I love old farm and garden equipment. Sure, I'll admit that when it accumulates it may tend to take up a lot of space. And when that happens, it may look similar to a lotta junk. But this is for sure: it'll always bring the following comment from my wife after I've "invested" in a new acquisition: "NOW what the heck have you brought home THIS time?!"
"Why, this is my new Ash Sifter!" I proudly proclaimed. "Your Ass-what?" she inquired incredulously. "My Ass-Shifter!" I clarified. "I mean...my Ash...oh, never mind."
Now we must ask: What would an Heirloom Orchardist do with an Ash Sifter? The simple answer is to separate the completely combusted wood (ashes) from the partially combusted wood (charcoal). The charcoal would go back in the fire, and the ashes would be saved for other uses, such as making lye. In some areas of the country, it was discovered that when worked into the soil, ashes improved crop production. So it was sometimes used as a soil amendment.
However, such improvements to crop yield weren't perceived everywhere. We find this account in the May 19, 1832 Genesee Farmer:
"A very general prejudice exists among our farmers against leached ashes as manure. Vast bodies of them are suffered to go to waste, or lie idle, in every direction about the country. I know by experience that they are an excellent manure.* I have tried them on my garden and in field culture, and always with satisfactory results." R .M. W., Middlesex
(*In the days of the Heirloom Orchardist, the word "manure" was used in the way we now use the word "fertilizer.")
According to my issue of the Genesee Farmer, there was quite a debate going on during the early 1800's on whether ashes had any benefit at all to growing crops. And it's no wonder. 'Cause sometimes ashes helped, and sometimes they didn't. Why is that? It's because the beneficial affect that ashes may have on soil depends on the composition of the soil that was being farmed. During the 18th century and much of the 19th century, soil chemistry was not well understood.
But this changed during the latter part of the 19th century. Edward B. Voorhees explained it (in a way that this Heirloom Orchardist could understand) in his 1898 manual entitled "Fertilizers." There, he described two categories of fertilizers, "direct", and "indirect":
“DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECT OF MANURES:
It is obvious, therefore, that any substance which contains nitrogen, phosphoric acid or potash may serve as a direct manure, and any substance which contains no plant food, but which possesses the power of improving the physical character of soils, may also serve as a manure, though the one effect is quite distinct from the other. The first adds to the soil the essential constituents; the other helps to make the constituents already in the soil serve as food to the plant.”
Well, I'm not really convinced that it is that obvious, but I'll take his word for it. It turns out that wood ashes have both a direct and indirect affect on the soil. Voorhees explains:
"Ashes are probably one of the best sources of potash that we have, so far as its form and combination are concerned, being in a very fine state of division, and in such a form as to be immediately available to plants. Ashes also have a very favorable physical effect upon soils, the lime present, of course, aiding in this respect."
So, we can suspect that those 18th and 19th century Heirloom Orchardists that found wood ash to have an obvious beneficial affect on crop production, probably farmed in areas having soils naturally deficient in potash, thereby benefiting from the direct affect of wood ash. Or, they were farming on acidic soil (like those I'm accustomed to here in New England), and benefited from the indirect "sweetening" affect of ash by raising the soil ph. This, in turn, helps "to make the constituents already in the soil serve as food to the plant."
Well, hmmm. Thanks, Professor Voorhees. My ash thanks you too.
