|
More, Better Blooms!
I do the basic stuff for my roses--good rich soil, mulch that breaks down and adds nutrients, a granular three-month food just at new growth plus three applications of Mill's Magic Mix per year. (I may switch to Osmocote instead of the generic granular "Rose Food" this year, Cass convinced me.) Here is the question: can I have more and/or better blooms? My roses do well, but when I look at photos of others it seems some of mine are scant and some are small and some are scant and small. I know I can deadhead (I do and cut losts for the table) amd pinch out side or central buds of gfs and fbs, and I know some of bloom production is just "built in" to the rose, genetically, filed under "vigor." Is there a nutrient I can add that has proven for anyone to give more and or bigger, better blooms?? I know Mill's Mix causes basal breaks--it is joyously obvious--but what is sure to make MORE BETTER BLOOMS?! G I think Bill Hillman said Fish Emulsion, and some of you use the high phosphorus "bloom boosters," right? |
More, Better Blooms!
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:37:58 -0500 (EST), "Shiva"
wrote: I do the basic stuff for my roses--good rich soil, mulch that breaks down and adds nutrients, a granular three-month food just at new growth plus three applications of Mill's Magic Mix per year. (I may switch to Osmocote instead of the generic granular "Rose Food" this year, Cass convinced me.) Osmocote has worked for me. Here is the question: can I have more and/or better blooms? My roses do well, but when I look at photos of others it seems some of mine are scant and some are small and some are scant and small. I know I can deadhead (I do and cut losts for the table) amd pinch out side or central buds of gfs and fbs, and I know some of bloom production is just "built in" to the rose, genetically, filed under "vigor." One thing that I think you should consider is the relative youth of your plants. When you see other people's photos, you have no way of knowing how established they are. Also, don't forget that different environments/soils provide different factors that can affect bloom size. Is there a nutrient I can add that has proven for anyone to give more and or bigger, better blooms?? I know Mill's Mix causes basal breaks--it is joyously obvious--but what is sure to make MORE BETTER BLOOMS?! G Maybe you can experiment with "bloom buster"-type fertilizers as an adjunct. Maybe you could use half of the Osmocote and add some bloom buster. I think Bill Hillman said Fish Emulsion, and some of you use the high phosphorus "bloom boosters," right? Ooops, great minds think alike g. I've had decent bloom production for the most part on my young plants and I haven't had to use bloom busters (and I haven't yet used Mill's, although I've used epsom salts, alfalfa meal, blood meal, fish emulsion and Osmocote, as well as a little compost and lots of mulch). Of course, I have unusually rich and fertile soil to begin with. The one plant that doesn't bloom as profusely as I've seen in pictures, Sombrueil, only gets sun for half the day. This makes me suspect that your sun might be worth evaluating. |
More, Better Blooms!
In aHlwYXRpYQ==.7d59fe8d289c1ef6f02a8e514052e822@104 4034678.cotse.net
Shiva wrote: Is there a nutrient I can add that has proven for anyone to give more and or bigger, better blooms?? I know Mill's Mix causes basal breaks-- it is joyously obvious--but what is sure to make MORE BETTER BLOOMS?! G I think Bill Hillman said Fish Emulsion, and some of you use the high phosphorus "bloom boosters," right? 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. |
More, Better Blooms!
Shiva wrote:
I do the basic stuff for my roses--good rich soil, mulch that breaks down and adds nutrients Alfalfa, aka, rat food? I think it really does help root growth - nothing else explains why some of my roses grow so well. , a granular three-month food just at new growth plus three applications of Mill's Magic Mix per year. (I may switch to Osmocote instead of the generic granular "Rose Food" this year, Cass convinced me.) Is Mill's Magic water soluble so you can foliar feed? That works well too. Here is the question: can I have more and/or better blooms? My roses do well, but when I look at photos of others it seems some of mine are scant and some are small and some are scant and small. I know I can deadhead (I do and cut losts for the table) amd pinch out side or central buds of gfs and fbs, and I know some of bloom production is just "built in" to the rose, genetically, filed under "vigor." I think there's a lot of difference between different classes of roses. If you want lots of blooms all the time, then you really need a few of those repeaters that everyone raves about like Iceberg. It isn't scented, it doesn't have great form, etc, etc, but it reblooms every 3 weeks. It doesn't matter if everything blooms constantly - a few will do as filler. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Is there a nutrient I can add that has proven for anyone to give more and or bigger, better blooms?? I know Mill's Mix causes basal breaks--it is joyously obvious--but what is sure to make MORE BETTER BLOOMS?! G My theory: the only things that give more better blooms are optimal genetics and optimal plant growth. The blooms are the consequence of the first two. Optimal is not excessive rank growth from too much nitrogen. I think Bill Hillman said Fish Emulsion, and some of you use the high phosphorus "bloom boosters," right? I only use Superbloom on one rose that sets lots and lots of buds all at once and seems to have a lot of trouble opening them all. I'm talking about Lavender Lassie. It's a pain to apply, so I don't apply it in general. I use fish emulsion about 3 times a season. I can't really apply granular after early April because our rains end then. |
More, Better Blooms!
In Cass wrote:
Alfalfa, aka, rat food? I think it really does help root growth - nothing else explains why some of my roses grow so well. I'll second that. This season has been my best ever, and the lucerne is the biggest change I've made to all the cultivation I give them. Roses and alfalfa were MADE for each other :-) |
More, Better Blooms!
dave weil wrote:
Osmocote has worked for me. I'm definitely using it on the potted roses. You may recall that I had a fert tragedy with the granulart when my preoccupied Evil Twin used it--a lot of it--in the pots. Here is the question: can I have more and/or better blooms? One thing that I think you should consider is the relative youth of your plants. Makes sense. What's odd is that I have had ownroot babies arrive from Michael's with HUGE buds and blooms--but when they bloom for me later, they are small. Of course, I have unusually rich and fertile soil to begin with. The one plant that doesn't bloom as profusely as I've seen in pictures, Sombrueil, only gets sun for half the day. This makes me suspect that your sun might be worth evaluating. My soil is good--I pretty much replaced rather than amend, and got the clay out of here. Everybody gets at least six hours of direct sun--some afternoon, some morning. They get lots and lots of water, which has made a big difference in the health of the plant and the vigor of the growth of the green parts--it is true that part of fighting bs is to have a rose so healthy it renews itself quickly--but the blooms are still small on lots of them. Maybe it is their age. They are all under 5. |
More, Better Blooms!
Daniel Hanna wrote:
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. Hmmm. Seaweed, eh? Between that and what Hillman used to call "liquid fish" I can have an olfactory Day at the Beach. That lasts much more than a day! Have you got a brand of seaweed you like? I have actually never seen this stuff here. |
More, Better Blooms!
Cass wrote:
Alfalfa, aka, rat food? I think it really does help root growth - nothing else explains why some of my roses grow so well. No doubt!! Mills Mix' main ingredient looks and smells to be alfalfa. The second looks and smells to be sludge. The label lists both. I think both are responsible for the great basals--and I hope good roots. I would love to do as others do and make my OWN recipe with alfalfa, blood meal, etc., but don't have the time at the moment, and don't want the mess. Is Mill's Magic water soluble so you can foliar feed? That works well too. Nope, it is all organic and chunky! I stopped using the water soluable ones because they are such a pain to mix. What kind do you use, if I change my mind and start up again so's I can foliar feed? I think there's a lot of difference between different classes of roses. If you want lots of blooms all the time, then you really need a few of those repeaters that everyone raves about like Iceberg. [...] That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Okay, I buy it! But I do have a batch of Diva HTs coming in two weeks. *Sigh* Guess I can't have it all, can I? My theory: the only things that give more better blooms are optimal genetics and optimal plant growth. The blooms are the consequence of the first two. Optimal is not excessive rank growth from too much nitrogen. If the above is true, and I want to grow just the varieties I want to grow NOT NECESSARILY based upon vigor--then I just have to keep feeding and watering them well and wait until they get bigger. Think? |
More, Better Blooms!
Daniel Hanna wrote:
[...]lucerne [...] Roses and alfalfa were MADE for each other :-) I have not forgotten your Lucerne mulch, Daniel! We just have an awful lot of storm debris to get rid of. The city-contracted chipper-shredder just left. I and my neighbors will send a truck to get some of the product this spring. Not the best, but if you had seen the mess after the ice storm-- need to get rid of it somehow. Probably what we are buying now is leftover from 1997's Hurricane Fran and interim storms. |
More, Better Blooms!
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 10:51:06 -0500 (EST), "Shiva"
wrote: dave weil wrote: Osmocote has worked for me. I'm definitely using it on the potted roses. You may recall that I had a fert tragedy with the granulart when my preoccupied Evil Twin used it--a lot of it--in the pots. I think it's important to look at the visual picture that they give you. It's a widely scatered pattern and you don't really need all that much. Having said that, I can see how the margin of error is far narrower when talking about potted plants. I'd expect that it's not as critical in the open garden. Here is the question: can I have more and/or better blooms? One thing that I think you should consider is the relative youth of your plants. Makes sense. What's odd is that I have had ownroot babies arrive from Michael's with HUGE buds and blooms--but when they bloom for me later, they are small. I would expct something likethat. First of all, they've been growing in "optimum" and highly controlled conditions. Couple that with transplant shock and it's likely that they justneed to settle in. Maybe it's like starting from scratch (sorta). Of course, I have unusually rich and fertile soil to begin with. The one plant that doesn't bloom as profusely as I've seen in pictures, Sombrueil, only gets sun for half the day. This makes me suspect that your sun might be worth evaluating. My soil is good--I pretty much replaced rather than amend, and got the clay out of here. Everybody gets at least six hours of direct sun--some afternoon, some morning. They get lots and lots of water, which has made a big difference in the health of the plant and the vigor of the growth of the green parts--it is true that part of fighting bs is to have a rose so healthy it renews itself quickly--but the blooms are still small on lots of them. Maybe it is their age. They are all under 5. My best roses get more than 6 hours. Even Felicia, which is planted on the same house side as Sombrueil, gets at least an hour more sun on its tips, due to the lack of a porch and the arching style of the plant. I've always thought that most roses just sort of "get by" with 6 hours, but that they prefer 8 hours or more (with the exception of the really high, hot midday sun), and some of them even revel in this. If you can't provide more sun, then you might have to "settle" for slightly reduced blooming. My best results have been with plants that get sun all day long, from sunrise to sunset. Aloha is a good example of this. It's a vigorous bloomer and it gets absolutely *no* shade, except for very early morning and very late evening. My limbers are the same way. Since they are mounted on a chain link fence, they get sun from both sides. |
More, Better Blooms!
In aHlwYXRpYQ==.9cbdb95edf6f04c2fa63a22b81ebbb8c@104 4114772.cotse.net
Shiva wrote: Hmmm. Seaweed, eh? Between that and what Hillman used to call "liquid fish" I can have an olfactory Day at the Beach. That lasts much more than a day! Have you got a brand of seaweed you like? I have actually never seen this stuff here. I'm a big fan of Seasol: http://www.rezitech.com.au/seasolretailrange.html It's a liquid product. I've heard of people using actual seaweed as a mulch but it smells pretty bad and needs to be rinsed of salt before using. This, however, is perfect. There's plenty of empiric proof as to the fact that it works. It's used commercially as well as domestically in Australia. Its action is hormonal as well as nutritional - seaweed actually has minute quantities of just about every element there is on the periodic table, including gold and silver. Who knows what effect those things may have on roses - all I know is that it works. |
More, Better Blooms!
In article
aHlwYXRpYQ==.642b43875ec8da2f81030adb7e5054cc@104 4115327.cotse.net, Shiva wrote: Cass wrote: Alfalfa, aka, rat food? I think it really does help root growth - nothing else explains why some of my roses grow so well. No doubt!! Mills Mix' main ingredient looks and smells to be alfalfa. The second looks and smells to be sludge. The label lists both. I think both are responsible for the great basals--and I hope good roots. I would love to do as others do and make my OWN recipe with alfalfa, blood meal, etc., but don't have the time at the moment, and don't want the mess. I have no problem using a product some smart somebody devised. I like to rotate products, tho, and not use just one thing. Is Mill's Magic water soluble so you can foliar feed? That works well too. Nope, it is all organic and chunky! I stopped using the water soluable ones because they are such a pain to mix. What kind do you use, if I change my mind and start up again so's I can foliar feed? Growmore (has minors). Ironite. Liquid Kelp. Fish Emulsion, the expensive kind (hydrolyzed). 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. My theory: the only things that give more better blooms are optimal genetics and optimal plant growth. The blooms are the consequence of the first two. Optimal is not excessive rank growth from too much nitrogen. If the above is true, and I want to grow just the varieties I want to grow NOT NECESSARILY based upon vigor--then I just have to keep feeding and watering them well and wait until they get bigger. Think? Yep. I'm sure you could spend a lot of time disbudding and selectively deadheading so you have very few flowers and those that are there get really big. That might solve better but not more. |
More, Better Blooms!
Shiva wrote:
dave weil wrote: Osmocote has worked for me. I'm definitely using it on the potted roses. You may recall that I had a fert tragedy with the granulart when my preoccupied Evil Twin used it--a lot of it--in the pots. Here is the question: can I have more and/or better blooms? One thing that I think you should consider is the relative youth of your plants. Makes sense. What's odd is that I have had ownroot babies arrive from Michael's with HUGE buds and blooms--but when they bloom for me later, they are small. Done a soil test? Does North Carolina have the county extension office cheap soil test thing going? Maybe you have a shortage of phosphorus or potassium. Replacing your soil with imported soil doesn't mean you got balanced soil. And even if you have all the macronutrients, a thing as simple as excessively acid soil can make nutrients unavailable to your roses. Clay is not all bad. It hold water and nutrients. In the right proportion, it's a [get out your hanky for Martha] good thing. I always mix it in with any imported soil because I've heard that roots don't like to extend into different media. I know what you mean about nursery roses. They can really push them. I have a rose that didn't bloom for a whole year after I bought it in full bloom, and it isn't a rambler, either. Those early months or years are what some rosarians call "putting on its green." Of course, I have unusually rich and fertile soil to begin with. The one plant that doesn't bloom as profusely as I've seen in pictures, Sombrueil, only gets sun for half the day. This makes me suspect that your sun might be worth evaluating. My soil is good--I pretty much replaced rather than amend, and got the clay out of here. Everybody gets at least six hours of direct sun--some afternoon, some morning. They get lots and lots of water, which has made a big difference in the health of the plant and the vigor of the growth of the green parts--it is true that part of fighting bs is to have a rose so healthy it renews itself quickly--but the blooms are still small on lots of them. Maybe it is their age. They are all under 5. |
More, Better Blooms!
Cass wrote:
I have no problem using a product some smart somebody devised. I like to rotate products, tho, and not use just one thing. I've heard this is a good idea. Maybe I'll look into some other "chunky" rose chow, and alternate. 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. 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? |
More, Better Blooms!
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. It's also really important to prune, and to keep plants disease-free for maximum blooms. I'm SURE you know this.... -- Jane Lumley |
More, Better Blooms!
|
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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). |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
More, Better Blooms!
|
More, Better Blooms!
In article , "Susan H. Simko"
wrote: 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. Susan s h simko at duke dot edu Hitting a barrier where clay begins is not a big deal because as I have shown in my reply to Shiva it is not something that is "bad" and has to be avoided. When you ammend, the soil acts mostly like clay i.e. absorbs water slowly and holds what it does absorb - you have all the benefits of clay with the negatives mitigated. When you replace small holes you have pockets that can absorb water shed by the clay on the surface - this is definitely not a good situation. In your case since you replace entire beds, it is more likely that the soil in fact behaves as one unit with no negatives. However replacing entire beds may be an unncessary expense. There are of course situations where this maybe the only choice. Ultimately only you know if indeed this is your situation. If you are happy with what you do that is the only thing that matters. Roses are tolerant of numerous soil conditions. Roland |
More, Better Blooms!
Joe Doe wrote:
Hitting a barrier where clay begins is not a big deal because as I have shown in my reply to Shiva it is not something that is "bad" and has to be avoided. When you ammend, the soil acts mostly like clay i.e. absorbs water slowly and holds what it does absorb - you have all the benefits of clay with the negatives mitigated. When you replace small holes you have pockets that can absorb water shed by the clay on the surface - this is definitely not a good situation. In your case since you replace entire beds, it is more likely that the soil in fact behaves as one unit with no negatives. However replacing entire beds may be an unncessary expense. There are of course situations where this maybe the only choice. Ultimately only you know if indeed this is your situation. If you are happy with what you do that is the only thing that matters. Roses are tolerant of numerous soil conditions. To be honest, I believe that replacing the soil is cheaper than trying to amend it in many ways. I would need a rototiller (something I don't own nor have the place to store) if I wanted to amend my soil. Breaking up clay is no picnic! I do know that by digging beds and replacing the soil, everything I have put into my beds has thrived including my roses. Oh, as someone else already mentioned, we in the flood plains of central NC put lime down on our yards to reduce the acidity. Susan s h simko at duke dot edu |
More, Better Blooms!
Since everyone else has put their 2 cents in, I want to add mine! :)
Most of my soil is what is commonly called muck around here. A thousands of years old swamp was dug into canals and the displaced "stuff" was piled up to create buildable land. The "stuff" is very hard and very black, often shiney, looks very similar to coal. I've been told the official term is clay. But when I think of clay I think of the orange colored kind used on ball fields and common Georgia soil. This post is based on the information that my soil is clay. When I first started digging up areas to plant, the digging was hard, very hard. Often the shovel hit what felt like rocks, but upon inspection it was really chunks of muck. At the beggining I didn't plant in beds, rather I just stuck things in the ground where ever it pleased me. I did know I should ammend the soil, so I always added lots of compost/manure to the planting holes. But I admit the more holes I had to dig in a day, the smaller they became. The first plants were placed closer together over time and mulch was liberally applied over the area to create beds. Now I can go into any bed and dig easily even though the ammendments were not spread throughout the original soil. The original muck, mulch and well ammended soil have slowly merged into a very rich, moisture holding soil. The backyard is different, it is mostly yellow sand. When the seawall was added, the cheapest material available was aded as fill. That area is mostly planted in beds. I used a tiller, added lots of manure, compost, and potting soil. The beds have been covered with a deep layer of mulch. But if I dig there I still find areas of nothing but yellow sand. The ammendments never merged with the sand as they did with the muck. Not even sure who I'm agreeing with here, but that has been my personal experience with clay and sand. |
More, Better Blooms!
|
More, Better Blooms!
dave weil writes:
It's just a guess, but I would think that this type of "clay" would be vulnerable to being returned back to a more "swampy" type soil over time and through "amending". By amending, I mean having the topsoil start to infiltrate the substrata. I would think that by having a rich, earthworm-heavy sort of topsoil, the earthworms themselves (and perhaps the chemical reactions of the composty topsoil) would start to reduce the clay back to its original form, although I don't know how deep the earthworms tend to burrow, or how far this sort of change would occur. There are earthworms aplenty in the top 12" or so, I don't recall seeing them any deeper than that. If you go much deeper it's very wet, at 4' you hit water. Fortunately the lot slopes toward the canal so the top layer drains well. Sand is trickier. However, you certainly don't have drainage problems with the sand. Perhaps there might be a salt problem that could negatively impact the general pH and balance of the topsoil. I dunno. Did you find any significant cultural differences between the beds? There's no drainage problem that's for sure! But we are close enough to the water the sand stays moist, but never soggy wet. We had 30 days without rain in the month of January and yet I didn't water. I did check the sandy area and found it still felt moist to the touch. I was surprised, I expected it to be dry. Maybe there are enough other particles in there to hold the moisture even though the color and feel is still that of yellow sand. I had the pH checked and although I don't recall the exact number, it fell well within the normal range. Things grow well in both areas. I don't have exactly the same of anything planted both front and back, except grass, and the grass does well in both locations. Although the grass areas in the front that haven't been distrubed and are still mostly muck grow the best. (I don't water the grass, and expect it is due to the moisture retention in this area.) I "think" that roses wouldn't do as well in this area (without amendments), because I expect the muck to be too wet for their roots. The grass roots stay near the top and IMO the excess water isn't damaging to them. The roses in the sand areas do not seem as vigorous as those in the front yard, but part of this may be due to the different cultivars. The muck is very nutrient rich, somthing the sand lacks, which I'm sure is a contributing factor. To really test the differences I would need to plant two of the same rose, front and back. Perhaps I will try that with the new cuttings I've got started. They would have come from the same plant and be the same age to eliminate those differences in performance. I sorta like this discussion since it reinforces my false pride in my own soil. False because I had absolutely nothing to do with the luck of buying a lot that happens to have almost perfect soil for roses (at least in the front yard). I try not to gloat, but it's difficult chuckle. I'm happy with my soil also. It's about the best you can get in Florida. I pity the poor souls that must try to garden in solid sand! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter