Based on my thirty plus years of living here and fifteen in Arizona I'd say Oregon is more of a gardening state than Arizona but when I go to British Columbia, Canada I'm blown away by their gardens. I don't mean the huge public ones like Butchart either, (though it is one of my favorite places on earch) I mean the ordinary people's gardens. There are flowers everywhere from the border crossing north.

People in Arizona could have fantastic gardens if they only worked with their climate rather than trying to re-create wherever they moved from. I don't mean all cactus either. You can have a lush, semi-tropical constantly flowering garden there. The palette of plant materials available there now is ten times as many as when I worked at a nursery there. Loads of good stuff from Israel, Australia and other dry climates poured in. Sadly, you see the same old half dead stuff that has no business being sold there over and over. Oops, soapbox. sorry.

I would say that some cultures value flowers and gardening more than others. Many Americans think cut flowers and temporary color potted plants are wastes of money, for example, even if they are enthusiastic gardeners while Europeans not only breed the most varieties but they buy far more per person and they are even more enthusiastic gardeners.

Part of the problem in defining a gardening state now days is how homogeneous we've become. People are always moving and relocating to all parts of the country. MN use to have very distinct ethnic populations - Swedes, Polish, German, Norwegian, but everything is all mixed up these days. The small town I grew up in was almost split 50/50 German/Polish and yes, it was very much a gardening town. Everyone had a garden not only veggies, but flowers everywhere. Not so much anymore when I go back to visit.

In my case, my parents and grandparents were huge gardeners and since I spent so much time with my grandmother (she lived about 100 feet from our front door) I kind of picked up the garden bug from her I think. I even had my own little garden by the time I was probably 6 or 7. My brother could care less about plants, my sister only dabbled for a short period of time before she learned to hate it. I've pretty much been doing it my entire life and can't imagine I'll ever stop.

I don't know, it's kind of a interesting question, but hard to answer I think.

Kevin

Not sure about which states/regions of US or Canada are big gardening areas. But I would think that all nationalities have gardening genes. Considering that agriculture has been around for 10,000 years, and most people had to grow food to eat. Now that we can go to the grocery store, or restaurant, or order take-out, guess those gardening genes are dormant for a lot of people.

One of my daughters lives in the Bryant neighborhood of Seattle, and the gardens in her neighborhood are a constant joy, every season. The area is on a slope, so there are lots of rock walls and gardens, which add lots of interest. The sheer number of different plants and flowers is staggering. I never tire of walking around looking at the gardens. I agree about B.C. I gardened there for over 20 years and had a ball. The climate is so conducive.

Here in my area of MI there's lots of grass, yew shrubs,some geraniums, yawn. Interesting gardens are much less abundant. Not sure why this is.

Well, I'm Swiss and Switzerland in the spring is like dying and going to flower heaven. Our neighbors used to say about my Dad," John could grow a rose on the end of a broomstick".

ah yes, Vancuver and Victoria B.C. Like New England, settled by those gardening Brits again!Zone 8/9? and they can even grow palm and monkey puzzle trees!that is really some gardening gene pool they have out there in PNW!

I'm in the Southern Interior of British Columbia where it is hot (90F), arid (we have our native cacti), mountaneous (some of the oldest mountains in Canada), and freezing in the winter.

Our city consistently wins the "Cities in Bloom" Award every year: a contest, whereby judges visit Canadian cities of comparable size, and evaluate their citizens' efforts. Gardening centres here open at 9 a.m. to lineups. I've already ordered my 2011 roses (Weeks Roses, which come from Mass.,USA) thru my local nursery.

To me, if there's a State that exemplifies flowers (in Canadian minds) it's California. The Rose Bowl Parade makes me think that people there do nothing but grow flowers, all . . . the . . . time!

I would suggest it has little to do with actual genetics, and more to do with socioeconomic factors.

Otherwise, generally speaking, the English, Dutch and Japanese have very strong horticultural cultures.

Here's to dirt under your nails.

Like Kevin said, it's an interesting question, but hard to answer.

As far as the great gardens in the northwest, I might argue that it's climate and not nationality...

I think, as terrene says, that all nationalities have some form of gardening genes. Even though you are not including vegetable gardens here, vegetable gardening definitely had an impact. Let's face it, everyone in the history of the world had to somehow grow some form of food to survive. I think flower gardening grew out of that basic tenet.

I am a mix of about 7 different nationalities, and it seems each one had some kind of gardening in their genes! And all my cousins were Italian, (sadly, I am not!) and where I grew up, the old Italian gardener was the quintessential image of a backyard gardener!

So I think that everyone, no matter what nationality, has gardening somewhere in their genes; it may be dormant in this era of easy, convenient food, but there nonetheless. As far as certain countries seeming to have a stronger gardening mentality, (Dutch, Japanese, etc.) perhaps its because one, it became a business in general for the country, and so it is more prevalent there, and two, the culture has maintained an emphasis on gardening, while here in America (and Canada???) that emphasis has diminished for any number of reasons.

Interesting discussion!
:)
Dee

Although I live in southwest Missouri which is a farming area, I don't find many people into flower gardening. My friends and neighbors think it is too much work. I meet lots of gardeners through Master Gardeners and they are gardening crazy, of course. I just think in general there isn't too much interest. I have one neighbor from India and one who is oriental and they both have interesting gardens. They grow unusual veggies (to me) and flowers.

dee,kevin, et al: the point about conducive environmental conditions and/or resulting commerce/national identity- is an interesting one. and it brings me back to genetics because darwin etc talk about the morphing of organisms to better their survival chances, so, for humans, that could be seen to include economic survival. maybe the old question of nature/nurture.hmmmmm...

same question in a different context- artists,musicians, scientists passing along genes or just a supportive environment (good soil and weather)to their like-talented offspring..........

thanks!
mindy

I sort of agree with coolplants guy that a large part of it is socioeconomic. Remember studying Maslow's hierarchy of needs in psychology? An individual (or culture) dedicates its time and resources in a prioritised manner. It invests most heavily in the necessary and the aesthetic gets what is left over, if there is any. There will be food before flowers. That's economic.

Although some could argue the population is more homogeneous now than in previous eras, the cultural backgrounds and influences still exist but as smaller units like certain neighbourhoods or families. If you had gardeners in your family, you likely will have them generations later.

Do certain cultures have reputations for gardening? Oh yes, and it's because of the respect and pride delegated to that activity. That's social.

And where there are 'gardening' communities with public displays..... there are people or governments who lend continued support to the advantages of taking the time and money to make them so.

I've also grew up and traveled over several continents, and all of them have their scientists, their artists and their musicians and their gardeners. And to say that any particular country is richer in one over the other is more a paradigm of the beholder.

Use of the word "gene" is inappropriate in this context and, frankly, rather an insult.

Genetics has nothing to do with ornamental gardening, and as one poster mentioned above - food crops are/have been cultivated in all cultures.

Agree with above that the issue is partly socioeconomic. Good viewpoint re: Maslow's hierarchy above.

I would also argue that gardening for pleasure has a lot to do with age/life status. As an example, I had ZERO interest in gardening until I owned my own home when I was in my late twenties. Couldn't have cared less before that, although of course there are some young folks who love gardening, obviously. Available time is a factor as is commitments to other hobbies, and I would image physical ability might possibly be a factor, as well (re: physical handicaps).

Mindy didn't ask me to defend her and I sure can't speak for her. However, I read "in their genes" in the colloquial, idiomatic sense. Like something is "in her blood."

Speaking for myself, I find it more interesting to look at this kind of "talent" or inclination as a economic and social phenomenon. I love to learn how something like gardening is "passed on" over the generations and over vast changes in the location socio-economic status and values of succeeding generations. "Genes" we can't control. As a non scientist but a avid observer of people I find behavior, motivation and cultural change very interesting. I wonder if anyone has studied and published about the sociology of vegetable and ornamental gardening?

So late at night, and such deeeeeeepppp thots.
mt

"I love to learn how something like gardening is "passed on" over the generations and over vast changes in the location socio-economic status and values of succeeding generations."

I suspect family values, customs and interests are more deeply grained than people imagine. I do genealogical research, and I just chuckled when I found my great-grandmother's father's occupation. He actually was an English gardener by profession after he retired from his orchards. I am also a gardener by profession and I have orchards. My father taught me most of what I know about orcharding and vegetable gardening. He also could bake a cake finer than I've been able to produce in my sixth decade, and I'm a pretty decent cook. His mother earned money from baking in her own kitchen during the depression, she learned from her mother who was the daughter of a baker. It was a family occupation. Laughing again because my mother was very work brickle, a term she held in some respect. She could raise the hog, and fry it up and nothing in our home was ever wasted. Even when they grew to the point where they were financial rather comfortable, life was simple, home oriented, and modest. Looking back at it, I think it was because she was raised in her grandparent's home....a Quaker home and it that era, they still were plain and wore bonnets. I use expressions I heard her use and she heard them from her grandparents, and after analyzing the wording realised they were remnants of Civil War vernacular.

Milwaukee is heavily populated with Germans...may have one of the highest in the US. I can't say there is much relationship between that ancestory and gardening.

With that said, climate is probably a major influence, along with family traditions.

This post does bring up a point though. To this day I have no idea why I took a liking to gardening. I never looked twice at any plant before the age of 25...now I point out various species while I'm in the car and people just think there is something wrong with me, lol.

Like several of you, I never thought I had one bit of interest in gardening, until I bought a home with my husband. Then, the first thing I wanted to do was start putting in gardens. It wasn't truly a "home" until there were gardens, in my mind.

This desire seemed to come out of nowhere, but I'm sure what it was for me is that my Mom has been a gardener as long as I remember. I was raised surrounded by plants. So no wonder it didn't feel right to me not to have a garden. It was funny, though, because I didn't even know I felt that way about plants until I was in a new home and removed from all the plants that surrounded me growing up.

Where did Mom's interest come from? She spent summers on a farm with her grandparents, who were farmers.

Interestingly, though, my grandmother (Mom's mom) never really cared much for gardening, even though she was raised on above farm. This is, I think, where the economic factor of "food before gardening" must have played a part. Granny raised seven children as a single mother, and they were lucky to eat most days.

a question and some links:
calliope, i think i understand that you are on the side of 'nurture' in the nature/nurture debate here but i'm confused- in one point you hypothesize that yes, certain countries are better known for certain things, and that that is because that country puts more respect and value on that thing.......but in the last paragraph, you talk about observations of specific national talent being in the paradigm of the beholder. isn't that a contradiction?

Because my question about genes is actually a scientific question, i started doing some research on 'genes and talent'to see if there were any currently accepted correlations between genes and a certain talent (music, art,writing, gardening!). Here are 3 different articles that reference the scientific question with examples of research studies.Perhaps because I have a scientifically-challenged mind, it seems to me that the 2 'recent studies'articles contradict the Harvard article, yet each article seems compelling on its own. do they contradict each other;what do you think?

best,
mindy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/musical-talent-proves-to-be-air-on-a-gene-string-695379.html

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2003_06_06_globe.htm

http://www.jonathanfields.com/blog/outlie-this-breaking-research-reveals-talent-gene/

''''''''''calliope, i think i understand that you are on the side of 'nurture' in the nature/nurture debate here but i'm confused- in one point you hypothesize that yes, certain countries are better known for certain things, and that that is because that country puts more respect and value on that thing.......but in the last paragraph, you talk about observations of specific national talent being in the paradigm of the beholder. isn't that a contradiction?''''''''''

No, I don't think so because even if 'you' think the English are a country of gardeners, they might consider themselves a hotbed of science, or navigation. You might consider Poland a country of artisans, but I have some Polish-American relatives and friends, they they consider it a nation of 'gardeners' and all of them pursue it like a national birthright. IOW what you are seeing from your viewpoint and perhaps even popular stereotypes might not be how they see it from the inside looking out.

My first husband was the son of subsistence farmers. Life was a continuum of providing food for six kids. My MIL had a modest little patch of seed-grown posies and to her it was a luxury. And, by an ornamental garden's standard was nothing special. She 'could' grow flowers but between putting up fruit and veggies from the orchards and veggie plots, tending chickens, milking cows and raising kids..........the 'gene' if you want to call it that and I don't.......wasn't expressed. Farming and food production and flower gardens are not interchangeable.

Sure there are genes predisposing people to have talents valuable to certain occupations. But, it's a slippery slope to assume that a particular race or ethnic group have cornered the market on one gene over the other. All cultures have farmers, musicians, artists and scientists. The potential to express those talents lay in social and economic and environmental availability.

o.k.,calliope, now i understand how those 2 statements of yours were not contradictory to you. But I should also add that I am ultimately not looking for subjective info here (i.e. whether a certain country APPEARS to be more of a gardening country than another), though the line of inquiry seems easier when begun with this point. I would ultimately be looking for objective data that would support one country being, IN FACT, more of a gardening country than another.
I certainly think all you and others have been saying about socio economic elements- is valuable and completely valid.

I'm just wondering about proclivity and genes, the nature in 'nature vs nurture'.I don't know if science will ever find that genes can differ by country (not race)......
maybe there would have existed 'pure sample populations'to test in the past- for particular genetic talents, but now that we are all so mixed, that window of opportunity is long gone.
best,
mindy

As I might have said I do genealogical research, and I've had my genes sequenced btw and jumped on that research early on so I am seeing it unfolding.

If you go back to the dawn of humankind, there have always been migrations for at least the last 65K years. Entirely too early to have assigned any particular traits to any particular country. Not only have the groups with similar genetic sequence clusters moved around, and left individuals with the same genetic fingerprints in every place they ever roamed, but their offspring mutated and added new sequences to the mix. It would be a stretch to even think that any particular 'country' hasn't been mixed since antiquity. That is not a new phenomenon. My particular sequencing has been pegged as originating in the Middle East, but is now found most heavily in the area where Europe meets Asia in the far north and in every other population on earth in very small numbers. That's because my maternal line has been 'everywhere' in the last 65K years and given birth to many of the mutations of the 'modern' genetic lines. This is why it's simplistic to say any 'country' anywhere has genetic traits expressed in occupations or skills. Add to that that I am not the expression of just this sequence, but have had untold generations of other lines mixed into the pool with their own unique differences. It supersedes any modern 'country'.

calliope, i do understand what you have put forth.does that mean that a given population's genes cannot change from their original makeup? if the answer is no, they cannot, then does that mean that the real question in the linked article about musical ability and identical twins as indicators - has more to do with the original gene sequence that those twins are derived from?

can genetic traits not change over time?
thanks much,
mindy

The questions so much isn't about mutations but defining 'given populations'. This is a terribly complex subject and the science is exploding so rapidly today's correct answer would be sophomoric tomorrow.

Of course genes can change over time through mutations, but some are more stable than others. Mitochondrial DNA for instance is relatively stable and that's why scientists can make estimations of when certain sequences are 'born' thousands of years ago. Some others can change from one generation to the next. The results of these tests are based on statistical analysis and sometimes results cannot be so easily pegged into a shoebox.

The ability to express genetic traits would always be from those genes one has 'onboard' and not any original sequence eons ago. That is 'if' they are fully expressed, and some aren't. What I am getting at is that is what makes living organisms so unique, they are pretty unique from one to the next and hard to define into X and Y.

I have a Scandinavian family with lots of cousins. All of whom (except my brother and myself) have dispersed from Illinois where we were born. I am the youngest of maybe 12 cousins. At a family get together, after not seeing any of them for many years, we discovered that: not only were all the female cousins avid, even rabid gardeners, we all had the same favorite flowers, iris and daylilies! We decided it had to have been passed down from our Danish grandmother, who was quite a gardener, even though she died before I had much awareness of her or her gardening. I dont remember many details of what she grew, but remembered (after this) that some were iris and daylilies.

No offense to anyone here, but it really isn't any given person that determines whether a garden will flourish or not. More so it has to do with the climate the crops are grown in. Almost anyone who lives in coastal areas (especially British Columbia) has a HUGE advantage.

perennialfan, I would suggest it depends on what one is trying to grow in each area! ;)

I've seen some pretty cool gardens in areas where the conditions are less than ideal relative to what the "average" garden(er) considers "normal".

Sure, the Pacific NW is great for a wide range of plants, but not all. Same with Arizona or Newfoundland, but just a different, and likely smaller, range of plants.

BTW, the gardens here in Niagara-on-the-Lake are fantastic (winner of Canada's "Prettiest town" competition). There's lots of English heritage here, and also lots of money. Personally, I think it's in the water. Or maybe the beer at the Olde Angel Inn. ;)

Here's to dirt under your nails.

There is not a 'gardening gene' per se --- one that is passed down from generation to generation. However, different nationalities have different predispositions to the personality traits necessary to produce great gardeners of different types.

The British might be noted for their patience, the Japanese for their affinity to infinitesimal detail, the Germans for their organization, Americans for their aggression (or risk-taking), Nordics for their thrift. It would be interesting to pictorially correlate the most noteworthy gardens for each nationality to show how it represents its culture.

I don't think there is any such thing as a national gardening gene. The plain and simple reason why some nations or regions are full of avid gardeners and beautiful gardens is that it is easy to garden there--as long as the gardener sticks to plants easy to grow there.

England is a prime example to many of us, whether we have been there or not. They simply do not have the climate/weather challenges many of us in the US face every year, heck, every month. And they *do* have many natural assets--adequate moisture, very long hours of light in summer, enough cold but not too much, same with heat, etc etc. All that allows a very wide selection of plants to thrive.

Everyone loves success. When your efforts meet with success, you are likely to perservere and achieve even more success. That, IMHO, is the non-genetic secret behind gardening nations and regions.

Very interesting discussion.

As many have mentioned, I think there are a number of factors.

Where do you live? I suspect England is more conducive to gardening than Siberia.

What's your economic level? The poor garden for food and will plant flowers in combination with that because over time it was discovered that it improves the crop. It's the same reason that organ meats are a food of the poor - waste not, want not.

If your family gardened, you are more likely to, only because you grew up around it.

I don't think there's a gardening gene persee and I doubt that some nationalities are more predisposed toward it than others. It's more a question of climate, tradition and economic factors.

As for me, my family grew up in an apartment builing. I only started gardening seriously 10 years ago when I moved to my current house. I don't know what my grandmother's family did back in Europe, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had at the very least vegetable plots - times were hard.

I've always thought of Italians as being great gardeners (especially vinters!!!!)