HOW MUCH DOES WATERING HELP? 



A RE the plants in our gardens getting more to drink 

 f\ than is good for them — and for us, as measured by 



/ \ our leisure moments and peace of mind? 



J % Is there a tendency among gardeners to use the 

 -*• -^ hose and sprinkler to excess, paying the penalty of 

 prodigality by having to expend an unnecessarily great amount 

 of time and energy in combating plant diseases and repelling 

 insect pest invasions? 



This line of thought is neither as frivolous nor as far-fetched 

 as it may at first appear; and it deserves serious consideration — 

 from those of our readers who from choice or necessity measure 

 the success of their gardening by standards in which economy 

 of effort and money are highly important factors. 



One doesn't have to be inherently lazy in order to desire 

 maximum results from minimum efforts. Indeed, that, ex- 

 pressed in more resounding phrases, is the objective of all " scien- 

 tific efficiency" wherever applied. Wherefore we may regard 

 a determination to give to our crops — whether economic or 

 ornamental — the least possible care commensurate with at 

 least moderately satisfactory returns, not only legitimate, but 

 even laudable. In the case of the vegetable garden this ambi- 

 tion may be part of a desire to make the plot as financially prof- 

 itable as possible; in any case it is an indication of a decision 

 that the garden shall be something to enjoy, not a burden to be 

 endured. 



On this basis, the less one has to spray, the nearer one is, 

 by a very considerable margin, to his goal of economical achieve- 

 ment. Any program, method, or theory that tends to reduce 

 the necessity of spraying, therefore, spells progress in his voca- 

 bulary. It is such a program — or, rather, as yet "a theory" — 

 that has suggested itself to us this last summer and that is 

 now laid on the table for examination and discussion by the 

 neighbors. 



There is a garden that we have been observing for a number 

 of years in which spraying activities have consistently been kept 

 close to the vanishing point. And this garden is just as free 

 from disease and insect pests as the average — if anything, rather 

 more than the average. Its owner makes no attempt to raise 

 prize crops for exhibition, it is true; but he secures enough to 

 meet his family's needs as to both quantity and quality, and that 

 with an almost complete abandonment of the meticulous care 

 and multitudinous precautions that many of us have come to 

 look upon as almost essential to even the most elementary suc- 

 cess. 



What's the answer? 



One is tempted to suggest "luck," with a mental reservation 

 to the effect that the gardener referred to is rashly tempting 

 providence. But then he has been following this same easy- 

 going course for nearly a decade. No, we are inclining to an- 

 other explanation — namely, that this garden is less in need of 



spraying because it is never, or practically never, stimulated 

 out of season by supplementary watering. 



In the first place, it is located on a loose, sandy, not very rich 

 soil; in the second place, it is not accessible to any supply of 

 water to which either hose or sprinkler can be attached. Conse- 

 quently, except when there are Tomato or Pepper or other kinds 

 of plants to set out — when the plebeian watering pot is brought 

 into commission — the garden receives from one season to the 

 next, only the rain that falleth, like the unstrained quality of 

 mercy, from heaven upon the earth beneath. Whatever the 

 weather brings is cheerfully accepted — for the rest, reliance is 

 placed upon " conservation by means of cultivation." 



Now the rest of the theory is this: Except for the cultivation 

 given them, the plants in this garden have to work out their 

 own salvation; they are expected to withstand such droughts 

 as may occur and, in general, exist under conditions as nearly 

 "natural" as garden crops can ever know. In these circum- 

 stances, is it not probable that the plants develop not only 

 strength, sturdiness, and resistance to the ordinary attacks of 

 the elements, but also a high degree of health and disease re- 

 sistance, too? 



M 



AY there not be a direct connection, via the route of 

 cause and effect, between: (i) rapid-growing, tender, 

 succulent plants assisted by the effective but artificial stimulus of 

 frequent, regular, and abundant waterings or sprinklings, (2) an 

 increased tendency to contract and succumb to diseases and the 

 attacks of insect pests, and (3) the necessity of consistent spray- 

 ing with fungicides and insecticides? Surely we find a parallel 

 in the case of pet stock, domestic animals and even individuals 

 of the human race which, being pampered, sheltered and cared 

 for become super-dependent and excessively susceptible to trials 

 and dangers that would have no effect upon a strong, self-reliant 

 body brought up to look after itself. 



Of course, as in all things, there is a median-line of common 

 sense. Doubtless a complicated program of watering, spraying, 

 and constant coddling will in many cases result in larger, earlier 

 and perhaps higher quality products; greenhouse culture is 

 convincing testimony to this. But measured by utilitarian 

 standards that aim at net rather than gross returns, may not the 

 cost of superfine vegetables and flowers considerably exceed 

 their actual value in the eye of — and against the palate of — the 

 consumer? 



It is possible that the gardener who has a water supply and 

 uses it, who sprays regularly in his many leisure hours, — has 

 always done so and expects to continue to do so — will be in- 

 clined to interpret these suggestions as an attempt to make a 

 virtue of necessity in the case of the individual who cannot 

 water his garden. Such is not the case, however. The ques- 

 tion is simply, " Is much of the spraying that men and women 

 do in their gardens unnecessary under certain circumstances? 

 Are these circumstances under their control, at least in part, 



45 



