SHOP PRODUCTS
Houzz Logo Print
rosaprimula

soil amending - who does (n't)

Campanula UK Z8
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago

Even in my rubbish allotment soil, I avoid amending it in any way apart from adding topdressing and a couple of boosts of liquid fertiliser. Instinctually, I have always felt that digging a whopping great hole and backfilling it with all sorts of good stuff is not a good idea...why would roots bother to stretch into the poor soil when there is a lush padding just where they are snug in their pot area? And all those drainage and water perching issues? Essentially, plants have to get along with the conditions they are planted in - after all, I am not going to be digging this hole every year and anyone who moves plants will see that there is no trace of amendments around the roots after only a few months - worms, bacteria, fungi etc... so I reasoned that I may as well start how I intend to carry on - hard...and lean

It would appear that much of the current horticultural theory now agrees with this - a cheer for idle gardeners.

Whilst I am about it, I don't dig a deep hole either - instead I dig a shallow and wide patch, spreading the roots out as horizontally as possible and adding a temporary stake if absolutely required.

Comments (155)

  • floridarosez9 Morgan
    8 years ago

    Ahh, Camp, remember you love a good dust-up. I would really miss your pithy comments. I would miss everyone, actually, so I hope everyone lets the dust settle and comes back.

  • Embothrium
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Amending of planting hole back-fill was being tested scientifically by the 1960s, was repeatedly and consistently found to not produce a benefit using a variety of test subjects and amendments. A recurring result was the controls (untreated plants) grew more than those in amended holes. The main issue is how being placed in a small area of different soil affects the plants access and exposure to water. If there is a high water table plants in amended holes can even be subjected to a sump like situation and die. A probably much more common outcome is the unmodified soil around the amended planting hole attracting moisture away from the newly planted specimen.

    If an existing soil is thought to be unsuitable for the kinds of plants desired then the entire planting area needs to be changed to suit them, instead of just individual planting holes. Since digging amendments into an area of much size is a bit tedious and organic amendments decompose and allow the soil to mostly return to its original condition, it is better to dig out and replace the unwanted soil with one thought more suitable. Or dump the different soil on top of the existing soil, plant in that without mixing the two soils together.

    Inorganic amendments like sand do not break down and vanish but two problems with those are that huge amounts may be needed to make a significant change to a heavy soil, and that if you end up overdoing them you may create problems with excessive drainage and leaching of nutrients.

  • Related Discussions

    Amending soil for lawn seed bed

    Q

    Comments (8)
    Okay Gary, I'm glad you wrote in months in advance to get your plan checked over. NEVER TILL to prepare for turf. Yes, I realize every single book ever written about preparing soil for turf has you tilling it. I used to work for a "pre-landscaper," the guy who prepared the surface for the landscapers on new construction. Actually his title was "finish grader." Tillers are never used. I never knew why until I spent a few years reading here at GardenWeb. The tool used to prepare the soil and make it drain properly is a box blade on the back of a real tractor (large back wheel and small front wheel). If you hire a real landscaper, or a finish grader, your entire yard can be done in a morning (unless you have a sprinkler, lots of trees, fences, decks, or patios). All the work is done at the surface and no deeper than an inch. Your underlying soil structure is important to conserve and tilling turns it to an uneven powder. When that uneven powder settles, it settles unevenly. After a few years, the result of a tilled preparation is a rolling surface at best and usually more like moguls that need to be refilled with sand or soil to even things out. The finish grader will know if you need more soil (you don't) and will grade the surface so that rain drains away from all buildings and away from the property. You cannot do that by hand. You also cannot rent a tractor and do it yourself unless you've been doing it for 5 or 10 years. To assume it is compacted is a mistake. It might be very hard and not very absorbent but compaction is more than that. You can improve the absorbency with a soaker hose set on trickle. Try it. It's free. Set the faucet to a trickle at the faucet and leave the soaker hose running 24/7 for up to three weeks. You'll be startled at how soft your soil becomes. The reason is the return of soil fungi that have died out. The boringly slow soaker provides just the right moisture without shutting off the air for them to come back to life. At the end of three weeks (you'll have to do normal watering still) your soil will be like a sponge. It will be very soft when wet, very hard when completely dry, and it will absorb water quickly when it rains or you irrigate. That is what you're looking for. You don't need to till or add any amendments to achieve that. If I only was allowed to add one thing to ANY soil, it would be a surface application of ORDINARY corn meal (from a feed store) or alfalfa pellets at a rate of 20 pounds per 1,000 square feet. Here's a plan for this summer. At the end of summer you might decide you don't need to renovate. 1. Deep water but no more than once a week in the heat of the summer. If your first few waterings have a lot of runoff, stop watering and let the moisture settle in. Then come back before the day if through to finish. I water for up to 3 hours per zone, once a week, and my zones overlap by 50%. Then let the soil dry out completely. If your grass wilts before a week is up, water again but for longer this time and try to go a full week. The deep watering develops deep roots that really build your soil's health. The long delay between waterings allows the surface of the soil to dry out and prevents weed seeds from sprouting. 2. Reset your mower to mow at the highest setting and don't bag your clippings. Tall grass does not grow faster than short grass. Tall grass is needed to develop the deep roots because short grass cannot produce enough sugar to grow really deep roots. Tall grass also shades the soil so the soil remains cooler during the days and loses less moisture to evaporation. Tall grass will also keep dandelions and many other tap rooted weeds out. Clovers and spreading plants will still grow, so do what you like for that. I like to pull them by hand. If I have to suggest spraying with something, I start with vinegar on a hot day. If you have to use a chemical Weed-B-Gone spray on each weed is much better than broadcasting dry weed killer everywhere. If you do these first two things, you should really never have serious weed problems. Insects and diseases are different, so keep an eye out for them. 3. Fertilize with your favorite fertilizer on a regular schedule. I like organic fertilizer, but I'm not sure it makes any difference to the weeds. Insects don't seem to be a problem anymore with all the toads, birds, and lizards that have returned to my lawn since I stopped using chemicals.
    ...See More

    pine bark fines for amending soil

    Q

    Comments (10)
    Thanks for the info. Kimmsr, weird that the peat INCREASED pH. Perhaps it's because as it decomposed and became humus, it neutralized as most organic material does, even if it starts out acid? As far as amending my soil, what about a one-two punch, so to speak? I start off by using some pine bark fines (preferably partially composted, but fresh could probably work) to incorporate into soil to loosen and break it up short-term. Maybe throw in some alfalfa meal or blood meal to offset any potential N deficiency. As it decomposes, slowly, eventually it will turn into organic matter that will do the same thing as the bulk of the fines themselves initially will do, i.e., improve aeration and drainage, at the same time I add more organic matter on top as mulch, probably shredded leaves from the wooded lot next door (most of them blow into my yard) and/or compost of various sources. Now, to Allen--maybe using pure pine bark as mulch on TOP would be bad, since it can be hydrophobic (a good quality, however, incorporated into clay that tends to get mucky wet). What about mixing pine bark with compost or shredded leaves for aesthetics? Would it likely then be OK for water penetration?
    ...See More

    Tedious Soil Amendment(s)

    Q

    Comments (21)
    I use bermuda grass and then whatever is growing in the pastures...which is virtually everything. I wouldn't use bermuda grass if it had formed seedheads. That batch would go into the compost pile so the heat of composting could sterilize the seeds. To prevent anything in the grass clippings OR the soil from sprouting and growing up through the mulch, lay down newspaper or cardboard and then pile on the mulch. If there is any wind, wet down the cardboard or newspaper as you lay it down so it won't blow away before you pile on the mulch. The newspaper or cardboard serves as a barrier. Weed seed beneath it cannot sprout because of the darkness and if it sprouts, it generally cannot penetrate the paper or cardboard. Weed seed on top of the cardboard or paper may sprout, but any plants that sprout in the mulch can't grow down through it and it is easy to pull them out of the mulch when you notice they've sprouted. As a bonus, earthworms adore newspaper and cardboard so having them on the ground attracts them to your soil and since they improve the soil, that's a plus. A couple of tips: 1) Never use any grass clippings from lawn treated with herbicides, including weed and feed fertilizers; 2) If the grass is holding a lot of moisture after it is cut, I leave it in the garden cart or wagon for a day or two and let it dry and then I spread them on the beds; 3) If you have cut tallish bermuda in humid, hot conditions (especially in late spring/early summer) and think chiggers might be lurking in there, spray yourself with an insect repellent before you spread the grass clippings. Then, after you're done, scrub yourself thoroughly to remove any that may be climbing around on you. I have chigger issues about once a year after spreading grass clippings DH has cut and it usually happens in late May or early June. 4) Be very picky about your grass clippings. If neighbors see and understand what you're doing and offer you theirs, make sure their lawns haven't been chemically-treated. 5) If you have an issue with snails, slugs, pill bugs or sow bugs be sure you leave a little open space (at least 1/4") between the mulch and plant stems so you can spot those little buggies and sluggies and kill them dead. (I just sprinkle Slug-Go Plus in that little open area so they can find something to eat. It is just a bonus that the 'something' they find to eat kills them.) Dawn
    ...See More

    Acidifying Soil Amendments

    Q

    Comments (18)
    No worries, I understand where you were likely coming from, there's a lot of people who don't know much about plants and make wild assumptions, thereby giving themselves a lot more work than they need to. I am not one, and I could have been clearer on that point. Just trying to join the community and ask questions when I'm considering something new. I've learned a lot from many of the posts on here over the years, (only recently started posting), and see it as a knowledgeable community with brains to pick before I waste time on something that may not be helpful. Most of my plants are rescues that have taken years and a lot of hard work/research to cultivate and return to a state of health, and that includes my "problem" tree who needs the vinegar. Of my epiphyte collection I have two massive orchids that are something of a prized posession seeing as one of them is highly fragrant and blooms yearly, and the other keeps its massive blooms for a year at a time. I accidentally burned one of them when using vinegar to try to get some of its sap off of my kitchen table, and have been careful ever since. I do occasionally have to leave my plants in the care of others (not this year, for obvious reasons), so I try to keep their watering instructions to "give water until some is in the drip tray" and that's all. Purpose of the thread was to see if anyone had any success adding soil amendments that might overcome alkaline water and eliminate the need for correcting water PH for those plants that are sensitive, thereby simplifying regular watering requirements. So far I've found very little in my research that would be helpful, though I continue to search.
    ...See More
  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago

    I understand the idea, but I wonder if the plants studied were isolated in beds which had no further amendments added on top. In my garden, I didn't amend the planting holes, but the roses were in what I suppose to be "amended" potting mix. That many were planted in the beds means there were many pockets of "amended" holes in the native soil. I finished by adding several inches of organic matter on top. Over time, I imagine that the soil critters are evening things out below the surface.

    Additionally, I wonder if those test subjects were pot-established shrubs of good size. Many of us buy roses as bands, which are essentially rooted cuttings, so comparing them to a 5-gal shrub or tree with regards to "amending the planting hole" isn't really valid. Potting them up for a while before planting is essentially creating an "amended planting hole" in a container, allowing for quicker growth in a more "root-friendly" environment. Planting them later would give a similar effect to amending a planting hole for a band-sized plant to fit a 2-gal nursery liner. With such immature plants as bands, this seems to promote faster growth in my garden. The few bands I planted directly in unamended holes have all lingered far behind the others.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • ingrid_vc so. CA zone 9
    8 years ago

    bart, I'm touched by your comments about me and take them in the spirit they were meant. Thank you. Your revealing what your situation has been in and around your rose garden has helped me to understand you better, and to admire your resolution and I must say courage, with idiot hunters spraying bullets around you, the neighbors from hell and the badgers from another hell. I'm much too faint of spirit to have lasted in that environment. I'm happy to see that things are improving somewhat (provided the hunters don't shoot the alpacas, but at least that's not your problem). I wonder if your huge efforts to creating beauty in that place haven't attracted other like-minded spirits who have been inspired by what you've done. Knowing you more, I now admire your tenacity and can well understand the frustration you feel. At least I hope you know that we fellow rose lovers are behind you and actually get what you're doing and why.

    floridarose, I love your endearing comments, and yes camp, we definitely would miss the unique style and message you bring to this forum.

    embrothrium and Christopher, you've each added another layer to the conversation (which means in plain speak that you've confused me even more), but at the end what I come away with is the realization that there is no right or wrong answer but only what works best in your garden, based on your own interaction with it. Contrary to you, Christopher, I've planted 95% of my tiny own-root plants straight into the ground after a ten-day period of acclimatization where I gradually move the little pots from shade to full sun, all the while shielding the (usually) black pots from the heat. My soil is very different from yours and I've gotten away with that, of course paying careful attention to watering and mulching. If your soil is solid clay you can probably also kiss the little darlings good-bye, along with the fortune you've spent on them. I think we can all learn from each other and the studies that have been conducted, but it all has to be seen through the prism of our own experience and unique gardening conditions.

  • Embothrium
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Much of the groundbreaking - so to speak - work was undertaken by Carl E Whitcomb.

    http://drcarlwhitcomb.com/

    More recently a researcher here has been generating related information.

    http://puyallup.wsu.edu/lcs/

    Notice also this source she links to.

    http://gardenprofessors.com/

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Ingrid -- yes, my conditions and unamended soil are not really conducive to planting bands directly. Looser soil, even if gravely, will allow for better root development than what I've got. It's all about knowing what you're working with and making it fit with your plan(t)s.

    Embothrium -- again, I repeat, are these studies made using more established plants in large containers, or band-sized plants? One of the studies I found online which dismissed the benefits of amending planting holes used trees in 15-gal containers. If I was starting with roses of that size, with corresponding root systems, I wouldn't bother doing anything more than digging a hole just large enough to accommodate the root ball. However, when starting with band-sized plants, with root systems barely three inches in diameter, dropping them in my hard clay native soil just doesn't provide enough to get the rose growing. The evidence can be found in my garden, where the handful of directly-planted bands are about the same size as they were when they arrived in Spring. Roses planted this way last year are now almost the same size as potted-up bands from this year. And if I'm "zone-pushing" with any borderline-hardy cultivars, that means there will likely be not enough "rose" to survive Winter.

    I don't disagree with your assertions about planting more mature shrubs and trees, but I don't think this applies to band-sized roses going into heavy clay. At least, not in my garden. What works for someone with something somewhere isn't necessarily the best option for everyone with everything everywhere. In the meantime, when I post pictures from my garden -- see my posts with pics from October 28 in this thread -- people here are rather surprised at how much growth my roses have achieved in 2 1/2 years since coming as bands. So I think I'm doing something right.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago

    P.S. As far as that "Gardening Myths" information about coffee grounds goes, I again have different results. Everywhere I've read, advice is to keep the layer very thin to avoid blocking water and air. And that's how I started. Then I wanted to see what happens as I increase the thickness of the layer. Well, any "crusting" that happens at an inch will crack and allow water and air through when the layer is two inches or more thick. Also, my earthworm and other "soil critter" population has risen dramatically, which allows for the material to continue to move -- albeit slowly -- below the surface. This allows for air and water to get down. As frosts are approaching, I'm covering the garden with a few inches of used coffee grounds from my daily Starbucks collection. In some areas, there's about 4" of a new layer. I periodically dig down to see what's going on, and I don't see dry areas -- so water is getting down. I'm also finding lots of worm castings, and even bits of the native hard red clay further up in the raised beds than expected. This tells me that everything is slowly getting tilled together by the soil critters. It may not work for everyone everywhere, but it's working for me here.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • ingrid_vc so. CA zone 9
    8 years ago

    I think what's happening in your garden, Christopher, is marvelous. It may have been last year that I imported some worms in the hope that they would increase in number and aerate and improve the soil, yada, yada. In reality, nothing happened. The other day I spotted a worm that was just as skinny and undersized as the day I got it, quite different from the few native earthworms I have. They may be surviving, some of them, but they sure ain't thriving. With your greater rain volume, heavier soil and leaf and coffee ground mulch your worms are thriving, and yes, your roses have grown spectacularly. I do think a huge amount of coffee grounds might help my soil but I don't have physically what it takes to carry through with that. I do what I can with organic matter that's already at hand and some bagged amendment that I sprinkle over, and lately rabbit poop again, and I have to think it does some good or I wouldn't have roses. They're not as spectacular as yours, but they're not chopped liver, and I'm content with what I'm able to achieve.

  • Buford_NE_GA_7A
    8 years ago

    I have to disagree with removing all the soil. It depends on what soil you are talking about. With my clay, if you remove the soil and replace all of it, you will just have a huge clay pot filled with soil that will leech away. It's better, IME, to mix in the native soil (removing the worst parts) with organic material. Of course you have to keep adding organics every year. I will plant bands directly but as Christopher says, only in amended spots.

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago

    Ingrid, your roses are far from "chopped liver" in my book -- I always smile when you share pics of your babies, even when not in bloom. Seeing those mature Teas in sizes I'll likely never achieve here gives me great pleasure. And seeing how your efforts have made for an oasis in the desert is wonderful -- even if they aren't as great as you wish them to be, they bring so much more life and color to an otherwise barren landscape. You may lament that they aren't blooming as much as you'd like, but remember that I envy how big they can grow when not cut back by my Winters.


    I often feel I'm rather "late to the game" on this forum, and that drives me to get my babies growing as fast as possible to catch up. That's why I kept looking into what I could do to help that along, and the coffee grounds appealed to me as a free source of good stuff for the soil. I admit I go rather overboard when compared to those of you with seasoned mature gardens, but again, I'm just trying to catch up. And this means I often try things in excess when compared to sage advice. When I see I've gone too far, I pull back. But so far, with the coffee grounds, I haven't yet reached that limit. And so I continue, getting about a wheelbarrow full of material every day, which my garden seems capable of handling.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • ingrid_vc so. CA zone 9
    8 years ago

    Christopher, believe me, you're rapidly catching up, and in any case this is not a race. For many of us seeing your garden beginning from scratch has been such a fun experience. For myself I feel so proud of your efforts and the outstanding results. I look forward to seeing your garden become ever more beautiful. You are not allowed to move, of course, until we've had our fill of enjoying it.

    It's true that my tea roses are large, and you may not have room for too many of those, but my varieties are fairly common ones while you have many choice roses that not many here grow. There's that extra frisson of excitement of seeing roses that are unfamiliar. That is one of the interesting things that you bring to this forum, the lavish use of coffee grounds being another. So far it seems to be a great success.

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    I tend to be attracted to the less common things, Ingrid. Two bits come to mind.

    The Road Not Taken

    By Robert Frost

    Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

    And sorry I could not travel both

    And be one traveler, long I stood

    And looked down one as far as I could

    To where it bent in the undergrowth;

    Then took the other, as just as fair,

    And having perhaps the better claim,

    Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

    Though as for that the passing there

    Had worn them really about the same,

    And both that morning equally lay

    In leaves no step had trodden black.

    Oh, I kept the first for another day!

    Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

    I doubted if I should ever come back.

    I shall be telling this with a sigh

    Somewhere ages and ages hence:

    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

    I took the one less traveled by,

    And that has made all the difference.

    And......

    “She was not quite what you would call refined.
    She was not quite what you would call unrefined.
    She was the kind of person that keeps a parrot.”


    Mark Twain

    I think the last one also applies -- if "she" is changed to "he" for my case.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • nikthegreek
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Nothing, nothing is of general applicability when it comes to 'soily' matters, because of the multi-variant complexity of the issue.. Understanding a bit about how things work is the only way for someone to adopt the recipes to one's conditions, plants and means. Commercial crop growing is a very different beast than gardening btw, for reasons too numerous to list.

    Christopher, I'm sure your soil worms are suffering from hypertension by now.. lol

    PS Seriously though, I would shy away from continously, consistently and excessively using any single source of organic material in my garden, in the same way that I would avoid eating the same food all the time. I cannot help but suspect that this coffee ground craze has been to a large extend been supported by parties who care more about reducing their waste disposal costs and appearing 'green' than by any strong horticultural evidence. I have no personal opinion about the use of coffee grounds and I do add my used coffee grounds (complete with paper filters) to my compost whenever I remember to but, as usual, there's another side to the story:
    Aus study about spent coffee grounds and plants

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    I appreciate the info, Nik, but so far, no noticeable negative effects have been seen here. Three things to keep in mind about that study and how it differs from my garden are the following:

    1) Many of the plants being tested were seedlings in small containers. In my garden, the roses were a year and a half old before I started adding coffee grounds. The difference is in the distance from the application to the roots -- in the study just a few inches, but here it was more like two feet.

    2) Part of the study was carried out in a greenhouse. In my garden, coffee grounds are added to the top layer of raised beds out in the open. There is a big difference here with regards to what happens to the coffee grounds. When testing in a greenhouse, the only organisms which are available for digesting the grounds are those which are either purposely introduced or settle in from spores in the air -- there is no insect, earthworm, or other component.

    3) The other part of the study included field-grown applications in what appears to be otherwise unamended native soil with grounds added on top. In my garden, I started with cardboard over grass and weeds, then snipped tree trimmings over that, then 6-8" of partially composted shredded tree mulch, then the following Spring I "seeded" the bed with A LOT of "alive" manure and bedding compost and its hitchhiking red wiggler worms and other compost organisms. It's this last bit that I think is crucial to how the large amount of grounds I keep using here disappears so quickly -- my soil has A LOT of hungry mouths to feed. But in many of the studies I read -- including the Australian one you shared, and thanks for that! -- there is little or no mention of what organisms are already present to "handle" the application of coffee grounds. Additionally, in my garden there's all that other stuff lying between the surface of the soil and the roots of the roses. By the time the coffee grounds make their way down into the root zone, they're most likely transformed into worm castings.

    I do appreciate the concern, and agree with the idea of a "balanced diet" for my soil. Used coffee grounds isn't all that I've added, but I tout it often because I think it's an underutilized source of free nutrient-rich organic matter. My beds also get tree leaves and evergreen needles, snipped up top-growth from perennials and annuals after they die back for Winter, various biodegradable "garbage" from me like fruit peels and shredded paper tucked into little pockets here and there, organic granular fertilizer in Spring, and I'll likely be doing a fresh layer of partially composted shredded tree mulch next year.

    Also, putting down a fresh layer of grounds at my rate of collection -- about one wheelbarrow-full per day -- takes about three to four months to get the whole garden covered. By the time I finish during the growing season, where I started has already either mostly broken down, or the grounds were pulled below the surface by earthworms. This is an ongoing experiment of sorts for me, without a control. Thus far, all I can say is that my garden easily "handles" it all, and things are growing. I can't say if it's better or worse than if I didn't use it. Frankly, I just like the idea of turning waste into garden stuff.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • carriehelene
    8 years ago

    "grounds were pulled below the surface by earthworms". Lol, I just got a picture in my head of thousands of worms armed with huge teeth coming out of the ground, kind of like Tremors.

  • Embothrium
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    The bottom line is that in any and all soils you want the same soil throughout the entire rooting area of the plant, without any pockets or zones of different material. This is why Chalker-Scott (links, above) talks about taking the field soil or potting medium off at planting time because this still being present around the plant can be problematic, even if the rest of the soil in the planting hole and around it is uniform.

    Variations in kind of plant, whether it is in a pot or not, how big the pot is, what kind of amendments might have been used in experiments, etc. etc. are all more or less completely irrelevant - except that some kinds of plants (such as Heath Family subjects) with very dense roots do not lend themselves to being washed. In those and other cases where I do not want to wash the plant I split the difference by shaking whatever potting medium might be loose off or slicing vertically through the center of the roots with a blade (to interrupt circling roots).

    A pandemic problem with anything other than stock received bare-rooted is severe deformities often hidden inside the root mass, near the base of the stem. These date from when plants were left too long in bands, liners or other small containers at a production facility. In my experience this is so common that any woody plants installed without having been bare-rooted and checked can be assumed to be going in with this defect still in place. What is being risked is possible future girdling, rocking or toppling.

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago

    Considering all the dangers you posit, it's rather miraculous that our roses are still alive!

  • User
    8 years ago

    ....^...or any of our other plants for that matter.... we grow a huge range of plants here from all over the world, not just roses, and usually from containers with little more than teasing away a few roots from the rootball, if that.... they establish beautifully, for the most part...

    ...it's only gardening.... I see no need for rocket science... but it's always interesting to read what others have to say though....

  • Embothrium
    8 years ago

    I'm not one of those saying "Oh you have to do this and you have to do that or they won't live!". Nobody amended the planting holes at the growing operation before the (field grown) roses were bought. Unless there is a high water table, so that the hole fills with water or the potting soil/amended zone around the newly installed plant proves to be impossible to keep moist plants in amended holes usually live. What was discovered during organized trials starting in the 1960s was that control plants in holes without amendments grew better. So amending of back-fill isn't necessarily so much a danger as a waste of time and money.

    Woody stock planted with deformed roots may not show problems until many years later. I had some foundation shrubs laid nearly flat by snow over 20 years after planting. When I pulled them up most of the roots were still involved in turnip-like knots showing that they had spent too much time in 4 in. pots at one point.


  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    I've been searching for these studies, and something interesting seems to keep coming up -- the plants used in these studies are overwhelmingly "landscape shrubs and trees" rather than specifically roses. Typically, "landscape shrubs and trees" are more of a "set it and (almost) forget it" plant when compared to most roses. People typically don't fertilize and obsess over their arbor vitae because all they need is a bit of watering in their first year after planting until they get established. And many of these "landscape shrubs and trees" send roots far and wide -- much more so than do most roses.

    Most roses, on the other hand, get more attention with regards to pruning, fertilizing, watering, and (often) pest and disease control. They are typically of "higher cultural demands" than "landscape shrubs and trees", and amending the planting hole allows for the faster growth demanded of them. We do what we can to keep them producing the flowers we want from them all season long. We often remove whole canes annually to promote new growth -- depending on the type. We don't have such expectations of "landscape shrubs and trees". And many more people continually mulch and add other organic materials to their rose beds than do others for their "landscape shrubs and trees", so "amending the planting holes" for roses is really just a jump-start on the soil that the entire bed will eventually have, after those top-dressings work their way into the native soil.

    True, roses ARE "woody plants" like shrubs and trees, rather than perennials or annuals, but that doesn't mean that studies partaken upon "shrubs and trees" are necessarily translatable to repeat-blooming garden roses -- especially when the former are planted with 15-gal rootballs and the latter with 3" rootballs.

    Today I received a Floribunda called 'White Gold' which I previously gifted to a coworker. I planted it as a band in a 15" pot filled with my "magic mix" back in Spring. He returned it to me because he lives on the 14th floor of an apartment building, and kept it on his balcony, but needs me to keep it in my enclosed back porch for Winter. I also got one for myself, but planted it directly into my hard red clay native "soil", with continued topdressings of used coffee grounds and other organic matter. My friend's rose has eight or nine finger-thick canes, which he trimmed down so the rose would fit into his car. My rose has two canes, one of which it had upon arrival. Neither cane on mine is more than pencil thick, and neither is more than 9" tall. Looking at it, I'm wondering if it will survive Winter.

    The lesson -- band-sized roses need to be grown-on to become the "plantable-size" needed for my conditions. If I don't do it in a pot, the next best thing would be "amending the planting hole" so as to create a pot underground. Of course, if I started with 15-gal size roses, I'm sure I'd be just fine sticking them in the ground as-is. In fact, growing them on to just 2-gal and planting them this way has worked out great for me. I'm already seeing 'Botzaris', 'Tamora', and the Gallicas sending up suckers, so I think that means their roots have broken out of their planting holes, despite the significant difference in texture and fertility between the amended soil they were growing in and the native hard red clay.

    But never again will I directly plant a band into native soil here. If it works for you in your conditions, I'm jealous. As a refresher, this is the "native soil" I started with. See the "rocks" at the base of the tree? That's actually chunks of hard, compressed clay I removed from the holes where the three roses in the picture were planted. Now imagine trying to get a band-sized rose to grow roots through that. Nuh-uh. They'd need to either be potted-up so as to grow and generate resources to produce roots that CAN get through that, OR be popped into a larger amended planting hole to give the same effect in the ground. What comes in a band liner just isn't -- in my experience -- strong enough to get through that fast enough to also produce a plant that is capable of surviving my Winters.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • catspa_NoCA_Z9_Sunset14
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Christopher, I was just trying to contemplate why my experience with roses was different than my experiences with other woody plants, as far as the root-deformation thing goes, and I think you've come up with a few good reasons. I was unsuccessfully trying to think if there was some innate quality or structure of rose roots that makes them less susceptible to this phenomena. I have noticed that some rose varieties seem to have roots that are more fibrous in nature than others, which would seem to make them less likely to be badly deformed by pots.

    However, a generic landscape woody plant usually isn't planted with a 3" root ball. What often happens is that the 3" starter pot is grown on in a gallon and then even a 5 gallon or 15 gallon and THEN is sold to the public, but the fundamental problem with the root that started in that 3" pot remains, even in the 15 gallon pot.

    Deformed roots on woody stock due to pots is definitely a problem for restoration with CA native plants. At this point I much prefer direct planting of seeds for species with large or large-ish seeds (oaks, buckeyes, hazelnuts, coffee berry, toyon, etc.) rather than nursery stock because of that exact situation (not to mention the Phytophthora ramorum, sudden oak death, problem in nursery stock in this area -- even at the most careful and informed of nurseries). You generally come out ahead, in the end, with seed, planted in unamended and minimally disturbed soil. I, too, have encountered shrubs and trees -- many years on sometimes -- that most likely failed due to irreparably encircled or distorted roots.

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago

    That you don't seem to notice the same things happening with roses indicates that field studies with other "landscape shrubs and trees" aren't necessarily applicable to roses.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • Embothrium
    8 years ago

    There is nothing about roses that makes them unaffected by the physics of how water moves through soils. The problem with amending of planting holes is how it affects the movement of water into and out of the area of different texture the amending creates. All of the supposedly significant variables being thrown up are not significant.

    Amending of planting holes and small beds is a rosarian sacred cow, that has no basis in fact. It is possible to find people online who will argue for amending of planting hole backfill and other disproven practices until the cows come home.

  • nikthegreek
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Last time I'm going to say this. IT DEPENDS. It is a complex multi-variant problem as everything that has to to with soil is. If you soil is **itty you might as well try your best.. The history of man is full of people who thought in terms of absolutes.. Quoting 'research' when people have first hand experience is somewhat... I don't know how to put it politely due to my limited English skills.. so I will refrain.. 'nough said..

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Nik, I agree. He says studies show no benefit, or even negative effects, from amending holes. But these studies involve non-rose shrubs and trees which have significant rootballs, say 15gal. I explain that many people buy roses as immature plants with tiny root systems, i.e. bands, and that in soil like mine, those baby roots simply can't penetrate the unamended compacted hard clay that is my "native unamended soil". I say they need to be grown-on for a bit, either in a pot or in an amended hole, before they have "the stuff" to generate roots strong enough to go through hard clay. I cite examples of the few bands I planted directly, how they're the same size a year later. This is in contrast to bands I potted up first, giving the same effect as an "amended planting hole" but above-ground -- almost all of these roses have grown like gangbusters. Still, he cites studies performed elsewhere in different soil with different types of plants that are much larger at planting time than band-sized roses, as though that somehow negates what happened here.

    So perhaps other people can say it for me.

    http://www.sustainable-gardening.com/plants/shrubs-and-trees/time-to-bust-this-myth-do-not-amend-soil-when-planting-trees

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • nikthegreek
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Btw, Mr Embothrium, since I was peeking around in other places, I'm not sure what you're doing here with us 'rose nuts' and 'people resistant to other information'. Maybe you will find it healthier to take your greatness back to other forums? Personally I'm all for a good dicussion, even disagreement, and there are grains, even bushels, of truth in all statements made by anyone in a debate but, I'll be honest, it's the attitude I don't like. That and your absolutist AND static statements. It's always frustrating when one realizes one's debating with someone who just doesn't get that yeah you got it, maybe you knew it already, but you've just moved forward!

    There, I showed the nasty side of Nik one more time. I think it's due to the stormy weather..

  • Buford_NE_GA_7A
    8 years ago

    Is this thread cursed? It reminds me of the epic rant filled thread about manure. Yes, poop.

    I get the issue of creating the 'swimming pool' effect by amending holes. However, what most rosarians do is amend a large swath beyond the hole. I am planting a new bed. I first loosen and turn over the first 12 inches of soil (in this case, red clay). I remove any tree roots, rocks and clay pieces that I cannot crunch in my hand. I then try to dig down another 12 inches and do the same. I then add in my amendments and manually till it together. Then I dig holes and add more amendments in the holes (if the rose was potted, I add in all the potting soil. I do separate the roots and shake them free of any soil before I plant them. Then I top off each hole with the newly amended soil. I then may top with more amendments, compost, composted manure and leaves and pine straw. By this time, I have a mound about one foot higher than it used to be. That will sink down of course. But by doing this I have broken up the clay so that there will be more water running freely to and from the rose. I have also raised up the plantings to assist with drainage. Not to mention added nutrients for the rose. I am sorry but there is no way in holy hell that planting the same rose in the pure clay would be as effective. I have done that as too and it never ends well. It sounds like your experiences are with extremely pot bound plants and I agree they will not spread out because their roots are stunted by the pot. It doesn't really have anything to do with the hole or the amendments. That is why I always shake all the soil off the roots of potted plants to see the condition of the roots and many times remove gnarled or curled roots. You also have to keep in mind that serious rosarians do water and fertilize their roses regularly. The amended soil makes that a lot easier.


  • nikthegreek
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    That's exactly what I meant when I said that yes we've got it and moved further.. But some people are resistant to new information..

    Btw, I have encountered pot bound plants but no roses. Don't know why, that's just my experience which for me is worth more than a thousand Embothrium posts. I have planted roses directly in the ground with the root ball intact, not even loosened, after having the rose in a pot for 3 years. I have bare-rooted them. I have even cut the rootball horizontally in half with a saw and planted the upper part. Whatever I have done, I have never had a problem.

    /rant on

    What I have a problem with is alkalinity in my soil and no organic matter to speak of. Strictly speaking my topsoil (defined as mineral stuff mixed in with organic matter) is an inch thick, if that. In reality my topsoil cannot be distinguished from subsoil. Plus it's full of nice limestones and native plant roots. Any hole I dig is occupied in half by stones. Even if I didn't want to amend I would have to have something to backfill once I removed the stones...

    What water table? The one that's 60 feet down and from which I have to pump my hard water to irrigate? No worries about my 'holes' being flooded here..

    All that's very common in med maquis type conditions. Native plants do not need much organic matter (in fact they hate it) and their roots will take advantage of the tiniest rock split or grow 2 inches from the surface to distances unheard of for a rose. How's 100 or 150 feet for a fig tree? 50ft for a Pistachia lentiscus? 60 or more feet for a Pinus halepensis? 30 feet for a youngish olive tree? Are these even plants that you've ever seen Mr. Embothrium? Have you ever seen a rosemary plant spreading its roots to 20 feet? I'm sure it doesn't need to where you garden.

    Now, spare me the irrelevant research and the superiorly enlightened but patronizing attitude. I may be resistant to new information but I would challenge anybody not resistant to it to come and grow roses in my place. I suppose the PNW is different and so is East Anglia.. (for the latter I'm sure since I've lived there).

    /rant off

  • Campanula UK Z8
    Original Author
    8 years ago

    I think you will find that Embothrium, aka Bboy has been posting on this forum a whole lot longer than you, Nik. You really can't let it go can you.

  • catspa_NoCA_Z9_Sunset14
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    What Embothrium says about planting natives and quasi-natives is backed by scientific evidence and are the among the principles governing the practice of ecological restoration. He has been putting these ideas forward on this forum for some years now and they are, indeed, worth consideration for some rosarians, many of whom have undoubtedly wasted time, money, and effort, often to negative effect (in inadvertently creating worse conditions) by amending soils that would have been better for roses, long-term, if left alone. (OT thought: This is an all-too-human trait; consider, for example, the ridiculous sums of money spent on vitamins and food supplements, the vast majority of which mainly go to making urine more expensive rather than to optimizing health since, despite people's perceptions, they are not really needed and must be discarded by the kidneys...If it's meddling versus leaving well enough alone, guess which one humans generally chose!)

    However, many of us (self included) do try to grow roses where they really aren't inclined to grow at all and do manage to kludge together some system of modifying the habitat so that they will at least survive, for better or worse. I can't see how Nik, Dr. Manners, and other passionate lovers of roses on this forum could grow roses other than by amending, given their soil conditions. And, what's wrong with that? Nothing! But, because amending has become such a lock-step practice over centuries of rose culture, whether needed or not, it is actually more interesting to hear the experiences of those who grow roses and DON'T amend.

  • nikthegreek
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Camps, if someone cannot let go is you obviously.. I've been terribly polite to you up to now considering your attitude here towards others and also towards me in particular, here and in the other forum. Now, let us be in peace if you don't mind.

  • catspa_NoCA_Z9_Sunset14
    8 years ago

    Christopher, with due respect (your garden is obviously thriving!), you keep focussing on the 15-gal thing, but the principles Embothrium states actually apply to any size plant and studies are out there for all sizes. It was the studies you found, apparently, that were relevant to 15-gal (perhaps I have misread your post)? Actually, I personally will not plant any thing larger than a gallon size intact, including roses, because it is too hard to successfully reconcile the differences between potting soils and either native and/or amended soils in a satisfactory way, in particular if larger than a gallon. If larger than a gallon, I bare-root roses.

    Maybe it is because my field, ecology, is a rather combative one, but I didn't find Embothrium's posts overly hard-line. In fact, he stated, 'I'm not one of those saying "Oh you have to do this and you have to do that or they won't live!".' It is simply another perspective, with support, albeit emphatically stated.

  • Buford_NE_GA_7A
    8 years ago

    I am interested in reading the experiences of others. However, even you admit that we are not growing natives or plants that we are just going to plop in the ground and let them go. We are planting the garden primma donnas. Sure a rose might survive plumped down in a clay hole, but it's not going to perform as well as one in amended soil. While I don't agree with removing all of the native soil, I do think most native soil needs to be amended or simply just tilled and opened up to grow roses successfully. Think of roses as fruit. You wouldn't expect a tomato plant that was just plopped in native soil to produce as many tomatoes as one in amended soil, would you? So why expect that of roses? We don't grow them for the foliage. BTW, I don't think rose growers are any different than any specialized plant growers like day lilies, irises, dahlias or other showy type flowers.

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Catspa, I deleted my post because I didn't want to get into it any further. And I don't dislike ANYONE on this thread, so please don't take this personally. I'm merely disagreeing with the benefits of the application here. I'm reposting what I deleted below:

    Actually, Embothrium/Bboy seems unable to "let it go". This thread
    started off asking "who does(n't)" amend their soil. It wasn't a
    question of whether or not people should. You asked if we already
    do. And that's what rubs people the wrong way -- having someone else
    unfamiliar with one's conditions come in and say "you're wrong, because
    these studies say so", despite having no negative effects from his/her
    actions, and despite the studies cited being about much larger shrubs
    and trees going in the ground than the smaller-sized roses many of us
    are getting. And this isn't the first thread about planting holes in
    which Embothrium/Bboy shared his "gardening myths" links. That actually
    goes back several years.

    So to reiterate briefly, I understand the ideas shown in the studies posted, as they relate to the plants used. However, in my conditions, planting band-sized roses in my unamended hard red clay yields far inferior results compared to when I plant them first in an amended mix above-ground, i.e. potting them up. Band-sized roses simply don't, in my experience, have the resources to produce roots which can penetrate my native unamended soil, so I give them a "boost" by potting them up. This, to me, provides a similar effect to "amending the planting hole" for such small roses. As I zone-push a bit, it's even more important that band-sized roses arriving in Spring have enough bulk to get through Winter. Repeating that better results were found experimentally in other conditions using larger shrubs and trees in unamended planting holes does not negate what happens here. I've tried it that way, and I prefer what I get from doing it another way -- plain and simple.

    And in any case, considering everything I've been dumping on top of the soil in the beds, by the time the roses' roots start extending beyond their planting holes, they're encountering soil that's improved, and will continue to improve. Since the same attention isn't generally given to "landscape shrubs and trees", the effects noted in those situations again don't really apply to what's going on in my beds. I mean, how often do people maintain a 6-8" deep layer of organic material around their "landscape shrubs and trees"?

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • ingrid_vc so. CA zone 9
    8 years ago

    In the spirit of scientific inquiry I'm going to plant the only rose that's left in its 4-inch pot, International Herald Tribune, in my native decomposed granite without any amendments whatsoever. I will mulch the rose since the sun will otherwise dry out the soil and will water as I normally do, and that will be the extent of my coddling.

    One thing I have noticed time and time again is that even the sturdiest, oldest roses do not have roots that spread far and wide. The bigger roses will have much thicker roots and more of them, but even the healthiest and largest of them don't have roots that range far and wide.

    Even if this experiment turns out to be successful, it doesn't in any way prove that someone gardening in solid clay or in what is essentially a rock pile will be equally successful. We are all in essence scientists in our own gardens, and I have at least 100 discarded roses to show for what does and doesn't work, some of it being the choice of plants that was a mistake, some the site that was chosen and some that had only minimal amendments. My fastest-growing roses have been those purchased in spring of this year which have grown like gangbusters, to the point where I had to move Duchesse de Brabant from its middle position in the bed to the far back when it had grown to over five feet in a matter of months and was blooming copiously. These plants had more amendments than I've ever used before and the roses seem to love it. Time will tell if these roses continue to grow at this rate. I'll keep you posted.

  • ingrid_vc so. CA zone 9
    8 years ago

    I do have one concern before I plant IHT. My native soil (as much as you can call decomposed granite soil) is completely devoid of any worms or other forms of insect life. Camps, Embrothrium, anyone else, would it be advisable to plant a rose in a medium that does not support any sort of life?

  • Anne Zone 7a Northern CA
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    I have very very sandy volcanic soil and dig a large hole (far too easily) and mix the sand with some rose amendment when I have some and organics from the oak, cedar and cedar part of the forest which crates it's own composted organics. A little organic food now and again. The sandy soil does not hold water for any length of time at all so adding the organics helps retain some moisture around the roots. In areas with lots of forest duff, I just mix that in. Having worked in soils engineering as a tech on construction sites for my career I can tell you that most subdivisions in California have been stripped of any good soil and what they plunk back on the rocky or sandstoney soil as topsoil is the grass that couldn't be put in the fill. Basically the soil gets turned upside down and there are minimal nutrients in most of the soil left. I have seen cut pads that you would have to jackhammer any holes for plants, something my husband did on their cut lot before we married. Since then I have chosen what I buy by how easily I can dig ;). My chosen town has much water and my property has a year-round creek through it. So much water they are allowing a bottling plant into our small town even after Nestle was kicked out. (not my idea folks). Pure Mountain Spring water, untreated because it doesn't need to be 38 degrees, year round out of our taps. Heaven. In California.


  • catspa_NoCA_Z9_Sunset14
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Yes, Christopher and Buford, there are roses that require pampering (one reason I don't grow Austins or many hybrid teas), but there are also roses that seem to do fine without it. I have found the tea-noisettes (MAC, Jaune Desprez, Celine Forestier, Alister Stella Grey) to be very good at growing in less than stellar soils with little if any amendment, no mulching (have never gotten around to it), no regular fertilizer (a few handfuls of alfalfa pellets every year or two), or any other special treatment beyond irrigation and allowing them all the time they need to fully mature. If you recall the photos of these I have posted on this forum in the past, I don't think they looked deprived. In fact, they drive me crazy with their vigor. Ditto some teas and Chinas. Found roses are also pretty good at dealing with less-than-optimal conditions and a somewhat lazy gardener, i.e., my garden ;-).

    Any rose that wants to stay with me doesn't expect pampering and IS treated, basically, like a landscape tree or shrub (except that more pruning is called for, usually), though I do have amended beds in the core of the garden where less-burly roses reside and also do well (but also are not mulched and rarely fertilized). This is a main reason why I am willing to entertain the idea that, in some cases, following a path of no soil amendment is not as crazy or threatening as it sounds. But, as everyone points out, you can't grow them on rocks or in pure sand, or in other extreme conditions, without doing something.

    I do agree that getting roses up to a certain size before putting them in the ground improves their odds and I never directly plant a band -- it's a tough world out there, especially in suburban lots where, as Anne points out, anything resembling real topsoil has usually left the premises or been buried beyond return. Your experiment should prove interesting, Ingrid, though I would dispute your idea that your decomposed granite doesn't support life, though I suspect it may not support IHT very well. Many folks think the Mohave Desert is impoverished as far as life goes, but I can verify that actually it is teeming -- just not a "rose" kind of life.

  • nikthegreek
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    This NON-discussion has been going on for ever in these forums, much before my time, usually aggrevated by the same person. I object to people with non-flexible opinionated attitudes. Usually these people start from having a good point but then try to establish and defend this as a universal truth though no such thing exists in the range of subjects we are dealing with here which are full of buts and ifs and compromises. The best answer I was able to seek out in such a discussion in these forums was given back in 2010 and I quote it below. Guess who's written it..

    I could endlessly add to a list of things that imo should not be taken as universal truths. Organic mulching, putting ammendments on the soil rather than in it (for both the difference that climate and type of plant make is so huge that what is good practice for one case makes it a very bad practice for another. Just watch how far organic stuff travel through the soil in a typical Med maquis environment - just a couple of inches and that after a few years or check native Med plant reaction to organic muching: most horrible death by rot, climatic conditions make sure that most of the nitrogen content of any organic ammendments put on rather than in the ground escapes to the air before having a chance to enter the soil, organics are not decomposed but they just dry up etc etc) yadda, yadda, yadda.

    So, whether roots are or are not capable of escaping an amended hole, weather slow escape is indeed better than direct exposure to the native environment or the implications of differences in water movement between two mediums are only 2 of a zillion of contradictory phenomena that are soil, climate and plant dependent. But I usually resist the urge to go into these matters in my posts and I seldom do because I know how complex this stuff is. For me, this is the end of this 'discussion' which I will try my best to avoid entering in the future, unless it is about a very specific situation or garden problem which I'm familiar and experienced with and for which I may feel I can offer my 2cents worth of knowledge. Generic discussions are useless imo. Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα, Plato's punch line attributed to Socrates, should be seriously considered in generic soil related 'discussions' in my view..


    Quote from an old thread...

    'Good grief! From my view, on this soil amendment thing, everybody
    here is at least part right. In my field (restoration ecology), the
    practice for native plants is to dig a hold barely large enough for the
    rootball and shove it in the ground, firmly. The idea is if it can't
    survive in the native soil, you don't want it to survive, really. For
    bare-root fruit trees and roses in my own yard, I have also ceased
    amending the soil because plants seem to establish faster and grow just
    as well over the long run. However, if I have a rose in a gallon pot in a
    peat or firbark-based potting soil and just plop it into my rather
    euphemistically named "gravelly loam" ("someone" forgot to include the
    "clay" part in the soil series name...), my experience is that the rose
    often struggles to establish -- for one thing, the potting soil is very
    difficult to keep hydrated during the summer months. It seems to me that
    here the roses do better with at least a minimally amended transition
    zone between the potting soil and my native soil -- sort of a "half-way
    house", I guess. But not deeply. As Kaylah observes, a foot seems good
    enough (avoids the settling problem), and as the mantra in plant ecology
    goes, "most" of the roots are in the first 8 inches, anyway (I wouldn't
    take that literally, but it seems to work in practice, at least). I
    avoid 5-gallon pots like the plague because it is just too much hard
    work to mediate the differences between that much potting soil and my
    soil -- it takes eternity (well, years) for those plants to really
    become established. I suppose one could just knock those roses out of
    the pot in the "dormant" season (which is when, in the Bay Area?) and
    plant them all bare-root, but that would seem to unnecessarily constrain
    the planting season, and it seems to me that a well-planted gallon
    gives just as good results.

    The problem I have with the "horticultural myths" site linked by bboy
    is that, if you read the papers, Linda Chalker-Scott is often not
    really talking about "myths" so much as "ideas that are not universally
    applicable". For example, the usefulness of gypsum is not a "myth" on
    semi-arid, alkaline clay soils here in California -- it's a standard
    recommendation accompanying tests results from reputable, scientific,
    soil testing labs. Linda Chalker-Scott says as much in that paper, but
    using the word "myth" in the heading likely gives people the impression
    that using gypsum is never correct. It isn't, in many places, but in
    some places it is. And, sometimes amendment is also probably a good
    thing -- dedicated gardeners, at least, usually figure out by trial and
    error what works on their patch of ground. A favorite phrase used by
    ecologists is "it depends", knowing that universal prescriptions are
    often risky (there's an ecologist who likes to make very broad
    statements about grasslands based on his admittedly great research in
    Minnesota; as an ecologist working in Califonia's grasslands, I have
    often had a bone to pick with him). '

  • nikthegreek
    8 years ago

    Ingrid, with regards to your question, the only advice I can offer is to test your soil to a depth of about 14 inches for the organic matter it contains. Anything with more than 2-3% of organic matter content is generally considered a non-infertile soil so to speak, appropriate for growing plants, not sure about the IHT.. Plants, in general, need much less organic matter to grow than is generaly believed by gardeners, as long as the soil contains the right nutrients and is of appropriate pH for the particular plants.

  • daisyincrete Z10? 905feet/275 metres
    8 years ago

    For me, I tend to look at what I have got, and act accordingly. When I lived in Cornwall, I had a deep sandy loam. I planted masses of roses, clematis and other plants and did not add anything to the soil, either at planting time or later. This is part of my old garden in Cornwall.

    Here in Crete however, I do have a sandy, loam topsoil, in part, but it is barely 1 spit deep. So for roses and clematis, the plants that I call the greedy guts, I treat them differently. I, or rather my DH, digs a large deep hole. I then mix in with the yellow sub soil, a lot of donkey manure. I then place a cardboard box in the hole, and plant the rose into the cardboard box, using the soil that has been dug out. Sometimes I also top dress with more donkey manure. This seems to work for me. I only do this for the roses and clematis, not for anything else.

    I both want and expect a lot of roses from my plants. So to get that, I give them the wherewithal to produce for me.

    Daisy

  • catspa_NoCA_Z9_Sunset14
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    "I know that I know nothing." Perfect, Nik! Thanks for resurrecting my old response -- I could have saved myself a lot of time writing on this one if I remembered that I had already written that one (with me, it seems, it's not only "Tempus fugit" but also "Mens fugit"....). Everyone needs to evaluate their own situation, because each situation is unique and one essentially does "know nothing" a priori . For me here, huge, elaborate soil amendment became a thing of the past, probably in one part because I won't grow roses that require it and in the other part because I have found it generally unnecessary for the kinds of roses I like to grow so, at most, minimal amendment to make a foothold or "half-way house" of sorts for young plants is the practice. That's what made me excited about Camps' original proposition (and I was particularly enthralled with hearing how Chinas are faring in her woods so far - wonderful).

    A follow-up observation since the above excerpt was written, involving some tea-noisette plants that I considered expendable at the time of their planting and so did not bother with any soil amendment at all, is that it is also possible to grow a totally healthy rose without amendment (or much after-care) at all, here. 'Celine Forestier', in particular, is an amazing story, as I relegated the gallon-size plant to a sorry, unimproved spot in the back of the lot under a Schinus molle tree (talk about invasive roots!), since the plant was in such bad shape that I expected it to die. Ten years later, it is a beautiful, well-blooming rose, holding its own against MAC (which, as a duplicate was also planted without soil amendment and is now 20'+ up the pepper tree) on one side and 'Reve d'Or' on the other. That part of the yard is basically subsoil with 1" veneer of topsoil sediment eroded down from the neighbors on the hill above and all of it produces an alkali bloom on the surface.

    As Christopher no doubt discovered upon reading Linda Chalker-Scott's coffee grounds "Myth" article, it is not really a debunking but a discussion of what is known and unknown (I like her papers, by the way -- just wish she would not use the generally misleading term "myth" in the titles to, I guess, grab attention). I am interested in Christopher's experiment re the rate at which coffee grounds can be incorporated with benefit. His observations so far in line with what Charles Darwin observed, as related in his last book, "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms", that the castings of worms add approximately 0.2" to the surface of the soil each year (explains the "sinking" of ancient monuments, etc.) and mixes subsurface soil with whatever is on the surface. In part explains why, too, mulches may not do much in drier Med. climes as far as incorporating organic matter go -- earthworms are nowhere near the surface here during the summer months, for one thing -- only reappear in the winter months.

    Daisy's donkey dung method in Crete sounds almost romantic (and obviously works!)...I wish I had donkey dung...

    All in all, I have found this thread an informative fountain of ideas. Ecologists like nothing better than a great, free-flowing argument. ;-) (I also liked Christopher's parrot quote so much that I am now reading Twain's Following the Equator.)

  • ingrid_vc so. CA zone 9
    8 years ago

    All I can add is that I want a donkey!

  • Buford_NE_GA_7A
    8 years ago

    I never said that not amending is a crazy idea. But what I did find crazy that there is no 'proof' that it improves the output of the plant being amended. That, I believe, is patently untrue.

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago

    Unless, of course, we're talking about shrubs and trees of larger sizes than bands, which are planted in soil already capable of supporting them. When I see sidewalks being raised by tree roots in my neighborhood, I have no doubt about how tough those species are. However, I highly doubt your average garden rose will be capable of doing that.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • nikthegreek
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Catspa, it gets extremely dry and pretty shady under my Schinus Molle. Maybe I'll take your advice and plant something under there to see what happens.. Problem is there's also Pinus halepensis, Pinus pinea and Pinus canariensis nearby.... Oleander was struggling in that spot.. Only Myoporum insulare could grow for me there..

    Daisy's trick, to add strong organic amendment (usually some kind of pretty uncomposted manure) at the bottom of the hole in the hope that when the roots grow that far they will find a well composted (mostly anaerobically mind you...) source of nutrients is a traditional way of planting olive trees in the Med. If one reads English horticulturalists, that goes against all sense. Time after time I've read that there's no point in adding organics deep since organics will 'seep in' to adequate depth in time and they need aerobic conditions to be composted well. Well, all I can say is that there's England and then there's the Med...

  • Buford_NE_GA_7A
    8 years ago

    Christopher, Dr. Huey can probably do it. I dug up one rose that had a root 12 feet long horizontally across the bed (in clay).

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    8 years ago

    Well, it is the rootstock recommended for heavy clay.....but my roses are all own-root here.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • titian1 10b Sydney
    8 years ago

    I feel compelled to add to this thread, as I feel upset for Campanula. Yes, she got heated. Yes, she was a little rude (I, too, thought 'buffoons' funny, and quite mild really). But, she wasn't nasty, and she apologised more than once, and her point is valid.

    I'm unlikely to stop amending, but I've taken it on board that, in my soil, I may well be wasting my time and money.

    Trish

  • Buford_NE_GA_7A
    8 years ago

    One thing that is very important is PH. If you have a PH that is too high or too low, your roses are not going to be able to absorb certain nutrients. That alone is reason to amend.