February 1, 1890. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
O 1 O 
o4>j 
MONSTER VEGETABLES. 
I have not had an opportunity of reading Mr. A. 
Dean’s paper on Vegetables for Exhibition, to which 
“Brassica” alludes at p. 252. “Brassica” asks, “Who 
wants monster Cauliflowers, large Potatos, or old 
Vegetable Marrows? ” and further remarks that, when 
judging, he always asks himself this question, “Of 
what use are they for a gentleman’s table?” I would 
suggest that at the next show where he may judge, he 
will ask himself if they are of no use for the servants’ 
table, which is the master’s after all, and which, in 
large establishments, is often the most difficult to 
keep fully supplied. Why should we not show 
vegetables that are fit for the servants hall, as well as 
those most fit for the gentleman’s table, and which 
we have continually dinned in our ears at shows by 
those who grow and show small heads of Cauliflowers, 
&c. ? 
I contend that such kinds of Cauliflowers as Veitch's 
Autumn Giant cannot be too large if perfect in colour 
and closeness. I do not mean those yellow, open-eyed 
old Cauliflowers just off to seed, that we sometimes see 
put up at shows. Which will be the best eating, an 
Autumn Giant Cauliflower 1 ft. across the head, white, 
and close, and grown in less time than heads of half its 
size, because it has had more attention ? At the late 
Vegetable Conference at Chiswick, I showed two sizes 
of Cauliflowers of the same kind, Veitch’s Autumn 
Giant, on purpose to see which would be selected. 
One of my three heads were about 6 ins. across, 
and the other three about 1 ft. or more, and quite 
as good in quality, if not better than the small heads. 
The judges had heads of all sizes, shapes, and colours 
to pick from, but awarded the certificate to the large 
ones. One of the Messrs. Dean had'a good opportunity 
of testing its merits when cooked, having asked me to 
give him one ; I do not remember now which of them 
it was, although I asked him at the time. No one 
asked me for the small ones, but plenty wanted the 
large ones when they were all gone. If I can get three 
all of a size, and of first-class quality, the larger they 
are the better pleased I am to be able to show them. 
In Cauliflowers, Potatos, Marrows, &e., we have sorts 
which are best adapted for the gentleman’s table, and 
others which best suit the servants’ hall, and the same 
thing obtains with regard to Cabbage. I am obliged 
to send only Chou de Burghley to the dining room, but 
if I had to supply the servants’ hall with it I should 
require my garden made larger. Can we well have 
Parsnips too large ? I think not ; but as to monster 
Potatos, and Turnips of the white class, well, very few 
of us would be persuaded to put them on the show 
table, much less old Marrows. —J. Lambert , Onslow. 
-- 
HERBACEOUS CALCEOLARIAS. 
Those who wish to have good flowering plants towards 
the end of spring or early in summer should not expect 
to attain that result by leaps and bounds. In other 
words, if the plants are neglected now or huddled to¬ 
gether too closely in a shaded part of the house perhaps, 
grand results cannot be expected when the proper time 
arrives. The cultural requirements are simple enough, 
and any amateur who closely attends to the wants of 
his plants at different seasons of the year need experi¬ 
ence no difficulty with Calceolarias, and may even 
produce some samples of which a professional might be 
proud. The plants should by this time have formed 
stocky tufts of leaves of greater or les3 size according 
to the treatment they have received and the time of 
sowing. If in very small pots they will now require a 
shift, and if the roots have filled 4-in. or 5-in. pots then 
they may be transferred into 6-in. or 7-in. pots, in 
which they may be flowered. The final potting of very 
small plants may, however, be deferred for some time 
to come. In rural localities there need be no difficulty 
in the matter of soil, because turfy parings can fre¬ 
quently be had from the banks along the waysides, the 
scourings of ditches and so forth, which are usually 
rich in fertilising matters, and contain- a sufficient 
amount of sand to render the whole porous and open. 
They thrive in thh because the slender and fibrous 
roots can readily penetrate it. If not sufficiently 
porous add some clean sharp sand (river sand will do), 
some leaf-soil, and a quantity of well-rotted manure. 
Little water will be required for a time after potting, 
but they should never be allowed to become too dry at 
any time. Plenty of room should be allowed between 
each plant to allow the air to play amongst them, and 
light to reach the leaves. A position near the glass is 
best, and plenty of ventilation should be given during 
mild weather. 
EXPERIMENTS WITH MANURE 
IN ORCHID CULTURE.* 
By F. W. Mooiie, Royal Botanic Garden, Dublin. 
(Continued from p. 327.) 
Experiments with Other Kinds. 
Naturally I determined to try the manure with other 
Orchids, and in February, 1885, I selected some plants 
of Calanthe masuca, Ccelogyne flaccida, Cypripedium 
barbatum, C. insigne, Dendrobium nobile, Dendro- 
chilum filiforme, Lycaste macrophylla, Maxillaria 
picta, Phaius grandifolius, and Sobralia macrantha, on 
which to experiment. You will notice that with the 
exception of Dendrochilura filiforme, these were all free 
growers, and it was specially included, as it was a plant 
with which I had had but little success, and I hoped 
I might perchance, as in the case of the Pleiones, be 
successful. At the end of the season my verdict was, that 
without exception, all had succeeded admirably, and 
that they had improved immensely during the period 
from February to October, and since then Fish Potash 
Guano is as regular an article on the Orchid bench at 
Glasnevin as are the “ clean potsherds, the fibrous peat, 
the nodules of charcoal, and the living sphagnum 
moss.” 
In February, 1886, encouraged by the success of the 
previous year, I determined again to add largely to the 
numbers of the plants to be tried with the manure, but 
I was still uncertain as to its suitability for all sorts, so 
I selected only species of which I possessed duplicates. 
To those already enumerated were added Anguloa 
Clowesii, Calanthe veratrifolia, Cymbidium Lowianum, 
Cypripedium Boxallii, C. Harrisianum, C. villosum, 
Dendrobium densiflorum, Houlletia Brocklehurstiana, 
Lycaste gigantea, Masdevallia Harryana, Maxillaria 
punctata, Odontoglossum grande, Pleurotliallis velati- 
caulis, and Zygopetalum Mackayi. In making this 
selection I again confined myself to species of which I 
possessed duplicates, at the same time seeking as far as 
possible plants of varied habit of growth and foliage, 
as I desired to make perfectly certain, before risking my 
rarer plants, that the manure, if not beneficial to all 
alike, was at least not detrimental to any—a most 
important point to ascertain. 
Happily this again proved a successful venture, as 
none of the plants went back, and most of them visibly 
improved. Two of them, however, Masdevallia Harry¬ 
ana and Odontoglossum grande, did not in any way 
indicate the presence of the fertiliser, as they showed 
no difference from plants of the same species amongst 
which they stood, the mark on the label being the 
only indication that they had received exceptional 
treatment. At this I felt a little disappointed, as I 
had begun to regard the Fish Potash as quite invalu¬ 
able and unfailing—in fact, to be for delicate Orchids 
what quack pills are advertised to be for the human 
race, an antidote for all ills, and a speedy remedy 
where these ills had already been contracted. Besides 
which, the two plants named were special favourites of 
mine. 
However, there was a bright side to the picture. 
Without exception all the others improved immensely, 
and made stronger growths than the unmanured plants 
around them, the improvement being most marked in 
the case of Anguloa Clowesii aud Houlletia Brockle¬ 
hurstiana. Now the latter of these has always been 
more or less a puzzle to the generality of Orchid 
growers. Some grow it cool, some grow it warm, and 
but few really succeed with it—that is to say, succeed 
in growing and keeping, for any considerable period, 
nice healthy flowering specimens, and I confess I had 
not been one of these ; in fact, I despaired of getting it 
to grow in a satisfactory manner. However, as in the 
case of the Pleiones, a change came over it as soon as I 
commenced to manure it. Although it did not improve 
when dried cow manure was used in the soil, it 
rapidly improved when the artificial manure was used, 
and I have now no difficulty in growing and flowering 
Houlletias. This, again, is a case in which the 
necessary ingredients for vigorous growth were pre¬ 
sented to a plant in a form in which it could avail 
itself of them, it having hitherto apparently failed to 
obtain them from the ordinary composts used for 
strong-growing Orchids, even with the addition of a 
little cow manure. At the end of the season, all the 
plants to which the manure had been applied were 
characterised by having stronger growths, better- 
developed foliage of a deep green colour, and those 
that flowered have been more profuse than similar 
Orchids in the cultivation of which only ordinary 
Orchid soil had been used. 
Cv PHI TEDIUMS. 
I felt so satisfied with the way Cypripediums improved, 
that I determined to use artificial manure with all 
those I had, and also to try it with many other Orchids. 
Accordingly, in preparing compost in February, 1887, 
I made a general heap for the Cypripediums, and added 
to it a good handful of Fish Potash. In this mix¬ 
ture I potted all my species and varieties, except a few 
recently-imported plants, which had not yet developed 
good roots, and which I felt disinclined to experiment 
with. So confident did I feel, that I used the mixture 
for such rare and valuable sorts as the following—viz., 
Cypripedium Curtisii, C. grande, C. Leeanum, C. 
Lindleyanum, C. Morgani®, C. melanopthalmum, C. 
oenanthum superbum, C. Petri, C. politum, C. Schro¬ 
der®, C. tonsum, C. vittatum, C. Wallisii, and many 
others. 
Shortly after they had been potted, my foreman carne 
to me with a copy of the Garden newspaper, and pointed 
out a paragraph, which seemed to frighten him con¬ 
siderably. This was an article from a grower, stating 
that he had been advised to use Fish Potash with his 
Cypripediums, that he had done so, and that immed¬ 
iately afterwards the plants began to turn yellow, and 
that he only succeeded in saving them by taking them 
out of the soil, washing the roots, and re-potting them 
in fresh soil. He concluded by cautioning Orchid 
growers not to risk a similar experience. 
Despite this I refused to stir my plants, or to shake 
out and re-pot even one of them, and I have never had 
cause to regret it. Not one went back ; on the con¬ 
trary, they all improved very much, and about the 
healthiest of all the Orchids at Glasnevin, at the 
present, are the species and varieties of Cypripedium, 
to the number of over 100, and both this year and last 
year, as well as in 1887, a little Fish Potash has been 
used in the compost in which they are potted. Fish 
Potash was supplied in 1888 and 1S89 to the same in¬ 
dividual plants which had received it in previous years, 
my object being to asceitiin if its action was merely 
what might be termed spasmodic, or if ic continued to 
benefit the plants for an indefinite period ; and the only 
manner in which this could be proved was by treating 
the same plants continuously with it, and carefully 
noting the results, which accordingly 1 did. The con¬ 
clusions I arrived at were : first, the continuous use of 
Fish Potash is beneficial to Orchids ; secondl}'-, the 
benefit is not equally apparent each year ; and, lastly, 
the beneficial effects are most marked during the second 
and third years. At the third year the plant seems to 
attain the maximum size of leaf and pseudo-bulb which 
it is capable of doing ; and during the fourth and fifth 
years, all I could do was to maintain the standard of 
excellence arrived at during the third year, but there 
was little difficulty in doing this when a little manure 
was used and ordinary precautions observed. 1 made 
certain that the annual addition of manure was neces¬ 
sary, by withholding it from about half-a-dozen plants 
which had been previously supplied with it. These 
plants remained healthy, but they did not grow as 
freely ; that is, the new growths were not so large as the 
older growths, and the breaks were not so numerous ; 
in fact, the plants evidently missed the manure. 
(To be continued.) 
I am a constant reader of The Gardening "World, 
and I hope you will give me space to say that, as the 
proprietor of a few Orchids, I am anxious to cultivate 
to the greatest perfection I can attain, and I am 
constantly on the look-out for any new ideas on the 
subject. In this frame of mind I was interested in a 
paper read before a recent meeting of the Scottish 
Horticultural Association, communicated by Mr. Moore, 
curator of the Royal Dublin Botanical Society’s 
Gardens, by Mr. Laird. From what was quoted of the 
essay in the Edinburgh papers, it appeared that Mr. 
Moore recommended “ Fish Potash ” as a manure, and 
Mr. Dunn said he had no doubt the plants derived 
benefit from “ Fish Phosphorous.” 
Here I am puzzled. Is Fish Phosphorous the thing 
I can try with advantage ? And will Mr. Dunn say 
how and where I can get this special fish product ? If, 
on the other hand, Mr. Moore advises the Fish Potash, 
will he say if it is a muriate or a sulphate of potash, 
and why it is called Fish Potash. Fish bones, as far 
as I know, contain neither the one nor the other, but 
they do contain a very large portion of phosphate of 
lime. 
I had got thus far when your issue of the 23rd inst. 
came to hand, and at p. 327 I was pleased to see a 
portion of the paper read by Mr. Moore, and I looked 
for light, but cannot say I have it as clear as I could 
wish. Mr. Moore says nothing of phosphorous, so that 
I conclude Mr. Dunn must have been incorrectly 
reported ; but he (Mr. Moore) recommends at one 
place Fish Potash Guano, at another Fish Potash. Will 
he say if he means by these terms one and the same 
thing, or two different ones ? I should be glad to be 
enlightened on the subject, which is a most important 
one.— l'uzzled. 
