October  8,  1896, 
«/Ot/72iY.lL  or  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
U7 
should  be  an  accountant,  but  whether  much  or  little  has  to  be  done 
in  this  direction  it  cannot  be  too  well  done  or  too  minutely  and 
methodically  set  down  in  black  and  white.  Every  gardener  should, 
I  think,  have  an  office  in  the  garden,  and  though  this  may  take  bub 
the  crudest  form  of  a  home-made  desk  fixed  in  a  corner  of  the 
potting  shed,  where  the  diary  is  written  up  each  night  before 
leaving  the  garden,  it  may  be  sufficient.  If  the  £  s.  d.  has  to  come 
into  your  calculations  with  pay-sheets,  wages,  and  cash-book,  let  all 
be  set  down  in  perfect  order  and  preserved,  whether  present 
occasion  demands  it  or  not ;  the  same  with  such  invoices,  accounts, 
or  receipts  as  may  come  under  your  hands.  It  is  a  simple  matter, 
but  a  safe  one. 
In  conclusion,  I  know  of  no  life,  no  profession,  no  phase  of 
labour  in  a  world  of  work  which  can  compare  with  our  own — 
gardening — for  all  that  is  good,  ennobling,  satisfying  ;  but  then, 
indeed,  I  am  but  ill  acquainted  with  any  other.  Looking  back 
upon  my  own  experience — an  experience  so  varied  that  I  may 
justly  claim  to  have  the  average  share  that  can  be  crowded  into 
one  lifetime,  so  far  as  it  has  gone  ;  then,  after  its  medley  of  joys 
and  sorrows,  of  triumphs  and  disappointments,  of  sunshine  and  of 
shade,  it  is,  to  me — to  us  old  boys  all — a  pleasure  to  see  history 
repeating  itself  so  far  as  the  brighter  side  is  shown  ;  and  a  pleasure 
to  point,  so  far  as  our  power  permits,  to  such  things  it  is  as  well 
to  know  in  order  to  avoid.  In  commencing  I  tempted  fate  by 
quoting  at  our  Editor,  who  I  feel,  in  finishing,  has  been  very 
merciful  in  not  foreshortening,  not  the  best  that  could  be  given  to 
you,  but  the  best  I  had  to  give.  I  am  grateful  to  him  for  his 
forbearance.  I  have  finished.  ‘'’Tis  to  be  wished  it  had  been 
sooner  done,  but  stories  somehow  lengthen  when  begun.” — 
An  Old  Boy. 
[Done  well  and  not  too  soon  ;  let  the  pen  go  on  in  the  gardener’s 
path  of  duty,  beyond  the  “  frontiers  ”  into  the  advanced  life  of 
responsibility — its  risks,  difficulties,  contingencies,  and  encourage- 
TQsnts,  under  which  positions  have  been  lost  and  won,] 
EXPERIMENTS  IN  THE  MANURING  OF 
POTATOES. 
As  is  widely  known,  an  elaborate  series  of  experiments  have 
been  conducted  this  year  under  the  control  of  the  University 
Extension  College,  Reading,  and  the  Berks  County  Council,  in  the 
trial  grounds  of  Messrs.  Sutton  &  Sons.  We  were  unable  to 
attend  Reading  early  in  September  when  the  results  of  these 
experiments  were  displayed.  These  proved,  as  we  have  reason  to 
know,  rather  perplexing  to  some  of  the  visitors,  the  effects  of  the 
several  dressings  causing  not  a  little  surprise.  The  results  were 
far  more  conflicting  than  appears  to  have  been  anticipated  ;  but 
persons  who  have  had  much  experience  in  experiments  of  a  similar 
nature  are  not  unprepared  to  find  the  “  unexpected  ”  happening,  as 
in  this  case. 
One  of  the  cardinal  facts  educed  seems  to  be  that  in  no  instance 
has  the  yield  of  marketable  tubers  been  increased  by  the  aid  of 
farmyard  manure  to  an  extent  in  the  least  commensurate  with  the 
cost  of  the  application.  Much  the  same  may  be  said  in  reference 
to  most  of  the  chemical  mixtures,  though  there  are  a  few  instances 
in  which  combinations  of  nitrate  of  soda,  superphosphate  of  lime, 
and  sulphate  of  potash  appear  to  have  operated  profitably  on  the 
crops.  It  may  be  surmised,  however,  that  the  land  may  have 
benefited  by  the  manures  applied,  and  made  better  fitted  for  other 
crops  that  may  follow.  This  remains  to  be  seen. 
As  no  digest  of  these  experiments  could  be  so  good  as  that 
prepared  by  Professor  G-ilchrist  and  Mr.  Arthur  Sutton,  we  give  a 
citation,  accompanied  with  a  notification  that  the  whole  of  it,  and 
the  numerous  tabulations  of  results  on  which  it  is  based,  can  be 
had  in  manual  form  for  3d. 
A  careful  examination  of  the  plots  before  lifting  the  Potatoes  gave 
every  indication  that  excellent  results  would  be  obtained  from  some  of 
the  manures,  notably  from  the  plots  to  which  large  dressings  of  nitrate 
of  soda  had  been  applied  ;  these  expectations,  however,  were  not  borne 
out  so  far  as  weight  of  tubers  was  concerned.  A  point  of  the  greatest 
practical  and  scientific  interest  was  the  remarkable  diminution  of  the 
haulm  where  superphosphate  and  sulphate  of  potash  only  were  applied. 
On  this  plot  in  Set  2  the  weight  of  tubers  is  more  than  2  tons  less 
than  where  no  manure  was  applied,  and  on  the  third  set  the  same  plot 
gives  a  very  small  increase  over  the  unmanured  plot.  In  another  set, 
however,  an  opposite  result  is  given. 
With  a  dry  soil  and  climate  there  is  a  probability  that  the  residues 
of  previous  manurings  are  much  more  efficacious  than  direct  manuring 
for  this  crop.  In  these  circumstances,  therefore,  the  generally  useful 
idea  of  manuring  each  season  for  each  successive  crop  may  be  wrong, 
and  the  older  one  of  getting  the  soil  into  a  high  condition  far  more 
useful. 
These  results  for  the  last  three  years  show  that,  on  a  soil  in  high 
condition,  such  as  ^ists  in  Messrs.  Sutton’s  trial  grounds,  many  artificial 
manures  actually  decrease  the  crop.  We  are  told  that  such  high  con¬ 
ditioned  land  is  not  suitable  for  experimental  purposes,  but  we  ask.  Are 
we  not  called  upon  to  show  the  effects  of  manures  on  such  land  as  well 
as  on  land  in  poor  condition,  which  is  also  being  done  by  the  College  at 
various  centres  ?  We  venture  to  suggest  the  following  explanation  of 
some  of  the  results. 
Given  a  sufficient  amount  of  suitable  plant  food  in  the  soil,  this  is 
probably  in  a  better  condition  as  food  for  the  crop  than  the  plant  food 
present  in  many  artificial  manures,  which,  therefore,  when  added  directly 
to  the  crop  may  materially  reduce  It;  such  manures,  however,  might 
reasonably  be  expected  to  produce  a  good  result  where  there  is  a 
deficiency  of  plant  food  in  the  soil,  but  not  the  maximum  result  that  is 
got  from  a  soil  where  an  abundance  of  plant  food  is  already  present, 
either  as  a  result  of  continuous  manuring  for  many  years  previously,  or 
because  the  soil  itself  is  naturally  fertile. 
If  the  soil  has  abundant  plant  food  present  in  a  suitable  condition 
to  meet  the  requirements  of  crops,  such  a  soil  may  be  expected  to  grow 
as  good  crops  on  the  unmanured  as  on  the  manured  plots  ;  if,  however, 
the  unmanured  plots  grow  better  crops  than  those  which  are  manured, 
this  indicates  that  the  manures  applied  have  deteriorated  the  crop. 
This  again  indicates  either  that  the  manures  contain  ingredients  which 
are  injurious  to  the  crop,  or  which  make  the  plant  food  already  present 
in  the  soil  not  so  suitable  for  the  crop,  or  they  make  the  soil  physically 
not  so  suitable. 
We  would  again  notice  that  the  deleterious  effects  of  such  manures 
may  be  intensified  by  a  dry  atmosphere,  a  continuous  drought,  or  a  dry 
soil. 
While  we  have  taken  the  responsibility  of  publishing  the  foregoing 
results  and  observations,  we  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  we 
do  not  attack  the  generally  accepted  rules  for  manuring  Potatoes,  we 
simply  wish  to  point  out  that  under  certain  conditions  a  considerable 
deviation  may  be  necessary.  Those  who  conduct  field  experiments  will 
give  the  best  information  to  the  farming  community  if,  as  a  rule,  they 
publish  the  results  they  obtain,  whether  they  are  or  are  not  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  certain  theories  ;  if  this  is  not  done  the  tendency  must  be  to 
publish  only  those  results  which  bear  out  the  prejudices  and  favourite 
theories  of  the  experimenters. 
What  may  be  stated  as  the  predominating  fact  elucidated  by 
these  experiments  is  that  Messrs.  Sutton  &  Sons  are  fortunate  in 
possessing  naturally  good  “  Potato  land,”  as  practically  containing 
the  requisite  constituents  for  the  development  of  the  tubers  of 
the  valuable  root  crop  which  they  have  done  so  much  to  improve, 
to  the  lasting  credit  of  the  firm  and  the  benefit  of  the  entire 
community. 
ROOT  EELWORM  IN  CUCUMBERS. 
As  “  W.  D,”  has  nothing  to  add  (page  325)  on  the  above  subject,  and 
refers  to  statements  of  “  Pheuyle  Adviser  ”  (not  “  G.  A.”),  April  9th,  1895, 
page  321,  and  April  30th  of  that  month,  page  397  (not  “  G.  A.”  this 
time,  90  that  “  W.  D.”  is  twice  wrong  in  his  quotations  on  page  325  of 
October  Ist,  1896,  issue  of  the  Journal  of  Hortirult^ire,  second  paragraph 
of  his  article),  and  I  may  be  excused  reverting  to  the  whole  question. 
On  page  321,  April  9th,  1896,”  “  Phenyle  Adviser  ”  said,  “  It  is  the 
free  lime  of  the  basic  slag  and  the  '  chloride  ’  of  the  kainit  that  kill  the 
eel  worm,”  not  the  “chlorides,”  as  quoted  by  “W.  D.”  In  reply  to 
“  By  the  Sea,”  April  30th,  1896,  page  397,  “  Phenyle  Adviser”  said,  “  A 
solution  of  kainit  (.1  oz.  to  1  gallon  of  water)  destroyed  eelworm  in 
Cucumber  roots.  This  is  a  very  simple  preventive,  or,  if  not  too  far 
gone,  remedy.” 
The  Journal  of  Horticulture i  Axigxxit  27th,  1896,  page  194,  contains 
an  article  by  “  W.  D.,”  in  which  “Phenyle  Adviser’s ”  kainit  remedy 
(page  397,  April  30th,  1396)  is  referred  to,  also  “  G.  A as  having,  on 
page  179,  August  20th,  1896,  recommended  kainit  for  destroying  root 
eelworm,  and  this,  so  far  as  I  can  recollect,  is  the  first  appearance  of 
‘‘  G.  A.”  in  respect  of  the  “  kainit  remedy.”  Albeit  “  G.  A.,”  in  reply  to 
“  Rayner  Hill,”  does  not  advise  a  solution  of  kainit  at  a  strength  of  1  oi. 
to  a  gallon  of  water  as  a  remedy,  but  as  a  preventive  application  where 
the  “  plants  are  healthy,”  this  to  act  for  twenty-four  hours  and 
then  be  followed  by  a  solution  of  nitrate  of  soda,  1  oz.  to  a  gallon  of 
water. 
“  W.  D.”  ignores  the  preventive  treatment  and  disinfectant 
measures — namely,  2  ozs.  kainit  to  a  gallon  of  water  followed  by  a 
solution  of  nitrate  of  soda,  2  ozs.  to  a  gallon  of  water  (page  179).  Why 
does  “  W.  D.”  refer  to  this  part  of  the  subject  and  confine  his  remarks 
exclusively  to  the  kainit  remedy  suggested  by  “  Phenyle  Adviser  ”  on 
page  397,  April  30th,  1896  ?  Is  it  not  stated  there  to  be  the  “  latest  of  the 
experiments,”  a  “simple  preventive,  or,  if  not  too  far  gone,  remedy, good 
for  soil  and  plants,  especially  when  used  in  conjunction  with  nitrate  of 
soda  and  vitriolised  bones  ?  ” 
In  his  opening  statements  on  page  194  “  W.  D.”  says,  “  Mr.  G.  Abbey 
seems  fond  of  quoting  that  1  oz.  of  kainit  dissolved  in  a  gallon  of  water 
will  destroy  eelworm  in  Cucumber  roots.”  Where  “  W.  D.”  gets  that 
from  is  beyond  my  ken.  If  from  “Phenyle  Adviser”  or  “G.  A.,”  why 
introduce  Mr.  G.  Abbey  on  the  scene?  Is  it  to  make  a  display  of 
“  W.  D.’s”  peculiar  taste?  If  so,  he  could  not  have  done  it  more 
effectually.  Of  course,  that  did  not  occur  to  him;  but  there  it  is  on 
page  194  and  in  all  his  subsequent  articles, 
“  W.  D,”  opens  on  page  194  with  the  announcement  that,  “having 
read  the  different  communications  from  Mr.  G.  Abbey  in  the  Journal  of 
S-orticwlture  on  the  above  subject  £eel worms],  I  am  tempted  to  writer 
