Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #17   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2003, 06:49 AM
Cass
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

Shiva wrote:

Cass wrote:


Growmore (has minors). Ironite. Liquid Kelp. Fish Emulsion, the
expensive kind (hydrolyzed).


Aha! Available to you locally, or do you mailorder? I have never seen it
here. I think those minors are what I have been thinking I am missing out
on.


All available locally. I don't like to pay shipping on that stuff. I
know there's a Maine product of fish emulsion combined with kelp -
Neptune's Harvest. I buy a California product from the North Coast.
Growmore is a Walmart or Home Depot kinda Miracle Grow thing that also
has minors. Growmore might be a California company, so that may be
local. Ironite is everywhere.

You'll see 2 tiers of fish emulsion. The
expensive stuff works better. And the fish oil may have some benefit
smothering fungi, who knows. Smells bad enough. My theory on foliar
feeding is that I have to dilute it, so I should in theory have less
possibility of burn. And I overdilute, always.


It all sounds good to me. The neighborhood cats, who already love me due
to the voles etc., will like me even more. The smell will wear off
eventually, anyway. How often do you apply the fish?


Dilute and dump over the top of the plant so it gets both foliar feed
and root feed. It's a good early spring fertilizer, not very strong,
won't burn tender growth, when the soils are still cold.
  #18   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2003, 07:03 AM
Cass
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

In article , Jane Lumley
wrote:

In article .com.au,
Daniel Hanna writes
I've been using fish emulsion this season, Shiva, and the roses do seem
to like it. But I've also been using seaweed fertiliser too. It's a
root stimulant that really seems to work wonders on the blooms
indirectly - thicker stems and longer lasting blooms all round.


Yes, seaweed is great - I use it as a foliar feed as well as a root
drench. And the other key fertiliser is sold in England as Vitax Q4,
which is fabulous and far better for bloom than Osmocote.


I'm not sure Vitax is available here. Buy why do you think it's better
than 9 month Osmocote with minors? Here are two:
https://www.amleo.com/item.cgi?cmd=view&Words=159128

Or another time-release product, Apex:
http://www.apexfertilizer.com/produc...ree_shrub.html
  #19   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2003, 06:01 PM
Bob Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

Cass showed:

Or another time-release product, Apex:
http://www.apexfertilizer.com/produc...ree_shrub.html


Hey Cass, the fertilizers you point to here are WAY too nitrogen heavy
for roses.

The best rose fertilizers have an NPK ration of 1:2:1 Those above
fertilizers have ratios of about 4:1:2, the exact opposite of what
roses need for maximum rose production.

Those ratios would lead to maximum leaf production.

My 2 cents worth.

Bob Bauer

  #20   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2003, 08:00 PM
Shiva
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

Joe Doe wrote:

In article
aHlwYXRpYQ==.0bdc64e9a04750ad21973fa5d482c920@104 4114666.cotse.net,
wrote:

My soil is good--I pretty much replaced rather than amend, and got the
clay out of here.


Do you replace entire beds or merely the soil in the planting hole?

Julie Ryan in Perrenial Gardens for Texas STRONGLY recommends against the
practice of "pocket planting".


Joe, I am not talking about hardpan clay here. North Carolina is not
Texas. And, I live in an old neighborhood that was never stripped of
topsoil. So--what I have is 6 inches of loam on top of red clay that is
still diggable. In my professionally prepared bed, the guy scraped back
the good stuff, dug out the clay, drilled deep holes in the hardpan
beneath, then mixed the good loam with black, bagged garden soil
and "soild conditioner," the latter apparently rotted pine bark fines and
manure--and refilled the bed.



According to her the clay (which holds
water well but is slow to absorb) will shed its surface water into your
foreign soil and so the amended soil will be a sink for water that the
clay sheds on the surface.


I did originially plant my roses in "flower pot" holes--just dug out the
clay and put bagged soil in. Five years later, the above has still not
happened, and we have had veritable floods. I think the above is utter
nonsense, for what that is worth. (I did apply think mulch every year,
which has, of course, broken down to rich loam. You need to do that in TX
too.


Second, the clay walls of your planting hole
will be slow to absorb and the water stays stuck and promotes root rot.


What you say here is precisely why you need to get the clay the hell out
of there. Regardless of what Field Roebuck and other "experts" say, clay
soil sucks for roses. They need to DRAIN. And, even if they did not, clay
is too damned hard to work. People who advocate planting roses in clay
soil are either cheap or masochists. Clay is for pottery.






  #21   Report Post  
Old 04-02-2003, 06:48 AM
Cass
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

Bob Bauer commented:

Cass showed:

Or another time-release product, Apex:
http://www.apexfertilizer.com/produc...ree_shrub.html


Hey Cass, the fertilizers you point to here are WAY too nitrogen heavy
for roses.

The best rose fertilizers have an NPK ration of 1:2:1 Those above
fertilizers have ratios of about 4:1:2, the exact opposite of what
roses need for maximum rose production.


Yes, possibly. The flower and foliage would probably be better, at
17-5-11. Certainly it depends on your growing season and soils, so it's
a good point. Nitrogen is leached out here with heavy winter rains, 22
inches in December. We usually have adequate phosphorus, and we have a
10 month growing season. We get tons of fall growth here, at a time it
is very difficult to fertilize. I've had no problems at all with
excessive top growth. None. Never once. But then I also have cool soil
temperatures year round, so the release rate is slow. And I almost
never apply granular ferts to the soil surface.
  #22   Report Post  
Old 04-02-2003, 07:07 PM
Joe Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

In article
aHlwYXRpYQ==.0aaf4f5de1517e814a04f37fc4408bba@104 4298810.cotse.net,
wrote:

I did originially plant my roses in "flower pot" holes--just dug out the
clay and put bagged soil in. Five years later, the above has still not
happened, and we have had veritable floods. I think the above is utter
nonsense, for what that is worth. (I did apply think mulch every year,
which has, of course, broken down to rich loam. You need to do that in TX
too.

You may choose to regard this as nonsense. However as I have pointed out
the opposite opinion to yours is actually held by numerous gardening
authorities (amend soil rather than replace soil). Clay is good, holds
nutrients, holds moisture. It only needs to be loosened up for air and
water and this can be done with amendments. Yes this is slow but it is in
fact preferred.

You have made up your mind. Since you frequently cite this advice of
replacing soil on this newsgroup I am pointing out another widely held
view and people can make up their own mind what to do. The point I am
making is also made by several web sources which I quote below

from
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0299/et0299s10.html

³But the main reason not to trade dirt is a little thing called soil
interface. This is a condition that occurs when soils of different
textures are put into the same space. If you made a bowl out of modeling
clay, filled it with sand and then filled the bowl with water, what would
you get? You're right: you get a bowl of wet sand. That is exactly what
happens when a layer of a porous soil is put on top of a non porous soil.
Then a whole new set of problems begins, including but not limited to
oversaturation of the imported material.²

from http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/clayplanting.htm
³It is better to improve the existing soil than to bring in completely
different soil. A rich soil will absorb water quickly, but it can't drain
away through heavy clay soil. The rich soil will usually be even wetter
than heavy clay and root rot is likely. The only exception is if you hit
blue clay. Roots will not grow in blue clay because there is no oxygen in
it. Replace it with sandy topsoil mixed with the top layer of soil.²

from http://www.rogersgardens.com/infopag...ening_tips.htm
³One last note on planting in poor soil that has been amended: Most
gardeners dig a new hole for planting, removing most native (existing)
soil, then add 75-100% of amendment in the space. In clay soil, this
method will create a loose-draining area surrounded by a wall of clay. The
amended area will act like a sump, drawing all the moisture that is
trapped in the surrounding clay soil. Mix 1/2 native soil with 1/2
amendment.²

Roland
  #23   Report Post  
Old 04-02-2003, 07:38 PM
Shiva
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

Joe Doe wrote:


You may choose to regard this as nonsense. However as I have pointed out
the opposite opinion to yours is actually held by numerous gardening
authorities (amend soil rather than replace soil).


I write from my own experience. How about you, Roland? Have you seen this
disastrous effect happen? I would be very interested to hear from people
who are speaking of their own experience. People with too much time on
their hands come up with impressive theories all the time, and frequently
publish articles written in quite the authoritative tone.



Clay is good


Roland, love, you may wrestle with your clay all he-man like and love it
all you like. To each his own.



You have made up your mind.



And yours is so open, I stand abashed.



Since you frequently cite this advice of
replacing soil on this newsgroup I am pointing out another widely held
view and people can make up their own mind what to do.



Good for you, duckie. I still think clay sucks. May you save others from
my errant ways--and may you garden in your beloved clay forever.

For my part, should my roses disappear into massive sinkholes, I promise I
will report it here, first, so that others might recognize my folly.


  #24   Report Post  
Old 04-02-2003, 08:50 PM
Susan H. Simko
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

Shiva wrote:

I write from my own experience. How about you, Roland? Have you seen this
disastrous effect happen? I would be very interested to hear from people
who are speaking of their own experience. People with too much time on
their hands come up with impressive theories all the time, and frequently
publish articles written in quite the authoritative tone.


Must admit that I do the same thing as Shiva - dig out very large areas
for beds and replace with good soil with som efertilizers mixed in. To
be honest, I don't see the difference between amending or replacing
because sooner or later, you're still going to hit a barrier where the
solid clay begins.

I tend to make the hole much bigger (by about a 1/3) than it needs to
be, filling that third with soil/fertilizer and then following the
directions for putting in the plant. So far, it's worked for me - I had
cut roses in my house from spring through early winter, fresh grape
tomatoes, regular tomatoes and a few strawberries (only two plants) from
the garden bed, and herbs year round. (Just made southern style chicken
and dumplings using fresh rosemary, dill and chives over the weekend!)

The last two beds I put in, I also put in some terra-sorb into the soil
in addition to my standard osmocote (type dependent upon plants going
in) and what ever else may strike my fancy, again dependent upon what's
planned for the bed.

In addition, I also have limed, reseeded and fertilized the yard. I was
quite pleased that when I dug my holes for my blueberry bushes a couple
of weeks ago that the soil is slowly but surely improving in the grassy
areas. However, I'm not willing to wait that long for anything else
*but* grass besides slow grass progress also gives me more and better
excuses for digging it up!

Susan
s h simko at duke dot edu

  #25   Report Post  
Old 04-02-2003, 08:58 PM
Daniel Hanna
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

In Joe Doe wrote:
You may choose to regard this as nonsense. However as I have pointed
out the opposite opinion to yours is actually held by numerous
gardening authorities (amend soil rather than replace soil). Clay is
good, holds nutrients, holds moisture. It only needs to be loosened
up for air and water and this can be done with amendments. Yes this
is slow but it is in fact preferred.


Joe, I live in a clay soil area. I've been using soil replacement for a
few years now, and the beneficial effects are a quantum leap ahead of
when I used to do soil amendment. No question in my mind.

Having dug up and replaced a couple of bushes, I always find that root
development (especially the small feeder roots) is far better in
replaced soil. The larger, thick roots tend to reach down and out in
order to strike the clay and that's a good thing too. Like you said,
clay is nutrient rich and it can be moisture rich too.

The other interesting thing is that, over time, clay particles do
migrate and mingle in to the rose mix. By then the roots have claimed
their domain (which would have been difficult if I planted in modified
clay).


  #26   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:43 AM
Cass
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

I subscribe to Roland's view that amended the soil is the way to go.
Sometimes amendment adds a very large volume of material to clay. It's
just as hard as replacing the soil, but I believe that a good measure
of clay in the soil is a very good component of garden soil for roses:
holds moisture, holds nutrients, lessens the "shock" of transition from
rose hole to surrounding soil.

I have planted roses in the most appalling yellow clay on a slope.
Roses tolerate it just fine. Besides, soil organisms will do the work
of amending the top 6 inches of the soil for you, if you mulch and keep
the mulch stacked up a good 4 inches.

--
Cass

Joe Doe wrote:

wrote:

I did originially plant my roses in "flower pot" holes--just dug out the
clay and put bagged soil in. Five years later, the above has still not
happened, and we have had veritable floods. I think the above is utter
nonsense, for what that is worth. (I did apply think mulch every year,
which has, of course, broken down to rich loam. You need to do that in TX
too.

You may choose to regard this as nonsense. However as I have pointed out
the opposite opinion to yours is actually held by numerous gardening
authorities (amend soil rather than replace soil). Clay is good, holds
nutrients, holds moisture. It only needs to be loosened up for air and
water and this can be done with amendments. Yes this is slow but it is in
fact preferred.

You have made up your mind. Since you frequently cite this advice of
replacing soil on this newsgroup I am pointing out another widely held
view and people can make up their own mind what to do. The point I am
making is also made by several web sources which I quote below

from
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0299/et0299s10.html

³But the main reason not to trade dirt is a little thing called soil
interface. This is a condition that occurs when soils of different
textures are put into the same space. If you made a bowl out of modeling
clay, filled it with sand and then filled the bowl with water, what would
you get? You're right: you get a bowl of wet sand. That is exactly what
happens when a layer of a porous soil is put on top of a non porous soil.
Then a whole new set of problems begins, including but not limited to
oversaturation of the imported material.²

from http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/clayplanting.htm
³It is better to improve the existing soil than to bring in completely
different soil. A rich soil will absorb water quickly, but it can't drain
away through heavy clay soil. The rich soil will usually be even wetter
than heavy clay and root rot is likely. The only exception is if you hit
blue clay. Roots will not grow in blue clay because there is no oxygen in
it. Replace it with sandy topsoil mixed with the top layer of soil.²

from http://www.rogersgardens.com/infopag...ening_tips.htm
³One last note on planting in poor soil that has been amended: Most
gardeners dig a new hole for planting, removing most native (existing)
soil, then add 75-100% of amendment in the space. In clay soil, this
method will create a loose-draining area surrounded by a wall of clay. The
amended area will act like a sump, drawing all the moisture that is
trapped in the surrounding clay soil. Mix 1/2 native soil with 1/2
amendment.²

Roland

  #27   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2003, 02:09 AM
saki
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

"Shiva" wrote in
news:aHlwYXRpYQ==.e95d73a15c2acb5be5ce83fa2953984b @1044383898.cotse.net:

Joe Doe wrote:


You may choose to regard this as nonsense. However as I have pointed
out the opposite opinion to yours is actually held by numerous
gardening authorities (amend soil rather than replace soil).


I write from my own experience. How about you, Roland? Have you seen
this disastrous effect happen? I would be very interested to hear from
people who are speaking of their own experience. People with too much
time on their hands come up with impressive theories all the time, and
frequently publish articles written in quite the authoritative tone.


There are a lot of theories about this, as you point out; I could refer
you to a bibliography of sources that would curl your hair (mine too!).

I took soil science a long time ago when I was a horticulture major. One
of our experiments involved tracking soil porosity where aggregate and
organic matter were not well integrated. We examined different strata of
materials as well as surrounding clay states (similar to the model of
rose holes that you describe). In situations where clay and organic
matter are not well distributed, water drainage can be impeded, but it
depends on the ratio of clay to organic matter as well as the type of
organic matter used.

There may be situations where backfilling a rose hole with pure organic
matter may work, though the substance of the surrounding material (and
its own aggregate content) may influence it. Where I live we not only
have some heavy clay soil but tar as well; my neighborhood is a few
blocks from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. In some of my rose
plantings I've had to backfill with original clay and organic matter but
I always make sure to remove the chunks of tar, which do not facilitate
drainage. :-)

As soil science understands it, the better one distributes clay and
organic matter, the more healthy the soil; both are technically necessary
(as are other chemical structures) for plant life to flourish. There are
times when personal experimentation provides results that don't always
correspond to what soil scientists understand, however. Gardening is
still not an exact science.

----

  #28   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2003, 07:26 AM
Allegra
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!


"saki" wrote in message among other
very intelligent comments that ...

As soil science understands it, the better one distributes clay and
organic matter, the more healthy the soil; both are technically necessary
(as are other chemical structures) for plant life to flourish. There are
times when personal experimentation provides results that don't always
correspond to what soil scientists understand, however. Gardening is
still not an exact science.

Hello saki,

Oh, ever so true! Here in wet clay paradise
I have learned that from micro climates to soil
composition is but one step up or down the scale
when you want to grow roses. What do I mean
by this? Let me give you an example: we live next
to a State park that gets its name from a Creek
that now runs some 1/10 of a mile from where
our home is situated. Perhaps less than 200 years
ago the creek was right here, where I am writing
this from right now. In the front of the property,
the amount of river rock we have taken out was
sufficient to create a small rock garden to grow
some alpine miniatures. In the back , the hill goes
more into an incline (where trees and brush were
obviously more abundant than rocks) the soil
contains less rocks, yet there are plenty to be
found although smaller ones. The great distance
between front and back? 125 feet.

We have amended beds in the front and beds
in the back, both by digging and replacing at least
1/3 of the clay and rocks with organic matter and
also by simply adding composting matter to the
existing beds. (We use something call 4-way soil
bought at a very responsible fuel company which
sounds like military intelligence, I know, an oxymoron)
with mushroom compost, clean humus, some sand
and other organic materials. The soil in the back is
friable and very easy to work with after only two years.
The soil in the front continues to settle giving the
berm the appearance of some strange bumpy lump
of ground. However, what we have observed is that
when we first moved here it was nearly impossible
to find any worms. Seriously. It was the very first thing
we noticed when digging holes, the absence of worms.

Since adding the compost and amends even the
surrounding area when you dig into the clay now
shows the Swiss cheese appearance BH and I just love
to see. We have found in the last diggings, around
the end of October worms the size of my pinkie, and
I promise you I am not exaggerating. We also noticed
that the area where most of the clay remains within
the soil, settles slowly but also the walls have become
more permeable when you dig around them due to
the work of both worm and other organisms. We have
not found however that water has accumulated or
failed to drain (in some cases it does drain a bit
slower than in other areas) but it continues to be
acceptable for the survival -and thriving- in some
cases of the plants.

I think that every garden is its own microcosm
and who truly knows what the people before us have
done, outside neglect, to the grounds? I like to believe
that by putting at least one third of organic matter back
into the ground I am going to restore some of the natural
balance and the worms and other living things there
will take care of the mixing.

Taking all the clay as leaving all the clay is unwise, but
only time and experience can show each one of us what
measure is necessary to strike the right balance. I believe
personally that maintaining the pH and making sure the
drainage is appropriate will in the end dictate how much
or how little we need to do to our soil.

After nearly 40 years of gardening and 33 of growing
roses I still find that the more I think I know, the less the
roses let me believe it!

Allegra




  #29   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2003, 06:04 PM
Shiva
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

saki wrote:


There are a lot of theories about this, as you point out; I could refer
you to a bibliography of sources that would curl your hair (mine too!).


Thank you for not! They may be the same ones posted regularly in
Gardenweb. I have read, I have read. I have spent a good amount of my life
surrounded by academics. Theories, I know. Reading, I do.



I took soil science a long time ago when I was a horticulture major.

One
of our experiments involved tracking soil porosity where aggregate and
organic matter were not well integrated. We examined different strata of
materials as well as surrounding clay states (similar to the model of
rose holes that you describe). In situations where clay and organic
matter are not well distributed, water drainage can be impeded, but it
depends on the ratio of clay to organic matter as well as the type of
organic matter used.


Yes. My first point is that I am not gardening in heavy clay. Rich brown
and black loam or silt or whatever you want to call good, friable garden
soil goes about 6-8inches down. It has been created by many years
of "natural compost--" oak leaves, dead grass, animal droppings, who
knows. However, my rose holes and beds go down 1.5 to 2 feet. So--I am
actually just replacing the lower levels. There are still some large
lumps, and certainly small particles of clay in the top soil that gets
added back.

Second, I did not really explain why I think the stupid clay theory is
stupid, aside from my own insufficient five years of gardening. Here is
why. I have observed that there are groups of people so lacking in
perspective that they attribute to human beings far greater power over the
earth and its ecosphere than said human beings could ever wield. I think
these people feel this way because they NEED to. Why? Because they do not
want to accept our overall smallness in the scheme of things. I know we
can and do have an effect--albeit temporary in terms of geologic time--on
the earth and its ecosphere. But, essentially--we are ants. Numerous, very
small, terribly temporary, and, in the end, not really very smart, and not
very effective. In a way, this is a good thing. If we were terribly
effective our overall selfishness and lack of perspective would already
have ruined the earth for all life including human life. If it could. And
it can't.

This is the best case scenario. The worst is that we really ARE the latest
dinosaurs, and the earth has some fabulous Premier Event that will wipe us
off its face. Out of its air and water. Off its clay dirt, where we dig
our pathetic holes and plant roses that will probably die long before we
do and will certainly die after we do. WHAM. All over, all gone. Then some
new classes of creatures will come, or maybe this will be a dead planet.
If so, stuff will be happening on other planets. Eventually. :-) Maybe in
a few billion years. Maybe it is happening now.

Now really--how does the stupid clay theory look in this context? Hmmm?

I think the warnings on soda and champagne bottles make more sense. You
know, "don't point at face when opening." Ants with thumbs. Not too
terribly bright.




  #30   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2003, 06:22 PM
Shiva
 
Posts: n/a
Default More, Better Blooms!

Susan H. Simko wrote:

Shiva wrote:

I write from my own experience. How about you, Roland? Have you seen

this
disastrous effect happen? I would be very interested to hear from

people
who are speaking of their own experience. People with too much time on
their hands come up with impressive theories all the time, and

frequently
publish articles written in quite the authoritative tone.


Must admit that I do the same thing as Shiva - dig out very large areas
for beds and replace with good soil with som efertilizers mixed in.


Thanks for speaking up. You know what kills me? All the many, many people
who have been doing this for years and now have lovely, rich, well
draining rose beds are not speaking up. Bah! G


To
be honest, I don't see the difference between amending or replacing
because sooner or later, you're still going to hit a barrier where the
solid clay begins.


Precisely! Here is another thing: how many of us have perfectly flat lots?
Mine is a bumpy one on the side of a hill in a hilly area. Such is
Raleigh. So this is another distinction the Texans who espouse this crap
to the world need to take into consideration. We do not all live on flat,
flat land that is mostly below sea level. (As is east TX, around Houston,
certainly.) There are good things about east Texas, but the dirt and the
climate ain't two of 'em! Drought, flood, drought, flood, tornado,
drought, flood. Makes for exciting times, anyway.






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
more grapes vs better grapes [email protected][_2_] Gardening 4 08-07-2013 02:10 AM
5 TIPS FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT OF HOME BUSINESS...5 TIPS FOR BETTERMANAGEMENT OF HOME BUSINESS...5 TIPS FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT OF HOMEBUSINESS... Tonya Thompson United Kingdom 0 28-04-2009 02:30 PM
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms Shiva Roses 14 08-02-2003 05:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017