Flowering rate

Hello All,

Every year brings a new challenge and unexpected results. In the over 50
years that I have been growing daffodils seriously something different seems
to happen! This year it was flowering rate. My stock is divided almost
equally with half being lifted each year. This year my two year down stock
had a flowering rate of 90% plus which is usual. However the one year
down’s flowering rate was well down at about 50 – 60%. The bulbs that we
planted were all big enough to make me believe that a flower would be inside
all of them. My standard practice is to give the lifted bulbs three hours
HWT at 100 degrees Fahrenheit. We have very little in the way of fly
problems and no nematodes, hence the lower than recommended temperature
rate. In the past the flowering rate was very high so I do not think that
the explanation is the HWT. We followed our usual practice of obtaining
soil tests and putting on the fertilizer required pre-planting. The foliage
is very healthy and only a few had to be rouged with basal rot.

Has anyone else experienced this phenomenon? I would be particularly
interested in responses from our Dutch members as every bulb in their
plantings which we visited in 2008 seemed to have a flower on it!! Very
impressive. The flowering rate in England and Ireland also looked to be
very high.

Any ideas anyone? John Mac, what was your and Holly’s rate?

Still a few flowers about – I endorse Jason’s comments on Tanzey Girl. We
have some lovely flowers of it, plus Flash Spice (flowering three weeks
later than usual), Lily Grace (a lovely pink recently imported), Outline and
several others. The Central Group’s idea of an informal late,late show is a
good one.

Cheers,

Peter

Post navigation

2 comments for “Flowering rate

  1. Hi Peter,

    I cannot say what is happening in your case as I am sure you have much more experience with HWT then I, but I have found that bloom can be dramatically affected by small changes in time, temp, or chemical additions. A few years ago, I read that a pre-soak with a wetting agent at ~70°, before HWT improved the process. So I thought a little Dawn dishing washing detergent would be a great, cheap wetting agent, and used a small amount in the pre-soak. The bulbs were then transferred to the HWT tub at 110°F with 0.0625% formalin for three hours (which is my standard procedure). About 10% bloomed the following spring! The following year the bulbs recovered and bloomed normally. Another time, I extending the HWT to 4 hours (not the plan, but happened), and got fewer blooms the following spring. Last year, I experimented with bleach on a few bulbs instead of formalin in the HWT and got no blooms (but it wasn’t a controlled experiment, as I didn’t measure the quantity of bleach and I planted these bulbs late). I guess what I am learning is that there is a fine line between a beneficial HWT and a HWT that damages next seasons blooms. Of course, if there was a pest problem, most of us would sacrifice blooms to save the bulbs, but if using HWT to “shape up” the blooms, you want blooms!

    John Bukowski

    Potomac, IL

  2. Hi John, Thanks for your interesting comments. My guess is that
    temperature fluctuation may have something to do with it. My HWT unit
    does have a good pump and the water is circulated. I check the thermostat
    every year and also have a calibrated dairy thermometer that remains at
    the top of the tank and is checked regularly. For all that I suspect that
    the bottom of the tank may get warmer than the rest. I haven’t varied the
    chemical additive for years – formalin and Sportak – so I doubt that it is
    a chemical reaction. What interests me is that some varieties had no
    flowers, others had almost 100% flowering and then there was a range of
    rates. The good news is that the foliage is great! Another interesting
    point that may be made – when Jim O’More got nematodes he hammered the bulbs
    with HWT. Quite a high proportion didn’t grow at all, but a year later
    popped up and gave lovely flowers!

    Thanks again – it has caused the gray matter ro get active.

    Cheers,

    Peter

    _____

Comments are closed.