a lot on digging and composting peat, it's essential to figure out if it falls into the poorer or richer categories regarding nitrogen content. This can only be determined using the complex methods that a chemist knows.

5th. The estimation of ammonia (actual or ready-formed,) is a matter of scientific interest, but subordinate in a practical point of view.

5th. The assessment of ammonia (whether actual or already formed) is of scientific interest, but it is less important from a practical perspective.

6th. Nitric acid and nitrates can scarcely exist in peat except where it is well exposed to the air, in a merely moist but not wet state. Their estimation in composts is of great interest, though troublesome to execute.

6th. Nitric acid and nitrates can hardly exist in peat unless it’s well exposed to the air, remaining only moist and not soaked. Measuring them in composts is very important, though it can be difficult to do.

7th. As regards the ash, its red color indicates iron. Pouring hydrochloric acid upon it, causes effervescence in the presence of carbonate of lime. This compound, in most cases, has been formed in the burning, from humate and other organic salts of lime. Sand, or clay, being insoluble in the acid, remains, and may be readily estimated.

7th. About the ash, its red color shows iron. When hydrochloric acid is poured on it, it bubbles up in the presence of carbonate of lime. This compound is usually formed during burning from humate and other organic lime salts. Sand or clay, which are not soluble in the acid, stays behind and can be easily measured.

Phosphoric acid and alkalies, especially potash, are, next to lime, the important ingredients of the ash. Magnesia and sulphuric acid, rank next in value. Their estimation requires a number of tedious operations, and can scarcely be required for practical purposes, until more ready methods of analyses shall have been discovered.

Phosphoric acid and alkalis, especially potash, are, after lime, the key components of ash. Magnesia and sulfuric acid come next in importance. Assessing their value involves several tedious processes, and is unlikely to be needed for practical purposes until easier analysis methods are developed.

8th. The quantity of matters soluble in water has considerable interest, but is not ordinarily requisite to be ascertained.

8th. The amount of soluble substances in water is quite interesting, but it's usually not necessary to determine it.

6.—Composition of Connecticut Peats.

6.—Composition of Connecticut Peats.

In the years 1857 and 1858, the author was charged by the Connecticut State Agricultural Society[8] with the [Pg 85]chemical investigation of 33 samples of peat and swamp muck, sent to him in compliance with official request.

In 1857 and 1858, the author was tasked by the Connecticut State Agricultural Society[8] with the [Pg 85]chemical analysis of 33 samples of peat and swamp muck, which were sent to him as part of an official request.

In the foregoing pages, the facts revealed by the laborious analyses executed on these samples, have been for the most part communicated, together with many valuable practical results derived from the experience of the gentlemen who sent in the specimens. The analytical data themselves appear to me to be worthy of printing again, for the information of those who may hereafter make investigations in the same direction.—See Tables I, II, and III, p.p. 89, 90, and 91.

In the previous pages, the findings from the detailed analyses conducted on these samples have mostly been shared, along with many useful practical results based on the experience of the individuals who provided the specimens. I believe the analytical data themselves are worth reprinting for the benefit of anyone who may conduct similar investigations in the future.—See Tables I, II, and III, p.p. 89, 90, and 91.

The specimens came in all stages of dryness. Some were freshly dug and wet, others had suffered long exposure, so that they were air-dry; some that were sent in the moist state, became dry before being subjected to examination; others were prepared for analysis while still moist.

The specimens arrived in various states of dryness. Some were freshly dug and wet, while others had been exposed for a long time, making them air-dry; some that were sent in a moist state dried out before they could be examined; others were prepared for analysis while still moist.

A sufficient quantity of each specimen was carefully pulverized, intermixed, and put into a stoppered bottle and thus preserved for experiment.

A sufficient amount of each sample was carefully ground down, mixed together, and placed in a stoppered bottle for preservation for experimentation.

The analyses were begun in the winter of 1857 by my assistant, Edward H. Twining, Esq. The samples 1 to 17 of the subjoined tables were then analyzed. In the following year the work was continued on the remaining specimens 18—33 by Dr. Robert A. Fisher. The method of analysis was the same in both cases, except in two particulars.

The analyses started in the winter of 1857 by my assistant, Edward H. Twining, Esq. Samples 1 to 17 from the attached tables were analyzed. The following year, Dr. Robert A. Fisher continued the work on the remaining specimens 18—33. The analysis method was the same in both cases, except for two details.

In the earlier analyses, 1 to 17 inclusive, the treatment with carbonate of soda was not carried far enough to dissolve the whole of the soluble organic acids. It was merely attempted to make comparative determinations by treating all alike for the same time, and with the same quantity of alkali. I have little doubt that in some cases not more than one-half of the portion really soluble in carbonate of soda is given as such. In the later analyses, [Pg 86]18 to 33, however, the treatment was continued until complete separation of the soluble organic acids was effected.

In the earlier analyses, 1 to 17 inclusive, the treatment with sodium carbonate wasn't pushed far enough to dissolve all of the soluble organic acids. The goal was simply to make comparative determinations by treating everything the same way for the same duration and with the same amount of alkali. I'm pretty sure that in some cases, only about half of the portion that can actually dissolve in sodium carbonate was recorded as such. In the later analyses, [Pg 86]18 to 33, however, the treatment was carried out until complete separation of the soluble organic acids was achieved.

By acting on a peat for a long time with a hot solution of carbonate of soda, there is taken up not merely a quantity of organic matter, but inorganic matters likewise enter solution. Silica, oxyd of iron and alumina are thus dissolved. In this process too, sulphate of lime is converted into carbonate of lime.

By treating peat for an extended period with a hot solution of sodium carbonate, not only is a certain amount of organic matter extracted, but inorganic substances also dissolve. Silica, iron oxide, and alumina are dissolved in this process. Additionally, calcium sulfate is transformed into calcium carbonate.

The total amount of these soluble inorganic matters has been determined with approximate accuracy in analyses 18 to 33.

The total amount of these soluble inorganic substances has been measured with reasonable accuracy in analyses 18 to 33.

In the analyses 1 to 17 the collective amount of matters soluble in water was determined. In the later analyses the proportions of organic and inorganic matters in the water-solution were separately estimated.

In analyses 1 to 17, the total amount of substances that dissolve in water was measured. In the later analyses, the amounts of organic and inorganic substances in the water solution were estimated separately.

The process of analysis as elaborated and employed by Dr. Fisher and the author, is as follows:

The analysis method developed and used by Dr. Fisher and the author is as follows:

I. To prepare a sample for analysis, half a pound, more or less, of the substance is pulverized and passed through a wire sieve of 24 meshes to the inch. It is then thoroughly mixed and bottled.

I. To prepare a sample for analysis, about half a pound of the substance is ground up and passed through a wire sieve with 24 meshes per inch. It is then thoroughly mixed and bottled.

II. 2 grammes of the above are dried (in tared watch-glasses) at the temperature of 212 degrees, until they no longer decrease in weight. The loss sustained represents the amount of water, (according to Marsilly, Annales des Mines, 1857, XII., 404, peat loses carbon if dried at a temperature higher than 212 degrees.)

II. 2 grams of the above are dried (in tared watch glasses) at a temperature of 212 degrees until they stop losing weight. The weight lost represents the amount of water, (according to Marsilly, Annales des Mines, 1857, XII., 404, peat loses carbon if dried at a temperature higher than 212 degrees.)

III. The capsule containing the residue from I. is slowly heated to incipient redness, and maintained at that temperature until the organic matter is entirely consumed. The loss gives the total amount of organic, the residue the total amount of inorganic matter.

III. The capsule with the residue from I. is gradually heated to a dull red color and kept at that temperature until the organic material is completely burned away. The loss indicates the total amount of organic, while the remaining substance shows the total amount of inorganic matter.

Note.—In peats containing sulphate of the protoxide of iron, the loss that occurs during ignition is partly due [Pg 87]to the escape of sulphuric acid, which is set free by the decomposition of the above mentioned salt of iron. But the quantity is usually so small in comparison with the organic matter, that it may be disregarded. The same may be said of the combined water in the clay that is mixed with some mucks, which is only expelled at a high temperature.

Note.—In peats that contain sulfate of the protoxide of iron, the loss that happens during ignition is partly due [Pg 87]to the release of sulfuric acid, which is produced when the aforementioned iron salt breaks down. However, the amount is typically so small compared to the organic matter that it can be ignored. The same applies to the combined water in the clay that is mixed with some muck, which only gets expelled at high temperatures.

IV. 3 grammes of the sample are digested for half an hour, with 200 cubic centimeters (66.6 times their weight,) of boiling water, then removed from the sand bath, and at the end of twenty-four hours, the clear liquid is decanted. This operation is twice repeated upon the residue; the three solutions are mixed, filtered, concentrated, and finally evaporated to dryness (in a tared platinum capsule,) over a water bath. The residue, which must be dried at 212 degrees, until it ceases to lose weight, gives the total amount soluble in water. The dried residue is then heated to low redness, and maintained at that temperature until the organic matter is burned off. The loss represents the amount of organic matter soluble in water, the ash gives the quantity of soluble inorganic matter.

IV. 3 grams of the sample are digested for half an hour with 200 cubic centimeters (66.6 times their weight) of boiling water, then taken out of the sand bath, and after twenty-four hours, the clear liquid is poured off. This process is repeated twice on the leftover material; the three solutions are combined, filtered, concentrated, and finally evaporated to dryness (in a weighed platinum capsule) over a water bath. The residue, which needs to be dried at 212 degrees until it stops losing weight, provides the total amount soluble in water. The dried residue is then heated to a low red glow and kept at that temperature until the organic matter is completely burned off. The weight loss represents the amount of organic matter soluble in water, and the ash indicates the quantity of soluble inorganic matter.

V. 1 gramme is digested for two hours, at a temperature just below the boiling point, with 100 cubic centimeters of a solution containing 5 per cent. of crystallized carbonate of soda. It is then removed from the sand bath and allowed to settle. When the supernatant liquid has become perfectly transparent, it is carefully decanted. This operation is repeated until all the organic matter soluble in this menstruum is removed; which is accomplished as soon as the carbonate of soda solution comes off colorless. The residue, which is to be washed with boiling water until the washings no longer affect test papers, is thrown upon a tared filter, and dried at 212 degrees. It is the total amount of organic and inorganic [Pg 88]matter insoluble in carbonate of soda. The loss that it suffers upon ignition, indicates the amount of organic matter, the ash gives the inorganic matter.

V. 1 gram is digested for two hours at a temperature just below boiling with 100 cubic centimeters of a solution containing 5 percent of crystallized sodium carbonate. It is then taken out of the sand bath and allowed to settle. When the liquid on top is completely clear, it is carefully poured off. This process is repeated until all the organic matter that dissolves in this solution is removed, which happens when the sodium carbonate solution is colorless. The residue, which should be washed with boiling water until the wash water no longer changes test papers, is placed on a tared filter and dried at 212 degrees. It is the total amount of organic and inorganic [Pg 88]matter insoluble in sodium carbonate. The loss in weight when it is ignited indicates the amount of organic matter, while the ash shows the inorganic matter.

Note.—The time required to insure perfect settling after digesting with carbonate of soda solution, varies, with different peats, from 24 hours to several days. With proper care, the results obtained are very satisfactory. Two analyses of No. 6, executed at different times, gave total insoluble in carbonate of soda—1st analysis 23.20 per cent.; 2d analysis 23.45 per cent. These residues yielded respectively 14.30 and 14.15 per cent. of ash.

Note.—The time needed for perfect settling after digesting with a carbonate of soda solution varies among different peats, ranging from 24 hours to several days. With proper care, the results achieved are very satisfactory. Two analyses of No. 6, conducted at different times, showed total insoluble in carbonate of soda—1st analysis 23.20 percent.; 2nd analysis 23.45 percent. These residues produced 14.30 and 14.15 percent. of ash, respectively.

VI. The quantity of organic matter insoluble in water but soluble in solution of carbonate of soda, is ascertained by deducting the joint weight of the amounts soluble in water, and insoluble in carbonate of soda, from the total amount of organic matter present. The inorganic matter insoluble in water, but soluble in carbonate of soda, is determined by deducting the joint weight of the amounts of inorganic matter soluble in water, and insoluble in carbonate of soda, from the total inorganic matter.

VI. The amount of organic matter that doesn’t dissolve in water but does dissolve in a solution of soda carbonate is found by subtracting the combined weight of what dissolves in water and what doesn’t dissolve in soda carbonate from the total amount of organic matter present. The inorganic matter that doesn't dissolve in water but does dissolve in soda carbonate is determined by subtracting the combined weight of the inorganic matter that dissolves in water and what doesn’t dissolve in soda carbonate from the total inorganic matter.

VII. The amount of nitrogen is estimated by the combustion of 1 gramme with soda-lime in an iron tube, collection of the ammonia in a standard solution of sulphuric acid, and determination of the residual free acid by an equivalent solution of caustic potash and a few drops of tincture of cochineal as an indicator.

VII. The amount of nitrogen is determined by burning 1 gram with soda-lime in an iron tube, capturing the ammonia in a standard solution of sulfuric acid, and then figuring out the leftover free acid using an equivalent solution of caustic potash and a few drops of cochineal tincture as an indicator.

The results of the analyses are given in the following Tables. Table I. gives the direct results of analysis. In Table II. the analyses are calculated on dry matter, and the nitrogen upon the organic matters. Table III. gives a condensed statement of the external characters and agricultural value[9] of the samples in their different localities, and the names of the parties supplying them.

The results of the analyses are shown in the following tables. Table I shows the direct results of the analysis. Table II presents the analyses calculated on a dry matter basis, with the nitrogen based on organic matter. Table III summarizes the external characteristics and agricultural value[9] of the samples from their various locations, along with the names of the parties that supplied them.


TABLE I.—COMPOSITION OF CONNECTICUT PEATS AND MUCKS.

TABLE I.—COMPOSITION OF CONNECTICUT PEATS AND MUCKS.

KEY                      
A - Soluble in water.
B - Insol. in water, but soluble in carbonate of soda.
C - Insol. in water and carbonate of soda.
D - Total.
E - Water.
F - Nitrogen.
G - Total matters soluble in water.
From Whom and Whence Received. ORGANIC MATTER. INORGANIC MATTER.      
A B C D A B C D E F G
  1. Lewis M. Norton 17.63 34.79 52.42       35.21 12.37   1.28   1.54
         Goshen, Conn.                      
  2. Lewis M. Norton 60.02 11.65 71.67         8.00 20.33   1.85  
         Goshen, Conn.                      
  3. Lewis M. Norton 50.60 29.75 80.35         4.52 15.13   1.90   2.51
         Goshen, Conn.                      
  4. Messrs. Pond & Miles 65.15 11.95 77.10         3.23 19.67   1.20   1.63
         Milford, Conn.                      
  5. Messrs. Pond & Miles 67.75 16.65 84.40         2.00 13.60     .95   3.42
         Milford, Conn.                      
  6. Samuel Camp 43.20   8.90 52.10 14.90 14.30 29.20 18.70   2.10   2.50
         Plainville, Conn.                      
  7. Russell U. Peck 38.49 30.51 69.00       13.59 17.41   1.62   2.61
         Berlin, Conn.                      
  8. Rev. B. F. Northrop 42.30 10.15 52.45       34.70 12.85   1.31   1.64
         Griswold, Conn.                      
  9. J. H. Stanwood 49.65   7.40 57.05         4.57 38.38   1.23   1.83
         Colebrook, Conn.                      
10. N. Hart, Jr. 55.11 10.29 65.40       14.89 19.71   2.10   6.20
         West Cornwall, Conn.                      
11. A. L. Loveland 38.27   2.89 41.16       47.24 11.60   1.00     .75
         North Granby, Conn.                      
12. Daniel Buck, Jr. 27.19 48.84 76.03         5.92 18.05   2.40   2.94
         Poquonock, Conn.                      
13. Daniel Buck, Jr. 33.66 40.51 74.17         8.63 17.20   2.40   1.80
         Poquonock, Conn.                      
14. Philip Scarborough 51.45 25.00 76.45         7.67 15.88   1.20   1.43
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
15. Adams White 54.38 23.14 77.52         9.03 13.45   2.89   5.90
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
16. Paris Dyer 18.86   5.02 23.88       67.77   8.35   1.03   2.63
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
17. Perrin Scarborough 43.27 16.83 60.10       25.78 14.12   0.86 15.13
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
18. Geo. K. Virgin   2.21 20.57   8.25 31.03   0.32   9.41 48.05 57.78 11.19   0.64   2.53
         Collinsville, Conn.                      
19. Geo. K. Virgin   1.12   9.19   5.10 15.41   0.28   1.08 48.65 50.01 34.58   0.34   1.40
         Collinsville, Conn.                      
20. Geo. K. Virgin   0.72   9.31   3.65 13.68   0.25   0.76 28.20 29.21 57.11   0.28     .97
         Collinsville, Conn.                      
21. S. Mead   3.30 40.52   8.20 52.02   2.60 10.02 23.90 36.52 11.46   1.51   5.90
         New Haven, Conn.                      
22. Edwin Hoyt   2.84 13.42   7.55 23.81   2.72 19.88 46.30 68.90   7.29   0.45   5.56
         New Canaan, Conn.                      
23. Edwin Hoyt   2.34 13.49   8.05 23.88   1.54 12.42 56.20 70.16   5.96   0.90   3.88
         New Canaan, Conn.                      
24. Edwin Hoyt   1.15 17.29   8.00 26.44   1.67 14.13 51.10 66.90   6.66   1.01   2.82
         New Canaan, Conn.                      
25. A. M. Haling   3.43 52.15   8.65 64.23   0.35   0.16   4.90   5.41 30.36   1.62   3.78
         Rockville, Conn.                      
26. A. M. Haling   3.87 71.57   8.44 83.88   0.23     1.98   2.21 13.91   1.32   4.10
         Rockville, Conn.                      
27. A. M. Haling   3.87 44.04   4.25 52.16   0.51   4.07   5.05   9.63 38.21   1.88   4.38
         Rockville, Conn.                      
28. Albert Day   2.45 46.25   6.35 55.05   0.32   0.65   5.40   6.37 38.58   0.84   2.77
         Brooklyn, Conn.                      
29. C. Goodyear   1.80 45.42 10.35 57.57   0.35   7.98 18.80 27.13 15.30   1.68   2.15
         New Haven, Conn.                      
30. Rev. Wm. Clift   3.33 51.68   9.80 64.81   2.82     5.86   8.68 26.51   0.95   6.15
         Stonington, Conn.                      
31. Henry Keeler   2.13 45.12 12.05 59.30   0.78   3.79 16.70 21.27 19.43   1.57   2.91
         South Salem, N. Y.                      
32. John Adams   1.71 42.87 10.65 55.23   1.02   1.33 14.35 16.70 28.07   1.76   2.73
         Salisbury, Conn.                      
33. Rev. Wm. Clift   5.40 16.72   7.25 29.37   7.40   6.40 48.05 61.85 8.78   1.32   2.80
         Stonington, Conn.                      
             Average   2.06         1.44           1.37   3.72


TABLE II.—COMPOSITION OF CONNECTICUT PEATS AND MUCKS.

TABLE II.—COMPOSITION OF CONNECTICUT PEATS AND MUCKS.

Calculated in the dry state: the percentage of nitrogen calculated also on organic matters.

Calculated in the dry state: the percentage of nitrogen calculated based on organic matter.


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.

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.

[2] The oxygen absorbed by water is used by fish and aquatic animals for breathing.

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

[3] This sample also included fish bones, so the higher nitrogen content was not solely due to absorbed ammonia.

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

[4] Reichardt's analyses are likely off and overstate the amounts of 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.

[5] These analyses were done—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:

[6] Shell marl, made up of pieces and dust from fresh-water shells, is commonly found beneath peat beds. This kind of deposit is found on the farm of Mr. John Adams in Salisbury, Connecticut. It is about eight to ten feet thick. An air-dried sample, analyzed under the writer's supervision, showed the following results:


       
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—

Another sample from near Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which is reported to be found in huge quantities beneath peat, had the following composition according to 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.

[7] The author is grateful to Joseph Sheffield, Esq., of New Haven, for providing the support needed to conduct these experiments.

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

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

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

[9] Based on the information released 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.

1.—Types of peat that create 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 value of peat as fuel varies a lot, just like its other features. Only types that can be cut into solid blocks or can be shaped into firm masses are useful in regular stoves and furnaces. The powdery or crumbly surface peat, which has broken down due to frost and exposure, is usually not useful as fuel unless it’s made more solid through some kind of preparation. Unripe peat, which has a lot of undecomposed moss or grass roots and is therefore very light and fluffy, is generally too bulky to be an effective heating material without some mechanical processing.

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 [Pg 93]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 best peat for burning is the one that has the least visible fiber or undecomposed plant material, giving it a uniform brown or black appearance, and is also free from any mix of earthy substances like sand or clay. This type of peat feels oily when wet, shrinks significantly when it dries, and forms hard, heavy clumps when it's dry. It's typically found at a considerable depth, where it's been compressed, making it firm enough to be cut into blocks; alternatively, it can 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.

The value of peat as fuel directly relates to its carbon content. We’ve seen that this ranges from 51 to 63 percent of the organic matter, and the increase in carbon is connected to its maturity and density. The poorest, youngest peat has the same carbon proportion as wood. However, that doesn't mean its heating power is the same. Different types of wood have essentially the same carbon proportion, but their heating power varies significantly. The denser woods—those that weigh the most per cord—are usually the best fuel for most uses. For example, a cord of hickory produces twice as much heat as a cord of basswood. Peat, even with the same or higher carbon proportion, is generally less effective than wood because it takes up more space for the same weight, which is a result of its porosity. However, the best qualities of peat, or lower-quality peat that’s artificially compacted, can equal or even surpass wood in heating power, volume for volume. One reason peat generally has less heating effect than wood is its higher content of incombustible ash. Wood contains only 0.5 to 1.5 percent of mineral matter, while peat usually contains 5 to 10 percent, and often more. The oldest, most mature peats contain the most carbon and are also the most compact. Because of these two factors, 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 [Pg 94]poor article for producing heat: while a dense pure peat is very good.

It seems that peat, which is light, loose in structure, and heavily mixed with clay or sand, is not a great choice for generating heat, whereas dense, pure peat is excellent.

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.

A major downside to most types of peat fuel is their fragility. This characteristic makes them difficult to transport. The blocks of peat commonly used for fuel in many parts of Germany break apart and crumble when handled, leading to significant waste if moved too far. Additionally, when placed in a stove, they only burn slowly and smolder, similar to cut tobacco or sawdust. A good-burning fuel needs to be in solid chunks or blocks that can maintain their shape and density, allowing for a strong airflow through the burning material.

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 size of regular peat fuel, compared to hardwood and especially coal, makes transportation expensive, particularly by water, where shipping costs are based on volume rather than weight, and makes storage a significant 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.

The main benefit of that peat fuel, which is just harvested from the bog and dried naturally, is for the local farmer or villager who has a supply close to home and can spend their time gathering it. Even though it might be worth a lot less per cord when dry compared to hardwood, it could still be cheaper for personal use than fuel transported from afar.

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.

Various methods have been developed for processing peat, aiming to enhance its density and durability enough to eliminate its common flaws and make it comparable to wood or even coal in terms of heating capacity.

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 [Pg 95]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.

The efforts in this area have been very successful in creating a good fuel. However, in many cases, the cost of production has been too high to justify the widespread use of these processes. We [Pg 95]will come back to this topic on a later page and provide an overview of the methods that have been proposed or used for making condensed peat fuel.

2.—Density of Peat.

2.—Peat Density.

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.

The apparent[10] specific gravity of peat when air-dried ranges from 0.11 to 1.03. In simpler terms, a full cubic foot of peat weighs between one-tenth and slightly more than a cubic foot of water, which is about 62-1/3 lbs. Peat, with a specific gravity of just 0.25, can and is used as fuel. A full cubic foot of it weighs around 16 lbs. In Germany, a cubic foot of "good ordinary peat" in blocks,[11] weighs between 15 to 25 lbs and is used for household purposes. The denser peat, weighing 30 lbs or more per cubic foot in blocks, is utilized for manufacturing, metallurgical operations, and powering 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:—

Karmarsch has thoroughly examined over 100 types of peat from the kingdom of Hanover, focusing on their heating properties. He categorizes 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 [Pg 96]elastic, sp. gr. 0.11 to 0.26, the full English cubic foot weighing from 7 to 16 lbs.

A. Turfy peat, (Rasentorf), made up of slightly decomposed mosses and other plants that create peat, has a yellow or yellowish-brown color. It is very soft, spongy, and [Pg 96]elastic, with a specific gravity of 0.11 to 0.26, and weighs between 7 to 16 pounds per full English cubic foot.

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.

B. Fibrous peat, immature peat that is brown or black in color, is less elastic than turfy peat. Its fibers can be from moss, grass, roots, leaves, or wood, which are visible to the eye but are brittle and easily broken; specific gravity ranges from 0.24 to 0.67, with the weight of a full cubic foot being between 15 and 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.

C. Earthy peat.—Almost completely lacking in fibrous structure, drying into clumpy masses that break apart with varying levels of ease, producing dull fracture surfaces; specific gravity 0.41 to 0.90, with one cubic foot weighing anywhere 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.

D. Pitchy peat, (Pechtorf), dense; when dry, it’s hard; often resisting hammer blows, breaking with a smooth, sometimes shiny fracture, into sharp-angled pieces. Specific gravity is 0.62 to 1.03, with a full cubic foot weighing between 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.

In Kane and Sullivan's study of 27 types of Irish peat, the specific gravities varied from 0.274 to 1.058.

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

3.—Heating power of peat compared to wood and anthracite.

Karmarsch found that in absolute heating effect

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:—

The comparison of heating power by volume, 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.

[Pg 97]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]

[Pg 97]According to Brix, the weight of an English cord and the heating effect of various air-dry peats—where the heating power of the same volume of oak wood is set at 100 as the 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.

These statements show that, while weight for weight, the typical properties of peat aren't very different from wood in terms of heating power, the heating effect of equal amounts of this fuel, as sold in the market, can vary greatly, ranging from half to three-quarters of 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.

Condensed peat can be made using machinery, which will weigh more than hardwood, volume for volume, and its heating power will therefore be greater than 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]

Gysser provides the following comparisons of good peat with different German woods and charcoals, using equal weights, with split beech wood, air-dry, considered as the standard.[14]


Beech wood, split, air dry 1.00
Peat, condensed by Weber's & Gysser's method,[15] air-dried, with 25 per cent. moisture. 1.00
Peat, condensed by Weber's & Gysser's method, hot-dried, with 10 per cent. moisture. 1.48
Peat-charcoal, from condensed peat. 1.73
The same peat, simply cut and air-dried. 0.80
Beech-charcoal. 1.90
Summer-oak wood. 1.18
Birch wood. 0.95
White pine wood. 0.72
Alder. 0.65
Linden. 0.65
Red pine. 0.61
Poplar. 0.50

[Pg 98]Some experiments have been made in this country on the value of peat as fuel. One was tried on the N. Y. Central Railroad, Jan. 3, 1866. A locomotive with 25 empty freight cars attached, was propelled from Syracuse westward—the day being cold and the wind ahead—at the rate of 16 miles the hour. The engineer reported that "the peat gave us as much steam as wood, and burnt a beautiful fire." The peat, we infer, was cut and prepared near Syracuse, N. Y.

[Pg 98]Some experiments have been conducted in this country to assess the effectiveness of peat as fuel. One took place on the N. Y. Central Railroad on January 3, 1866. A locomotive pulling 25 empty freight cars was moved from Syracuse westward—despite the cold day and headwind—at a speed of 16 miles per hour. The engineer reported that "the peat produced as much steam as wood and created a beautiful fire." We can assume that the peat was harvested and prepared near Syracuse, N. Y.

In one of the pumping houses of the Nassau Water Department of the City of Brooklyn, an experiment has been made for the purpose of comparing peat with anthracite, for the results of which I am indebted to the courtesy of Moses Lane, Esq., Chief Engineer of the Department.

In one of the pumping stations of the Nassau Water Department in Brooklyn, an experiment was conducted to compare peat with anthracite, and I owe the results to the kindness of Moses Lane, Esq., Chief Engineer of the Department.

Fire was started under a steam boiler with wood. When steam was up, the peat was burned—its quantity being 1743 lbs., or 18 barrels—and after it was consumed, the firing was continued with coal. The pressure of steam was kept as nearly uniform as possible throughout the trial, and it was found that with 1743 lbs. of peat the engine made 2735 revolutions, while with 1100 lbs. of coal it made 3866 revolutions. In other words, 100 lbs. of coal produced 351-45/100 revolutions, and 100 lbs. of peat produced 156-91/100 revolutions. One pound of coal therefore equalled 2-24/100 lbs. of peat in heating effect. The peat burned well and generated steam freely.

Fire was started under a steam boiler using wood. Once the steam was up, peat was burned—amounting to 1743 lbs., or 18 barrels—and after that was used up, the firing continued with coal. The steam pressure was kept as consistent as possible throughout the trial, and it was found that with 1743 lbs. of peat, the engine made 2735 revolutions, while with 1100 lbs. of coal, it made 3866 revolutions. In other words, 100 lbs. of coal produced 351.45 revolutions, and 100 lbs. of peat produced 156.91 revolutions. Thus, one pound of coal equaled 2.24 lbs. of peat in heating effect. The peat burned well and generated steam readily.

Mr. Lane could not designate the quality of the peat, not having been able to witness the experiment.

Mr. Lane couldn't determine the quality of the peat since he wasn't able to see the experiment.

These trials have not, indeed, all the precision needful to fix with accuracy the comparative heating effect of the fuels employed; for a furnace, that is adapted for wood, is not necessarily suited to peat, and a coal grate must have a construction unlike that which is proper for a peat fire; nevertheless they exhibit the relative merits of [Pg 99]wood, peat, and anthracite, with sufficient closeness for most practical purposes.

These tests don't have all the precision needed to accurately determine the heating effects of the fuels used; a furnace designed for wood isn't necessarily suitable for peat, and a coal grate must be built differently than one meant for a peat fire. Still, they show the relative advantages of [Pg 99]wood, peat, and anthracite closely enough for most practical uses.

Two considerations would prevent the use of ordinary cut peat in large works, even could two and one-fourth tons of it be afforded at the same price as one ton of coal. The Nassau Water Department consumes 20,000 tons of coal yearly, the handling of which is a large expense, six firemen being employed to feed the furnaces. To generate the same amount of steam with peat of the quality experimented with, would require the force of firemen to be considerably increased. Again, it would be necessary to lay in, under cover, a large stock of fuel during the summer, for use in winter, when peat cannot be raised. Since a barrel of this peat weighed less than 100 lbs., the short ton would occupy the volume of 20 barrels; as is well known, a ton of anthracite can be put into 8 barrels. A given weight of peat therefore requires 2-½ times as much storage room, as the same weight of coal. As 2-¼ tons of peat, in the case we are considering, are equivalent to but one ton of coal in heating effect, the winter's supply of peat fuel would occupy 5-5/8 times the bulk of the same supply in coal, admitting that the unoccupied or air-space in a pile of peat is the same as in a heap of coal. In fact, the calculation would really turn out still more to the disadvantage of peat, because the air-space in a bin of peat is greater than in one of coal, and coal can be excavated for at least two months more of the year than peat.

Two factors would stop the use of regular cut peat in large-scale operations, even if two and a quarter tons of it could be bought at the same price as one ton of coal. The Nassau Water Department uses 20,000 tons of coal every year, which involves significant handling costs, requiring six firemen to tend to the furnaces. To produce the same amount of steam with the type of peat tested, a lot more firemen would be needed. Additionally, a large supply of fuel would have to be stored under cover during the summer for winter use when peat can't be harvested. Since a barrel of this peat weighs less than 100 lbs, a short ton would take up the space of 20 barrels; as is well-known, a ton of anthracite can fit into 8 barrels. Therefore, an equivalent weight of peat requires 2.5 times more storage space than the same weight of coal. Given that 2.25 tons of peat in this scenario only provides the heating effect of one ton of coal, the winter supply of peat would take up 5.625 times the volume of the same supply of coal, assuming that the air space in a pile of peat is the same as in a pile of coal. In fact, the calculation would likely show peat to be even less favorable because the air space in a peat bin is greater than in a coal bin, and coal can be mined for at least two additional months each year compared to peat.

It is asserted by some, that, because peat can be condensed so as to approach anthracite in specific gravity, it must, in the same ratio, approach the latter in heating power. Its effective heating power is, indeed, considerably augmented by condensation, but no mechanical treatment can increase its percentage of carbon or otherwise [Pg 100]alter its chemical composition; hence it must forever remain inferior to anthracite.

Some people argue that since peat can be compressed to have a specific gravity close to anthracite, it should also have a similar heating power. While its effective heating power does significantly increase with compression, no mechanical process can raise its carbon content or change its chemical makeup; therefore, it will always be less effective than anthracite.

The composition and density of the best condensed peat is compared with that of hard wood and anthracite in the following statement:—

The composition and density of the best condensed peat are compared with that of hardwood and anthracite in the following statement:—


In 100 parts. Carbon. Hydrogen. Oxygen and Nitrogen. Ash. Water. Specific Gravity.
Wood 39.6 4.8 34.8 0.8 20.0 0.75
Condensed peat 47.2 4.9 22.9 5.0 20.0 1.20
Anthracite 91.3 2.9   2.8 3.0   1.40

In combustion in ordinary fires, the water of the fuel is a source of waste, since it consumes heat in acquiring the state of vapor. This is well seen in the comparison of the same kind of peat in different states of dryness. Thus, in the table of Gysser, (page 97) Weber's condensed peat, containing 10 per cent. of moisture, surpasses in heating effect that containing 25 per cent. of moisture, by nearly one-half.

In ordinary fires, the water in the fuel creates waste because it uses up heat to turn into vapor. This is clearly illustrated when comparing the same type of peat at different dryness levels. For example, in Gysser's table (page 97), Weber's condensed peat, which has 10% moisture, produces nearly 50% more heating effect than the peat with 25% moisture.

The oxygen is a source of waste, for heat as developed from fuel, is chiefly a result of the chemical union of atmospheric or free oxygen, with the carbon and hydrogen of the combustible. The oxygen of the fuel, being already combined with carbon and hydrogen, not only cannot itself contribute to the generation of heat, but neutralizes the heating effect of those portions of the carbon and hydrogen of the fuel with which it remains in combination. The quantity of heating effect thus destroyed, cannot, however, be calculated with certainty, because physical changes, viz: the conversion of solids into gases, not to speak of secondary chemical transformations, whose influence cannot be estimated, enter into the computation.

The oxygen is a source of waste because the heat produced from fuel mainly comes from the chemical reaction between atmospheric or free oxygen and the carbon and hydrogen in the fuel. The oxygen in the fuel, which is already combined with carbon and hydrogen, not only fails to help generate heat but also cancels out the heating effect of the carbon and hydrogen in the fuel that it is combined with. However, the amount of heating effect that gets lost can't be calculated accurately because physical changes, like turning solids into gases, along with secondary chemical transformations that are hard to measure, complicate the calculations.

Nitrogen and ash are practically indifferent in the burning process, and simply impair the heating value of fuel in as far as they occupy space in it and make a portion of its weight, to the exclusion of combustible matter.

Nitrogen and ash don't really affect the burning process, and they just reduce the fuel's heating value because they take up space and contribute to its weight, leaving less room for combustible materials.

[Pg 101]Again, as regards density, peat is, in general, considerably inferior to anthracite. The best uncondensed peat has a specific gravity of 0.90. Condensed peat usually does not exceed 1.1. Sometimes it is made of sp. gr. 1.3. Assertions to the effect of its acquiring a density of 1.8, can hardly be credited of pure peat, though a considerable admixture of sand or clay might give such a result.

[Pg 101]Again, when it comes to density, peat is generally much less dense than anthracite. The best uncompressed peat has a specific gravity of 0.90. Compressed peat usually doesn't go beyond 1.1. Occasionally, it can reach a specific gravity of 1.3. Claims that it can achieve a density of 1.8 are hard to believe for pure peat, although a significant mix of sand or clay could create such a result.

The comparative heating power of fuels is ascertained by burning them in an apparatus, so constructed, that the heat generated shall expend itself in evaporating or raising the temperature of a known quantity of water.

The heating power of fuels is determined by burning them in a setup designed so that the heat produced is used to evaporate or increase the temperature of a specific amount of water.

The amount of heat that will raise the temperature of one gramme of water, one degree of the centigrade thermometer, is agreed upon as the unit of heat.[16]

The amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius is accepted as the unit of heat.[16]

In the complete combustion of carbon in the form of charcoal or gas-coal, there are developed 8060 units of heat. In the combustion of one gramme of hydrogen gas, 34,210 units of heat are generated. The heating effect of hydrogen is therefore 4.2 times greater than that of carbon. It was long supposed that the heating effect of compound combustibles could be calculated from their elementary composition. This view is proved to be erroneous, and direct experiment is the only satisfactory means of getting at the truth in this respect.

In the complete burning of carbon as charcoal or gas coal, 8,060 units of heat are produced. When one gram of hydrogen gas burns, it generates 34,210 units of heat. Therefore, the heating effect of hydrogen is 4.2 times greater than that of carbon. It was long thought that the heating effect of mixed fuels could be figured out from their basic components. This idea has been proven wrong, and direct experiments are the only reliable way to uncover the truth in this area.

The data of Karmarsch, Brix, and Gysser, already given, were obtained by the experimental method. They were, however, made mostly on a small scale, and, in some cases, without due regard to the peculiar requirements of the different kinds of fuel, as regards fire space, draught, etc. They can only be regarded as approximations to the truth, and have simply a comparative value, which is, however, sufficient for ordinary purposes.

The data from Karmarsch, Brix, and Gysser, previously provided, were gathered through experimental methods. However, they were mainly conducted on a small scale and, in some instances, without properly considering the specific needs of different types of fuel in terms of fire space, draft, etc. These results can only be seen as rough estimates and have merely comparative value, which is adequate for typical purposes.

[Pg 102]The general results of the investigations hitherto made on all the common kinds of fuel, are given in the subjoined statement. The comparison is made in units of heat, and refers to equal weights of the materials experimented with.

[Pg 102]The overall findings from the investigations done so far on all the common types of fuel are provided in the statement below. The comparison is based on heat units and pertains to equal weights of the materials tested.


HEATING POWER OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF FUEL.

HEATING POWER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FUEL.

Air-dry Wood         2800
Air-dry Peat 2500 3000
Perfectly dry Wood 3600
Perfectly dry Peat 3000 4000
Air-dry Lignite or Brown Coal 3300 4200
Perfectly dry Lignite or Brown Coal 4000 5000
Bituminous Coal 3800 7000
Anthracite 7500
Wood Charcoal 6300 7500
Coke 6500 7600

4.—Modes of Burning Peat.

4.—Ways to Burn Peat.

In the employment of peat fuel, regard must be had to its shape and bulk. Commonly, peat is cut or moulded into blocks or sods like bricks, which have a length of 8 to 18 inches; a breadth of 4 to 6 inches, and a thickness of 1-½ to 3 inches. Machine peat is sometimes formed into circular disks of 2 to 3 inches diameter, and 1 to 2 inches thickness and thereabouts. It is made also in the shape of balls of 2 to 3 inches diameter. Another form is that of thick-walled pipes, 2 to 3 inches in diameter, a foot or more long, and with a bore of one-half inch.

In using peat fuel, it's important to consider its shape and size. Usually, peat is cut or shaped into blocks or sods like bricks, which are 8 to 18 inches long, 4 to 6 inches wide, and 1.5 to 3 inches thick. Machine-processed peat is sometimes made into circular discs that are 2 to 3 inches in diameter and 1 to 2 inches thick. It can also be formed into balls that are 2 to 3 inches in diameter. Another option is thick-walled pipes that are 2 to 3 inches wide, a foot or more long, with a half-inch bore.

Flat blocks are apt to lie closely together in the fire, and obstruct the draft. A fire-place, constructed properly for burning them, should be shallow, not admitting of more than two or three layers being superposed. According to the bulkiness of the peat, the fire-place should be roomy, as regards length and breadth.

Flat blocks tend to sit close together in the fire, blocking the airflow. A fireplace designed for burning them should be shallow, allowing for no more than two or three layers stacked on top. Depending on the size of the peat, the fireplace should be spacious in both length and width.

Fibrous and easily crumbling peat is usually burned upon a hearth, i. e. without a grate, either in stoves or open fire-places. Dense peat burns best upon a grate, the bars of which should be thin and near together, so that the [Pg 103]air have access to every part of the fuel. The denser and tougher the peat, and the more its shape corresponds with that usual to coal, the better is it adapted for use in our ordinary coal stoves and furnaces.

Fibrous and easily crumbling peat is typically burned on a hearth, i.e., without a grate, either in stoves or open fireplaces. Dense peat burns best on a grate, where the bars should be thin and closely spaced to allow air to reach every part of the fuel. The denser and tougher the peat, and the more its shape resembles that of coal, the better it is suited for use in our regular coal stoves and furnaces.

5.—Burning of broken peat.

5.—Burning of damaged peat.

Stair Grate.

Fig. 1.—STAIR GRATE.

Fig. 1.—STAIR GRATE.

Broken peat—the fragments and waste of the cut or moulded blocks, and peat as obtained by plowing and harrowing the surface of drained peat-beds—may be used to advantage in the stair grate, fig. 1, which was introduced some years ago in Austria, and is adapted exclusively for burning finely divided fuel. It consists of a series of thin iron bars 3 to 4 inches wide, a, a, a, ... which are arranged above each other like steps, as shown in the figure. They are usually half as long as the grate is wide, and are supported at each end by two side pieces or walls, l. Below, the grate is closed by a heavy iron plate. The fuel is placed in the hopper A, which is kept filled, and from [Pg 104]which it falls down the incline as rapidly as it is consumed. The air enters from the space G, and is regulated by doors, not shown in the cut, which open into it. The masonry is supported at u, by a hollow iron beam. Below, a lateral opening serves for clearing out the ashes. The effect of the fire depends upon the width of the throat of the hopper at u, which regulates the supply of fuel to the grate, and upon the inclination of the latter. The throat is usually from 6 to 8 inches wide, according to the nature of the fuel. The inclination of the grate is 40 to 45° and, in general, should be that which is assumed by the sides of a pile of the fuel to be burned, when it is thrown up into a heap. This grate ensures complete combustion of fuel that would fall through ordinary grates, and that would merely smoulder upon a hearth. The fire admits of easy regulation, the ashes may be removed and the fuel may be supplied without checking the fire. Not only broken peat, but coal dust, saw dust, wood turnings and the like may be burned on this grate. The figure represents it as adapted to a steam boiler.

Broken peat—the scraps and waste from cut or shaped blocks, and peat obtained by plowing and harrowing the surface of drained peat-beds—can be effectively used in the stair grate, fig. 1, which was introduced in Austria a few years ago and is designed specifically for burning finely divided fuel. It consists of a series of thin iron bars 3 to 4 inches wide, a, a, a, ... arranged above each other like steps, as shown in the figure. They are usually half as long as the grate is wide and are supported at each end by two side pieces or walls, l. Below, the grate is closed off by a heavy iron plate. The fuel is loaded into the hopper A, which is kept filled, and from [Pg 104] it falls down the incline as quickly as it is consumed. Air enters from the space G, and is controlled by doors, not shown in the illustration, that open into it. The masonry is supported at u by a hollow iron beam. Below, a side opening allows for ash removal. The effectiveness of the fire depends on the width of the throat of the hopper at u, which controls the fuel supply to the grate, and on the incline of the grate. The throat is usually 6 to 8 inches wide, depending on the type of fuel. The inclination of the grate is 40 to 45° and should generally match the angle formed by the sides of a pile of the fuel when it is heaped up. This grate ensures complete combustion of fuel that would otherwise fall through regular grates and merely smolder on a hearth. The fire can be easily controlled, the ashes can be removed, and fuel can be added without checking the fire. Not only broken peat, but also coal dust, sawdust, wood shavings, and similar materials can be burned on this grate. The figure depicts it as adapted for a steam boiler.

6.—Hygroscopic water of peat fuel.

6.—Moisture in peat fuel.

The quantity of water retained by air-dried peat appears to be the same as exists in air-dried wood, viz., about 20 per cent. The proportion will vary however according to the time of seasoning. In thoroughly seasoned wood or peat, it may be but 15 per cent.; while in the poorly dried material it may amount to 25 or more per cent. When hot-dried, the proportion of water may be reduced to 10 per cent., or less.

The amount of water held by air-dried peat seems to be the same as that in air-dried wood, which is about 20 percent. However, this ratio can change depending on how long it’s been seasoned. In fully seasoned wood or peat, it might drop to just 15 percent.; whereas in poorly dried material, it can reach 25 or more percent. When hot-dried, the water content may decrease to 10 percent.

When peat is still moist, it gathers water rapidly from damp air, and in this condition has been known to burst the sheds in which it was stored, but after becoming dry to the eye and feel, it is but little affected by dampness, no more so, it appears, than seasoned wood.

When peat is still wet, it quickly absorbs water from the humid air, and in this state, it has been known to break through the storage sheds. However, once it becomes dry to the touch and appearance, it is barely influenced by dampness, seemingly no more than seasoned wood.

[Pg 105]7.—Shrinkage.

7.—Shrinkage.

In estimating the value and cost of peat fuel, it must be remembered that peat shrinks greatly in drying, so that three to five cords of fresh peat yield but one cord of dry peat. When the fiber of the peat is broken by the hand, or by machinery, the shrinkage is often much greater, and may sometimes amount to seven-eighths of the original volume.—Dingler's Journal, Oct. 1864, S. 68.

In estimating the value and cost of peat fuel, it's important to remember that peat shrinks significantly when it dries, so three to five cords of fresh peat usually produce only one cord of dry peat. When the fiber of the peat is broken by hand or by machines, the shrinkage can be even greater, sometimes reaching up to seven-eighths of the original volume.—Dingler's Journal, Oct. 1864, S. 68.

The difference in weight between fresh and dry peat is even greater. Fibrous peat, fresh from the bog, may contain ninety per cent. of water, of which seventy per cent. must evaporate before it can be called dry. The proportion of water in earthy or pitchy peat is indeed less; but the quantity is always large, so that from five to nine hundred weight of fresh peat must be lifted in order to make one hundred weight of dry fuel.

The difference in weight between fresh and dry peat is even more pronounced. Fibrous peat, straight from the bog, can hold ninety percent of water, and seventy percent of that needs to evaporate before it can be considered dry. The amount of water in earthy or pitchy peat is somewhat lower, but it’s still significant, so you need to lift between five and nine hundred pounds of fresh peat to get one hundred pounds of dry fuel.

8.—Time of excavation, and drying.

8.—Excavation and drying time.

Peat which is intended to be used after simply drying, must be excavated so early in the season that it shall become dry before frosty weather arrives: because, if frozen when wet, its coherence is destroyed, and on thawing it falls to a powder useless for fuel.

Peat that’s meant to be used after just drying should be dug up early in the season so it can dry out before the frost hits. If it freezes while still wet, it loses its structure, and when it thaws, it breaks down into powder that's not useful for fuel.

Peat must be dried with certain precautions. If a block of fresh peat be exposed to hot sunshine, it dries and shrinks on the surface much more rapidly than within: as a consequence it cracks, loses its coherence, and the block is easily broken, or of itself falls to pieces. In Europe, it is indeed customary to dry peat without shelter, the loss by too rapid drying not being greater than the expense of building and maintaining drying sheds. There however the sun is not as intense, nor the air nearly so dry, as it is here. Even there, the occurrence of an unusually hot summer, causes great loss. In our climate, [Pg 106]some shelter would be commonly essential unless the peat be dug early in the spring, so as to lose the larger share of its water before the hot weather; or, as would be best of all, in the autumn late enough to escape the heat, but early enough to ensure such dryness as would prevent damage by frost. The peculiarities of climate must decide the time of excavating and the question of shelter.

Peat needs to be dried with certain precautions. If a block of fresh peat is exposed to hot sunlight, it dries and shrinks on the surface much faster than inside, which causes it to crack, lose its structure, and the block can easily break apart or fall apart on its own. In Europe, it's common to dry peat without any shelter since the loss from drying too quickly isn't greater than the cost of building and maintaining drying sheds. However, the sun there isn’t as intense, and the air is not nearly as dry as it is here. Even there, an unusually hot summer can lead to significant losses. In our climate, [Pg 106] some form of shelter would typically be necessary unless the peat is dug early in the spring to lose most of its water before the hot weather hits; or, ideally, in the autumn, late enough to avoid the heat but early enough to ensure it dries sufficiently to prevent frost damage. The specific climate conditions should determine the timing for excavation and whether shelter is needed.

The point in drying peat is to make it lose its water gradually and regularly, so that the inside of each block shall dry nearly as fast as the outside.

The goal of drying peat is to let it lose moisture slowly and evenly, ensuring that the inside of each block dries at nearly the same rate as the outside.

Some of the methods of hot-drying peat, will be subsequently noticed.

Some of the methods for hot-drying peat will be mentioned later.

Summer or fall digging would be always advantageous on account of the swamps being then most free from water. In Bavaria, peat is dug mostly in July and the first half of August.

Summer or fall digging is always better because the swamps have less water during those times. In Bavaria, peat is usually dug in July and the first half of August.

9.—Drainage.

9.—Draining.

When it is intended to raise peat fuel in the form of blocks, the bog should be drained no more rapidly than it is excavated. Peat, which is to be worth cutting in the spring, must be covered with water during the winter, else it is pulverized by the frost. So, too, it must be protected against drying away and losing its coherency in summer, by being kept sufficiently impregnated with water.

When you plan to harvest peat fuel in the form of blocks, the bog should be drained no faster than it’s being dug up. Peat that's meant to be cut in the spring needs to be covered with water during the winter; otherwise, the frost will break it apart. Similarly, in the summer, it must be protected from drying out and losing its structure by keeping it adequately saturated with water.

In case an extensive bog is to be drained to facilitate the cutting out of the peat for use as fuel, the canals that carry off the water from the parts which are excavating, should be so constructed, that on the approach of cold weather, the remaining peat may be flooded again to the usual height.

In order to drain a large bog for peat extraction to use as fuel, the canals that remove water from the excavated areas should be built in a way that allows the remaining peat to be flooded back to its normal height when cold weather arrives.

In most of the smaller swamps, systematic draining is unnecessary, the water drying away in summer enough to admit of easy working.

In most of the smaller swamps, systematic draining isn't needed; the water dries up during summer enough to allow for easy work.

[Pg 107]In some methods of preparing or condensing peat by machinery, it is best or even needful to drain and air-dry the peat, preliminary to working. By draining, the peat settles, especially on the borders of the ditches, several inches, or even feet, according to its nature and depth. It thus becomes capable of bearing teams and machinery, and its density is very considerably augmented.

[Pg 107]In some methods of processing or compacting peat using machinery, it’s best or even necessary to drain and air-dry the peat before working with it. When you drain the peat, it settles, especially along the edges of the ditches, by several inches or even feet, depending on its characteristics and how deep it is. This way, it becomes strong enough to support teams and machinery, and its density increases significantly.

10.—The Cutting of Peat.—a. Preparations.

10.—Cutting Peat.—a. Prep Work.

In preparing to raise peat fuel from the bog, the surface material, which from the action of frost and sun has been pulverized to "muck," or which otherwise is full of roots and undecomposed matters, must be removed usually to the depth of 12 to 18 inches. It is only those portions of the peat which have never frozen nor become dry, and are free from coarse fibers of recent vegetation, that can be cut for fuel.

In getting ready to harvest peat fuel from the bog, the top layer, which has been broken down into "muck" by frost and sunlight, or is filled with roots and undecomposed materials, needs to be removed to a depth of about 12 to 18 inches. Only the areas of peat that have never frozen or dried out, and are clear of coarse fibers from recent plants, can be collected for fuel.

Peat fuel must be brought into the form of blocks or masses of such size and shape as to adapt them to use in our common stoves and furnaces. Commonly, the peat is of such consistence in its native bed, that it may be cut out with a spade or appropriate tool into blocks having more or less coherence. Sometimes it is needful to take away the surplus water from the bog, and allow the peat to settle and drain a while before it can be cut to advantage.

Peat fuel needs to be shaped into blocks or masses that can be used in our regular stoves and furnaces. Typically, the peat has a consistency in its natural state that allows it to be cut into blocks using a spade or suitable tool. Sometimes, it’s necessary to remove the excess water from the bog and let the peat settle and drain for a bit before it can be cut properly.

When a bog is to be opened, a deep ditch is run from an outlet or lowest point a short distance into the peat bed, and the working goes on from the banks of this ditch. It is important that system be followed in raising the peat, or there will be great waste of fuel and of labor.

When a bog is going to be opened, a deep ditch is created from an outlet or the lowest point a short distance into the peat bed, and work is done from the sides of this ditch. It’s important to follow a system in raising the peat, or there will be a lot of wasted fuel and labor.

If, as often happens, the peat is so soft in the wet season as to break on the vertical walls of a ditch and fill it, at the same time dislocating the mass and spoiling it for cutting, it is best to carry down the ditch in terraces, making it wide above and narrow at the bottom.

If, as frequently occurs, the peat is so soft during the wet season that it collapses on the vertical walls of a ditch and fills it, while also displacing the material and ruining it for cutting, it’s best to create terraces along the ditch, making it wide at the top and narrow at the bottom.

[Pg 108]b. Cutting by hand.

b. Hand cutting.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.—GERMAN PEAT-KNIFE.

Fig. 2.—GERMAN PEAT KNIFE.

The simplest mode of procedure, consists in laying off a "field" or plot of, say 20 feet square, and making vertical cuts with a sharp spade three or four inches deep from end to end in parallel lines, as far apart as it is proposed to make the breadth of the peats or sods, usually four to five inches. Then, the field is cut in a similar manner in lines at right angles to the first, and at a distance that shall be the length of the peats, say 18 to 20 inches. Finally, the workman lifts the peats by horizontal thrusts of his spade, made at a depth of three inches. The sods as lifted, are placed on a light barrow or upon a board or rack, and are carried off to a drying ground, near at hand, where they are laid down flatwise to drain and dry. In Ireland, it is the custom, after the peats have lain thus for a fortnight or so, to "foot" them, i. e. to place them on end close together; after further drying the "footing" is succeeded by "clamping," which is building the sods up into stacks of about twelve to fifteen feet long, four feet wide at bottom, narrowing to one foot at top, with a height of four to five feet. The outer turfs are inclined so as to shed the rain. The peat often remains in these clamps on the bog until wanted for use, though in rainy seasons the loss by crumbling is considerable.

The simplest way to do this is to mark out a "field" or plot of about 20 feet square and make vertical cuts with a sharp spade that are three to four inches deep in parallel lines, spaced apart based on how wide the peats or sods will be—usually about four to five inches. Next, the field is cut in a similar way but in lines at right angles to the first set, spaced so they will be the length of the peats, around 18 to 20 inches. Finally, the worker lifts the peats using horizontal thrusts of the spade at a depth of about three inches. The sods that are lifted are placed on a light wheelbarrow or on a board or rack and transported to a nearby drying area, where they are laid down flat to drain and dry. In Ireland, it’s common to "foot" the peats after they’ve been drying for about two weeks, meaning putting them on end close together; after more drying, this "footing" is followed by "clamping," which involves stacking the sods into piles that are about twelve to fifteen feet long, four feet wide at the bottom, narrowing to one foot at the top, and about four to five feet tall. The outer turfs are angled to shed rain. The peat often stays in these clamps on the bog until it’s needed, although during rainy seasons, there is significant loss due to crumbling.

Other modes of lifting peat, require tools of particular construction.... In Germany it is common to excavate by vertical thrusts of the tool, the cutting part of which is represented above, fig. 2. This tool is pressed down into the peat to a depth corresponding to the thickness of [Pg 109]the required block: its three edges cut as many sides of the block, and the bottom is then broken or torn out by a prying motion.

Other ways to lift peat need special tools... In Germany, it’s common to dig using vertical thrusts of the tool, the cutting part of which is shown above, fig. 2. This tool is pushed down into the peat to a depth matching the thickness of [Pg 109] the block you need: its three edges cut three sides of the block, and then the bottom is broken or pulled out with a prying motion.

In other cases, this or a similar tool is forced down by help of the foot as deeply into the peat as possible by a workman standing above, while a second man in the ditch cuts out the blocks of proper thickness by means of a sharp spade thrust horizontally. When the peats are taken out to the depth of the first vertical cutting, the knife is used again from above, and the process is thus continued as before, until the bottom of the peat or the desired depth is reached.

In other cases, this or a similar tool is pushed down into the peat as deeply as possible by a worker standing above, while another person in the ditch cuts out blocks of the right thickness using a sharp spade held horizontally. Once the peat is removed to the depth of the first vertical cut, the knife is used again from above, and the process continues as before until the bottom of the peat or the desired depth is reached.

In Ireland, is employed the "slane," a common form of which is shown in fig. 3, it being a long, narrow and sharp spade, 20 inches by six, with a wing at right angles to the blade.

In Ireland, the "slane" is used, a typical version of which is shown in fig. 3. It is a long, narrow, and sharp spade, measuring 20 inches by six, with a wing at a right angle to the blade.

The peats are cut by one thrust of this instrument which is worked by the arms alone. After a vertical cut is made by a spade, in a line at right angles to a bank of peat, the slane cuts the bottom and other side of the block; while at the end the latter is simply lifted or broken away.

The peats are cut with one thrust of this tool that is operated solely by the arms. After making a vertical cut with a spade, in a line that is perpendicular to a bank of peat, the slane cuts the bottom and the other side of the block; then at the end, that part is just lifted or broken away.

Peat is most easily cut in a vertical direction, but when, as often happens, it is made up of layers, the sods are likely to break apart where these join. Horizontal cutting is therefore best for stratified peat.

Peat is easiest to cut vertically, but when it often consists of layers, the sods are likely to fall apart at the seams. Horizontal cutting is therefore the best method for layered peat.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.—IRISH SLANE.

Fig. 3.—IRISH SLANE.

System employed in East Friesland.—In raising peat, great waste both of labor and of fuel may easily occur as the result of random and unsystematic methods of [Pg 110]working. For this reason, the mode of cutting peat, followed in the extensive moors of East Friesland, is worthy of particular description. There, the business is pursued systematically on a plan, which, it is claimed, long experience[17] has developed to such perfection that the utmost economy of time and labor is attained. The cost of producing marketable peat in East Friesland in 1860, was one silver groschen=about 2-½ cents, per hundred weight; while at that time, in Bavaria, the hundred weight cost three times as much when fit for market; and this, notwithstanding living and labor are much cheaper in the latter country.

System used in East Friesland.—When harvesting peat, significant waste of both labor and fuel can easily happen due to random and unorganized methods of [Pg 110]working. For this reason, the method of cutting peat practiced in the large moors of East Friesland deserves special attention. There, the work is done systematically according to a plan that, it is said, long experience[17] has refined to such a level that maximum efficiency in time and labor is achieved. The cost of producing market-ready peat in East Friesland in 1860 was one silver groschen, which is about 2.5 cents, per hundredweight; meanwhile, in Bavaria, the same amount cost three times as much when ready for sale, despite living and labor being much cheaper in that region.

The method to be described, presupposes that the workmen are not hindered by water, which, in most cases, can be easily removed from the high-moors of the region. The peat is worked in long stretches of 10 feet in width, and 100 to 1000 paces in length: each stretch or plot is excavated at once to a considerable depth and to its full width. Each successive year the excavation is widened by 10 feet, its length remaining the same. Sometimes, unusual demand leads to more rapid working; but the width of 10 feet is adhered to for each cutting, and, on account of the labor of carrying the peats, it is preferred to extend the length rather than the width.

The method described assumes that the workers are not affected by water, which can usually be easily drained from the high-moors in the area. The peat is harvested in long sections that are 10 feet wide and between 100 to 1000 paces long: each section is dug out at once to a significant depth and its full width. Each year, the excavation is expanded by 10 feet while the length stays the same. Occasionally, a spike in demand leads to faster operations; however, the 10-foot width is maintained for each cutting, and due to the effort involved in moving the peat, it’s better to extend the length instead of the width.

Assuming that the peat bed has been opened by a previous cutting, to the depth of 5-½ feet, and the surface muck and light peat, 1-½ feet thick, have been thrown into the excavation of the year before—a new plot is worked by five men as follows.

Assuming that the peat bed has been opened by a previous cut to a depth of 5.5 feet, and the surface muck and light peat, 1.5 feet thick, have been tossed into last year's excavation—a new plot is worked by five men as follows.

[Pg 111]One man, the "Bunker," removes from the surface, about two inches of peat, disintegrated by the winter's frost, throwing it into last year's ditch.

[Pg 111]One guy, the "Bunker," scrapes off about two inches of peat that's been broken down by the winter frost, tossing it into last year's ditch.

Following him, come two "Diggers," of whom one stands on the surface of the peat, and with a heavy, long handled tool, cuts out the sides and end of the blocks, which are about seventeen by five inches; while the other stands in the ditch, and by horizontal thrusts of a light, sharp spade, removes the sods, each of five and a half inches thickness, and places them on a small board near by. Each block of peat has the dimensions of one fourth of a cubic foot, and weighs about 13 pounds. Two good workmen will raise 25 such peats, or 6-¼ cubic feet, per minute.

Following him are two "Diggers." One stands on the surface of the peat, using a heavy, long-handled tool to cut out the sides and ends of blocks that are about seventeen by five inches. The other stands in the ditch and, with horizontal thrusts of a light, sharp spade, removes the sods, each about five and a half inches thick, and places them on a small board nearby. Each block of peat measures one fourth of a cubic foot and weighs about 13 pounds. Two skilled workers can lift 25 of these peat blocks, or 6-¼ cubic feet, per minute.

A fourth man, the "Loader," puts the sods upon a wheel-barrow, always two rows of six each, one upon the other, and—

A fourth man, the "Loader," places the sods onto a wheelbarrow, always two rows of six stacked on top of each other, and—

A fifth, the "Wheeler," removes the load to the drying ground, and with some help from the Bunker, disposes them flatwise in rows of 16 sods wide, which run at right angles to the ditch, and, beginning at a little more than 10 feet from the latter, extend 50 feet.

A fifth, the "Wheeler," takes the load to the drying area, and with some assistance from the Bunker, lays them out flat in rows 16 sods wide, which run perpendicular to the ditch, starting just over 10 feet from it and extending 50 feet.

The space of 10 feet between the plot that is excavating, and the drying ground, is, at the same time, cleared of the useless surface muck by the Bunker, in preparation for the next year's work.

The 10-foot space between the excavation site and the drying area is also being cleared of unnecessary surface debris by the Bunker to get ready for next year's work.

With moderate activity, the five men will lift and lay out 12,000 sods (3000 cubic feet,) daily, and it is not uncommon that five first-rate hands get out 16,800 peats (4200 cubic feet,) in this time.

With moderate activity, the five men will lift and lay out 12,000 sods (3,000 cubic feet) each day, and it's not unusual for five skilled workers to get out 16,800 peats (4,200 cubic feet) in that time.

A gang of five men, working as described, suffices for cutting out a bed of four feet of solid peat. When the excavation is to be made deeper, a sixth man, the "Hanker," is needful for economical work; and with his help the cutting may be extended down to nine and a half feet; i. e. [Pg 112]through eight feet of solid peat. The cutting is carried down at first, four feet as before, but the peats are carried 50 feet further, in order to leave room for those to be subsequently lifted. The "Hanker" aids here, with a second wheel-barrow. In taking out the lower peat, the "Hanker" stands on the bottom of the first excavation, receives the blocks from the Diggers, on a broad wooden shovel, and hands them up to the Loader; while the Wheeler, having only the usual distance to carry them, lays them out in the drying rows without difficulty.

A crew of five men, working as described, is enough to cut out a four-foot section of solid peat. If the excavation needs to go deeper, a sixth man, called the "Hanker," is necessary for efficient work; with his assistance, the cutting can be extended down to nine and a half feet, which means through eight feet of solid peat. The cutting starts at four feet, just like before, but the peat is taken 50 feet further to make room for future lifting. The "Hanker" helps here with a second wheelbarrow. When removing the lower layer of peat, the "Hanker" stands at the bottom of the first hole, receives blocks from the Diggers on a wide wooden shovel, and hands them up to the Loader, while the Wheeler, covering only the usual distance, easily lays them out in drying rows.

After a little drying in the rows, the peats are gradually built up into narrow piles, like a brick wall of one and a half bricks thickness. These piles are usually raised by women. They are made in the spaces between the rows, and are laid up one course at a time, so that each block may dry considerably, before it is covered by another. A woman can lay up 12,000 peats daily—the number lifted by 5 men—and as it requires about a month of good weather to give each course time (two days) to dry, she is able to pile for 30 gangs of workmen. If the weather be very favorable, the peats may be stacked or put into sheds, in a few days after the piling is finished. Stacking is usually practised. The stacks are carefully laid up in cylindrical form, and contain 200 to 500 cubic feet. When the stacks are properly built, the peat suffers but little from the weather.

After drying a bit in the rows, the peats are gradually stacked into narrow piles, like a brick wall one and a half bricks thick. These piles are typically built by women. They’re made in the spaces between the rows and are added one layer at a time, so each block can dry significantly before being covered by another. A woman can stack 12,000 peats a day—the amount lifted by 5 men—and since it takes about a month of good weather to give each layer (two days) time to dry, she can pile for 30 work crews. If the weather is really good, the peats can be stacked or put into sheds just a few days after the piling is done. Stacking is usually done. The stacks are carefully arranged in a cylindrical shape and hold between 200 to 500 cubic feet. When the stacks are built properly, the peat is minimally affected by the weather.

According to Schrœder, from whose account (Dingler's Polytechnisches Journal, Bd. 156, S. 128) the above statements are derived, the peats excavated under his direction, in drying thoroughly, shrank to about one-fourth of their original bulk (became 12 inches x 3 inches x 3 inches,) and to one-seventh or one-eighth of their original weight.

According to Schrœder, from whose account (Dingler's Polytechnisches Journal, Vol. 156, p. 128) the above statements are taken, the peats that were dug out under his supervision, when dried completely, shrank to about one-fourth of their original size (becoming 12 inches x 3 inches x 3 inches) and to one-seventh or one-eighth of their original weight.

[Pg 113]c. Machines for Cutting Peat.

Machines for Cutting Peat.

In North Prussia, the Peat Cutting Machine of Brosowsky, see fig. 4, is extensively employed. It consists of a cutter, made like the four sides of a box, but with oblique edges, a, which by its own weight, and by means of a crank and rack-work, operated by men, is forced down into the peat to a depth that may reach 20 feet. It can cut only at the edge of a ditch or excavation, and when it has penetrated sufficiently, a spade like blade, d, is driven under the cutter by means of levers c, and thus a mass is loosened, having a vertical length of 10 feet or more, and whose other dimensions are about 24 × 28 inches. This is lifted by reversing the crank motion, and is then cut up by the spade into blocks of 14 inches × 6 inches × 5 inches. Each parallelopipedon of peat, cut to a depth of 10 feet, makes 144 sods, and this number can be cut in less than 10 minutes. Four hands will cut and lay out to dry, 12,000 to 14,000 peats daily, or 3100 cubic feet. One great advantage of this machine consists in the circumstance that it can be used to raise peat from below the surface of water, rendering drainage in many cases unnecessary. Independently of this, it appears to be highly labor saving, since 1300 machines were put to use in Mecklenburg and Pomerania in about 5 years from its introduction. The Mecklenburg moors are now traversed by canals, cut by this machine, which are used for the transportation of the peat to market.[18]

In North Prussia, the Brosowsky Peat Cutting Machine, see fig. 4, is widely used. It has a cutter shaped like the four sides of a box but with slanted edges, a, which, due to its weight and through a crank and rack mechanism operated by workers, is pushed down into the peat to a depth of up to 20 feet. It can only cut at the edge of a ditch or excavation, and once it has gone deep enough, a spade-like blade, d, is pushed underneath the cutter by levers c, loosening a mass that is over 10 feet tall and measures about 24 × 28 inches. This is lifted by reversing the crank motion and then cut into blocks measuring 14 inches × 6 inches × 5 inches. Each 10-foot section of peat produces 144 sods, which can be cut in under 10 minutes. Four workers can cut and lay out for drying 12,000 to 14,000 peat blocks each day, or 3,100 cubic feet. One significant advantage of this machine is that it can collect peat from below the water's surface, often eliminating the need for drainage. Additionally, it appears to save a lot of labor, as 1,300 machines were put to use in Mecklenburg and Pomerania within about five years of its introduction. The Mecklenburg moors are now crossed by canals created by this machine, which are used for transporting the peat to market.[18]

[Pg 114] Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.—BROSOWSKY'S PEAT CUTTER.

Fig. 4.—Brosowsky's Peat Cutter.

Lepreux in Paris, has invented a similar but more complicated machine, which is said to be very effective in its operation. According to Hervé Mangon, this machine, when worked by two men, raises and cuts 40,000 peats daily, of which seven make one cubic foot, equal to 5600 [Pg 115]eet. The saving in expense by using this machine[19] is said to be 70 per cent., when the peat to be raised is under water.

Lepreux in Paris has created a similar but more complex machine that is said to work very well. According to Hervé Mangon, this machine, operated by two people, can raise and cut 40,000 peats each day, with seven peats making up one cubic foot, which equals 5600 [Pg 115] feet. The cost savings from using this machine[19] are said to be 70 percent. when the peat being raised is underwater.

11.—The Dredging of Peat.

11.—Peat Dredging.

When peat exists, not as a coherent more or less fibrous mass, but as a paste or mud, saturated with water, it cannot be raised and formed by the methods above described.

When peat is present, not as a solid, somewhat fibrous mass, but as a paste or mud that is soaked with water, it can't be lifted and shaped using the methods described above.

In such cases the peat is dredged from the bottom of the bog by means of an iron scoop, like a pail with sharp upper edges, which is fastened to a long handle. The bottom is made of coarse sacking, so that the water may run off. Sometimes, a stout ring of iron with a bag attached, is employed in the same way. The fine peat is emptied from the dredge upon the ground, where it remains, until the water has been absorbed or has evaporated, so far as to leave the mass somewhat firm and plastic. In the mean time, a drying bed is prepared by smoothing, and, if needful, stamping a sufficient space of ground, and enclosing it in boards 14 inches wide, set on edge. Into this bed the partially dried peat is thrown, and, as it cracks on the surface by drying, it is compressed by blows with a heavy mallet or flail, or by treading it with flat boards, attached to the feet, somewhat like snow shoes. By this treatment the mass is reduced to a continuous sheet of less than one-half its first thickness, and becomes so firm, that a man's step gives little impression in it. The boards are now removed, and it is cut into blocks by means of a very thin, sharp spade. Every other block being lifted out and placed crosswise upon those remaining, air is admitted to the whole and the drying goes on rapidly. This kind of peat is usually of excellent quality. In North Germany it is called "Baggertorf," i. e. mud-peat.

In such cases, the peat is scooped from the bottom of the bog using an iron scoop that looks like a bucket with sharp edges on top, attached to a long handle. The bottom is made of rough fabric, allowing the water to drain away. Sometimes, a sturdy iron ring with a bag attached is used in the same way. The fine peat is dumped from the scoop onto the ground, where it stays until the water has been absorbed or evaporated enough to make it somewhat firm and pliable. Meanwhile, a drying bed is prepared by leveling and, if needed, tamping down a large area of ground, then enclosing it with boards 14 inches wide, standing on their edges. The partially dried peat is then placed into this bed, and as it cracks on the surface from drying, it is compacted by hitting it with a heavy mallet or a flail, or by stepping on it with flat boards attached to the feet, similar to snowshoes. This process compresses the mass into a continuous sheet that is less than half its original thickness and becomes so firm that a person's footprint leaves little mark. The boards are then removed, and it is cut into blocks using a very thin, sharp spade. Every other block is lifted out and placed crosswise on the remaining ones, allowing air to reach all parts and speeding up the drying process. This type of peat is usually of excellent quality. In North Germany, it is called "Baggertorf," meaning mud-peat.

Peat is sometimes dredged by machinery, as will be noticed hereafter.

Peat is sometimes extracted by machines, as will be noted later.

12.—The Moulding of Peat.

12.—The Shaping of Peat.

When black, earthy or pitchy peat cannot be cut, and is not so saturated with water as to make a mud; it is, after raking or picking out roots, etc., often worked into a paste by the hands or feet, with addition of water, until it can be formed into blocks which, by slow drying, acquire great firmness. In Ireland this product is termed "hand-peat." In Germany it is called "Formtorf," i. e. moulded peat, or "Backtorf," i. e. baked peat.

When black, earthy, or pitchy peat can’t be cut and isn’t so waterlogged that it turns into mud, it’s often worked into a paste by hand or foot, after being raked or having roots and other debris removed, with some added water until it can be formed into blocks. These blocks, when dried slowly, become very firm. In Ireland, this product is called "hand-peat." In Germany, it’s referred to as "Formtorf," meaning molded peat, or "Backtorf," meaning baked peat.

The shaping is sometimes accomplished by plastering the soft mass into wooden moulds, as in making bricks.

The shaping is sometimes done by pressing the soft material into wooden molds, similar to how bricks are made.

13.—Preparation of Peat Fuel by Machinery, etc.

13.—Making Peat Fuel with Machines, etc.

Within the last 15 years, numerous inventions have been made with a view to improving the quality of peat fuel, as well as to expedite its production. These inventions are directed to the following points, viz.: 1. Condensation of the peat, so as bring more fuel into a given space, thus making it capable of giving out an intenser heat; at the same time increasing its hardness and toughness, and rendering it easier and more economical of transportation. 2. Drying by artificial heat or reducing the amount of water from 20 or 25 per cent. to half that quantity or less. This exalts the heating power in no inconsiderable degree. 3. Charring. Peat-charcoal is as much better than peat, for use where intense heat is required, as wood charcoal is better than wood. 4. Purifying from useless matters. Separation of earthy admixtures which are incombustible and hinder draught.

In the last 15 years, many inventions have been created to enhance the quality of peat fuel and speed up its production. These inventions focus on the following points: 1. Condensation of the peat to pack more fuel into a given space, allowing it to produce more intense heat while also increasing its hardness and durability, making it easier and more cost-effective to transport. 2. Drying with artificial heat or reducing the water content from 20 or 25 percent to half that amount or less, significantly boosting its heating power. 3. Charring. Peat-charcoal is much better than peat for applications requiring intense heat, just as wood charcoal is superior to wood. 4. Purifying from useless materials. Separating out inert soil mixtures that are non-combustible and impede airflow.

A.—Condensation by Pressure.

A.—Condensation Through Pressure.

Pressing Wet Peat.—The condensation of peat was first attempted by subjecting the fresh, wet material, to severe pressure. As long ago as the year 1821, Pernitzsch, [Pg 117]in Saxony, prepared peat by this method, and shortly afterwards Lord Willoughby d'Eresby, in Scotland, and others, adopted the same principle. Simple pressure will, indeed, bring fresh peat at once into much smaller bulk; but, if the peat be fibrous and light, and for this reason require condensation, it is also elastic, and, when the pressure is relieved, it acquires again much of its original volume.

Pressing Wet Peat.—The condensation of peat was first attempted by applying intense pressure to the fresh, wet material. As far back as 1821, Pernitzsch, [Pg 117]in Saxony, produced peat using this method, and soon after, Lord Willoughby d'Eresby in Scotland and others adopted the same approach. Basic pressure will indeed reduce the volume of fresh peat significantly; however, if the peat is fibrous and light, requiring condensation, it is also elastic, and once the pressure is released, it will regain much of its original size.

Furthermore, although pressure will squeeze out much water from a saturated well-ripened peat, the complete drying of the pressed blocks usually requires as much or more time than that of the unpressed material, on account of the closeness of texture of the surface produced by the pressure.

Furthermore, even though pressure will push out a lot of water from a fully saturated, well-ripened peat, completely drying the pressed blocks often takes as much time or longer than drying the unpressed material, due to the tight texture of the surface created by the pressure.

The advantages of subjecting fresh peat to pressure in the ordinary presses, it is found, are more than offset by the expense of the operation, and it is therefore unnecessary to give the subject further attention.

The benefits of applying pressure to fresh peat in standard presses are outweighed by the cost of the process, so it's not necessary to explore the topic any further.

Fresh peat appears however to have been advantageously pressed by other mechanical means. Two methods require notice.

Fresh peat seems to have been effectively compacted using other mechanical methods. Two techniques deserve attention.

Mannhardt's Method, invented about the year 1858, has been practically applied on the large scale at Schleissheim, Bavaria. Mannhardt's machine consists of two colossal iron rolls, each of 15 feet diameter, and 6-½ feet length, geared into each other so as to revolve horizontally in opposite directions and with equal velocity. These rolls are hollow, their circumference consists of stout iron plate perforated with numerous small holes, and is supported by iron bars which connect the ends of the roll, having intervals between them of about one inch. Each roll is covered by an endless band of hair cloth, stretched over and kept in place by rollers. The rolls are operated by a steam engine of 12 horse power. The fresh peat is [Pg 118]thrown into a hopper, and passing between the rolls, loses a considerable share of its water, issuing as a broad continuous sheet, which is divided into blocks by an arrangement presently to be described. The cloth, covering the rolls, must have great strength, sufficient porosity to allow water to pass it freely, and such closeness of texture as to retain the fine particles of peat. Many trials have led to the use of a fabric, specially made for the purpose, of goat's hair. The cloth for each pair of rolls, costs $160.

Mannhardt's Method, created around 1858, has been widely used at Schleissheim, Bavaria. Mannhardt's machine features two massive iron rolls, each 15 feet in diameter and 6.5 feet long, interconnected to rotate horizontally in opposite directions at the same speed. These rolls are hollow, with their surfaces made of thick iron plates full of small holes, supported by iron bars connecting the ends of the rolls, with gaps of about one inch between them. Each roll is covered by a continuous band of hair cloth, stretched over it and held in place by rollers. The rolls are powered by a 12-horsepower steam engine. Fresh peat is [Pg 118] dumped into a hopper and, as it passes between the rolls, loses a significant amount of water, emerging as a wide continuous sheet, which is then cut into blocks by a mechanism that will be described later. The cloth covering the rolls needs to be very strong, porous enough for water to pass through easily, and dense enough to hold the fine peat particles. Many tests have led to the decision to use a specially made fabric made from goat's hair. The cloth for each pair of rolls costs $160.

The peat at Schleissheim is about 5 feet in depth, and consists of a dark-brown mud or paste, free from stones and sticks, and penetrated only by fine fibers. The peat is thrown up on the edge of a ditch, and after draining, is moved on a tram-way to the machine. It is there thrown upon a chain of buckets, which deliver it at the hopper above the rolls. The rolls revolve once in 7-1/3 minutes and at each revolution turn out a sheet of peat, which cuts into 528 blocks. Each block has, when moist, a length of about 12 inches, by 5 inches of width and 1-¼ inches of thickness, and weighs on the average 1-½ lbs. The water that is pressed out of the peat, falls within the rolls and is conducted away; it is but slightly turbid from suspended particles. The band of pressed peat is divided in one direction as it is formed, by narrow slats which are secured horizontally to the press-cloth, at about 5 inches distance from each other. The further division of the peat is accomplished by a series of six circular saws, under which the peat is carried as it is released from the rolls, by a system of endless cords strung over rollers. These cords run parallel until the peat passes the saws; thenceforth they radiate, so that the peat-blocks are separated somewhat from each other. They are carried on until they reach a roll, over which they are delivered upon drying lattices. The latter move regularly under the roll; the peats arrange themselves upon them edgewise, one leaning against [Pg 119]the other, so as to admit of free circulation of air. The lattices are loaded upon cars, and moved on a tram-way to the drying ground, where they are set up in frames.

The peat at Schleissheim is about 5 feet deep and made up of a dark-brown mud or paste that’s free of stones and sticks, only containing fine fibers. The peat is pushed up to the edge of a ditch, and after it’s drained, it’s transported on a tramway to the machine. There, it’s loaded onto a chain of buckets that deliver it to the hopper above the rolls. The rolls turn once every 7 and a third minutes and produce a sheet of peat with each revolution, cutting it into 528 blocks. Each block, when wet, is about 12 inches long, 5 inches wide, and 1 and a quarter inches thick, weighing on average 1 and a half pounds. The water squeezed out of the peat falls into the rolls and is drained away; it’s only slightly cloudy from suspended particles. As the peat forms, a band of pressed peat is divided in one direction by narrow slats fixed horizontally to the press cloth, spaced about 5 inches apart. The further cutting of the peat is done by a series of six circular saws, beneath which the peat is carried as it comes out of the rolls, using a system of endless cords strung over rollers. These cords run parallel until the peat passes the saws; after that, they spread out, allowing the peat blocks to separate slightly from each other. They are carried until they reach a roll, from which they’re released onto drying lattices. These lattices move steadily under the roll; the peats are arranged edgewise on them, leaning against each other to allow for free air circulation. The lattices are loaded onto cars and transported on a tramway to the drying area, where they are set up in frames.

The peat-cake separates well from the press-cloths; but the pores of the latter become somewhat choked by fine particles that penetrate them. They are therefore washed at each revolution by passing before a pipe from which issue, against them, a number of jets of water under high pressure. The blocks, after leaving the machine, are soft, and require 5 or 6 days to become air-dry. When dry they are dense and of good quality, but not better than the same raw material yields by simple moulding. The capacity of the rolls, which easily turn out 100,000 peats in 24 hours, greatly exceeds at present that of the drying arrangements, and for this reason the works are not, as yet, remunerative. The rolls are, in reality, a simple forming machine. The pressure they exert on the peat, is but inconsiderable, owing to its soft pasty character; and since the pair of rolls costs $8000 and can only be worked 3 to 4 months, this method must be regarded rather as an ingenious and instructive essay in the art of making peat-fuel, than as a practical success. The persevering efforts of the inventor may yet overcome all difficulties and prove the complete efficacy of the method. It is especially important, that blocks of greater thickness should be produced, since those now made, pack together too closely in the fire.

The peat cake separates easily from the press cloths, but the pores of the cloths get clogged with fine particles that get stuck in them. To fix this, they are washed during each rotation by passing in front of a pipe that sprays a bunch of jets of high-pressure water at them. The blocks that come out of the machine are soft and need 5 to 6 days to air dry. Once dry, they are dense and of good quality, but not better than the same raw material produces with simple molding. The capacity of the rolls, which can easily produce 100,000 peats in 24 hours, currently far exceeds the capacity of the drying systems, which is why the operations aren't profitable yet. The rolls are basically just a simple forming machine. The pressure they apply to the peat is minimal due to its soft, pasty nature, and since the pair of rolls costs $8,000 and can only be operated for 3 to 4 months, this method should be seen more as an innovative and educational attempt at producing peat fuel rather than a practical success. The inventor's persistent efforts may still overcome all challenges and prove the method's effectiveness. It's especially important to produce thicker blocks, as the ones currently made stack too tightly in the fire.

Neustadt Method.—At Neustadt, in Hanover, a loose-textured fibrous peat was prepared for metallurgical use in 1860, by passing through iron rolls of ordinary construction. The peat was thereby reduced two-thirds in bulk, burned more regularly, gave a coherent coal, and withstood carriage better. The peat was, however, first cut into sods of regular size, and these were fed into the rollers by boys.

Neustadt Method.—In Neustadt, Hanover, a fibrous peat with a loose texture was processed for metallurgical use in 1860 by passing it through standard iron rollers. This method reduced the peat's volume by two-thirds, allowed for more consistent burning, produced a cohesive coal, and improved transportability. Before processing, the peat was cut into uniform-sized sods, which were fed into the rollers by boys.

[Pg 120]b. Pressing Air-dried Peat.

b. Pressing air-dried peat.

Some kinds of peat, when in the air-dry and pulverized state, yield by great pressure very firm, excellent, and economical fuel.

Some types of peat, when dried and ground up, produce a very solid, high-quality, and cost-effective fuel when subjected to high pressure.

Lithuanian Process.—In Lithuania, according to Leo,[20] the following method is extensively adopted. The bog is drained, the surface moss or grass-turf and roots are removed, and then the peat is broken up by a simple spade-plow, in furrows 2 inches wide and 8 or 10 inches deep. The broken peat is repeatedly traversed with wooden harrows, and is thus pulverized and dried. When suitably dry, it is carried to a magazine, where it is rammed into moulds by a simple stamp of two hundred pounds weight. The broken peat is reduced to two-fifths its first bulk, and the blocks thus formed are so hard, as to admit of cutting with a saw or ax without fracture. They require no further drying, are of a deep-brown color, with lustrous surfaces, and their preparation may go on in winter with the stock of broken peat, which is accumulated in the favorable weather of summer. In this manufacture there is no waste of material.

Lithuanian Process.—In Lithuania, according to Leo,[20] the following method is commonly used. The bog is drained, the surface moss, grass-turf, and roots are cleared away, and then the peat is broken up using a simple spade-plow in furrows 2 inches wide and 8 or 10 inches deep. The broken peat is repeatedly worked over with wooden harrows to pulverize and dry it. Once it’s dry enough, it is taken to a storage area, where it is compacted into molds using a simple 200-pound stamp. The broken peat is reduced to two-fifths of its original volume, and the blocks formed are so solid that they can be cut with a saw or axe without breaking. They don’t need any further drying, are a deep brown color with shiny surfaces, and their production can continue in winter using the stock of broken peat that’s gathered during the favorable summer weather. In this process, there is no waste of material.

The peat is dry enough for pressing when, after forming in the hands to a ball, it will not firmly retain this shape, but on being let fall to the ground, breaks to powder. The entire cost of preparing 1000 peats for use, or market, was 2 Thalers, or $1.40. Thirty peats, or "stones" as they are called from their hardness, have the bulk of two cubic feet, and weigh 160 lbs. The cost of preparing a hundred weight, was therefore, (in 1859,) four Silver-groschen, or about 10 cents.

The peat is dry enough to press when, after shaping it into a ball with your hands, it doesn't hold its shape and falls apart into powder when dropped. It cost a total of 2 Thalers, or $1.40, to prepare 1,000 pieces of peat for use or sale. Thirty pieces, or "stones" as they're called because of their hardness, take up about two cubic feet and weigh 160 lbs. So, the cost of preparing a hundredweight was, in 1859, four Silver-groschen, or about 10 cents.

The stamp is of simple construction, somewhat like a pile driver, the mould and face of the ram being made of cast iron. The above process is not applicable to fibrous peat.

The stamp is simply built, somewhat like a pile driver, with the mold and face of the ram made of cast iron. The process described above doesn't apply to fibrous peat.

[Pg 121]c. Pressing Hot-dried Peat.

c. Pressing Dried Peat.

The two methods to be next described, are similar to the last mentioned, save that the peat is hot-pressed.

The two methods that will be described next are similar to the last one mentioned, except that the peat is hot-pressed.

Gwynne's Method.—In 1853, Gwynne of London, patented machinery and a method for condensing peat for fuel. His process consisted, first, in rapidly drying and pulverizing the fresh peat by a centrifugal machine, or by passing between rollers, and subsequent exposure to heat in revolving cylinders; and, second, in compressing the dry peat-powder in a powerful press at a high temperature, about 180° F. By this heat it is claimed, that the peat is not only thoroughly dried, but is likewise partially decomposed; bituminous matters being developed, which cement the particles to a hard dense mass. Gwynne's machinery was expensive and complicated, and although an excellent fuel was produced, the process appears not to have been carried put on the large scale with pecuniary success.

Gwynne's Method.—In 1853, Gwynne of London patented machinery and a method for condensing peat for fuel. His process involved, first, quickly drying and grinding the fresh peat using a centrifugal machine or by passing it between rollers, followed by exposure to heat in rotating cylinders; and second, compressing the dry peat powder in a powerful press at a high temperature of around 180° F. It is claimed that this heat not only thoroughly dries the peat but also partially decomposes it, developing bituminous materials that bind the particles into a hard, dense mass. Gwynne's machinery was expensive and complex, and while it produced excellent fuel, the process doesn't seem to have been implemented on a large scale with financial success.

A specimen of so-called "Peat coal" in the author's possession, made in Massachusetts some years ago, under Gwynne's patent, appears to consist of pulverized peat, prepared as above described; but contains an admixture of rosin. It must have been an excellent fuel, but could not at that time compete with coal in this country.

A sample of what's called "Peat coal" that the author has, made in Massachusetts a few years ago under Gwynne's patent, seems to be made of crushed peat, prepared as described above; however, it has some rosin mixed in. It probably was a great fuel source, but at that time, it couldn't compete with coal in this country.

Exter's Method.[21]

Exter's Method. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.—EXTER'S DRYING OVEN.

Fig. 5.—EXTER'S DRYING OVEN.

In 1856, Exter, of Bavaria, carried into operation on an extensive scale, a plan of preparing peat-fuel in some respects not unlike the last mentioned method. Exter's works, belonging to the Bavarian Government, are on the Haspelmoor, situated between Augsburg and Munich. According to Ruehlmann, who examined them at the [Pg 122]command of the Hanoverian Government in 1857, the method is as follows:—1. The bog is laid dry by drains and the surface is cleared of bushes, roots, and grass-turf, down to good peat. 2. The peat is broken up superficially to the depth of about one inch, by a gang of three plows, propelled by a portable steam engine. 3. The peat is further pulverized by a harrow, drawn by a yoke of oxen. 4. In two or three days after harrowing, the peat is turned by an implement like our cultivator, this process being repeated at suitable intervals. 5. The fine and air-dry peat is gathered together by scrapers, and loaded into wagons; then drawn by rope connected with the engine, to the press or magazine. 6. If needful, the peat, thus collected, is further pulverized by passing it through toothed rollers. 7. The fine peat is now introduced into a complicated drying oven, see figures 5 and 6. It falls through the opening T, and is moved by [Pg 123]means of the spirals along the horizontal floors O, O, falling from one to another until it emerges at Q. The floors, O, O, are made by wide and thin iron chambers, through which passes waste steam from an engine. The oven is heated further by hot air, which circulates through the canals K, K. The peat occupies about one hour in its passage through the oven and falls from Q, into the press, having a temperature of from 120° to 140°Fahrenheit. The press employed at Staltach is essentially the same as that now used at the Kolbermoor, and figured on p. 125. It is a powerful eccentric of simple construction, and turns out continuously 40 finished peats per minute. These occupy about one-fourth the space of the peat before pressing, the cubic foot weighing about 72 lbs. The peats are 7 inches long, 3 inches wide, and one half to three quarters of an inch thick, each weighing three quarters of a pound. Three presses furnish annually 180,000 cwt. of condensed peat, which is used exclusively for firing locomotives. Its specific gravity is 1.14, and its quality as fuel is excellent. Ruehlmann estimated its cost, at Haspelmoor in 1857, at 8-½ Kreuzers, or a little more than 6 cents per cwt., and calculated that by adopting certain obvious improvements, and substituting steam power for the labor of men and cattle, the cost might be reduced to 6-½ Kreuzers, or a little more than 4 cents per cwt.

In 1856, Exter from Bavaria implemented a large-scale plan to produce peat fuel that resembles the previously mentioned method in some ways. Exter’s facility, owned by the Bavarian Government, is located in Haspelmoor, between Augsburg and Munich. According to Ruehlmann, who inspected it at the [Pg 122] command of the Hanoverian Government in 1857, the process is as follows: 1. The bog is drained and the surface is cleared of bushes, roots, and grass until reaching the good peat. 2. The peat is worked on the surface to a depth of about one inch using a team of three plows powered by a portable steam engine. 3. The peat is then further broken down by a harrow pulled by a yoke of oxen. 4. Two or three days after harrowing, the peat is turned with a tool similar to a cultivator, repeating this process at appropriate intervals. 5. The fine, air-dried peat is collected by scrapers and loaded into wagons, then transported by a rope connected to the engine to the press or storage area. 6. If necessary, the collected peat is further pulverized by passing it through toothed rollers. 7. The fine peat is then placed into a complex drying oven, see figures 5 and 6. It enters through the opening T and is moved along the horizontal floors O, O, via spirals, falling from one floor to another until it exits at Q. The floors, O, O, are made of wide, thin iron chambers that allow waste steam from the engine to pass through. The oven is additionally heated by hot air circulating through the canals K, K. The peat takes about an hour to pass through the oven and exits from Q into the press at a temperature between 120° and 140°F. The press used at Staltach is essentially the same as the one currently used at Kolbermoor, as shown on p. 125. It features a powerful, simply constructed eccentric that continuously produces 40 finished peats per minute. These occupy about one-fourth the space of the peat before pressing, with each cubic foot weighing about 72 lbs. The peats measure 7 inches long, 3 inches wide, and between half an inch and three-quarters of an inch thick, each weighing three-quarters of a pound. Three presses produce an annual output of 180,000 cwt. of condensed peat, which is exclusively used for powering locomotives. Its specific gravity is 1.14, and its fuel quality is excellent. Ruehlmann estimated the cost of production at Haspelmoor in 1857 to be 8-½ Kreuzers, or just over 6 cents per cwt., and calculated that with some obvious improvements and substituting steam power for manual and animal labor, the cost could be reduced to 6-½ Kreuzers, or just over 4 cents per cwt.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.—EXTER'S DRYING OVEN.

Fig. 6.—EXTER'S DRYER.

Exter's method has been adopted with some modifications at Kolbermoor, near Munich, in Bavaria, at Miskolz, in Hungary, and also at the Neustadt Smelting Works, in Hanover. At the latter place, however, it appears to have been abandoned for the reasons that it could be applied only to the better kinds of peat; and the expense was there so great, that the finished article could not compete with other fuel in the Hanoverian markets.

Exter's method has been adjusted a bit and used in Kolbermoor, close to Munich in Bavaria, in Miskolc, Hungary, and also at the Neustadt Smelting Works in Hanover. However, at the latter location, it seems to have been dropped because it could only be used for higher quality peat, and the costs were so high that the final product couldn't compete with other fuels in the Hanover market.

Details of the mechanical arrangements at present employed on the Kolbermoor, are as follows: After the bog [Pg 124]is drained, and the surface cleared of dwarf pines, etc., and suitably leveled, the peat is plowed by steam. This is accomplished in a way which the annexed cut serves to illustrate. The plot to be plowed, is traversed through the middle by the railway x, y. A locomotive a, sets in motion an endless wire-rope, which moves upon large horizontal pulleys o, o, stationed at either border of the land. Four gang plows b, b, are attached to the rope, and as the latter is set in motion, they break up the strip of peat they pass over, completely. The locomotive and the pulleys are then moved back, and the process is repeated until the whole field has been plowed. The plows are square frames, carrying six to eight shares and as many coulters.

Details of the mechanical setup currently used at Kolbermoor are as follows: After the bog [Pg 124] is drained, and the surface is cleared of dwarf pines and other vegetation, making sure it's leveled, the peat is plowed using steam. This is done in a way that the attached illustration helps to explain. The area to be plowed is crossed in the middle by the railway x, y. A locomotive a drives an endless wire rope that moves over large horizontal pulleys o, o, positioned at each edge of the land. Four gang plows b, b are connected to the rope, and as it's set in motion, they completely break up the strip of peat beneath them. The locomotive and pulleys are then pulled back, and the process is repeated until the entire field has been plowed. The plows are square frames with six to eight shares and just as many coulters.

Fig. 7

Fig. 7

Fig. 7

The press employed at Kolbermoor, is shown in figs. 8 and 9. The hot peat falls into the hopper, b, c. The plunger d, worked in the cavity e, by an eccentric, allows the latter to fill with peat as it is withdrawn, and by its advance compresses it into a block. The blocks m, once formed, by their friction in the channel e, oppose enough resistance to the peat to effect its compression. In order to regulate this resistance according to the varying quality of the [Pg 125]peat, the piece of metal g, which hangs on a pivot at o, is depressed or raised, by the screw i, so as to contract or enlarge the channel. At each stroke of the plunger a block is formed, and when the channel e is once filled, the peats fall continuously from its extremity. Their dimensions are 7 inches long, 3-½ wide, and 1-½ thick.

The press used at Kolbermoor is illustrated in figures 8 and 9. The hot peat drops into the hopper, b, c. The plunger d, which operates in the cavity e through an eccentric mechanism, fills with peat as it retracts and compresses it into a block as it moves forward. The blocks m, once formed, create enough friction in the channel e to provide resistance against the peat to ensure its compression. To manage this resistance based on the varying quality of the [Pg 125]peat, the metal piece g, which pivots at o, can be lowered or raised by the screw i to adjust the width of the channel. With each stroke of the plunger, a block is created, and when the channel e is filled, the blocks continually fall from its end. Their dimensions are 7 inches long, 3-½ inches wide, and 1-½ inches thick.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8.—EXTER'S PEAT PRESS.

Fig. 8.—EXTER'S PEAT PRESS.

Several presses are worked by the same engine at the Kolbermoor, each of which turns out daily 200 to 300 cwt. of peats, which, in 1863, were sold at 24 Kreuzers (16 cents), per cwt.

Several presses are powered by the same engine at Kolbermoor, each producing 200 to 300 hundredweight of peat daily, which, in 1863, were sold for 24 Kreuzers (16 cents) per hundredweight.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9.—EXTER'S PEAT PRESS.

Fig. 9.—EXTER'S PEAT PRESS.

C. Hodgson has patented in Great Britain a compressing-ram similar to Exter's, and works were put up at Derrylea, in Ireland, some years ago, in which Exter's process of manufacturing peat fuel appears to have been adopted.

C. Hodgson has patented a compressing ram in Great Britain that is similar to Exter's. Some years ago, facilities were established at Derrylea, in Ireland, where it looks like Exter's method of producing peat fuel was used.

Elsberg's Process.

Elsberg's Method.

Dr. Louis Elsberg, of New York City, has invented a modification of Exter's method, which appears to be of [Pg 126]great importance. His experimental machine, which is in operation near Belleville, N. J., consists of a cylindrical pug-mill, in which the peat, air-dried as in Exter's method, is further broken, and at the same time is subjected to a current of steam admitted through a pipe and jacket surrounding the cylinder. The steamed peat is then condensed by a pair of presses similar to that just described, which are fed directly from the mill. In this way the complicated drying oven of Exter is dispensed with. Elsberg & Co. are still engaged in perfecting their arrangements. Some samples of their making are of very excellent quality, having a density of 1.2 to 1.3.

Dr. Louis Elsberg from New York City has created a new version of Exter's method that seems to be very important. His experimental machine, currently running near Belleville, N.J., features a cylindrical pug mill where the peat, dried in the same way as in Exter's method, is further processed and also subjected to steam injected through a pipe and jacket that surrounds the cylinder. The steamed peat is then compressed using a pair of presses similar to those just mentioned, which are fed directly from the mill. This eliminates the need for Exter's complex drying oven. Elsberg & Co. is still working on refining their setup. Some samples they’ve produced are of very high quality, showing a density of 1.2 to 1.3.

The pressing of air-dry peat only succeeds when it is made warm, and is, at the same time, moist. In Exter's original process the peat is considerably dried in the ovens, but on leaving them, is so moist as to bedew the hand that is immersed in it. It is, in fact, steamed by the vaporization of its own water. In Elsberg's process, the air-dry peat is not further desiccated, but is made moist and warm by the admission of hot steam. The latter method is the more ready and doubtless the more economical of the two. Whether the former gives a dryer product or not, the author cannot decide. Elsberg's peat occurs in cylindrical cakes 2 inches broad, and one inch in thickness. The cakes are somewhat cracked upon the edges, as if by contraction, in drying. When wet, the surface of the cakes swells up, and exfoliates as far as the water has penetrated. In the fire, a similar breaking away of the surface takes place, and when coked, the coal is but moderately coherent.

The pressing of air-dry peat only works when it is warm and also moist. In Exter's original method, the peat is significantly dried in the ovens, but when it comes out, it's so moist that it dampens the hand that touches it. It essentially steams due to the evaporation of its own water. In Elsberg's method, the air-dry peat isn't dried further; instead, it is made moist and warm by the introduction of hot steam. This method is quicker and likely more cost-effective. Whether the first method produces a drier product is something the author cannot determine. Elsberg's peat comes in cylindrical cakes that are 2 inches wide and 1 inch thick. The edges of the cakes are slightly cracked, as if they contracted while drying. When wet, the surface of the cakes expands and flakes off to the extent that the water has soaked in. In the fire, a similar loosening of the surface occurs, and when it becomes coke, the coal remains only moderately solid.

The reasons why steamed peat admits of solidification by pressure, are simply that the air, ordinarily adhering to the fibres and particles, is removed, and the fibres themselves become softened and more plastic, so that pressure brings them into intimate contact. The idea that the heat [Pg 127]develops bituminous matters, or fuses the resins which exist in peat, and that these cement the particles, does not harmonize with the fact that the peat, thus condensed, flakes to pieces by a short immersion in water.

The reasons why steamed peat can be solidified under pressure are straightforward: the air that usually clings to the fibers and particles is removed, and the fibers themselves become softer and more flexible, allowing them to come into close contact when pressed. The idea that heat [Pg 127] creates bituminous substances or melts the resins present in peat, which then bond the particles together, doesn’t align with the fact that the condensed peat breaks apart after being briefly submerged in water.

The great advantage of Exter's and Elsberg's method consists in avoiding what most of the others require, viz.: the expensive transportation and handling of fresh peat, which contains 80 to 90 per cent. of water, and the rapid removal of this excess of water before the manufacture. In the other methods the surplus water must be slowly removed during or after condensation.

The main benefit of Exter's and Elsberg's method is that it avoids what most other methods need, which is the costly transportation and handling of fresh peat that has 80 to 90 percent water. It also quickly eliminates this excess water before manufacturing. In contrast, other methods require the extra water to be slowly removed during or after condensation.

Again, enough peat may be air-dried and stored during summer weather, to supply a machine with work during the whole year.

Again, enough peat can be air-dried and stored during the summer to provide a machine with fuel for the entire year.

Its disadvantages are, that it requires a large outlay of capital and great expenditure of mechanical force. Its product is, moreover, not adapted for coking.

Its downsides are that it needs a significant amount of capital and a lot of mechanical effort. Additionally, its output isn't suitable for coking.

B.—Condensation without Pressure.

B.—Condensation without Pressure.

The methods of condensing peat, that remain to be described, are based upon radically different principles from those already noticed. In these, little or no pressure is employed in the operations; but advantage is taken of the important fact that when wet or moist peat is ground, cut or in any way reduced to a pulpy or pasty consistence, with destruction of the elastic fibres, it will, on drying, shrink together to a coherent mass, that may acquire a density and toughness much greater than it is possible to obtain by any amount of mere pressure.

The methods for condensing peat that are yet to be described rely on completely different principles than those already mentioned. In these methods, minimal or no pressure is used during the process; instead, the crucial fact is utilized that when wet or moist peat is ground, cut, or otherwise broken down into a pulpy or pasty texture, resulting in the destruction of the elastic fibers, it will shrink into a solid mass upon drying. This mass can achieve a density and toughness much greater than could be attained through any amount of simple pressure.

The various processes that remain to notice are essentially reducible to two types, of which the French method, invented by Challeton, and the German, invented it appears by Weber, are the original representatives. The former method is only applicable to earthy, [Pg 128]well-decomposed peat, containing little fibre. The latter was originally applied to fibrous moss-peat, but has since been adapted to all kinds. Other inventors, English, German, and American, have modified these methods in their details, or in the construction of the requisite machinery, rendering them more perfect in their execution and perhaps more profitable in their results; but, as regards the essential principles of production, or the quality of product, no advance appears to have been made beyond the original inventors.

The different processes still to consider can essentially be boiled down to two types, represented by the French method, created by Challeton, and the German method, apparently developed by Weber. The French method is only suitable for earthy, [Pg 128]well-decomposed peat that has little fiber. The German method was initially used for fibrous moss-peat but has since been adapted for all types. Other inventors from England, Germany, and America have made modifications to these methods or the machinery used, improving execution and possibly increasing profitability. However, when it comes to the fundamental principles of production or the quality of the product, no significant advancements seem to have been made beyond the original inventors.

a. Condensation of Earthy Peat.

Compact Earthy Peat.

Challeton's Method consists essentially in destroying the fibres, and reducing the peat by cutting and grinding with water to a pulp; then slowly removing the liquid, until the peat dries away to a hard coherent mass. It provides also for the purification of the peat from earthy matters. It is, in many respects, an imitation of the old Dutch and Irish mode of making "hand peat" (Baggertorf), and is very like the paper manufacture in its operations. Challeton's Works, situated near Paris, at Mennecy, near Montanges, were visited in 1856 by a Commission of the Agricultural Society of Holstein, consisting of Drs. Meyn and Luetkens, and also by Dr. Ruehlmann, in the interest of the Hanoverian Government. From their account[22] the following statements are derived.

Challeton's Method mainly involves breaking down the fibers and turning the peat into a pulp by cutting and grinding it with water. Then, the liquid is gradually removed until the peat dries into a solid mass. It also purifies the peat from any earthy substances. In many ways, it mimics the traditional Dutch and Irish method of making "hand peat" (Baggertorf) and is very similar to paper production processes. Challeton's Works, located near Paris in Mennecy, close to Montanges, were visited in 1856 by a Commission from the Agricultural Society of Holstein, including Drs. Meyn and Luetkens, along with Dr. Ruehlmann, on behalf of the Hanoverian Government. The following statements are based on their report[22].

The peat at Mennecy comes from the decay of grasses, is black, well decomposed, and occasionally intermingled with shells and sand. The moor is traversed by canals, which serve for the transport of the excavated peat in boats. The peat, when brought to the manufactory, is emptied into a cistern, which, by communicating with the adjacent canal, maintains a constant level of water. From [Pg 129]this cistern the peat is carried up by a chain of buckets and emptied into a hopper, where it is caught by toothed cylinders in rapid revolution, and cut or torn to pieces. Thence it passes into a chamber where the fine parts are separated from unbroken roots and fibres by revolving brushes, which force the former through small holes in the walls of the chamber, while the latter are swept out through a larger passage. The pulverized peat finally falls into a cistern, in which it is agitated by revolving arms. A stream of water constantly enters this vessel from beneath, while a chain of buckets as rapidly carries off the peat pulp. All sand, shells, and other heavy matters, remain at the bottom of this cistern.

The peat at Mennecy comes from decaying grasses, is black, well decomposed, and sometimes mixed with shells and sand. Canals run through the moor to transport the excavated peat in boats. When the peat arrives at the factory, it's dumped into a cistern that connects to the nearby canal, keeping a consistent water level. From [Pg 129]this cistern, the peat is lifted by a chain of buckets and dropped into a hopper, where it gets caught by rapidly spinning toothed cylinders that cut or tear it into pieces. It then moves into a chamber where fine particles are separated from whole roots and fibers using revolving brushes, which push the fine parts through small holes in the chamber's walls, while the intact roots and fibers are swept out through a larger opening. The ground peat finally falls into a cistern that is stirred by rotating arms. Water continuously flows into this vessel from below, while a chain of buckets quickly removes the peat pulp. All sand, shells, and other heavy materials settle at the bottom of this cistern.

The peat pulp, thus purified, flows through wooden troughs into a series of basins, in which the peat is formed and dried. These basins are made upon the ground by putting up a square frame (of boards on edge,) about one foot deep, and placing at the bottom old matting or a layer of flags or reeds. Each basin is about a rod square, and 800 of them are employed. They are filled with the peat pulp to the top. In a few days the water either filters away into the ground, or evaporates, so that a soft stratum of peat, about 3 inches in thickness, remains. Before it begins to crack from drying, it is divided into blocks, by pressing into it a light trellis-like framework, having thin partitions that serve to indent the peat in lines corresponding to the intended divisions. On further drying, the mass separates into blocks at the lines thus impressed, and in a few days, they are ready to remove and arrange for further desiccation.

The purified peat pulp flows through wooden troughs into a series of basins where the peat is formed and dried. These basins are created on the ground by building a square frame (made of upright boards) about one foot deep and placing old matting or a layer of flags or reeds at the bottom. Each basin is about a rod square, and there are 800 of them used. They are filled to the top with peat pulp. In a few days, the water either filters away into the ground or evaporates, leaving a soft layer of peat about 3 inches thick. Before it starts to crack from drying, it’s divided into blocks by pressing a light trellis-like framework into it, which has thin partitions that create indentations in the peat corresponding to the intended divisions. As it continues to dry, the mass separates into blocks along these lines, and in a few days, they are ready to be removed and arranged for further drying.

The finished peats from Challeton's works, as well as those made by the same method near Neuchatel, Switzerland, by the Messrs. Roy, were of excellent quality, and in the opinion of the Commission from Holstein, the [Pg 130]method is admirably adapted for the purification and concentration of the heavy kinds of peat.

The finished peats from Challeton's works, as well as those made by the same method near Neuchatel, Switzerland, by the Roy brothers, were of excellent quality. In the view of the Commission from Holstein, the [Pg 130]method is perfectly suited for purifying and concentrating the heavier types of peat.

In Holstein, a French company constructed, and in 1857 worked successfully a portable machine for preparing peat on this plan, but were shortly restrained by legal proceedings. Of their later operations we have no information.

In Holstein, a French company built a portable machine for preparing peat in 1857 and had success with it, but soon faced legal issues that held them back. We have no information about their later activities.

No data are at hand regarding the cost of producing fuel by Challeton's machinery. It is believed, however, that his own works were unremunerative, and several manufactories on his pattern, erected in Germany, have likewise proved unprofitable. The principle is, however, a good one, though his machinery is only applicable to earthy or pitchy, and not to very fibrous peat. It has been elsewhere applied with satisfactory results.

No data is available on the cost of producing fuel with Challeton's machinery. However, it is thought that his own operations were not profitable, and several factories built based on his design in Germany have also been unprofitable. The principle is solid, though his machinery only works with earthy or pitchy peat and not with very fibrous peat. It has been used elsewhere with satisfactory results.

Simplified machinery for applying Challeton's method is in operation at Langenberg, near Stettin, in Prussia.[23] The moss-meadows along the river Oder, near which Langenberg is situated, are but a foot or so higher at the surface than the medium level of this river, and are subject to frequent and sudden inundations, so that draining and partial drying of the peat are out of the question. The character of the peat is unadapted to cutting by hand, since portions of it are pitchy and crumble too easily to form good sods; and others, usually the lower layers, at a depth of seven feet or more, are made up to a considerable extent of quite firm reeds and flags, having the consistence of half decayed straw. The earthy peat is manufactured after Challeton's method. It is raised with a steam dredger of 20 horse power, and emptied into flat boats, seven in number, which are drawn to the works by an endless rope operated by horse power. The works themselves are situated on a small sand hill in the middle of the moor, and communicate by canal with the dredger and with the drying [Pg 131]ground. A chain of buckets, working in a frame 45 feet long, attached by a horizontal hinge to the top of the machine house, reaches over the dock where the boats haul up, into the rear end of the latter; and, as the buckets begin to raise the peat, the boat itself is moved under the frame towards the house, until, with a man's assistance, its entire load is taken up. The contents of one boat are six square yards, with a depth of one foot, and a boat is emptied in 20 minutes time. Forty to forty-four boatloads are thus passed into the pulverizing machine daily, by two chains of buckets.

Simplified machinery for applying Challeton's method is currently in use at Langenberg, near Stettin, in Prussia.[23] The moss meadows along the river Oder, near Langenberg, are only about a foot higher than the average level of the river. They often experience sudden flooding, making it impossible to drain or partially dry the peat. The nature of the peat isn't suitable for manual cutting. Some parts are pitchy and crumble too easily to create good sods, while other sections, usually from the lower layers at a depth of seven feet or more, consist largely of firm reeds and flags, similar to half-decayed straw. The earthy peat is processed using Challeton's method. It's extracted with a 20-horsepower steam dredger and loaded into seven flat boats, which are pulled to the production site by an endless rope powered by horses. The production area is located on a small sand hill in the middle of the moor and is connected by a canal to the dredger and the drying [Pg 131]ground. A chain of buckets, operating in a 45-foot-long frame attached by a horizontal hinge to the top of the machine house, extends over the dock where the boats come in, into the back of the boats. As the buckets start to lift the peat, the boat is moved under the frame toward the house until, with a helper's assistance, its entire load is transferred. Each boat holds six square yards of peat at a depth of one foot, and it takes only 20 minutes to empty a boat. Daily, two chains of buckets transfer forty to forty-four boatloads into the pulverizing machine.

The peat-mud falls from the buckets into a large wooden trough, which branches into two channels, conducting to two large tubs standing side by side. These tubs are 10 feet in diameter and 2 feet deep, and are made of 2-inch plank. Within each tub is placed concentrically a cylindrical sieve, or colander, 8 feet in diameter and 2 feet high, made of 3/8 round iron, and it is within this that the peat is emptied. The peat is stirred and forced through the meshes of the sieve by four arms of a shaft that revolves 20 times per minute, the arms carrying at their extremities stiff vertical brooms, which rub the inside of the sieve.

The peat-mud pours from the buckets into a large wooden trough, which splits into two channels leading to two large tubs positioned side by side. These tubs are 10 feet in diameter and 2 feet deep, constructed from 2-inch planks. Inside each tub, there is a cylindrical sieve, or colander, 8 feet in diameter and 2 feet high, made of 3/8 round iron, where the peat is dumped. The peat is mixed and pushed through the mesh of the sieve by four arms of a shaft that turns 20 times per minute, with the tips of the arms having stiff vertical brooms that scrub the inside of the sieve.

In these four tubs the peat is pulverized under addition of water; the fine parts pass the sieves, while the latter retain the coarse fibres, roots, etc. The peat-mud flows from the tubs into mills, made like a flour mill, but the "stones" constructed of hard wood. The "stones" have a diameter of 8 feet 6 inches; the lower is 8 inches; the upper 21 inches thick. The pressure of the upper "stone" is regulated by adjusting the level of the discharging channel, so that the "stone" may be more or less buoyed, or even fully floated by the water with which it is surrounded.

In these four tubs, the peat is ground up with added water; the fine particles pass through the screens, while the coarse fibers, roots, and so on are retained. The peat-mud flows from the tubs into mills that are designed like a flour mill, but with "stones" made of hard wood. The "stones" have a diameter of 8 feet 6 inches; the lower one is 8 inches thick and the upper one is 21 inches thick. The pressure of the upper "stone" is adjusted by changing the height of the discharge channel, allowing the "stone" to be more or less buoyed or even fully floated by the surrounding water.

[Pg 132]The peat-substance, which is thus finely ground, gathers from the four mills into a common reservoir whence it is lifted by a centrifugal pump into a trough, which distributes it over the drying ground.

[Pg 132]The finely ground peat substance is collected from the four mills into a common reservoir, from which it is pumped by a centrifugal pump into a trough that spreads it over the drying area.

The drying ground consists of the surface formed by grading the sand hill, on which the works are built, and includes about 30 English acres. This is divided into small plots, each of which is enclosed on three sides with a wall of earth, and on the fourth side by boards set on edge. Each plot is surrounded by a ditch to carry off water, and by means of portable troughs, the peat is let on from the main channel. The peat-slime is run into these beds to the depth of 20 to 22 inches, an acre being covered daily. After 4 to 8 days, according to the weather, the peat has lost so much water, which, rapidly soaks off through the sand, that its surface begins to crack. It is then thoroughly trodden by men, shod with boards 5 inches by 10 inches, and after 6 to 8 days more, it is cut with sharp spades into sods. The peats are dried in the usual manner.

The drying area is made up of the surface created by leveling the sand hill where the works are built, covering about 30 English acres. This area is divided into small plots, each surrounded on three sides by an earthen wall and fenced on the fourth side with boards upright. Each plot has a ditch to drain water, and peat is transferred from the main channel using portable troughs. The peat-slime is spread into these beds to a depth of 20 to 22 inches, with one acre being covered each day. After 4 to 8 days, depending on the weather, the peat loses enough water—soaking out quickly through the sand—that its surface starts to crack. At this point, it is thoroughly trampled by workers wearing boards measuring 5 inches by 10 inches on their feet, and after another 6 to 8 days, it is cut into sods with sharp spades. The peats are dried in the usual way.

The works at Langenberg yielded, in 1863, as the result of the operations of 60 days of 12 hours each, 125,000 cwt. of marketable peat. It is chiefly employed for metallurgical purposes, and sells at 3-1/3 Silver-groschen, or nearly 8 cents per cwt. The specific gravity of the peat ranges from 0.73 to 0.90.

The mining operations at Langenberg produced 125,000 hundredweight of marketable peat in 1863, from 60 days of work, each lasting 12 hours. This peat is mainly used for metallurgical purposes and sells for 3-1/3 Silver groschen, or almost 8 cents per hundredweight. The specific gravity of the peat varies from 0.73 to 0.90.

Roberts' Process.

Roberts' Process.

In this country attempts have been made to apply Challeton's method. In 1865, Mr. S. Roberts, of Pekin, N. Y., erected machinery at that place, which was described in the "Buffalo Express," of Nov. 17, 1865, as follows:—

In this country, efforts have been made to use Challeton's method. In 1865, Mr. S. Roberts from Pekin, N.Y., set up machinery there, which was detailed in the "Buffalo Express" on November 17, 1865, as follows:—

"In outward form, the machine was like a small frame house on wheels, supposing the smoke-stack to be a [Pg 133]chimney. The engine and boiler are of locomotive style; the engine being of thirteen horse power. The principal features of the machine are a revolving elevator and a conveyer. The elevator is seventy-five feet long, and runs from the top of the machine to the ground, where the peat is dug up, placed on the elevator, carried to the top of the machine, and dropped into a revolving wheel that cuts it up; separates from it all the coarse particles, bits of sticks, stones, etc.; and throws them to one side. The peat is next dropped into a box below, where water is passed in, sufficient to bring it to the consistency of mortar. By means of a slide under the control of the engineer, it is next sent to the rear of the machine, where the conveyer, one hundred feet long, takes it, and carries it within two rods of the end; at which point the peat begins to drop through to the ground to the depth of about four or five inches. When sufficient has passed through to cover the ground to the end of the conveyer,—two rods,—the conveyer is swung around about two feet, and the same process gone through, as fast as the ground under the elevator, for the distance of two rods in length and two feet in width gets covered, the elevator being moved. At each swing of the elevator, the peat just spread is cut into blocks (soft ones, however) by knives attached to the elevator. It generally takes from three to four weeks before it is ready for use. It has to lie a week before it is touched, after the knives pass through it; when it is turned over, and allowed to lie another week. It has then to be taken up, and put in a shed, and within a week or ten days can be used, although it is better to let it remain a little longer time. The machine can spread the peat over eighteen square rods of ground—taking out one square rod of peat—without being moved. After the eighteen rods are covered, the machine is moved two rods ahead, enabling it to again spread a semicircular [Pg 134]space of some thirty-two feet in width by eighteen rods in length. The same power, which drives the engine, moves the machine. It is estimated by Mr. Roberts, that, by the use of this machine, from twenty to thirty tons of peat can be turned out in a day."

"In its appearance, the machine resembled a small house on wheels, imagining the smokestack as a [Pg 133] chimney. The engine and boiler are designed like those on locomotives, with the engine having thirteen horsepower. The main features of the machine include a revolving elevator and a conveyor. The elevator is seventy-five feet long and extends from the top of the machine down to the ground, where the peat is dug up, placed on the elevator, lifted to the top of the machine, and then dropped into a revolving wheel that chops it up, removing all the coarse particles, sticks, stones, and so on, which are discarded. The peat is then dropped into a box below, where water is added until it reaches a mortar-like consistency. Using a slide controlled by the operator, it is sent to the back of the machine, where a one-hundred-foot-long conveyor takes it, transporting it within two rods of the end. At this point, the peat begins to fall to the ground, covering it to a depth of about four or five inches. Once enough peat has fallen to cover the ground up to the end of the conveyor—two rods—the conveyor is pivoted about two feet, and the same process is repeated as quickly as the ground under the elevator, two rods long and two feet wide, gets covered, with the elevator moving accordingly. Each time the elevator swings, the freshly spread peat is cut into blocks (though they remain soft) by knives attached to the elevator. It usually requires three to four weeks before the peat is ready for use. It must rest for a week after the knives have passed through it, then it is turned over and left to sit for another week. After that, it needs to be collected and stored in a shed, and it can be used within a week or ten days, although it’s better to let it sit a bit longer. The machine can spread peat over eighteen square rods of ground—removing one square rod of peat—without needing to be moved. Once the eighteen rods are covered, the machine is shifted two rods forward, allowing it to again spread a semicircular [Pg 134] area approximately thirty-two feet wide by eighteen rods long. The same power that drives the engine also moves the machine. Mr. Roberts estimates that, using this machine, between twenty to thirty tons of peat can be produced in a day."

Mr. Roberts informs us that he is making (April 1866,) some modifications of his machinery. He employs a revolving digger to take up the peat from the bed, and carry it to the machine. At the time of going to press, we do not learn whether he regards his experiments as leading to a satisfactory conclusion, or otherwise.

Mr. Roberts tells us that he is making some changes to his machinery (April 1866). He uses a rotating digger to lift the peat from the ground and transport it to the machine. As we go to print, we still don't know if he thinks his experiments are turning out well or not.

Siemens' method.

Siemens' approach.

Siemens, Professor of Technology, in the Agricultural Academy, at Hohenheim, successfully applied the following mode of preparing peat for the Beet Sugar Manufactory at Bœblingen, near Hohenheim, in the year 1857. Much of the peat there is simply cut and dried in the usual manner. There is great waste, however, in this process, owing to the frequent occurrence of shells and clay, which destroy the coherence of the peat. Besides, a large quantity of material accumulates in the colder months, from the ditches which are then dug, that cannot be worked in the usual manner at that time of the year. It was to economize this otherwise useless material that the following process was devised, after a failure to employ Challeton's method with profit.

Siemens, a Technology Professor at the Agricultural Academy in Hohenheim, successfully implemented a new method for preparing peat for the Beet Sugar Factory in Bœblingen, near Hohenheim, in 1857. Much of the peat there was cut and dried in the traditional way. However, this method led to significant waste due to the frequent presence of shells and clay, which disrupt the structure of the peat. Additionally, a large amount of material collected during the colder months from the ditches that were dug, which could not be processed in the usual way at that time of year. To make use of this otherwise wasted material, the following process was developed after a failed attempt to profitably utilize Challeton's method.

In the first place, the peat was dumped into a boarded cistern, where it was soaked and worked with water, until it could be raised by a chain of buckets into the pulverizer.

In the beginning, the peat was thrown into a wooden cistern, where it was soaked and mixed with water until it could be lifted by a chain of buckets into the pulverizer.

The pulverization of the peat was next effected by passing it through a machine invented by Siemens, for pulping potatoes and beets. This machine, (the same we suppose [Pg 135]as that described and figured in Otto's Landwirthschaftliche Gewerbe), perfectly breaks up and grates the peat to a fine pulp, delivers it in the consistency of mortar into the moulds, made of wooden frames, with divisions to form the peats. The peat-paste is plastered by hand into these moulds, which are immediately emptied to fill again, while the blocks are carried away to the drying ground where they are cured in the ordinary style without cover.

The peat was then broken down by passing it through a machine designed by Siemens for processing potatoes and beets. This machine, which we believe is the same one as described and illustrated in Otto's [Pg 135] Landwirthschaftliche Gewerbe, effectively shreds and grinds the peat into a fine pulp. It delivers the mixture with a consistency similar to mortar into wooden frames that form the peat blocks. Workers manually pack the peat mixture into these molds, which are quickly emptied and reused, while the formed blocks are taken to the drying area where they cure in the usual way without any cover.

In this simple manner 8 men were able to make 10,000 peats daily, which, on drying, were considerably denser and harder than the cut peat.

In this straightforward way, 8 men could produce 10,000 peats each day, which, once dried, were much denser and tougher than the cut peat.

The peat thus prepared, cost about one-third more than the cut peat. Siemens reckoned, this greater cost would be covered by its better heating effect, and its ability to withstand transportation without waste by crumbling.

The prepared peat cost about one-third more than the cut peat. Siemens figured that this higher cost would be offset by its better heating efficiency and its durability during transport without falling apart.

b. Condensation of fibrous peat.

b. Fibrous peat condensation.

Weber's method.

Weber's approach.

At Staltach, in Southern Bavaria, Weber has established an extensive peat works, of which Vogel has given a circumstantial account.[24] The peat at Staltach is very light and fibrous, but remarkably free from mineral matters, containing less than 2 per cent. of ash in the perfectly dry substance. The moor is large, (475 acres), and the peat is from 12 to 20 feet in depth. The preparation consists in converting the fresh peat into pulp or paste, forming it into moulds and drying it; at first by exposure to the air at ordinary temperature, and finally, by artificial heat, in a drying house constructed for the purpose.

At Staltach, in Southern Bavaria, Weber has set up a large peat operation, which Vogel has detailed extensively.[24] The peat at Staltach is very lightweight and fibrous, but impressively low in mineral content, containing less than 2 percent. of ash in the completely dry material. The moor is extensive, covering 475 acres, and the peat varies from 12 to 20 feet in depth. The process involves turning the fresh peat into a pulp or paste, shaping it into molds, and drying it; initially by letting it air dry at room temperature, and finally, using artificial heat in a specially built drying house.

The peat is cut out by a gang of men, in large masses, cleared of coarse roots and sticks, and pushed on tram [Pg 136]wagons to the works, which, are situated lower than the surface of the bog. Arrived at the works, the peat is carried upon an inclined endless apron, up to a platform 10 feet high, where a workman pushes it into the pulverizing mill, the construction of which is seen from the accompanying cut. The vertical shaft b is armed with sickle-shaped knives, d, which revolve between and cut contrary to similar knives c, fixed to the interior of the vessel. The latter is made of iron, is 3-½ feet high, 2 feet across at top and 1-½ feet wide at the bottom. From the base of the machine at g, the perfectly pulverized or minced peat issues as a stiff paste. If the peat is dry, a little water is added. Vogel found the fresh peat to contain 90 per cent., of water, the pulp 92 per cent. Weber's machine, operated by an engine of 10 horse power, working usually to half its capacity only, reduced 400 cubic feet of peat per hour, to the proper consistency for moulding.

The peat is cut out by a group of men, in large chunks, cleared of thick roots and sticks, and pushed on tram [Pg 136]wagons to the processing area, which is located lower than the surface of the bog. Once at the processing area, the peat is carried up an inclined endless conveyor to a platform 10 feet high, where a worker pushes it into the pulverizing mill, which is shown in the accompanying image. The vertical shaft b is fitted with sickle-shaped knives, d, that spin and cut against similar knives c, fixed inside the vessel. The vessel is made of iron, is 3.5 feet high, 2 feet wide at the top, and 1.5 feet wide at the bottom. From the base of the machine at g, the perfectly pulverized peat comes out as a thick paste. If the peat is dry, a little water is added. Vogel found that the fresh peat contained 90 percent water, while the pulp contained 92 percent. Weber's machine, powered by a 10 horsepower engine, usually operates at half its capacity, processing 400 cubic feet of peat per hour into the appropriate consistency for molding.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10.—WEBER'S PEAT MILL.

Fig. 10.—WEBER'S PEAT MILL.

Three modes of forming the paste into blocks have been practiced. One was in imitation of that employed with mud-peat. The paste was carried by railway to sheds, [Pg 137]where it was filled by hand into moulds 17 inches by 7-¼ by 5-¼ inches, and put upon frames to dry. These sheds occupied together 52,000 square feet, and contained at once 200,000 peats. The peats remained here 8 to 14 days or more, according to the weather, when they were either removed to the drying house, or piled in large stacks to dry slowly out-of-doors. The sheds could be filled and emptied at least 12 times each season, and since they protected from light frosts, the season began in April and lasted until November.

Three methods of shaping the paste into blocks have been used. One was similar to the technique used with mud-peat. The paste was transported by rail to sheds, [Pg 137] where it was manually filled into molds measuring 17 inches by 7-¼ by 5-¼ inches and placed on frames to dry. These sheds covered a total of 52,000 square feet and could hold up to 200,000 peats at once. The peats stayed here for 8 to 14 days or more, depending on the weather, before being either moved to the drying house or stacked in large piles to dry slowly outdoors. The sheds could be filled and emptied at least 12 times each season, and since they provided protection from light frosts, the season started in April and continued until November.

The second mode of forming the peat was to run off the pulp into large and deep pits, excavated in the ground, and provided with drains for carrying off water. The water soaked away into the soil, and in a few weeks of good weather, the peat was stiff enough to cut out into blocks by the spade, having lost 20 to 25 per cent. of its water, and 15 per cent. of its bulk. The blocks were removed to the drying sheds, and set upon edge in the spaces left by the shrinking of the peats made by the other method. The working of the peat for the pits could go on, except in the coldest weather, as a slight covering usually sufficed to protect them from frost.

The second way to create peat was to drain the pulp into large, deep pits dug into the ground, which were equipped with drains to remove excess water. The water would soak into the soil, and within a few weeks of good weather, the peat would become firm enough to be cut into blocks with a spade, having lost 20 to 25 percent of its water content and 15 percent of its volume. The blocks were then taken to the drying sheds and placed on their edges in the gaps created by the shrinking of the peat from the other method. Peat extraction in the pits could continue, except during the coldest weather, as a light covering was usually enough to protect them from frost.

Both of these methods have been given up as too expensive, and are replaced, at present, by the following:

Both of these methods have been deemed too costly, and are currently replaced by the following:

In the third method the peat-mass falls from the mill into a hopper, which directs it between the rolls A B of fig. 11, (see next page). The roll A has a series of boxes on its periphery m m, with movable bottoms which serve as moulds. The peat is carried into these boxes by the rolls c c. The iron projections n n of the large roll B, which work cog-like into the boxes, compress the peat gently and, at last, the eccentric p acting upon the pin z, forces up the movable bottom of the box and throws out the peat-block upon an endless band of cloth, which carries it to the drying place.

In the third method, the peat mass falls from the mill into a hopper that directs it between the rolls A B of fig. 11 (see next page). The roll A has several boxes on its edge m m with movable bottoms that act as molds. The rolls c c carry the peat into these boxes. The iron projections n n on the large roll B, which work like cogs into the boxes, gently compress the peat. Eventually, the eccentric p acting on the pin z raises the movable bottom of the box and releases the peat block onto an endless cloth conveyor that carries it to the drying area.

[Pg 138]The peats which are dried at first under cover and therefore slowly, shrink more evenly and to a greater extent than those which are allowed to dry rapidly. The latter become cracked upon the surface and have cavities internally, which the former do not. This fact is of great importance for the density of the peat, for its usefulness in producing intense heat, and its power to withstand carriage.

[Pg 138]The peats that are initially dried under cover and therefore slowly shrink more evenly and to a greater extent than those that dry quickly. The latter tend to develop surface cracks and internal cavities, which the former do not have. This is very important for the density of the peat, its effectiveness in generating intense heat, and its ability to withstand transport.

Fig. 11

Fig. 11—WEBER'S PEAT MOULDING MACHINE.

Fig. 11—WEBER'S PEAT MOLDING MACHINE.

The complete drying is, on the other hand, by this method, a much slower process, since the dense, fissureless exterior of the peats hinders the escape of water from within. It requires, in fact, several months of ordinary drying for the removal of the greater share of the water, and at the expiration of this time they are still often moist in the interior.

The complete drying process, on the other hand, using this method, is much slower because the thick, crack-free outer layer of the peat keeps the water trapped inside. It actually takes several months of regular drying to get rid of most of the water, and even after that time, they often remain damp on the inside.

[Pg 139]Artificial drying is therefore employed to produce the most compact, driest, and best fuel.

[Pg 139]Artificial drying is used to create the most compact, driest, and highest-quality fuel.

Weber's Drying house is 120 feet long and 46 feet wide. Four large flues traverse the whole length of it, and are heated with the pine roots and stumps which abound in the moor. These flues are enclosed in brick-work, leaving a narrow space for the passage of air from without, which is heated by the flues, and is discharged at various openings in the brick-work into the house itself, where the peat is arranged on frames. The warm air being light, ascends through the peat, charges itself with moisture, thereby becomes heavier and falls to the floor, whence it is drawn off by flues of sheet zinc that pass up through the roof. This house holds at once 300,000 peats, which are heated to 130° to 145° F., and require 10 to 14 days for drying.

Weber's Drying house is 120 feet long and 46 feet wide. Four large flues run the entire length of the building, heated by the abundant pine roots and stumps found in the moor. These flues are encased in brickwork, leaving a narrow gap for outside air to flow in, which gets warmed by the flues and is released at various openings in the brickwork into the house itself, where the peat is laid out on frames. The warm air, being lighter, rises through the peat, picks up moisture, becomes heavier, and then descends to the floor, from where it's removed by sheet zinc flues that extend up through the roof. This house can hold up to 300,000 peats, which are heated to a temperature of 130° to 145° F, taking 10 to 14 days to dry.

The effect of the hot air upon the peat is, in the first place, to soften and cause it to swell; it, however, shortly begins to shrink again and dries away to masses of great solidity. It becomes almost horny in its character, can be broken only by a heavy blow, and endures the roughest handling without detriment. Its quality as fuel is correspondingly excellent.

The hot air affects the peat by first softening it and making it expand; however, it soon starts to shrink again and dries out into very solid masses. It becomes almost like horn, can only be broken with a heavy impact, and withstands rough handling without damage. Its quality as fuel is consequently outstanding.

The effects of the mechanical treatment and drying on the Staltach peat, are seen from the subjoined figures:

The impact of the mechanical treatment and drying on the Staltach peat is visible in the figures below:

  Specific Gravity. Lbs. per Cubic Foot. Per cent. of Water.
Peat, raised and dried in usual way, 0.24 15 18 to 20
Machine-worked and hot-dried 0.65 35 12

Vogel estimates the cost of peat made by Weber's method at 5 Kreuzers per (Bavarian) hundred weight, while that of ordinary peat is 13-½ Kreuzers. Schrœder, in his comparison of machine-wrought and ordinary peat, demonstrates that the latter can be produced much cheaper than was customary in Bavaria, in 1859, by a better system of labor.

Vogel estimates the cost of peat produced using Weber's method at 5 Kreuzers per (Bavarian) hundred weight, while the cost of regular peat is 13-½ Kreuzers. Schrœder, in his comparison of machine-made and regular peat, shows that the latter can be produced much more cheaply than what was typical in Bavaria in 1859, thanks to a better labor system.

[Pg 140]Weber's method was adopted with some improvements in an extensive works built in 1860, by the Government of Baden, at Willaringen, for the purpose of raising as much fuel as possible, during the course of a lease that expired with the year 1865.

[Pg 140]Weber's method was adopted with some improvements in a large facility built in 1860 by the Government of Baden at Willaringen, aimed at maximizing fuel production during a lease that ended in 1865.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 12.—GEYSSER'S PEAT MACHINE.

Fig. 12.—GEYSSER'S PEAT MACHINE.

Gysser's method.[25]—Rudolph Gysser, of Freiburg, who was charged with the erection of the works at Willaringen just alluded to, invented a portable hand-machine on [Pg 141]the general plan of Weber, but with important improvements; and likewise omitted and varied some details of the manufacture, bringing it within the reach of parties of small means.

Gysser's method.[25]—Rudolph Gysser from Freiburg, who was responsible for building the facilities at Willaringen mentioned earlier, created a portable hand machine based on Weber's general design, but with significant enhancements. He also changed and simplified some details of the manufacturing process, making it accessible for those with limited resources.

In the accompanying cuts, (figs. 12, 13, and 14), are given an elevation of Gysser's machine, together with a bird's-eye view and vertical section of the interior mechanism.

In the accompanying images (figs. 12, 13, and 14), you’ll find an elevation of Gysser's machine, along with a bird's-eye view and a vertical section of the inner mechanism.

Fig. 13.

Fig. 13.                                     Fig. 14.

Fig. 13.                                     Fig. 14.

Fig. 15.

Fig. 15.

Fig. 15.

It consists of a cast iron funnel c d i of the elevation, (fig. 12), having above a sheet iron hopper a b to receive the peat, and within a series of six knives fastened in a spiral, and curving outwards and downwards, (figs. 13 and 14); another series of three similar knives is affixed to a vertical shaft, which is geared to a crank and turned by a man standing on the platform j k; these revolving knives curve upwards and cut between and in a direction contrary to the fixed knives; below the knives, and affixed to the shaft a spiral plate of iron and a scraper m, (fig. 13), serve to force the peat, which has been at once minced and carried downwards by the knives, as a somewhat compressed mass through the lateral opening at the bottom of the funnel, whence it issues as a continuous hollow [Pg 142]cylinder like drain-tile, having a diameter of four inches. The iron cone i, held in the axis of the opening by the thin and sharp-edged support g h, forms the bore of the tube of peat as it issues. Two men operate the machine; one turning the crank, which, by suitable gearing, works the shaft, and the other digging and throwing in the peat. The mass, as it issues from the machine, is received by two boys alternately, who hold below the opening a semi-cylindrical tin-plate shovel, (fig. 15), of the width and length of the required peats, and break or rather wipe them off, when they reach the length of 14 inches.

It consists of a cast iron funnel c d i at the top, (fig. 12), equipped with a sheet iron hopper a b to collect the peat, and inside, there are six knives arranged in a spiral that curve outward and downward, (figs. 13 and 14). Another set of three similar knives is attached to a vertical shaft, which is connected to a crank and operated by a person standing on the platform j k; these rotating knives curve upwards and cut in a direction opposite to the fixed knives. Below the knives, attached to the shaft, a spiral iron plate and a scraper m, (fig. 13), help push the peat, which has been chopped and moved downward by the knives, as a somewhat compressed mass through the side opening at the bottom of the funnel, where it comes out as a continuous hollow [Pg 142]cylinder like drain tile, with a diameter of four inches. The iron cone i, positioned in the center of the opening by the thin, sharp-edged support g h, shapes the bore of the peat tube as it comes out. Two men operate the machine; one turns the crank, which, through appropriate gearing, moves the shaft, while the other digs and adds peat. The mass that comes out of the machine is caught by two boys in turns, who hold a semi-cylindrical tin shovel below the opening, (fig. 15), matching the width and length of the required peat, and breaks or rather wipes them off when they reach a length of 14 inches.

Fig. 16.

Fig. 16.

Fig. 16.

The formed peats are dried in light, cheap and portable houses, Fig. 17, each of which consists of six rectangular frames supported one above another, and covered by a light roof. The frames, Fig. 16, have square posts at each corner like a bedstead, and are made by nailing light strips to these posts. The tops of these posts are obtusely beveled to an edge, and at the bottom they are notched to correspond. The direction of the edges and of the notches in two diagonally opposite posts, is at right angles to that of the other two. By this construction the frames, being of the same size, when placed above each other, fit together by the edges and notches of their posts into a structure that cannot be readily overturned. The upper frame has a light shingled roof, which completes the house. Each frame has transverse slats, cast in plaster of Paris, 20 in number, which support the peats. The latter being tubular, dry more readily, uniformly, and to a denser consistence than they could otherwise.

The dried peats are stored in light, affordable, and portable structures, Fig. 17, each made up of six rectangular frames stacked on top of one another, topped with a lightweight roof. The frames, Fig. 16, have square posts at each corner like a bed frame, and consist of thin strips nailed to these posts. The tops of the posts are rounded at the edge, and the bottoms have notches that match. The edges and notches on two diagonally opposite posts are perpendicular to those on the other two. This design allows the frames, which are all the same size, to fit together by the edges and notches of their posts, creating a stable structure that won't easily tip over. The upper frame is covered with a lightweight shingled roof, completing the structure. Each frame features 20 horizontal slats made of plaster of Paris, which support the peats. Because the peats are tubular, they dry more efficiently, evenly, and to a denser consistency than they would otherwise.

The machine being readily set up where the peat is [Pg 143]excavated, the labor of transporting the fresh and water-soaked material is greatly reduced. The drying-frames are built up into houses as fast as they are filled from the machine. They can be set up anywhere without difficulty, require no leveling of the ground, and, once filled, no labor in turning or stacking the peats is necessary; while the latter are insured against damage from rain. These advantages, Gysser claims, more than cover their cost.

The machine is easily set up where the peat is [Pg 143] excavated, which significantly reduces the effort involved in transporting the fresh, waterlogged material. The drying frames are constructed into buildings as quickly as they are filled from the machine. They can be placed anywhere without any hassle, don’t need the ground to be leveled, and once they’re filled, there's no need for labor to turn or stack the peat; plus, they are protected from rain damage. Gysser argues that these benefits more than justify their cost.

Fig. 17.

Fig. 17.

Fig. 17.

The daily production of a machine operated by two men with the assistance of one or two boys, is 2500 to 3000 peats, which, on drying, have 9-½ to 10 inches of length, and 2-½ in diameter, and weigh, on the average, one pound each.

The daily output of a machine run by two men with help from one or two boys is between 2,500 and 3,000 peats. Once dried, these peats measure about 9.5 to 10 inches in length, have a diameter of 2.5 inches, and each weighs, on average, one pound.

[Pg 144]c.—Condensation of peat of all kinds.Weber's method with modified machinery.

[Pg 144]c.—Condensation of peat of all types.Weber's method with updated machinery.

Fig. 18.

Fig. 18.—SCHLICKEYSEN'S PEAT MILL.

Fig. 18.—SCHLICKEYSEN'S PEAT MILL.

Schlickeysen's Machine.[26]—This machine has been in use in Germany since 1860, in the preparation of peat. It appears to have been originally constructed for the working and moulding of clay for making bricks. The principle of its operation is identical with that of Weber's process. The peat is finely pulverized, worked into a homogenous mass, and moulded into suitable forms. Like Gysser's machine, it forces the peat under some pressure through a nozzle, or, in the larger kinds through several nozzles, whence it issues in a continuous block or pipe that is cut off in proper lengths, either by hand or by mechanism It consists of a vertical cylinder, through the axis of which revolves a shaft, whereon are fastened the blades, whose edges cut and whose winding figure forces down the peat. The blades are arranged nearly, but not exactly, in a true spiral; the effect is therefore that they act unequally [Pg 145]upon the mass, and thus mix and divide it more perfectly. No blades or projections are affixed to the interior of the cylinder. Above, where the peat enters into a flaring hopper, is a scraper, that prevents adhesion to the sides and gives downward propulsion to the peat. The blades are, by this construction, very strong, and not liable to injury from small stones or roots, and effectually reduce the toughest and most compact peat.

Schlickeysen's Machine.[26]—This machine has been in use in Germany since 1860 for preparing peat. It seems to have originally been designed for shaping and molding clay for brickmaking. Its operating principle is the same as Weber's process. The peat is finely ground, turned into a uniform mass, and molded into appropriate shapes. Similar to Gysser's machine, it pushes the peat under pressure through a nozzle, or in larger versions, through multiple nozzles, creating a continuous block or pipe that is cut to the right lengths, either manually or mechanically. It features a vertical cylinder with a rotating shaft at its center, which has blades attached that cut and push down the peat. The blades are arranged almost in a spiral, but not perfectly, which allows them to act unevenly on the mass, mixing and dividing it more efficiently. There are no blades or protrusions inside the cylinder. At the top, where peat enters a flaring hopper, there's a scraper that prevents it from sticking to the sides and helps push the peat downward. This design makes the blades very durable, resistant to damage from small stones or roots, and effectively breaks down even the toughest and densest peat.

Furthermore, addition of water is not only unnecessary in any case, but the peat may be advantageously air-dried to a considerable extent before it enters the machine. Wet peat is, indeed, worked with less expenditure of power; but the moulded peats are then so soft as to require much care in the handling, and must be spread out in single courses, as they will not bear to be placed one upon another. Peat, that is somewhat dry, though requiring more power to work, leaves the machine in blocks that can be piled up on edge and upon each other, six or eight high, without difficulty, and require, of course, less time for curing.

Additionally, adding water is not only unnecessary, but the peat can be effectively air-dried to a significant degree before it goes into the machine. Wet peat does require less power to work with; however, the shaped peats end up being so soft that they need careful handling and must be laid out in single layers since they can't be stacked. Peat that is a bit drier, although it takes more power to process, exits the machine in blocks that can easily be stacked on their sides and on top of each other, six or eight high, without any issues, which also means they take less time to cure.

The cut, (fig. 18), represents one of Schlickeysen's portable peat-mills, with elevator for feeding, from which an idea of the pulverizing arrangements may be gathered.

The cut, (fig. 18), shows one of Schlickeysen's portable peat mills, equipped with an elevator for feeding, which gives an idea of the pulverizing setup.

In Livonia, near Pernan, according to Leo, two of Schlickeysen's machines, No. 6, were put in operation upon a purely fibrous peat. They were driven by an engine of 12 horse-power. The peat was plowed, once harrowed, then carted directly to the hopper of the machine. These two machines, with 26 men and 4 horses, produced daily 60,000 peats = 7500 cubic feet. 100 cubic feet of these peats were equal in heating effect to 130 cubic feet of fir-wood, and cost but two-thirds as much. The peats were extremely hard, and dried in a few days sufficiently for use. In 1864, five large Schlickeysen machines were in operation at one establishment at St. Miskolz, in Hungary.

In Livonia, near Pernan, Leo reported that two of Schlickeysen's machines, No. 6, were set up to work with purely fibrous peat. They were powered by a 12-horsepower engine. The peat was plowed, harrowed once, and then directly loaded into the machine's hopper. With two machines, 26 men, and 4 horses, they produced 60,000 peats daily, equivalent to 7,500 cubic feet. One hundred cubic feet of these peats had a heating effect comparable to 130 cubic feet of fir wood, but only cost two-thirds as much. The peats were very hard and dried sufficiently for use in just a few days. By 1864, five large Schlickeysen machines were operating at one facility in St. Miskolz, Hungary.

[Pg 146]The smaller sizes of Schlickeysen's machine are easily-portable, and adapted for horse or hand-power.

[Pg 146]The smaller versions of Schlickeysen's machine are lightweight and designed for use with either horses or manual labor.

Leavitt's Peat-condensing and Moulding Mill.[27]—In this country, Mr. T. H. Leavitt, of Boston, has patented machinery, which is in operation at East Lexington, Mass., at the works of the Boston Peat Company. The process is essentially identical with that of Weber, the hot-drying omitted. The fresh peat is pulverized or cut fine, moulded into blocks, and dried on light frames in the open air. The results claimed by Mr. Leavitt, indicate, that his machine is very efficacious.

Leavitt's Peat-condensing and Moulding Mill.[27]—In this country, Mr. T. H. Leavitt, from Boston, has patented machinery that's currently being used at the Boston Peat Company's facility in East Lexington, Massachusetts. The process is basically the same as Weber's, but without the hot drying step. Fresh peat is ground up or finely chopped, shaped into blocks, and dried on lightweight frames in the open air. The results claimed by Mr. Leavitt suggest that his machine is very effective.

It consists, principally, of a strong box or cistern, three feet in diameter, and six feet high, the exterior of which, with its gearing, is shown in figure 19. The mill is adapted to be driven by a four horse-power engine.

It mainly consists of a strong box or tank that is three feet wide and six feet tall, with the outside and its mechanisms shown in figure 19. The mill is designed to be powered by a four-horsepower engine.

"The upper portion of the box is divided by a series of horizontal partitions, the upper ones being open latticework, and the lower ones perforated with numerous holes. The upright shaft, which rotates in the centre of the box, carries a series of arms or blades, extending alternately on opposite sides, and as these revolve, they cut the peat, and force it through the openings in the diaphragms. The lower portion of the box, in place of complete partitions, has a series of corrugated shelves extending alternately from opposite sides, and the peat is pressed and scraped from these by a series of arms adapted to the work. By this series of severe operations the air-bubbles are expelled from the peat, and it is reduced to a homogeneous paste. When it arrives at the bottom of the box, it is still further compressed by the converging sides of the hopper, and it is received in light moulds which are carried on an endless belt." Mr. Leavitt has patented the [Pg 147]use of powdered peat for the purpose of preventing the prepared peat from adhering to the moulds.

The top part of the box is divided by several horizontal sections, with the upper ones made of open latticework and the lower ones having many holes. The vertical shaft in the center of the box spins and carries a series of arms or blades that extend alternately on opposite sides. As these rotate, they cut the peat and push it through the openings in the dividers. Instead of solid partitions, the lower part of the box has alternating corrugated shelves extending from either side, and the peat is pressed and scraped from these by a series of specially designed arms. Through this intense process, air bubbles are removed from the peat, turning it into a smooth paste. Once it reaches the bottom of the box, it’s compressed further by the slanting sides of the hopper and collected in lightweight molds that move on a continuous belt. Mr. Leavitt has patented the [Pg 147] use of powdered peat to prevent the prepared peat from sticking to the molds.

Fig. 19.

Fig. 19.—LEAVITT'S PEAT MILL.

Fig. 19.—LEAVITT'S PEAT MILL.

This mill, it is asserted, will condense 40 tons of crude peat daily, which, at Lexington, is estimated to yield 10 to 14 tons of dry merchantable fuel. The cost of producing the latter is asserted to be less than $2.00 per ton; while its present value, in Boston, is $10 per ton. It requires seven men, three boys, and two horses to dig, cart, mill, and spread the peat. The machine costs $600, [Pg 148]the needful buildings, engine, etc., from $2000 to $3000. The samples of peat, manufactured by this machine, are of excellent quality. The drying in the open air is said to proceed with great rapidity, eight or ten days being ordinarily sufficient in the summer season. The dry peat, at Lexington, occupies one-fourth the bulk, and has one-fourth to one-third the weight of the raw material; the latter, as we gather, being by no means saturated with water, but well drained, and considerably dry, before milling.

This mill is said to process 40 tons of raw peat every day, which in Lexington is estimated to produce 10 to 14 tons of dry, market-ready fuel. The cost to produce this fuel is claimed to be under $2.00 per ton, while its current market value in Boston is $10 per ton. It takes seven men, three boys, and two horses to dig, transport, mill, and spread the peat. The machine costs $600, [Pg 148] and the necessary buildings, engine, etc., range from $2000 to $3000. The peat samples produced by this machine are of high quality. Drying outdoors is reported to happen quickly, usually taking about eight to ten days during summer. The dried peat in Lexington occupies one-fourth of its original volume and has one-fourth to one-third of the weight of the raw material; this raw peat is, as we understand, not fully saturated with water but well-drained and relatively dry before milling.

Ashcroft & Betteley's Machinery.

Ashcroft & Betteley's Equipment.

The American Peat Company, of Boston, are the owners of five patents, taken out by Messrs. Ashcroft & Betteley, for peat machinery. They claim to "make fuel equal to the best English Cannel coal," and really do make a very good peat, though with a rather complicated apparatus. The following statement is derived from the circular issued by the company. The machinery consists of the following parts:—

The American Peat Company, based in Boston, owns five patents granted to Messrs. Ashcroft & Betteley for peat machinery. They claim to "create fuel that matches the best English Cannel coal," and they genuinely produce high-quality peat, although it involves a somewhat complicated setup. The following information comes from the company’s circular. The machinery includes the following components:—

First.Triturating Machine—36 inches diameter, 4 feet 6 inches high, with arms both on the inside of this cylinder and on the upright revolving shaft. In the bottom of the cylinder or tub a large slide gate is fitted to work with a lever, so that the peat may be discharged, at pleasure, into the Combing Machine, which is placed directly under this Triturator.

First.Grinding Machine—36 inches in diameter, 4 feet 6 inches tall, with arms both inside the cylinder and on the upright revolving shaft. At the bottom of the cylinder or tub, there’s a large slide gate that operates with a lever, allowing the peat to be discharged as needed into the Combing Machine located directly underneath this Triturator.

Second.Combing Machine—Semi-circular vessel 6 feet long and 3 feet 6 inches in diameter. Inside, a shaft is placed, which is provided with fingers, placed one inch apart; the fingers to be 20 inches long, so as to reach within 2 inches of the bottom and sides of this vessel. Another shaft, of the same size and dimensions, is placed at an angle of 45°, 26 inches from the first shaft, with arms of the same dimensions placed upon this shaft, with [Pg 149]the same spaces, and so placed that this set of arms pass between the first set, both shafts revolving in the same direction; the second shaft mentioned being driven at double the speed of the first. At the bottom of this Combing Machine is to be fixed a gate, to be operated by a lever, to deliver, at pleasure, the cleansed peat into the Manipulator or Kneading Machine.

Second.Hair straightener—A semi-circular vessel that is 6 feet long and 3 feet 6 inches in diameter. Inside, there’s a shaft with fingers spaced one inch apart; the fingers are 20 inches long to reach within 2 inches of the bottom and sides of the vessel. Another shaft, the same size and dimensions, is positioned at a 45° angle, 26 inches from the first shaft, with arms of equal dimensions attached to this shaft, spaced the same way, and arranged so that this set of arms fits between the first set, with both shafts rotating in the same direction; the second mentioned shaft operates at double the speed of the first. At the bottom of this Combing Machine, a gate should be fixed, operated by a lever, to release the cleaned peat into the Manipulator or Kneading Machine as needed.

Third.Manipulator.—A Tube of iron 7 feet long and 16 inches diameter, fitted with a shaft, with flanges upon it, to gain 6 inches in each revolution.

Third.Manipulator.—A 7-foot-long iron tube with a 16-inch diameter, equipped with a shaft and flanges that provide a 6-inch gain for each revolution.

Fourth.Conveyor.—This Conveyor, to be made with two endless chains and buckets of iron, with a driving shaft. The hopper, to receive the peat when first taken from the bog, to be placed below the surface of the ground, so that the top edge of the hopper may be level with the surface, that the peat may be dumped from the car by which it is taken from the bog, and carried to the hopper without hand labor; and this conveyor to be so arranged that the peat will be delivered into the Triturator without hand labor.

Fourth.Conveyor belt.—This conveyor will be designed with two endless chains and iron buckets, along with a driving shaft. The hopper, which will receive the peat when it's first taken from the bog, will be installed below the ground surface so that the top edge of the hopper is level with the surface. This setup will allow the peat to be dumped from the car transporting it from the bog and carried to the hopper without manual labor; the conveyor will also be arranged to deliver the peat into the Triturator automatically, without the need for hands-on work.

Fifth.Conveyor.—Another conveyor, precisely like the one above described, is to be placed so as to convey the peat from the Manipulator into the Tank without hand labor.

Fifth.Conveyor belt.—Another conveyor, just like the one described above, will be set up to move the peat from the Manipulator to the Tank without needing manual labor.

Sixth.Tank.—A tank 35 feet high and 15 feet in diameter; the bottom of this tank is made sloping towards the sides, at an angle of 65°, and is covered with sole tile or drain tile, and the entire inside of this tank is also ribbed with these tile; the ends of these pipes of tile being left open, so that the water which percolates through the pores of the tile, by the pressure of the column of peat, will pass out at the bottom, through the false floor of the tank into the drain, and the solid peat is retained in the tank. A worm is fixed in the bottom of this tank, which is driven by machinery, which forces out the peat [Pg 150]in the form of brick, which are cut to any length, and stacked up in sheds, for fuel, after it is fully dried by the air.

Sixth.Tank.—A tank 35 feet tall and 15 feet wide; the bottom of this tank slopes towards the sides at a 65° angle and is covered with sole tile or drain tile. The entire inside of this tank is also lined with these tiles, with the ends of the tiles left open, allowing water that seeps through the pores of the tiles, due to the pressure from the peat above, to flow out the bottom through the false floor of the tank into the drain, while the solid peat remains in the tank. A screw is installed at the bottom of the tank, powered by machinery, which pushes out the peat [Pg 150] into brick-shaped pieces, cut to any length and stacked in sheds to dry completely by air for use as fuel.

Fig. 20.

Fig. 20.—VERSMANN'S PEAT PULVERIZER.

Fig. 20.—VERSMANN'S PEAT PULVERIZER.

Versmann's Machine[28]—This machine, see Fig. 20, was invented by a German engineer, in London, and was patented there in Sept., 1861. It consists of a funnel or hollow cone b, of boiler-plate, from one to two feet in diameter at top, and perforated with 200 to 300 small holes per square foot of surface, within which rapidly revolves an iron cone a, carrying on its circumference two spiral knives. The peat thrown in at the top of the funnel is carried down by the knives, and at once cut or broken and forced in a state of fine division through the holes of the funnel, as through a colander. The fine peat collects on the inclined bottom of the chamber d, whence it is carried by means of Archimedean screws to a moulding machine. The coarse stuff that escapes pulverization falls through e into the cavity c. It may be employed as fuel for the engine, or again put through the machine.

Versmann's Machine[28]—This machine, see Fig. 20, was created by a German engineer in London and was patented there in September 1861. It consists of a funnel or hollow cone b, made of boiler-plate, with a diameter of one to two feet at the top, and has 200 to 300 small holes per square foot of surface. Inside, an iron cone a revolves quickly, featuring two spiral knives on its edge. The peat fed in at the top of the funnel is pulled down by the knives, which cut or break it apart and force it into a fine state through the holes in the funnel, similar to a colander. The fine peat gathers at the inclined bottom of the chamber d, where it is moved by Archimedean screws to a molding machine. The coarse material that doesn’t get pulverized falls through e into the cavity c. This can be used as fuel for the engine or sent back through the machine.

[Pg 151]This machine effects a more perfect pulverization of the peat, than any other hitherto described. This extreme division is, however, unnecessary to the perfection of the product, and is secured at great expense of power. Through the opening at the bottom of the funnel, much unpulverized peat finds its way, which must be continually returned to the machine. Again, stones, entering the funnel, are likely to break or damage the spiral knives, which bear close to the walls of the funnel.

[Pg 151]This machine offers a more efficient pulverization of peat than any previously mentioned. However, this level of fine grinding is not essential for achieving the ideal product and requires a significant amount of power. A lot of unprocessed peat slips through the opening at the bottom of the funnel and needs to be constantly fed back into the machine. Additionally, stones entering the funnel can easily break or damage the spiral knives that are positioned close to the walls of the funnel.

The pulverized peat must be moulded by hand, or by a separate instrument.

The crushed peat needs to be shaped by hand or with a different tool.

Buckland's Machine[29] is identical in principle with Versmann's, and in construction differs simply in the fact of the interior cone having spiral grooves instead of spiral knives. This gives greater simplicity and durability to the machine. It appears, however, to require too much power to work it, and can hardly equal other machines in the quantity of product it will deliver for a given expenditure. The ground peat yielded by it, must be moulded by hand, or by other machinery. This machine, we understand, has been tried near Boston, and abandoned as uneconomical.

Buckland's Machine[29] works on the same basic principle as Versmann's but differs in that its interior cone has spiral grooves rather than spiral blades. This design makes the machine simpler and more durable. However, it seems to require too much power to operate and probably won't produce as much output compared to other machines for the same energy used. The ground peat produced by it needs to be shaped by hand or with different machinery. It's been reported that this machine was tested near Boston but was eventually discarded for being uneconomical.

The machines we have described are by no means all that have been proposed and patented. They include, however, so the author believes, all that have been put into actual operation, at the date of this writing, or that present important peculiarities of construction.

The machines we've talked about aren't the only ones that have been proposed and patented. However, the author believes they include all the ones that have actually been used by the time of this writing, or that have significant unique features in their design.

The account that has been given of them will serve to illustrate what mechanism has accomplished hitherto in the manufacture of peat-fuel, and may save the talent of the American inventor from wasting itself on what is already in use, or having been tried, has been found wanting. At present, very considerable attention is devoted to [Pg 152]the subject. Scarcely a week passes without placing one or more Peat-mill patents on record. In this treatise our business is with what has been before the public in a more or less practical way, and it would, therefore, be useless to copy the specifications of new, and for the most part untried patents, which can be found in the files of our mechanical Journals.

The information provided about them will help demonstrate what machinery has achieved so far in the production of peat-fuel and may prevent American inventors from wasting their creativity on ideas that are already in use or have been tried and found lacking. Right now, significant attention is being given to [Pg 152] the topic. Almost every week, one or more peat-mill patents are recorded. In this document, we're focused on what has been publicly available in a mostly practical sense, so it wouldn't make sense to repeat the specifications of new, mostly untested patents, which are accessible in our mechanical journals.

14. Artificial Drying of Peat.

14. Artificial Drying of Peat.

As we have seen, air-dry peat contains 20 to 30 and may easily contain 50 per cent. of water, and the best hot-made machine peat contains 15 per cent. When peat is used as fuel in ordinary furnaces, this water must be evaporated, and in this process a large amount of heat is consumed, as is well understood. It is calculated, that the temperature which can be produced in perfectly burning full-dried peat, compares with that developed in the combustion of peat containing water, as follows:—

As we have seen, air-dry peat has 20 to 30 and can easily have 50 percent water, while the best hot-made machine peat has 15 percent. When peat is burned as fuel in standard furnaces, this water needs to be evaporated, which uses up a significant amount of heat, as is well known. It is estimated that the temperature produced from burning fully dried peat compares to that from burning peat with water, as follows:—

Pyrometric effect of perfectly dry peat 4000° F.
Pyrometric effect of peat with 30 per cent. of water 3240° F.
Pyrometric effect of peat with 50 per cent. of water 2848° F.

But, furthermore, moist or air-dried peat does not burn in ordinary furnaces, except with considerable waste, as is evident from the smokiness of its flame. When air-dried peat is distilled in a retort, a heavy yellow vapor escapes for some time after the distillation begins, which, obviously, contains much inflammable matter, but which is so mixed and diluted with steam that it will not burn at all, or but imperfectly. It is obvious then, that when a high temperature is to be attained, anhydrous or full-dried peat is vastly superior to that which has simply been cured in the open air.

But also, moist or air-dried peat doesn’t burn well in regular furnaces, resulting in a lot of waste, as shown by the smoke from its flame. When air-dried peat is distilled in a retort, a thick yellow vapor escapes for a while after the distillation starts, which clearly contains a lot of flammable material, but it’s so mixed and diluted with steam that it doesn’t burn at all or only burns very poorly. So, it’s clear that when you need to reach a high temperature, completely dried peat is far better than peat that has just been air-dried.

Notice has already been made of Weber's drying-house, the use of which is an essential part of his system of producing peat-fuel. Various other arrangements have [Pg 153]been proposed from time to time, for accomplishing the same object. It appears, however, that in most cases the anticipations regarding their economy have not been fully realized. It is hardly probable, that artificially dried peat can be employed to advantage except where waste heat is utilized in the operation.

Notice has already been made of Weber's drying house, which is a crucial part of his method for producing peat fuel. Various other setups have [Pg 153] been suggested over time to achieve the same goal. However, it seems that in most cases, the expectations about their efficiency have not really materialized. It's unlikely that artificially dried peat can be used effectively unless waste heat is used in the process.

A point of the utmost importance in reference to the question of drying peat by artificial warmth is this, viz.: Although the drying may be carried so far as to remove the whole of the water, and produce an absolutely dry fuel, the peat absorbs moisture from the air again on exposure; so that drying to less than 15 per cent. of water is of no advantage, unless the peat is to be used immediately, or within a few days. The employment of highly dried peat is consequently practicable only for smelting-works, locomotives, and manufacturing establishments, where it may be consumed as fast as it is produced.

A key point regarding drying peat with artificial heat is this: Even though it's possible to dry peat completely and create a totally dry fuel, it will absorb moisture from the air once exposed. Therefore, drying it to less than 15 percent water is pointless unless the peat is going to be used right away or within a few days. Using highly dried peat is only practical for places like smelting operations, locomotives, and manufacturing facilities, where it can be used as quickly as it's produced.

A fact likewise to be regarded is, that artificial drying is usually inapplicable to fresh peat. The precautions needful in curing peat have already been detailed. Above all, slow drying is necessary, in order that the blocks shrink uniformly, without cracking and warping in such a way as to seriously injure their solidity and usefulness. In general, peat must be air-dried to a considerable extent before it can be kiln-dried to advantage. If exposed to dry artificial heat, when comparatively moist, a hard crust is formed externally, which greatly hinders subsequent desiccation. At the same time this crust, contracting around the moist interior, becomes so rifted and broken, that the ultimate shrinkage and condensation of the mass is considerably less than it would have been had the drying proceeded more slowly.

A key point to consider is that artificial drying is usually not effective for fresh peat. The necessary precautions for curing peat have been explained earlier. Most importantly, slow drying is essential so that the blocks shrink evenly, without cracking or warping, which could seriously damage their strength and utility. In general, peat needs to be air-dried significantly before it can be effectively kiln-dried. If it is exposed to dry artificial heat while still relatively moist, a hard crust forms on the outside, making further drying much harder. At the same time, this crust tightens around the moist center, causing it to crack and break, leading to a final shrinkage and compression of the mass that is much less than it would have been if the drying had occurred at a slower pace.

Besides Weber's drying oven, the fuel for firing which is derived without cost from the stumps and roots of trees that are abundant on the moor, at Staltach, and which [Pg 154]are thus conveniently disposed of, we have briefly to notice several other drying kilns with regard to all of which, however, it must be remarked, that they can only be employed with profit, by the use of waste heat, or, as at Staltach, of fuel that is comparatively worthless for other purposes.

Besides Weber's drying oven, which uses fuel sourced without cost from the abundant stumps and roots of trees on the moor at Staltach, and which [Pg 154] are conveniently disposed of, we also need to briefly mention several other drying kilns. However, it should be noted that these can only be used profitably by utilizing waste heat or, like at Staltach, by using fuel that is relatively worthless for other purposes.

Fig. 21.

Fig. 21.—CARINTHIAN PEAT DRYING-KILN.

Fig. 21.—CARINTHIAN PEAT DRYING KILN.

The Peat Kilns employed at Lippitzbach, in Carinthia, and at Neustadt, in Hanover, are of the kind shown in fig. 21. The peat with which the main chamber is filled, is heated directly by the hot gases that arise from a fire made in the fire-place at the left. These gases first enter a vault, where they intermingle and cool down somewhat; thence they ascend through the openings of the brick grating, and through the mass of peat to the top [Pg 155]of the chamber. On their way they become charged with vapor, and falling, pass off through the chimney, as is indicated by the arrows. The draught is regulated by the damper on the top of the chimney. To manage the fire, so that on the one hand the chimney is sufficiently heated to create a draught, and on the other waste of fuel, or even ignition of the peat itself is prevented, requires some care.

The Peat Kilns used at Lippitzbach in Carinthia and at Neustadt in Hanover are similar to the one shown in fig. 21. The peat in the main chamber is heated directly by the hot gases that come from a fire in the fireplace on the left. These gases first go into a vault, where they mix and cool down a bit; then they rise through the openings in the brick grating and through the peat to the top [Pg 155] of the chamber. Along the way, they pick up vapor and, after falling, exit through the chimney, as indicated by the arrows. The draft is controlled by the damper on top of the chimney. Managing the fire so that the chimney is hot enough to create a draft without wasting fuel or igniting the peat itself requires careful attention.

In Welkner's Peat Kiln[30] (fig. 22) the peat, previously air-dried, is exposed to a stream of hot air, until it is completely desiccated, and the arrangement is such, that air-dried peat may be thrown in at the top, and the hot-dried fuel be removed at the bottom, continuously.

In Welkner's Peat Kiln[30] (fig. 22), the peat, which has been air-dried beforehand, is subjected to a flow of hot air until it is fully dried. The design allows for air-dried peat to be added at the top while the dried fuel is taken out at the bottom continuously.

In the cut, A represents the section of a wooden cylinder about 10 feet wide and 6-½ feet deep, which surmounts a funnel of iron plate A'. The mouth of the funnel is closed by a door n; about 20 inches above the door the pipe B, which conducts hot air, terminates in the ring a a, through the holes in which, e e, it is distributed into the funnel filled with peat. The air is driven in by a blower, and is heated by circulating through a system of pipes, which are disposed in the chimney of a steam boiler. From time to time a quantity of dried peat is drawn off into the wagon D, which runs on rails, and a similar amount of undried peat is thrown in above.

In the cut, A represents a section of a wooden cylinder that is about 10 feet wide and 6-½ feet deep, sitting on top of an iron plate funnel A'. The funnel's opening is covered by a door n; about 20 inches above the door, the pipe B, which carries hot air, ends at the ring a a, through the holes e e that distribute air into the funnel filled with peat. A blower pushes the air in, and it gets heated while circulating through a system of pipes located in the chimney of a steam boiler. Occasionally, a quantity of dried peat is removed into the wagon D, which runs on rails, and an equal amount of undried peat is added on top.

According to Welkner, a kiln of the dimensions stated, which cost, about $1800 gold, is capable of desiccating daily ten tons of peat with 20 per cent. of water, using thereby 2000 cubic feet of air of a temperature of 212° F. When the air is heated by a fire kept up exclusively for that purpose, 10 per cent. of the dried peat, or its equivalent, is consumed in the operation. At the Alexis Smelting Works, near Lingen, in Hanover, this peat kiln [Pg 156]furnishes about half the fuel for a high furnace, in which bog iron ore is smelted. The drying costs but little, since half the requisite heat is obtained from the waste heat of the furnace itself.

According to Welkner, a kiln of the specified dimensions, which costs about $1800 in gold, can dry ten tons of peat daily that has 20 percent moisture, using 2000 cubic feet of air at a temperature of 212°F. When the air is heated by a fire meant solely for this purpose, 10 percent of the dried peat, or its equivalent, is consumed during the process. At the Alexis Smelting Works near Lingen in Hanover, this peat kiln [Pg 156] provides about half the fuel for a high furnace where bog iron ore is smelted. The drying operation is inexpensive since half the needed heat comes from the waste heat of the furnace itself.

Fig. 22.

Fig. 22.—WELKNER'S PEAT DRYING KILN.

Fig. 22.—WELKNER'S PEAT DRYING KILN.

The advantages of this drying kiln are, that it is cheap in construction and working; dries gradually and uniformly; occupies little ground, and runs without intermission.

The benefits of this drying kiln are that it's inexpensive to build and operate, dries slowly and evenly, takes up little space, and runs continuously.

Other drying ovens are described in Knapp's Lehrbuch der Chemischen Technologie, 3. Aufl. Bd. 1, Theil 1, pp. 178-9; Jahrbuch der Bergakademien Schemnitz und Leoben, 1860, p. 108, 1861, p. 55; Wagner's [Pg 157]Jahresbericht der Chemischen Technologie, 1863, p. 748; Zerrenner's Metallurgische Gasfeuerung in Oesterreich; Tunner's Stabeisen- und Stahlbereitung, 2. Auflage, Bd. I, pp. 23-25.

Other drying ovens are covered in Knapp's Textbook of Chemical Technology, 3rd edition, Vol. 1, Part 1, pp. 178-9; Yearbook of the Mining Academies of Schemnitz and Leoben, 1860, p. 108, 1861, p. 55; Wagner's [Pg 157]Annual Report on Chemical Technology, 1863, p. 748; Zerrenner's Metallurgical Gas-Firing in Austria; Tunner's Production of Steel and Cast Iron, 2nd edition, Vol. I, pp. 23-25.

15. Peat Coal, or Coke.

15. Peat coal or coke.

When peat is charred, it yields a coal or coke which, being richer in carbon, is capable of giving an intenser heat than peat itself, in the same way that charcoal emits an intenser heat in its combustion than the wood from which it is made.

When peat is burned, it produces coal or coke, which is richer in carbon and can generate a hotter flame than peat itself, similar to how charcoal burns hotter than the wood it comes from.

Peat coal has been and is employed to some extent in metallurgical processes, as a substitute for charcoal, and when properly prepared from good peat, is in no way inferior to the latter; is, in fact, better.

Peat coal has been and is still used to some extent in metallurgical processes as a substitute for charcoal, and when properly prepared from quality peat, it is just as good, if not better, than the latter.

It is only, however, from peat which naturally dries to a hard and dense consistency, or which has been solidified on the principles of Challeton's and Weber's methods, that a coal can be made possessing the firmness necessary for furnace use. Fibrous peat, or that condensed by pressure, as in Exter's, Elsberg's, and the Lithuanian process, yields by coking or charring, a friable coal comparatively unsuited for heating purposes.

It is only from peat that naturally dries to a hard and dense consistency, or that has been solidified using Challeton's and Weber's methods, that a coal can be produced with the firmness needed for furnace use. Fibrous peat, or peat that has been condensed by pressure, like in Exter's, Elsberg's, and the Lithuanian processes, results in a friable coal that is relatively unsuitable for heating purposes.

A peat which is dense as the result of proper mechanical treatment and slow drying, yields a very homogeneous and compact coal, superior to any wood charcoal, the best qualities weighing nearly twice as much per bushel.

A peat that is dense due to proper mechanical treatment and slow drying produces a very uniform and compact coal that is better than any wood charcoal, with the best qualities weighing almost twice as much per bushel.

Peat is either charred in pits and heaps, or in kilns. From the regularity of the rectangular blocks into which peat is usually formed, it may be charred more easily in pits than wood, since the blocks admit of closer packing in the heap, and because the peat coal is less inflammable than wood coal. The heaps may likewise be made much smaller than is needful in case of wood, viz.: six to eight feet in diameter, and four feet high. The pit is arranged [Pg 158]as follows: The ground is selected and prepared as for charcoal burning, and should be elevated, dry and compact. Three stout poles are firmly driven into the ground, so as to stand vertically and equi-distant from each other, leaving within them a space of six or eight inches. Around these poles the peats are placed endwise, in concentric rows to the required width and height, leaving at the bottom a number of air-channels of the width of one peat, radiating from the centre outwards. The upper layers of peat are narrowed in so as to round off the heap, which is first covered with dry leaves, sods, or moss, over which a layer of soil is thrown. Dry, light wood being placed at the bottom of the central shaft, it is kindled from one of the canals at the bottom, and the charring is conducted as is usual in making wood coal. The yield of coal ranges from 25 to 35 per cent. of the peat by weight, and from 30 to 50 per cent. by volume.

Peat is charred either in pits and heaps or in kilns. Because of the uniform rectangular blocks that peat is usually shaped into, it can be charred more easily in pits than wood since the blocks allow for tighter packing in the heap and because peat coal is less flammable than wood coal. The heaps can also be made much smaller than those for wood, about six to eight feet in diameter and four feet high. The pit is arranged [Pg 158] as follows: The ground is selected and prepared like for charcoal burning, and it should be elevated, dry, and compact. Three sturdy poles are firmly driven into the ground, standing vertically and evenly spaced from each other, creating a six to eight-inch gap in between. Around these poles, the peat is placed endwise in concentric rows to the needed width and height, leaving several air channels at the bottom, each the width of one peat, radiating from the center outward. The upper layers of peat are shaped to round off the heap, which is first covered with dry leaves, sods, or moss, followed by a layer of soil. Dry, light wood is placed at the bottom of the central shaft, which is ignited from one of the canals at the bottom, and the charring is carried out as it is usual in making wood coal. The yield of coal ranges from 25 to 35 percent. by weight, and from 30 to 50 percent. by volume.

Gysser recommends to mould the peat for charring in the form of cylinders of 3 to 4 feet long, which, when dry, may be built up into a heap like wood.

Gysser suggests shaping the peat for charring into cylinders that are 3 to 4 feet long, which, once dried, can be stacked into a pile like firewood.

A great variety of ovens or kilns have been constructed for coking peat.

A wide variety of ovens or kilns have been made for coking peat.

At the Gun Factory of Oberndorf, in Wirtemberg, peat is charred in the kiln represented in the accompanying figure. The chamber is 9 feet high, and 5-½ feet in diameter. The oven proper, b b, is surrounded by a mantle of brick a a, and the space between, c c, is filled with sand. Each wall, as well as the space, is 15 inches in thickness, and the walls are connected by stones d d, at intervals of three feet. Above the sole of the kiln, are three series of air holes, made by imbedding old gun barrels in the walls. The door, which serves to empty the kiln, is a plate of cast iron, the sides of its frame are wider than the thickness of the wall, and by means of a board e, a box m can be made in front of the door, which is filled [Pg 159]with sand to prevent access of air. The peat is filled in through i, a channel being arranged across the bottom of the kiln, from the door f, for kindling. When the firing begins, the lowest air-holes and i are open. When, through the lower gun barrels, the peat is seen to be ignited, these are corked, and those above are opened. When the smoke ceases to escape above, all the openings are closed, m, is filled with sand, i is covered over with it, and the whole is left to cool. It requires about 8 to 9 days to finish the charring of a charge. Several kilns are kept in operation, so that the work proceeds uninterruptedly.

At the Gun Factory of Oberndorf in Württemberg, peat is charred in the kiln shown in the accompanying figure. The chamber is 9 feet high and 5½ feet in diameter. The actual oven, b b, is surrounded by a brick mantle a a, and the space in between, c c, is filled with sand. Each wall and the space are 15 inches thick, and the walls are connected by stones d d at intervals of three feet. Above the bottom of the kiln, there are three rows of air holes made by embedding old gun barrels in the walls. The door, which is used to empty the kiln, is a cast iron plate, with the sides of its frame wider than the wall thickness. A board e can create a box m in front of the door, filled [Pg 159] with sand to block airflow. The peat is loaded through i, with a channel arranged across the bottom of the kiln from the door f for kindling. When the firing starts, the lowest air holes and i are open. Once the peat is seen igniting through the lower gun barrels, these are sealed, and the upper ones are opened. When smoke stops escaping above, all openings are closed, m is filled with sand, i is covered with it, and the entire setup is left to cool. It takes about 8 to 9 days to finish charring a load. Several kilns operate simultaneously so the process can continue without interruption.

Fig. 23.

Fig. 23.—OBERNDORFER PEAT CHARRING KILN.

Fig. 23.—OBERNDORFER PEAT CHARRING KILN.

Fig. 24.

Fig. 24.—WEBER'S CHARRING FURNACE.—TRANSVERSE SECTION.

Fig. 24.—WEBER'S CHARRING FURNACE.—TRANSVERSE SECTION.

At Staltach, Weber prepares peat coal in a cylinder of sheet iron, which is surrounded by masonry. Below, it rests on a grating of stout wire. Above, it has a cover, that may be raised by a pulley and on one side is attached a small furnace, figure 24, the draught of which is kept up by means of a blower, or an exhauster, and the flame and hot [Pg 160]gases from it, which contain no excess of oxygen, play upon the peat and decompose it, expelling its volatile portions without burning or wasting it in the slightest degree. The construction of the furnace, see fig. 24, is such, that the sticks of wood, which are employed for fuel, are supported at their ends on shoulders in the brick-work, and the draught enters the fire above instead of below. The wood is hereby completely consumed, and by regulating the supply of air at a (fig. 25) by a sliding cover, and at b by a register, the flame and current of air which enters the cylinder containing the peat, is intensely hot and accomplishes a rapid carbonization of the peat, but as before [Pg 161]stated, does not burn it. In this furnace the wood, which is cut of uniform length, is itself the grate, since iron would melt or rapidly burn out; and the coals that fall are consumed by the air admitted through c. The hot gases which enter the cylinder filled with peat near its top, are distributed by pipes, and, passing off through the grating at the bottom, enter the surrounding brick mantle. Before reaching the exhaustor, however, they pass through a cooler in which a quantity of tar and pyroligneous acid is collected.

At Staltach, Weber prepares peat coal in a metal cylinder that's surrounded by masonry. Below, it sits on a sturdy wire grate. Above, it has a lid that can be lifted with a pulley, and on one side, there's a small furnace (see figure 24). The draft is maintained by a blower or exhauster, and the flame along with the hot [Pg 160] gases from it, which contain no excess of oxygen, heat the peat and break it down, driving off its volatile components without burning or wasting it at all. The furnace's design (see fig. 24) supports the wood sticks used as fuel at their ends on shoulders in the brickwork, allowing the draft to enter the fire from above rather than below. This way, the wood is completely consumed, and by adjusting the air supply at a (fig. 25) using a sliding cover and at b with a register, the flame and incoming air that enter the cylinder with the peat become extremely hot, leading to a fast carbonization of the peat without actually burning it, as stated before [Pg 161]. In this furnace, the wood, which is cut to uniform lengths, acts as the grate because metal would either melt or burn out quickly; the coals that fall are burned by the air that gets in through c. The hot gases that enter the cylinder filled with peat near the top are distributed through pipes and exit through the grate at the bottom, entering the surrounding masonry. Before reaching the exhauster, however, they pass through a cooler that collects a quantity of tar and pyroligneous acid.

Fig. 25.

Fig. 25.—WEBER'S CHARRING FURNACE.—LONGITUDINAL SECTION.

Fig. 25.—WEBER'S CHARRING FURNACE.—LONGITUDINAL SECTION.

Weber's oven is 15 feet in diameter, and 3-½ feet high; 528 cubic feet of peat may be coked in it in the space of 15 hours. The wood furnace is 2 feet in section, and consumes for the above amount of peat 3-½ cwt. of wood. So perfectly are the contents of the iron cylinder protected from contact of oxygen, that a rabbit placed within it, has been converted into coal without the singeing of a hair; and a bouquet of flowers has been carbonized, perfectly retaining its shape. The yield of coal in Weber's oven is nearly 50 per cent. of the peat by weight.

Weber's oven has a diameter of 15 feet and a height of 3.5 feet; it can process 528 cubic feet of peat in just 15 hours. The wood furnace has a 2-foot diameter and uses 3.5 hundredweight of wood to process the same amount of peat. The contents of the iron cylinder are so well protected from oxygen that a rabbit placed inside it can be turned into coal without a single hair being singed, and a bouquet of flowers can be carbonized while perfectly preserving its shape. The coal yield in Weber's oven is nearly 50 percent of the peat by weight.

Whenever possible, charring of peat should be carried on, or aided by waste heat, or the heat necessary to coking should be itself economized. In manufacturing and metallurgical establishments, a considerable economy in both the drying and coking may often be effected in this manner.

Whenever possible, peat should be charred, either using waste heat or by saving the heat needed for coking. In manufacturing and metalworking facilities, significant savings in both drying and coking processes can often be achieved this way.

On the bog of Allen, in Ireland, we have an example of this kind. Peat is placed in iron ovens in the form of truncated pyramids, the bottoms of which consist of movable and perforated iron plates. The ovens are mounted on wheels, and run on a rail track.

On the bog of Allen in Ireland, we have a case like this. Peat is put into iron ovens shaped like truncated pyramids, where the bottoms are made of movable, perforated iron plates. The ovens are placed on wheels and run on a rail track.

Five ovens filled with peat are run into a pit in a drying house, in which blocks of fresh peat are arranged for drying. Each oven is connected with a flue, and fire is applied. The peat burns below, and the heat generated [Pg 162]in the coking, warms the air of the drying house. When the escaping smoke becomes transparent, the pit in which the ovens stand is filled with water slightly above their lower edges, whereby access of air to the burning peat is at once cut off. When cool, the ovens are run out and replaced by others filled with peat. Each oven holds about 600 lbs. of peat, and the yield of coal is 25 per cent. by weight. The small yield compared with that obtained by Weber's method, is due to the burning of the peat and the coal itself, in the draught of air that passes through the ovens.

Five ovens filled with peat are pushed into a pit in a drying house, where blocks of fresh peat are laid out to dry. Each oven is connected to a flue, and a fire is lit. The peat burns below, and the heat generated [Pg 162] during the coking warms the air in the drying house. When the smoke that escapes becomes clear, the pit with the ovens is filled with water just above their lower edges, cutting off the air supply to the burning peat. Once cool, the ovens are removed and replaced with others filled with peat. Each oven holds about 600 pounds of peat, and the coal yield is 25 percent. The lower yield compared to Weber's method is due to the burning of the peat and the coal itself in the airflow that passes through the ovens.

The author has carbonized, in an iron retort, specimens of peat prepared by Elsberg's, Leavitt's, and Aschcroft and Betteley's processes. Elsberg's gave 35, the others 37 per cent. of coal. The coal from Elsberg's peat was greatly fissured, and could be crushed in the fingers to small fragments. That from the other peats was more firm, and required considerable exertion to break it. All had a decided metallic brilliancy of surface.

The author carbonized samples of peat using the processes developed by Elsberg, Leavitt, and Aschcroft and Betteley in an iron retort. Elsberg's process yielded 35 percent coal, while the others produced 37 percent. The coal from Elsberg's peat was very cracked and could be easily crushed into small pieces by hand. In contrast, the coal from the other peats was denser and needed a lot of effort to break apart. All of them had a distinct metallic shine on the surface.

16.—Metallurgical Uses of Peat.

16.—Peat in Metalworking.

In Austria, more than any other country, peat has been employed in the manufacture of iron. In Bavaria, Prussia, Wirtemberg, Hanover, and Sweden, and latterly in Great Britain, peat has been put to the same use. The general results of experience, are as follows:—

In Austria, more than in any other country, peat has been used in the production of iron. In Bavaria, Prussia, Württemberg, Hanover, Sweden, and more recently in Great Britain, peat has served the same purpose. The overall results from experience are as follows:—

Peat can only be employed to advantage, when wood and mineral coal are expensive, or of poor quality.

Peat can only be used effectively when wood and mineral coal are expensive or of low quality.

Peat can be used in furnaces adapted for charcoal, but not in those built for mineral coal.

Peat can be used in furnaces designed for charcoal, but not in those made for mineral coal.

Good air-dry peat, containing 20 to 30 per cent. of water, in some cases may replace a share of charcoal in the high furnace.

Good air-dry peat, containing 20 to 30 percent. of water, can sometimes substitute for a portion of charcoal in the high furnace.

At Pillersee, in Austria, spathic iron ore has been reduced by a mixture of fir-wood charcoal, and air-dry peat [Pg 163]in the proportions of three parts by bulk of the former to one of the latter. The use of peat was found to effect a considerable saving in the outlay for fuel, and enabled the production to be somewhat increased, while the excellence of the iron was in no way impaired. The peat was of the best quality, and was worked and moulded by hand.

At Pillersee, Austria, spathic iron ore has been reduced using a mix of fir wood charcoal and air-dried peat [Pg 163] in a ratio of three parts charcoal to one part peat. Using peat resulted in significant savings on fuel costs and allowed for a slight increase in production, without affecting the quality of the iron. The peat was top quality and was processed and shaped by hand.

When the ore is refractory and contains impurities that must be fluxed and worked off in slag, a large proportion of air-dry peat cannot be used to advantage, because the evaporation of the water in it consumes so much heat, that the requisite temperature is not easily attained.

When the ore is hard to process and has impurities that need to be removed in the slag, a significant amount of air-dry peat isn't useful, because the evaporation of the water in it requires so much heat that reaching the necessary temperature is difficult.

At Achthal, in Bavaria, air-dry peat was employed in 1860, to replace a portion of the fir wood charcoal, which had been used for smelting an impure clay-iron-stone: the latter fuel having become so dear, that peat was resorted to as a make shift. Instead of one "sack," or 33 cubic feet of charcoal, 24 cubic feet of charcoal and 15 cubic feet of peat were employed in each charge, and the quantity of ore had to be diminished thereby, so that the yield of pig was reduced, on the average, by about 17 per cent. In this case the quality of the iron, when worked into bar, was injured by the use of peat, obviously from an increase of its content of phosphorus. The exclusive use of air-dry peat as fuel in the high furnace, appears to be out of the question.

At Achthal, in Bavaria, air-dry peat was used in 1860 to replace part of the fir wood charcoal that had been used for smelting impure clay-iron-stone, as the latter fuel had become so expensive that peat was used as a substitute. Instead of one "sack," or 33 cubic feet of charcoal, 24 cubic feet of charcoal and 15 cubic feet of peat were used in each charge, which meant that the amount of ore had to be reduced, resulting in an average drop in pig iron yield of about 17 percent. In this case, the quality of the iron, once worked into bars, was compromised by the use of peat, likely due to an increase in its phosphorus content. The exclusive use of air-dry peat as fuel in the blast furnace seems impractical.

At Ransko, in Bohemia, kiln-dried peat, nearly altogether free from water, has been employed in a high furnace, mixed with but one-third its bulk of charcoal, and in cupola furnaces for re-melting pig, full-dried peat has been used alone, answering the purpose perfectly.

At Ransko, in Bohemia, kiln-dried peat, almost completely free of water, has been used in a high furnace, combined with just one-third its volume of charcoal, and in cupola furnaces for melting pig iron, fully dried peat has been used by itself, serving the purpose perfectly.

The most important metallurgical application of peat is in the refining of iron.

The most important use of peat in metallurgy is in refining iron.

Dried peat is extensively used in puddling furnaces, especially in the so-called gas puddling furnaces, in Carinthia, Steyermark, Silesia, Bavaria, Wirtemberg, Sweden, [Pg 164]and other parts of Europe. In Steyermark, peat has been thus employed for 25 years.

Dried peat is widely used in puddling furnaces, particularly in the so-called gas puddling furnaces, in Carinthia, Styria, Silesia, Bavaria, Württemberg, Sweden, [Pg 164] and other parts of Europe. In Styria, peat has been used this way for 25 years.

Air-dry peat is, indeed, also employed, but is not so well adapted for puddling, as its water burns away a notable quantity of iron. It is one of the best known facts in chemistry, that ignited iron is rapidly oxidized in a stream of water-vapor, free hydrogen being at the same time evolved.

Air-dried peat is also used, but it's not as suitable for puddling, as it loses a significant amount of iron when it gets wet. It's a well-known fact in chemistry that heated iron quickly oxidizes when exposed to steam, with free hydrogen being released at the same time.

In the high furnace, peat-coal, when compact and firm (not crumbly) may replace charcoal perfectly, but its cost is usually too great.

In the high furnace, peat-coal, when dense and solid (not crumbly) can perfectly substitute for charcoal, but its price is typically too high.

When peat or peat-coal is employed in smelting, it must be as free as possible from ash, because the ash usually consists largely of silica, and this must be worked off by flux. If the ash be carbonate of lime, it will, in most cases, serve itself usefully as flux. In hearth puddling, it is important not only that the peat or peat-coal contain little ash, but especially that the ash be as free as possible from sulphates and phosphates, which act so deleteriously on the metal. The notion that, in general, peat and peat charcoal are peculiarly adapted for the iron manufacture, because they are free from sulphur and phosphorus, is extremely erroneous. Not infrequently they contain these bodies in such quantity, as to forbid their use in smelting.

When peat or peat-coal is used in smelting, it needs to be as free as possible from ash because the ash is mostly silica, which has to be removed with flux. If the ash is made up of calcium carbonate, it can actually be beneficial as flux in most cases. In hearth puddling, it’s crucial that the peat or peat-coal has low ash content, and especially that the ash is largely free of sulfates and phosphates, which can negatively affect the metal. The idea that peat and peat charcoal are particularly suitable for iron production because they are low in sulfur and phosphorus is very misleading. Often, they contain these substances in such amounts that they cannot be used for smelting.

In the gas-puddling furnace, or in the ordinary reverberatory, impure peat may, however, be employed, since the ashes do not come in contact with the metal. The only disadvantage in the use of peat in these furnaces is, that the grates require cleaning more frequently, which interrupts the fire, and, according to Tunner, increases the consumption of fuel 8 to 10 per cent., and diminishes the amount of metal that can be turned out in a given time by the same quantity.

In the gas-puddling furnace or a regular reverberatory, it’s possible to use impure peat because the ashes don’t touch the metal. The only downside to using peat in these furnaces is that the grates need to be cleaned more often, which disrupts the fire and, according to Tunner, increases fuel consumption by 8 to 10 percent and reduces the amount of metal that can be produced in a given time with the same quantity.

[Pg 165]Notwithstanding the interruption of work, it has been found, at Rothburga, in Austria, that by substitution of machine-made and kiln-dried peat for wood in the gas-puddling furnace, a saving of 50 per cent. in the cost of bar iron was effected, in 1860. What is to the point, in estimating the economy of peat, is the fact that while 6.2 cubic feet of dry fir-wood were required to produce 100 lbs. of crude bar, this quantity of iron could be puddled with 4.3 cubic feet of peat.

[Pg 165]Despite the work disruptions, it's been discovered in Rothburga, Austria, that replacing wood with machine-made, kiln-dried peat in the gas-puddling furnace resulted in a 50% reduction in the cost of bar iron in 1860. What’s important in assessing the cost-effectiveness of peat is that while 6.2 cubic feet of dry fir wood were needed to produce 100 lbs. of crude bar, the same amount of iron could be processed with just 4.3 cubic feet of peat.

In the gas furnace, a second blast of air is thrown into the flame, effecting its complete combustion; Dellvik asserts, that at Lesjœforss, in Sweden, 100 lbs. of kiln-dried peat are equal to 197 lbs. of kiln-dried wood in heavy forging. In an ordinary fire, the peat would be less effective from the escape of unburned carbon in the smoke.

In the gas furnace, a second burst of air is added to the flame, ensuring it burns completely; Dellvik claims that at Lesjœforss in Sweden, 100 pounds of kiln-dried peat is equivalent to 197 pounds of kiln-dried wood for heavy forging. In a regular fire, the peat would be less effective due to the loss of unburned carbon in the smoke.

In other metallurgical and manufacturing operations where flame is required, as well as in those which are not inconvenienced by the ingredients of its ash, it is obvious that peat can be employed when circumstances conspire to render its use economical.

In other metalworking and manufacturing processes where flame is needed, as well as in those not affected by the ash ingredients, it's clear that peat can be used when conditions make its use cost-effective.

17.—Peat as a source of illuminating gas.

17.—Peat as a source of lighting gas.

Prof Pettenkofer, of Munich, was the first to succeed in making illuminating gas from wood; and peat, when operated according to his method, furnishes also a gas of good quality, though somewhat inferior to wood-gas in illuminating power.

Prof. Pettenkofer from Munich was the first to successfully produce illuminating gas from wood. When peat is processed using his method, it also yields gas of decent quality, although it is somewhat less effective than wood gas in terms of illuminating power.

It is essential, that well-dried peat be employed, and the waste heat from the retorts may serve in part, at least, for the drying.

It is essential that well-dried peat is used, and the waste heat from the retorts may partially serve for the drying.

The retorts must be of a good conducting material; therefore cast iron is better than clay. They are made of the [**symbol] form, and must be relatively larger than those [Pg 166]used for coal. A retort of two feet width, one foot depth, and 8 to 9 feet length, must receive but 100 lbs. of peat at a charge.

The retorts need to be made from a good conducting material; that's why cast iron is better than clay. They have to be in the [**symbol] shape and should be relatively larger than those [Pg 166] used for coal. A retort that is two feet wide, one foot deep, and 8 to 9 feet long should be able to take only 100 lbs. of peat at a time.

The quantity of gas yielded in a given time, is much greater than from bituminous coal. From retorts of the size just named, 8000 to 9000 cubic feet of gas are delivered in 24 hours. The exit pipes must, therefore, be large, not less than 5 to 6 inches, and the coolers must be much more effective than is needful for coal gas, in order to separate from it the tarry matters.

The amount of gas produced in a specific time frame is much higher than that from bituminous coal. From the sized retorts mentioned, 8,000 to 9,000 cubic feet of gas are generated in 24 hours. Therefore, the exit pipes need to be large, at least 5 to 6 inches in diameter, and the coolers must be significantly more efficient than those required for coal gas to effectively separate the tarry substances.

The number of retorts requisite to furnish a given volume of gas, is much less than in the manufacture from coal. On the other hand, the dimensions of the furnace are considerably greater, because the consumption of fuel must be more rapid, in order to supply the heat, which is carried off by the copious formation of gas.

The number of retorts needed to produce a specific volume of gas is much lower than in coal production. However, the size of the furnace is significantly larger because the fuel has to be consumed more quickly to provide the heat that is lost due to the large amount of gas being produced.

Gas may be made from peat at a comparatively low temperature, but its illuminating power is then trifling. At a red heat alone can we procure a gas of good quality.

Gas can be produced from peat at a relatively low temperature, but its ability to provide light is minimal. Only at a red heat can we obtain gas of good quality.

The chief impurity of peat-gas is carbonic acid: this amounts to 25 to 30 per cent. of the gas before purification, and if the peat be insufficiently dried, it is considerably more. The quantity of slaked lime that is consumed in purifying, is therefore much greater than is needed for coal-gas, and is an expensive item in the making of peat-gas.

The main impurity of peat gas is carbon dioxide, which makes up about 25 to 30 percent of the gas before it’s purified, and if the peat isn't dried properly, it can be even higher. As a result, the amount of slaked lime used in the purification process is much more than what's required for coal gas, making it a significant cost factor in producing peat gas.

While wood-gas is practically free from sulphur compounds and ammonia, peat-gas may contain them both, especially the latter, in quantity that depends upon the composition of the peat, which, as regards sulphur and nitrogen, is very variable.

While wood gas is almost free of sulfur compounds and ammonia, peat gas may contain both, especially ammonia, in amounts that depend on the composition of the peat, which varies widely in terms of sulfur and nitrogen.

Peat-gas is denser than coal-gas, and therefore cannot be burned to advantage except from considerably wider orifices than answer for the latter, and under slight pressure.

Peat gas is denser than coal gas, so it can't be burned effectively unless it's released through much wider openings than what works for coal gas and under slight pressure.

The above statements show the absurdity of judging [Pg 167]of the value of peat as a source of gas, by the results of trials made in gas works arranged for bituminous coal.

The statements above highlight the absurdity of evaluating [Pg 167] the worth of peat as a gas source based on tests conducted in gas facilities designed for bituminous coal.

As to the yield of gas we have the following data, weights and measures being English:—

As for the amount of gas produced, we have the following data, using English weights and measures:—

100 lbs. of peat of medium quality from Munich, gave Reissig 303 cub. ft.
100 lbs. of air-dry peat from Biermoos, Salzburg, gave Riedinger 305 cub. ft.
100 lbs. of very light fibrous peat, gave Reissig 379 to 430 cub. ft.
100 lbs. of Exter's machine-peat, from Haspelmoor, gave 367 cub. ft.

Thenius states, that, to produce 1000 English cubic feet of purified peat-gas, in the works at Kempten, Bavaria, there are required in the retorts 292 lbs of peat. To distil this, 138-½ lbs. of peat are consumed in the fire; and to purify the gas from carbonic acid, 91-½ lbs. of lime are used. In the retorts remain 117 lbs. of peat coal, and nearly 6 lbs. of tar are collected in the operation, besides smaller quantities of acetic acid and ammonia.

Thenius states that to produce 1,000 cubic feet of purified peat gas at the facility in Kempten, Bavaria, 292 pounds of peat are needed in the retorts. To distill this, 138.5 pounds of peat are burned in the fire, and to remove carbonic acid from the gas, 91.5 pounds of lime are used. The retorts are left with 117 pounds of peat coal, and nearly 6 pounds of tar are collected during the process, along with smaller amounts of acetic acid and ammonia.

According to Stammer, 4 cwt. of dry peat are required for 1000 cubic feet of purified gas.

According to Stammer, 4 cwt. of dry peat are needed for 1000 cubic feet of purified gas.

The quality of the gas is somewhat better than that made from bituminous coal.

The quality of the gas is somewhat better than that produced from bituminous coal.

18.—The examination of Peat as to its value for Fuel, begins with and refers to the air-dry substance, in which:

18.—The examination of Peat as to its value for Fuel, begins with and refers to the air-dry substance, in which:

1.—Water is estimated, by drying the pulverized peat, at 212°, as long as any diminution of weight occurs. Well-dried peat-fuel should not contain more than 20 per cent. of water. On the other hand it cannot contain less than 15 per cent., except it has been artificially dried at a high temperature, or kept for a long time in a heated apartment.

1.—Water is measured by drying the crushed peat at 212° until any weight loss stops. Well-dried peat fuel should have no more than 20 percent. water. However, it shouldn’t have less than 15 percent. water, unless it has been artificially dried at a high temperature or stored for a long period in a heated room.

2.—Ash is estimated by carefully burning the dry residue in 1. In first-rate fuel, it should amount to less than 3 per cent. If more than 8 per cent., the peat is thereby rendered of inferior quality, though peat is employed which contains considerably more.

2.—Ash is assessed by carefully burning the dry leftover material in 1. In top-quality fuel, it should be less than 3 percent. If it exceeds 8 percent., the peat is considered to be of lower quality, although there are types of peat that contain significantly more.

[Pg 168]3.—Sulphur and phosphorus are estimated by processes, which it would be useless to describe here. Only in case of vitriol peats is so much sulphur present, that it is recognizable by the suffocating fumes of sulphuric acid or of sulphurous acid, which escape in the burning. When peat is to be employed for iron manufacture, or under steam boilers, its phosphorus, and especially its sulphur, should be estimated, as they injure the quality of iron when their quantity exceeds a certain small amount, and have a destructive effect on grate-bars and boilers. For common uses it is unnecessary to regard these substances.

[Pg 168]3.—Sulfur and phosphorus are measured through processes that would be pointless to explain here. Only in the case of vitriol peats is there enough sulfur present to be noticeable through the suffocating fumes of sulfuric acid or sulfurous acid that are released during burning. When peat is used for iron production or in steam boilers, its phosphorus, and especially its sulfur, should be measured, as excessive amounts can harm the quality of the iron and can damage grate bars and boilers. For everyday purposes, it's unnecessary to worry about these substances.

4.—The quantity of coal or coke yielded by peat, is determined by heating a weighed quantity of the peat to redness in an iron retort, or in a large platinum crucible, until gases cease to escape. The neck of the retort is corked, and when the vessel is cool, the coal is removed and weighed. In case a platinum crucible is employed, it should have a tight-fitting cover, and when gases cease to escape, the crucible is quickly cooled by placing it in cold water.

4.—The amount of coal or coke produced from peat is measured by heating a weighed amount of peat until it turns red in an iron retort or a large platinum crucible, until no more gases escape. The neck of the retort is sealed, and once the vessel cools down, the coal is taken out and weighed. If a platinum crucible is used, it should have a snug-fitting lid, and when gas production stops, the crucible is quickly cooled by placing it in cold water.

Coal, or coke, includes of course the ash of the peat. This, being variable, should be deducted, and the ash-free coal be considered in comparing fuels.

Coal, or coke, definitely includes the ash from the peat. Since this amount can change, it should be subtracted, and the ash-free coal should be what we look at when comparing fuels.

5.—The density of peat-fuel may be ascertained by cutting out a block that will admit of accurate measurement, calculating its cubic contents, and comparing its weight with that of an equal bulk of water. To avoid calculation, the block may be made accurately one or several cubic inches in dimensions and weighed. The cubic inch of water at 60° F., weighs 252-½ grains.

5.—The density of peat fuel can be determined by cutting out a block that can be measured accurately, calculating its volume, and comparing its weight to that of an equal volume of water. To skip the calculations, you can make the block exactly one or more cubic inches in size and weigh it. A cubic inch of water at 60° F. weighs 252.5 grains.

FOOTNOTES:

[10] The apparent specific gravity here means the weight of the mass,—the air-filled cavities and pores included—as compared with an equal bulk of water. The real specific gravity of the peat itself is always greater than that of water, and all kinds of peat will sink in water when they soak long enough, or are otherwise treated so that all air is removed.

[10] The apparent specific gravity here refers to the weight of the mass, including the air-filled cavities and pores, compared to an equal volume of water. The true specific gravity of the peat itself is always higher than that of water, and all types of peat will sink in water once they've soaked long enough or are treated in a way that removes all the air.

[11] The "full" cubic foot implies a cubic foot having no cavities or waste space, such as exist in a pile, made up of numerous blocks. If a number of peat blocks be put into a box and shaken together, the empty space between the more or less irregular blocks, may amount to 46 per cent. of the whole; and when closely packed, the cavities amount to 30 per cent., according to the observations of Wasserzieher. (Dingler's Journal, Oct., 1864, p. 118.) Some confusion exists in the statements of writers in regard to this matter, and want of attention to it, has led to grave errors in estimating the weight of fuel.

[11] The term "full" cubic foot refers to a cubic foot that contains no gaps or wasted space, like what you find in a pile composed of many blocks. When several peat blocks are placed in a box and shaken together, the empty space between the unevenly shaped blocks can make up 46 percent of the total volume; when they are tightly packed, the gaps amount to 30 percent, based on observations by Wasserzieher. (Dingler's Journal, Oct., 1864, p. 118.) There is some confusion among writers regarding this issue, and ignoring it has led to significant mistakes in calculating the weight of fuel.

[12] The waste space in peat and wood as commonly piled, is probably included here in the statement, and is usually about the same in both; viz.: not far from 40 per cent.

[12] The waste space in peat and wood as typically stacked is probably included in this statement, and it's usually about the same for both; that is, around 40 percent.

[13] See note on the preceding page.

[13] See the note on the previous page.

[14] Der Torf, etc., S. 43.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ The Peat, etc., p. 43.

[15] See page 00.

See page 00.

[16] On account of the great convenience of the decimal weights and measures, and their nearly universal recognition by scientific men, we have adopted them here. The gramme = 15 grains; 5 degrees centigrade = 9 degrees Fahrenheit.

[16] Because decimal weights and measures are very convenient and widely accepted by scientists, we've adopted them here. A gram equals 15 grains; 5 degrees Celsius equals 9 degrees Fahrenheit.

[17] Pliny, Hist. Nat. (Lib. XVI, 1) expresses his pity for the "miserable people" living in East Friesland and vicinity in his day, who "dug out with the hands a moor earth, which, dried more by wind than sun, they used for preparing their food and warming their bodies:" captum manibus lutum ventis magis quam sole siccantis, terra cibos et rigentia septembrione viscera sua urunt.

[17] Pliny, Hist. Nat. (Lib. XVI, 1) shares his sympathy for the "unfortunate people" living in East Friesland and nearby areas during his time, who "dug out with their hands a moor earth, which, dried more by the wind than the sun, they used for preparing their food and warming their bodies:" captum manibus lutum ventis magis quam sole siccantis, terra cibos et rigentia septembrione viscera sua urunt.

As regards the "misera gens," it should be said that rich grain fields and numerous flourishing villages have occupied for several centuries large portions of the Duevel moor near Bremen.

As for the "misera gens," it should be noted that lush grain fields and many thriving villages have taken up large areas of the Duevel moor near Bremen for several centuries.

[18] For further account and plans of this machine see Dingler's Polytechnisches Journal, Bd. 176, S. 336.

[18] For more information and plans of this machine, see Dingler's Polytechnisches Journal, Vol. 176, p. 336.

[19] Described and figured in Bulletin de la Societe d'Encouragement, August 1857, p. 513; also Dingler's Polytechnisches Journal, Bd. 146, S. 252.

[19] Described and illustrated in the Bulletin of the Society of Encouragement, August 1857, p. 513; also in Dingler's Polytechnical Journal, Vol. 146, p. 252.

[20] Berg- und Huettenmænnische Zeitung, 1859, Nr. 26.

[20] Berg- und Huettenmænnische Zeitung, 1859, Nr. 26.

[21] Henneberg's Journal fuer Landwirthschaft, 1858, S. 42.

[21] Henneberg's Journal for Agriculture, 1858, p. 42.

[22] Henneberg's Journal fuer Landwirthschaft, 1858, p.p. 42 and 83.

[22] Henneberg's Journal for Agriculture, 1858, pp. 42 and 83.

[23] Dingler's Journal, Oct., 1864.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Dingler's Journal, Oct. 1864.

[24] Dingler's Polytechnisches Journal, Bd. 152, S. 272. See also, Knapp, Lehrbuch der Chemischen Technologie, 3te Auflage, 1., 167.

[24] Dingler's Polytechnisches Journal, Vol. 152, p. 272. See also, Knapp, Textbook of Chemical Technology, 3rd edition, 1, 167.

[25] Der Torf; seine Bildung und Bereitungsweise, von Rudolph Gysser, Weimar, 1864.

[25] The Peat; its Formation and Preparation, by Rudolph Gysser, Weimar, 1864.

[26] Dingler's Journal, Bd. 165, S. 184.; und Bd. 172, S, 333.

[26] Dingler's Journal, Vol. 165, p. 184; and Vol. 172, p. 333.

[27] Scientific American, Feb. 10, 1866; also, Facts about Peat as Fuel, by T. H. Leavitt, 2d Ed., Boston, p. 23.

[27] Scientific American, Feb. 10, 1866; also, Facts about Peat as Fuel, by T. H. Leavitt, 2nd Ed., Boston, p. 23.

[28] Dingler's Journal, Bd. 168, S. 306, und Bd. 172, S. 332.

[28] Dingler's Journal, Vol. 168, p. 306, and Vol. 172, p. 332.

[29] Described in Journal of the Society of Arts, 1860, p. 437.

[29] Mentioned in the Journal of the Society of Arts, 1860, p. 437.

[30] Bernemann & Kerl's Berg und Huettenmænnische Zeitung, 1862, 221.

[30] Bernemann & Kerl's Mountain and Mining Newspaper, 1862, 221.





Transcriber's Note

Transcriber's Note


Typographical errors corrected in the text:

Page     6  Robert's changed to Roberts'
Page   24  Jaeckel changed to Jæckel
Page   47  Poquonnock changed to Poquonock
Page   49  connexion changed to connection
Page   51  Poquonnock changed to Poquonock
Page   53  Russel changed to Russell
Page   53  Poquonnock changed to Poquonock
Page   62  subtances changed to substances
Page   67  Poquonnock changed to Poquonock
Page   89  5 changed to 4
Page   89  Poquonnock changed to Poquonock
Page 116  artifical changed to artificial
Page 127  developes changed to develops
Page 149  Kneeding changed to Kneading



        
        
    
Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!