48 



JOUBNAL OF HOBTICULTUBE AND COTAGE GABDENEB. 



[ July 19, 1877. 



terraces sloping towards the east are beds of standards and 

 dwarfs beautifully laid-out and planted — garden decoration 

 being the only object in view ; but the blooms were so fine 

 that I persuaded Dr. Hodges to let me show a box for him at 

 Clifton, and went over myself and staged them for him. 

 Many of the blooms I saw were as fine or finer than any I 

 have had this year, and yet he never disbuds ; I believe he 

 would think it sacrilege to do so. He positively shuddered as 

 I proposed it to him. 



Here, then, are three cases — Mr. Badclyffe's, Mr. Walters's 

 of Mount Badford, Exeter, and the Bev. Dr. Hodges's of Lyme 

 Begis. All grow Bplendid flowers, and none disbud. It seems 

 to me, then, that it is evident that good blooms can be grown 

 without excessive disbudding. — Wild Savage. 



FERTILISERS AND THEIR APPLICATION. 



On the face of it the excellent letter of " J. B. K.," on page 

 33, criticising the mode I detailed of applying fertilisers to 

 garden crops, appears to possess crashing force. It is a com- 

 mon saying that figures when put clearly cannot be " got 

 over." I have no occasion to attempt to " get over " the figures 

 of your correspondent, because he has left ample room be- 

 tween them. We sometimes see allusions made to reading 

 between the lines. I am now going to indulge in reading be- 

 tween the figures, and I hope thereby to find and point out a 

 lesson that may be useful, and one that has an important 

 bearing on the subject at issue. Possibly in doing so I shall 

 interfere with the logic of your correspondent, but that I 

 oannot help ; in fact, my object, which I will not attempt to 

 disguise, is to weaken the case of " J. B. K.," and to strengthen 

 my own. It is just a case of practice against science — a plain 

 worker againBt an accomplished rhetorician and skilled theorist. 

 I do not find the slightest fault with the way in which 

 " J. B. K." has discussed my letter, and I feel sure he will not 

 demur to my mode of dissecting his. It has been Baid, and I 

 think truly, that when science and practice clash that either 

 the one or the other is wrong — the science is not true, indeed 

 is not science at all, or the practice is not sound. I will now 

 endeavour to prove that my practice of applying guano, &c, to 

 garden crops as detailed on page 476 is not unsound. I 

 cannot do this by figures, but I can by evidence, which is 

 equally powerful — results, facts. 



But in the first place I must refer to the figures of " J. B. K." 

 and Bee what is in them, and especially what is between them. 

 Guano is first mentioned by your correspondent, and it will 

 suffice that I refer exclusively to that manure. I will not 

 question the accuracy of the figures but will take them as 

 they stand. According to my Bhowing and which was fairly 

 admitted by " J. B. K.," my mode of applying guano to rows 

 of Peas and Scarlet Bunners in trenches — namely, pouring a 

 gallon of water holding in solution about 1£ oz. of guano to a 

 square foot of soil, is reduced to just half that quantity of 

 manure, as I particularly explained when a soaking of pure 

 water was given just previously, which is the right mode of 

 applying liquid manure in dry weather. Now the cost per 

 acre at that rate of application according to the reckoning of 

 " J. B. K." is £120. Now for the " between," for it is there 

 that "J. B. K." is at fault — seriouBly at fault — and where his 

 science must, I think, fall before my practice. I assert, and 

 will prove my position to demonstration, that the amount 

 there given is at the leaBt five times too large, for the simple 

 reason that the rows of Peas were 5 feet, and the rows of 

 Beans more than 6 feet apart, and not a particle of manure 

 was used between the rows. I must ask " J. B. K.," therefore, 

 to deduct the quantity and amount from the space between 

 the rows— more than four-fifths of the acre, and further ask 

 him if he seriously believes that the amount actually given 

 "poiBoned the crops ?" I will not, however, permit a matter 

 so important to rest on the mere opinion or belief of anyone, 

 but will answer the question myself, and I deBire my reply to 

 be firm and emphatic. It did not poison the crops, it did not 

 injure them, but it benefited them. 



In point of fact it could not do otherwise than benefit such 

 crops during such a season as the one referred to, and I further 

 assert that the fertilisers were used profitably- — hence economi- 

 cally. The great advantage in applying support in that form 

 is that it goes direct to the object. It is not wasted between 

 the crops by making the weeds (where there are any) more 

 luxuriant, but is appropriated by the crops which require 

 assistance and which give a profitable return on the outlay 

 invested. 



Let me here remark that the homceopathic mode of applying 

 fertilisers is during some seasons — perhaps during most, and 

 under a majority of conditions— not only not economical but 

 often wasteful. I have recently read an account of an artil- 

 lery duel between two opposing batteries. The shots from one 

 battery all fell short. The powder was no doubt the best of 

 its kind, but there was not enough of it ; it was wasted. It is 

 precisely the same with fertilisers. They may be of the best, 

 but if they are not applied in sufficient quantities and in 

 obedience to the dictates of the state of the crops and the 

 requirements of the owner of them, taking into account also 

 the character of the season and the nature of the soil, they 

 are wasted, and what was considered as economy really be- 

 comes extravagance. In such a season as the one referred 

 to guano is wasted when merely sprinkled on the surface of 

 the soil " once a-year at the rate of 3 cwt. per acre." I can 

 adduce actual proof of that — namely, that 3 cwt. per acre 

 applied once a-year is extravagance, while frequent applica- 

 tions of the quantities I recommended are profitable. That 

 statement appears paradoxical, but I have proved the truth of 

 it by results. I have had something " to do " with a farm. 

 During the year referred to the orthodox quantities of ferti- 

 lisers were applied to the farm adjoining the garden where I 

 was engaged ; but the farm produce was miserable — a failure 

 and loss, great loss was incurred, yet the garden crops were 

 full, good, and profitable. By want of food lambs died by 

 scores, and the shepherd sent every morning to the garden for 

 such green food as he could be supplied with to prevent further 

 loss by the barrenness of the farm. 



But the question is one of gardening, not of farming, and I 

 should not have brought forward that experience had not 

 " J. B. E." advocated farm quantities. I say that farm 

 quantities are totally inadequate for garden purposes. The 

 quantities I recommended on page 476 are for garden crops. 

 I have proved that they are safe quantities, and, when applied 

 as there stated, profitable. The quantities are safe, but the 

 frequency of their application depends on circumstances — on 

 the condition of the cropB and the weather. During the year 

 referred to the crops were soaked no doubt about " eight times," 

 and I am sure not one too many. In a season like the present 

 one or two applications would suffice to enable the crops to be 

 luxuriant — full — profitable. 



Farm quantities of fertilisers as applied to garden crops 

 are starvation quantities, and would drive a market gardener 

 into the Bankruptcy Court. The amount of manure annually 

 used in the market gardens of London is five times as great as 

 is ordinarily used on farms. Would those thrifty, industrious, 

 and I may justly add splendid cultivators expend such im- 

 mense sums in purchasing manure as they do if it were not 

 profitable ? It is obvious that they neither would nor oould 

 do so. It is half manuring and half watering that are really 

 extravagant ; adequate manuring and adequate watering which 

 are lucrative, and therefore economical. The quantities of 

 water and manure that I have recommended are every year 

 appropriated by the crops in the London market grounds. 



It may be well to pause for a moment and ask, What is a 

 good farm crop and what a good garden crop? I do not 

 know that the former can be put more fairly than by stating 

 that the produce of two acres of average land is required for 

 three years to grow and fatten a good bullock, which is then 

 worth about £30. Now, let us take a typical garden crop — 

 Onions. Mr. Aberhaut of Mitcham has grown 16 tons of 

 Onions on an acre of ground, and sold them for £12 per ton — 

 £192 per acre ; and last year Mr. Bishop, Bylangh, East Dere- 

 ham, produced a crop whioh averaged 30 stones per square rod, 

 or about 30 tons to the acre. This extraordinary crop was 

 produced by the aid of liquid manure, principally stable urine, 

 and much stronger than any applications which I have recom- 

 mended, and which " J, B. K." alludes to as wasteful. But I 

 do not consider that Mr. Bishop wasted the liquid manure 

 when he produced a crop of Onions worth, at £12 per ton, 

 nearly £400 per acre. These weights and values are not 

 arrived at by any mere rules of logic, but are crops which have 

 been actually produced. They prove also the great difference 

 between farm and garden oulture, and how utterly inadequate 

 are the quantities of fertilisers recommended by your corre- 

 spondent for the full and lucrative production of garden crops. 



" J. B. K." has also stated that the quantity of water that 

 I named as having been given during the tropioal summer of 

 1868 was excessive. His position on this point is admittedly 

 theoretioal, and is, I submit, fallacious. Your correspondent 

 takes the rainfall as his base, and says that as the average 



