On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:35:21 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 20/6/04 8:53 pm, in article , "Sally
Thompson" wrote:

snip Well, the rose is planted in a home-made planter which is very large
(about 3ft by 18 inches), so I wouldn't have thought that would
contain the roots. We originally saw this rose going mad over a
similar arch, so hoped to achieve the same effect in time - now we are
wondering if the nursery actually sold us a different (non-climbing)
variety, although it looks exactly like the pictures on the David
Austin web site.


That's your problem. Container.
Roses are very greedy feeders and a vigorous climber is NOT going to remain
happy in a planter. Just think of the size of the mature plant in
comparison to its 'bed'. How would you contain a giant in a bed that size?
;-)
They like to get their feet down and wide and pick up a LOT of nutrients
from the soil around them. That's why rose growers feed them horse manure
etc. 3' x 18" is barely a baby crib for such a rose.
That's why some roses are known as patio roses - they'll take such small
confines. Vigorous climbers won't. Move it into open ground this autumn,
prune it back, feed it well and you'll have a happy plant next spring.

Ah - we hadn't realised that. It is actually quite a deep container,
waist high I suppose, and full of horse manure - however, we will do
as you suggest. Thanks for the advice.


--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Reply To address is spam trap