21G 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ March 18, 1886. 
THOUGHTS ON CURRENT TOPICS. 
The subject of lime and its application is still under discussion. It 
is an important subject, on which a diversity of opinion appears to exist. 
An able correspondent, “ A. L. G.,” is evidently content to apply this 
mineral in homoeopathic doses. He may be right as regards the soil he 
has to deal with, but I am strongly convinced that there are hundreds of 
gardens that have been heavily manured for years, and hundreds of 
enriched Vine borders that would be quickly and permanently improved 
by generous applications of lime—indeed, as a rule a light dusting of 
lime has no marked effect on Vines and other crops in rich soil. Your 
■correspondent is, in a measure, supported in his views by Dr. Caldwell 
{page 131), who quotes the old saying that lime applied to land tends to 
“ make the father rich and son poor.” But does not that depend on the 
son ? Twenty-six years ago next April I was requested to make a large 
and then worthless plot of very strong land produce something. It had 
been deeply trenched, and the site had been previously an enclosure for 
cattle—a huge crew yard. More lime was applied than I have yet seen 
advocated in this Journal, and certainly the produce from the ground the 
same year greatly exceeded the aggregate total of the five years previously. 
The lime was more than paid for the first year by the enormous yield of 
Potatoes, and in one particular part where it was applied lavishly, as a 
little experiment, the crop was remarkable. This was an example of 
making the “father rich.” I have quite recently been to see how far 
the heavy liming had made the “ son poor.” I found the land in 
splendid condition, and I suspect not many more productive plots could 
be found. In this case, which is not the one I previously referred to, the 
truth of another saying was revealed—“ Lime is the basis of good hus¬ 
bandry.” 
Your correspondent, I think, attaches too much importance to the 
escape of ammonia into the air, consequent on the action of lime. His 
experiment of dissolzing sulphate of ammonia and lime in water does'not 
prove any such escape from the soil, but only from water, which is quite 
another thing. Ammonia liberated by lime is absorbed by soil of a loamy 
character—that is, containing clay, without which it is not loam. 
Ammonia is also absorbed and retained by humus, or black rich soil. 
This may be ascertained by mixing sulphate of ammonia in water and 
passing it through a large potful of either firm damp loam or soil rich in 
humus. The sulphuric acid, which is of little or no value, will pass 
through, but the ammonia will be left behind. It will not, however, be 
retained by a potful of sand. So far, then, from the ammonia which is 
sealed up in over-rich soil being lost by liberation, it is a distinct gain. 
This I have found true in practice, and over-manured Vines, Roses, and 
land generally have been greatly improved by liberal applications of 
lime. 
Ip any reader of these notes has a bed of Roses in which the soil is 
almost a black soapy mass by repeated applications of manure, and yet 
the Roses are not satisfactory, but the leaves thin in texture and pale in 
colour, as many are under those circumstances, let him slake some lime, 
spread it half an inch thick on the surface, and lightly point it in as soon 
as the ground is in suitable condition. The Roses will improve forthwith, 
and will be better still another year ; and so will Vines under similar 
conditions, and the border dressed in the same way. I found some Rose 
beds in the condition indicated in 1860, the plants lingering in a mass of 
humus. They were limed as stated, lighter dressings being given 
annually for seven years subsequently, and I have no doubt the practice 
was continued afterwards. I found the Roses sickly and left them 
vigorous. The beds continue, with many of the original plants, to this 
day, the son of the former owner having enjoyed them for years. Newly 
made Vine borders, unless limeless, do not require liming, nor is poor soil 
generally improved by applications of lime alone. This, at least, is my 
experience, and what I have recorded is solely with the object of affording 
guidance to others, and not for opposing the views of a correspondent who 
is evidently an earnest searcher for truth, and thus entitled to great 
respect. 
Professor Caldwell’s articles on manures contain much “ food 
for thought.” He lays stress on the value of farmyard manure mainly as 
conveying humus to the soil. When this manure is alone used in large 
quantities year after year the accumulation of humus neutralises the effect 
of other fertilising constituents. Humus is of great value, no doubt, 
especially in poor soils and dry seasons, as a vehicle, so to speak, for con¬ 
taining real plant food that can be applied in a concentrated form. The 
bulk of farmyard manure is not plant food, and if coloured liquid is 
allowed to drain from it its spirit departs—the shell remains, but the 
kernel is gone. Such a mass to be of any service must be supplemented 
with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash mainly. When we consider that 
2 lbs. of sulphate of ammonia contains as much nitrogen as does 100 lbs. 
of farm manure, and that the same bulk only contains the same quantity 
of phosphates and often no potash, when the drainings escape, it is easy 
to perceive that much good may be done by using what are known as 
“ artificials,” such as bonemeal, kainite, and sulphate of ammonia either 
apart from or in addition to farm manure. To give sufficient of what 
plants and crops really need in the form of natural manure a great deal 
more of this has to be used than is in other respects good for them ; in 
fact, in rich gardens the bulk is often injurious ; and in instances 
innumerable it would be far better and cheaper to purchase a mixture 
containing a good proportion of ammonia, phosphates, and potash than to 
invest in farmyard refuse with the spirit gone. “ For those three sub¬ 
stances,” says the Professor, “ any arable soil that is not too sandy is a 
most trustworthy savings bank.” No doubt that is so, and in such soil 
they may be used with certainty of doing much good without any stable 
manure. In sandy soil they are of great value with manure to afford 
humus. This, too, as has been incidentally mentioned, may be afforded by 
green manuring—a practice that is not sufficiently adopted, especially in 
light sandy land. 
After no inconsiderable experience in working sandy soil in a dry 
district I have arrived at the conclusion that no method of procedure is 
worse than to turn it up in the autumn. Digging and adding manure 
then is positively wasteful. Far better is it to sow Rape, Mustard, 
Turnips—anything, as soon as possible in the autumn for covering the 
ground and dig them in in early spring, planting and sowing so far as may 
be convenient as the work proceeds, adding fertilisers at the same time, 
to be supplemented as might be required with nitrate of soda when the 
crops are above ground. In this way the nutriment can be appropriated, 
applied to porous soil in autumn, and the land dug. Half, and often more 
than half, of the virtues are washed away by the rains and melting snows of 
winter. If I had a sandy garden 1 would allow no man to wheel on 
manure and dig the ground until spring if he wanted to do the work 
for nothing. Such land should be dug in early spring before dry weather 
sets in, and be made firm by treading before sowing or planting, after¬ 
wards maintaining a loose surface by the use of the hoe. 
It is not much use arguing with Mr. Hiam on the cause of canker in 
fruit trees. He appears to labour under the delusion that no one but 
himself and Mr. Harrison Weir have examined specimens with the aid of 
a microscope. The last-named gentleman is not only a microscopist, but 
a naturalist and expert draughtsman. It could not be difficult for him 
to accurately figure the “mites” much enlarged, and entomologists who 
have given special attention to minute animalculre would be able to throw 
much light on the subject ; and if it should be determined that insects 
are really the cause of canker in fruit trees generally, Mr. Weir would 
deserve the thanks of the fruit-growing community. In the meantime, I 
can assure Mr. Hiam that methylated spirit, petroleum and Gishurst 
compound have been applied thoroughly, repeatedly, and systematically 
until the “ American blight ” has been totally eradicated, but canker has 
neither been cured nor prevented. I have been to a district where all 
the Apple trees are cankered that have been planted a few years. There 
is no exception as to varieties. Young trees grow in the most satisfactory 
manner until the roots reach the marl, then the evil shows itself. If 
insects are the cause it is singular they should come at that particular 
time. A choice and much-prized collection, belonging to one of the fore¬ 
most horticulturists in the kingdom and a gentleman of great scientific 
attainments, is in the condition described. The microscope reveals no 
mites, though they have been most carefully sought for, and he would 
only be too pleased if he could find satisfactory evidence of the truth 
of the insect theory. So far he is quite unable to do so, but there is no 
possibility of ignoring the presence of canker when the roots of the trees 
reach the marl. Till then they are free. That is a fact as cogent in its 
way as any facts that can be adduced in favour of insects eating Mr, 
Hiam’s trees. 
As sure as spring comes round so do inquiries about and estimates of 
the merits of Peas. I have tried nearly all the varieties in commerce, and 
shall continue growing new sorts as long as opportunity is afforded. There 
is much pleasure in small trials, and when seed is saved of the best 
varieties, no loss; but varieties of proved merit arc alone relied on lor 
giving a regular supply of Peas for use, those “ on trial ” not being taken 
into account for this purpose. It is to be remembered that varieties do 
not grow and bear equally well in differing soil. I have practised in a 
garden where Veitch’s Perfection was one of the best to rely on; in 
another it could not be depended on. With Dr. Hogg, Champion of 
England (or Huntingdonian), and Ne Plus Ultra, I can insure an unbroken 
supply of first-rate Peas over a period of six months ; so I could with 
William I., Telephone, Duke of Albany, Yeitch’s Perfection, and Omega, 
soil being favourable; or again with American Wonder, Advancer, G. F. 
Wilson, House’s Marrow, and British Queen. Other gardeners can, no 
doubt, succeed equally well with other varieties. If I were condemned 
to grow two varieties only they would be Dr. Hogg and Ne Plus Ultra, 
and with these there would be no break in the supply, and no complaints 
as to quality. 
Mr. Girdlestone’s truly admirable articles on single Roses have 
doubtless been perused with interest by many readers. It is difficult to 
repress a feeling of envy in respect to the literary accomplishments of the 
author of them. In that respect knights of the spade must be content to 
follow at a respectful distance, but they can, and do, impart useful infor¬ 
mation in an agreeable manner. My contribution on the subject of single 
Roses shall be confined to one species—the delightful Sweet Briar. This 
should be grown in bushes for forcing in pots for supplying greenery for 
flower vases from the present time onwards; also in larger bushes in 
shrubberies, or as divisional hedges in appropriate positions. I wonder 
if it is generally known that the simplest, easiest, and cheapest method of 
raising a number of healthy plants is to sow seed in drills in the open 
garden in spring. A gardener who has raised a great number finds them 
more vigorous than plants from cuttings, and that every one is true to 
character. Some of these 1 have seen. Possibly this method of increase 
