FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281  
282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   >>   >|  
Ammonia in 1,000 grains of | | | | | | soil after liming and | | | | | | exposure to the vapor | | | | | | of ammonia | 2.226| 2.066| 3.297| 1.076| 3.265| 1.827 Ammonia in 1,000 grains | | | | | | of soil after exposure to | | | | | | ammonia without liming. | 1.906| 2.557| 3.286| 1.097| 2.615| 2.028 ----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ No. 1. Surface soil of London clay. No. 2. Same soil from 1-1/2 to 2 feet below the surface. No. 3. Same soil 3-1/2 feet below the surface. No. 4. Loam of tertiary drift 4 feet below the surface. No. 5. Gault clay--surface soil. No. 6. Gault clay 4 feet below the surface. It is evident that lime neither assisted nor interfered with the absorption of ammonia, and hence the beneficial effect of liming on such soils must be accounted for on some other supposition. This negative result, however, does not disprove the truth of Prof. Way's hypothesis, for it may be that the silicate salt in the natural soils was that of lime and not that of soda. Indeed, the extent to which the natural soils absorbed ammonia--equal, in No. 3, to about 7,000 lbs. of ammonia per acre, equivalent to the quantity contained in 700 tons of barn-yard manure--shows this to have been the case. _The lime liberated one-half the ammonia contained in the soil._ "This result," says Prof. Way, "is so nearly the same in all cases, that we are justified in believing it to be due to some special cause, and probably it arises from the existence of some compound silicates containing ammonia, of which lime under the circumstances can replace one-half--forming, for instance, a double silicate of alumina, with half lime and half ammonia--such compounds are not unusual or new to the chemist." This loss of ammonia from a heavy dressing of lime is very great. A soil five inches deep, weighs, in round numbers, 500 tons, or 1,000,000 lbs. The soil, No. 1, contained .0293 per cent of ammonia, or in an acre, five inches deep, 293 lbs. After liming, it contained .0169 per cent, or in an acre, five inches deep, 169 lbs. The loss by liming is 124 lbs. of ammonia per acre. This is equal to the quantity contained in 1200 lbs. of good Peruvian guano, or 12-1/2 tons of barn-yard manure. In commenti
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281  
282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

ammonia

 

liming

 

contained

 

surface

 
inches
 

result

 

manure

 

quantity

 
silicate
 

natural


exposure
 
Ammonia
 

grains

 

arises

 

special

 

justified

 

commenti

 

believing

 

existence

 

Peruvian


weighs
 

unusual

 

compounds

 

alumina

 

chemist

 

dressing

 
double
 
numbers
 

silicates

 
circumstances

instance

 

forming

 
replace
 

compound

 

tertiary

 
London
 
evident
 

absorption

 

interfered

 

assisted


Surface

 

beneficial

 

effect

 
equivalent
 

absorbed

 
Indeed
 

extent

 

liberated

 

negative

 
supposition