OCR Text |
Show I 1 SUGfR BEETS H B PROBLEMS OF BEET CULTURE B . I IRRIGATION. M By Jesse H. Byffuin. H (Continued FrrtnvLast Week.) 1 Again' nitrates, generally the M ' most important . clement in the m plant fodd line, "are prbdtfecd H only in the presence of free oxygen. m So I desire to emphasize this fact, B namely, that when the pores of"ny B soil are filled with water, the growth 1 of fjlant life and its successful devci- H opment is immeasurably retarded and M hindered. So if over-irrigation work- m cd no other harm than this, the one H consideration ought to, suffice in com- M polling the irrigator to pause and H think, Soaking' the ground with.wafc- H cr can never do any good it inyari- H ablydocs damage where cropping is H intended. H We can get at the same fact from H another direction. It is quite crron- H coutot -supposevthat we cai&rcctify H the lack of moisture of a pcrjocl past H or meet the demands of the thirsty K plant by giving a drench of water H spasmodically. We arc prone to re- H gard the total requisite water for H successful, croppage rather than to m pay attention to the constant, con- H tinuous ncco of a steadily growing m plant. While it is true that storage H of water in the soil is possible, to .1 H limited -extent and degree, through H excessive and ample application of B water by irrigation, it is not within H the realm of possibility to store up H moisture m the plants themselves. H Tliy arc perfectly constant and de- H mending, in their drain upon the res? H cYvoir environment in which they H should justly thrive. Now our knowl- H edge of plant needs as regards water H is scientifically reduced to a nicety, H and there is what we recognize to be H the 'exact "optimum" requirement of M water. This, by the way, is a thor- H oughly established principle highly ' H regarded by all experimenters and in- m vestigators in the. agricultural field. 1 This is recognized to be that well- H defined content from which the plants H draw- most rcadijy their needed water M supply. Beyond question, when this m happy medium of water content, this H "optimum" is a fact, the many other soil ctflfBtnVWdhai 'nifatts -affiT ' other chemicals, the microscopic bacteria, bac-teria, the minerals and the free acccst of oxygen, arc at their best. It has been proven again and again thar an increase in water content in excess of (lie optimum generally produces a greater detrimental effect upon tlic , plant than a decrease below the opll-murno, opll-murno, tliat in reality too little water wat-er Is less injurious than 'too much. This certainly is plain to the most casual thinker. To give an overdose of water, just to be on the safe site. f .iS, , says a -government bulletin, far fndm ideal .soil management, and tilt statement is obviously true. flj Can wc overlook the detrimental effects of alternate drying and .soak-, .soak-, ing- of the soil? Take alone the fact nhat the plant, of whatever kind, is uiialteringly steady in its need's of nourishment', and wc have a basis of thought. The "Captain Dalgctty" regime re-gime is impossible to plant life; It cannot assimilate nourishment -in -any form save for its immediate ana present pres-ent needs,, which needs arc recurring cvcry:h6ur. Allow a surfeit of moisture mois-ture to fill the soil, and the plant cannot can-not cat, it cannot drink, nor can it breathe. Dry out all of the water around it, and it is an equally pitiable and helpless condition, and all growth' is stopped until that optimum cond:-tion cond:-tion is again attained. I am for this reason led) to believe that most important im-portant of all considerations in plant, culture, particularly sugar beets, isf. that we maintain an even, rational water supply, as fluctuations destroy the vital optimum balance, in which condition, alone the plant will thrive. Some plants, and I believe sugar beets, have a tendency that wa', arc , prone to preedcity and unhealthy maturity ma-turity whqn deprived of sufficient, moisture. This deals with the extreme ex-treme of dryness. There should be . no extreme in either direction, yet. this is the very practice allowed in most of the beet fields of this country where irrigation is in vogue, I regret to say. Let us be extreme, while we are about it, anc predict that when this principle is thoroughly understood under-stood and applied, agriculture in general gen-eral will take on a new meaning and will become revolutionized to a marked degree. Through its bearing upon sugar pricking. I refer to the notion that there arc plants and crops requiring a different optimum content. The idea comes, quite apparently, from prcscnt-day methods rather than from any close study or knowledge of the facts in the case. The truth is that some rlants Lave more endurance than others in unfavorable conditions, and this fact has led to many dangers. I repeat that many, crimps the majority ma-jority of, beet growers who irrigate determine the moisture needs of the beet plants by their dark appearance or wilting. Wilting is a sign of distress, dis-tress, an indication of damage already wrought. When water is regarded as a soil requirement, primarily, and a I lant need incidentally, wc will then obviate many dangers now encountered encount-ered To keep the soil in perfect physical phy-sical condition, should be the one object ob-ject and aim of the grower, the ap-parent ap-parent needs as evidenced by outward distress of the plant being secondary in consideration. Our efforts to remedy plant ailments may not be sufficient to maintain such soil conditions condi-tions as will insure the steady and healthful growth of the plant. The point I am trying to lay stress upon is tfiat the physical condition of the soil itself should be to the farmer an indication of moisture needs, and not the signals of plant distress displayed by the leaves or roots. .It is just as reasonable to starve an animal to the point of death and then expect to make amends by the provision, at the last moment, of abundant nourishment. nourish-ment. That's a good parallel because to the plant, water is nourishment. To supply water before suffering results is just as essential with plant as with animal life. Now I do not mean that frequent irrigation is at all necessary. A3 I have endeavored to point out in previous pre-vious issues of this journal, I stand squarely averse to any such plan. I confess that one may hesitate in blandly advocating the extended application ap-plication of artificially-applied water 'because too many farmers will be prone to attempt the fatal ruse of letting water do the work of the hoe. That it cannot is only too true, and must ultimately be recognized by every tiller of the soil. I have advo-cated advo-cated again and again intens've cultivation cul-tivation of the soil, and once more must assert that this is the best way to maintain this optimum water content con-tent ihat I have tried to show to be the necessary condition for successful plant growth. Irrigation and cultivation cultiva-tion arc essentially allies. They go hand in hand. The one supplies water, the other retains it. This theory positively cannot be attacked. It remains only for the grower to work out the principle in field and) on farm, and prove, what may not be safely questioned, that frequent stirring stir-ring of the soil is the only adequate and successful method whereby moisture moist-ure may be retained in the soil and the proper water content be equalized and supported. Irrigation should be done as infrequently as possible; yet a small amount more frequently applied ap-plied will better serve the end desired de-sired than a copious application at long intervals. 1 believe every thoughtful and in- J tclligcnt hect grower who has given the matter much consideration wiU stand strongly against the practice nl n the free flooding system. Its detri- 1 mental effects have been itemized 1 1 I an earlier portion of my article, but cannot be emphasized too often. In J Sugar licet Gazette. |