I would get professional soil tests a.s.a.p. Some companies will also suggest amendments per 100 sq. ft. based upon what you plan to grow.

Lynn

One thing here, Lynn, is every area on my property is different. I have zip confidence in my "soil" having much consistency. You are right I could send in multiple samples, but then I would hope to augment as I plant which would then leave me with something different. In theory, do you think a tablespoon of superphosphate at the bottom of each hole I dig could, really mixed in, do that much harm to the M.F.? I'm struggling to think this is wrong when it seems to have been working. The new tea planting should be there for 100 years I hope. I was thinking to do this only in the initial planting. After that I would use compost and organic fertilizers. I wouldn't be repeating this application. The M.F. could have 100 years to develop later. Do you use any? I might be an old fogy on this since it seems to be working.

We have horrible soil here, Sheila. This is my fourth home, and nothing was visibly alive in the soil of any yard... not a worm, a roly poly,... nothing. Previously, I sent multiple samples to the testing agency, in one week intervals, from various sections of my yard. The local rose society recommends a concoction of organics that include the use of superphosphate, actually a cup or 1/2 C, mixed in the soil of a 24 x 24 x 24 hole or adjusted accordingly for planting beds. The professional soil test recommendations for my previous home, the university cooperative extension suggestions online, were very similar to what the rose society suggested, except for the inclusion of gypsum to the mix ( professional testing).

I have used a concoction that includes super phosphate for years, and it improved the soil. In the past, after about three years, in some areas, there were worms galore, roly poly bugs and likely a bunch of other stuff. All areas had some worms and improved soil. Was it the best it could be, probably not, but greatly improved, and I grew beautiful, healthy roses. I also believe that great soil often takes time.

Some people begin gardening in an area that has better, more supportive soil, as a starting point, which could make a difference..I really do not know. All of my homes were new builds on land that had nothing growing on it but weeds here and there. I still use superphosphate (actually added it today to an area being prepared for roses) and other organics to fertilize my roses. I also add new layers of compost, twice a year. At the moment, I guess my opinion is that summers etc., are too inhospitable for me to veer away from what has worked, although I am open to learning about how to implement changes that will work for the specifics of my soil and growing conditions... in the future.

Lynn

Lynn, I really appreciate your thoughts on this matter. At least I'm not the only one doing this. It is true that my first Minnesota garden had the best soil. My former home in Alaska had had the topsoil stripped and was very poor. Here, fill had been hauled in and dumped 2006 or so when the home was built to grade the property. The former owners did not focus on soil improvement. I've not been working with "soil" at the outset in these last two locations. I've tried to garden on certain unaugmented areas and it did not work. You answered my question beautifully. This reminds me of the thread on soil amending in general, and I clearly knew I had to do it. It was just this one piece of the conflict between the M.F. and the superphosphate that had me concerned. I think I will continue to use it with new plantings going forward. I feel vaguely guilty that I didn't use it here on some I planted while I was wrestling with this. If they don't do as well as the others, I'll report it.

I think I might be a helicopter rose parent in this case. Would a small amount hurt? I do realize excessive would be bad. I'll stop now before I get kicked to the "Organic Rose" forum. I'm a bit on edge with my ARE roses on the UPS road 1/14/16-expected arrival now 1/21/16. I hate that it takes that long. They are bare root small own root shaken out of their pots for Oregon.

Sheila, as suggested in my first post, and, Nik ( who definitely is closer to an expert than I) seems to advocate also, that you need to know something about your soil make-up, especially gardening in a completely new area. I would get soil testing. The turn around time is fairly quick. I would not blindly add anything to my soil other than compost.

Can you delay your bare root rose shipment? I have a short Winter and can plant bare root roses ideally through President's Day. It seems that you want your roses like yesterday, but......

Lynn

Lynn and Nik, The roses are already on the road. You are both correct, I am sure, that soil testing would help answer my question. I was confused by the generally negative remarks (related to MF) about adding phosphate without mention of the soil levels of phosphate. Now, after Nik's remarks, I think I understand it "all depends". Having plants "invite" MF seem to provide benefits beyond phosphate absorption too, like H2O absoption which obviously I would want. I, on the other hand, could not understand how the MF could do this without phosphate in adequate supply in the area to start. Soil testing would have been the smart thing to do, in focused areas, and if adequate phosphorous I could have skipped the superphosphate. As it is, I might put a small amount of phosphate in because I didn't test in time and with the Holiday results would be later than I need.

could not understand how the MF could do this without phosphate in adequate supply in the area to start

This may help although it is not what I would call bedtime reading..
MF - Phosphorus uptake

In short, existence of an element in soil does not automatically mean it is available for uptake.

Also, from linked paper:

The AM contribution decreases with increasing soil P supply, as direct uptake increases (Nagy et al., 2009).
Unsurprisingly, this is associated with a decreasing percentage of root
length colonized. The finding that wheat, barley,
and tomato can receive a large proportion of total P
as hidden P uptake via the AM pathway, even though they generally do
not take up more total P when AM, shows that the
contribution of direct uptake must be lower than in NM plants. In an
extreme
case, the direct pathway was completely inoperative
in tomato when colonized by the AM fungus Glomus intraradices

Sheila, if is any consolation my bareroots from Palatine that shipped Nov 23 and got to me on December 14th are all doing well and buds are starting to swell a tiny bit. I hacked them back like Rachel at Palatine told me to do to less than 1/2 what they sent them as (6-8" left) after I planted them in 5 gallon pots. They are residing in the 50 degrees in the day garage till spring. Even though yours are coming from TX it still gets pretty cold there and the six I received in pots with no leaves from ARE in November are just starting to show some buds and a few leaves (also in the garage). Hopefully yours will be in good shape too. I gave mine a good long soak in the bathtub. :)

I would not be concerned about the phosphate vs. mycorrhizae issue -- as has been stated above, if there is enough phosphate, there is little or no need for the fungi. However, having too much phosphate distributed in a soil can cause other problems, particularly, it interferes with the uptake of the divalent cations (magnesium, manganese, zinc, iron). On the other hand, phosphate doesn't migrate around in the soil much, so if you put even a big handful in the bottom of a planting hole, most of it would be right there where you put it even a decade later -- it won't have moved to other areas of the plant's root zone. For that reason, we always apply it as a single lump, near the bottom of the hole, and we specifically don't stir it around. The plant will get what it needs by growing roots into and surrounding that lump of material. The other nutrients will then be mined from other areas of the root zone, not near that lump.

On another issue, just to be a bit pedantic -- I don't think you actually mean "superphosphate?" That has become a rare and hard-to-find product, in most places. Florida was the main producer, and I don't know of a manufacturer who has produced it in the last 10-15 years; rather, the main products now are triple superphosphate (a different chemical, despite the name), monoammonium phosphate, and diammonium phosphate. All three are still commonly used. The reason for the change was that making good plain superphosphate requires a high-grade apetite (the mineral from which phosphate is extracted), and most of that has been mined out. What remains is a decent ore, but not as good, and it's far easier and cheaper to make a high-quality product of the other three forms. The main advantage of the old single super was that it had significant amounts of sulfate in it, and in sulfur-deficient soils, that was useful. But there are lots of other cheap, reliable sources of S (gypsum, Epsom salts, etc.), so it's not really a problem.

Anne, Thanks for the reassuring words on the ARE roses coming. I'm glad they are bigger plants than RVR bands, but this shipping is the down side. Those grafted Palatine roses are another story and the biggest yet. I did have a DA rose 3/15, grafted, sent UPS, take as long as yours, Anne, and like you say, it did do fine. I also soaked. I'll be glad to have them in hand. Nik, I marvel at your knowledge of plant physiology, chemistry etc. Your plants are lucky to have you. Lynn and Nik, I really wish I had done the soil tests in time. At this point I plan on getting the roses into the ground mostly ASAP, because these ARE roses are ungrafted, smaller, and ARE does not rec soaking them. They are too small and just out of soil, and not stored and grafted and needing rehydration in theory. Thanks for all the help.

Dr. Manners, Thank you for this very helpful additional information. I think that could be the genius tip allowing me to add the triple superphosphate in part of the root zone, while allowing the remainder of the roots to "invite" the MF to participate and provide additional benefits. I did not realize the difference in the terms and I appreciate that I do have the "triple" as you surmised. Thank you so much.

If you have adequate amounts already you are wasting money on it buying and adding more, if on the other you have produced an excess somewhere plant growth could start to become affected at some point - if any of your soil does have too much you will have to replace the soil in those parts to correct this. In the meantime if the existing plantings look good I wouldn't assume you have to have a soil test before you can plant your latest purchases. Plants want to grow and roses must not be generally too fussy and delicate considering how many of them are around, in all manner of situations. Particularly old garden and species roses.

I plan on the triple superphosphate only with initial plantings. So far (9/14 forward here), I think the plants with it generally looked as good or better than plants without it. I have not seen any evidence of excess. I agree it could be a waste of money, but that is in the rear view mirror. Janet Inada at RVR had brought the topic up when I had called to order a couple bands 1/15/16. She noted it wasn't helpful as far as MF were concerned. I also agree a soil test in several areas of the property would have been wise. In my defense, the soil looked so inadequate I could not conceive it having passed any test and would have felt the need to amend, so the soil test ideally could have been repeated after the improvements, whether dictated by the soil tests, or guesstimates to see if I hit my ideal targets. The "soil" to start with appeared to be subsoil with no life and few weeds. I realize one cannot tell phosphorous levels by "looking" at soil however. It would have been interesting to have before and after soil tests. Now, I'll only have before and after plant pictures.

Up here we pretty much never need to add it. Are there any wild roses growing near you, in similar soils? That could be a hint.

When you are adding soil minerals you are not making up for a lack of topsoil, with its organic content - that is a separate matter.

My property had subsoil dumped on it by the homeowner who was grading it. I have a hard time calling it "soil". The neighbors didn't have that happen and had longstanding gardens. I do have a wild rose volunteer I discovered growing in an area I had topsoil and compost dumped. I'm not sure if it came from the amendments or beneath them. It is a baby but I'll bet it will bloom this Spring. Rosa Woodsii maybe? I also have Arizona Cypress volunteering from bark mulch the previous owner put over the fill, which look quite attractive.

Good backdrop for pink roses.