TRANSPLANTING DAFFODILS.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 9943, 24 January 1898, Page 7

TRANSPLANTING DAFFODILS.

"To lift or not to lift." Few horticul luiftl operations have caused more dispute thro the one—whether to lift our Daffodils annually or leave them untouched for three or even five years, and to this day the question appears to be unsettled. Here are the opinions of a grower, given in the columns of the Garden, who strongly advocaUs the "leave alone" practice. After premising that in trade establishments annual lifting is of course a necessity, the writer proceeds:— "My own experience is against the frequent transplanting of Narcissi. I never by .*ny chanco obtain flowers of such good quality from bulbs that have been moved as from those that have been two or three years undisturbed. It may be urged that when the bulbs are lifted after blooming they are apt to remain rather too long out of the soil, and I am free to own that it does frequently happen that replanting is deferred until autumn is fairly advanced. When the bulbs are not set out until late in the year it is easy to understand that roots are not so abundant as is the case with undisturbed bulbs. Narcissi commence to push out roots quite early in autumn, so that if out of the soil for some weeks after that time, there must be some loss of strength. It docs, however, seem stranpe that this ehould be the case when it is a question of removal only. One would think that there could be absolutely no diminution in the blooming powers of bulbs thattttt simply transferred from one place to toother. According to my experience, how•vot, thi9 is exactly just what does happen, last autumn, for instance, I removed some Wtabliuhed clumps of Horsfieldi, Emperor, and others. The bulbs were just beginning to show roots, and they were very carefully lifted and replanted at once. Some few bulbs wire overlooked, and the difference in the quality of the blooms they produced was *»ry striking. On the transplanted bulbs the flower-stems were much shorter, and the flowers one-sixth less in size. In a general way I am convinced that aethmg is pained by frequent transplanting, **•« that the best results are gained by P»ntjng the bulbs some Bin apart and allowing them to remain several years undisturbed. I grow such kinds as Horsfieldi, *ro»eror, cernuus, obvallaris, Empress, and jHfWatkin for cut bloom, and my plan has **» to set the bulbs out at the abovejMntioned distance in 4ft beds, allowing J™>>n to remain about five years, and my results are obtained after tho second y«*r from planting. Sir Watkin this spring **? v"? fine » better than * ever had '*» wu the bulbs were planted four years ago. AU my experience of Daffodil culture has j** o'gained0 'gained on a light loamy soil, and it may J* mat in the case of soil of an opposite frequent transplanting may be or, indeed, in the case of some «ods rarely necessary. This is a matter J**t every grower of these bulbous flowers «"> easily determine for himself, as in the c of a couple of seasons a definite ■*•*« mifiht be arrived at. Five years f8« one single bulb of poeticus ornatus f*PPttied to be planted in a small ™°ro*r where miscellaneous things are p w *n. The bulb was a good one, aa good j" appearance as any that come from leading jpwers of this family. It produced a w>*er g„~h ft 3 j g g er , era iiy brought into Invent Garden, and made a good growth. "*••*» however, been very interesting to Wtethe sure, but gradual, increase of this oulb - It has formed a clump that this n*."g bore twenty flowers. It is ■« only that the number of bulbs "«• increased, but there has been a 'jv correß P on^'n K increase in vigour. Vt„ m lßOll the flower-stems were 2£ft high, >th blooms of finer quality than I ever saw JJ» "«wly.pu rc hased bulbs—finer, indeed, '°an l ever saw before of this Narcissus. Had * Planted an equal number of the best a »ty bulbs last autumn, I am confident J*« I should not have had a similar result. tJ Wvw fu,l y realised what a grand thing f""°«P8 is until I caw it in ♦the J**.of established clumps J~K flo werß were one-third larger than those Ij*<wic«d by bulbs which I obtained from a ™«abl. source, and that were plauted the Pwvious autumn. The latter have remained "•Khsturbed for three years, and are j£"«ually taking on the character that jV'tinguighes this Daffodil in its highest »««# of development. In the face of such •acta, one may doubt the wisdom of the JM"»al lifting that is practised by those who POW in quantity for cut bloom. The expense « lifting and replanting an acre of Daffodils ■ considerable, and tbe advantage derivai.

therefrom appears to mc to be very doubtful. After all, the frequent disturbance is unnatural in the case of such a perfectly hardy bulbous flower. The common Lent Lily in meadow and copse, and the old double naturalised in grass and woodland, are object i lessons which ought to guide us in this [ matter." It would not be difficult, by searching a few files of horticultural journals, to obtain I opinions, also from qualified men, in favour of annual lifting and re-planting. It would prove a useful guide to the ordinary amateur gardeners could the opinions of some of our ! lar_*e colonial growers and exhibitors be elicited on this apparently much vexed question, from a New Zealand point of view.