Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but for
their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings

Gerrit wrote:
Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but
for their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings

Definately! Hyacinths are my favorite. I planted over 100 new ones
last fall and they are just starting to poke their heads up. They will
be booming in another few weeks.

I also grow a lot of Lilies but some neighbors say that they don't like
their smell. I like the smell of Stargazer and the flowers are really
beautiful.

Some my other fragrant favorites are Lavender, Peonies, and Carnations.
--
Bill R. (Ohio Valley, U.S.A)

To see pictures from my garden visit http://members.iglou.com/brosen

Digital Camera - Pentax *ist DL

Remove NO_WEEDS_ in e-mail address to reply by e-mail

In article s.nl,
"Gerrit" wrote:

Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but for
their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings

http://www.papagenos.com/geranium.html

They do not do well here but are interesting non the less.

Bill looking for just a rosemary that can take - 10 F

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

Do not look at this. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tidewatermuse/134222791/

Bill

"Bill R" wrote in message
...
Gerrit wrote:
Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but
for their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings

Definitely! Hyacinths are my favorite. I planted over 100 new ones last
fall and they are just starting to poke their heads up. They will be
booming in another few weeks.

What a speedy reaction....!

And maybe I should explain: I do not have a garden, as I live in a three up
appartment. I do have lots of potted plants though, and I buy cut flowers
too. Right now a few hyacinths are in full bloom on my window sill, and I
love the scent.
BUT:
Is scent as such ever used as a selection-criterion by the professional
propagators / cultuvators to 'create' any new variety?: "Yeah Ma'am, I know
this rose, well it looks kind of plain, but now just smell it. Now ain't
that gorgeous?"


I also grow a lot of Lilies but some neighbors say that they don't like
their smell. I like the smell of Stargazer and the flowers are really
beautiful.

Some my other fragrant favorites are Lavender, Peonies, and Carnations.
--
Bill R. (Ohio Valley, U.S.A)

To see pictures from my garden visit http://members.iglou.com/brosen

Digital Camera - Pentax *ist DL

Remove NO_WEEDS_ in e-mail address to reply by e-mail

Gerrit wrote:
And maybe I should explain: I do not have a garden, as I live in a
three up appartment. I do have lots of potted plants though, and I
buy cut flowers too. Right now a few hyacinths are in full bloom on
my window sill, and I love the scent.
BUT:
Is scent as such ever used as a selection-criterion by the
professional propagators / cultuvators to 'create' any new variety?:
"Yeah Ma'am, I know this rose, well it looks kind of plain, but now
just smell it. Now ain't that gorgeous?"

Yes there are cultivars that have been selected on this basis. We have
roses that we chose for both looks and perfume where we could have had more
showy looks but no perfume.

David

On 2/26/2009 2:58 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Gerrit wrote:
And maybe I should explain: I do not have a garden, as I live in a
three up appartment. I do have lots of potted plants though, and I
buy cut flowers too. Right now a few hyacinths are in full bloom on
my window sill, and I love the scent.
BUT:
Is scent as such ever used as a selection-criterion by the
professional propagators / cultuvators to 'create' any new variety?:
"Yeah Ma'am, I know this rose, well it looks kind of plain, but now
just smell it. Now ain't that gorgeous?"

Yes there are cultivars that have been selected on this basis. We have
roses that we chose for both looks and perfume where we could have had more
showy looks but no perfume.

David


Unfortunately, most developers of new rose varieties seem to put scent
at the bottom of their priority lists. Higher in priority are color and
form of the flower, resistance of the plant to disease, and adaptability
to as large a variety of climates as possible.

When roses were developed regionally for a local climate, scent had a
much higher priority. Now some of the most fragrant roses from 30 years
ago are no longer available commercially. These include climbing
'Chrysler Imperial' (which, however, might still be available as a
bush). Last year, I searched and searched for this one. I couldn't
even find anyone who had one growing in their garden who might be
willing to send me a cutting for me to root.

Another peeve is the fact that most nurseries no longer sell roses
bare-root. If you plant them correctly, bare-root roses adapt more
readily to the soil in your garden than do roses that have been allowed
to root in a container. The worst part of this is that the growers ship
their product bare-root; it's the nurseries that pot them up.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean
Sunset Zone: 21 -- interior Santa Monica Mountains with some ocean
influence (USDA 10a, very close to Sunset Zone 19)
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

Gerrit wrote:
Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but
for their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings

Definately! Hyacinths are my favorite. I planted over 100 new ones
last fall and they are just starting to poke their heads up. They will
be booming in another few weeks.

I also grow a lot of Lilies but some neighbors say that they don't like
their smell. I like the smell of Stargazer and the flowers are really
beautiful.

Some my other fragrant favorites are Lavender, Peonies, and Carnations.

These are all fragrant but they are also pretty and would be grown even
if they didn't smell good.
There are others that are just grown for their fragrance.
Mignonette - Reseda odorata - is one that I can remember but there must
be others.




--

09=ix

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:24:54 +0100, "Gerrit"
wrote:





"Bill R" wrote in message
...
Gerrit wrote:
Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but
for their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings

Definitely! Hyacinths are my favorite. I planted over 100 new ones last
fall and they are just starting to poke their heads up. They will be
booming in another few weeks.

What a speedy reaction....!

And maybe I should explain: I do not have a garden, as I live in a three up
appartment. I do have lots of potted plants though, and I buy cut flowers
too. Right now a few hyacinths are in full bloom on my window sill, and I
love the scent.
BUT:
Is scent as such ever used as a selection-criterion by the professional
propagators / cultuvators to 'create' any new variety?: "Yeah Ma'am, I know
this rose, well it looks kind of plain, but now just smell it. Now ain't
that gorgeous?"


I also grow a lot of Lilies but some neighbors say that they don't like
their smell. I like the smell of Stargazer and the flowers are really
beautiful.

Some my other fragrant favorites are Lavender, Peonies, and Carnations.
--
Bill R. (Ohio Valley, U.S.A)

To see pictures from my garden visit http://members.iglou.com/brosen

Digital Camera - Pentax *ist DL

Remove NO_WEEDS_ in e-mail address to reply by e-mail


I believe tuberoses are chosen for scent more than appearance.
Various jasmines would be some more

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:12:38 +0100, "Gerrit"
wrote:

Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but for
their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings


herbs

Excellent. I shall start hunting for gerbera, violets and lavender. I just
hope they'll be happy with staying indoors on a window sill.
Thanks, you all



"Garrapata" wrote in message
...
Gerrit wrote:
Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but
for their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings

Definately! Hyacinths are my favorite. I planted over 100 new ones
last fall and they are just starting to poke their heads up. They will
be booming in another few weeks.

I also grow a lot of Lilies but some neighbors say that they don't like
their smell. I like the smell of Stargazer and the flowers are really
beautiful.

Some my other fragrant favorites are Lavender, Peonies, and Carnations.

These are all fragrant but they are also pretty and would be grown even
if they didn't smell good.
There are others that are just grown for their fragrance.
Mignonette - Reseda odorata - is one that I can remember but there must
be others.




--

09=ix

Evening scented stocks. They're certainly nothing to look at, but they
perfume the air beautifully in the evenings.

"Gerrit" wrote in message
vices.nl...
Hi all

I have been wondering about this:
are there any plants or flowers that are grown not for their looks, but
for their scent?
( Imagine 'Cytisus scoparius + broom as a long-flowering potted plant )

Greetings

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:20:27 -0600, Jangchub
wrote:

Adding to my own post, jasmine and gardenia, jasmine being one of the
most expensive essential oils in perfumes.


On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:41:28 -0600, Jangchub
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:35:31 -0800, "David E. Ross"
wrote:


Unfortunately, most developers of new rose varieties seem to put scent
at the bottom of their priority lists. Higher in priority are color and
form of the flower, resistance of the plant to disease, and adaptability
to as large a variety of climates as possible.

When roses were developed regionally for a local climate, scent had a
much higher priority. Now some of the most fragrant roses from 30 years
ago are no longer available commercially. These include climbing
'Chrysler Imperial' (which, however, might still be available as a
bush). Last year, I searched and searched for this one. I couldn't
even find anyone who had one growing in their garden who might be
willing to send me a cutting for me to root.

I'm still a stubborn holdout for scent, though I agree it's hard to
find. Mr. Lincoln has a nice scent and a wonderful color, but the
blooms are very short-lived

Another peeve is the fact that most nurseries no longer sell roses
bare-root. If you plant them correctly, bare-root roses adapt more
readily to the soil in your garden than do roses that have been allowed
to root in a container. The worst part of this is that the growers ship
their product bare-root; it's the nurseries that pot them up.

Sad but true. Not even the big peat-potted "bare-roots" are worth
buying, but sometimes that's the only thing on offer. Our nursery
used to bury the bare-roots in a huge bin of the wood shavings,
which made it easy to pull out the plant, but they no longer do that.

However. I have never had trouble transplanting, even if I had to
shake off most of the [whatever] that they put in the peat pot.
Main thing is to dig deep and wide enough, and to mound up he
soil in the middle of the hole. Around this little hill, you drape
the spread-out roots of the rose. Water amply but don't drown
the newcomer. And WAIT! Patience is the name of the game.

Lightly filter extreme blasting sunlight at first until plant is
established.

Fortunately, many of the new roses are actually the roses of old and
scent is desired as much as flower form. All or most antiques are
extremely hardy, grown on their own rootstock and have beautiful
scent. Many of the miniatures being developed are putting the scent
back in.

Roses have very poor root systems, much like their cousin the
blueberry and can benefit greatly with some mychorrizae fungi when
planting them. Of course, anyone who uses weed and feed is wasting
money because they kill the fungi, sadly.

What about worm castings? I usually mix in some when transplanting.

Persephone.
[..]

On 2/28/2009 2:15 PM, wrote:

I'm still a stubborn holdout for scent, though I agree it's hard to
find. Mr. Lincoln has a nice scent and a wonderful color, but the
blooms are very short-lived

While considered a modern rose, 'Mr. Lincoln' was introduced 25-30 (or
more) years ago, when growers still targeted their local regions. It
has a marvelous scent, and the blooms are not as short-lived as many
florabundas.


Sad but true. Not even the big peat-potted "bare-roots" are worth
buying, but sometimes that's the only thing on offer. Our nursery
used to bury the bare-roots in a huge bin of the wood shavings,
which made it easy to pull out the plant, but they no longer do that.

One major problem with roses from containers is that you can't examine
the roots. Early last year, I bought several roses from Armstrong
Nurseries (a chain in California and possibly elsewhere) that were
pre-planted in paper pots. The idea is to plant the rose with the pot.
Instead, I carefully peeled away the pot and shook loose the mix around
the roots. Sure enough, I had to cut away broken roots from every plant.


However. I have never had trouble transplanting, even if I had to
shake off most of the [whatever] that they put in the peat pot.
Main thing is to dig deep and wide enough, and to mound up he
soil in the middle of the hole. Around this little hill, you drape
the spread-out roots of the rose. Water amply but don't drown
the newcomer. And WAIT! Patience is the name of the game.

The whole idea of bare-root planting is that the plant will adapt better
to the native soil of your garden if its roots don't have to grow past
an interface between potting mix and soil. With Armstrong's method --
used by many other nurseries -- the roots must also penetrate the
decomposing paper pot. The result can be a root bound plant.


Lightly filter extreme blasting sunlight at first until plant is
established.


What about worm castings? I usually mix in some when transplanting.

I stir a generous amount of superphosphate into the bottom of the hole.
Phosphorus -- which promotes flowering and root growth -- does not
dissolve and leach through the soil, so it must be placed where roots
can find it. I then mix peat moss and a little compost into what I dug
out of the planting hole. The idea is to plant the rose where its roots
are above BUT NOT TOUCHING the superphosphate. (The compost contains a
variety of micro-organisms, some to promote healthy roots and some to
break down fertilizers into components that roots can absorb.)

Other than the superphosephate, I give NO nutrients to the rose during
its first year. The goal is to allow the roots to recover and spread
before encouraging foliage growth and flowering (both of which are
encouraged by fertilizer). That way, there is not enough foliage to
stress the plant when warm weather imposes a demand for moisture on the
roots. Roses prefer abundant nutrients, and I feed heavily and
frequently after the first year.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean
Sunset Zone: 21 -- interior Santa Monica Mountains with some ocean
influence (USDA 10a, very close to Sunset Zone 19)
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:44:30 -0800, "David E. Ross"
wrote:

On 2/28/2009 2:15 PM, wrote:

I'm still a stubborn holdout for scent, though I agree it's hard to
find. Mr. Lincoln has a nice scent and a wonderful color, but the
blooms are very short-lived

While considered a modern rose, 'Mr. Lincoln' was introduced 25-30 (or
more) years ago, when growers still targeted their local regions. It
has a marvelous scent, and the blooms are not as short-lived as many
florabundas.


Sad but true. Not even the big peat-potted "bare-roots" are worth
buying, but sometimes that's the only thing on offer. Our nursery
used to bury the bare-roots in a huge bin of the wood shavings,
which made it easy to pull out the plant, but they no longer do that.

One major problem with roses from containers is that you can't examine
the roots. Early last year, I bought several roses from Armstrong
Nurseries (a chain in California and possibly elsewhere) that were
pre-planted in paper pots. The idea is to plant the rose with the pot.
Instead, I carefully peeled away the pot and shook loose the mix around
the roots. Sure enough, I had to cut away broken roots from every plant.


However. I have never had trouble transplanting, even if I had to
shake off most of the [whatever] that they put in the peat pot.
Main thing is to dig deep and wide enough, and to mound up he
soil in the middle of the hole. Around this little hill, you drape
the spread-out roots of the rose. Water amply but don't drown
the newcomer. And WAIT! Patience is the name of the game.

The whole idea of bare-root planting is that the plant will adapt better
to the native soil of your garden if its roots don't have to grow past
an interface between potting mix and soil. With Armstrong's method --
used by many other nurseries -- the roots must also penetrate the
decomposing paper pot. The result can be a root bound plant.


Lightly filter extreme blasting sunlight at first until plant is
established.


What about worm castings? I usually mix in some when transplanting.

I stir a generous amount of superphosphate into the bottom of the hole.
Phosphorus -- which promotes flowering and root growth --

Hey, whoa - aren't those very different needs -- flowering and root
growth?

does not
dissolve and leach through the soil, so it must be placed where roots
can find it. I then mix peat moss and a little compost into what I dug
out of the planting hole. The idea is to plant the rose where its roots
are above BUT NOT TOUCHING the superphosphate. (The compost contains a
variety of micro-organisms, some to promote healthy roots and some to
break down fertilizers into components that roots can absorb.)

Other than the superphosephate, I give NO nutrients to the rose during
its first year.

Actually, I don't either, so I misspoke by encouraging OP to wait "at
least two weeks".

The goal is to allow the roots to recover and spread
before encouraging foliage growth and flowering (both of which are
encouraged by fertilizer). That way, there is not enough foliage to
stress the plant when warm weather imposes a demand for moisture on the
roots. Roses prefer abundant nutrients, and I feed heavily and
frequently after the first year.

Mea culpa! I am very lax -- and somewhat ignorant -- about
fertilizing. Ex: I pruned a few weeks ago, and simply don't
know or remember when/if to fertilize. Help? Remember
this is So Calif coastal.

Persephone

On that subject,

On 3/1/2009 10:20 AM, wrote [in part]:

Mea culpa! I am very lax -- and somewhat ignorant -- about
fertilizing. Ex: I pruned a few weeks ago, and simply don't
know or remember when/if to fertilize. Help? Remember
this is So Calif coastal.


Feed your roses now. Except for the most frost-tender plants, feed your
whole garden now. Frost-tender plants can be fed in about two weeks.

The National Weather Service treats my area as a coastal valley with
Thousand Oaks (California zone 45). Actually, we are more in the Santa
Monica Mountains (California zone 46). Both areas are known to get
frost through the end of March. Thus, I won't be feeding most of my
garden for another week. (Tender growth won't start until about two
weeks after feeding.) I have already fed my roses TWICE! I also fed
the pink clover (Persicaria capitata) and cinquefoil (Potentilla
neumanniana) that make up my front lawn and parkway, respectively, once.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean
Sunset Zone: 21 -- interior Santa Monica Mountains with some ocean
influence (USDA 10a, very close to Sunset Zone 19)
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary