Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
"Roland" of University of Texas' Institute for Cellular and Molecular
Biology wrote: I am not alone in thinking that clay is good. Let me provide the opinion of several Rose authorities: snips IMPRESSIVE list of other people who love clay Very nice. I still disagree. So even if you assume I am an idiot Now, now, Roland, when Shiva thinks someone is an idiot, she tends to say things like "Idiot!" Ask anyone. snips more Clay Worshipping You are obsessed with drainage Drainage is the LEAST of my obessions, duckie. So your universal advice to ³get rid of clay² is ill founded and ill informed. Your posts have other examples where you are in fact ill informed but seeing the tone of your replies to me I will let you discover your other delusions by yourself. Thank you, Roland, for allowing me to keep some of my illusions, er, delusions. As for my tone, you came here with a bug up your butt. (As you well know, that is Texan for "chip on your shoulder." This is a discussion group. I voiced an opinion, you disagree, I disagree with you. So what? People are growing roses all kinds of different ways. My way has worked for five years. Yours has worked for ... ? Do you even GROW roses, Roland, or is the theory and a testosterone-driven need to be RIGHT all you need? You¹ve also raised some side issues in your reply to me and others (Texas is flat I said EAST Texas, Roland. And unless you folks have made some major changes since I lived there for several years, it IS flat, and exactly as I described it. You live in Austin, which is quite hilly, and by Texas standards, rather pretty. I have stayed at the Driscoll quite often. Š numerous gratuitous insults etc. etc) that I do not have the time or desire to disabuse you of. Roland Now now. There there. Etc. This is a discussion group. Don't go away mad! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:50:22 -0500 (EST), "Shiva"
wrote: I have stayed at the Driscoll quite often. I meant Driskill. Honest. Just because I forgot how to spell it doesn't mean I don't love it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
I want to say quit it it you two.
But this is getting interesting. Cue Joe Doe. Theo "Shiva" wrote in message news:aHlwYXRpYQ==.cd74be4618ba5499298562ee88c8fb86 @1044564622.cotse.net... "Roland" of University of Texas' Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology wrote: I am not alone in thinking that clay is good. Let me provide the opinion of several Rose authorities: snips IMPRESSIVE list of other people who love clay Very nice. I still disagree. So even if you assume I am an idiot Now, now, Roland, when Shiva thinks someone is an idiot, she tends to say things like "Idiot!" Ask anyone. snips more Clay Worshipping You are obsessed with drainage Drainage is the LEAST of my obessions, duckie. So your universal advice to ³get rid of clay² is ill founded and ill informed. Your posts have other examples where you are in fact ill informed but seeing the tone of your replies to me I will let you discover your other delusions by yourself. Thank you, Roland, for allowing me to keep some of my illusions, er, delusions. As for my tone, you came here with a bug up your butt. (As you well know, that is Texan for "chip on your shoulder." This is a discussion group. I voiced an opinion, you disagree, I disagree with you. So what? People are growing roses all kinds of different ways. My way has worked for five years. Yours has worked for ... ? Do you even GROW roses, Roland, or is the theory and a testosterone-driven need to be RIGHT all you need? You¹ve also raised some side issues in your reply to me and others (Texas is flat I said EAST Texas, Roland. And unless you folks have made some major changes since I lived there for several years, it IS flat, and exactly as I described it. You live in Austin, which is quite hilly, and by Texas standards, rather pretty. I have stayed at the Driscoll quite often. S numerous gratuitous insults etc. etc) that I do not have the time or desire to disabuse you of. Roland Now now. There there. Etc. This is a discussion group. Don't go away mad! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
Shiva said:
Roland ...wrote: I am not alone in thinking that clay is good. Let me provide the opinion of several Rose authorities: snips IMPRESSIVE list of other people who love clay Very nice. I still disagree. I too disagree. And here are some of my arguements: First and biggest: most clay minerals cause a chemical reaction that 'locks up' iron in the soil. That is, it makes it unavailable for plant use. Regular amendments of iron are needed for good plant health in these soils. New growth appearing on the rose bush that is light yellow green or whitish is an indication of lack of iron. Second: Clay soils are usually alkaline with a pH of 7 or above. Roses thrive in a slightly acid soil of pH 6.5. Therefore acid inducing is necessary. This is usually accomplished in these soils with the addition of decomposing plant material such as compost or horse manure or even top mulch. Third: High percentage clay soils have poor drainage. In areas with a lot of rain, this leads to occasional standing water, something that quickly becomes deadly for rose roots, and at the least leads to poor root health. Fourth: Clay soils are dense and easily compacted which keeps air from moving down into the soil. This slows the natural process of composting of whatever organic matter is present in the soil. People with heavy clay soils need to dig with a digging fork and aerate the soil around their roses in order for them to perform well. Or add a lot of worms..... grin In summary: All of these problems can be dealt with, but it takes extra effort than that required for loamy soil with a high (60 percent) level of decomposing organic matter. It is possible to grow good roses in high percentage clay soils, but you have to amend on a regular basis. Since most people don't know this or do it, they would tend to see roses grown in these soils perform less well than roses grown in 'better' soils. My soil is a river floodplain in the bottom of an old lake bed, and therefore very high in clay. In order to grow roses well in my soil, I dig a hole about 20 inches in diameter and 20 inches deep, toss the clay, and fill the hole with 2 cubic feet of 'EarthGro' brand Potting Soil bought from Home Depot for $3.96 a bag. Since I started doing this, my roses have thrived. Roses still growing in my older beds with high percentage clay soils do noticeably less well even though the soil around these plants is top amended regularly. When you look at the big picture of how much you really spend on each rose bush, an extra 4 bucks is really worth the value that it gives in the long run. By the way, I learned the above technique from an assortment of great and impressive Rose Authorities as well, right here on rgr several years ago. Bob Bauer The voice of experience...... heh heh Zone 6 in Salt Lake City http://www.rose-roses.com/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
Bob Bauer wrote:
Shiva said: Roland ...wrote: I am not alone in thinking that clay is good. Let me provide the opinion of several Rose authorities: snips IMPRESSIVE list of other people who love clay Very nice. I still disagree. I too disagree. And here are some of my arguments: First and biggest: most clay minerals cause a chemical reaction that 'locks up' iron in the soil. That is, it makes it unavailable for plant use. Regular amendments of iron are needed for good plant health in these soils. New growth appearing on the rose bush that is light yellow green or whitish is an indication of lack of iron. It isn't really clay that locks up nutrient - or more accurately, inhibits their availability for absorption. It's soil pH. It is true that unless soil pH is balanced, nutrient become unavailable chemically. Here's a partial explanation on one of my favorite rose sites: http://www.scvrs.homestead.com/BalancePH.html Second: Clay soils are usually alkaline with a pH of 7 or above. Roses thrive in a slightly acid soil of pH 6.5. Therefore acid inducing is necessary. This is usually accomplished in these soils with the addition of decomposing plant material such as compost or horse manure or even top mulch. I thought the pH of clay soils varies widely regionally. In the SE, they say clay is acidic. In the west, they say clay is alkaline. In fact, people with clay soils in the SE add lime to keep it from being too acidic. Third: High percentage clay soils have poor drainage. In areas with a lot of rain, this leads to occasional standing water, something that quickly becomes deadly for rose roots, and at the least leads to poor root health. Drainage is definitely important. If you live on a slope, it's a lot less of a concern with roses than with some plants that hate wet roots. Drains are the easiest thing to build: they are simply a channel on the low side of the hole,about 4 inches wide and almost as deep as the hole, filled with rocks. Amendment addresses drainage and pH. Around here, you can kill more roses during 6 months of assured seasonal drought than you can by drowning them during the 6 months of intermittent rain. But if you live in flat clay, you need to create drainage, and raised beds will do it for you. Replacing clay with top soil will only create a pot and can actually create a drain into your rose hole. Fourth: Clay soils are dense and easily compacted which keeps air from moving down into the soil. This slows the natural process of composting of whatever organic matter is present in the soil. People with heavy clay soils need to dig with a digging fork and aerate the soil around their roses in order for them to perform well. Or add a lot of worms..... grin Flip side of Number 3. Call it 3.b. This ignores the possibility of soil organisms working in the top 6 inches of soil if they are provided a lot of organic matter. That's where most of the roots are anyway, top 8 inches for sure. A few anchor roots go down deep, but I find them drilled right into the clay. But compaction is a real issue in all garden soils: they shouldn't be compressed when wet, and they shouldn't be trampled. In summary: All of these problems can be dealt with, but it takes extra effort than that required for loamy soil with a high (60 percent) level of decomposing organic matter. Well, yeah. We all want loamy soil. I'm not convinced you get it all that often in a bag. Some are good, some really stink, in my experience. I amend clay with potting soil, especially when the other component of the hole is rocks. It is possible to grow good roses in high percentage clay soils, but you have to amend on a regular basis. Absolutely true. You reap what you so. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. You have to return to the soils what you take out. Since most people don't know this or do it, they would tend to see roses grown in these soils perform less well than roses grown in 'better' soils. Or they learn a not very hard lesson: mulch mulch mulch. My soil is a river floodplain in the bottom of an old lake bed, and therefore very high in clay. In order to grow roses well in my soil, I dig a hole about 20 inches in diameter and 20 inches deep, toss the clay, and fill the hole with 2 cubic feet of 'EarthGro' brand Potting Soil bought from Home Depot for $3.96 a bag. Since I started doing this, my roses have thrived. Roses still growing in my older beds with high percentage clay soils do noticeably less well even though the soil around these plants is top amended regularly. And this has nothing to do with more experience or perhaps a tendency early on to cut corner, hmmm? Every rose I plugged into a cheaty little hole thumbed its nose at me, except for Iceberg, which promptly grew to 7 feet. When you look at the big picture of how much you really spend on each rose bush, an extra 4 bucks is really worth the value that it gives in the long run. True. $4 of material is a necessity for every rose hole. Next time I dig a rose hole in pure yaller clay, I'm going to take a picture for you: both the clay and the rose. I just make loam in situ. By the way, I learned the above technique from an assortment of great and impressive Rose Authorities as well, right here on rgr several years ago. The voice of experience...... heh heh What roses have you killed lately, anyway? I never hear about yer roses dying. Fess up. ;~) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
In article , "Theo Asir"
wrote: I want to say quit it it you two. But this is getting interesting. Cue Joe Doe. Theo Joe Doe exits stage left. I have other windmills to tilt at Roland |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
"Shiva" wrote in message news:aHlwYXRpYQ==.cd74be4618ba5499298562ee88c8fb86 @1044564622.cotse.net... "Roland" of University of Texas' Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology wrote: Now, now, Roland, when Shiva thinks someone is an idiot, she tends to say things like "Idiot!" Ask anyone. *cough, cough*.....um, yeah, I'll vouch for that.. heh heh heh :Þ Hey, if everyone always agreed w/ everyone around here, it sure would be quiet! All this talk about clay/no clay.... it sure is a good thing roses can't talk, otherwise mine would probably be bitching at me! JimS. Seattle |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
Let me say right up front here that I believe that 40 percent clay and
60 percent organic matter is a GREAT soil. I'm not totally anti clay soil at all. In fact, I submit that clay plus organic matter is highly superior to sand plus organic matter. (Just to set the record straight) Just ask Dave Amorde about my opinion on this...g Cass commented: It isn't really clay that locks up nutrient - or more accurately, inhibits their availability for absorption. It's soil pH. It is true that unless soil pH is balanced, nutrient become unavailable chemically. You are correct that it is pH, but that is only part of the story. The clay actually does play a role. Here is more than you wanted to know, but the actual role of clay minerals in the process: Clay minerals are products of the weathering of rock minerals such as feldspars and other silicate minerals. They play an important role both physically and chemically in soils and sediments. Physically, because of their small particle size and flatness, (which leads to easy compaction and paucity of drainage) and chemically because of their ion absorptive abilities. Clay minerals are aluminosilicates in that they most often contain aluminium, silicon and oxygen atoms. Most clay minerals occur in platy sheets which leads them to have large surface areas. In all clay minerals except kaolinite a process known as ISOMORPHOUS SUBSTITUTION takes place. This process occurs when a tetravalent Silicon atom is replaced by a trivalent Aluminum ion and when a divalent Magnesium atom replaces Aliminum in the mineral lattice. The net result of the substitution is to create a negative charge on the clay surface. (Negative charge equals high pH). Clay minerals are well known for their absorptive qualities in relation to cations (positively charged ions) such as Iron, Magnesium or Aluminum. When in the presence of liquid solution (when the soil is wet and the iron molecules dissolved) the iron ions can attach themselves into the actual mineral lattice of clay minerals. The clay structure actually being the very place of chemical 'lock up'. Clay minerals are not the only culprit in Iron depletion of course. The presence of alkaline carbonates such as calcite and other 'salts' can react with the free iron as well. Increasing the 'acidity' of the soil by adding things like organic matter can neutralize the effect of the clay's chemical 'needs'. I thought the pH of clay soils varies widely regionally. In the SE, they say clay is acidic. In the west, they say clay is alkaline. In fact, people with clay soils in the SE add lime to keep it from being too acidic. There are certain clays that are 'acidic'. These are chemically weathered clays that have been changed by being in oxidation environments for long periods of time. This is especially true in humid tropical or subtropical areas (that are highly oxidizing environments). The majority of clays however are alkaline. .... But if you live in flat clay, you need to create drainage, and raised beds will do it for you. Replacing clay with top soil will only create a pot and can actually create a drain into your rose hole. Don't forget that no one is talking about 100 percent potting clay here. All of the soils we're talking about will drain to some degree. Your above statement only makes sense if there is no drainage in the soil at all. What roses have you killed lately, anyway? I never hear about yer roses dying. Fess up. ;~) Ain't killed any for the last 2 years...... That's my story and I'm stickin' to it....... heh heh Bob Bauer (The only reason I know anything about clay is because I used to be a Geologist.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
Roland, clearly the Stuffy Academic Type wrote:
Joe Doe exits stage left. I have other windmills to tilt at Translation: Shiva is right, I don't grow roses. I am a theory man. All the way. Never even touched real clay, as a matter of fact! I knew it! Yet when I tried to suck Roland into a philosophical discussion with the "ants with thumbs" post, he balked. Perhaps Roland's taste for theory stops at the molecular level. Roland |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
JimS. wrote:
*cough, cough*.....um, yeah, I'll vouch for that.. heh heh heh :Þ Hey, if everyone always agreed w/ everyone around here, it sure would be quiet! Yes indeed. I got on roland's nerves. He loves clay, I hate clay. It's a classic conflict. You must admit, though, I did leave him with his God given right to love his clay. I would never deprive a man of his "have-to- haves." All this talk about clay/no clay.... it sure is a good thing roses can't talk, otherwise mine would probably be bitching at me! How come? Too much clay? YOU LIKE CLAY? WELL DO YOU, KID? GO AHEAD, ... G JimS. Seattle |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
"Susan H. Simko" said: 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! And here you hit upon one of the simplest reasons I balk at amending clay soil without removing a great deal of it. Small people, paper pushers, older folks, MOST females I am *even* brazen enough to say, can be easily discouraged if they think they have to have a man or some other heavy earth moving equipment in order to grow roses. Even on a bad day I can dig a 2 ft by 2 ft hole, even if I have to rest in the middle. But to break my back forking around with clay?? Heaving it here and there, attempting to mix stuff into it? Taking the chance it will be wet enough to dry to cement? HELL no. Roland's Most Respected Theory will have to suck my roses all the way to China before I will concede that this is what I have to do to grow roses. Another thing is ... I move my roses a lot. I need the soil to be easy to work with. I do know that by digging beds and replacing the soil, everything I have put into my beds has thrived including my roses. Yep. De proof is in de rosebed. But, I must say, if people can grow roses in clay, well, GOOD! I'm all for more roses. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
Bob Bauer patiently explained:
Let me say right up front here that I believe that 40 percent clay and 60 percent organic matter is a GREAT soil. I'm not totally anti clay soil at all. In fact, I submit that clay plus organic matter is highly superior to sand plus organic matter. (Just to set the record straight) Just ask Dave Amorde about my opinion on this...g Cass commented: It isn't really clay that locks up nutrient - or more accurately, inhibits their availability for absorption. It's soil pH. It is true that unless soil pH is balanced, nutrient become unavailable chemically. You are correct that it is pH, but that is only part of the story. The clay actually does play a role. Here is more than you wanted to know, but the actual role of clay minerals in the process: You rock, Bob. heh heh. Clay minerals are products of the weathering of rock minerals such as feldspars and other silicate minerals. They play an important role both physically and chemically in soils and sediments. Physically, because of their small particle size and flatness, (which leads to easy compaction and paucity of drainage) and chemically because of their ion absorptive abilities. Clay minerals are aluminosilicates in that they most often contain aluminium, silicon and oxygen atoms. Most clay minerals occur in platy sheets which leads them to have large surface areas. In all clay minerals except kaolinite a process known as ISOMORPHOUS SUBSTITUTION takes place. This process occurs when a tetravalent Silicon atom is replaced by a trivalent Aluminum ion and when a divalent Magnesium atom replaces Aliminum in the mineral lattice. The net result of the substitution is to create a negative charge on the clay surface. (Negative charge equals high pH). Clay minerals are well known for their absorptive qualities in relation to cations (positively charged ions) such as Iron, Magnesium or Aluminum. When in the presence of liquid solution (when the soil is wet and the iron molecules dissolved) the iron ions can attach themselves into the actual mineral lattice of clay minerals. The clay structure actually being the very place of chemical 'lock up'. Clay minerals are not the only culprit in Iron depletion of course. The presence of alkaline carbonates such as calcite and other 'salts' can react with the free iron as well. Increasing the 'acidity' of the soil by adding things like organic matter can neutralize the effect of the clay's chemical 'needs'. I thought the pH of clay soils varies widely regionally. In the SE, they say clay is acidic. In the west, they say clay is alkaline. In fact, people with clay soils in the SE add lime to keep it from being too acidic. There are certain clays that are 'acidic'. These are chemically weathered clays that have been changed by being in oxidation environments for long periods of time. This is especially true in humid tropical or subtropical areas (that are highly oxidizing environments). The majority of clays however are alkaline. Thanks. I didn't know the relative proportions of alkaline to acidic clays. .... But if you live in flat clay, you need to create drainage, and raised beds will do it for you. Replacing clay with top soil will only create a pot and can actually create a drain into your rose hole. Don't forget that no one is talking about 100 percent potting clay here. All of the soils we're talking about will drain to some degree. Your above statement only makes sense if there is no drainage in the soil at all. Not really. We're talking about sufficient drainage for growing roses. But it is very possible (I've done it) to dig a hole that won't drain in a day. Soon the soil sours. Your hole is the drain for the surrounding soil. I don't believe the drain in the hour test - if the hole drains in a day, fine. But when it doesn't drain in a day, once you get heavy rainfall for a few days, you have in effect a well (the correct word is the device you use to collect rain, but it escapes me at the moment). None of this matters if you don't have high rainfall, btw. That would be the case in SLC or other arid climates. What roses have you killed lately, anyway? I never hear about yer roses dying. Fess up. ;~) Ain't killed any for the last 2 years...... That's my story and I'm stickin' to it....... heh heh Bob Bauer (The only reason I know anything about clay is because I used to be a Geologist.) I know, and that's why I tossed a few softballs to get you going. And with this explanation, I agree with you, 100%. There's more than one way to get loam. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
Cass writes:
you have in effect a well (the correct word is the device you use to collect rain, but it escapes me at the moment). Cistern? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
In article , Unique Too
wrote: Cass writes: you have in effect a well (the correct word is the device you use to collect rain, but it escapes me at the moment). Cistern? Thanks! It came to me about 35 miles north of here as I stared at a mudpit near a foundation.... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
UT Roland's Favorite Soil Amendment Theory was, More Better Blooms
"Cass" wrote in message ... In article , Unique Too wrote: Cass writes: you have in effect a well (the correct word is the device you use to collect rain, but it escapes me at the moment). Cistern? Thanks! It came to me about 35 miles north of here as I stared at a mudpit near a foundation.... Did you have an uncontrollable urge to run out and plant a rose in it? :Þ JimS. Seattle |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
theory of getting-on-top and theory of weeding | Plant Science | |||
theory of getting-on-top and theory of weeding | sci.agriculture | |||
Fresh sawdust as soil amendment??? | United Kingdom | |||
Fresh sawdust as soil amendment??? | Gardening | |||
More, Better Blooms! | Roses |