Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Windbreaks and Shelterbelts
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Williams, Ross A. |
| Copyright Year | 2010 |
| Abstract | In an effort to determine the value of adequate windbreaks on American farms, 508 farmers in South Dakota and Nebraska were asked for their opinions. They placed the annual savings 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 temperature 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 Holdrege 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 annual consumption of coal, this represents 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 m.ore than $800 ; 62 livestock breeders reported that their savings amounted to more than $500 annually; 53 dairymen 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 during a severe winter, than the unprotected herd. Another experiment conducted by V. I. Clark, superintendent of the experiment station at Ardmore, S. Dak., involved the weighing of two herds of cattle in different pastures—one protected by the natural tree and shrub growth along a stream, the other without protection. They w^ere reweighed 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 Station 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 shelterbelts, a term used to denote comparatively narrow strip plantings— sometimes single rows of trees—that are designed to protect fields. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43895038/PDF |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
