346 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
October 11, 1894. 
strongest feature it is difficult to decide, but finally arrive at the 
conclusion it is both. Bush plants feathered to the pot in foliage. We 
look over a “Lincoln,” 5 feet 3 inches across, and try to solve the 
problem of how it is to be taken through a 4-foot door; but there is no 
end to man’s ingenuity, especially in this case. I venture to say it is 
now safe inside without a feather rumpled. Once inside there is ample 
accommodation, for the glass is extensive. 
It is with regret that limited time foreshortens these notes, for it is 
all but dark as we go out on to the “rocky road to Dublin,” which I 
have understood this to be, commemorated in verse and story, and 
associated with visions of “ Sweet Peggy on the low-backed car.” In 
closing I would fain ask Chrysanthemum raisers when seeking for a 
name for some fair flower to give us a “ Sweet Peggy,” and earn the 
blessing of—E. K., Duhlin. 
GALVANISED WIRE AND FRUIT TREES. 
Several examples of injury to shoots of fruit trees and plants 
through coming in contact with new galvanised wire having 
recently been brought to our notice, we promised to republish 
something of what appeared in the Journal of Horticulture a few 
years ago. In articles prior to the one now cited, it had been 
pointed out that wire before being coated with zinc is placed in 
baths of muriatic acid for cleaning it, often remaining there a long 
time, absorbing the acid and this subsequently escaping to the 
injury of contiguous vegetation. The article, as will be seen, is a 
summing up of evidence, some of which having been tested by 
experiments. It is as follows :— 
Published evidence on this subject has shown that the injury to 
trees is by far the most pronounced where smoke prevails ; and if the 
cause of that injury is due to the escape of acid from the wire then it 
seems to follow, that all the worst wire—that containing the most acid 
—has happened to be sent to the vicinity of towns, and the best—that 
containing the least acid, to the country districts where the air is pure 
and the trees not nearly so seriously nor generally affected. It is not 
possible that such a division of injurious and safe wire could have 
occurred by chance ; and the different effects of the wire, assuming that 
the escaping acid is the sole cause of the injury, can only be accounted 
for in one way—namely, that the wire has a much slower sale in the 
country than the town, and often remains in stock for a considerable 
time in the shops of local ironmongers until most or all the acid has 
escaped from it; but in towns it does not remain in stock nearly so long, 
and is consequently newer and more noxious to vegetation. This con¬ 
tingency is worthy of mention, for it is certain that old wire is much 
safer than new. Although the “ escaping acid ” theory does not, to my 
mind, settle the question at issue in a satisfactory manner, it must not be 
altogether ignored, and it will be decidedly safer to use old wire than 
•new, and especially that which does not bend freely, as its brittleness is 
evidence of its long immersion in the acid bath. 
I pass now to another aspect of the case, and one that demands care¬ 
ful attention. Whatever injury may result from acid within the wire, 
I think it can be demonstrated that the branches of trees secured to 
zinc-coated wire are injured by the action of acid from without acting 
on the zinc surface with which the shoots are brought in contact. It is 
on this basis, and, so far as I can see, on this alone, that the different 
and conflicting statements that have been published can be reconciled, 
and this accord being effected we may hope to find an answer to the 
vexed questions—1, “ Why is the wire injurious in some cases and not in 
others?” 2, “ Why is the injury to trees so slight, or r on-existent, in 
the pure air of the country, and so serious in situations where the atmo¬ 
sphere is impregnated more or less with the sulphurous compounds of 
smoke and vapours from ‘ works ’ and manufactories? ” If these ques¬ 
tions are not already answered, the following fact, which I think indis¬ 
putable, will complete the reply—namely that sulphuric acid combined 
with zinc forms white vitriol—sulphate of zinc—which is a corrosive 
poison, and I will further show that sulphate of zinc is the active agent 
of the injury under examination; 
After the publication of the various letters on the question at issue, 
it was considered most desirable that a subject of such practical 
irnportance should not be left in the uncertain state it was. Different 
kinds of wire were therefore obtained in the snring, to which the 
young laterals of Vines were secured in a small house in a decidedly 
“ smoky district,” for it is within the sound of “ Big Ben ” of West¬ 
minster. _ The following were, briefly, the results 1, New galvanised 
wire, serious injury. 2, One-year-old galvanised wire, slight injury. 3, 
Two-year-old galvanised wire, scarcely any injury. 4, Charcoal-drawn 
wire, no injury. 5, Copper wire, no injury. 6, Pure zinc wire, no real 
injury (but not put up soon enough), 7, Painted galvanised wire, new 
or old, no injury. Where the growths touched the new galvanised wire 
corroded specks were apparent in four days, and in a month the injury 
was severe, and was equally apparent on the shoots, tendrils, foliage, 
and berries that were placed in contact with it. Eventually the wire 
became covered with a thin film of oxide ; as this increased the injurious 
power of the wire decreased, and towards the autumn the wire had little 
or no effect on the harder wood. Long before the autumn, however, 
and as soon as the effects of the different wire were apparent, the whole 
subject was considered, and I was supplied by Dr, Hogg with a packet 
each of oxide of zinc and sulphate of zinc with the object of proving 
the presumed safety of the former and danger of the latter. The results 
were exactly in accordance with the anticipations. On worsted being 
saturated with a solution of the former tied round the stems and wires, 
old and new, and kept moist, no injury whatever followed; but on 
whatever kind of wire the sulphate of zinc was placed and the shoots 
attached to them, injury immediately followed, and this of a kind 
precisely similar to that communicated by the new galvanised wire. 
On examining laterals injured artificially with the sulphate of zinc with 
those affected naturally by the wire, no difference whatever could be 
detected between them ; in fact, it was utterly impossible for anyone 
to whom injured portions were submitted to determine which had been 
injured artificially and which had sustained damage by ordinary contact 
with the wire. Some shoots that were girdled with worsted saturated 
with the sulphate of zinc were speedily killed, others that rested on the 
poisonous solution were only corroded on one side, the same as those 
resting on the wire. I am confident that whoever adopts the plan 
recorded will experience the same results. 
We have here a few important facts in precise harmony with each 
other. Sulphuric acid combining with zinc produces sulphate of zinc— 
sulphate of zinc corrodes Vine shoots in contact with it; sulphuric acid 
is more abundant near cities and towns than in the country where there 
is little or no sulphurous vapour—injury to trees in contact with 
galvanised wire follows where smoke prevails, but is much less marked, 
when observed at all, where the air is quite pure ; old wire covered with 
the protective and innocuous oxide is comparatively safe ; new wire, 
especially near towns, is decidedly dangerous to vegetation that is in 
contact with it. These facts appear to point directly to the conclusion 
that the cause of the injury under notice is that above indicated, and, 
what is more, they do not seem to be so well reconcileable on any other 
basis that has yet been suggested. 
I have examined the subject as closely, fully, and fairly as I have 
been able, with the sole object of eliciting the truth. Two years ago 
1 was a disbeliever in the injurious effects of galvanised wire, now I am 
fully satisfied that it is, when new, highly dangerous in certain situa¬ 
tions. It is, perhaps, too much to expect that all will agree with the 
conclusions arrived at ; but those who differ will, of course, submit 
proof that the injury in question, that in many places has been so 
serious, has not resulted either from the escape of acid from the wire 
or the action of acid on its zinc surface from a vitiated atmosphere. 
Several letters relative to the injuriousness of the galvanised wire 
have been received that it was not necessary to publish, as the writers 
simply repeated in substance what had previously appeared in the 
Journal of Hortionlture^ but extracts from a few of those letters may 
be given. “ Ciiis ” writes from Derby as follows :— 
“ Last spring I wrote two or three letters in your Journal calling 
attention to the injurious effect of galvanised wire for tying Peach trees, 
which called forth several replies disagreeing with my opinion as to the 
injurious effect upon the trees, notwithstanding I had all the galvanised 
wire removed and substituted copper wire instead; and no one need wish 
to see a better lot of trees in any house. They are full of flower buds, and 
the wood ripened. I enclose jou a small branch I cut eff one of the trees 
that is tied to the back wall of my Peach house, and you will see for your¬ 
self the injurious condition of the wood. I found this branch had rested 
against a galvanised peg stuck in the wall, through which the copper wire 
ran. You will see it has eaten nearly through the branch, which in itself 
is a proof of damage the zinc wire will cause.” 
The injury to the shoot was very pronounced, and precisely the same 
effects are produced by placing a shoot in contact with sulphate of zinc, 
which corrosive substance forms on galvanised and not on copper wire. 
“ \V. E.” writes from near Birmingham :— 
“ I planted Habrothamnus fascicularis in the border of a conservatory 
and trained it to galvanised wire. About a month after planting the leaves 
turned black and fell off, also the ends of the shoots were injured. I took 
it out of the border from the wire and potted it. When it had made shoots 
2 or 3 inche 6 long I returred it to the border. In a short time the same 
thing happened to it again. I again took it up, and kept it in a greenhouse 
through the winter. The following spring I again planted it in the afore¬ 
said border, but with the same results as before. I then had the wires 
painted, and the tree grew away amazingly. From observation I And that 
wire that has been in use some years to be harmless by being coated over 
with dirt, &c., which destroyed its injurious properties, and also think that 
the process of galvanising has something to do W’ith it, some new wire 
being harmless and others very destructive.” 
Both the theories advanced receive confirmation from this letter. 
The coating of dirt, &c. (oxidation) preventing the sulphurous acid of 
the atmosphere of a smoky district acting on the zinc and producing 
the poisonous sulphate; while some “new wire being harmless and 
others very destructive,” suggests that there is “something in” the 
mechanic’s assertion that some wire contains more acid than others 
by a longer immersion in the bath, and that the acid afterwards 
“ sweats cut,” and corrodes the plants. This view also applies to the 
following case. Mr. Allis writes from a presumably salubrious district, 
Bedfordshire :— 
“Lastsprring I plant-d two houses with Peaches and Nectarines. The 
summer’s growth was trained to new galvanised wire; the consequence is 
that many of the shoots are badly gummed. I have looked carefully 
through both bouses, but I have not been able to detect a single instance 
of gumming except where the shoots came in contact with the wires. I 
have just had the wire p.unted with one coat of good white lead mixed 
