WINDBREAKS AND SHELTERBELTS 



JOSEPH H. STOECKELER, ROSS A. WILLIAMS 



In an effort to determine the value 

 of adequate windbreaks on American 

 farms, 508 farmers in South Dakota 

 and Nebraska were asked for their 

 ppinions. They placed the annual sav- 

 ings in their fuel bill alone at $15.85. 



In another measure of the value, the 

 Lake States Forest Experiment Station 

 conducted an experiment at Holdrege, 

 Nebr. Exact fuel requirements were 

 recorded in identical test houses. One 

 was protected from winds; the other 

 was exposed to the full sweep of the 

 wind. From the experimental data it 

 was possible to calculate the savings to 

 be expected under various prevailing 

 conditions, if a constant house tem- 

 perature of 70 F. were maintained. 

 The amount of fuel used was reduced 

 by 22.9 percent. 



Also the average of the savings for 

 houses protected on the north in Hol- 

 drege and three other localities in the 

 Great Plains Huron, S. Dak., Dodge 

 City, Kans., and Fargo, N. Dak. was 

 20.2 percent. Assuming a 10-ton an- 

 nual consumption of coal, this repre- 

 sents a saving of 2 tons of coal a year. 

 Under good protection, on three sides 

 of a house, the fuel saving may run as 

 high as 30 percent. 



Dairymen, livestock feeders, and 

 breeders have rather positive ideas of 

 how the protection afforded by trees 

 reduces their feed bills and increases 

 their calf crops. Eighty-six livestock 

 feeders in Nebraska and South Dakota 

 placed this average annual saving at 

 more than $800 ; 62 livestock breeders 

 reported that their savings amounted 

 to more than $500 annually; 53 dairy- 

 men placed their savings at $600. 



Further study of the subject was 

 made at the Montana Agricultural 

 Experiment Station at Havre. Two 

 herds of cattle were wintered on the 

 same rations one in the protection of 

 trees and shrubs, the other in an open 

 lot with some protection from a shed. 



The tree-protected animals gained 

 34.9 more pounds each during a mild 

 winter, and lost 10.6 pounds less dur- 

 ing a severe winter, than the unpro- 

 tected herd. 



Another experiment conducted by 

 V. I. Clark, superintendent of the ex- 

 periment station at Ardmore, S. Dak., 

 involved the weighing of two herds of 

 cattle in different pastures one pro- 

 tected by the natural tree and shrub 

 growth along a stream, the other with- 

 out protection. They were re weighed 

 after a 3-day blizzard. The animals 

 that had some protection each lost an 

 average of 30 pounds less than those 

 in the exposed pasture. 



Farm families depend upon gardens 

 for much of their subsistence, and most 

 of them are aware of the influence of a 

 windbreak in increasing the quality 

 and quantity of vegetables and fruit 

 from gardens and orchards. In the 

 opinions of farmers interviewed, the 

 increase was $67.15 on 323 farms in 

 Nebraska and $84.43 on 260 farms in 

 South Dakota. A few farmers believed 

 the windbreaks did not increase the 

 production of their gardens. 



W. P. Baird, horticulturist in charge 

 of fruit and vegetable investigations at 

 the Northern Great Plains Field Sta- 

 tion at Mandan, N. Dak., says that "a 

 windbreak is on duty protecting the 

 fruit gardens at all seasons of the year, 

 and it is almost useless to consider 

 growing fruit on the Plains without 

 such protection." 



So far we have discussed windbreaks, 

 which are the shorter and more blocky 

 plantings about farmsteads. Much like 

 them, but more extensive, are the shel- 

 terbelts, a term used to denote com- 

 paratively narrow strip plantings 

 sometimes single rows of trees that 

 are designed to protect fields. 



EXPERIENCE with systematic plant- 

 ings of shelterbelts to protect fields goes 



