torgo wrote:

Yo - getting a little harsh there, weren't you, Shiva?

I might be, or you might be getting a little thin-skinned, eh Torgo? In
any case it is probably wisest to confine ourselves to the discussion of
roses.




Do you know what botrytis looks like, torgo?

Well, gee, do you know what a vegetable garden looks like, Shiva?

Yes. Shall I take this as a "yes, I have seen botrytis, Shiva?"


Your info is incorrect. Botrytis is NOT a bacterial infection. It's
a fungus.

You're absolutely right. I was confused because I saw Cass post that
canker is a bacterial infection, and thought I remembered her posting that
botrytis is a bacterial infection. I have always been confused about the
nature of canker. This explains why my regular use of fungicide keeps this
hideous crap out of my garden.



You're not exactly presenting a news flash here. Yes, I've seen the
effects of Botrytis cinerea in many forms, most of which are quite
disgusting.

So says another poster who does not protect his or her roses from fungal
disease by spraying with a fungicide. I would not know, because all I have
ever seen was the telltake bloom rotting on the stem. After that, my
fungicide apparently kicks in. I rather like that.


Since he's had these problems the entire bloom season thus far, why
has he seen no symptoms of botrytis other than rose blooms that look
"20% dead"?

Your first sound point.


Where are the fuzzy lesions, the blackened growths in
the rotting areas, or the grayish mold? Why hasn't there been
accelerated aging and rotting of the blooms? Why have the spot
symptoms not spread to the rest of the plant by now? And why haven't
anything other than the rose bushes been affected?

I don't know, but you are rapidly becoming the Poster Boy for Preventive
Fungicide Spraying!



Good for you. But you call it nonsense to say the bad effects of
unnecessary use of hazardous chemicals could outweigh the good???

I call it nonsense for someone who has obviously not ever observed a
regular, effective fungicide program to suggest it may harm beautiful
foliage, or make it unsightly. And, well, it is nonsense.



You didn't even ask him if he had so much as a sage plant before you
recommended spraying a product whose runoff alone could render nearby
fruits or herbs inedible. Nonsense, my ass.

I'm sorry. I do not belong to the "we must protect every idiot from
himself" club. You know, the one that is responsible for the "do not point
at face while opening" label on the champagne bottle? I assume anyone
bright enough to use a computer will be functional enough to read the
label on any product he or she is applying to his roses.


Put that decaf stuff
away and switch to a real brand.

Um, right. Whatever that means.


Since you're so adamant botrytis is the cause of the problem, why on
earth are you recommending he use Orthenex? That would take care of
thrips, but for botrytis you might just as well tell him to use Mill's
Magic Mix.

Orthenex is a combination fungicide and insecticide. It is all I use to
protect my roses from fungus. I have used it every ten days since late
March, and do not have a spot of any kind of disease on my roses, or
spider mites, or other insect pests.




I'll leave your "roses love water" bit alone, other than to point out
that if botrytis is present, washing the plant down like that would be
an extremely unwise move.

Not in the least if one follows a regular fungicide spraying program.

Botrytis is one possibility, but you shouldn't be giving such an
acidic response to any alternative hypotheses.

Try to remember that it is just a debate. I have no emotional or personal
stake in anything that is said here. The real point is that the rose I saw
in the photo looks exactly like the rose that the NC Ag. Extension people
tested and found to be botrytis. Therefore I do think the poster should
consider it, and not be led to believe it is "water damage."