393 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
r November 1, 1888. 
prejudices as well as other folk. We, however, had a 20 yards row of 
Chelsea Giant White, which produced truly gieantic pods, thick, fleshy, 
and best of all of capital table quality. The enormous size of the 
handsome pods render them very striking on the plant, and still more 
so when selected for exhibition. I have a fancy for trying things 
differently at every opportunity, and this year the Runner rows were 
placed exactly where the Celery rows had been the year before. There 
were others on ground we manured and dug. Comparison of the two is 
out of the question, suffice it we had more than double the crop on the 
well stirred soil of the past Celery trenches as on the dug ground, though 
we mulched both so as to give an equal chance. Then we had staked 
and unstaked rows, with the result that for one of the unstaked we 
have four of the staked— i.e., pods, dishes, or pecks, whichever way it 
may be put. 
Asparagus. —Our soil is strong with a clay subsoil, which is not 
suitable for Asparagus. Still we have some fairly good beds, and have 
some better covering on the ridge system, but then it does no more m 
two seasons than I have had it do in one on sandy soil, deep and rich. 
To make Asparagus thrive in heavy soil, I find nothing better than the 
rubbish heap debris, with the woody portion charred, the potting bench 
refuse, including crocks, helping to make the soil more porous, and leaf 
soil a foot thick worked in does wonders. Yet it costs more to make the 
land than will ever be seen again in profit of Asparagus. Growing for 
home consumption is “ a leaf out of another book.” 
Cauliflowers. —Only twice have I sown Autumn Giant in August, 
and had a very large per-centage of blind plants each time. They were 
blind (i.e., lost their centres of growing point) in the frame into which 
they were pricked, and when transplanted in spring to the flowering 
quarter many more followed suit. From a spring sowing out of the 
same packet of seed not one in a hundred was blind, but of the August 
sown fully 50 per cent, went wrong. I don’t pretend to be capable of 
giving an explanation, but it is clear it does not like checks. Nor am I 
going to complain, as Autumn Giant is the best of all Cauliflowers for 
autumn use, not autumn sowing. There is another reason. Out of the 
blind ones I had a plant that made ample amends by the shortness of 
its stem, the sturdiness of its habit, the distinctness of its leaves, and the 
size of its head. Believing in selection, I had it lifted and potted, and 
it is now going to flower in good earnest. Cauliflowers have been and 
are first rate. Erfurt Mammoth, Early London, and Walcheren are our 
sorts for autumn sowing, and for spring also, Walcheren being still a 
splendid all-round sort, surpassed by none except Veitch’s Pearl, which 
is a great improvement on this popular variety, and from which it is 
very distinct, with quality of the finest. Grubs at the root and cater¬ 
pillars have not troubled Cauliflowers, or indeed any of the Brassicas 
this season. 
Cabbages.— July twelvemonth I sowed Yeitch’s Earliest of All 
with Ellam’s Early Spring, planted at equal breadth, with the result that 
Earliest of All nearly all bolted, but not one of Ellam’s. It was difficult 
to tell which feeling was ascendant, that of mortification at Earliest of 
All, or the satisfaction that it was nowhere beside my favourite Ellam’s, 
the best of all spring Cabbage. The reason I have not mentioned it 
sooner was through my finding the vendors did not put it forward as a 
spring but as a summer Cabbage, otherwise my pen was ready dipped in 
poison for the onslaught, and I do not care for summer Cabbages. Hill’s 
Incomparable follows Ellam’s, and they are thoroughly reliable and well 
flavoured as summer Cabbages, which surpass Nonpareil Improved. Of 
course I have not seen Earliest of All, which may be first rate in its 
proper season, that certainly not being its characteristic for spring use, 
besides it is too tender, being much cut by frost, but then I took parti¬ 
cular pains with it—viz., gave the ground a good dressing of fowl 
manure, had splendid plants, which were cut off by frost, and what re¬ 
mained our poultryman had for the fowls.— Utilitarian. 
CANKER IN FRUIT TREES. 
I have read with interest Mr. Tonks’ paper on the above 
subject, especially as I have for some time been of opinion that 
canker is clue to lack of some needed plant food in the soil, or to a 
superabundance of some injurious mineral, as I mentioned in the 
Journal, vol. ii, p. 588, when there was a discussion on the same 
subject. I think if we were all to contribute what we know on 
this question we should sooner arrive at an answer to it, and find 
out exactly what is needed. 
I hardly think it can be necessary to supply as a remedy all the 
ingredients mentioned in Mr. Tonks’ formula, because many varie¬ 
ties ot fr uit trees on my soil are subject to canker, and yet we 
nave sufficient of all he names except soda, and therefore I am 
inclined to think that if any mineral is required it is this, and it 
can be supplied very cheaply by an annual dressing of 2 cwt. of 
salt per acre. 
Dr. Yoelcker’s analysis of my soil, before applying a large 
quantity of dung, which I had subsequently done, shows that it 
contains :— 
Oxide of Carbonate of Sulphate of Phosphoric Orj?an c 
Iron. Lime. Lime. Magnesia. Soda. Potash. Acid. Matter.* 
3-38 3-91 0-26 0-67 007 0'51 0-24 3'04 
He remarks that the soil contains a considerable proportion of 
lime, and will not need an application of this at all, and the quan¬ 
tities of phosphoric acid and potash are also fully up to the- 
average of good fruit-growing sorts. 
As the fruit of the Apple contains a large proportion of soda,, 
and our soil contains a great deficiency of this, and has sufficient of 
other minerals, it points to the conclusion that if canker is due to 
the lack of any particular mineral, in all probability it is soda that 
is required, besides keeping up the general fertility of the soil by 
means of dung or other fertiliser. The fruit of the Strawberry 
also contains a large amount of soda. I have grown a large quan¬ 
tity of Strawberries for market, and my neighbours have told me 
that the fruit has been exceptionally fine, and have been surprised 
at my crop compared with theirs. I believe it is largely due to 
supplying the plants with soda, besides nitrogen and phosphoric 
acid by means of bone dust. I see Mr. Tonks mentions super¬ 
phosphate in his formula. For my part I do not like to put 
superphosphate on the ground because of the acid it contains, and 
I use bone dust instead. 
Mr. Tonks thinks it is wise to apply iron in case it is required. 
The quantity of iron present in our soil I think disproves this, and 
indeed I suspect iron is a cause of canker, for the more the subsoil 
here is red with iron, the more the trees suffer from canker, and I 
apply such manures as I think tend to dissolve this iron. 
Very likely if trees have a sufficiency of soda and other necessary 
minerals they might be able to withstand the iron. I hope other 
contributors will give their experience.— Walter Kruse, Maidstone. 
I read with much interest the valuable paper on canker by 
Mr. Tonks reproduced in last week’s Journal, the conclusion he 
arrives at being that the secret of the matter lies in some deficiency 
of the mineral elements the soil should contain to enable the trees 
to grow healthily and vigorously. It is very noticeable that this 
gentleman makes no reference to the relation of acari to this 
malady, on which Mr. Hiam and others have laid so much stress. 
As you may remember, though I could not accept the view that 
an attack of acari originated the canker complaint, I was fully con¬ 
vinced by observation that the insects often seriously aggravated 
the mischief, hence the advisableness of dealing with them. I think 
it is in evidence that certain varieties—of the Apple obviously^ 
probably also of the Pear—are specially liable to canker. I do not 
know in what relation this fact stands to Mr. Tonks’ theory. 
During the year 1884, and 1885 also, I think, you had complaints 
concerning a large aphis of a black hue, which infested Chrysanthe¬ 
mums in some districts, and which, if rarely numerous enough to 
prevent flowering, w r as decidedly a source of harm to the plants^ 
Have you heard of any recent appearances of this ? It was pre-> 
suined to be exotic, and therefore might die out, particularly as, 
like others of the aphis group, it would very likely migrate in 
spring or autumn, and might fail to find a change of food suitable- 
to its habits were it a foreigner.—J. R. S. C. 
ROMAN HYACINTHS. 
In my opinion Roman Hyacinths are not so much grown as 
they merit, more especially for flowering at Christmas. Those who- 
grow many Chrysanthemums may find them attractive in November 
and the early part of December, but by the middle of the latter 
month their heauty has departed. Such pure fragrant flowers as 
those of the Roman Hyacinth are then simply invaluable. We 
have tried to force many bulbs into flower at that time and failed, 
and I hold that all who have only moderate means of forcing will 
be unable, as a rule, to flower any of them by Christmas excepting 
the Roman Hyacinth. With it, however, there is no difficulty, and 
this is why it should be forced more generally than any other ; 
indeed it flowers so freely about midwinter as hardly to deserve 
being; termed a forced plant, and no one ought to have the idea 
that it is expensive to secure it in bloom when the bulbs are potted 
in October. If kept under ashes the greater part of November, 
or until the growths have become 2 inches or so in length, it is 
afterwards a difficult matter to prevent it flowering. We require 
our earliest flowers of it about the middle of December, and the 
♦ Containing Nitrogen, 017. 
