In article ,
B & J wrote:

Wait until all the foliage has died back before digging, but be sure to mark
the area so that you won't lose track of where they are. After they die
back, dig up the bulbs, and you can either replant immediately into the new
destination, or you can store them in a cool, dry place until September or
October and plant them then.

John


Actually, that brings up a different question. I live in an older house
with "established" landscaping -- which means, basically, that it was
doing fine when I moved in. Both I and my wife work long hours and
really didn't get interested in gardening until recently; our "gardening"
consisted mostly of cutting back shrubs so they didn't block paths
and mowing the yard.

Now we have gotten interested in gardening, mostly because of a
weekend place we got. I am at the putter about and play with
easy stuff stage...

One of the things we have at our place are a couple of patches
of tulips. They do *extremely* well -- pop up every year, seem
to get thicker every year, and the patch has been slowly enlarging
itself. The only thing that hurts the tulips are some deer that
live in a nearby park, who have ravaged all the yards in the
neighborhood because of a tough winter.

This spring, a friend of mine came over and saw the tulips,
or what was left of them after the deer had their way. He
said "You know, you really need to dig them up every couple
of years and replant them."

I said, "No kidding," but thought "Wait a minute, these things
are doing great. This sounds like a great case of fixing something
that isn't broken."

Then I read a little, and have seen this advice a couple of times.

So....

Do I really need to dig up a patch of tulips that has been going
great guns for 15 years and replant them in the same place?

Somehow that just doesn't seem right.

billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
B & J wrote:

Wait until all the foliage has died back before digging, but be sure to
mark
the area so that you won't lose track of where they are. After they die
back, dig up the bulbs, and you can either replant immediately into the
new
destination, or you can store them in a cool, dry place until September
or
October and plant them then.

John


Actually, that brings up a different question. I live in an older house
with "established" landscaping -- which means, basically, that it was
doing fine when I moved in. Both I and my wife work long hours and
really didn't get interested in gardening until recently; our "gardening"
consisted mostly of cutting back shrubs so they didn't block paths
and mowing the yard.

Now we have gotten interested in gardening, mostly because of a
weekend place we got. I am at the putter about and play with
easy stuff stage...

One of the things we have at our place are a couple of patches
of tulips. They do *extremely* well -- pop up every year, seem
to get thicker every year, and the patch has been slowly enlarging
itself. The only thing that hurts the tulips are some deer that
live in a nearby park, who have ravaged all the yards in the
neighborhood because of a tough winter.

This spring, a friend of mine came over and saw the tulips,
or what was left of them after the deer had their way. He
said "You know, you really need to dig them up every couple
of years and replant them."

I said, "No kidding," but thought "Wait a minute, these things
are doing great. This sounds like a great case of fixing something
that isn't broken."

Then I read a little, and have seen this advice a couple of times.

So....

Do I really need to dig up a patch of tulips that has been going
great guns for 15 years and replant them in the same place?

Somehow that just doesn't seem right.

billo

To me, you've got a good point there.... if it ain't broke, leave 'em alone!
You could consider feeding them once or twice a year though to keep them
strong like that.
--
Tammie
49° 27.2' N.
85° 32.8' W in N. Ont, Canada
http://community.webshots.com/user/_tammie57

On 29 May 2003 12:08:14 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

One of the things we have at our place are a couple of patches
of tulips. They do *extremely* well -- pop up every year, seem
to get thicker every year, and the patch has been slowly enlarging
itself. The only thing that hurts the tulips are some deer that
live in a nearby park, who have ravaged all the yards in the
neighborhood because of a tough winter.

This spring, a friend of mine came over and saw the tulips,
or what was left of them after the deer had their way. He
said "You know, you really need to dig them up every couple
of years and replant them."
snip
Do I really need to dig up a patch of tulips that has been going
great guns for 15 years and replant them in the same place?

Somehow that just doesn't seem right.

I have very few tulips that return at all, much less multiply. If
yours are doing well, I'd leave 'em alone. Daffodils, OTOH, will have
fewer blooms as they multiply in place, and are invigorated by being
dug up, divided, and replanted. However, this is clearly visible in
the spring when you have a fine crop of dense foliage and 1 or 2
blooms.

When we lived in England a few years back I recall a particular
road....thick on all sides with beautiful daffodils. They had
naturalized there after being planted many years earlier (so they
say). I know they were NEVER dug up.....just mowed down after a good
while. Wish mine could do that!
Joy

When is the best time to dig up the daffy's? After they die back?
Can I also store them in a cool place until September?


(Frogleg) wrote in message ...
On 29 May 2003 12:08:14 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

One of the things we have at our place are a couple of patches
of tulips. They do *extremely* well -- pop up every year, seem
to get thicker every year, and the patch has been slowly enlarging
itself. The only thing that hurts the tulips are some deer that
live in a nearby park, who have ravaged all the yards in the
neighborhood because of a tough winter.

This spring, a friend of mine came over and saw the tulips,
or what was left of them after the deer had their way. He
said "You know, you really need to dig them up every couple
of years and replant them."
snip
Do I really need to dig up a patch of tulips that has been going
great guns for 15 years and replant them in the same place?

Somehow that just doesn't seem right.

I have very few tulips that return at all, much less multiply. If
yours are doing well, I'd leave 'em alone. Daffodils, OTOH, will have
fewer blooms as they multiply in place, and are invigorated by being
dug up, divided, and replanted. However, this is clearly visible in
the spring when you have a fine crop of dense foliage and 1 or 2
blooms.

In article ,
Frogleg wrote:

[snip]
... Daffodils, OTOH, will have
fewer blooms as they multiply in place, and are invigorated by being
dug up, divided, and replanted. However, this is clearly visible in
the spring when you have a fine crop of dense foliage and 1 or 2
blooms.


Hmmm... Actually, now that you mention it, there is also a bunch
of daffodils along the fence that are just like that -- they are
as thick as weeds, but have *relatively* few blooms (though because
they are so dense, there are a fair number).

As an aside, here's a tulip story:

Near the family ranch in Oklahoma, there is a small field with a copse
of black oak. All around those oaks are "wild" tulips, that have been
growing there since it was Indian Territory.

The story is that back in the 1800s, during the migration of Mormons to
the Great Salt Lake, a few families came through this part of
Oklahoma. Along the way, smallpox swept through the group. A number of
the children died.

The Mormons had suffered Indian attack, and were afraid that the
Indians would desecrate the graves of their children if they marked
where they laid the children. Instead of putting up stones, they
planted tulips.

A few decades later, the area was settled by refugees from the War
Between the States who sought refuge with the Indians (the tribes in
the area had fought with the Confederacy), and was an integrated
community well before the Land Rush of 1899. Since the 1860s, at
least, that little copse had been respected as a gravesite.

Though the land has gone through many owners, nobody has ever put up
markers or farmed the area where the tulips grow. They are afraid
to put up markers for fear that the government will seize the land,
and because the original families marked the graves with tulips rather
than stone. They never cleared the land because they respect the
it as a graveyard.

So, every spring, there's a crop of wild tulips at the edge of
the prarie reminding us of the death of those unnamed Mormon
children.


billo

The story is that back in the 1800s, during the migration of Mormons to
the Great Salt Lake, a few families came through this part of
Oklahoma. Along the way, smallpox swept through the group. A number of
the children died.

The Mormons had suffered Indian attack, and were afraid that the
Indians would desecrate the graves of their children if they marked
where they laid the children. Instead of putting up stones, they
planted tulips.



cute little story, BUT why would the indians desecrate the graves?
of all the peoples, that have settled in america, they seem the most unlikely!

Bill Oliver wrote:

Do I really need to dig up a patch of tulips that has been going
great guns for 15 years and replant them in the same place?

Somehow that just doesn't seem right.

billo

Leave them be IMO. My grandfather had a tulip bed 50 feet wide
by 20 feet long, absolutely filled with every color tulip you'd
ever see. He never dug any if them up, just fertilized.
They bloomed their hearts out for many years, 30 that I can remember.
One of my best memories is him with the tulips.

Minteeleaf

In article ,
rosie readandpost wrote:

cute little story, BUT why would the indians desecrate the graves?
of all the peoples, that have settled in america, they seem the most unlikely!


Well, the particular tribes that lived in the area at the time probably
would not have. You have to remember, though, that there is not one
"Indian" (or "Native American" if you prefer) culture. There were and
are many. I doubt that the Mormons travelling through were crack
ethnographers.

People have this wierd "noble savage" concept of "the" Indian, but
that's pretty much wrong. If you go through the many, many cultures in
pre-Columbian North and Meso America, you can find just about any kind
of practice you want to find. Indians are humans, just like everybody
else, no worse and no better, and humans develop rather consistent
patterns of social behavior -- both on the large and small scale. Some
of them are good, and some of them are disgusting.

In particular, mutilation of the dead was a common practice among
both Indians and Europeans.

As noted in
http://earlyamerica.com/review/1998/scalping.html

An account of attack near Lake George, in 1759, illustrates
Pouchot's observations. On July 2nd, "16 of the Jersey Blues were
sent without the camp to gather a little brush for the General's
Baker, but were not an hour gone before they were surprized in sight
of the camp by a party of the enemy, consisting of about 240, who
killed and scalped six, wounded two, took four prisoners, and only
four of the whole party escaped. They shewed themselves plainly to
the whole Army after they got the scalps, gave a hollow, and then
made off to their Battoes, which were not more than two miles from
the Head of the Lake. A large party was ordered out after them, but
in vain. They butchered our people in a most shocking manner, by
cutting pieces of flesh out of their necks, thighs and legs."



Depending on who you ask, scalping was either practiced in North
America, brought to North America by white settlers, or
(almost certainly) both. Even if one believes that it originated
entirely in North America, it was eagerly adopted by the French
and English. The Governor of Pennsylvania, for instance, paid
135 pounds for each male Indian scalp presented to the colony.

*Today,* even though it is considered a war crime, people still
take tropies in war -- ears, tongues, scrotums, etc.

It's just what *people* do.

billo

Tulips naturalize very well in some parts of the country, poorly in others.
The back yard of my current home was planted to tulips before I lived here,
but I saw them blooming when the purchase was closing. They were relatively
sparse. After 3 years of intense cultivation of the garden, and the addition
of many perennials (during which I suppose I probably dug up and divided
some bulbs accidentally), the back yard is a forest of tulips every spring.
Our climate is similar to Turkey's - a sort of cold, modified Mediterranean
type of climate. (Cold snowy winters, hot dry summers). So I suppose tulips
feel right at home here.

In article , "gregpresley"
wrote:

Tulips naturalize very well in some parts of the country, poorly in others.

Darwin hybrids, & many species tulips, can certainly naturalize well. But
a great many hybrid tulips simply won't naturalize no matter what one does
for them, producing neither seed nor offsets & just wearing out over time.

The back yard of my current home was planted to tulips before I lived here,
but I saw them blooming when the purchase was closing. They were relatively
sparse. After 3 years of intense cultivation of the garden, and the addition
of many perennials (during which I suppose I probably dug up and divided
some bulbs accidentally), the back yard is a forest of tulips every spring.
Our climate is similar to Turkey's - a sort of cold, modified Mediterranean
type of climate. (Cold snowy winters, hot dry summers). So I suppose tulips
feel right at home here.

Eastern Washington sure, but in Western Washington there's a slight worry
of excess dampness while they are dormant, which sharp drainage usually
takes care of, but sometimes when there are heavy winter rains, or dormant
bulbs are mixed into gardens that are well watered for summer, the bulbs
can rot.

Granny Artemis just made another humongous species tulip order though the
bulbs won't be delivered until autumn. All that we planted last year were
a success with very few & minor problems (nothing more annoying than the
kaufmaniannas falling over on their sides). Most were just perfect, so the
most spectacular ones we're extending the plantings, plus adding small
sections of species tulips we hadn't planted yet. Really when we first
started popping them into the sun-herb garden margins, I had expected
species tulips to be slightly "humble" compared to gaudy hybrids, but some
of them, such as Lady Tulips (T. clusiana), Vvedensky's tulip, & greiggi
tulips, have flowers as big & intense as the fanciest hybrids.
Kaufmanianna "water lily tulips" are also as extreme as hybrids, but I
won't plant more of those unless I figure out a good companion groundcover
that will hold them upright.

The kaufmaniannas were blooming in March, the Tulipa orphanidea lasted
most of May, so three months of tulips. One slight drawback in wantng them
all to naturalize, the leaves have to be left until they begin to turn
brown or yellow, so the bulbs can recharge or produce offsets. So there's
a lot of scruffy foliage left along the garden margin when the species
tulips are mostly done.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

For some inexplicable reasons, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

:This spring, a friend of mine came over and saw the tulips,
r what was left of them after the deer had their way. He
:said "You know, you really need to dig them up every couple
f years and replant them."
:
:I said, "No kidding," but thought "Wait a minute, these things
:are doing great. This sounds like a great case of fixing something
:that isn't broken."
:
:Then I read a little, and have seen this advice a couple of times.
:
:So....
:
o I really need to dig up a patch of tulips that has been going
:great guns for 15 years and replant them in the same place?
:
:Somehow that just doesn't seem right.

Tulips in central Georgia are annuals--people dig them up in
the fall, store them in the freezer, then replant them the next year
(according to my neighbor there, who said that she did this when she
was actively gardening.)

You're too far north for this, IIRC.


--
Wendy Chatley Green

On 30 May 2003 09:13:21 -0700, (KR) wrote:

When is the best time to dig up the daffy's? After they die back?
Can I also store them in a cool place until September?


(Frogleg) wrote

I have very few tulips that return at all, much less multiply. If
yours are doing well, I'd leave 'em alone. Daffodils, OTOH, will have
fewer blooms as they multiply in place, and are invigorated by being
dug up, divided, and replanted. However, this is clearly visible in
the spring when you have a fine crop of dense foliage and 1 or 2
blooms.

IMHO, the best time to dig, divide, and transplant is in the fall. You
want to leave the daffs alone while their foliage is gathering
strength for the next season. Any time after would seem to be OK for
digging, but why dig and store when you can dig and plant directly? I
expect if you dug refrigerated some bulbs in late spring/summer, you
could retrieve for forced indoor bulbs in late fall, having fooled
them about seasons. I've never tried it.

The problem I have is remembering where the critters are planted
*after* the foliage is gone. A few markers or a rough garden map is
recommended. :-) Plants in appropriate climates are pretty tough. If
you have the time and energy to dig in late spring and plant in fall,
they'll probably be OK. In fact, I don't see any particular reason not
to relocate at any time the foliage isn't showing and the ground isn't
too frozen to dig.

On 30 May 2003 16:59:53 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
Frogleg wrote:

[snip]
... Daffodils, OTOH, will have
fewer blooms as they multiply in place, and are invigorated by being
dug up, divided, and replanted. However, this is clearly visible in
the spring when you have a fine crop of dense foliage and 1 or 2
blooms.


Hmmm... Actually, now that you mention it, there is also a bunch
of daffodils along the fence that are just like that -- they are
as thick as weeds, but have *relatively* few blooms (though because
they are so dense, there are a fair number).

I tried to dig some up in the back end of my garden/lawn that were in
the middle of a bunch of tree roots and not producing many blooms.
Finally gave up and decided they could wait for squirrels to
delicately extract them. :-) My record for a single daffodil in situ
was 27 bulbs! Of course, many were teensy ones it'd take a couple of
years to bloom, but at least a dozen were good sized. I've also had
"all" the bulbs cleared (not on purpose, but as a side-effect of new
landscaping) from an area and had many more blooms than previously in
the same area. Crocus seem to like being stirred up.

Wendy Chatley Green writes:
Tulips in central Georgia are annuals--people dig them up in
the fall, store them in the freezer, then replant them the next year

hmmm.. my tulips have done quite nicely as a
naturalizer.... (Pittsburgh PA, Zone 5/6 southern exposure, clay
soil)

We planted in fall of 98 and they come back year after year.

not sure why you dig them down in georgia... unless you mean georgia
in the former USSR...

--
be safe.
flip
^___^ Count to three. Make a wish. Close your eyes.
\^.^/ Wait. Scratch that, reverse it.
==u== - apologies to Roald Dahl