46.
Earthworm - Our True Friend
Cattle Manure Is Earthworm Friendly And Chemical Fertilizers Destroy Them
Donald P. Hopkins (Chemicals, Humus And The Soil)
When we come to the larger soil organisms, and in particular to the earthworm, the humus school stands in a stronger position. For the earthworm's contribution to soil fertility has been sadly neglected by modern soil science. Even in the United States where official research facilities in agriculture are so liberally supported, even there most of the modern work upon the earthworm has been left in private hands.
The scientific estimation of the earthworm's contribution begins with Charles Darwin. Over a number of years he observed worms' habits and the many kinds of soil changes they brought about, and in 1881 he published a monograph, The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms with Observations on Their Habits.
`This exhaustive study was no ordinary record of a naturalist's investigation, otherwise there might be more excuse for the scanty attention paid to it by contemporary and later science. Darwin was not content to present a 'purist' view of the worm—he went much beyond this and stressed the important consequences of worms' habits to the soil. But what should have been a classic in scientific literature caused practically no stir at all. Darwin's fame was to rest upon apes, not worms.
In 1945, however, and in no small measure due to the activity of the modern humus school, this book was republished under the neater title, Darwin on Humus and the Earthworm (Faber and Faber), with a preface by Sir Albert Howard. Not unnaturally Sir Albert tied up Darwin's neglected points with the humus school thesis. But before we inquire into this enrolment of Darwin as a member of the humus school—or should it be as a distinguished past-president?—it is best to see what Darwin himself said.
Apart from a large number of brilliant deductions about the way worms live, Darwin proved that they eat raw and half-decayed organic matter and also pass through their bodies considerable quantities of earth. In this intermingling process they produce a rich vegetable mould or well-humified soil, and this is constantly being added to the upper surface of soils.
The scientific estimation of the earthworm's contribution begins with Charles Darwin. Over a number of years he observed worms' habits and the many kinds of soil changes they brought about, and in 1881 he published a monograph, The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms with Observations on Their Habits.
`This exhaustive study was no ordinary record of a naturalist's investigation, otherwise there might be more excuse for the scanty attention paid to it by contemporary and later science. Darwin was not content to present a 'purist' view of the worm—he went much beyond this and stressed the important consequences of worms' habits to the soil. But what should have been a classic in scientific literature caused practically no stir at all. Darwin's fame was to rest upon apes, not worms.
In 1945, however, and in no small measure due to the activity of the modern humus school, this book was republished under the neater title, Darwin on Humus and the Earthworm (Faber and Faber), with a preface by Sir Albert Howard. Not unnaturally Sir Albert tied up Darwin's neglected points with the humus school thesis. But before we inquire into this enrolment of Darwin as a member of the humus school—or should it be as a distinguished past-president?—it is best to see what Darwin himself said.
Apart from a large number of brilliant deductions about the way worms live, Darwin proved that they eat raw and half-decayed organic matter and also pass through their bodies considerable quantities of earth. In this intermingling process they produce a rich vegetable mould or well-humified soil, and this is constantly being added to the upper surface of soils.
The charge that chemical fertilizers are a prime cause of unhealthy growth is shown by the following quotations:
'Diseases are on the increase. With the spread of artificials and the exhaustion of the original supplies of humus carried by every fertile soil, there has been a corresponding increase in the diseases of crops and animals which feed upon them.'
~Sir Albert Howard, An Agricultural Testament.
'My canes (raspberry) have not had any chemical fertilizers, and in consequence have not required spraying. In this, as in other cases, no chemicals means no sprays.'
~F. C. King, article in The Market Grower, 18.3.44.
'The accelerated growth induced by chemical fertilizers has the effect, among others, of speeding up the rate at which humus is exhausted. As this depletion of humus proceeded, troubles began. Parasites and diseases appeared in the crops, and epidemics became rife among our livestock, so that poison sprays and sera had to be introduced to control these conditions.'
~E. B. Balfour, The Living Soil.
'Now sulphate of ammonia and many other artificial manures are likely to kill the earthworm and bacterial life of the soil, and so one gets ill-nourished plants which are liable to fatal attack by disease and insect pests. Disease, fungus, and insect pests are always with us, but they chiefly affect the unhealthy plant.'
~Lord Lymington, Famine in England.
To quote the original monograph: 'Worms have played a more important part in the history of the world than most persons would at first suppose. In almost all humid countries they are extraordinarily numerous, and for their size possess great muscular power. In many parts of England a weight of more than ten tons of dry earth annually passes through their bodies and is brought to the surface of each acre of land; so that the whole superficial bed of vegetable mould passes through their bodies in the course of every few years. . . .'
And again: 'Worms prepare the ground in an excellent manner for the growth of fibrous-rooted plants and for seedlings of all kinds. They periodically expose the mould to the air, and sift it so that no stones larger than they can swallow are left in it. They mingle the whole together, like a gardener who prepares fine soil for his choicest plants.’
‘In this state it is well fitted to retain moisture and to absorb all soluble substances, as well as for the process of nitrification. . . .'
As the figure of ten tons per year per acre may seem surprising, it might be as well to summarize the evidence upon which Darwin based this estimate. He was led to believe that the weight of soil normally brought to the surface by worms was fairly high from studying the rate at which large objects such as big stones or even old ruins were gradually buried in the land. He himself and one or two interested friends collected and weighed all the worm castings over timed periods on measured areas of land, on very small plots of about one square yard or so. If the areas were indeed rather tiny, on the other hand the time period was long; but in any case the run of various results was reasonably consistent.
Darwin was able to check the reliability of these figures by approaching the same problem in a different way.
An American measurement, quoted by Sir Albert Howard, shows that the soil of the castings is very much richer than the corresponding soil.
The point that Darwin made verbally in 1881 is thus well and truly confirmed by these 1942 figures from Connecticut Experiment Station.
There may have been other similar measurements in the interim but, if so, little attention has been paid to them. 1881 to 1942 is a long time, and the humus school can well claim in this matter that 'official' research has largely ignored a known biological factor in soil fertility - earthworms.
With this point behind them the humus school has launched a strong attack at chemical fertilizers on the grounds that these materials discourage earthworms, drive them away and thus greatly diminish their powerful contributions. Where chemical fertilizers are used the earthworm populations are low or nil; additional supplies of chemical NPK are then needed to make up for the supplies from the soil's store that would otherwise have been made available by the worms.
And again: 'Worms prepare the ground in an excellent manner for the growth of fibrous-rooted plants and for seedlings of all kinds. They periodically expose the mould to the air, and sift it so that no stones larger than they can swallow are left in it. They mingle the whole together, like a gardener who prepares fine soil for his choicest plants.’
‘In this state it is well fitted to retain moisture and to absorb all soluble substances, as well as for the process of nitrification. . . .'
As the figure of ten tons per year per acre may seem surprising, it might be as well to summarize the evidence upon which Darwin based this estimate. He was led to believe that the weight of soil normally brought to the surface by worms was fairly high from studying the rate at which large objects such as big stones or even old ruins were gradually buried in the land. He himself and one or two interested friends collected and weighed all the worm castings over timed periods on measured areas of land, on very small plots of about one square yard or so. If the areas were indeed rather tiny, on the other hand the time period was long; but in any case the run of various results was reasonably consistent.
Darwin was able to check the reliability of these figures by approaching the same problem in a different way.
An American measurement, quoted by Sir Albert Howard, shows that the soil of the castings is very much richer than the corresponding soil.
The point that Darwin made verbally in 1881 is thus well and truly confirmed by these 1942 figures from Connecticut Experiment Station.
There may have been other similar measurements in the interim but, if so, little attention has been paid to them. 1881 to 1942 is a long time, and the humus school can well claim in this matter that 'official' research has largely ignored a known biological factor in soil fertility - earthworms.
With this point behind them the humus school has launched a strong attack at chemical fertilizers on the grounds that these materials discourage earthworms, drive them away and thus greatly diminish their powerful contributions. Where chemical fertilizers are used the earthworm populations are low or nil; additional supplies of chemical NPK are then needed to make up for the supplies from the soil's store that would otherwise have been made available by the worms.
The Cattle Compost Factory
The compost factory at Indore adjoins the cattle shed. This latter has been constructed for forty oxen and is provided with a cubicle, in which a supply of powdered urine earth can conveniently be stored. The cattle stand on earth. A paved floor is undesirable as the animals rest better, are more comfortable and are warmer on an earthen floor. The earth on which the cattle stand absorbs the urine, and is replaced by new earth to a depth of six inches every three or four months. The compost factory itself is a very simple arrangement. It consists of thirty-three pits, each 30 ft. by 14 ft. and 2 ft. deep with sloping sides, arranged in three rows with sufficient space between the lines of pits for the easy passage of loaded carts. The pits themselves are in pairs, with a space 12 ft. wide between each pair. This arrangement enables carts to be brought up to any particular pit. Ample access from the compost factory to the main roads is also necessary, so that during the carting of the compost to the fields, loaded and empty carts can easily pass one another, and also leave room for the standing carts which are being filled.
Manurial Value Of Indore Compost
One-cart load of Indore compost is equivalent, as regards nitrogen content, to two cart-loads of ordinary farmyard manure. Properly made compost has another great advantage over ordinary manure, namely its fine powdery character which enables it to be uniformly incorporated with the soil and to be rapidly converted into food materials for the crop. Taking everything into consideration, Indore compost has about three times the value of ordinary manure.
~ By Sir Albert Howard, (An Agricultural Testament)
