Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An evaluation of the fertilizing properties of a fish waste produce Teir, John Bertrand 1947

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1947_A4 T3 E8.pdf [ 2.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106744.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106744-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106744-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106744-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106744-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106744-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106744-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106744-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106744.ris

Full Text

L LT3 6y AIT EVALUATION OF THE FEREILIZINQ PBOPERTIES OF A FISH WASTE PRODUCT by John B. T-eir, B.S.A. A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Horticulture The University of British Columbia i n Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of ULSTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE V/' April 1947 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appre-ciation to Dr. A. F. Barss, Professor and Head of the Department of Horticulture, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, for his encouragement in the completion of this work. The -writer also acknowledges -with many thanks, the assistance given by Dr. G. H. Harris, Professor of Horticulture, Plant Nutrition, University of British Columbia, i n the planning and execution of the experimental work. \ T A B L E 0 F C - Q I I i l l f S Page Introduction • 1 Review of Literature: Plant response to nitrogen . . . . . 2 Nitrogen forms utilized by plants . . 4 . Nitrogenous fertil izer materials . . 5 Methods of Conducting the Experiment . . . 7 Materials . . . . . . 8 Procedure 9 Analyses of plant material 11 Method of statistics 12 Results: Lettuce 14 Carrots 20 Summary 27 Discussion of Results . , . 34 Observations and Recommendations 38 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Literature Cited . . . . . 41 AJS EVALUATION OF THE FERTILIZING PROPERTIES OF A FISH Wft.STE PRODUCT by John B . T e i r , B . S. A. ABSTRACT A f i s h waste product from a v i t a m i n o i l e x t r a c t i o n process was t e s t e d to a s c e r t a i n i t s value as a f e r t i l i z e r . I n order t o o b t a i n an e v a l u a t i o n , comparisons were made with t h r e e other w e l l known f e r t i l i z e r s . I n b o t h Lettuce and C a r r o t c r o p s , under f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s , the f i s h waste proved as good as d r i e d b l o o d and s u p e r i o r to sodium n i t r a t e and ammonium s u l p h a t e . The c h i e f f a u l t s of t h i s f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l are i t s f i n e t e x t u r e and d e l i q u e s c e n t n a t u r e . U n t i l the p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h i s p r o t e i n a t e are changed, the product i s not l i k e l y to meet with favour as a f e r t i l i z e r . AN EVALUATION OF THE FERTILIZING PROPERTIES OF A FISH WASTE PRODUCT INTRODUCTION After Whitney and Cameron of the United States Department of Agriculture showed that plant nutrients must be present not only i n the s o i l but also must be i n available forms for absorption by the plant, a great effort was put forth to find an ideal practical source of nutrients.. Stable manure, for a time, was the chief source of plant food elements under f i e l d conditions, but as i t became scarce and expensive, gardeners sought substitutes that would give similar response. Many inor-ganic and organic types, termed a r t i f i c i a l manures or f e r t i l i z e r s , were developed and these have been used for some time. However, newer products are being introduced from time to time as oarriers of plant nutrients, some of which are beneficial while others are of l i t t l e value. Recently, Fish Proteinate, an organic by-product of a vitamin oil-extraction prooess, was suggested as a source of nitrogen. This f i s h product, using diatomaceous earth as a drying agent, is an improvement over i t s previous types, whioh were an o i l and a dried form having calcium as a drying agent. The purpose of the following experiment is to evaluate this product by comparing i t s effects upon plant response with those of three other well known nitrogen-carriers, Sodium Nitrate, Ammonium Sul-phate and Dried Blood. 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Since very l i t t l e work has been done on the f e r t i l i z i n g a b i l i t y of this Fish Proteinate, the discussion w i l l relate to the effects of nitrogen on the plant and to the pertinent nitrogen f e r t i l i z e r s . 1. Plant Response to Nitrogen Nitrogen has long been considered one of the essential elements for plant growth. Raber (17) claims that nitrogen i s absolutely essen-t i a l for the formation of proteins and consequently of protoplasm. Where i t is deficient, the leaves of plants are generally stunted and foliage is yellow and sickly in appearance. An abundanoe of available nitrogen, on the other hand, seems to favor vegetative growth and to retard the formation of f r u i t parts. Kraus and Kraybill (8 ), as well as Murneek (15), bear out the theory that both nitrogen and carbohydrates must be present for the development of f r u i t . Emmert (4 ) i n his work on tomatoes and lettuoe shows that there i s a close relationship between the nitrate i n the soil and that in the plant, which in turn is correlated with yields. He also states that an alkaline reaction not only stimulates n i t r i f i c a t i o n in the s o i l , but also stimulates both absorption and assimilation by the growing plant. Hoagland, on the other hand, claims that nitrates enter the plant more slowly i n an alkaline medium. Nightingale et. a l . (i6) substantiated Emmert's theory when they found that calcium starvation resulted in a non-nitrogen absorption. Brazeale (3 ) considers there is a direct relationship between the absorption of potassium and nitrates; that potassium is probally necessary in the prooess of synthesis of protein-like compounds. 5. Finally, Kraus and Kraybill (6 ) state that nitrates may aid i n rapid growth and formation of new cells which have relatively thinner and less liqu i f i a d walls and a greater percentage of amphoteric substanoes having a high water-holding capacity. This would account for the faot that a high nitrate supply gives a high degree of succulence. wThe nitrogen entering the root from the s o i l i s ohanged in the plant into amides and amino-acids, and these are changed into proteins and other complex bodies. The more nitrogen that i s supplied to the plant, therefore, the greater i s the amount of these substances. At the same time the leaf nrea i s increased; this i s followed by more carbohydrate production, more water transpiration and more absorption of mineral matter from the s o i l . These changes are not exaotly proportionate, however; the inoreased nitrogen increases the efficiency of the plant as a user of water, enabling i t to make more dry matter with a given water consumption, but i t does not increase the efficiency of the leaf as a producer of car-bohydrates". (6 )• Therefore, when the amounts of nitrogen are relatively small, the changes more or less compensate one another and the net result i s a larger plant. Actually, i t is not very different in composition, but may contain the same or even a smaller percentage of nitrogen. Where conditions for growth are favorable, the additional nitro-gen may aid production of carbohydrates to the extent of over-balancing the nitrogen compounds and resulting i n a lower percentage of nitrogen. Where large quantities of nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r s are given, the plant may absorb additional nitrogen which i s not balanced by a corresponding amount of carbohydrate. Therefore, i t remains as an excess, usually in the form 4. of a storage product. This excess of nitrogen compounds not only involves a proportionate reduction in some or a l l of the non-nitrogenous compounds, but also apparently has some harmful effect on the plant. The vegetation becomes large, dark green in colour, soft and succulent. These are then susceptible to attack by both insects and diseases; furthermore, yields may be reduced. The balance thus upset can be restored by an increased accumulation of carbohydrate which is brought about by adding phosphorio and potassio f e r t i l i z e r s . 2« Nitrogen Forms Utilized by Plants The f a i r l y general belief that nitrogen must be in nitrate form to be of service to plants is by no means true.(18), There i s f a i r l y well-established evidence now to show that ammonia and.organic compounds as well as nitrates are u t i l i s e d . Miller (14) and Barker ( l ) agree that plants take up nitrogen in the ammoniacal and nitrate forms with the nitrates being preferred, and that some plants w i l l assimilate the n i t r i t e form but that this form i s toxio to most. Miller (14) claims that plants which take up nitrogen as ammonia salts are distinctly higher i n percen-tage nitrogen than those u t i l i s i n g nitrates. Hutchinson and Miller have showed that many organic compounds are utilized directly by higher plants, but that many are harmful (20), The principal organic compounds utilizable by plants appear to be certain of the amino aoids and other intermediate produots resulting from the breaking down of protein nitrogen into relatively simple water-soluble forms of organic nitrogen. Very l i t t l e i s known as to the amount of or-ganio nitrogen actually assimilated by plants but i t i s thought that i t i s quiokly changed to ammoniacal and to nitrate forms.(18). e. 3. Nitrogenous F e r t i l i z e r Materials The nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r materials are classed according to the manner i n which their nitrogen is combined with other elements, One group, which includes such f e r t i l i z e r s as Sodium Nitrate, have the nitro-gen combined in the nitrate form. These f e r t i l i z e r s are characterized by ready solubility in water and the nitrogen i s more quickly utilized by most crops than is that i n other classes of nitrogenous materials (2 ), The nitrate, however, because of i t s solubility i s most readily leached, especially from sandy s o i l s . Lyon and Bizzell ( l l ) found thirty percent more losses from Sodium Nitrate than from Ammonium Sulphate. Another group such as Ammonium Sulphate have their nitrogen in ammoniacal forms and although water-soluble they are less readily leached because they have a tendency to be fixed by certain of the s o i l constituents. The ammonia may be used directly or converted to nitrate nitrogen through the action of s o i l bacteria. A third class of nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r materials comprises animal products such as Dried Blood and Fish Sorap, end vegetable produote such as Cottonseed Meal, e l l of which are organic aramoniates. The nitro-gen i n these materials is combined in the form of complex organio com-pounds such as proteins which are for the most part water-insoluble. The fourth class includes the chemical oompounds Urea and Cal-cium Cyanamide which contain their nitrogen in the amide form and although they are considered organic f e r t i l i z e r s they will not reoeive considera-tion i n this experiment. Barker (1 ) and Schreiner et a l . (19) state that Sodium Nitrate and Ammonium Sulphate are two of the most widely used nitrogen f e r t i l i z e r 6. materials at the present time, their chief value being based on their ready ava i l a b i l i t y . For this reason, Barker states they are of particular value for short-season crops. The organic ammoniates, on the other hand, are slower i n ava i l a b i l i t y . Because they are more continuous as a source of nitrogen they are favored types for long-season crops. Dried Blood is considered a "fast" organic since i t is readily water-soluble and f a i r l y readily available. Laurie and Poesch (10) claim that under glasshouse conditions i t s ava i l a b i l i t y i s equivalent to that of Ammonium Sulphate. Fish Proteinate is known to be highly water-soluble but i t s av a i l a b i l i t y has not been determined. Since most of the useful plant food elements are oombined chemioally with other materials which are not necessarily of any value to the plant there i s often a residual effect upon the s o i l when repeated applications are made ( s i ) . Nitrates do not affect the s o i l reaction to any extent but the ammonia forms tend to replace the calcium from the s o i l fraction which in turn combines with the sulphate ions and as such is more readily leached leaving the s o i l acid ( 2 ). Barker (1 ) claims the ammonia f e r t i l i z e r gives better response than the nitrate on soils high in calcium. This has also been stated by Laurie and Poesch (10) and many other workers who have found that Ammonium Sulphate was more available than Sodium Nitrate on alkaline s o i l s . Barker further states that the sodium from Sodium Nitrate replaces part of the potassium i n the s o i l so may be bene-f i c i a l where soils are low i n available potassium. The sodium tends to break up the clay fraction and so improve the physical properties, an important factor in heavy s o i l s . The organic material such as Dried Blood and Fish Scrap tend to increase the acidity of a s o i l ( l ) (13), but to a 7. less degree than Ammonium Sulphate. In a previous experiment with a simi-lar product of Fish Waste (22) i t was found that in culture solutions toxicity arose, but this toxicity was not explained. A suggestion waB put forth that i t may have been due to other products in the fertilizer material. Because of the very different properties of the various fert i l i -zers and such varying significance in varying soil conditions, no single figure can accurately express their relative fertilizer values. For practical purposes it is important, however, to have a general guide, especially where prices are fixed by international agreement. From results based on field comparison, even though results vary with soil and crops, Nitrate of Soda has been favored over other forms as the basis of comparison ( 6), METHODS OF CONDUCTING THE EXPERIMENT: An experiment to test the comparative value of the Fish Protei-nate as a fertilizer was divided into two parts: (l) a field test with three other fertilizers on one type of soil but using two crops; and (2) a greenhouse project with the Fish Proteinate on four soil types and using one crop Q-^). The following discussion pertains to part one only. Tests were conducted in the Field Experimental Area of the Horticulture Department of the University Farm on light, sandy loam or Upland soil. The land had been used for testing other vegetable crops for a number of years prior to this experiment. For this reason the Latin Square Field Design was ohosen to eliminate much of the error due to soil variability. The results could then be treated statistically using the 8. "Analysis of Variance" and the "F M test as a method of evaluating differences. Materials In order to make a better evaluation of the Fish Proteinate, a comparison was made with another organic f e r t i l i z e r , Dried Blood, and two mineral f e r t i l i z e r s , Sodium Nitrate and Ammonium Sulphate, Two crops were grown, a leaf crop (Silver Heart Cos Lettuce) and a root crop (Red-oored Chantenay Carrot), The following table shows the nitrogen analysis of the four nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r s used: Material % Nitrate I Avail-N | a b i l i t y % Ammonium lAvail-N l a b i l i t y % organic 1 Avail-N l a b i l i t y (NH ) SO 4 2 4 NaNO 3 Dried Blood Fish * Prot. 16 | 100 20 1 90 12 1 80 8 1 The analysis as given by the manufacturer. The quantities of phosphorus and potassium contained i n the two organio f e r t i l i z e r s were so small that they were ignored. The balanoe of a complete f e r t i l i z e r was made up by additions of Superphosphate and Muriate of Potash, equal amounts being given to eaoh plot. 9. Prooedure: Two Latin Squares, each forty feet square were measured off with a five foot path separating them. The treatments were as follows: (columns) 1 2 3 4 (Rows) 1 B D A C 2 Lettuoe A B C D 3 D C B A 4 C A D B Pa th (Rows) 1 B D A C 2 Carrots A F C D 3 D C B A 4 C A D B m O t-i a* < ! ( B O O oo t <D U EM co c <A 5 •** o O rH o CO - *o -X ! © O P n O 5 a to CM 10. The plots were arranged i n a square, with the same number of plot, s in either direotion. The number of treatments is the same as tha number of plots i n each row or in each column of the square, and the number of replications i s likewise the same. Each treatment appears once in each row and once in erch oolun.n, so that the layout i s subject to two "restrictions". On June 10, the f e r t i l i z e r s were broadcast at the rate of 1500 pounds per aore, the amounts being based on a 4-10-.10 formula, so that the only treatment differences involved were the nitrogen sources. To insure even distribution, plots were treated separately, each plot receiving 2.2 oz. nitrogen, 5.6 0 2 . phosphate, and 5.6 oz. potash. In order to supply these required plot amounts 1 lb. 12 oz. of Fish Proteinate, 1 lb. 3 oz. Blood M6al, 11 oz. Ammonium Sulphate, and 15 oz. of Sodium Nitrate were used, being supplemented with 1 lb. 15 oz. of Superphosphate, and 9.1 oz. Muriate of Potash in each case. The oarrot seed was sown in rows or June 15, there being seven rows per plot. The lettuce seed, on the other hand, was f i r s t sown in flats i n the greenhouse the f i r s t week of June. A second sowing was neoessary when germination was found to be less than ten poroent. After one "prioking-off" or. June 24, the plants were moved to the f i e l d on July 13, an even spacing being maintained. The vegetables were given the usual care as to cultivation and protection from insects and diseases. Particu-lar attention was given to plot cultivation in order to minimize any carry-over effect of treatments between plots. 11. PLANT ANALYSIS; 1. Yield (Fresh Weight) For the fresh weight determination only the tops of the lettuce were used. The two outside or buffer rows in each plot were discarded as well as the end plants from each remaining row. Twenty-one lettuce plants were harvested from each plot. The carrots were harvested from five rows per plot and i n this case the two outside plot-rows were discarded along with one foot at the ends of each remaining row. Carrots were f i r s t weighed with tops; then roots were weighed separately to establish a top-root ratio. 2. Dry Weight: The dry weight determination was calculated in percentage of the fresh weight. From every second lettuce plant a cross section two inches wide was cut from the middle of the plant. These cross sections were then ground and mixed and a 300-gm, sample taken. From each plot of car-rots 25 representative roots were selected, washed and trimmed. The roots were then quartered, one quarter of each being kept for treatment similar to that of the ground lettuce. To determine the percentage dry weight the fresh material (300-gm. sample ) was dried in an oven at 65° for 48 hours. 3. Carbohydrate - Nitrogen Ratio; The nitrogen content of the plant materials was determined by using two 1 gm. samples of dry material for each of the plots. Analysis was oarried out by the Kjeldahl method (7 ). 12. To determine the carbohydrates, two 1 gm. samples of the dry material were used from each plot. The material was boiled with concen-trated HC1 and water for 2g hours in flasks fitted with reflux condensors. The material was then cooled, filt e r e d , and neutralized with NaQH. Volume was then made up to 150 cc. with d i s t i l l e d water. The carbohydrate was determined as reducing sugar by the Lane and Eynon method (9). A ratio between the nitrogen and the carbohydrate was then established. 4. Ash Weight: The ash weight was determined by incinerating two 1 gm. samples from each plot in an electric muffle furnace at 650° C. until ashed. Amounts of carbohydrate, nitrogen and ash are expressed as per-centages of fresh weight (edible portion), since the author wished to treat the results in a similar manner to that employed by food analysts. METHOD OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS: The method of st a t i s t i c a l analysis of data was that used by Goulden (5). The procedure is based on variations between different plots receiving the same treatment as compared with variations between plots receiving different treatments. Obviously, i f they are to be considered significant, the d i f f e r -ences between treatments must be greater than differences between plots having the same treatment. The comparison i s made by the "F"- test and forms the basis for judging significance. The data i s arranged according to blocks, columns, and treat-ments. The next procedure i s the Analysis of Variance to determine whether the differences are large enough to be attributed to the treatments used. 13. The total variance in any set of plots i s due in part to the different treatments, to difference in the s o i l or conditions i n the several blocks to whioh each treatment is applied, and to unknown and uncontrolled factors, or in other words "error". The "F"- test is used to determine whether the mean variance due to treatments does sufficiently exceed that due to blooks or columns so that one i s justified i n conclud-ing that significant variations were caused by the treatments. If the differences between the calculated values and the tabled values of "F" indicate significant differences for treatments, one is justified in comparing individual treatments on the basis of least significant difference. 15 DRY WEIGHT. TABLE II Dry weight of Lettuce expressed as percentage of fresh weight. Rows 1 C 0 L U 2 M N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T M E N Totals T Means 1 4.738 5.265 5.108 6.555 20.666 A-Fish 21.143 6.29 2 4.738 4.072 4.965 6.982 20.757 B-Blood 20.883 5.22 3 6.535 5.642 6.065 7.125 25.367 C,NaN05 22.034 5.51 4 5.872 4.172 4.665 6.008 20.717 D-(HH 4) 2S0 4 23.447 5.86 Column Totals 21.883 19.151 20.803 25.670 87.507 Analysis of Variance: S. S. D. F. Variance F. 5% Point of F. Rows 4.06 3 1.35 4.09 4.76 Columns 5.75 3 1.92 5.82 * 4.76 Treatments 1.01 3 0.34 1.03 4.76 Error 1.97 6 0.33 Total 12.79 15 The above teble shows that while there i s a tendency for the Lettuce whioh received the organio f e r t i l i z e r s to have a lower percentage dry weight than that which received the inorganics, the differences are not significant. 14. RESULTS LETTUCE: YIELD. TABLE I Yield of Lettuce in pounds per plot together with analysis of variance. C O L U M N S Rows Row Total Si H T R E A T M E N T Totals Means 1 2 3 4 19.49 19.60 25.74 15.69 11.84 19.76 18.45 10.02 11.17 14.87 20.96 15.34 13.56 24.43 20.39 18.62 80.52 I) A-Fish 60.07 IS B-Blood 62.34 l! C-NaNOc 77.35 19.34 78.83 19.71 62.57 15.64 77.00 I| D-(NH4)gS04 61.18 15.30 Column Totals 56.06 78.66 85.54 59.67 279.93 M Analysis of Variance: S.S. D.F. Variance F. 5$Point of F. Rows 79.24 3 26.41 15.18* 4.76 Columns 154.38 3 51.45 29.57* 4.76 Treatments 66.25 3 22.08 12.69* 4.76 Error 10.45 6 1.74 Total 310.32 15 Minimum mean significant difference • 2.28 *Indicates a calculated value for MF" larger than the tabled value. The above table shows that the differences between the mean yields from the organic and inorganic treatments are large enough to be significant. No significance can be attributed to the differences between the two organic f e r t i l i z e r s or between the two inorganic treatments. 16. CARBOHYDRATE. TABLE III Carbohydrate content of Lettuce expressed as percentage of fresh weight. Rows 1 C 0 L U 2 M N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T M E N T Totals Means 1 .962 1.518 1.714 1.238 5.432 A-Fish 7.082 1.77 2 1.174 1.090 1.506 2.730 6.500 B-Blood 6.698 1.68 3 2.874 1.833 2.386 2.966 10.059 C-•NaNOg 6.537 1.63 4 1.960 1.228 1.364 2.260 6.812 D-(NH 4) 2S0 4 8.486 2.12 Column Totals 6.970 5.669 6.970 9.194 28.803 Analysis of Variance: S. S. D. F. Variance F. 5% Point of F. Rows 2.986 3 .995 4.32 4.76 Columns 1.607 3 .536 2.33 4.76 Trea tments .591 3 .197 .857 4.76 Error 1.381 6 .230 Total 6.565 15 The above table does not show any significance i n the effects of treatments on the carbohydrate content of Lettuoe. 17. NITROGEN. TABLE IV Total nitrogen of Lettuce expressed as percentage of fresh weight. Rows C 1 0 L U M 2 N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T H E N Totals T Means 1 .133 .162 .141 .167 .603 A-Fish .681 .145 2 .140 .102 .141 .165 .548 B-Blood .552 .138 3 .154 .195 .167 .201 .717 C-NaHOg .674 .169 4 .170 .089 .128 .151 .548 D-(NH ) SO V 4^2 4 .609 .162 Column TotaIs .597 .558 .577 .684 2.416 Analysis of Variance: S. S. D. F. Variance F. 5% Point of F. ROWB .005 3 .00166 3.32 4.76 Columns .002 3 .00066 1.32 4.76 Treatments .002 3 .00066 1.32 4.76 Error .003 6 .0005 Total .012 15 The above table shows that Lettuce from the plots whioh received the organic f e r t i l i z e r s had a lower nitrogen content than those which received the inorganics. The analysis of Variance, however, does not confirm these results as significant. 18. TABLE V Carbohydrate-nitrogen ratios of Lettuce based on Tables III and IT. Rows 1 C 0 L U 1 2 A N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T M E N Totals T Means 1 7.23 9.37 12.16 7.41 36.17 A-Fish 47.71 12.2 2 8.39 10.69 10.67 16.55 46.30 B-Blood 47.18 12.1 3 18.66 9.40 14.29 14.76 57.11 CNaNOg 39.01 9.7 4 11.53 12.40 10.66 14.97 49.56 D-(NH 4) 2S0 4 55.24 13.9 Column Totals 45.81 41.86 47.78 53.69 189.14 Analysis of Varianoe: S. S. D. F. Varianoe F. b% Point of F. Rows 56.56 3 18.85 2.06 4.76 Columns 18.22 3 6.07 .66 4.76 Treatments 32.99 3 11.00 1.2 4.76 Error 54.87 6 9.15 Total 162.44 15 The similarity in C/N ratios for Lettuoe plants receiving the organio f e r t i l i z e r s i s of interest. Ratios for plants in the inorganic plots did not show the same tendency. The analysis of varianoe, however, shows that differences are not due to effects of treatments. 19. ASH. TABLE VI Ash weight of Lettuce expressed as percentage of fresh weight. Rows 1 C 0 L U 2 M N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T M E N Totals T Means 1 .734 .810 .755 1.122 3.421 A-Fish 3.323 .831 2 .750 .579 .892 1.042 3.263 B-Blood 3.297 .824 3 .912 .818 .972 1.017 3.719 C-NaNOg 3.889 .972 4 1.057 ,.801 .851 1.012 3.721 D-(NH 4) 2S0 4 3.615 .904 Column", Totals 3.453 3.008 3.470 4.193 14.124 Analysis of Variance: S. S. D. F. Variance F. 5% Point of F. Rows .039 3 .013 1.625 4.76 Columns .180 3 .060 7.5 * 4.76 Treatments .058 3 .019 2.375 4.76 Error .045 6 .008 Total .322 15 The above table shows that the organic f e r t i l i z e r s produced Lettuce of a lower mineral content than did the inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s . The analysis of variance, however, indicates that the differences are not significant. 20. CARROTS: YIELD, (roots) TABLE VII Yield of Carrots i n pounds per plot together with analysis of variance. Rows 1 C O L U M N S 2 3 4 ! Row Totals : I R E A T M E N T Totals Means 1 13.38 11.19 24.25 18.00 i 66.82 | A-Fish 71.56 17.89 2 12.00 19.00 21.75 21.13 73.88 B-Blood 71.50 17.88 3 11.31 14.00 22.75 20.00 68.06 1 c--NaN03 61.56 15.39 4 7.61 15.31 18.50 16.38 i 58.00 | D--(NH 4) 2S0 4 62.13 15.53 Column* Totals 44.50 59.50 87.25 75.51 i 266.76 | ! Analysis of Variance; •S. S. D. F. Variance F. 5% Point of F. Rows 32.27 3 10.76 2.677 4.76 Columns 261.15 3 87.05 21.654* 4.76 Treatments 23.15 3 7.72 1.92 4.76 Error 24.14 6 4.02 Total 340.70 15 Minimum mean significant difference = 3.48 The above table shows that a similar trend occurred with Carrots as with Lettuce: namely, the organic f e r t i l i z e r applications increased the yield over that of the inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s . In this case, however, the differences were not significant. CARROT TOPS. TABLE Vin 21. Weight of Carrot tops i n pounds per plot, together with root-top> ratios by treatments. Rows 1 C O L 2 U M N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T M E N I Totals Means RAop 1 7.19 6.13 13.88 10.50 37,69 A-Fish 36.50 9.13 1.96 2 6.06 9.38 12.00 11,50 38.94 B-Blood 36.88 9.22 1.94 3 5.88 7.75 11,31 9.31 34.26 C-NaNOg 34.69 8.67 1.78 4 4.44 7.25 9.13 9.00 29.81 D-(NH 4) 2S0 4 32.63 8.16 1.90 Column Totals 23.56 30.50 46.31 40.31 140.69 Analysis of Varianoe: S. S. D. F. Variance F. 5$ Point of F. Rows 12.54 3 4.18 2.58 4.76 Columns 76.61 3 25.54 15.77 * 4.76 Treatments 3.02 3 1.01 .62 4.76 Error 9.73 6 1.62 Total 101.90 15 This table shows the same tendencies i n top weights as found in Table VII for roots, where the organios gave higher yield than the inor-ganios. The differences by analysis of variance were non-significantj therefore they oannot be attributed to treatments. The Root-top ratios show the same trend with the largest top per root for plants receiving Sodium Nitrate. 22. DRY WEIGHT. TABLE IX Dry weight of Carrots expressed as percentage of fresh weight. Rows C 1 O L U M N S 2 3 4 Row TotaIs T R E A T M E N T Totals Means 1 6.247 5.725 8.795 8.973 29.740 A-Fish 38.677 9.67 2 9.692 8.903 9.499 9.081 37.175 B-Blood 36.162 9.04 3 11.107 10.765 11.182 11.062 44.116 C-NaNOg 37.186 9.30 4 7.949 9.128 8.917 9.830 35.824 D-(NH 4) 2S0 4 34.830 8.71 Column Totals 34.995 34.521 38.393 38.946 146.855 Analysis of Variance: S. S. D. F. Varianoe F. 5% Point of F. Rows 26.108 3 8.703 10.473 * 4.76 Columns 3.892 3 1.297 1.561 4.76 Treatments 1.983 3 .661 .795 4.76 Error 4.984 6 .831 Total 36.967 15 The above table does not show any significant difference as a result of treatments. 23. CARBOHYDRATE. TABLE X Carbohydrate oontent of Carrots expressed as percentage of fresh weight. Rows C 1 0 L U M 2 N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T M E N Totals T Means 1 2.748 2.634 5.590 5.776 16.748 A-Fish 26.836 6.71 2 6.990 5.988 6.390 6.164 25.532 3-Blood 23.116 5.78 3 8.20C 7.652 8.024 8.380 32.262 C-NaN0s 23.762 5.94 4 3.944 5.876 5.550 6.356 21.726 D-(NH 4) 2S0 4 22.554 6.64 Column Totals 10.944 11.075 12.777 13.338 48.134 Analysis of Variance: S. S. D. F. Variance F. Point of F. Rows 32.088 3 10.696 10.66 * 4.76 Columns 4.360 3 1.453 1.453 4.76 Treatments 2.740 3 .913 .91 4.76 Error 6.020 6 1.003 Total 45.208 15 The above table does not show any significant difference due to treatments. 24 NITROGEN. TABLE XI Total nitrogen of Carrots expressed as percentage of fresh weight. Rows C O L U M N S Row T R E A T M E N T 1 2 3 4 Totals Totals Means 1 .173 .140 .143 .156 ! .612 | A-Fish .508 .127 2 .122 .126 .177 .160 .585 j B-Blood .615 .154 3 .145 .179 .167 .118 .609 I C-NaN03 .687 .172 4 .175 .125 .170 .149 .619 1 MN H^SO^ 1 .615 .154 Column Totals) .615 .570 .657 .583 2.425 1 j 1 Analysis of Variance: S.S. D.F. Variance F. 5% Point of F. Rows .000 3 0 0 4.76 Columns .001 3 .0003 3 4.76 Treatments .004 3 .0013 13* 4.76 Error .001 6 .0001 Total .006 15 Minimum Mean Significant Difference » 0.017 While no significant difference appeared in Lettuce, a leaf crop, with Carrots, the Fish Proteinate gave a significantly low percentage nitrogen. On the other hand the NaNO, showed highest nitrogen, the difference by analysis of variance being attributed to treatments. 25. CARBOHYDRATES-NITROGEN RATIO TABLE XII Carbohydrate-nitrogen ratios of Carrots based on Tables X and XI Rows C 1 0 L U 2 H N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T ii n Totals T Means 1 15.88 18.82 39.10 37.02 110.82 A-Fish 214.42 52.8 2 57.30 47.52 36.10 33.62 179.44 B-Blood 154.10 37.5 3 56.60 42.74 48.04 71.02 218.40 C-NaNOg 138.40 34.5 4 22.54 47.00 32.64 42.66 144.84 D-(NH 4) 2S0 4 146.58 36.6 Column Totals 162.32 156.08 145.88 189.22 653.50 Analysis of Varianoe: S. S. D. F. Variance F. 5% Point of F. Rows 1,597.85 3 532.617 7.89 * 4.76 Columns 224.89 3 74.964 1.11 4.76 Treatments 899.36 3 299.787 4.44 4.76 Error 404.85 6 67.475 Total 3,126.95 15 The above table ehows that the Fish Proteinate gave the highest C/N ratio, but by analysis of variance the differences are not due to treatments• 26. ASH. TABLE XIII Ash weight of Carrots expressed as percentage of fresh weight. Rows C 1 O L D 2 H N S 3 4 Row Totals T R E A T M E N Totals T Means 1 .706 .635 .843 .896 3.080 A-Fish 3.286 .822 2 .887 .816 .871 .739 3.313 B-Blood 2.923 .731 5 .683 .686 .772 .744 2.885 CNaNOg 3.244 .811 4 .791 .812 .620 .629 2.852 D-(NH 4) 2S0 4 2.677 .669 Column Totals 3.067 2.949 3.106 3.008 12.130 Analysis of Variance S. S. D. F. Variance F. 5% Point of F. Rows .034 3 .011 2.2 4.76 Columns .004 3 .001 0.2 4.76 Treatments .062 3 .021 4.2 4.76 Error .028 6 .006 Total .128 15 The above table does not show the same trend which ocourred in Lettuce where the organics produced a lower mineral oontent. In each oase, however, the Fish Proteinate gave a higher percentage ash than the Dried Blood, while the NaNOg led the (NH4.)2S04. The analysis of varianoe did not indicate significant differences between treatments. 27. TABLE XIV Most effective treatment for each determination on Lettuce by rows and oolumns. Rows 1 2 3 4 Fresh weight Fish Blood Blood Fish % dry weight NaNOg (NH 4) 2B0 4 Fish Blood % carbohydrate Fish (NH 4) 2S0 4 Fish Blood % nitrogen NaNOg (NH 4) 2S0 4 Fish MaNOg % ash NaNOg (NH 4) 2S0 4 Fish NaNO 3 C/N Fish (NH 4) 2S0 4 (NH 4) 2S0 4 Blood Columns 1 2 3 4 Fresh weight Blood Fish Fish Blood % dry weight (NH 4) 2S0 4 NaNOg Blood Fish % carbohydrate (NH 4) 2S0 4 NaNOg Blood Fish % nitrogen NaNOg NaN03 Blood Fish % ash NaNOg NaNO, 3 Blood NaNOg C/N (NH 4) 2S0 4 Fish Blood (NH 4) 2S0 4 TABLE XV 28. Most effective treatment for each determination on Carrots by rows and columns. Rows 1 2 3 4 Fresh weight Fish NaNOg Blood (NH 4) 2S0 4 % dry weight NaNOg Fish Blood Blood % carbohydrate NaNOg Fish Fish Blood % nitrogen Blood NaNOg NaNOg NaNO 0 % ash NaNOg Fish Blood Fish Root/top Blood Blood Fish Fish C/N Fish Fish Fish Fish Columns 1 2 3 4 Fresh weight Blood Blood Fish (NH 4) 2S0 4 % dry weight (NH 4) 2S0 4 NaNOg Blood Fish % carbohydrate (NH 4) 2S0 4 NaNOg Blood Fish % nitrogen NaNOg NaNOg NaNOg (NH4)2S04 % aah Fish Blood NaNOg NaNOg Root/top Fish Fish (NH 4) 2S0 4 Fish C/N Fish Blood Blood Fish 29. TABLE XVI Average results by treatments f o r each determination made on Lettuce. Determination )ried Blood Fish Proteinate (NH 4) 2S0 4 NaNOg Yield (pounds) 19.71 19.34 15.30 15.64 Dry weight - % fresh weight 5.22 5.29 5.86 5.51 Carbohydrate % fresh weight 1.68 1.77 2.12 1.63 (# dry weight) (32.08) (33.50) (36.20) (29.70) Nitrogen % fresh weight .138 .145 .152 .169 (% dry weight) (2.6) (2.6) (2.6) (3.1) Ash % fresh weight .824 .831 .904 .972 {% dry weight) (15.8) (15.7) (15.4) (17.7) C/N - on fresh weight 12.1 12.2 13.9 9.7 TABLE XVII Average results by treatments for each determination made on Carrots. Determination Dried Blood Fish Proteinate (NH 4) 2S0 4 NaNOg Yield (pounds) 17.88 17.89 15.53 15.39 Dry weight - % Fresh weight 9.04 9.67 8.71 9.30 Carbohydrate % fresh weight 5.78 6.71 5.64 5.94 {% dry weight) (63.9) (69.4) (64.8) (63.9) Nitrogen % fresh weight .154 .127 .154 .172 (% dry weight) (1.7) (1.8) (1.8) (1.9) Ash % fresh weight .731 .822 .669 .811 {% dry weight) (8.1) (8.5) (7.7) (8.7) Root/top 1.94 1.96 1.90 1.78 C/N on fresh weight 37.5 52.8 36.6 34.5 Pound8 Harvest Figure I. - The average yield of Carrots and Lettuce as influenced by f e r t i l i z e r applications. 32. Key_ 1. dry weight 2. carbohydrate 3. nitrogen 4. ash "4-2 2 1 4 I 4 1 3 1 1 3I Dried Blood Pish Proteinate 3 S T a t f O „ (KH4)2S0 4 Figure II - Lettuce: Dry weight, carbohydrate, nitrogen and ash as affected by f e r t i l i z e r applications Key 1. dry weight 2. carbohydrate 3. nitrogen 4. ash Figure III. - Carrots: Dry weight, carbohydrate, nitrogen, and ash as affected by f e r t i l i z e r applications 34. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS: The primary object i n the use of any f e r t i l i z e r is to produce a profit, which i n turn, is governed largely by the f e r t i l i z e r effects on crops and s o i l s . Other important factors to be considered are the physical properties of the f e r t i l i z i n g material and the economy of i t s application. Since yields, to the farmer, mean profits, the discussion w i l l relate to the fresh weights, mainly] but other factors that have a direct bearing on yields w i l l be treated in their proper place. Extreme va r i a b i l i t y due to s o i l heterogeneity was encountered throughout the entire f i e l d design and this has influenced results to an extent, but because the Latin Square f i e l d design was used the degree of error was minimized. Such was the case i n fresh weights of lettuce where variations ranged from 11.84 lba to 25.74 lbs. in one treatment and from 10.02 lbs. to 20.39 lbs. in another. Differences appeared significant by "analysis of variance" in only one other instance, the percentage of nitro-gen i n carrots. However, when total nitrogen in the roots was calculated there were no appreciable differences between the results of any two fer-t i l i z e r s . The disoussion, then, w i l l be based on trends that are shown by averages of the four blocks i n each treatment and these are shown in Table XVI and Table XVII. Va r i a b i l i t y i n trends is also pointed out i n Table XIV and Table XV, by naming the f e r t i l i z e r giving the highest results in each row and column for lettuce and carrots. Thus, for lettuce fresh weights, i t can be seen at a glance that the organic f e r t i l i z e r s consistently led the inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s i n yield. Table XVI extablishes this faot by giving the average values so that onoe more a glance w i l l show the inorease 35. i n yields by the organic materials. The differences between the organics and the inorganics were large enough to show significance due to treatment. However, beoause there was no difference between the two organic results, i t oan be said only that the Fish Proteinate was no better than the Dried Blood, but considerably better than the inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s i n producing large lettuce plants. Table XV does not show such consistent results in oarrots although the organics and Ammonium Sulphate are predominant. This is further substantiated in Table XVII which shows that the organios pro-duced higher yields than the mineral f e r t i l i z e r s , and that the Ammonium Sulphate was only slightly better than Sodium Nitrate. According to the analysis of variance, the differences in treatments i n oarrots were not large enough to attribute them to treatments and so are non-significant. Here, as i n the lettuce, there was no difference between the results of either the two organics or of the two inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s . This is shown graphically in Figure 1. These results oompare with Barker's state-ment that organic f e r t i l i z e r s give larger yields than inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s on non-manured plots, expecially in areas that are low in phosphorus. Sinoe the effect of nitrogen is manifest principally i n the green foliage of the plant, and sinoe the amount of root is closely dependent on the amount of foliage, the yield so far as f e r t i l i z e r s may influence i t , is governed by the nitrogen available. It would appear from this, then, that the plants receiving the organic f e r t i l i z e r s had more hitrogen available for assimilation than those having the inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s . This explan-ation would seem a l l the more plausible knowing the high solubility of the two inorganic materials, Sodium Nitrate in particular, and that the period following the application of f e r t i l i z e r was extremely wet. However, by 36. comparing the total nitrogen i n the plants on a block average, i t was found that the amounts were very similar; and that the two inorganic materials gave only slightly lower results although they showed higher nitrogen percentages. The organics, expecially the Fish Proteinate, produced the largest roots i n relation to the tops i n carrots, while on the other hand, the Sodium Nitrate favoured top growth. This tendency for Sodium Nitrate to produce a larger top than Ammonium Sulphate wa» exhibited in the lettuce blocks also, but to a less degree. The author believes that much of the applied nitrogen i n the mineral forms was leaohed during the period of heavy precipitation and that both the organics were retained i n the s o i l to a greater degree. The plants u t i l i z e d the nitrate and ammonia nitrogen i n the early stages of growth but as the amounts became progressively less the rate of growth also slowed, resulting i n plants having a comparatively higher percentage dry weight. During this period the organic materials were being converted to available forms which gave available nitrogen over a longer period. This would account, in part at least, for greater growth and more succulenoe in lettuce plants receiving the organic f e r t i l i z e r s , using dry weight per-centage as an indication of tenderness. The percentages dry weight for these plants would be lower, and nitrogen expressed as a percent of fresh weight would also be less. This is shown in Table XVI and also in Figure II. However, since the total amounts of nitrogen were very similar a l l plants assimilated approximately the same amount of nitrogen tut the organic fer-t i l i z e r s produced some stimulating effect on growth that was not manifest in the mineral f e r t i l i z e r s . Furthermore, there may have been an additive effect from the small amounts of phosphorus contained i n the Dried Blood 37. and Fish Proteinate, amounts so small that they were considered i n s i g n i f i -cant for this experiment. Further analytical work beyond the scope of this experiment would be necessary before this statement could be made definite. Proportional relationships among results of this experiment were not established in a l l cases bit certain trends were apparent and these are shown graphically in Figure II and Figure III. In a few instanoes a re-lationship in one crop was opposed by a similar relationship i n the other. Such was the case where fresh weights and dry weight percentages were com-pared but there is reason to suppose this i s to be expected sinoe the analyses were made on different sections of the plants, the leaf i n one oase and the root in the other. There were no dttfinite relationships i n percentages carbohydrate, nitrogen end ash, but where differences occurred, other changes were made to more or less compensate one another so that the net results were not very different. This i s shown i n Table XVI where Sodium Nitrate produced a low percentage carbohydrate but relatively high percentages of nitrogen and ash. Again, i n Table XVII, the Fish Proteinate gave a high percentage carbohydrate, a very low percentage nitrogen, and an average percentage ash. Since the dry weight i s composed largely of carbohydrates, i t is logical to assume a more or less direct relationship between the two. This was found to be true in both carrot and lettuce plants where, in a l l but one exception in each case, Table XTV and Table XV, the row or column that gave the highest percentage dry weight also gave the highest percent-age carbohydrate. This relationship is borne out by the block averages in Table XVI and Table XVII. The Sodium Nitrate proved to be an exception by 3 8 . favouring to a greater degree than any other f e r t i l i z e r in this experiment, the formation of nitrogenous compounds over carbohydrates. A comparison of the carbohydrate-nitrogen ratios shown i n Tables XVI and XVII indicates that the Sodium Nitrate was low i n both cases. There was l i t t l e difference i n results of other f e r t i l i z e r s except i n carrots where the ratio for the Pish Proteinate was very high. Such a wide ratio here was due to both a high carbohydrate and a low nitrogen determination. Thus a reciprocal relationship between carbohydrate and nitrogen was established and accord-ing to theory this i s usually the case. Finally, plants that were high in percentage nitrogen in most instances showed a tendency for a high percentage ash with a certain balance being maintained between the amounts of carbohydrate and ash. How the nitrogen caused the plants to absorb more mineral matter with l i t t l e increase i n growth cannot be explained but i t i s believed inter-related i n some way with water transpiration and the concentration of the so i l solution. It would appear, since the percentage nitrogen i s high, that nitrogenous compounds are synthesized at the expense of carbohydrates; and that during this process the absorption of minerals i s increased. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It was shown in Table XVI and Table XVII that the organic f e r t i l i z e r s produced greater average fresh weights than the inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s . When these results are estimated on an acreage basis, instead of the area harvested per plot, the increases by the organic f e r t i l i z e r s are more than 2000 pounds in lettuce and over 1500 pounds in carrots. At the present prices of carrots and lettuce where sold by weight, these yield-gains are equivalent to more than enough to offset 39. the additional cost of the organic f e r t i l i z e r s . Using the nitrogen level of 60 pounds per acre as a basis for reckoning costs, the prices of the commercial f e r t i l i z e r s would be approximated $10.00 for NaUOj, $7.00 for (ra 4) 2S0 4, and $17.00 for Dried Blood. The increase i n yield on the light s o i l would warrant the increase i n price over the inorganic f e r t i l -izers, but i n order to compete with Dried Blood, the Fish Proteinate would have to se l l for approximately two-thirds i t s cost. The third factor of importance i n the choice of a f e r t i l i z e r i s i t s physical properties and herein l i e the weaknesses of the Fish Proteinate. The material i s 3 0 fine i n texture that applications are made with extreme d i f f i c u l t y . The slightest breeze blows the f e r t i l i z e r in broadcast methods and in d r i l l i n g i t reacts very poorly to gravity and clogs the f e r t i l i z e r d r i l l s . Furthermore, the material i s s t i l l quite deliquescent. Where paper bags were used i n weighing the material, adherence to the inside of the bag was so bad this method had to be dis-continued. Then, too, after the Proteinate was applied, i t quickly absorbed moisture and caked so that i t could not be incorporated into the s o i l without d i f f i c u l t y . The improved laminated asphalt bag that i s manufactured by some of the paper mills would probably eliminate much of the d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced in packaging, but i t i s the author*s opinion that some form other than the present powder w i l l be necessary before this product can be of commercial importance. 40. SUMMARY Under the conditions of this experiment, the Fish waste-product showed possibilities as a f e r t i l i z e r by producing a better plant growth response than either Sodium Nitrate or Ammonium Sulphate, in comparison with Dried Blood, the Fish Proteinate gave as good results in lettuce and better results in carrots. Although water-soluble, i t gave a s o i l retention equivalent to that of Dried Blood and proved a good source of nitrogen for a long period. Its chief faults are i t s fine texture and i t s deliquescent nature, which may be overcome by changing the physical natufe of the product. Until this is done, the Proteinate is not l i k e l y to meet with favor as a f e r t i l i z e r . 41. LITERATURE CITED 1. Barker, A. S. The Use of F e r t i l i z e r s . London, Oxford University Press. 1935. 2. Bear, P. E. Soils and F e r t i l i z e r s . John Wiley & Sons Inc. 1942. 3. Breazeale, J. F. The effect of plant food upon the absorption by plants of another element. Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 19. 1928. 4. Emmert, E. M. The effect of s o i l reaction on the growth of tomatoes and lettuce and on the nitrogen, phosphorus, and manganese content of the so i l and plant. Kentucky Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 314. 1931. 5. Goulden, C. H. Methods of Sta t i s t i c a l Analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 1939. 6. Great Britain. Bui. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The effect of nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r s on the growth end composition of the crop. A r t i f i c i a l F e r t i l i z e r s Bui. 28. A typewritten extract from Bui. 28. Dept. of Hort. The University of B. C. 7. Kjeldahl Method: Plant Analysis. A.O.A.C. page 26. 1945. 8. Kraus, E. J., and Kraybill, R. H. Vegetation and reproduction with special reference to the tomato. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 149. 1918. 9. Lane and Eynon Method: Plant Analysis. A.O.A.C. page 447. 1938. 10. Laurie, A. and Poesch, G. H. Commercial Flower Forcing. Section on f e r t i l i z e r s , pages 142-179. The Blakiston Co. 1941. 11. Lyon, T. L. and B i z z e l l , J. A. Lysimeter experiments with sulphate of ammonia and nitrate of soda. Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 47 No. 1. 1933. 42, 12. McMullan, M. J. The evaluation of a new f e r t i l i z e r derived from f i s h waste. Master's Thesis. Dept. of Horticulture, The University of B. C. 13. Millar, C. E. and Turk, L. M. Fundamentals of Soil Science. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 1946. 14. Miller, E. C. Plant Physiology. McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1931. 15. Murneek, A. E. Effects of correlation between vegetative and reproduction functions in a tomato. Plant Physiology 1:3 - 56. 1926. 16. Nightingale, G. I., H. M. Addams, W. H. Robbins, and L. G. Schermerhom. Effects of calcium deficiency on nitrate absorption and on metabolism in tomato. Plant Physiology. Vol. VI. No. 4. 17. Raber, 0. Principles of Plant Physiology. MacMillan Co. 1928. 18. Schreiner, 0., and Brown, 3. E. Soil nitrogen. Soils and Men. U.S.D.A. 1938. 19. Schreiner, 0., A. R. Merz, and B. E. Brown Fe r t i l i z e r materials. Soils and Men. U.S.D.A. 1938. 20. Schreiner, 0 . , and Skinner, J. J. Nitrogenous s o i l constituents and their bearing on s o i l f e r t i l i t y . U.S.D.A. Bur. Soils Bui. 87 1912. 21. Wheeting, L. C , E. L. Overholser, and S. C. Vandecaveye. The farmer's f e r t i l i z e r handbook. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 165. 1942. 22. Young, V. M. The determination of the value of a f i s h product f e r t i l i z e r . Unpublished report. Dept. of Hort. The University of B. C. 1945. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106744/manifest

Comment

Related Items