Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
More, Better Blooms!
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
more grapes vs better grapes | Gardening | |||
5 TIPS FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT OF HOME BUSINESS...5 TIPS FOR BETTERMANAGEMENT OF HOME BUSINESS...5 TIPS FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT OF HOMEBUSINESS... | United Kingdom | |||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms | Roses |