In the normal course of events, one would be inclined to say that an old veteran of 22 years owes you nothing, and that a bush that has been allowed to get into this senile state would be better scrapped to make space for a new start.

There is a body of opinion that says that when a rose dies, another will not grow in its place because it knows and dies in sympathy! You may think it just as crackers as the folk who have a chat with their plants, but the fact is that it happens, and a lot of gardeners write letters about it. The problem does cause concern, and it is widespread. No pest or disease is discernible, and yet perfectly healthy plants languish and die.

Most gardeners from this school of thought - invariably they are amateurs - point to personal experience, often repeated (an important clue).

I referred to this being a problem that is virtually confined to amateur gardeners. Just consider: why is it not the serious problem one might expect it to be among the rose specialist nurserymen, most of whom do not have sufficient acreage to grow different crops and move them around to vary the nutrient demands? They grow roses repeatedly in the same soil, so where does ‘rose sickness’ come in? I suggest that it is more rational to explain this phenomenon as a serious shortage of one or more minors - who can say which with any certainty? - accentuated by a soil structure that has ‘gone to pot’.

It is the case that the problem invariably occurs in beds and positions where roses are grown exclusively and have been for several years, and that the first deaths are of old, well-established plants - that is the first clue.

Get a good wodge of organic matter under new plantings, feed with Humber or Growmore, and mulch, mulch, mulch.