We are having a discussion at Gardenweb in the Roses forum about
fertilizing.

Someone quoted Johnny Becnel (SP!) as saying most of us overferilize.
He apparently feeds a nine-month slow release and lets the roses rely
on mulch breakdown aside from that and a single application of
organics early in the season.

Thoughts?

"Shiva" wrote in message
news:fc9bbe888b2a92c16943ce7ba93557c0@TeraNews...
We are having a discussion at Gardenweb in the Roses forum about
fertilizing.

Someone quoted Johnny Becnel (SP!) as saying most of us overferilize.
He apparently feeds a nine-month slow release and lets the roses rely
on mulch breakdown aside from that and a single application of
organics early in the season.

Thoughts?

Remember when you were little, and your Mom would always tell you, "leave
that alone, quit picking at it"? And did you ever leave it alone? Nope.
So, I don't know about anyone else, but I know that I sure can't stop
picking at my roses for 9 months at a time. Whether they NEED it or not is
a purely academic question, as far as I'm concerned.

JimS.
Seattle

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.roses:92564

JimS. wrote:



Someone quoted Johnny Becnel (SP!) as saying most of us overferilize.
He apparently feeds a nine-month slow release and lets the roses rely
on mulch breakdown aside from that and a single application of
organics early in the season.

Thoughts?

Remember when you were little, and your Mom would always tell you, "leave
that alone, quit picking at it"? And did you ever leave it alone? Nope.
So, I don't know about anyone else, but I know that I sure can't stop
picking at my roses for 9 months at a time. Whether they NEED it or not
is
a purely academic question, as far as I'm concerned.

Hee! Great Answer. But if JB is right, those of us who are having trouble
doing more than tossing Osmocote at them in passing and watering can feel
better.





JimS.
Seattle

JimS. wrote:
"Shiva" wrote in message

We are having a discussion at Gardenweb in the Roses forum about
fertilizing.

Someone quoted Johnny Becnel (SP!) as saying most of us overferilize.
He apparently feeds a nine-month slow release and lets the roses rely
on mulch breakdown aside from that and a single application of
organics early in the season.

Thoughts?

Remember when you were little, and your Mom would always tell you, "leave
that alone, quit picking at it"? And did you ever leave it alone? Nope.
So, I don't know about anyone else, but I know that I sure can't stop
picking at my roses for 9 months at a time. Whether they NEED it or not is
a purely academic question, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with Johnny. The temptation is to do something *to* them
instead of letting them do it themselves. Except for exhibitors'
roses, which need to force bloom to a schedule, roses don't need
massive amount of ferts. They grow to their genetically determined
schedule and size. A 15 foot rambler doesn't need more ferts to get 15
feet than a 4 foot shrub needs. I think our time is much better spent
concentrating on soil tilth and soil chemistry, keeping the pH in the
range and keeping the soil healthy.

I'm a huge fan of compost for roses. Unfortunately, it's a lot more
work than fertilizer in a plastic jar.

We are having a discussion at Gardenweb in the Roses forum about
fertilizing.

Someone quoted Johnny Becnel (SP!) as saying most of us overferilize.
He apparently feeds a nine-month slow release and lets the roses rely
on mulch breakdown aside from that and a single application of
organics early in the season.

Thoughts?


Several thoughts on this:

Most nine month fertilizer doesn't last 9 months in warm climates. It is
designed for soil at a specific temerature, too cool and it feeds more slowly,
to warm and it breaks down very quickly. In the summer it will only last about
three months in my soil. Bethal Farms does produce a slow-release made for
warmer soils that may work better, but you have to look for it. Most people
buy the Osmocote and it does not last here.

It has been my experience that better fed roses are more disease resistant.
I've found a regular monthly application of fertilizer does as much to prevent
blackspot as weekly spraying. The combination of fertilizer and spray is the
only way I can keep BS somewhat under control on the HTs. In easier climates
there may not be as significant difference, but it does help here.

I don't use only synthetic fertilizer, but try to rotate the applications just
like I do fungicides. One month they get a synthetic, the next something
organic. This way I feel I'm feeding the soil as well as the roses.

My 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary.

Julie

In fc9bbe888b2a92c16943ce7ba93557c0@TeraNews Shiva wrote:
Someone quoted Johnny Becnel (SP!) as saying most of us overferilize.
He apparently feeds a nine-month slow release and lets the roses rely
on mulch breakdown aside from that and a single application of
organics early in the season.

Thoughts?

It depends on what you want from the roses. If you want regular flushes
of large blooms on strong stems, you need a lot more than that.

I've been using the 'Roses Superfeeder' version of Osmocote for years
now, and at best it's maintenance therapy. Good for mixing into the
planting soil.

I use a combination of organic and chemical foods to bring out the best
from my bushes. Some have reached more than 6 feet tall in their first
year and their performance is excellent. My ideas are at:

http://members.optushome.com.au/djhanna/

under the heading 'Cultivation'.

I know all the rose 'guides' say feed 'em
every month w/ osmocote or what ever
latest drug is in fashion.

I'd like to make a case for the opposite.
I do not use any chemical ferts.

The only thing I feed 'em is Fish emulsion.

Table spoon in a Gallon every month.
So much easier than moving mulch, scratching
earth, etc.

Recently I've cheated a bit. I add Mills 'magic' Mix
to couple of roses. Havn't seen any perceptible difference.

Most of my roses are just weighed down w/ blooms & buds
right now.

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

"Unique Too" wrote in message
...
We are having a discussion at Gardenweb in the Roses forum about
fertilizing.

Someone quoted Johnny Becnel (SP!) as saying most of us overferilize.
He apparently feeds a nine-month slow release and lets the roses rely
on mulch breakdown aside from that and a single application of
organics early in the season.

Thoughts?


Several thoughts on this:

Most nine month fertilizer doesn't last 9 months in warm climates. It is
designed for soil at a specific temerature, too cool and it feeds more
slowly,
to warm and it breaks down very quickly. In the summer it will only last
about
three months in my soil. Bethal Farms does produce a slow-release made
for
warmer soils that may work better, but you have to look for it. Most
people
buy the Osmocote and it does not last here.

It has been my experience that better fed roses are more disease
resistant.
I've found a regular monthly application of fertilizer does as much to
prevent
blackspot as weekly spraying. The combination of fertilizer and spray is
the
only way I can keep BS somewhat under control on the HTs. In easier
climates
there may not be as significant difference, but it does help here.

I don't use only synthetic fertilizer, but try to rotate the applications
just
like I do fungicides. One month they get a synthetic, the next something
organic. This way I feel I'm feeding the soil as well as the roses.

My 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary.

Julie

"Shiva" wrote in message
news:fc9bbe888b2a92c16943ce7ba93557c0@TeraNews...
We are having a discussion at Gardenweb in the Roses forum about
fertilizing.

Someone quoted Johnny Becnel (SP!) as saying most of us overferilize.
He apparently feeds a nine-month slow release and lets the roses rely
on mulch breakdown aside from that and a single application of
organics early in the season.

Thoughts?

I almost never use any synthetic fertilizer, and I get a sufficient volume
of blooms, enough to keep me happy. In the winter, I sprinkle bone meal and
blood meal around the base of the roses, then pile composted steer manure
around the base as well. Then every two weeks I clean the filter for my
pond, and I just dump all the muck and algae around the roses as well.
Better to feed the plants with the muck then to dump down the storm drain.

Works extremely well for me.

On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:21:07 GMT, "Snooze"
wrote:


I almost never use any synthetic fertilizer, and I get a sufficient volume
of blooms, enough to keep me happy. In the winter, I sprinkle bone meal and
blood meal around the base of the roses, then pile composted steer manure
around the base as well. Then every two weeks I clean the filter for my
pond, and I just dump all the muck and algae around the roses as well.
Better to feed the plants with the muck then to dump down the storm drain.

Works extremely well for me.


You know, this echos the current trend in human nutrition science that
holds that "whole" foods have a greater overall benefit, although we
have only begun to understand what substances in them bring the
benefit. Roses fed only whole fertilizers may also benefit from the
lack of salt(s) found in synthetic fertilizers.

In a9e253c1b1958e0212c28af7749e6e4a@TeraNews Shiva wrote:
You know, this echos the current trend in human nutrition science that
holds that "whole" foods have a greater overall benefit, although we
have only begun to understand what substances in them bring the
benefit. Roses fed only whole fertilizers may also benefit from the
lack of salt(s) found in synthetic fertilizers.

At the end of the day, feeding roses ANYTHING involves adding chemicals
to the soil they are growing in.

With artificial fertilisers you are feeding roses what we gather are the
main ingredients (NPK and trace elements).

Organics have the advantage of added extras, some no doubt yet to be
discovered by research. They can also have beneficial hormones and
microbacteria. Their downside is that they can miss some basic
necessities for plant growth and imbalance soil just as easily as
artificial fertilisers. Three examples:

(a) Blood 'n' bone (aka bone meal) is great for slow release nitrogen
and calcium. Hopeless for phosphorus, potassium, sulphur, magnesium and
other things roses need.

(b) Chicken manure has plenty of nitrogen and phosphorus. It's also
acidic enough to whack soil out of balance.

(c) Seaweed, by contrast, will never imbalance soil and it has trace
levels of just about every element including gold and selenium. It also
has a lot of plant hormones that promote root growth. But its nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium components are also only at trace level, not
enough to sustain a rose bush.

I've therefore come to the conclusion that the best diet for roses is a
combination of artificial and organic. Relying on either exclusively
creates gaps, either in the main elements or in trace elements and
hormones.