7iiT;fl'^'r^7;AVK*T7»-rK; "^ ;■*-', --5 ^ 



Jt'NB 8, 1911, 



The Weekly Fl«Mists' Review. 



":f"- -(,.N 



11 



Establishment of Wendland & Kdmel, Elmhont, lU., Devoted Exclusively to the Killarneys. 



of plants. The nearer we come to giv- 

 ing pla'nts the exact amount of food 

 and water that they require, the poorer 

 is the result. Therefore I believe that 

 plants should be fed and watered as 

 liberally as animals, expecting that the 

 surplus will be employed in purifying 

 the system of the plant, as it purifies 

 the system of the animal. Some plants 

 require more and some less. I believe 

 the rose is one that requires more. 



Avoiding Extremes. 



This, of course, does not mean that 

 the feeding and watering cannot be 

 overdone. On the contrary, a plant 

 can as easily be overfed as an animal, 

 or more easily, and here is where a 

 good many mistakes are made. No 

 man would think of consuming enough 

 food at one time to last a week. 

 Neither should anyone try to give a 

 rose, growing in a greenhouse and 

 yielding four to six crops a year, 

 enough food to last during that time, 

 or a quarter of that time. 



This is where we find Killarney roses 

 and other roses of that class the most 

 sensitive. These roses are gross feed- 

 ers; at the same time they are the most 

 easily overfed.. They like lots of 

 water, but are the first to suffer from 

 sour or stagnant soil, and there is 

 nothing that will put soil more quickly 

 or more surely in such a condition than 

 giving it too much water, for that is 

 the one way of closing up all the pores 

 in the soil and making it keep every 

 particle of impurity that the plant 

 throws off. I firmly believe that a 

 rose or any other plant throws off im- 

 purities, the same as an animal, and 

 while these impurities may be useful 

 to some other plant they are the death 

 of the plant that throws them off. 

 Therefore I believe, as I have said 

 before, that a plant should be fed and 

 watered just as liberally as an animal, 

 expecting it to take out of the soil 

 only that part of the nourishment that 

 it requires. 



Planting. 



In growing roses I find that those 

 which are planted in the benches in 

 early spring, before the hot weather 

 starts in, irrespective of their size at 

 the time they are planted, will make 

 a much stronger and larger growth 

 than plants planted during the heat of 

 summer, and I believe in planting young 

 plants. There is more gained by throw- 

 ing out old plants in spring, when they 

 are about through doing their best, 

 and replanting with young stock, than 

 by waiting until the spring has glutted 



the market and the hot weather is 

 making it almost unprofitable to grow 

 them any longer. 



The Soil. 



There has been some discussion lately 

 regarding soil from bottom lands for 

 roses, as if this were a new idea, but 

 some of the most successful rose grow- 

 ers have been using such soil for years, 

 either piling it up in the fall or spread- 

 ing it out on high ground and allowing 

 the frost to work through it during 

 the winter, then mixing it with man- 

 ure and fertilizer in the spring before 

 taking it off the field. . But whether 

 it is soil from high or low ground, the 

 main thing is that it be virgin soil, 

 or at least soil that has never been 

 used for roses before, and has lain in 

 grass at least three or four years be- 

 fore using. 



Diseases. 



One of the greatest of the rose 

 growers' enemies, if not the greatest, 

 is mildew, and it is. also one of the 

 hardest to fight. About the only way 

 to conquer it is practically to keep 

 firing the year around and to keep sul- 

 phur on the pipes. Of course, houses 

 built on high and sandy soil have lit- 

 tle trouble in this direction, as com- 

 pared with those built on low and 

 marshy places, where there is heavy 

 dew during the summer. But as long 

 as the plants are kept in good grow- 

 ing condition and have sufficient nour- 

 ishment there is never great danger 

 from mildew. 



Thrips. 



I want to mention in conclusion a 

 subject that is dear not only to rose 

 growers, but to all florists just now — 

 dear not to their hearts, but to their 

 pocketbooks — and that is thrips. We 

 are told by some that the only way to 

 kill them is to smoke until we are 

 blue in the face and the plants black. 

 Others say to burn red pepper, and 

 many others to spray with nicotine 

 solutions, but for myself I have found 

 one remedy, and only one. That is 

 Paris green and brown sugar. If that 

 does not kill them, it is simply because 

 the plants were not sprayed evenly 

 enough and the thrips could not reach 

 the sugar, for they will go for it if 

 they can get to it. Entomologists tell 

 us that this pest is a sucking insect 

 and therefore poison has no effect on 

 it, but when we look at a fine crop of 

 Beauties all chewed to pieces we feel 

 tempted to differ with them, for the 

 insect must certainly attack the tissue 

 of the flower to produce such effect. 



GROWTHS ON CARNOT STEMS. 



I am sending under separate cover a 

 small Carnot rose with a peculiar 

 growth that looks like a bur on the 

 stem. It is something new to me, and 

 I have been growing roses for many 

 years. Will you diagnose the case and 

 tell me what it is? I did not notice it 

 until I had cut the rose, or would have 

 let it grow. The shoot started at the 

 ground and was cut off outdoors. 



E. M. H. 



The growths, or "burs," as you fit- 

 tingly characterize them, are certainly 

 curious. They are nothing, however, 

 that you want to endeavor to perpetu- 

 ate. Cut these swellings open with a 

 knife and you will find an active little 

 caterpillar inside. I have not pre- 

 viously seen this same pest on roses, 

 but it is found on a number of plants. 

 The only remedy I can suggest is to 

 cut off and burn all wood similarly 

 affected. C. W. 



DIRECTION OF HOUSES. 



I recently bought a block of houses* 

 which are parallel with the adjoining 

 street and which run in a general direc- 

 tion from east to west, but slant 

 slightly southward toward the west 

 end. That is, they run neither straight 

 east and west nor from northeast to 

 southwest, but between these two di- 

 rections, at an angle of perhaps only 

 15 degrees from the direct east and 

 west line. What do you think of that 

 direction? Would it be advisable for 

 me to add more houses south of the 

 present ones and at the same slant? I 

 am located in central Indiana. 



W. H. 



While on some accounts it is better 

 to have the houses run either east and 

 west or north and south, the slight 

 variation in the present case will not 

 make much difference, and by some 

 that little would be considered an ad- 

 vantage, as the houses would get more 

 of the sun in the early morning, while 

 at noon, when the sun is often too 

 strong, the slight twist given the 

 houses toward the east would bring the 

 rays at an angle with the glass, and 

 there would be more shade from the 

 sashbars. On this account it can be 

 said that the proposed plan for locating 

 the houses has some advantages and no 

 serious objections. 



Storm Lake, la. — John L. Munson is 

 building greenhouses here and will 

 grow stock for the trade. 



