NEW b^NGLAND FARMER. 



239 



THE ECONOMICAL USES OF PEAT. 



The Journal of the Highland Afrricultural Soci- 

 ety for the last quarter contains an exceedingly 

 instructive paper from Dr. Anderson, chemist to 

 the society, on the "Economical Uses of Peat." 

 The researches of Dr. A. were directed to the ob- 

 ject of determining, by careful experiments, the 

 actual and relative powers of dried peat and peat 

 charcoal to absorb and retain ammonia, and other 

 gaseous bodies, which escape from night soil, sta- 

 ble manure, and other putrescent substances. His 

 report fills fifteen pages in the journal named, and 

 it ought to be reproduced in this country. We can 

 find room only for the results obtained, with little 

 of the details of the processes and experiments. 

 We will state, however, that peat, for making coal, 

 is cut into pieces equal to half of a cubic foot, and 

 placed on trays or baskets of wicket-work, one 

 above another, to dry. It is then carried to the 

 buildings in which the burning takes place, where 

 it is arranged over furnaces and still further dried 

 six or eight days. The furnaces in which it is car- 

 bonized may be described as a sort of pyramidal 

 boxes of sheet iron of variable length, and about 

 five feet wide at the bottom, gradually tapering to 

 about a foot at the top where there is a sort of vent- 

 hole. These pyramidal furnaces are open at the 

 bottom and stand in trays also of sheet iron. They 

 are filled by tilting them on the sides, when the 

 dry peat is carefully packed in, and retained in by 

 bars which pass across the bottom; and after being 

 fired, they are returned into an upright position. 

 The combustion is allowed to go on until the flame 

 ceases, which generally requires from five to six 

 hours. Water is then let into the tray so as to 

 exclude all air from the furnace, and thus extin- 

 guish the remaining charcoal. The reader will 

 see that this is a very simple apparatus and must be 

 effectual. The water in the tray does not rise high 

 enough to reach the peat or coal in the furnace. 

 When it is cooled down sufficiently, the coal is 

 removed and put through large sieves, the large 

 pieces being employed as fuel and the fine powder 

 as a deodorizer. In Ireland, the cost of production 

 appears to be as follows: 



£. s. d. 

 Draining the hog and cutting the turf lo produce a 



ton of dried peat, 16 



Pacliing oil tlie trays and wagons, and conveyance 



to the furnace-house, 2 



Wear and tear, &c., 6 



£0 4 



It requires four tons of peat to make one ton of 

 coal. 



£.. s. d. 



Four tons of peat, at 4.9., 16 



Labor and expense of burning, 4 6 



Grinding and sifting, 2 6 



£l 3 



By the above figures it will be seen that a ton of 

 peat coal costs nearly six tunes more than a ton of 

 air-dried peat. 



We must now pass over much that is valuable to 

 reach the comparative power of dry peat and peat 

 coal to absorb ammonia. 



''Expa-iincrit 1. A glass tube about half an inch 

 in diameter, had a piece of cloth tied over its lower 

 end, and was filled to the depth of about twelve in- 

 ches with Irish peat charcoal and a solution of am- 

 monia, containing 2.1'J grains to the cubic inch, 

 poured into it. The first drop of fluid that passed 

 through it was as distinctly alkaline as the oritrinal 



fluid, indicating that no rapid or abundant absorp- 

 tion had taken place." 



In the second experiment, putrid urine, which 

 had a distinctly alkaline reaction, was used, and the 

 first drop was distinctly alkaline. The liquid, how- 

 ever, lost both its smell and color in passing through 

 the coal. 



In the third experiment, a small quantity of am- 

 monia, in solution, was poured over 1000 grains of 

 charcoal and carefully stirred in. The smell of 

 ammonia did not disappear, even after it had been 

 covered up some time, and a test paper suspended 

 in the upper part of the vessel was strongly alTected. 

 An additional quantity of ammonia was added, un- 

 til, in all, 1.7 cubic inches had been used. This 

 quantity of the solution contained 4.11 grains of 

 ammonia, and it was consequently obvious that 

 peat charcoal cannot absorb one-fourth of one per 

 cent, of ammonia — 4 parts in 1000. 



Without pursuing these experiments farther at 

 this time, suffice it to say, that they contradict and 

 seem to overthrow all previously conceived notions 

 of the relations that subsist between ammonia and 

 charcoal; but if these notions are really erroneous, 

 the sooner they are overthrown the better. 



1000 grains of surface peat — not charred, but 

 dried at a temperature of 212'^ — took up 8.3 cubic 

 inches of a solution of ammonia, equal to 20.08 

 grains of the alkali, or 1 per. cent of the peat. 1000 

 grains of peat, dried to the same degree, taken 4 1-2 

 feet below the surface, took up 21.78 grains of am- 

 monia, or over two per cent. These experiments 

 prove that thoroughly dried peat imbibes some 

 eight times more ammonia than the open peat char- 

 coal. Hence, dried peat is one of the best sub- 

 stances known to mix with manure of all kinds, 

 and for bedding for horses, cattle, sheep and hogs, 

 to absord their urine. 



Dr. A. experimented to determine the relative 

 power of "a good wheat soil" and dry peat to ab- 

 sorb and retain ammonia. The soil was found to 

 contain 0.186 per cent, of nitrogen, (the fertilizing 

 base of ammonia) and only 0.203 per cent, when 

 fully saturated; indicating the absorption of only 

 0.017 per cent, under the circumstances. As peat 

 absorbs about 2 per cent., the difference is greatly 

 in favor of the latter. 



The readers of the Farmer in 1845 and 1846 

 will remember our urging the importance of dig- 

 ging and drying swamp muck for bedding for do- 

 mestic animals and to absorb all liquid and semi- 

 fluid manure. When applied alone, the experiment 

 made by Mr. McVean, and others in Wheatland, 

 did not indicate so high a value in muck or peat as 

 Prof. Norton suggests in his excellent letter in our 

 last. — Genesee Farmer. 



HINTS UPON CHEESE MAKING. 



Mr. Editor: — Being a constant reader of your 

 most valuable paper, I have often seen communica- 

 tions from farmers on the subject of dairying, but 

 principally on butter making. On this I shall not 

 attempt to make any remarks, but as my wife has 

 the name of making good che.ese, I thought I 

 would give a few hints on that part of the subject. 

 One of the greatest errors committed by our cheese 

 making comnuniity is this — they hurry the process 

 too much. ]5y this means quite a portion of the 

 richness of the cheese is lost. Another error is 

 this — they strain their milk in the evening and let 

 it stand over night. There will be a separation 



