No more being deceived, who said that roses need to be thinned?
For many girls, the introduction of green plants and flowers related to 'No more being deceived, who said that roses need to be thinned' is welcome for correction if there are any mistakes!
This is the 847th day of original articles every day
This article is one of the original theories
Excerpt from the 'Three-Step Method of Rose Cultivation' series
As it is now the season for roses to form buds in spring, many flower enthusiasts have asked:
Should I remove some of the flower buds from my roses? How should I do it?
Do roses really need to be thinned?
This question, I believe, is a matter of personal perspective. I have never been a dogmatist, nor have I taught dogma.
Whether roses need to be thinned should be looked at from two aspects:
1. Personal preference
Cultivating flowers is a way to cultivate character and please oneself, and what flowers to grow and how to grow them naturally depend on one's own will as the primary requirement.
No more being deceived, who said that roses need to be thinned?
Want a longer blooming period:
Roses often grow several flower buds on a single branch. If you want your roses to bloom more and for a longer period, you can just 'let it be'!
Letting it be, the largest bud on the rose will open first, followed by the medium-sized buds, and finally the small buds, resulting in a relatively longer blooming period.
Want larger flowers without caring how many bloom:
Then it is recommended that you keep only the largest bud on a strong branch, and no buds on weaker branches to avoid nutrient distribution. This is quite extreme, but if it is a potted plant and not frequently fertilized, Green Plant Enthusiast Network suggests you do this.
Want a mass blooming effect: