Montana oil and mining journal. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1931-1953, 1938-09-03

Through community action led by tn
local agricultural planning committe
$4,000 acres of Prairie county land wa
anchored" by ingenious methods de
veloped because Of conditions peculia
to that section Of Montana, It Is re
vealed In q report made by Fred A
Finch, county extension agent.
The soil "anchoring" job covered u
percent Of the benchland Of the county
Finch reports Less than q year ago II
this same area rural high school seniors
were barely able to attend their OWL
commencement exercises because OF
dust storm that made travel hazardous
Today only trace Of evidence remain;
that Prairie county land took TO the
cir by tons.
one year 1t drew the attention Of j. O.
Taylor, Montana extension service di-
rector.
@Prairie county's one-year control
program Is one Of the finest that has
come to my attention" Taylor said. "It
ranks on a par with the Valley county
control effort, which attracted the at
tention Of national leaders Of the ex-
tension service, soil conservation service
and the AAA. It is an excellent example
OF community action and illustrates
what q wide-awake county agricultural
planning committee can do"
Finch acted In the capacity OF local
field general in carrying out the pro-
gram J. A. Miller, president OF the
planning committee, shared honors
with him in carrying out the program
as well as taking the lead In its de-
velopment.
The report made by Finch shows
some Of the problems encountered and
how the apparent cures evolved.
Son on benches where blowing was
severe Is sandy loan, the report ex-
plains. It has q subson of sandy fOrma-
ton so its water holding capacity is
limited. Every inch of topsoil lost In
creases the blowing hazard and lessons
the water holding capacity. For that
reason control Is imperative If farm
ing Is TO continue.
In 1887, after soil blowing reached a |
serious stage, several emergency control
methods were tried. The first was har-
rowing. This method proved ineffective,
as 1t pulvertzed the surface and en- /
couraged more blowing.
The second method was blowing fur
rows every Is or 20 feet at right angles
to the direction of the wind. This
slowed down drifting soil and the fur
rows acted as basins, catching loose
material rolling along the field. How
ever when the basins were filled they
lost their effectiveness.
The third method was duckfooting.
Considerable success was obtained by
removing all but the back row Of
Shovels. The fewer shovels left the
ground rougher and did not pulverize
the soil. Most duckfooting was done
six to eight inches deep This dragged
wet soil to the surface, which clodded
readily and served to anchor loose soil.
Tle.n fr.nr rz1c r5rr.a Of rafrr
angles TO the prevailing wind
Snow fences were erected In another
effort to stop the soil from blowing.
This was quite effective for q short dis
lance beyond the fence, but expenses
made 1t impractical.
The fifth method was basin listing.
Seven farmers listed 900 acres and re-
ported that soil drifting stopped. List
ing was done with three-bottom lister.
In addition to stopping erosion, q con-
siderable amount Of thistle growth was /
the duckfooting, which served to catch {
and hold additional snow for added !
moisture. This cover was an aid in [
stopping soil blowing. {
The problem in 1886 was bringing
this land back into production without
creating an erosion hazard In january .
the planning committee considered ,
ways Of meeting the situation. Present T
were farmers from throughout the :
county, the AAA county committee, the
county commissioners, representatives
Of the farm security administration, I
AAA, extension service and soil con- :
servation service. The county planning
committee recommended formation of
a voluntary soil conservation aSSocia- g
ton as point of contact with other I
agencies interested in the problem.
A petition was circulated and vol I
untary soil conservation association I
formed Feb. -. Officers elected were 9
BalthaSer Haidle, president; Frank De- I
vine, vice president; John L. Linden L
meyer, secretary; G. F. Strobel and
Fred A. Like. F
Later this organization invited rep s
resentatives Of the extension service, t
soil conservation service and AAA to v
formulate control program t
1t was agreed that it would be
hazardous to work blow land in large p
blocks and expose. areas that might
blow readily. For that reason strip
cropping was recommended. Since (
summer fallow was not q common prac-
tice, ordinary strip fallow practiced In
other parts of the state could not be
used. The system adopted, therefore, 6
consisted Of leaving buffer strips of c
stubble and thistle at least one-fourth Il
the width of adjacent crop strips. In s
no case did the crops exceed 10 rods In 9
width. Five demonstration farms were t
laid out by technicians of the soil p
conservation service. Farms worked by
this agency and the practices demon y
$trated include the following: h
! Frank Devine, Kempton bench, strip 2
cropping; John L. Lindenmeyer, Broad q
view bench, strip cropping; Christ b
Hjorth, Fallon flat, strip cropping; c
Jacob Sackman, Fallon, contour strip s
ping; Anton Sir, Union, contour strip u
ping.
One Of the most important features d
Of this stripping was the unique method y
Of avoiding pulVerized ends which in q
The past have been too frequently the
starting point of serious blowing, Finch
points out This was avoided by putting
In round end strips, which eliminated x
nD 7TMN mDAm P