182 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ February IG, 189S. 
I)orary advantage may be gained, the evil is only permanently aggra¬ 
vated. What must then be done? Supply iron in an available form, 
say sulphate of iron ^ to f cwt. per acre early in the spring whilst the 
ground is wet. That will supply the trees with iron and sulphur for some 
years, say three, because it is better in practice to apply a manure, if 
sulphate of iron may be called one, in effective, but not excessive, 
quantities at one time than spread the applications over a number of 
years in infinitesimal proportions. Oh ! The iron will be washed into 
the subsoil. So it will, but the cultivator’s business is to prevent such 
an occurrence. How? See to the analysis—iron lov,' (3'38 percent.), 
something else is low also, namely, nitrogen (0‘17 per cent.) equal to 
ammonia (0 21 per cent.)—less in fact than a productive chalk soil. 
Therefore we must apply ammonia or the substance essential to its 
manufacture—that is “muck,” farmyard manure. Mr. Kruse is right. 
The land wants ammonia to ammoniate the otherwise unavailable iron 
in the soil and subsoil which the Apple and Pear tree roots have 
reached. Twenty-one tons per acre every third year of good farm¬ 
yard or stable manure would not be too much, supplemented in the 
second year with a dressing of Thomas’phosphate (basic slag) 5 cwts., 
kainit 2^ cwt. per acre, applied in February, and Ij cwt. nitrate of soda 
supplied at three times in equal proportion—namely, \ cwt. when the 
blooms are expanding, the next | cwt. when the fruit is well set and 
swelling, the third ^ cwt. when it is half swelled. In the third year 
bone superphosphate 3 cwt., nitrate of potash 2 cwt., sulphate of lime 
1 cwt., mixed, per acre, applied in spring will be beneficial. In the 
fourth year apply another 21 tons dressing of manure in autumn or 
early spring, and the f cwt. of sulphate of iron also in the fourth 
spring, always on the bare ground, leaving it for the rains to wash in. 
2, “ Would sulphate of ammonia be a suitable manure (of course, 
phosphorus and potash being added), bearing in mind it is a limestone 
soil ? ” How a limestone soil ? Is it incumbent on limestone ? or chalk, 
running into silicious matter and forming Kentish rag ? That does not 
matter ; the analy'sis does not show a limestone soil, yet for a loamy soil 
a liberal percentage of lime, which does not militate against the use of 
sulphate of ammonia, especially as the soil contains as much alumina 
as a free working clay soil; and 3J cwt. of sulphate of ammonia per 
annum represents the equivalent of 21 tons of stable manure spread over 
three years. That quantity (3J cwt. per acre) would, no doubt, supply 
Mr. Kruse’s cultures with the essential nitrogen, and penetrate the soil 
more rapidly and deeper than the ammonia of ordinary farmyard or 
stable manures ; consequently the iron would sooner become ammoniated 
and available. Where, therefore, Mr. Kruse may not employ ordinary 
farmyard or stable manure, sulphate of ammonia should be applied 
instead, not every year, but on some rotary system, which is better than 
applying the same substance to the same soil and crop every year con¬ 
secutively. Nevertheless the amount of potash and phosphoric acid are 
so good in the analysis that there would, perhaps, be no depreciation in 
the crops were the manures limited for some years to come to nitrogenous 
alone, say sulphate of ammonia one year and nitrate of soda the other, 
applying them as before advised. 
Mr. Kruse used chloride of sodium (common salt), which I think is 
a mistake, as chlorides hinder the acid secretions of tree roots, often 
cause the foliage to become sickly, and on heavy soils are best avoided. 
For that reason kainit is objectionable. Salt and kainit are best applied 
to light or free soils ; but not both, as kainit contains 40 per cent, of 
chloride of sodium (common salt), and enough sulphate and chloride of 
magnesium without special applications. On soils derived from chalk 
or limestone, kainit is best applied in the autumn, and it is only in 
those soils that are poor in potash that it can benefit. To apply potash 
where the soil contains abundance, as Mr. Kruse’s, is to waste money, 
as it affords little or no benefit, nitrogenous manure being far more 
beneficial where there is no lack of potash and phosphoric acid. Far 
less potash, phosphoric acid, and nitrogen is required per acre when 
they are supplied in soluble form in the proper quantity, and at the 
right time, than when given in the form of stable or farmyard manure, 
one-third of the nitrogen of which, according to M. Ville, is lost to the 
soil on account of the decomposition the manure must undergo before 
any good accrues. Besides, fruit trees only need supplies of food six or 
seven months in the year, and though the manufacture of available 
plant-food is less in the winter than the summer, some is made, and a 
large per-centage is washed out by rain, so that substances lying in the 
ground must suffer considerable depreciation in manurial value to the 
crops. Therefore, by using chemical manures adjusted to the require¬ 
ments of the crops, and supplying them so as to get their components 
in those crops instead of losing the major part, as in natural manures, we 
save immensely, and as the time of applying manures is an important 
one it may briefly be referred to.— G. Abbey. 
(To be continued.) 
NOTES ON PEAS. 
Mr. H. S. Easty (page 91) broaches a seasonable topic. With Peas, 
like Potatoes, I consider too many sorts a nuisance, except perhaps to 
the exhibitor or the lover of novelties. With the exception of the 
earliest kinds I am of opinion that Duke of Albany, The Duchess, 
Fortyfold, Veitch’s Perfection, and Ne Plus Ultra will not only be 
hard to beat for all purposes, but are quite enough to supply any 
family. I am positive that they combine the two essentials, freedom 
beaiing and quality. What more is needed I cannot say. With the 
xception of Yeitch’s Perfection, all the other sorts will succeed any¬ 
where with reasonable treatment. The first named can be ready for 
gathering the first week in July, and sometimes the end of June, by 
sowing in pots, growing the plants carefully, afterwards planting them 
out in a properly prepared site. 
At one time I thought the Duke of Albany Pea could not be beaten, 
but it can, and by the Duchess. The advantage of the latter is that it 
grows taller, consequently more pods are produced, these individually 
being longer, while the quality is equal. Fortyfold is an old variety, but 
for cropping and quality it is still unbeaten. It is not an exhibition 
Pea, perhaps, but that is not an important matter with everyone. 
Veitch’s Perfection is too well known to require comment. In many 
districts this is the only variety grown for market—a sufficient test of 
its goodness. 1 am acquainted with a nobleman’s gardener who grows 
no other sort than Ne Plus Ultra except first earlies. This is high 
praise for this Pea, which is usually looked upon as being so well suited 
for the latest crops. 
Opinions vary on the quality and usefulness of the early sorts. I 
prefer Cannell’s English Wonder to any other. William I. may produce 
a full crop of pods, but the peas are of inferior quality as compared 
wth many others. Not only are the Peas that I have named excellent 
in cropping and flavour qualities, but with one exception—Veitch’s 
Perfection—they are all of robust habit and not susceptible to mildew. 
If a regular supply of, say, two dishes per day can be gathered from 
these sorts from the time the second earlies come in at the end of June 
until the end of September, and often the end of October, what more in 
the way of variety is needed ? 
I may be told that as all but one of those named are tall growers, 
the difficulty of obtaining stakes is detrimental to their employment. 
However, not feeling that inconvenience, and knowing so well the 
advantage of tall growing sorts over those dwarfer, I intend to adhere to 
my favourites until I find better.—E. Molyneux. 
EXPERIENCE IN HEATING. 
Regarding “ E. M.’s ” criticism of my views upon the subject of 
heating (page 108), I should be very sanguine if I expected everyone 
would agree with them. It would be singular if they did. They are 
simply a record of some of my observations, and may possibly be of use 
to a few. I will first offer some explanations, also take exception to a 
few points in “ E. M.’s ” analysis. 
Respecting the introduction of flow pipes into houses, I was of 
opinion, until taking charge here, that hot water would readily circu¬ 
late to almost any reasonable height vertically. I have found out since 
it is one of those theories that do not always work out so satisfactorily 
in practice. Where fewer structures are heated from one boiler the case 
would probably be different, there not being such a complication of 
bends. This tends to promote friction, or where a large number of 
houses in one range are all heated at about the same level from the mains, 
presuming the boiler is fixed in a central position, as it should be, 
the connections at the bottom of these vertical pipes are often as 
hot as is possible to bear the hand upon. Up them the heat will not go. 
The pipes being full of water, and no accumulation of air, this occurs 
in several houses at different times. I wish I was in the position to 
satisfactorily explain the matter. I can only make a suggestion. With 
such a number of ramifications, the houses mar the boiler containing 
pipes of easy gradients have, as it were, a circulation of their own. 
There the heat is obtained quickly, consequently there is a large quan¬ 
tity of hot water in close proximity to the boiler. It seems to me to 
prevent the colder water in the return main from the distant houses 
flowing past it. Someone will perhaps say. Check the heat on these 
houses. Conditions required do not always allow of that to any extent. 
Often the return main from these midway houses is fairly hot; 2 feet 
from it, in an upward direction, the same main is correspondingly cold. 
No amount of manipulation will alter this for a considerable time. I 
should add the boilers are fixed at one end of the arrangements, not in 
the centre. 
“ E. M.” takes exception to the arrangement of the pipes along the 
front wall. From my experience it is immaterial whether the Vines are 
planted 18 inches in front of them, or the pipes fixed 18 inches in front 
of the Vines if the heat is judiciously managed. As a matter of fact the 
Vines in the lean-to houses here are within 4 inches of the front pipes, 
the stems protected by boards. Of course I do not advocate that 
system ; I only wish to point out that it does not affect the break of the 
Vines or the finish of the crop. Proof having been given of that, I do 
not regard this matter of a few inches of such importance as some 
cultivators do, neither do I see any improvement in connecting five 
flows into one return over that of connecting four flows into two returns. 
It must be a warm corner where these five flows converge, no fear about 
the wood ripening. One pipe can hardly be expected to receive the 
contents of five very rapidly. 
Iron girders in place of piers, and stone colour paint in place of red, 
will have little effect on the produce, I use red lead, as being more 
durable against the action of the water. I quite agree with “ E. M.” that 
iron borings make the soundest joints. With the exception he points 
out, perhaps all underground pipes would be best made so. Care must 
be exercised, however ; if too much sal ammoniac is used among the 
borings, as employed by some, there is danger of bursting the sockets. 
Hot-water tanks for propagating purposes are good ; but, as in many 
other things, expense often stands in the way of their provision. 
—J. J. Craven, Allerton Priory, Liverpool. 
