JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
September  Si,  1898. 
:-304 
similar  results,  bat  qo  feeding  is  given.  I  have  said  1  find  bo  fault  wxth 
Mr.  Alderman  for  coming  to  the  conclusion  he  has  in  relation  to  this 
Osberton  Tomato.  It  is  so  natural.  But  then  it  is  equally  natural  that 
many  others  in  various  parts  of  the  kingdom,  seeing  Tomatoes  grown 
well,  should  also  labour  under  similar  illusions  with  respect  to  the  con¬ 
version  of  good  ducks  into  swans. 
I  could  wish  not  only  Mr.  Alderman  bnt  many  others  who  think 
with  respect  to  the  R.H.S.  Fruit  Committee,  as  he  seems  to  do,  nothing 
worse  than  that  they  should  be  members  of  that  body  for  two  or  three 
years,  and  not  coming  up  once  or  twice  a  year,  just  when  they  have 
something  to  submit  for  a  certificate,  bnt  sitting  regularly  and  specially 
attending  the  meetings  at  Chiswick.  Such  experience  would  do  them 
immense  good.  The  Committee  are  essentially  fair  and  impartial,  and 
have  not  the  least  tinge  of  favouritism.  The  suggestion  is  as  unfair  as 
absurd.  The  members  are  always  ready  to  welcome  and  reward  any 
really  good  new  or  improved  thing.  We  have  in  Tomatoes,  as  in  many 
other  things,  however,  now  reached  a  stage  when  improvements  are 
exceedingly  rare. — A.  Dean. 
Under  this  heading  you  publish  my  letter,  at  the  foot  of  which  you 
make  certain  comments  which  on  the  surface  are  perfectly  fair  and 
above  board.  But  at  the  same  time  those  who  are  in  a  position  to  know, 
practical  gardeners  to  wit,  do  not  entirely  agree  with  the  criticism  on  the 
letter. 
Personally  I  am  well  satisfied,  on  the  whole,  with  the  decisions  of 
the  Fruit  Committee  of  the  R.H.S..  or  rather  with  those  of  the  practical 
gardeners  connected  therewith.  Nevertheless,  I  should  like  to  ask  one 
or  two  somewhat  pertinent  questions,  which  I  have  no  doubt  you  will 
answer  with  candour,  and  these  are  as  follows : — 
1,  Is  each  member  of  the  Committee  a  competent  and  practical 
gardener  1 
2,  Is  it  a  fact  that  a  gentleman  in  holy  orders  and  a  gentleman 
interested  in  the  liquor  traffic  are  at  the  bead  of  affairs,  and,  if  so,  are 
these  gentlemen  practical  gardeners  ? 
3,  Is  it  a  fact  that  a  few  of  the  Fruit  Committee  have  lately  given  an 
award  of  merit  for  Tomatoes  which  had  not  even  been  sent  to  the  Drill 
Hall,  let  alone  being  tried  at  Chiswick  ? 
Before  going  farther  with  the  subject  a  reply  to  these  queries  will  be 
most  acceptable  to — A.  Alderman, 
fWe  will  deal  frankly,  and  without  the  slightest  prejudice,  with  all 
temperately  written  letters  on  this  subject,  so  far  as  the  object  of  the 
writers  of  them  is  to  sustain  a  principle  and  not  to  assail  individuals, 
especially  under  nom  de  plumes.  We  will  answer  Mr.  Alderman’s 
questions,  but  we  have  first  to  observe  that  he  gives  his  case  away  so 
far  as  regards  the  time-worn  allegations  of  “  favouritism,”  which  are 
made  by  some  one  or  other  every  year  in  connection  with  probably 
every  show  and  horticultural  society  in  the  kingdom. 
Mr,  Alderman  says  he  is  “  well  satisfied  with  the  decisions  of  the  Fruit 
Committee,  or  rather  with  those  of  the  practical  garieners  connected 
therewith.”  In  this  sentence  he  must  of  necessity  cut  the  whole  ground 
from  under  his  feet  in  any  endeavour  he  may  make  to  sustain  the  charge 
of  ”  favouritism,”  because — and  let  it  be  particularly  noted — practical 
gardeners  are,  as  they  ought  to  be,  in  an  overwhelming  majority  on  the 
Committee,  and  without  their  votes  nothing  exhibited  could  be  either 
honoured  or  the  reverse.  The  decisions  of  the  Committee  are  the 
decisions  of  the  practical  gardeners,  who,  however,  as  independent  men 
often  differ  in  their  voting,  supported  by  amateurs  who  invariably 
pay  all  due  respect  to  the  opinions  of  their  experienced  colleagues. 
In  the  testing  of  fruits  for  flavour  those  amateurs  are  at  least  as  com¬ 
petent  as  the  gardeners,  and  in  other  respects,  technical  and  scientific, 
their  services  have  often  proved  moat  valuable. 
As  to  the  nurserymen  ;  if  one  of  them  exhibits  anything,  he  retires 
from  the  table,  and  his  rivals  in  trade  might  cot  be  expected  to  err  in 
u  ^er-generosity  in  such  case.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  act  honcftly, 
fairly,  and  honourably,  in  accordance  with  their  convictions.  Now  to 
Mr.  Alderman’s  questions.  The  answers  shall  be,  “fair  on  the  surface,” 
and  underneath  too,  so  far  as  we  can  make  them. 
Question  1,  To  this  the  answer  is  that  each  member  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  is  not  a  working  gardener,  if  that  is  what  is  meant  by  "  practical,” 
and  the  Committee  would  not  be  so  competent  in  all  points  and  so 
r-  presentative  if  they  were. 
Question  2,  The  Secretary  of  the  Committee  is  a  clergyman,  and  alsc 
a  practical  amateur  gardener,  doing  a  gardener’s  work  in  his  own  garden, 
wi:h  his  own  hands,  and  doing  it  as  well  as  it  could  be  done  by  apro- 
fc'^aional  practical  gardener.  We  should  be  very  much  surprised  if  he 
could  not  pass  with  credit  the  ordeal  of  an  examination  in  gardening. 
So  much  for  that,  but  there  is  another  point  and  fact  to  face,  and  it 
goes  to  the  root  of  the  matter — namely,  he  does  not  take  the  lead  in  pro¬ 
posing  or  rejecting  products  that  are  placed  on  the  table  for  examina¬ 
tion.  His  vote  counts  one,  and  no  more,  and  no  one  at  the  table  pays 
more  attention  to  the  remarks  of  his  professional  gardening  colleagues 
than  he  does.  The  Treasurer,  we  think,  is  interested  in  the  traffic 
suggested,  and  his  firm  sells  a  large  quantity  of  mineral  water  and  other 
temperance  drinks  for  one  set  of  clients  and  something  stronger  for 
others.  This  is  not  bad  evidence  of  “  impartiality  ”  in  that  respect,  and 
a  more  absolutely  impartial  chairman  of  committee  the  world  does  not 
possess.  He  proposes  nothing,  very  nearly  says  nothing,  votes  on 
nothing  in  the  ordinary  course,  but  may  be  obliged  on  rare  occasions  to 
give  his  casting  vote.  He  puts  the  propositions  of  others  to  the  meetings 
and  registers  the  results.  He  is  a  fine  type  of  an  English  gentleman. 
incapable  of  coercion,  and  we  wish  all  gardeners  and  garden  workers^ 
had  as  good,  kind,  and  generous  masters  as  he  is  to  his  stafii  of  men. 
Question  3,  We  do  not  remember  this  ever  having  been  done  at  the- 
Drill  Hall,  but  believe  it  was  done  at  York,  according  to  the  power 
specially  granted  for  that  occasion  by  the  Council  in  compliment  to  a 
provincial  show  and  in  accordance  with  the  desire  of  provincial  horticul¬ 
turists.  That  case  is  certainly  not  rf  presentative  of  the  general  practice 
of  the  Fruit  Committee  as  exercised  in  Westminster,  and  cannot  be  fairly 
cited  as  such.  The  allegation  is  of  "favouritism  ”  by  the  Committee  in 
the  general  discharge  of  its  functions,  and  again  we  say  let  it  be  proved, 
and  if  it  can  be  proved  an  exodus  may  be  expected.  We  hope  Mr.  Aider- 
man,  with  whom  we  find  no  fault  whatever,  will  not  think  we  have 
shirked  his  questions  nor  been  content  to  skim  over  their  surface.  In 
the  discussion  of  this  subject  we  desire  no  more  personal  references.  If 
there  is  "  favouritism,”  every  member  of  Committee  who  habitually 
attends  the  meetings  is  responsible  either  in  exercising  or  permitting  it,, 
and  one  is  as  bad  as  the  other.  It  is  an  organised  body,  and  as  such 
must  stand  or  fall.] 
BOOT  EELWORM  IN  CUCUMBERS. 
“  W.  D.,”  page 271,  is  “disappointed,”  therefore  again  asks,  Has  no 
one  proved  it  (kainit)  to  have  the  desired  effect  ?  Why  kainit  ?  What 
of  the  nitrate  of  soda  as  part  of  the  treatment?  His  friend  seems  to 
have  simply  tried  the  kainit  solution,  and  omitted  that  of  nitrate  of  soda. 
This  explained  the  meaning  of  "  it”— medicine  of  his  own  or  part  of 
another  so  administered  as  to  be  ineffective. 
In  the  second  paragraph,  “  W.  D.”  commences  by  guessing  at  things. 
1  “  think  ”  nothing,  but  require  proof  of  the  “  practical  experience  ’’  so 
much  vaunted  of.  What  followed  in  this  and  the  third  paragraph  merely 
shows  that  he  has  "  seen  dozens  of  experiments  .  .  .  with  metallic 
bases,  acids,  and  salts  on  infested  plants  growing  in  pots  and  borders.”^ 
This  explains  everything — all  were  failures. 
But  does  “  W.  D.”  conclude  that  such  substances  as  caustic  soda 
and  potash,  carbolic  acid,  and  corrosive  sublimate,  cyanide  of  potassium, 
and  fresh  gas  lime,  will  not  kill  root  eelworm  ?  These  and  other  sub¬ 
stances  experimented  with  failed,  as  they  deserved,  for  most  are  more 
calculated  to  kill  than  cure  plants  of  diseases,  and  on  that  account  are 
worse  than  worthless. 
Passing  the  references  to  “my  friend”  in  the  fourth  paragraph  as 
ground  already  traversed,  I  come  to  the  next,  in  which  "  W.  D.”  asks 
do  I  “  want  us  to  believe  that,  by  the  application  of  kainit  and  nitrate  of 
soda,  he  can  at  least  put  on  a  hew  root  system  ?  ”  I  do  not  ask  anyone 
to  believe,  for  that  is  a  matter  of  “  faith,”  but  to  prove  my  statements,, 
not  in  a  half-hearted,  but  thorough  manner,  wholly  and  completely. 
What  is  the  use  of  employing  a  solution  of  kainit  at  a  strength  of 
1  oz.  to  a  gallon  when  2  ozs.  is  advised  in  the  case  of  infested  plants, 
and  omitting  the  solution  of  nitrate  of  soda?  Chlorides,  I  repeat, 
are  beside  the  question,  for  it  is  not  a  matter  of  pure  chlorides,  but  of 
kainit-sulphates  and  chlorides.  The  sulphates  are  no  use  without  the 
chlorides,  and  it  is  the  latter  that  kill  the  eelworm. 
I  am  obliged  by  "  W.  D.’s”  reply  as  to  what  was  meant  by  “  free 
lime.”  Who  uses  calcium  oxide,  CaO,  56?  Is  it  not  either  air- 
slakcd  or  water-slaked  before  application  ?  and  then  is  calcium 
hydroxide,  Ca  (OH)2.  74— that  is,  fifty-six  parts  or  lbs.  of  calcium 
oxide  united  with  eighteen  parts  or  lbs.  water?  I  asked  the  question 
because  when  lime  is  mixed  with  compost  ic  is  employed  as  freshly 
burned,  and  gives  off  considerable  heat  in  the  slaking,  which  makes  just 
all  the  difference  in  the  destruction  of  the  contained  pests.  In  treating 
compost  with  freshly  horned  lim|  it  is  not  unosual  to  employ  a  ton  to 
six  cartloads,  over  16  per  cent,  and  1  ton  of  slaked  lime  to  10  cubic 
yards  of  loam  is  not  an  out-of-the-way  applitation.  This  will  kill 
eelworm  and  any  resting  spores  of  “  black  stripe,”  “  sadden  collapse, 
'■  sleepy,”  or  “  drooping  ”  disease  fungus  (Fusarium  solani  or  lycopeisici), 
likewise  mi'es,  and,  better  thsn  all,  the  compost  is  richer  in  available 
plant  food.  That  is  what  is  meant  by  10  per  cent.  o(  lime. 
I  now  come  to  the  astounding  statement  that  I  grasp  everything  I 
can  in  “  W.  D.’s”  article  (page  194)  to  show  how  imperfect  his  know¬ 
ledge  of  this  pest  is.  What  of  his  eagerness  in  the  matter  of  chlorides 
and  minimum  solution  of  kainit  ?  This  reference  to  the  infested  soil 
comes  as  an  after  consideration,  and  is  not  admissible.  Albeit,  the  state¬ 
ment  contains  some  useful  information,  and  confirms  the  adage, 
"  Second  thoughts  are  best.” 
"  W.  D.”  says  nothing  to  my  request  for  a  specimen  of  wbat  he  terms 
root  eelworm  (Heterodera  radicicola).  Has  not  his  friend  any  ?  Are 
there  not  any  on  the  Cucumber  and  Tomato  plants  growing  under  the 
twelve  acres  of  glass  ?  Though  I  have  seen  a  goodly  number  of  eelworm, 
and  have  had  them  on  the  vision  for  days,  weeks,  months,  aid  years, 
through  watching  their  capers  in  solutions  of  metallic  bases,  acids,  and 
salts,  1  should  very  much  like  to  see  a  specimen  of  "  W.  D.’s,”  for  I  prefer 
not  to  "think  ”  but  to  “  prove  all  things,”  especially  when  I  find  that 
not  all  the  eelworms  on  Cucumbers  and  Tomatoes  are  root-knot  eelworm 
(Heterodera  radicicola,  Greef  and  Muller),  This  will  be  new  to  "  W.  D.,”^ 
and  as  for  confusing  root-knot  eelworm  with  the  stem  eelworm  (Tylon- 
chas  dfcv*  statrix),  it  proves  “W.  D.”  grasps  everj  thing  he  can  in  my 
article  (page  226)  to  show  how  imperfect  my  knowledge  of  this  pest  is. 
As  for  the  killing  of  stem  eelworm  and  root-knot  eelworm,  what  will  do 
it  for  one  will  for  the  other. 
“  Text  books”  and  "  reliable  authorities  ”  are  very  good  in  their  way, 
but  knowledge  so  acquired  says  nothing  for  the  practical  experience  of 
the  possessor.  Besides,  where  will "  W.  D.”  find  that  root-knot  eelwormis- 
