Rose sick soil.

I don't know so much about now because of spending cuts, but a few years ago new ones were introduced fairly regularly. I know this because it was quite a point of pride to add to the collection.

 

So this in turn suggests that there is nothing in the soil there to create sickness or the new shrubs wouldn't have been planted there, but maybe no others had been dug out in the past.

 

The most 'active' time I remember the rose gardens, fresh (very fresh, often still steaming) horse poo was being added to the beds every few weeks, and an actual team of gardeners could be seen tending to the roses, and even as a child I remember being impressed. In fact when my mam took my older sister and I to the park, the very first thing we wanted to do was check out the rose gardens to see what was new. That always happened even before going to the play apparatus or feeding the ducks.

 

It will be interesting to hear if the RNRS can shed some light. If Clueless is correct and thinks the addition of loadsa mare's best is a help against the problem then I do have a good chance of success. I am going to do the cardboard box idea and move a good few shovel fulls of soil out of the planting holes and replace with John Innes no 3 and some well rotted compost on top of the equine byproduct. If that doesn't work I will not be pleased!!

 

OK let's shed some light
Soil sickness does exist. It only affects new roses planted where other roses have been. (all members of rosacae can be affected)
Good soil conditions (regular and correct feeding plus mulching of the old rose and then of the new rose) will drastically reduce the effects. So that means if you plant a new rose in the same starved soil as the old one you're going to have trouble. If you're concerned about how good your soil is try the cardboard box method, it definitely reduces the probability of soil sickness. Always use mycchorrizal fungi, it's expensive but will help the roses grow. Hi Noisette, you know Ann Bird? She's a good friend of ours, she would probably tell you to ask me! There have been many heated discussions about this with no real resolution so I would say in conclusion

1. Always remove a good amount of soil (dig a big hole)
2. Plant the rose in a cardboard box (a big one) with fresh soil in which roses have not been grown
3. Sprinkle mycchorizal fungi on the bare roots of the new rose
4. Into the planting mix add some feed (Fish blood and bone or general rose fertilizer)
5. Firm new rose into hole and box
6. Mulch with 4" of good, well-rotted farmyard manure
7. Do all this in the late Autumn/early Spring

Always feed roses when new shoots appear, remember if it doesn't rain then the granular feed will not work as well. Therefore water well and foliar feed (regularly) with something like Tomorite and all should be well.
Well fed roses are happy roses! Don't worry about science - enjoy the roses!

Oh and I nearly forgot perhaps the most important thing . . . . . . . DO NOT expect cheap, special offer, plastic wrapped supermarket or any dodgy old rose to do as well as a recently bred healthy rose. New varieties, from specialist rose growers are bred for health. They are the ones that will give you what you want. . . . . . loads of lovely blooms on vigorous bushes.

Even Sebastian Vettal wouldn't win a grand prix in Dell boy's Reliant Robin!

 

If you plant almost ANY plant in starved soil you are going to have trouble. So it seems we're still exactly where we were, nothing but anecdotal 'evidence' with a total absence of science to back it up.

 

Anecdotal if you like, but based on experience. I have seen roses fail when given a good start with fresh soil in a site that has grown roses before. Although I have no scientific proof I have seen the effect that not completely changing the soil in a large area has. This has been particularly apparent when a pot grown rose is plonked into the soil. All the attention in the world, after planting, does not seem to stop this apparent soil sickness. One of the scientific answers is that nemotodes remain in the soil after the removal of the old rose and they attack the new roots before they have time to establish. I don't need to hit my thumb with a hammer to find out that it's going to hurt. Some one did it before me and told me?
Sometimes you just have to decide on a plan and stick to it. Personally I don't want to see expensive plants whither in front of my eyes when I could do something about it.
Just my opinion.

By the way Clueless (and I don't believe you are) I do trust science, I work in the health industry, but sometimes I just go with my gut feelings. It certainly works for my roses.

 

There's a very informative article linked to on this very thread that shows the findings of a fairly thorough scientific analysis. The conclusion was that nobody knows. They tested for various soil microbes and found no significant difference between soil that had grown roses and soil that hadn't.

I don't doubt your experience and that of others that claim the existence of this soil lurgy, but because my experience differs, I'm just trying to get to the truth of it, for no other reason than that I'm one of those strange people that feels the need to understand everything if it interests me at all There's no point knowing half a story is my opinion.

So, what are the possibilities realistically?
* Harmful microbes? One study found this not to be the case
* Soil starvation? Possible, but not if the soil is well looked after
* Bad soil structure? Again, as above
* Some sort of growth inhibiting chemical produced by rose roots? This has been suggested, and indeed there are some plants that are known to do this as a way of competing against other plants, even of the same species, but as far as I know, nobody has found such a chemical in roses.

If it was nematodes or some chemical, would that not prevent the cardboard box method from working? Cardboard breaks down quite quickly in moist soil, and roots develop very fast. It wouldn't be long at all before the cardboard barrier became useless as either it breaks down naturally, is munch my soil organisms, or is breached by the roots of the plant it contains. If it is some chemical exuded by the roots of roses, then assuming it is water soluble, which I think it would have to be for that sort of process, then it would simply leach through the cardboard anyway, and if it was micro-organisms, would then not be dragged along on slugs and snails and worms and simply mixed all about anyway?

 

I'm glad you pointed this out because I don't get the cardboard box bit either. Unless there's some sort of substance in cardboard that would counter the effects of sick soil? This I doubt but I'm open to being corrected on this.