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 in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of  V/'  ULSTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE  April 1947  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The author wishes to express his apprec i a t i o n to Dr. A. F. Barss, Professor  and Head of  the Department of Horticulture, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r his encouragement i n the completion of t h i s work.  The -writer also acknowledges -with many  thanks, the assistance Professor  given by Dr. G. H. Harris,  of Horticulture, Plant Nutrition, University  of B r i t i s h Columbia, i n the planning and execution of the experimental work.  \  TABLE  0 F  C-QIIillfS Page  Introduction  •  1  Review of Literature: Plant response to nitrogen  . . . . .  2  Nitrogen forms utilized by plants . . . Nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r materials  . .  Methods of Conducting the Experiment . . . Materials .  4 5 7  . . . . .  8  Procedure  9  Analyses of plant material  11  Method of statistics  12  Results: Lettuce  14  Carrots  20  Summary  27  Discussion of Results  .,  .  Observations and Recommendations Summary  . . . . . . . . .  Literature Cited  34 38  . . . . . . .  40 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 p r o d u c t from a v i t a m i n o i l e x t r a c t i o n was t e s t e d t o a s c e r t a i n i t s value o b t a i n an e v a l u a t i o n , known f e r t i l i z e r s .  as a f e r t i l i z e r .  I n order  I n both Lettuce  and C a r r o t c r o p s , under  s u p e r i o r to  sodium n i t r a t e  texture  properties  faults  well field  the f i s h waste proved as good as d r i e d b l o o d and  fine  to  comparisons were made w i t h t h r e e o t h e r  conditions,  The c h i e f  process  and ammonium s u l p h a t e . of t h i s  and d e l i q u e s c e n t  of t h i s proteinate  f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l are  nature.  U n t i l the  a r e changed,  l i k e l y to meet w i t h favour as a  fertilizer.  its  physical  the p r o d u c t  i s not  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 e f f o r t was put f o r t h to f i n d an ideal p r a c t i c a l 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 i n o r -  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 f o r some time.  However, newer products  are being introduced from time to time as o a r r i e r s of plant nutrients, some of which are b e n e f i c i a l while others are of l i t t l e value. Recently, F i s h Proteinate, an organic by-product of a vitamin o i l - e x t r a c t i o n prooess, was  suggested as a source of nitrogen.  This  fish  product, using diatomaceous earth as a drying agent, i s 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 i s to evaluate  t h i s product by comparing i t s effects upon plant response with those of three other w e l l known nitrogen-carriers, Sodium Nitrate, Ammonium Sulphate 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  ability  of this F i s h Proteinate, the discussion w i l l r e l a t e 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 e s s e n t i a l 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 i s d e f i c i e n t , the leaves of plants are generally stunted and f o l i a g e i s yellow and s i c k l y i n appearance.  An abundanoe of a v a i l a b l e nitrogen,  on the other hand, seems to favor vegetative growth and to retard the formation of f r u i t p a r t s .  Kraus and K r a y b i l l (8 ), as w e l l as Murneek (15),  bear out the theory that both nitrogen and carbohydrates for the development of f r u i t .  must be present  Emmert ( 4 ) i n his work on tomatoes and  lettuoe shows that there i s a close r e l a t i o n s h i p between the n i t r a t e i n the s o i l and that i n the plant, which i n turn i s correlated with y i e l d s . He also states that an alkaline reaction not only stimulates  nitrification  i n the s o i l , but also stimulates both absorption and a s s i m i l a t i o n by the growing plant.  Hoagland, on the other hand, claims that nitrates enter  the plant more slowly i n an a l k a l i n e medium.  Nightingale et. a l . ( i 6 )  substantiated Emmert's theory when they found that calcium starvation resulted i n a non-nitrogen  absorption.  Brazeale (3 ) considers there i s  a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the absorption of potassium and n i t r a t e s ; that potassium i s p r o b a l l y necessary i n the prooess of synthesis of protein-like compounds.  5. F i n a l l y , Kraus and K r a y b i l l (6 ) state that nitrates may aid i n rapid growth and formation of new c e l l s which have r e l a t i v e l y thinner and less l i q u i f i a d walls and a greater percentage of amphoteric substanoes having a high water-holding  capacity.  This would account f o r the faot  that a high n i t r a t e supply gives a high degree of succulence. w  The nitrogen entering the root from the s o i l i s ohanged i n the  plant into amides and amino-acids, and these are changed i n t o 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; t h i s i s followed by more  carbohydrate  production, more water t r a n s p i r a t i o n and more absorption of mineral matter from the s o i l . These changes are not exaotly proportionate, however; the inoreased nitrogen increases the e f f i c i e n c y 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 e f f i c i e n c y of the leaf as a producer of carbohydrates". ( 6 )• Therefore, when the amounts of nitrogen are r e l a t i v e l y small, the changes more or less compensate one another and the net r e s u l t i s a larger plant.  Actually, i t i s not very d i f f e r e n t i n composition,  but may  contain the same or even a smaller percentage of nitrogen. Where conditions for growth are favorable, the a d d i t i o n a l n i t r o gen may a i d production of carbohydrates  to the extent of over-balancing the  nitrogen compounds and r e s u l t i n g i n a lower percentage of nitrogen. large quantities of nitrogenous  Where  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 i n the form  4. of a storage product.  This excess of nitrogen compounds not only involves  a proportionate reduction i n some or a l l of the non-nitrogenous compounds, but also apparently has some harmful effect on the plant. becomes large, dark green i n colour, soft and succulent.  The vegetation These are then  susceptible to attack by both insects and diseases; furthermore, may be reduced. accumulation  yields  The balance thus upset can be restored by an increased  of carbohydrate which i s brought about by adding phosphorio  and potassio f e r t i l i z e r s .  2«  Nitrogen Forms U t i l i z e d by Plants The f a i r l y general b e l i e f that nitrogen must be i n n i t r a t e form  to be of service to plants i s 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 n i t r a t e s are u t i l i s e d .  M i l l e r (14) and Barker ( l ) agree that  plants take up nitrogen i n the ammoniacal and n i t r a t e 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 t h i s form i s toxio to most. M i l l e r (14) claims that plants which take up nitrogen as ammonia s a l t s are d i s t i n c t l y higher i n percentage nitrogen than those u t i l i s i n g n i t r a t e s . Hutchinson and M i l l e r have showed that many organic compounds are u t i l i z e d d i r e c t l y by higher plants, but that many are harmful (20), The p r i n c i p a l organic compounds u t i l i z a b l e by plants appear to be c e r t a i n of the amino aoids and other intermediate produots r e s u l t i n g from the breaking down of protein nitrogen into r e l a t i v e l y simple forms of organic nitrogen.  water-soluble  Very l i t t l e i s known as to the amount of o r -  ganio nitrogen actually assimilated by plants but i t i s thought that i t i s quiokly changed to ammoniacal and to n i t r a t e  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 t h e i r nitrogen i s 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 n i t r o gen combined i n the n i t r a t e form.  These f e r t i l i z e r s are characterized by  ready s o l u b i l i t y i n water and the nitrogen i s more quickly u t i l i z e d by most crops than i s that i n other classes of nitrogenous materials (2 ), The n i t r a t e , however, because of i t s s o l u b i l i t y i s most r e a d i l y leached, e s p e c i a l l y from sandy s o i l s .  Lyon and B i z z e l l ( l l ) found t h i r t y percent  more losses from Sodium Nitrate than from Ammonium Sulphate. Another group such as Ammonium Sulphate have t h e i r nitrogen i n ammoniacal forms and although water-soluble they are less r e a d i l y leached because they have a tendency to be fixed by certain of the s o i l constituents. The ammonia may be used d i r e c t l y or converted to n i t r a t e nitrogen through the action of s o i l b a c t e r i a . A t h i r d class of nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r materials comprises animal products such as Dried Blood and F i s h Sorap, end vegetable produote such as Cottonseed Meal, e l l of which are organic aramoniates.  The n i t r o -  gen i n these materials i s combined i n the form of complex organio compounds such as proteins which are for the most part water-insoluble. The fourth class includes the chemical oompounds Urea and C a l cium Cyanamide which contain t h e i r nitrogen i n the amide form and although they are considered organic f e r t i l i z e r s they w i l l not reoeive considerat i o n 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 t h e i r ready a v a i l a b i l i t y .  For this reason, Barker states they are of p a r t i c u l a r  value f o r short-season crops. are slower i n a v a i l a b i l i t y .  The organic ammoniates, on the other hand, Because they are more continuous as a source  of nitrogen they are favored types for long-season crops.  Dried Blood i s  considered a " f a s t " organic since i t i s r e a d i l y water-soluble and readily available.  Laurie and Poesch  fairly  (10) claim that under glasshouse  conditions i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y i s equivalent to that of Ammonium Sulphate. Fish Proteinate i s known to be highly water-soluble but i t s a v 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 e f f e c t upon the s o i l when repeated applications are made ( s i ) .  Nitrates do not a f f e c t the s o i l reaction to  any extent but the ammonia forms tend to replace the calcium from the s o i l f r a c t i o n which i n turn combines with the sulphate ions and as such i s more r e a d i l y 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 n i t r a t e on s o i l s high i n calcium. This has also been stated by Laurie and Poesch who  (10) and many other workers  have found that Ammonium Sulphate was more available than Sodium  Nitrate on a l k a l i n e 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 benef i c i a l where s o i l s are low i n available potassium.  The sodium tends to  break up the clay f r a c t i o n and so improve the physical properties, an important f a c t o r i n heavy s o i l s .  The organic material such as Dried Blood  and Fish Scrap tend to increase the a c i d i t y of a s o i l ( l ) (13), but to a  7.  less degree than Ammonium Sulphate. In a previous experiment with a similar 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 f e r t 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 i t i s 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 Proteinate 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 test as a method of evaluating M  differences. Materials In order to make a better evaluation of the F i s h 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 l e a f crop ( S i l v e r 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  Material  used:  % Nitrate I A v a i l N | ability  20  (NH ) SO  4  2  4  NaNO  3  % Ammonium l A v a i l N lability  16  % organic 1 A v a i l N lability  1 90  | 100  Dried Blood  12  Fish * Prot.  8  1  80  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 p l o t .  9. Prooedure: Two Latin Squares, each f o r t y feet square were measured o f f with a f i v e foot path separating them.  The treatments were as follows: (columns) 2  1 (Rows)  3  4  1  B  D  A  C  2  A  B  C  D  3  D  C  B  A  Lettuoe  m O  < ! ( B O  O  t-i  a*  4  C  A  D  B  o oo c c  Pa th  t (Rows) 1  <D  B  D  A  C  U  EM  <A 5 •** o  O rH  - *o -to  X !  P n  2  A  F  C  D  3  D  C  B  A  4  C  A  D  B  Carrots  ©  O  O  5 a  oCM CO  10. The plots were arranged i n a square, with the same number of plot, s in either direotion.  The number of treatments i s the same as tha number  of plots i n each row or i n each column of the square, and the number of replications i s likewise the same.  Each treatment appears once i n each  row and once i n 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 d i s t r i b u t i o n , 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 p l o t amounts 1 l b . 12 oz. of F i s h Proteinate, 1 l b . 3 oz. Blood M6al, 11 oz. Ammonium Sulphate, and 15 oz. of Sodium Nitrate were used, being supplemented with 1 l b . 15 oz. of Superphosphate,  and  9.1 oz. Muriate of Potash i n each case. The oarrot seed was sown i n rows or June 15, there being seven rows per p l o t .  The lettuce seed, on the other hand, was f i r s t sown i n  f l a t s i n the greenhouse the f i r s t week of June.  A second sowing  neoessary when germination was found to be less than ten poroent.  was 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 c u l t i v a t i o n and protection from insects and diseases.  Particu-  lar attention was given to p l o t c u l t i v a t i o n i n order to minimize any carry-over e f f e c t of treatments between p l o t s .  11.  PLANT ANALYSIS;  1.  Y i e l d (Fresh Weight) For the fresh weight determination only the tops of the lettuce  were used.  The two outside or buffer rows i n each p l o t were discarded  as w e l l as the end plants from each remaining  row.  Twenty-one lettuce  plants were harvested from each p l o t . The carrots were harvested from f i v e 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 e s t a b l i s h a top-root r a t i o . 2.  Dry Weight: The dry weight determination was calculated i n 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 f o r treatment similar to that of the ground l e t t u c e . To determine the percentage dry weight the f r e s h material (300-gm. sample ) was dried i n an oven at 65° f o r 48 hours. 3.  Carbohydrate - Nitrogen Ratio; The nitrogen content of the plant materials was determined by  using two 1 gm. samples of dry material f o r each of the p l o t s . was oarried out by the Kjeldahl method (7 ).  Analysis  12. To determine the carbohydrates, two 1 gm. samples of the dry material were used from each p l o t .  The material was boiled with concen-  trated HC1 and water f o r 2g hours i n f l a s k s f i t t e d with reflux condensors. The material was then cooled, f i l t e r e d , and neutralized with NaQH. was then made up to 150 cc. with d i s t i l l e d water.  Volume  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 p l o t i n an e l e c t r i c muffle furnace at 650° C. u n t i l ashed. Amounts of carbohydrate, nitrogen and ash are expressed as percentages of fresh weight (edible portion), since the author wished to treat the r e s u l t s i n a similar manner to that employed by food analysts. METHOD OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS: The method of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of data was that used by Goulden (5).  The procedure i s based on variations between d i f f e r e n t  plots receiving the same treatment as compared with variations between plots receiving different treatments. Obviously, i f they are t o be considered s i g n i f i c a n t , 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 f o r judging significance. The data i s arranged according to blocks, columns, and t r e a t ments. the  The next procedure i s the Analysis of Variance to determine whether  differences are large enough to be attributed to the treatments used.  13. The t o t a l variance  i n any set of plots i s due i n part to the  d i f f e r e n t treatments, to difference i n the s o i l or conditions i n the several blocks to whioh each treatment i s applied, and to unknown and uncontrolled  factors, or i n other words "error".  The "F"- t e s t i s used  to determine whether the mean variance due to treatments does s u f f i c i e n t l y exceed that due to blooks or columns so that one i s j u s t i f i e d i n concluding that s i g n i f i c a n t variations were caused by the treatments. If the differences between the calculated values and the tabled values of "F" indicate s i g n i f i c a n t differences f o r treatments, one i s j u s t i f i e d i n comparing i n d i v i d u a l treatments on the basis of least s i g n i f i c a n t difference.  15 DRY WEIGHT.  TABLE II  Dry weight of Lettuce expressed as percentage of fresh weight.  Rows  1  C 0 L U M N S 2 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,NaN0  22.034  5.51  4  5.872  4.172  4.665  6.008  20.717  D-(HH ) S0  23.447  5.86  Column Totals 21.883 19.151  20.803  25.670  87.507  5  4  2  4  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 f o r 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 i n pounds per plot together with analysis of variance. COLUMNS  T R E A T M E N T  Row Total Si H  Rows  Totals  Means  1  19.49  19.60 25.74 15.69  80.52 I) A-Fish  77.35  19.34  2  11.84  19.76  60.07 IS B-Blood  78.83  19.71  3  11.17  14.87 20.96  15.34  62.34 l! C-NaNOc  62.57  15.64  4  13.56  24.43  20.39  18.62  77.00 I| D-(NH4)gS04  61.18  15.30  56.06  78.66  85.54  59.67  279.93 M  D.F.  Variance  Column Totals  18.45 10.02  Analysis of Variance:  S.S. Rows  F.  5$Point of F.  79.24  3  26.41  15.18*  4.76  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  Columns  Minimum mean s i g n i f i c a n t difference •  2.28  *Indicates a calculated value f o r F " larger than the tabled M  value.  The above table shows that the differences between the mean y i e l d s from the organic and inorganic treatments are large enough to be s i g n i f i c a n t . No significance can be a t t r i b u t e d 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 I I I  Carbohydrate content of Lettuce expressed as percentage of fresh weight.  Rows  1  C 0 L U M N S 2 3  4  Row Totals  TREA  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  8.486  2.12  Column Totals  6.970  5.669  6.970  9.194  28.803  D-(NH ) S0 4  2  4  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  .591  3  .197  .857  4.76  Error  1.381  6  .230  Total  6.565  15  Trea tments  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. C 1  Rows  0 L UM N S 2  4  3  T R EA THEN Totals  Row 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 .609 4^2 4  .162  Column TotaIs .597  .558  .577  .684  2.416  V  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 s i g n i f i c a n t .  18. TABLE V  Carbohydrate-nitrogen r a t i o s of Lettuce based on Tables I I I and IT. C0LU1 A N S 2 3  4  Row Totals  T R E A T M E N T Totals Means  Rows  1  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 ) S0  55.24  13.9  Column Totals 45.81  41.86  47.78  53.69  189.14  4  2  4  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  Error  54.87  6  9.15  Total  162.44  15  1.2  4.76  The s i m i l a r i t y i n C/N r a t i o s for Lettuoe plants receiving the organio f e r t i l i z e r s i s of i n t e r e s t . Ratios for plants i n 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 LU M N S 2 3  4  Row Totals  T R EA T M EN T Totals 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 ) S0  3.615  .904  3.008  3.470  4.193  14.124  Column", Totals 3.453  4  2  4  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 s i g n i f i c a n t .  20. CARROTS: YIELD, (roots)  TABLE VII  Y i e l d of Carrots i n pounds per p l o t together with analysis of variance.  Rows 1  COLUMNS 2 3  4  Row  !  IRE  1  13.38  11.19  24.25  18.00  Totals : i 66.82 | A-Fish  2  12.00  19.00  21.75  21.13  73.88  3  11.31  14.00  22.75  20.00  68.06 1  4  7.61  15.31  18.50  16.38  i 58.00 | D--(NH ) S0  87.25  i 75.51 266.76 |  Column* Totals 44.50  59.50  A T M E N T Totals Means 71.56  17.89  B-Blood  71.50  17.88  c--NaN0  61.56  15.39  62.13  15.53  3  4  2  4  !  Analysis of Variance;• 5% Point of F.  S. S.  D. F.  Variance  F.  32.27  3  10.76  2.677  4.76  261.15  3  87.05  21.654*  4.76  Treatments  23.15  3  7.72  Error  24.14  6  4.02  Total  340.70  15  Rows Columns  Minimum mean s i g n i f i c a n t difference =  1.92  4.76  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 y i e l d over that of the inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s . In t h i s case, however, the differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t .  21. CARROT TOPS.  TABLE V i n  Weight of Carrot tops i n pounds per p l o t , together with root-top> r a t i o s by treatments.  Rows  1  COL 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 ) S0  32.63  8.16  1.90  Column Totals 23.56 30.50  46.31  40.31  140.69  4  2  4  Analysis of Varianoe: S. S.  D. F.  Variance  F.  5$ Point of F.  2.58  4.76  Rows  12.54  3  4.18  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 i n Table VII for roots, where the organios gave higher y i e l d than the inorganios. 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 f o r plants receiving Sodium Nitrate.  22. DRY WEIGHT.  TABLE IX  Dry weight of Carrots expressed as percentage of f r e s h weight.  Rows  1  C OLUMNS 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  11.107 10.765 11.182  11.062  44.116  C-NaNOg  37.186  9.30  8.917  9.830  35.824  D-(NH ) S0  34.830  8.71  34.995 34.521 38.393  38.946  146.855  3  7.949  4 Column Totals  9.128  4  2  4  Analysis of Variance: S. S.  Rows  D. F.  Varianoe  F.  5% Point of F.  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 s i g n i f i c a n t difference as a r e s u l t of treatments.  23. CARBOHYDRATE.  TABLE X  Carbohydrate oontent of Carrots expressed as percentage of fresh weight.  Rows  1  C 0 L UM N S 2 3  4  Row Totals  T R E A T M EN T Totals 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-NaN0  23.762  5.94  4  3.944  5.876  5.550  6.356  21.726  D-(NH ) S0  22.554  6.64  13.338  48.134  Column Totals  10.944 11.075 12.777  s  4  2  4  Analysis of Variance: S. S.  D. F.  Variance  F.  Point of F.  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  Rows  The above table does not show any s i g n i f i c a n t difference due to treatments.  24 NITROGEN. TABLE XI Total nitrogen of Carrots expressed  Rows 1  COL U M N 2 3  S  4  as percentage of fresh weight.  Row Totals  T R E A T M E N T Means Totals !  1  .173 .140  .143  .156  .612 |  2  .122 .126  .177  .160  3  .145 .179  .167  4  .175 .125  .170  Column Totals) .615 .570  A-Fish  .508  .127  .585  j B-Blood  .615  .154  .118  .609  I C-NaN0  .687  .172  .149  .619  1 MNH^SO^  .615  .154  3  1 1 j  .657  .583  2.425  1 Analysis of Variance:  S.S.  5% Point of F.  D.F.  Variance  F.  0  0  4.76  Rows  .000  3  Columns  .001  3  .0003  3  4.76  Treatments  .004  3  .0013  13*  4.76  Error  .001  6  .0001  .006  15  Total  Minimum Mean S i g n i f i c a n t Difference » 0.017  While no s i g n i f i c a n t difference appeared i n Lettuce, a l e a f crop, with Carrots, the F i s h Proteinate gave a s i g n i f i c a n t l y 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  1  C 0 L U HNS 2 3  4  Row Totals  T R E A T ii n T Totals 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 ) S0  146.58  36.6  Column Totals 162.32 156.08 145.88  189.22  653.50  4  2  4  Analysis of Varianoe: S. S. Rows  D. F.  Variance  1,597.85  3  532.617  Columns  224.89  3  Treatments  899.36  Error Total  F.  5% Point of F.  7.89 *  4.76  74.964  1.11  4.76  3  299.787  4.44  4.76  404.85  6  67.475  3,126.95  15  The above table ehows that the F i s h Proteinate gave the highest C/N r a t i o , 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. C OLD Rows  1  2  1  .706  2  HNS  Row Totals  T R E A T M E N T Totals Means  3  4  .635  .843  .896  3.080  A-Fish  3.286  .822  .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 ) S0 2.677  .669  Column Totals  3.067  2.949 3.106  4  2  4  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 i n 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.) S0 . The analysis of varianoe did not indicate s i g n i f i c a n t differences between treatments. 2  4  27. TABLE XIV  Most e f f e c t i v e treatment for each determination on Lettuce by rows and oolumns. Rows  1  2  Fresh weight  Fish  Blood  % dry weight  NaNOg  (NH ) B0  Fish  % nitrogen % ash  %  carbohydrate  C/N  4  3 Blood  Fish  4  Fish  Blood  (NH ) S0  4  Fish  Blood  NaNOg  (NH ) S0  4  Fish  MaNOg  NaNOg  (NH ) S0  4  Fish  NaNO 3  Fish  (NH ) S0  4  4  4  4  4  4  2  2  2  2  2  (NH ) S0 4  2  4  Blood  Columns  1  3  4  Fish  Fish  Blood  2  Fresh weight  Blood  % dry weight  (NH ) S0  4  NaNO  g  Blood  Fish  %  (NH ) S0  4  NaNOg  Blood  Fish  carbohydrate  4  4  2  2  % nitrogen  NaNOg  NaN0  Blood  Fish  % ash  NaNOg  NaNO, 3  Blood  NaNOg  Fish  Blood  (NH ) S0  C/N  (NH ) S0 4  2  3  4  4  2  4  28. TABLE XV  Most effective treatment f o r each determination on Carrots by rows and columns. Rows 1  2  3  4  Fresh weight  Fish  NaNOg  Blood  (NH ) S0  % dry weight  NaNOg  Fish  Blood  Blood  %  NaNOg  Fish  Fish  Blood  % nitrogen  Blood  NaNOg  NaNOg  NaNO  % ash  NaNOg  Fish  Blood  Fish  Root/top  Blood  Blood  Fish  Fish  Fish  Fish  Fish  Fish  3  4  Blood  Fish  (NH ) S0  carbohydrate  C/N  Columns 2  1  4  2  0  Fresh weight  Blood  % dry weight  (NH ) S0  4  NaNOg  Blood  Fish  %  (NH ) S0  4  NaNOg  Blood  Fish  NaNOg  NaNOg  NaNOg  (NH4) S0  % aah  Fish  Blood  NaNOg  NaNOg  Root/top  Fish  Fish  (NH ) S0  C/N  Fish  Blood  carbohydrate  % nitrogen  4  4  2  2  4  2  Blood  4  4  2  2  4  Fish  Fish  4  4  29. TABLE XVI  Average r e s u l t s by treatments f o r each determination made on Lettuce.  Determination Yield  (pounds)  Dry weight - % fresh weight  NaNOg  )ried Blood  F i s h Proteinate  (NH ) S0  19.71  19.34  15.30  15.64  5.22  5.29  5.86  5.51  1.68  1.77  2.12  1.63  (32.08)  (33.50)  (36.20)  (29.70)  4  2  4  Carbohydrate % fresh weight (# dry weight) Nitrogen % fresh weight (% dry weight)  .138 (2.6)  .145 (2.6)  .152 (2.6)  .169 (3.1)  Ash % fresh weight {% dry weight) C/N - on fresh weight  .824  .831  .904  .972  (15.8)  (15.7)  (15.4)  (17.7)  12.1  12.2  13.9  9.7  TABLE XVII  Average r e s u l t s by treatments for each determination made on Carrots.  Determination Yield  (pounds)  Dry weight - % Fresh weight  Dried Blood  Fish Proteinate  17.88  17.89  (NH ) S0 4  2  4  15.53  NaNOg  15.39  9.04  9.67  8.71  9.30  5.78  6.71  5.64  5.94  (63.9)  (69.4)  (64.8)  (63.9)  Carbohydrate % fresh weight {% dry weight) Nitrogen % fresh weight (% dry weight)  .154 (1.7)  .127 (1.8)  .154 (1.8)  .172 (1.9)  Ash % fresh weight {% dry weight) Root/top C/N on fresh weight  .731 (8.1) 1.94  37.5  .822  .669  .811  (8.5)  (7.7)  (8.7)  1.96  1.90  1.78  52.8  36.6  34.5  Pound8  Harvest  Figure I . - The average y i e l d of Carrots and Lettuce as influenced by f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n s .  32.  Key_ 1. dry weight 2. carbohydrate 3. nitrogen 4. ash  2  "4-  I  2  1 4  131 Dried Blood  Figure  4  Pish  1 I 3  3 S T a t f O „  (KH4) S0 2  4  Proteinate  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 I I I . - 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 i s to produce a p r o f i t , which i n turn, i s governed l a r g e l y 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 y i e l d s , to the farmer, mean p r o f i t s , the discussion  w i l l relate to the fresh weights, mainly] but other factors that have a direct bearing on y i e l d s w i l l be treated i n their proper place. Extreme v a 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 r e s u l t s 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 10.02  l b a to 25.74 l b s . i n one treatment and from  l b s . to 20.39 l b s . i n another.  Differences appeared s i g n i f i c a n t by  "analysis of variance" i n only one other instance, the percentage of n i t r o gen i n carrots.  However, when t o t a l nitrogen i n the roots was  calculated  there were no appreciable differences between the r e s u l t s of any two f e r tilizers.  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 i n Table XVI and Table XVII.  V a r i a b i l i t y i n trends i s 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 i n each row and column f o r 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 y i e l d .  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 y i e l d s 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 r e s u l t s , i t oan be s a i d 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 i n  oarrots although the organics and Ammonium Sulphate are predominant.  This  i s further substantiated i n Table XVII which shows that the organios  pro-  duced higher y i e l d s than the mineral f e r t i l i z e r s , and that the Ammonium Sulphate was only s l i g h t l y better than Sodium N i t r a t e .  According  to the  analysis of variance, the differences i n treatments i n oarrots were not large enough to a t t r i b u t e 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 i s  shown graphically i n Figure 1. These results oompare with Barker's s t a t e ment that organic f e r t i l i z e r s give larger y i e l d s than inorganic  fertilizers  on non-manured p l o t s , expecially i n areas that are low i n phosphorus. Sinoe the e f f e c t of nitrogen i s manifest p r i n c i p a l l y i n the green f o l i a g e of the plant, and sinoe the amount of root i s c l o s e l y dependent on the amount of f o l i a g e , the y i e l d so f a r as f e r t i l i z e r s may influence i t , i s governed by the nitrogen a v a i l a b l e .  I t would appear from t h i s , 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 s o l u b i l i t y of the two inorganic materials, Sodium Nitrate i n p a r t i c u l a r , and that the period following the a p p l i c a t i o n of f e r t i l i z e r was extremely wet.  However, by  36. comparing the t o t a l nitrogen i n the plants on a block average, i t was  found  that the amounts were very s i m i l a r ; and that the two inorganic materials gave only s l i g h t l y lower r e s u l t s although they showed higher nitrogen percentages.  The organics, expecially the F i s h Proteinate, produced the  largest roots i n r e l a t i o n 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 i n 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 p r e c i p i t a t i o n 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 n i t r a t e and ammonia nitrogen i n the early stages of growth but as the amounts became progressively less the rate of growth also slowed, r e s u l t i n g i n plants having a comparatively dry weight.  higher percentage  During t h i s period the organic materials were being  converted  to available forms which gave available nitrogen over a longer period. This would account, i n part at least, for greater growth and more succulenoe i n lettuce plants receiving the organic f e r t i l i z e r s , using dry weight percentage as an i n d i c a t i o n of tenderness.  The percentages dry weight for  these plants would be lower, and nitrogen expressed as a percent of fresh weight would a l s o be l e s s .  This i s shown i n Table XVI and also i n Figure I I .  However, since the t o t a l amounts of nitrogen were very similar a l l plants assimilated approximately the same amount of nitrogen t u t the organic f e r t i l i z e r s produced some stimulating e f f e c t on growth that was i n the mineral f e r t i l i z e r s .  Furthermore, there may  not  manifest  have been an additive  effect from the small amounts of phosphorus contained i n the Dried Blood  37. and F i s h Proteinate, amounts so small that they were considered i n s i g n i f i cant for t h i s experiment.  Further a n a l y t i c a l work beyond the scope of  this experiment would be necessary before t h i s statement could be made definite. Proportional relationships among results of this experiment were not established i n a l l cases bit certain trends were apparent and these are shown graphically i n Figure II and Figure I I I . In a few instanoes a r e lationship i n one crop was opposed by a similar relationship i n the other. Such was the case where fresh weights and dry weight percentages were compared but there i s reason to suppose this i s to be expected sinoe the analyses were made on d i f f e r e n t sections of the plants, the leaf i n one oase and the root i n 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 d i f f e r e n t .  This i s shown i n Table XVI where  Sodium Nitrate produced a low percentage carbohydrate but r e l a t i v e l y 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 i s l o g i c a l to assume a more or less direct relationship between the two. This was found to be true i n both carrot and lettuce plants where, i n a l l but one exception i n each case, Table XTV and Table XV, the row or column that gave the highest percentage dry weight also gave the highest percentage carbohydrate.  This relationship i s borne out by the block averages i n  Table XVI and Table XVII.  The Sodium Nitrate proved to be an exception by  38.  favouring to a greater degree than any other f e r t i l i z e r i n t h i s the formation of nitrogenous compounds over carbohydrates.  experiment,  A comparison  of the carbohydrate-nitrogen r a t i o s 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 r e s u l t s of other f e r t i l i z e r s except i n carrots where the r a t i o 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 r e c i p r o c a l  relationship between carbohydrate and nitrogen was established and according to theory t h i s i s usually the case. F i n a l l y , plants that were high i n percentage nitrogen i n most instances showed a tendency for a high percentage ash with a c e r t a i n 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 i n t e r related i n some way with water t r a n s p i r a t i o n and the concentration of the s o i l solution.  I t 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  I t was shown i n 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 fertilizers.  When these r e s u l t s are estimated on an acreage basis,  instead of the area harvested per p l o t , the increases by the organic f e r t i l i z e r s are more than 2000 pounds i n lettuce and over 1500 pounds i n carrots.  At the present p r i c e s of carrots and lettuce where sold by  weight, these yield-gains are equivalent to more than enough to offset  39. the a d d i t i o n a l cost of the organic f e r t i l i z e r s .  Using the nitrogen l e v e l  of 60 pounds per acre as a basis for reckoning costs, the p r i c e s of the commercial f e r t i l i z e r s would be approximated  ( r a ) S 0 , and $17.00 for Dried Blood. 4  2  4  $10.00 for NaUOj, $7.00 for  The increase i n y i e l d on the  l i g h t s o i l would warrant the increase i n p r i c e over the inorganic f e r t i l i z e r s , but i n order to compete with Dried Blood, the F i s h Proteinate would have to s e l l f o r approximately two-thirds i t s cost. The t h i r d 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 F i s h Proteinate.  The material i s 3 0 f i n e i n texture that applications are  made with extreme d i f f i c u l t y . i n broadcast  The slightest breeze blows the f e r t i l i z e r  methods and i n 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 . quite deliquescent.  Furthermore, the material i s s t i l l  Where paper bags were used i n weighing the material,  adherence to the inside of the bag was so bad t h i s method had to be d i s continued.  Then, too, a f t e r 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 m i l l s would probably eliminate much of the d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced  i n 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 t h i s product can be of commercial importance.  40.  SUMMARY Under the conditions of this experiment, the F i s h waste-product showed p o s s i b i l i t i e s 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,  i n comparison  with Dried Blood, the F i s h Proteinate gave as good r e s u l t s i n lettuce and better results i n c a r r o t s .  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 f o r a long period. Its chief f a u l t s are i t s fine texture and i t s deliquescent nature, which may be overcome by changing the physical natufe of the product.  U n t i l this i s done, the Proteinate i s 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.  2.  Barker, A. S. The Use of F e r t i l i z e r s . Press. 1935. Bear, P. E. S o i l s and F e r t i l i z e r s .  London, Oxford University  John Wiley & Sons Inc.  1942.  3.  Breazeale, J . F. The e f f e c t 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 s o i l and plant. Kentucky Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 314. 1931.  5.  Goulden, C. H. Methods of S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis. Sons Inc. 1939.  John Wiley and  6.  Great B r i t a i n . Bui. M i n i s t r y 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:  8.  Kraus, E. J . , and K r a y b i l l , R. H. Vegetation and reproduction with special reference to the tomato. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 149. 1918.  9.  Lane and Eynon Method: 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 n i t r a t e of soda. Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l Research. Vol. 47 No. 1. 1933.  Plant Analysis.  A.O.A.C. page 26. 1945.  Plant Analysis.  A.O.A.C. page 447.  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 H o r t i c u l t u r e , The U n i v e r s i t y of B. C.  13.  M i l l a r , C. E. and Turk, L. M. Fundamentals of S o i l Science. Inc. 1946.  14.  M i l l e r , E. C. Plant Physiology.  John Wiley & Sons  McGraw-Hill Book Co.  1931.  15.  Murneek, A. E. E f f e c t s of c o r r e l a t i o n between vegetative and reproduction functions i n a tomato. Plant Physiology 1:3 - 56. 1926.  16.  Nightingale, G. I . , H. M. Addams, W. H. Robbins, and L. G. Schermerhom. E f f e c t s of calcium deficiency on n i t r a t e absorption and on metabolism i n tomato. Plant Physiology. Vol. VI. No. 4.  17.  Raber, 0. P r i n c i p l e s of Plant Physiology.  18. 19.  Schreiner, 0., and Brown, 3. E. S o i l nitrogen. S o i l s and Men.  MacMillan Co. U.S.D.A.  Schreiner, 0., A. R. Merz, and B. E. Brown F e r t i l i z e r materials. S o i l s and Men.  1928.  1938.  U.S.D.A.  1938.  20.  Schreiner, 0 . , and Skinner, J . J . Nitrogenous s o i l constituents and t h e i r bearing on s o i l f e r t i l i t y . U.S.D.A. Bur. S o i l s 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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106744/manifest

Comment

Related Items