Stuck in a rut

Once every three months a copy of The Alpine Gardener drops through my door. This is the quarterly publication of the Alpine Garden Society, a society of gardeners who are particularly interested in alpine plants, woodlanders (things like Trilliums etc.) and an interesting selection of other bits and pieces that come under the group's remit. This is most definitely a more specialised gardening society, with no interest in fruits and vegetables, trees and shrubs, or designer gardens. The society hosts dozens of shows across the UK (to which everyone is welcome). At shows there are benches full of the many interesting plants on which the society is focussed, ranging from fairly common through to extremely rare, as well as plants for sale, cakes, books, seeds... you get the picture.

The other society I'm a member of it the RHS, the Royal Horticultural Society (if you're outside the UK). The RHS is a much broader spectrum organisation, with interests in every area of horticulture. The RHS performs trials on different genera and gives best performers an Award of Garden Merit (AGM), holds big flower shows, spends bucketloads of money teaching young children to grow food, has four RHS gardens, publishes a monthly magazine....

A few months ago I began to realise that I've become a little bored with the RHS. I've been a member for over 10 years, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not RHS material any more. Yes, I do get to visit the garden at Rosemoor free of charge (but how many times can you visit before you get too familiar with even such a lovely garden?), but the magazine feels bland and uninspiring and I haven't been to an RHS show in years. When the magazine drops through the door I open it, flop out all the advertising stuff and flick through in case there's an article that interests me. I read Roy Lancaster's articles, and sometimes something unusual like Matthew Pottage's fantastic attempt at getting gardeners to suppress their horticultural racism and look with fresh eyes at conifers, but on the whole I'm done with the magazine and pass it on to my friend after about 30 minutes of reading. It's not that the pictures aren't good, or that the magazine is in any way badly written, it's just so terribly familiar and, I've come to believe, basic.

This isn't a post about being a horticultural smartarse; this is a post about learning. Gardening is a learning process. Simple. You buy your seeds, sow them, grow the seedlings on, plant them out, enjoy them, and you learn from your successes and failures. You also learn new things from TV and radio, from magazines and from other gardeners. Gardening is a process of constant learning, and even the most experienced gardeners are still learning lots of new things. This is where I've become increasingly at odds with it all; I'm starting to feel that horticulture is stagnating. I know that the garden year is a cycle, and that this cycle repeats itself each year, but there is a wealth of knowledge out there that is untouched by the horticultural mainstream.

Nobody seems to want to break out of the mainstream. Every year Monty Don sows his sweet peas in the same way and at pretty much the same time, and magazine regurgitate the same tips and advice, only with slightly different wording and a few new articles dropped in to persuade people not to just reread last year's edition (good tip though!). There's a formula and those who generate media content are happy to follow it, tweaking it as they go. What happens though when you, as a gardener, want to break away from the mainstream and build on your knowledge, when you don't want to be an amateur gardener any more?

There are specialist plant societies around for various parts of horticulture, and even the RHS has The Plantsman magazine for those who want more depth on the plants themselves (although you pay £29 on top of your RHS membership or pay £37 if you're not a member), and there are groups like the RHS Rhododendron, Camellia and Magnolia group you can join (again for an additional fee, and I can't work out if it's £20 a year to be member and an additional £25 if you want to receive bulletins... and I presume that the society is completely separate from the RHS membership). What we are decidedly lacking is a broad spectrum gardening organisation for gardeners who have outgrown the usual mainstream content, something that goes into more detail for those who already have the basics covered.

As I say, this isn't about about being a smartarse know-it-all gardener... this is about progress. At the moment there's a yawning gap between the basic end of gardening and the specialised end, and bridging that gap is, I believe, key to helping gardeners gain more skills and knowledge. There is a thirst for knowledge in horticulture, and trapping gardeners in a perpetual state of amateur isn't helping anyone anywhere, not least the gardeners themselves.

So what do we do? Is it time the RHS launched an RHS+ membership (maybe sending the quarterly editions of The Plantsman out instead of The Garden), or do we need a new broad spectrum garden society for those with enquiring minds?

What do you think?

Heritage Apples

Lovely sweet apple!

I was brought up on heritage; National Trust properties, steam rallies, museums, old buildings... since I was very young I have respected old things and I've long held the belief that it's generally a 'good thing' for us to preserve all that is good about our heritage. In the last few years I've come to reassess my beliefs; is a 30 year old car a classic or a rustbucket? Is a big old cottage in the country really all that good if it's damp and the roof's falling off?! Do we really need 'Sounds Of The '60s' on Radio 2 every Saturday morning?!

It's good to challenge your ideas. Occasionally weighing up your arguments keeps you fresh and makes sure that you're wholly convinced by what you're arguing for. Sadly though there are plenty of people around who won't question whether it's time to let go of certain things. The National Trust takes on more and more property to preserve for future generations, while across the UK villages try to raise vast amounts of money to stop underused churches from falling down!

Heritage fruit is an area that seems immune from criticism. Through the incredible work of a few hardcore apple enthusiasts many old varieties have been saved from extinction and are now being grown in collections around the UK. Time was when most areas had their own local varieties, but the traditional apple areas in the South West were particularly rich. Over the years many of these varieties have disappeared due to lack of propagation, old age, housing on old orchards/gardens, lack of interest... what's missing from this list? Some trees will have been rubbish!

How can an apple tree not be good? Some old varieties are less than reliable, fruiting every two seasons rather than every year, only netting half a crop before we've even got to the fruits. Fruits can be insipid, bland and pithy, and can quite often be very small. Trees are often more prone to scab and canker, and some varieties can need an absolutely perfect season to get anything meaningful from them. Modern varieties have been bred to provide more reliable fruiting (each year!), to provide consistent size and flavour. Maybe they don't have the character of the old apples, but they more than make up for it with performance and disease resistance!

I say 'modern varieties' because actually some of the apples popular today aren't exactly new; 'Bramley's Seedling' is a popular cooker from 1856! Why has 'Bramley's Seedling' remained so popular? Because it fruits well/reliably and is pretty disease resistant. While modern tastes tend to lean towards dessert apples, 'Bramley's Seedling' has stood the test of time simply because it's reliable and needs no improvement. Will modern varieties still be popular in more than 100 years?

Apple 'Pendragon'

The quality of the fruit is pretty well the whole point of growing any apple variety. While texture tends to be down to the variety, taste can vary wildly from season to season, as well as from location to location (assuming the same variety). Trees grown on vigorous rootstocks but on poor soils tend to have better flavour, while those grown on small rootstocks in good soil can be a bit lacking. Without doubt the freshness of the apple has an enormous effect on the flavour, and this is where I have issue with those who blindly believe that heritage apples are inherently better than modern varieties.

Let's take for example, two lovely shiny apples. One is a commercial variety from a supermarket, while the other one is a heritage variety straight from the tree. In a blind taste test you would probably end up choosing the heritage variety. Why? Because it's fresher! Once any apple is picked it starts to lose its flavour. A supermarket apple will have been picked days or even over a week earlier, all the time its sugars breaking down, while the one fresh from the tree will be full of sugars and flavour. The supermarket fruit will have to be in exceptional condition to be anywhere near as sweet and juicy as the fresh fruit (and this applies to everything- try raspberries from your own canes as opposed to supermarket pre-frozen ones). Now let's turn this scenario around, and take a fresh modern apple from its tree and compare it with a heritage apple that's been stored... I doubt anyone would want to go for the heritage one- freshness is key! I remember, when I still worked for my former employer, a customer coming up to me to complain about his apple tree (a 'Fiesta' if memory serves); he'd bought this thing and by the time he and his family had eaten their fill of apples, used them in apple sauces and pies, juiced some and frozen some, he was sick to death of them!

Labelled 'Spartan' but isn't!

Popular heritage apples tend to be the more reliable varieties with fruits that store well; most people couldn't eat the entire crop of an apple tree when it ripens! Fruits that store well are those with more solid flesh and more stable sugars, but these are a minority in the heritage varieties; many stopped being grown simply because they didn't store well, and were in sharp decline way before more modern varieties came onto the market.

I'm not saying that these heritage varieties don't have a place in modern gardening. With names like 'Pig's Nose', 'Cornish Gilliflower' and 'Catshead' who wouldn't be sucked in by their interesting and romantic names? All I would say with heritage apple varieties is that you should grow them because you want to grow heritage apple varieties; if you just want a nice big crop of apples each year then go for something more modern. If you have a large space and want to have an orchard filled with old varieties then go right ahead, and I hope you enjoy the fruits of your endeavour.

If you want to know more about apples and their varieties you might enjoy this website: http://www.orangepippin.com/

Another anniversary

Many of you will know the events of last year, a year that changed my career... Many would probably say (quite rightly) that I should just let things go, but I do find the anniversaries of key events to be a good time to take stock of where I am.

On August the 5th 2014 my former employers called a meeting. It was to be a big meeting; the whole business closed early so that all members of staff could be spoken to about 'the direction of the business'. Although colleagues called my cynical I knew it was going to be big news and it was going to be bad news, and I was right.

The company knew best. They had consulted with the best minds of British gardening (although didn't name names) and had had their beliefs confirmed; British gardening is "dead on its feet" and it is simply not viable to grow plants and sell them. Gardeners aren't interested in plants any more, and as such there is no point in the nursery (as a business) focusing on plants.

To hear that so many jobs were going was terrible, knowing from day one that mine was assured (no production, no production staff!) was galling, and the fact that all bar one of the job losses was in horticulture showed absolute contempt for horticulture! During the following weeks and months we all had to go through a horrendously drawn out legal process, but soon enough all of my predictions of who they were targeting came true.

A year on from that meeting and life is awesome. I'm building up my own business, still working for another nursery, and I'm back to being positive about my career. My former manager called me "boring" and had contempt for everything I did, but now my world is filled with people who appreciate my knowledge and skills. I wake up each morning knowing that I will spend my day doing what I love, without having to be immersed in what I've now realised was an unhealthy social atmosphere. I spend my time growing plants, selling plants, planting plants, caring for plants, photographing plants... As Confucius said "Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life"!

I do miss a few things; the nursery had an extraordinary range of plants, with a huge collection of Camellias and Fuchsias as well as lots of trees, shrubs and perennials. This diversity kept me on my feet and meant that there was always something new coming into season. I also worked with a lot of really good people, most of whom we victims of the 'cull' and are now also out making their way in the world. There were also lots of polytunnels to work in when it was raining! Not a day goes by when I'm not glad to be away though...

In the end I'm confident that I will be proved right; as that business has focused its efforts more and more on its cafe and giftware its core of loyal customers have gone to other nurseries and garden centres. Barely a week goes by when I don't hear at least something about bad service (one of my gardening customers was aggressively sold a dead plant!) or something to do with the place. Good nurseries are sadly thin on the ground, whereas cafes aren't; thankfully their loss has been the gain of a lot of smaller nurseries and garden centres in Devon and Cornwall, and these businesses are reaping benefits.

Anyway I would like to thank again everyone who's given me kind words during the last year. It hasn't been plain sailing all the way, but I know that what seemed only a year ago to be a disaster has become a great triumph. Thank you all! 

Four things eco-gardeners don't want you to know

If you dare to mention 'chemicals' on the internet you will very quickly attract a load of people who claim that everything is dangerous and kills bees (it's always the bees, never any other insect...). Speaking with these people it's all to often the case that they are well meaning individuals who prefer to follow their hearts than science, and while some are well informed about the issues surrounding the use of chemicals in the garden, others come up with some rather crazy and unorthodox 'facts' that others then take as being total truth.

It seems we've lost our ability to question; we can't question studies without bias any more. The prevailing attitude amongst a decent wedge of gardeners is that all research carried out that doesn't support the anti-chemical viewpoint is wrong, while research that does support the anti-chemical viewpoint is automatically right. People blame multinational companies for using very selective information, yet then choose to ignore studies that go against their viewpoint....

I'm not an organic gardener, and neither am I pro-chemical. For me a chemical is a tool that should be used with the same care and consideration as any other tool. In the same way that you wouldn't use a strimmer to deadhead your roses, neither is it necessary to dose a plant with insecticide every time you see an aphid. Unfortunately it seems that few others seem to think like me. Here, nonetheless, are four things the eco-gardeners don't want you to know:

Research done on chemicals such as neonicotinoids and glyphosate are aimed at agricultural usage; if you spray a neonicotinoid onto a few aphid colonies in your garden it's incredibly unlikely that you will cause any damage to bees unless you spray an open flower. Farmers spray vast areas of crops with chemicals regardless of whether or not there might be beneficial insects around. Spot treatment of isolated colonies of pests presents a minuscule risk, and it gets even better; if bees aren't foraging on a specific plant then the risk is even further reduced, so spraying a patch of weeds that aren't in flower with glyphosate, or insects on a plant that isn't in flower, simply does not pose any meaningful danger.

Banning neonicotinoids is great, but does anyone really think that farmers will just shrug their shoulders and stop spraying? No they won't; the next group of chemicals they'll turn to is the pyrethroid group which is much less selective and will kill all bugs. Oh and for anyone who thinks that these chemicals are dreamt up in a lab, both are based on natural plant insecticides.

It is simply not true that a litre of glyphosate sprayed in a garden is as dangerous as 10,000 litres sprayed on a field; the higher the dose and the more sustained the exposure the higher the risks. While we're on doses, there is compelling research that shows levels of glyphosate in bread. Firstly the doses are minuscule and you'd have to eat a lot of bread to be in danger, but fair enough, nobody wants any type of poison in their food. Glyphosate is sprayed directly onto grain shortly before harvest to dry it out, hence the chemical is still present in the grain when it's milled for flour. In your garden you would never spray your vegetables with glyphosate, and spraying weeds elsewhere in the garden will not magically poison your food crops.

It's not enough the say that you feel that chemicals are harmful. To be approved any chemical product must be rigorously scientifically tested, while few organic treatments have ever undergone any meaningful scientific study. Various products are sold as 'plant invigorators' and claims have been made about their control of certain pests but these haven't undergone trials and they aren't licensed. Fair enough, if they don't contain harmful ingredients then who cares? My point here isn't so much about ingredients but impressions; a lot of anti-chemical information around is based on selective understanding of selective studies, along with people's impressions of what is, in their hearts, right and wrong. In the same way that you wouldn't trust a chemical manufacturer to release research that shows their products in a negative light, neither can you truly trust the anti-chemical lobby. The use of chemicals in agriculture creates polarised viewpoints, and it seems that nobody is capable of occupying middle ground. Take for example the point I made above about chemicals in agriculture; the 'green gardening' lobby read research on agricultural practices and then proclaim that because widespread agricultural use of a product may be harmful it is therefore true that small scale use of the same products in gardens is equally harmful. This is simply not true, and yet it's the case that people spout half-truths at every turn. What you do in your own garden is up to you, but creating fear through misinformation isn't acceptable whether you're a vast multinational company or an eco gardener.

So there you have four things that the eco gardeners don't want you to know- I may add to this in the future as things occur to me or crop up. Your garden is your own, and if you fill it with flowers all year round and create a good ecosystem then wildlife (good and bad) will come to you. Most gardens are fairly self-perpetuating and won't need any intervention. I haven't sprayed for pests and diseases in nearly 10 years, not because I'm anti-chemical but because I'm just a good gardener, but if I did need to treat a pest then I would do so by whatever means are necessary. Similarly with glyphosate I will spray on the rare occasions that it's necessary (paths and drives, but most of my work is on borders and lawns where glyphosate isn't the right tool), but by using knowledge and common sense I won't be creating the ecological disaster the green gardeners claim I unleash every time I open the weedkiller bottle. Careful and appropriate small-scale use of chemical isn't the problem, it's massive use by agriculture, but that won't stop this article (and others before it and others still to be written) stirring up those who would prefer to follow their hearts than their brains. Such a shame really; the organic gardening lobby contains some incredibly good scientists and thinkers who could really change the world, but until science and common sense are allowed a voice....

Book Review: Peter Korn's Garden

The 'right plant, right place' mantra has been drummed into keen gardeners for so long that it has become one of the foundations of modern horticulture. We learn the importance of growing plants suitable for our soil and climate fairly early in our horticultural journeys, so the prospect of yet another book along these lines didn't exactly excite me. Even opening the package I was expecting another book telling me yet again what I've been doing for years already.

Peter Korn is a name that is well known in certain areas of horticulture; this Swedish gardener is bold in his style, and has a deep understanding of ecology and the cultivation requirements of a wide range of niche garden plants. To say that Peter Korn gardens with nature is a bit of an understatement; his style is centred around his understanding of the plants he grows and an almost palpable need to recreate the growing conditions that his plants experience in the wild. To do this in the fairly harsh climate of Sweden would seem like an insurmountable challenge to most gardeners, and yet the pictures of Peter Korn's garden show that he has achieved this with style and elegance.

The images in this book are mostly breathtaking! A rocky ridge in Armenia, the dramatic scenery of the Sierra Nevada in the USA, or close-ups of plants in his garden, nearly every page has a jaw-dropping picture. This book is nothing if not lavishly illustrated, but once you've fought the urge to skim through the book and just look at the pictures(!) the text is full of detailed information. Thankfully the author's friendly and open style of writing makes the information easy to digest!

Peter Korn's whole horticultural ethos will be a little unnerving to the 'old guard' of gardening. His beautiful sand beds, wooded areas and open areas seem unorthodox in style but when you consider that these are habitats and not just borders things start to make more sense. You could even say that this is a garden built on common sense, given that Peter Korn's whole raison d'etre is to make his plants so comfortable in their setting that they look after themselves. With dramatic views and beautiful plants any maintenance must be a joy!

But is it a garden? That depends on how you define a garden. If your idea of a garden is clearly defined borders, a neat lawn and a carefully placed statue at one end then this is not a garden that will interest you. If you define a garden as a place where beautiful plants are tended and cultivated to perfection then Peter Korn's garden will appeal to you even if you don't dig up your existing garden to copy his work.

Clear and easy to follow, 'Peter Korn's Garden' is a book that will teach gardeners a lot about ecology and how plants grow in the wild. Although this book focusses heavily on the smaller plants the Peter Korn grows in his garden, any self respecting plant enthusiast will love the rare and interesting species shown, and will easily be able to adapt Peter Korn's mantra to the plants that they themselves are interested in. This is a book written to educate and inspire at the same time, and believe me it's hard to tear yourself away from!

If your idea of gardening begins and ends with heavily-bred roses, Penstemons and peonies then this might not be the book for you, but if you're into more unusual plants and want your horizons broadened then this is a book you are sure to enjoy.

You can buy a copy here in the UK: http://www.blackhalls.co.uk/shop/peter-korns-garden/
Or from Peter Korn himself here: http://peterkornstradgard.se/book.html

Glyphosate

Given my previous post, 'Hate Mail', I appreciate the irony of getting involved with such an emotive issue. The use of glyphosate, and its links with cancer, create polarised opinions. Here is my attempt at being balanced and neutral...

There's been a lot of chatter recently about the decision by the French Government to ban the direct sale of Roundup (and possibly other glyphosate products) in garden centres. This decision, based on studies of farm workers, has been hailed by many as a step in the right direction... but is it?

In small doses glyphosate isn't particularly dangerous compared with other pesticide products. Jet5 is a disinfectant approved for organic use, but get a small drop of it on your skin and your skin will go white and give you a very unpleasant burning sensation for several hours, and if you breathe in a fungicide like Roseclear (or trade versions) you can have breathing difficulties (add this to something like even mild asthma and you're in trouble).

The problems come from overuse; glyphosate is popular because it's a convenient way to kill weeds without resorting to physical methods like digging. Because it's easy for people who can't be bothered to control weeds in other ways it's become the go-to product for gardeners, but gardeners seldom fully appreciate the importance of things like spraying intervals or dose rates (I had a customer who used Clinic Ace (glyphosate) at 10x dilution rate because she didn't want to wait a week for the weeds to die!). If a home gardener doesn't see results quickly then they spray again and again and again until they get the desired effect, but also causing a pollution problem. Trained pesticide handlers know how to use these products while minimising environmental damage, but the public seem unwilling to take advice/training or even to accept that when they reach for any pesticide product they're entering into a legally binding agreement to use the product safely and exactly how the manufacturer tells them to. This, I'm afraid, really should be the number one reason for taking glyphosate off the shelves; not enough gardeners can be trusted to use herbicides or any pesticide properly at home. A dose of herbicide sprayed at the right time will kill troublesome perennial weeds and leave you with easier to manage seedlings to deal with, but you have to use it properly, and not just reach for weedkiller every time you see a weed.

In agriculture the reliance on glyphosate is even greater; as well as controlling weeds on ground before crops are planted, glyphosate is sprayed onto certain crops to kill them and dry them out. In many cases these weedkilled crops are destined for us, particularly corn and soy. How crops can be sprayed just before harvesting but somehow supposedly not contain glyphosate is beyond me; there is fairly conclusive evidence that glyphosate is getting into our food via these treated crops. Given how much agriculture relies on glyphosate it's not really a surprise that an EU study found higher than average rates of cancer in farm workers- even if the person spraying the crops is in a top of the range sealed cab and is protected from the product, the minute he or she works with the crop directly the dose rate will go straight up!

Given how massive the use of glyphosate is in agriculture I really doubt that normal horticultural use would generate even remotely similar results to the EU study but, as with so many other things like radiation or smoking, a regular large dose of glyphosate probably will put you at higher risk of cancer. I really doubt that horticultural contractors are particularly at risk because the amounts we use are tiny compared to those used on farms (it stands to reason that someone coming into contact with glyphosate sprayed by the hectare will be at significantly higher risk than someone who sprays a few square metres!), but I think controlling the access that gardeners have to pesticides is probably wise, especially while so many people remain ignorant of the dangers of misuse and their personal responsibility to the environment. 

Contractors aren't beyond reproach; I've been surprised by how many professionals I've seen over the years spraying in windy weather, when rain is forecast (and in one case even when it was raining!); we've had our training and really should all be sticking to it!

In due course there will be alternatives to glyphosate for garden use; citronella oil is available in some cases for weed control (although Canada has banned some citronella products so there may be problems there), and 'hot foam' treatment of weeds looks promising, if currently expensive) for larger areas. In the meantime it looks as though glyphosate will remain the dominant chemical weed control, but whether or not it remains in the public domain only time will tell.

Hate mail

“Ben. Its time someone let you know something important mate. All your stuff on twitter and your site makes you look like a real prick. Great you know all your clever plant names but you need to know that real gardeners don't care. I am sure your a nice guy but you won't make friends here if your not in touch with what real gardeners want. Maybe a bit less of the fancy plant stuff and more real gardening mate.”

Well that's quite an email (via my website) to wake up to! This person seems to misunderstand my remit here online, so let me make myself completely clear;

1. I love plants, rare and unusual as well as most common plants- in fact I can't think of any plant I actually hate! I feature the rare and unusual plants because a) they interest me, b) writing about them helps me to learn about them (by researching them), and c) so many other people write great stuff about more common plants that I would just be repeating what they say.
2. I do use the properly recognised botanical names. Live with it. Google Analytics shows me that my website gets visits from all over the world, even from non-English speaking countries. By using the botanical names I make sure that everyone, from my friend down the road to someone I've never met in South America, Asia or mainland Europe, knows the name of the plant they're looking at.
3. Real gardeners are mostly the ones who want to know about their subject, whether it's finding the label of a plant they like in a garden or finding inspiration from a book, magazine or the internet. Learning is a key part of gardening, whether it's learning tips from your neighbour or taking a horticultural course. Very few gardeners like to grow the same things, year in year out, the same way forever! As I learn new things I share them, and I love to find out new things from other gardeners.
4. I was brought up to regard name-calling as a bad thing, especially with people you don't know. In the last month I've been called a lot of things; arrogant, out of touch, several rude things that I can't repeat... This is the internet; you're not locked into anything, you are free to follow and unfollow anyone who you don't agree with, and to go and find people who see the world the same way you do. There are lots of people who don't share my views on gardening and I'm happy to discuss and debate things, but there's never any need to get abusive!

I do 'Ben's Botanics' for fun; I don't get paid for it, I don't have sponsorship. I set up the website,(then Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest) because I like sharing information and like to show off pictures of plants that I grow of have seen. I also spend a lot of time reading other people's stuff, as well as sharing ideas and inspiration. I'm not selling you anything, I'm just here to meet other like-minded people, and I will continue to run Ben's Botanics to the best standards I can.

I'm going to stay with proper plant names because I find them more inclusive for my non-UK followers, and I will continue to feature plants that interest and excite me.

Sorry if anyone if offended by this.