194 
JOUENAL  OF  HORTTCi-LTURE  AND  COTTACiE  GARDENER. 
August  S?,  1896. 
reducing  the  number  of  dishes  of  fruit  from  sixteen  to  twelve 
appeals  to  be  reasonably  open  to  discussion,  allowing,  as  is  usual, 
black  and  white  Grapes,  but  only  one  dish  each  of  other  kinds. 
If  this  is  not  done  it  would  seem  not  unreasonable  to  consider 
the  advisability  of  altering  some  of  the  maximum  points,  because 
as  at  present  apportioned  and  with  duplicate  dishes  allowed,  Apricots, 
Peaches,  and  Nectarines  carry  a  greater  possible  number  than 
Grapes  do,  while  all  other  fruits  in  duplicate  equal  Grapes,  and 
this  IS  scarcely  what  the  majority  of  gardeners  would  prefer. 
Opinions  may  fairly  be  expressed  on  the  matters  alluded  to  with 
the  object  of  making  the  class  as  good  as  is  possible  on  equitable 
lines. 
In  the  “  garden  produce  ”  class  the  competition  was  greater 
than  in  that  for  dessert  tables,  seven  collections  being  staged. 
These  were  arranged  on  a  side  table,  and  could  only  be  viewed 
from  the  front,  nor  does  it  seem  necessary  they  should  be  ;  but 
in  a  class  of  this  kind  somewhat  more  space  than  8  by  5  feet  seems 
desirable,  because  most  vegetables  take  up  more  room  than  do 
dishes  of  fruit.  The  representative  garden  produce  class  is 
open  to  great  possibilities,  but  the  exhibitors  in  the  first  great 
competition  under  notice  appeared  cramped  by  the  want  of  a 
little  more  scope.  The  beginning  was  all  the  same  excellent  and 
encouraging. 
Coming  to  the  adjudication.  Point  judging  is  the*  most  exact 
system  of  all,  because  every  item  is  examined  and  its  merits  deter¬ 
mined  and  recorded.  It  is  true  that  one  judge  might  not  appraise 
them  exactly  the  same  as  another  would  in  every  instance  if  the 
two  were  acting  separately  ;  but  when  two  experienced  men  agree 
on  the  merits  of  each  item  in  the  same  way  as  on  the  merits  of  the 
whole,  without  resorting  to  figures,  their  decisions  are  not  likely  to 
be  very  far  wrong,  and  when  three  concur  the  chances  of  error  are 
still  further  reduced.  In  the  Shrewsbury  classes  in  question  the 
scrutineers  appointed  were  three  not  very  young  men,  and  not 
very  inexperienced  either  as  cultivators  or  adjudicators,  Messrs. 
A.  F.  Barron,  Owen  Thomas,  and  J.  Wright,  and  if  any  one  of 
them  happened  to  have  any  little  “  fad  ”  whereby  he  would  be 
inclined  to  unconsciously  favour  any  particular  thing,  it  is 
tolerably  certain  that  he  would  not  have  a  good  time  from  the 
others.  Happily  the  work  was  harmonious,  and  it  is  a  fact  that 
they  agreed  on  the  merits  of  every  item  of  the  nearly  two 
hundred  examined,  even  to  half  a  point,  and  as  not  one  of  the 
judges  has  any  objection  to  the  records  being  published  they  are 
here  given  in  the  dessert  table  competition  under  the  exhibitors’ 
numbers. 
DECOEATIVE  DESSEET  TABLE.-EESULT  OF  JUDGES’  AWAEDS. 
Sixteen  dishes  of  fruit  to  be  Possible 
staged  selected  from  the  No.  of  AWAEDED  TO  EXHIBITOES. 
following — 
Points. 
No.  1. 
No.  4. 
No.  2 
No.  5 
N^o.  3 
Apples,  dish — No.  1 
•  ** 
C 
... 
» ,  , 
6 
... 
4 
0 
»  >>  j) 
•  •• 
6 
•  •• 
•  • « 
. . , 
,*• 
Apricots  „  „  1 
8 
6 
4 
4 
«  * 
4 
>)  »  ).  2 
,  • 
8 
• .  • 
,  • 
•  .  • 
... 
3 
Cherries,  ,,  ,,  1 
.  • 
6 
... 
«  *  * 
6 
Zh 
O 
))  M  )J  ^ 
•  ,  • 
6 
.  • « 
4 
♦  .  • 
4 
. . . 
Figs,  „  „  1 
6 
4 
«  •  « 
,  «  . 
... 
^  M  ))  ^ 
»** 
«  • 
6 
,  «  • 
5 
H 
Crrapcs,  Black,  buncli— 
-No. 
1 
6 
Cl 
5' 
77 
2 
.. . 
G 
H 
0 
H 
4 
,,  White,  ,, 
77 
1 
•  •• 
6 
4 
4 
0 
4 
0 
0 
77 
2 
•  •• 
6 
4 
4 
2 
H 
Melon,  fruit — No,  1 
•  #  « 
6 
4 
. 
5 
5 
2 
•  • 
6 
5 
5 
3 
0 
5' 
Nectarines,  dish  „  1 
8 
6 
4i 
G 
d 
5 
17  J»  77  2 
•  . 
8 
0 
4| 
4 
4 
Peaches,  „  ,,  1 
• . . 
8 
8 
5 
8 
6 
M  71  77  2 
8  • 
6 
4 
4 
7 
0 
Pears,  ,,  „  1 
•  . 
6 
6 
ih 
5 
... 
3 
0 
77  7?  7? 
»»  » 
6 
6 
4 
,,, 
•  •  » 
Plums,  „  ,,  1 
.  . 
6 
5 
5 
4J 
,  •  * 
77  77  77  ^ 
«*• 
6 
4 
Pine — No.  1 
•  •  • 
10 
6 
8^ 
Ik 
5' 
Strawberries 
6 
Beauty  of  flowers  and  foliage 
•  • 
8 
'4' 
e" 
3" 
4"  - 
3i 
Harmonious  blending  of  colour 
8 
6 
6 
3 
4 
General  arrangement 
for  effect 
8 
6 
4 
5 
3^ 
92i  88i 
A  first  glance  at  the  figures  may  suggest  that  the  pointing  was 
“  low  it  was  certainly  not  a  shade  higher  than  the  products 
justified,  and  when  the  number  of  items  is  kept  in  mind,  and  the 
practical  impossibility  of  reaching  the  maximum  with  them  all,  the 
results  must  be  considered  creditable  to  the  several  exhibitors, 
though  each  of  them  will  see  room  for  improvement. 
In  reference  to  the  question  of  “  high  ”  and  “  low  ”  pointing, 
it  may  be  stated  that  there  is  a  natural  disposition  on  the  part  of 
judges  who  have  not  found  out  the  mistake  of  doing  so,  of  being 
too  generous  in  the  allocation  of  points  at  the  commencement  of 
their  duties.  They  are  rather  apt  to  give  the  maximum  number 
too  readily,  and  then,  as  the  work  goes  on,  are  extremely  liable  to 
find  themselves  in  a  difficulty  by  discovering  something  better  than 
the  products  to  which  they  have  given  all  the  marks  of  merit, 
and,  obviously,  more  than  they  justly  deserved. 
It  should  always  be  remembered  that  maximum  means  the 
greatest  number  attainable,  and  should  never  be  given  unless  judges 
are  satisfied  that  nothing  better  of  the  same  kind  has  ever  come 
under  their  notice.  Regarding  the  matter  from  that  severe  test 
there  need  be  no  surprise  that  only  three  items  in  the  whole  of 
the  collections  staged  reached  the  highest  possible  number  of  marks. 
The  excellence  of  the  fruit  of  No.  1,  with  good  but  slightly  over¬ 
crowded  decorations,  won  for  him  the  leading  position,  while  the 
superiority  of  the  decorations  by  No.  4  aided  him  considerably 
in  gaining  the  second  place,  for,  as  may  be  seen.  No.  2,  the  third 
prize  table,  contained  slightly  better  fruit. 
It  is  thought  by  some  good  gardener#  that  sufficient  points 
(twenty-four)  were  not  allowed  for  decorations,  but  the  third  prize¬ 
winner  will  scarcely  be  of  this  opinion,  and  a  dessert  table  can 
scarcely  be  regarded  as  of  the  highest  merit  unless  the  fruit  is  of 
very  high  quality.  Reducing  the  fruit  to  twelve  di»hes  would  have 
the  effect  of  giving  a  trifle  more  weight  to  the  decorations,  in  case 
this  should  be  thought  desirable. 
As  to  the  routine  of  point  judging,  all  persons  who  have  had 
much  experience  in  the  work  will  agree  that  it  is  a  safe  practice 
to  search  for  the  “  best  of  what  may  be  staged,  determine  the 
marks  for  this,  and  work  downwards,  according  to  relative  merit. 
That  is  the  only  sure  way  to  guard  against  over-high  pointing. 
The  average  may  seem  rather  low  as  a  result,  but  it  will  be  fair, 
and  that  is  the  great  desideratum. 
In  the  “  garden  produce  ”  class  the  exhibits  were  too  varied  to 
be  placed  in  concise  tabulated  form,  but,  as  will  be  seen  by  the 
report,  the  collections  were  closer  in  comparative  merit  than  in 
dessert  table  class  —indeed,  a  keener  contest  wai  never  seen,  and 
the  pioneer  exhibitors  acquitted  themselves  well. 
ROOT  EELWORM  IN  CUCUMBERS. 
Having  read  the  different  communications  from  Mr.  G.  Abbey 
in  the  Journal  of  Horticulture  on  the  above  subject  I  am  tempted 
to  write,  and  try  if  possible,  to  get  some  of  your  numerous  corre¬ 
spondents  to  verify  his  statements.  I  have  frequently  seen  the 
ravages  this  pest  is  able  to  make  on  a  crop  qf  Cucumbers  or 
Tomatoes,  and  know  from  experience  that  often  from  60  to  75  per 
cent,  of  the  whole  crop  may  be  lost,  owing  to  its  destructive 
power.  Mr.  G.  Abbey  seems  fond  of  quoting,  that  1  oz.  of  kainit 
dissolved  in  a  gallon  of  water,  will  destroy  eelworm  in  Cucumber 
roots.  Fortunately,  I  am  not  troubled  with  this  pest  at  present, 
but  a  friend  of  mine  has  it  in  his  Cucumber  house,  and  I  saw  some 
half-grown  plants  about  six  weeks  ago  which  were  showing  the 
well-known  symptoms  of  the  root  eelwoym  (Heterodera  radicicola) 
— i.e.,  the  nodules  on  the  roots.  I  took  him  the  Journal  of  Horti¬ 
culture  (April  30th)  containing  “  Phenyle  Adviser’s  ”  kainit  remedy 
(page  397).  He  tried  it  on  his  plants,  but  without  any  success. 
In  your  last  iisue  (page  179)  kainit  was  recommended  by 
“  G.  A.”  for  destroying  root  eelworms,  and  one  might  well 
inquire  what  constituent  of  the  kainit  it  is  that  proves  so  effective  ? 
The  “  Phenyle  Adviser  ”  in  the  Journal  of  Horticulture  (page  321) 
tells  us  that  it  is  “  the  chlorides  of  the  kainit  that  kill.”  Chemists 
tell  us  that  kainit  contains  about  14  per  cent,  of  magnesium 
chloride  and  30  per  cent,  of  sodium  chloride  (common  salt),  or  in 
other  words  the  chlorides  form  44  per  cent,  of  the  whole. 
Totals  ... 
86i  78^ 
