3l8 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



fell soon after the sowing of the seed and all the seedlings were up on 

 the third day. The effect of the manure was evident not only in the 

 greater size of the plants but in their darker colour ; indeed, the 

 contrast in colour between those that received farmyard manure 

 and those that did not was very marked on all the plots. 



Peat had also some stimulating effect where no artificial watering 

 was done, though much less than that exercised by the farmyard 

 manure, and the combination of the two gave the best results in all 

 parts of the ground. Lime alone had a retarding effect, but in com- 

 bination with peat the stimulating effect is evident, while peat alone 

 exercised very little influence on the watered plots. 



The following table shows the results of the final weighing when 

 the plants were pulled on September 28, and also the comparative 

 weights of roots and tops. 



The plants and weights on all the four plots which received similar 

 treatment are added together, and the weights averaged in the last 

 columns. 



Plot. 



Dressing. 



Xo. of 

 Plants. 



Gross Weight. 



Average Weight. 



Tops. 



Roots. 



Total. 



Tops. 



Roots. 



Total. 









Lb. 



Lb. 



Lb. 



Lb. 



Lb. 



Lb. 



I 



Bact. peat 



319 



106 



205 



311 



•33 



•64 



•97 



2 



Bact. peat and farm- 











yard manure 



337 



II6-5 



227 



343-5 



•34 



•67 



I-OI 



3 



Farmyard manure 



329 



II 4 



222 



336 



•34 



•68 



1-02 



4 



Farmyard manure 











and artificials 



308 



123 



209 



332 



•4 



•67 



1-07 



5 



No manure 



335 



93 



206-5 



299-5 



•28 



•69 



•89 



6 



Lime 



300 



90-5 



I97'5 



288 



3 



•66 



•96 



7 



Bact. peat and lime 



310 



103 



216 



319-5 



•33 



7 



I-0 3 



8* 



Bact. peat 



337 



99-5 



189 



288-5 



•29 



•56 



•89 



9* 



No manure 



309 



94 



185 



279 



•3 



•6 



•9 



10* 



Farmyard manure . 



310 



89-5 



196 



285-5 



•29 



•63 



•92 



11 



Artificials 



312 



86 



169-5 



255-5 



•27 



•54 



•81 



If we take the gross weights as a basis of comparison we find 

 the order is the same as that revealed by the weights of thinnings, 

 except that Plot 10 (farmyard manure, no artificial watering) takes 

 a lower place, but it will be better to compare the average weights 

 of the plants, as there was some variation in the number of plants 

 that survived on each plot to the end. 



It would be better to leave Plot 11 out of the calculations, for no 

 doubt the cyanamide delayed growth to some extent, and, as has 

 already been pointed out, the plants received a check in their early 

 days on these plots alone. 



Considering first the plots 1 to 7, which were artificially watered, 

 and taking the average weights of the whole plants, we find the order 

 is as follows : — 



1. Plot 4. Farmyard manure plus artificials ~ . . . 100 



2. „ 7. Bacterized peat plus lime . . . .96 



* Not artificially watered. 



