4S6 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
\ JUDG 14, 1888. 
his diligent search for them quite overlooking a few others, which I think 
should be kept in view. 
Why he should consider I have finally settled the point regarding the 
use of nitrate of soda in his favour I cannot understand, as I have 
throughout this debate continually and consistently recommended 
changes of food to be given to plants, such as liquid manures from 
stables and cowhouses, to be varied at intervals with guano, nitrate of 
soda, and such stimulating substances, and I have already pointed out 
that the manure and urine of animals are rich in the solidifying agents, 
and in the case of ])ot plants the soil used is invariably rich in potash 
and phosphoric acid, and unless these elements are present in sufficient 
quantity the nitrate of soda will not have its full effect, as a vigorous 
growth cannot be built up without solidifying agents are present, but 
when they are present and too large a quantity of soda is given, it 
causes vegetation to draw o't from the soil large supplies of those 
elements, and consequently to produce a greater amount of vigour than 
can be properly solidified by the influences of light and air. This is 
why I contend the best results are produced by using the nitrate in the 
way I have advocated. That is given whenever the result of daily 
observation shows that more vigour is desirable, taking into consideration 
the varying conditions of weather in each particular season. On his 
foundation my answer to his query, “ Docs the constitution of a plant 
improve because its bulk increases ?” will rest securely. It is not alto¬ 
gether a question of keeping a plant merely in health, but also of 
enabling it to produce the greatest amount of vigour that can be 
attended with the best results. And I maintain that this is the better 
accomplished by applying stimulating substances at intervals instead of 
forming them into a “ properly proportioned combination,” so as to 
bring out the full productive powers in the soil at a time when the 
strain on the plant’s energies is the greatest. This is no “ fad,” but a 
fact. 
After having duly refreshed my memory by referring to what Mr. 
Coombe has already written on this subject, I fail to find a single in¬ 
stance in which he has taken into consideration the various stages of 
growth that plants pass through and the condition they are in at the 
time he would apply manures, but I do find that he has shifted his 
ground considerably. In one of his earlier contributions he pins his 
faith upon fanciful mixtures, which he dubbed by the euphonic title of 
“properly proportioned combinations of the elements needed,” but I am 
glad to notice he is gradually abandoning that idea as unnecessary, if not 
impracticable. Unnecessary, because experience teaches us that for 
practical purposes no better results are obtained by the use of the 
minutely proportioned mixtures so long as the principal constituents of 
plant food are present, and impracticable because the method of com¬ 
pounding manures in the same way that a druggist does medicine, 
which the enthusiasm of my opponent lei him to believe would become 
a special feature in gardens of the future, would be worse than useless 
uriless gardeners had also sufficient scientific knowledge to analyse the 
soils they had to deal with, otherwise they would compound manures 
proportioned according to the constituent parts of plants to be supplied 
with it, while the soil in which they were growing would contain an 
excess of those elements and a deficiency of others, which would throw 
those calculations out of balance. But to do my opponent justice, I do 
not think he really believed seriously in such mysterious compounds. 
That idea was simply intended as an artistic embellishment for his 
article. But it is by results that these “ fads ” must be judged, and not 
by words. 
I feel somewhat flattered by the generous tribute my opponent has 
paid to my rapid advance in the attainment of scientific knowledge, 
but I felt it behoved me to arrange a few scientific facts within my 
reach in such a way as to show that my practice is compatible with 
theory in its surest form—viz., when it has been proved to be correct; 
and I venture to suggest that possibly Jlr. Coombe has been busy in that 
direction himself of late. I cannot admit that the system of giving 
plants such changes of food as are known to produce highly satisfac¬ 
tory results is a haphazard one, but I should call it both rash and hap¬ 
hazard to depend on a ceitain chemical combination manufactured 
according to the elements of which plant life is built up, without any 
regard to the quantities of each already in the soil, and by going in 
for these nicely proportioned combinations much needless expense is 
often incurred unless the soil is analysed to find out the exact quantities 
of each it contains ; and even then, when we consider that sometimes a 
given crop takes up a much larger proportion than at others, which 
science as yet cannot explain, we are compelled to look for some other 
way of working, and on these lines I have striven to maintain this 
controversy, in the first place by advocating changes of food which are 
known from experience to be good, and in my latest article showing how 
that system agreed in the main points with scientific theories. 
I have repeatedly observed ample proofs of the advantages to be 
derived from giving certain portions of plant food at various stages of 
their development, and we have recently had a notable illustration of 
the wisdom of that practice by applying lime to Peach and Nectarine 
trees during the stoning period, the result being even beyond our expec¬ 
tation—much better than when given at the winter dressing; and the 
conclusion I draw from this is that there must be a greater demand for 
that substance while the stoning process is going on than at any other 
stage of development, and consequently a supply is needed at that 
critical time. 
The portion of Mr. Coombe’s article in which he criticises the case 
mentioned by “ B.,” I need not enter into, as it will doubtless be dealt 
with by that writer with his usual force and clearness ; but as my 
opponent has devoted the two concluding paragraphs of his article to a 
vigorous attack upon what he chooses to call my “ fads,” and “ the ex¬ 
perience I hold so dear,” I feel somewhat disposed to correct a few of 
his random statements. Referring to the question. Does nitrate of soda 
leave the soil in an exhausted condition ? he says, “ Can he (meaning 
myself) not see that the quotation he gives directly supports what I 
advised at the commencement, that it should not be used alone, but com¬ 
bined with other substantial plant foods?” I reply. Certainly I cannot, 
nor do I see by what process of reasoning he can do so, as the quotation 
I gave plainly shows how illogical it is to raise any objection to the use 
of nitrate of soda, because it transforms into produce the raw material 
at its disposal in soils and in manures, and thereby increases the yield. 
He also again repeats, but if the phosphoric acid and potash should 
unfortunately not be present in consequence of repeated applications 
of nitrate. Now he would not have asked that question in this ease 
if he had not altogether overlooked one fact, that the quotation 1 gave 
pointed out the importance of returning to the soil the amount of phos¬ 
phoric acid and potash the crop had taken from it before another crop 
was sown or planted, and then stimulating manures should again bo 
used at intervals to produce the greatest amount of vigour found to be 
desirable. 1 stated in my last article that the nitrate and ammoniacal 
manures should not be combined with the other materials because they 
are not fastened up by the soil, but remain freely moveable, and a residue 
not quickly taken up by the plant would be dispersed, and consequently 
wasted. In answer to Mr. Coorabe’s charges of inconsistency, let me 
ask him to refresh his memory with a glance at his second article on this 
subject, he will there have the satisfaction of seeing he himself admits 
the inconsistency; and as to the anomalous position he asserts I have 
placed myself in, I am inclined to regard that statement as an ex¬ 
aggeration.—H. Dunkin. 
ROSE SHOWS IN 18S8. 
June 2fith.—Boston. 
„ 28th. —Brockham and Ryde. 
„ 30th.—Eltham, Colchester, and Reigate. 
July 3rd.—Bagshot, Canterbury, Diss, and Hereford. 
„ 4th.—Croydon, Dursley, Farnham, Hitchin, and Richmond 
(Surrey). 
„ 5th.—Bath, Farningham, and Norwich. 
„ fith.—Sutton. 
„ 7th.—Crystal Palace (National Rose Society), 
„ 10th.—Gloucester, Ipswich and Oxford. 
„ 11th.—Ealing and Tunbridge Wells. 
„ 12th.—Birmingham, Carlton-in-Lindrick, and Winchestei- 
„ 14th.—New Brighton. 
„ Kith.—Newcastle-under-Lyne. 
„ 17th.—Leek and Ulverstone. 
„ 18th.—Birkenhead. 
„ 19th.—Helensburgh. 
„ 20th.—Darlington (National Rose Society). 
„ 21st.—Manchester. 
„ 24th.—Tibshelf. 
In the above list the only exhibitions not held by the National Rose 
Society, or by Societies in affiliation with it, are those at Birmingham, 
Boston, Carlton-in-Lindrick, Dursley, Manchester, Newcastle-under- 
Lyne, and Richmond. In the case of Birmingham and Boston, where the 
shows extend over two days, the date of the first daj’’s exhibition only 
is given.—E dwakd Mawley, Rosebanh, Rei'bhayiisted, Ilertu, 
SEASONABLE WORK. 
Standards present but a poor appearance, so many of them being 
either killed or badly injured by frosts during the past winter. The 
dwarfs, notably those on their own roots, are, fortunately, in excellent) 
condition, and, in fact, are improved by the rather severe shortening of 
the old wood, much of it having been killed to within 6 inches of the 
ground. All ought to have the young growths thinned where crowded, the 
useless spray especially. The early removal of a great number of side 
buds is also most beneficial, those reserved being much improved thereby 
both as regards size of blooms and the substance of the petals. In most 
instances the central buds are preferred ; tut if these are damaged 
in any way, or are deformed, they ought at once to be pinched off, 
and a prominent side bud reserved. It is also advisable to remove 
a few central buds on each bush, and this will insure a better succession 
of bloom, the side buds usually being the latest. A good look out for 
maggots ought to be kept. The ground about the Roses, being in a 
half-moist condition, is just right for receiving a liberal supply of liquid 
manure, such as the drainings from a farmyard, or a light surfacing of 
artificial manure, may be washed in with advantage. If fine show- 
blooms are required something of the kind must be given, and even if 
not wanted for exhibition well “ built up ” flo\vers last much tha 
longest in a cut state. Before a w-atering is given the surface of the 
ground should be lightly forked, and subsequently a liberal mulching 
