FROM THE OLD BOOK

Thank you, Shiney:D You could have offered to pay my gas bill

 

As promised this is a continuation of last nights extraction from the Old Book on the why and why not of burning garden rubbish. So while I undo my braces, slacken my belt, ease off me boots, and cut a slab of bread for supper with cheese and a mug of tea, you can read on.

BURNING GARDEN RUBBISH [PART II]

After these we come to weeds. Now the "pen gardener" - a gentleman for who we have considerable contempt - says to us in his books and articles: "Burn up every weed which grows in the garden and spread the ashes on the soil."

But as we see in another article if this doctrine is acted upon we often waste much which might be put to good account in the way of humus. So for burning we should avoid the softer rottable kinds of weeds with very few exceptions. All deep rooted weeds [if we cannot sell them to herbalists] should go to our garden fire, also all our creeping weeds. One gentleman was preaching [at a lecture attended by the writer in South Yorkshire] "the stacking of twitch and other equally dangerous weeds such as colts foot, dandelions, and docks, in large heaps for a year, after which they can be spread on the land and make most valuable manure".
This gentleman, who was by many considered to be an authority, ought to know better than to give such very bad advice. Twitch will not all be dead even after stacking for thirty months, and to spread it on the land after a single year is to undo all the good you have done the previous year. The only safe place for twitch and other violent weeds is in the garden fire.
There are some weeds which may look innocent enough but are really great dangers. These include Chickweed and other similar plants. Thus discrimination is necessaryu and the gardener should put these sorts also on the fire.
All weeds in seed should also be put on the fire. The idea that the small heat produced by rotting will kill the seeds is entirely erroneous, very often it proves an apt method of forcing them into germination.
After weeds, we come to vegetable garden refuse. Now the material which should be burnt here includes a very wide selection. We suppose that potato tops with their fibrous roots should be put first on the list, for they should never be allowed to rot into manure.#
A good second place is taken by stumps of cabbages, cauliflowers, Brussel Sprouts, and the like, which will, it is true, make fairly good vegetable manure if allowed to rot for a period of something like two and a half years.
As these emit an impossibly offensive odour, and breed billions of flies during the process, it is better to get them burnt up. We must also mention Asparagus foilage obtained often in cartloads when the beds are cleaned in the Autumn. No good purpose can be served by alllowing this to decompose into vegetable humus.
Of miscellaneous refuse from the vegetable garden which ought most certainly to be burnt we may mention any foilage or roots of plants which are in any way diseased, however slightly. Potato tops have been mentioned, burning of these is in any case desirable, as we have said, but it is essential if they are diseased.
But burning is, in the case of Turnip tops, Beet tops, parsnips tops, carrot tops, pea and bean haulm, cabbage leaves, onion and leek foilage, and so on, only desirable when such matter is infested with pests, or infected with diseases. Otherwise it should be allowed to decay, as described.
Of miscellaneous refuse from the flower garden which should be burnt we may mention first any foilage or plants which is distinctly hard or woody in character, as, for instance, the thick stems of Hollyhocks and Sunflowers, or the thin wiry stalks of Chrysanthemums,or Michaelmas Daisies. Other plant remains [provided, of course, that they are not carrying diseases or pests] should certainly be allowed to rot. It may be said here, however, than any seed heads on these plant remains should go into the fire, for the seeds will germinate and little plants come up all over the borders from the manure unless burning is done.

METHODS OF BURNING;

The first and most obvious method of burning garden rubbish is to do the work in an open fire. The fire is started with a little wood and paper and then the driest rubbish put on first. Dense clouds of brown and often orange coloured smoke intermixed with flames are emitted, and the whole heap is reduced to about a twentieth of its original bulk if not less.
This is a wasteful way of destroying refuse and one which should not be allowed.

A better method is to start with a very small fire, and see that it never becomes a mass of dancing tongues of flame even for a moment. This is done by piling damp rubbish on to the fire at an early stage and reducing the burning to a smoulder. Rubbish burnt this way in on the fire longer, but the ash produced is much more bulky as well as far more rich in plant food than is produced on a roaring fire.

Besides this, the burning on what is called a "smother" fire is much less unpleasant. Instead of the dense clouds and thick volumes of smoke produced by the "quick" fire method, there is only ma small curling column of smoke which annoys no one.

If the rubbish has for some reason or other had to be neglected and has got into a soaking wet state it will not burn at all easily. An acquaintance who is on the Board of Agriculture tells us that he uses a bucket with a number of holes all around it for burning wet rubbish, and starts a small coal fire in it, putting on the rubbish in small forkfuls first of all, and then in larger quantities when a good mass of red hot ash has been produced below. He says he never finds this fail as a means of disposing of wet refuse.

Another authority speaks well of a brick kiln made by building a circular cupola with bricks after breaking off their corners. We have tried this method and find it works well so long as plenty of air holes are left all round. A small fire is started in the bottom, and the rubbish fed in, a small quantity at a time, from the top. It needs pushing down from time to time unless the opening at the top is very large to admit of natural sinking. The ashes are, of course, raked out from one of the holes at the base.

Store the ashes produced by burning garden rubbish in a dry place, for they are quickly ruined by rain. Do not leave them in the Destructor for moisture will soak up from the ground below.



Time for that cheese sarny and mug of tea.

 

What country do you live in?

I don't normally do foreign aid

 

You mean those Red Cross parcels I get aren't from you, Shiney???:D

 

I don't do Cross - I'm always cheerful!

 

That is not what Oscar says!!:D

 

Well, a recent post from "Soiled" about the use of fertilisers set me to thinking on the views and thoughts on fertilisers by gardeners over a hundred years ago. So here we go again to the age when horses were more in dominance than cars, no real electricity supplies and coal was king. So sit on the bench, pour out an ale in your tankard, ease off the big boots and light the gas lamp once again:

FERTILISERS - What they are and what they do.

All plants live and grow in very much the same way as we do. That is, they need food, air, water, and light. The food they mostly draw from the soil through their roots, but they also make use of gases contained in the air, principally oxygen and carbon dioxide [carbonic acid gas]. The foods inn the soil they can only take up in solution, thus the nitrogen in an old boot and that in farmyard manure both have to pass in solution before the plant can use them. No solid particle, however small, is capable of passing into the roots, furthermore, these foods have to take the particular form which the plant requires before they become, as we say, "available" for the plant.

The only difference, therefore, between fertilisers and manures like dung, shoddy, wool waste, leather strap and the like, is that the latter are made by natural means and the former artificially. Thus it makes no difference to the plant in what original form it's foodstuffs are presented, since before they can use any of them they must all become uniform. It is because of the latter fact that, so far as plant food is concerned, artificial fertilisers have a great advantage over so-called natural manures or "organics" such as dung, shoddy, wool waste, leather scraps etc. These manures usually take a considerable time before they break down into the forms required by the plant, artificial fertilisers, on the other hand, are specially made to be immediately available as soon as they are applied.

A SHORT HISTORY

Apart from the early experiments of the alchemists little was known about the behaviour ofm plants and the foods they required until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when at last it became possiblre to say with some ceertainty that all plants require nitrogen, phosphates and potash for their livelihood. Lime also is essential, but is omitted at this state because it is not one of the fertilisers but a kind of assistant in their work.

In 1843 John Bennet Lawson founded the first agricultural in the world at Rothamsted, Herts,. Here, Lawes and his assistant, the chemist Gilbert, began experiments on the requirements of plants, upon it may well be said rests the whole of our present day agricultural knowledge.

In those days the multitude of excellent fertilisers which we now have was quite unknown. Nitrogen was only obtainable in the form of sulphate of ammonia which, moreover, unlike the neutral sulphate of ammonia of today, was of the quality now called "ordinary" and contained a certain percentage of free sulphuric acid. Phosphates existed, apart from guano and bone products, only as super phosphates. Indeed, it was by the manufacture of this material [from the treatment of coprolites - fossil remains rich in phosphates of lime - with sulphuric acid] that Lawes built up the fortune that enabled him to endow Rothamsted.

Later an alternative source of phosphate supply was provided by the discovery of Thomas and Gilchrist that a lining of lime and magnesia in the great vessels used for holding molten iron during its conversion into steel, removed the phosphorous impurities with efficiency. From time to time this lining was renewed and the old one ground into a powder. This powder, known as basic slag, was found tp exert a beneficial influence on soils. Indeed, slag is still perhaps the most popular fertiliser for grassland improvement.

It may perhaps be of interest to note in passing that, in Germany, basic slag is still known as Thomasmchl". With the finding of the great beds of natural potash salts in Alsace Lorraine, a full supply of all the three essential plant foods was guaranteed to farmers all over Europe. Since those early days, the attention of scientists and inventors has been constantly devoted to improving the various plant foods and, more particularly, nitrogen. They can now all be obtained in a variety of forms.

Nitrogen is available as sulphate of ammonia, nitro chalk, nitrate of soda, cyanamide, nitrate of lime, ammonium phosphate, and urea; phosphates as super phosphates , basic slag, potassic mineral phosphate, ground rock phosphate, basic mineral phosphate, and many others; potash as sulphate and muriate [chloride] and in the form of mixed salts.

It will be noted that many of the above fertilisers, such as ammonium phosphate, nitrate of potash and potassic mineral phosphate, contains two plant foods in the form of a single substance. More recently still, further advances have been made and it is now possible to obtain concentrated complete fertilisers which, granular in form, contain fixed proportions of all three essential ingredients.

The most expensive of all fertiliser ingredients, nitrogen, is now obtained direct from the air. At Billingham, Stockton-on-Tees, there is a vast factory for the manufacture of this "synthetic" nitrogen, which has only one rival for size and efficiency in the world.

SALE OF FERTILISERS

By the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, certain particulars must be given to purchasers of fertilisers on or before delivery, or as soon after as possible, in the form of a statement. This does not apply where the purchaser request that two or more articles shall be mixed before delivery. Nor is it applicable when the quantity sold is 56lbs or less and is taken by the purchaser from a bulk on which the required particulars are displayed.

The penalties for failing to give the required statement or for giving wrong information are, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £5 for the first offence and similarly £10 for the second and subsequent convictions.

The Act required the Council of each County or County Borough to appoint an agricultural analysts and inspectors. The inspector has the right at all reasonable time to enter a fertiliser merchant's premises within his borough or county and to take samples. The sample is analysed by the agricultural analyst and if the seller or the purchaser objects to the analysis they may submit a sample to the Government Chemist for examination on payment of a small fee. Inspectors must regard all information they obtain as confidential and heavy penalties follow disclosure.

Well, I've learnt something from that and it's amazing to think of the restricted availability of the fertilisers we use today for the people back then.

 

ARMANDII, you are doing brilliantly with all this old info . Thanks

I hope you don't mind me adding something. :o

Natural fertilisers in the 19C were very big business, mainly with nitrates from guano and saltpetre, and there were many people that made millions out of it. In 1872 the englishman, James Thomas Humberstone, founded the Peru Nitrate Co in the Atacama desert (became part of Chile after the War of the Pacific - the tax on nitrates being the main cause of the war) and the 'company town' of Humberstone was built. This region became the biggest supplier of nitrates to Europe until Haber and Bosch (Germany) produced their synthetic fetiliser around 1930.

This almost ruined all of the Atacama nitrate producers but Humberstone (the company was renamed in his honour) modernised in the mid 30's and remained fairly successful until its closure in 1960. It is now a World Heritage Site and the 'town' is quite well preserved.

Fairly close to Humberstone was Santa Laura where they had a large extracting (cracking) plant.

The way of life in the 'company town' was quite interesting and they had a lot of facilities (for being in the middle of the driest desert in the world) as well as married quarters. It wasn't all sweetness and light as the workers went on strike and some of them got shot. The company reformed its practices after that.

This is the remains of the extraction plant



Humberstone was much more welcoming than here at Santa Laura





- but it was still in the middle of the desert

 

:DFantastic pics, Shiney. One good thing about this Thread, and many others, is that we can get a spin-off of even more information. Your piece about Humberstone and Santa Laura is exactly what I mean, so thank you for that. Anyone who wants to contribute only adds to the value of the Thread and "heducafies" us all:D

I have no longing to be back in the "old days" as I appreciate the better standards of living, and the availability of the wealth of technology that's there for us these days. But I do have a sneaking admiration for the way they fought for better things, how with very little technical information to hand they made the discoveries they did. It's a bit eye-opening to think that a lot of the things we have at our disposal today is due to the dogged determination of individual characters who unlocked the secrets and gave us the understanding of nature and how it works.

It's in just browsing through the Old Books that I can get a sense of the way of life and the way they thought back then. Maybe because as a child the radio was a big part of my entertainment, listening to all the adventure stories and other programs made you use your imagination to the point where you'd "see" in your mind the characters and places of the story you were listening to right then and there. Reading does the same for me, I get totally immersed in books, whether fiction or fact, and I think the English language, for me,
is really beautiful, although some may argue differently. It's has the ability to bring out the best in poems, history, lyrics in music and of course story telling, because it can be so definitive when describing things. Where did that soapbox come from:D

I thought behind every good war was a woman, Shiney, not nitrates.:D Running for cover right now.


Oh, I nearly forgot. My lifelong friend now lives up at Stockton-on-Tees and I often go to visit him there, but I never connected Stockton-on-Tees as once having "vast factory for the manufacture of "synthetic nitrogen". I'll have to have a look around next time I'm up there