FEEDING JH.j HOP PLANT. 73 



nishes the plant. Such a dressing must not be so rich 

 as to cause the plant to run to vine to the detriment of 

 its production of hops. 



Comparison of the analyses printed on Page 71 

 with the analyses of Kent Goldings and Sussex Grape 

 hops grown in England, shows wide variation in the 

 total per cent, of ash of vine, leaves and cones between 

 different varfeties and even the same variety grown 

 on different soils. We find no analyses to indicate 

 the variation caused by different forms of plant food, 

 but it is quite probable that the influence of the form of 

 food upon the hop plant is more noticeable in its brew- 

 ing qualities or its organic composition than in the 

 proportion of ash or nitrogenous matter. This is an 

 extremely interesting point upon which scientific exper- 

 imentation will doubtless throw much light. On 

 general principles, however, it would seem ex- 

 pedient to employ the least objectionable forms of plant 

 food, when agricultural chemicals or commercial fer- 

 tilizers are applied. 



Potash is needed to excess, owing to the great de- 

 mands upon this element by the plant, and probably 

 the carbonate of potash, as in cottonhull ashes or un- 

 leached wood ashes, is for many reasons preferable. Of 

 the potash salts, the high-grade sulphate, which is 

 much freer from chlorine than the muriate, is perhaps 

 best. Yet, there is a large amount of chlorine in the hop, 

 and should it be scientifically demonstrated that the 

 presence of a liberal amount of this element was essen- 

 tial to certain desirable qualities, then the muriate of 

 potash would be used. 



There seems to be little reason for believing that 

 one form of phosphoric acid is much better than an- 

 other for the hop crop, provided only that it is in a form 

 that will be available for the plant. Bone and 

 ashes furnish both phosphoric acid and potash, but in 

 a slow form, and as the hop is a rapid grower, and re- 



