Planting – Liquid or gas soil treatment – Drilling machines
Reexamination Certificate
2001-09-24
2004-03-09
Batson, Victor (Department: 3671)
Planting
Liquid or gas soil treatment
Drilling machines
C111S140000, C172S158000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06701856
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to agricultural fertilizer applicators; and more particularly, it relates to apparatus for subsoil application of livestock waste in the form of a slurry (that is, a freely flowable mixture of liquids and solids).
2. Background of the Art
Historically, livestock waste, particularly in solid form, has been spread on the surface of the soil by a manure spreader using a flail to fling the material to the rear. A more modem side-discharge spreader also discharges the material on the surface of the soil. The advent of confinement systems for animals which include pits below the confinement area, produces a large amount of animal waste which must be handled and disposed of in a slurry form. Typically, the slurry is pumped into a large tank carried by a wagon, but it is still, for the most part, spread or sprayed on the surface of the soil.
This procedure has, as a principle objection, a strong odor which resides after the waste is spread. More-over, surface-spreading of animal waste creates a hazard with the potential runoff of nitrates into rivers and streams or seeping of the material into ground water. This is objectionable because livestock waste is high in nitrogen, and with increasing concern with the quality of drinking water, this procedure is becoming less and less acceptable.
Various methods have been proposed for depositing the slurry underground. One method is to use a fertilizer knife, such as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,294, and to weld a large pipe to the rear of the knife to deliver the slurry behind the knife and into the slot cut in the soil by the knife. This leaves a very narrow band of fertilizer having a high concentration of nitrogen.
Another method of subsoil delivery of animal waste employs a standard chisel plow shank with an attached wide cultivator sweep, in an attempt to distribute the slurry further laterally and to avoid the concentration which occurs in the case of a simple fertilizer knife, described above.
This method, however, has not fully overcome the concentration problem, and it presents still another problem-namely, the cultivator sweep unnecessarily tills the soil and may result in burying surface residue. This may be a separate problem, particularly for farmers whose land may have been designated HEL, because there are federal requirements to maintain a certain percentage of crop residue on the surface soil. Both the chisel plow shank (which is a wide shank) and cultivator sweeps are designed to create a plowing action that mixes the soil with the residue, buries a large percentage of the residue, and leaves a furrow behind the shank.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,865,131 shows an agricultural slurry applicator having a frame, the is combination comprising: a coulter mounted to said frame to part the soil and form a slot; a shank assembly adapted to be mounted to said frame behind said coulter and comprising: a shank for forming a slot in the soil behind said coulter; a shin wedge mounted in front of said shank and having a vertical leading edge following in the slot formed by said coulter to widen said slot to a width approximately equal to the width of said shank; a point mounted to the bottom of said shank and extending forwardly thereof; first and second wings mounted behind said point and respectively on either side of said shank each wing having a cutting edge extending outwardly and rearwardly relative to said point, said point and wings cooperating to break the soil in front of said shank and to lift the soil along paths defined by said wings to form fissures without substantial tillage of the soil; and a slurry delivery tube mounted to said shank and extending downwardly in the slot formed by said shank, said delivery tube defining a discharge opening to place slurry immediately behind said shank and adjacent the inboard ends of said fissures formed by said wings, whereby said slurry moves outwardly in said fissures as they are formed by said wings and the soil raised by said wings is free to fall after said wings have passed and said slurry has been placed. The advantage of that construction is the employment of a spring-cushioned coulter running ahead of the applicator for cutting an initial slot in any residue and for providing a break line for the soil to be parted by the trailing shank. The trailing shank, in turn, spreads the initial slot, and deepens it, for the entry of a slurry delivery tube welded behind the shank.
The trend toward reduced-till and no-till farming for soil and water conservation is shown graphically in an article published in the New York Times May 11, 1982, entitled “Erosion Wary Farmers Are Sparing Traditional Plow”. The necessity for sub-surface application of fertilizers for efficient utilization of plant food, as indicated by research done by TVA's NFDC, universities, and agriculture experiment stations, has resulted in many proposals for solving this problem. Some of these are outlined in the article entitled “Making Fertilizer More Efficient” in the periodical “Big Farmer”, April 1982 edition.
TVA scientists have stated that broadcast application of nitrogen fertilizers on no-till soils can result in losses as high as 40 percent, and the author of the “Big Farmer” article states “Efficiency standards for broadcasting phosphorous range from 10 to 30 percent.” There is little no doubt that even the most “backward” farmer is aware of the tremendous increase in cost of fertilizers, and the necessity for its efficient placement, which is bound to result in the adoption of sub-surface application.
Most methods of sub-surface placement in reduced-till or no-till farming involve the use of a cutting coulter running ahead of a knife or chisel plow with a liquid fertilizer application tube extending down the back of the knife or plow. Theoretically this may seem to be a good method, but the development of numerous such applicators since 1952 has proved that this method is not practical for general use. In hard ground it is practically impossible to apply enough force on coulters to keep them in the ground, and even if this can be done (by using only a minimum number) their life is very short because they are subject to bending, breakage and bearing and spindle failures. In soft ground coulters may not cut the trash, but push it below the surface where it will be caught by the applicator blade or chisel plow and tear out wide trenches in the soil. Further, unless the coulter is kept in exact alignment with the applicator blade, trash will wedge between the coulter and the blade, and tear out large chunks of soil. It is practically impossible in normal usage to keep the coulter and knife aligned for any length of time, because driver-operators will nearly always turn the machine to some degree with the tools in the ground.
Jet injection of agricultural liquids into the soil in no-till farming, i.e. without appreciable disturbance of the soil, has been proposed. Among the earliest of these proposals is that disclosed is U.S. Pat. No. Re 25,307, Dec. 25, 1962, which had as its principal object the continuous injection of anhydrous ammonia, at the bottom of a slot cut by a coulter, with a high pressure (e.g., 2000 psi) traveling jet having a velocity of the order of at least 700 feet per second and a fineness of the order of about 0.007 to about 0.050 inch in diameter. Another proposal is that disclosed in Baldwin et al., U.S. Pat. No. 3,012,526, which had as its principal object the successive injection of slugs of agricultural liquids with a high pressure (e.g. 500-1500 psi) traveling intermittent jet having a fineness of 0.080 inch in diameter. For this purpose Baldwin used a high pressure reciprocating pump and a spring-closed valve in the injection nozzle set to open at a predetermined pressure to receive liquid from the pump and create the successive high velocity slugs at the jet nozzle.
Such proposals, however, have not become commercial because of their lack of efficiency in terms of liquid placement or equipment cost and life. T
Winter Richard D.
Zoske Mick
Batson Victor
Mark A. Litman & Assoc P.A.
Winske, Inc.
LandOfFree
Farming applicator does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Farming applicator, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Farming applicator will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3256238