368 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ May 4 , 1882. 
available - ) potash sufficient to enable us to go on raising the best 
crops without applying any potash. When farmyard manure is 
regularly employed in the usual way, almost all soils will yield 
full crops without potash being artificially applied ; and when 
every drop of urine is also returned it is doubtful if any soil worth 
cultivating requires it added artificially. These are broad facts 
that have been ascertained. But scientific agriculture aini3 at 
enabling farmers to sell all the produce, to dispense with stock, 
and even to do without horses if that is to pay best. Under these 
circumstances the agriculturist wants to know whether he can do 
without manure as some have tried, or if he must purchase 
what it is he actually wants. Under such conditions, or condi¬ 
tions approaching such, land that contains 2 per cent, of potash 
will be, of course, much more valuable than that which may con¬ 
tain only 0 05 per cent, as some cultivated lands do. The farmer 
on the former soil may be sure that he wants only nitrogen and 
phosphate, while the farmer cultivating the latter will almost 
certainly find the employment of potash salts in addition a neces¬ 
sity, or at least an advantage. 
It is doubtful if ever science will enable the farmer to grow 
crops profitably in very sandy soils without farmyard manures. 
Possibly the best thing he can do is to use such, and subsidise it 
with phosphates, nitrogen, and also potash salts. Sulphate of 
potash, as found in kainit, is possibly the cheapest form in which 
potash can be bought. From some cause its use, as pointed out 
by “ Inquirer,” has not always been attended with the results 
looked for. Being very sparingly soluble in water, it has hitherto 
been considered to be not available in that form, but it is supposed 
to become converted in the soil into the carbonate, and to be then 
available. Certainly its effects are often more apparent years 
after its application than immediately, hence the unreliable 
nature of experiments with potash in this form. Professor Tanner 
says, “ In this form (kainit) potash has been productive of most 
satisfactory results, but as a rule it has not realised the sanguine 
expectations which were so generally entertained. This in no 
way depreciates the value previously set upon a proper supply of 
potash, it rather indicates that we have in some degree failed to 
employ the kainit so as to secure the best results which the 
potash it contains is capable of producing.” 
In my last communication I pointed out how Mr. Cadle had, 
or supposed he had, solved the difficulty ; and if his method 
secures the reaction named—and there seems no reason for doubt¬ 
ing the evidence—it is reasonable to expect that when manure is ' 
so treated the effect must be beneficial when potash is deficient. 
Even supposing the potash to be abundantly present in the soil, 
were the ammonia—worth £80 a ton—saved it would be well 
worth the cultivator’s trouble to employ the kainit; for, though 
with judicious management the ammonia of farmyard manure 
can all be saved, it is too often lost either in the air or drained 
away. The questions to be decided are—(1) is potash needed ? 
and (2) how may it be most economically used ? I have seen no 
plan so feasible as the sprinkling of manure heaps with kainit 
for a triple reason : It is cheap, it saves the ammonia, and fur¬ 
nishes potash and other salts. 
In the majority of gardens the supply of food which plants 
find comes, practically, from the manure, for garden crops re¬ 
quire such an amount that they would speedily exhaust the 
natural food in even the most favourable soils. At least no 
gardener, unless he possesses data not generally available, can 
be justified in trusting to the ordinary supply from the soil. 
Space does not permit at present, but we could easily produce 
figures to show that garden crops require more potash than phos¬ 
phoric acid, and to prove that the manure usually supplied con¬ 
tains more phosphoric acid than potash. When this goes on for 
a length of time we are quite safe in asserting that benefit would 
accrue were more potash applied. In a very large number of 
cases this does not mean a recourse to the market for potash salts, 
but the use of such as are generally to hand though generally 
neglected. In thousands of cases, however, potash salts must 
alone supply the want, and our remarks were intended to help 
those so situated to make the most of their circumstances. We 
are quite aware of the technical difficulties that attend an in¬ 
vestigation of the case, and aware of the bewildering contradic¬ 
tions that have occurred. Nevertheless, we may grope our way by 
the light we have until it grows in strength to enable us to see 
clearly. Meanwhile we very cordially welcome any remarks 
“Inquirer” may make, and hope to learn therefrom. The 
writer is but a learner, who drops a word now and again by the 
way when he thinks it may spring up and bear fruit. 
In some experiments conducted by the County of Cork Agri¬ 
cultural Society, it appears that 2 cwts. of kainit produced a 
crop of Champion Potatoes at the rate of 13 tons 9 cwts. per 
acre, or an increase of 9 tons per acre over the unmanured 
portion, and even more than that produced by 30 tons of ordi¬ 
nary manure. As 30 tons of ordinary manure contain some¬ 
where about 300 lbs. or more of available potash, and 2 cwts. 
of kainit less than 30 lbs., and that not in a very available form, 
it is not easy to understand how such results have come about. 
However, we produce the latest experiment that has come to our 
notice and the result as a nut for “Inquirer” to crack.— 
Single-hander. 
P.S.—“ Inquirer ” quotes the words of Dr. Yoelcker to show 
that potash salts are sometimes hurtful. Are we to attribute 
such effects to the potash or the chloride of magnesia ? We 
believe the latter and not the potash does the mischief.—S. H. 
“ Single-handed ” was good enough to finish his reply to my 
first letter on the subject of Fertilisers with these words :—“ If the 
difficulties raised by 1 Inquirer ’ have not been fully explained to 
his satisfaction we shall be pleased to return to the subject. 
Nothing is of more importance, and a full discussion would be 
useful.” Encouraged by these words, and trusting to his and 
your forbearance, I now ask permission to again occupy your 
valuable space with my misgivings concerning his recommenda¬ 
tions as “ to the general and abundant use ” of potash with stable- 
yard manure. 
In my last letter, finding that “ Single-handed ” looked 
upon Voelcker as a supporter of his views, I pointed out that 
the latter, in his written reports, did not appear on the whole 
to advocate this practice, or at all events that he preferred to 
withhold his decision until more knowledge was gained on the 
subject, but at the same time I am free to admit that both Liebig 
and Ville in their writings would seem to me to be on the side 
taken by “ Single-handed.” Probably, however, their conclu¬ 
sions are based upon results observed with the comparatively 
more exhausted soils of the continent, whilst Voelcker’s deduc¬ 
tions are, to a large extent at least, drawn from experiences in 
this country. With reference to the second point, on which I 
must confess I am still unsatisfied with the reasoning of “ Single- 
handed,” I wish to observe as follows :—“ Single-handed ” 
states that sulphate of potash must become converted into carbo¬ 
nate of potash before the potash becomes available for plant 
nutrition ; but my previous studies had led me, whether rightly or 
wrongly, to the supposition that the present doctrine was that 
potash in the free state or combined with an acid was abundantly 
fixed by the soil ; and in any case when fixed by the soil was imme¬ 
diately available as an element of nutrition, always supposing that 
other equally necessary elements were present and ready to per¬ 
form their parts. If this be correct the views of “ Single- 
handed ” on the point must be inaccurate, for he states that a 
long period takes place before the potash sulphate is converted 
into carbonate and becomes available for nutrition. It would 
appear to follow, too, that it would be better to add carbonate of 
potash to manures than sulphate or chloride, which is not, 1 think, 
generally supposed to be the case. However, as Liebig remarks, 
“ There is not to be found in chemistry a more wonderful pheno¬ 
menon, one which more confounds human wisdom, than is pre¬ 
sented by the soil of a garden or field.” We may well be excused, 
therefore, if our views on these difficult matters are not as clear 
as they might be, and I hope I may be allowed to make this 
excuse if I have troubled “ Single-handed ” unnecessarily.— 
Inquirer. 
WOOD FOR LABELS. 
There is still a question upon the subject of pitch pine for 
labels, about which I should be glad—and others would be glad 
as well—to learn our Editor’s experience. Last week a communi¬ 
cation of mine was published, and with editorial opinion, of a 
sample label which I forwarded. This label was taken to be for 
some other use than to be stuck in the ground. The upper part 
of the label only was sent, and this I should have explained, as 
it was of the common form, pointed at one end for sticking in 
the ground. It was said of the white deal that “ We have never 
found the wood of white deal decayed before the names were 
obliterated when the labels were not inserted in the ground.” But 
it is for sticking in the ground that I have proposed labels of 
pitch pine, and for this purpose only. The question I would ask 
is, Whether white deal or pitch pine is considered best for this 
purpose ? 
If asked I should have said that the soft white deal would take 
up water and soon decay, perhaps falling on the ground, while‘the 
name is still easily read. This would always be a misfortune, and 
would result frequently in the loss of names. With the white 
deal there is the advantage of deeply impressed writing, and we 
seem to be clearly instructed that this wood is best when the label 
