|
Post by merlin on May 11, 2011 16:30:39 GMT
For the last few days I've watched my flowers get battered in the wind and hailstone. It occurred to me that Nature wouldn't have been daft enough to make such big flowers that get battered. Am I right in thinking that wild flowers are small and thus withstand the weather better?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 11, 2011 17:05:53 GMT
There are many that have been bred especially for shows or our vanity ...bigger is not always best
|
|
|
Post by wildlifefriendly on May 11, 2011 18:08:50 GMT
Nature does it best, we (the human race) are so vain we think we can improve on her creations Having said that, some of the big, blousy, colourful flowers are to die for ;D it's just a shame about all the staking and faffing.
|
|
|
Post by seaburn on May 11, 2011 20:32:11 GMT
certainly the wild ones are better adapted for insect pollinators etc. There are very few double flowers in the wild, being the mutatants that we gardners seem to like. if the flower gets battered in the wild then it cant reproduce so it is a 'strong dose of chlorine in the gene pool'
|
|
|
Post by Cherry on May 11, 2011 20:54:06 GMT
It is not just because you have chosen hybrids that you have noticed they are getting battered, you have also chosen varieties of flowers which are not natural to your part of the world at all.
I like the way Seaburn thinks of the bees. As she pointed out, single varieties of any flower are better for the bees.
|
|
|
Post by Cherry on May 11, 2011 20:55:58 GMT
Sorry Seaburn, you said better than that. You said 'insect pollinators' therefore covering more creatures.
|
|
|
Post by Fractal on May 11, 2011 22:42:35 GMT
Subject pretty much covered I think. I was going to add too ....
|
|
|
Post by merlin on May 12, 2011 7:35:56 GMT
Yes and it would appear that we're all in agreeance, just one more point about all this, on GC labels it often says how to plant ect. but I notice more and more it also says feed once a fortnight. Are they incapable of feeding for themselves, does anyone get good Roses without feeding?
|
|
|
Post by Cherry on May 12, 2011 7:48:39 GMT
I am experimenting this year and last, and even on my good soil, I notice that feeding is better for the roses, so I must not be so mean and spend on the rose food.
|
|
|
Post by grindle on May 12, 2011 7:58:22 GMT
some of my roses are pretty poor as I must admit to not feeding them too well, this year I'm religiously feeding them in the hope they will be much better
|
|
|
Post by seaburn on May 12, 2011 19:39:32 GMT
i only have a climber and apart from a winter mulch i dont feed and it is stunning.
|
|
|
Post by Geranium on May 12, 2011 19:44:43 GMT
I try to feed mine in early spring, when I mulch them with compost, then I feed them in June again.
|
|
|
Post by merlin on May 13, 2011 6:02:27 GMT
I agree that feeding roses is necessary, I'm afraid I worded my question poorly as I was referring to bedding. It's interesting to hear how we all get on with feeding generally as I can't help but wonder if so many plants are bred in such a way as to need it. Herbaceous stuff like perennials seem to do well without feeding. Cherry's experiment will be revealing. If you've got decent soil surely you should be able to manage without feeding. Early on in the year I bought 3 bags of compost and everything I used it for had to be re-potted in garden soil after which things rapidly improved. I should have known better than to buy last year's compost. I will carry on feeding my roses as I feel they are greedy but it pays off
|
|