(Shiva) wrote in
news:43f260d08ead66e6bfc89a8024e4d344@TeraNews:

While "wait and see" isn't bad advice, it is no fun to have plants
that "although they are in no state of peril" produce roses that rot
on the stems before opening.

If anyone knows of anything that DOES cause a rose to rot on the stem
before it opens, do let us know. This is precisely what the poster
said is happening.

If I read the original poster's article correctly (and I apologize if
I've missed something) there was no overt mention of blossoms that "rot
on the stem", and the photo doesn't entirely illustrate this scenario.

He/she said "they are brownish on the outside" and look "20% dead", which
I take to mean that the damage is partial. The photo seems to illustrate
this.

There are several reasons why this may have occurred. One, as has been
mentioned, is botrytis (which, full-blown, isn't very pretty at all, and
absolutely requires spraying with fungicide); another is thrips.

Two other situations to consider are excessive heat (especially when
coupled with drought, if present) and water/rain damage.

While most roses, as you point out, like a bit of a spray-off with the
hose (which also helps control pests and diseases), a prolonged rain
during the critical blossom-forming period will, for a few select
varieties (usually light-colored ones), result in brownish patches on
unopened blossoms or outright "balling", where the blossom refuses to
open and sits tempestuously on the stem until it dries out.

My Climbing Souvenir de la Malmaison does exactly this. It hates the
rain---that is, hates it when it comes at a particularly sensitive time
in bud formation. We've had more than our normal share of rain this
spring in Southern California (I noted that the poster who asked about
this problem is also located here), in particular a full-day rainstorm a
couple or three weekends ago.

Earlier in the season I lost the first flush of Cl. Souv. to an
excessively rainy weekend in March. The situation didn't affect any of my
other roses, however, and there was no indication that botrytis itself
was bedeviling Cl. Souv. In fact, the plant just opened up with a nice
second flush last week.

Now the poster mentioned having eight roses in his/her front yard and all
have been affected. This *could* mean a fungus is at work, or may simply
mean that all these varieties are inclined toward balling during what is,
for us, a more than normally wet spring. I think the suggestion to wait
and see was meant more as a caution; rather than use a plan of attack
that may be inappropriate for the situation, observe the next flush of
blooms to see whether the problem clears up on its own.

Whatever the poster decides, I'd like to chime in with my appreciation
for the foliage!

----

saki wrote:

(Shiva) wrote in
news:43f260d08ead66e6bfc89a8024e4d344@TeraNews:


If I read the original poster's article correctly (and I apologize if
I've missed something) there was no overt mention of blossoms that "rot
on the stem", and the photo doesn't entirely illustrate this scenario.

In truth, the original poster's language in the post was rather ambiguous.
Here is what he said:

"My rose plants have not been producing good roses this year. It looks
like they are brownish on the outside."

Does this mean on the outside of the stems, blooms, or both? The photo
showed only brown on the bloom, to my eye. Exactly how botrytis starts on
my roses.

"Before they bloom, while they bloom, they look 20% dead."

Again, I took this to mean that the blooms look dead, not the stems. But
apparently botyrtis can cause both? My orthenex nips it in the bud, so I
have no idea what an advanced case looks like.

"One store sold me generic disease control, one store said it looks fine,
and another store said although he couldn't find any thrips, it had all the
symptoms."

I have seen exactly two things cause the sort of browning on blossoms
that "Me"'s roses showed in the photo he posted: thrips and botrytis.
NEVER "water damage." In my garden where everything, but EVERYTHING gets
lots of overhead watering plus plenty of storms and lots of high and low
temps.

I have a picture of one of the roses at
http://home.earthlink.net/~cenews/garden/

He/she said "they are brownish on the outside" and look "20% dead",
which I take to mean that the damage is partial. The photo seems to
illustrate this.

Yes, it is on the blooms.

There are several reasons why this may have occurred. One, as has been
mentioned, is botrytis (which, full-blown, isn't very pretty at all, and
absolutely requires spraying with fungicide); another is thrips.

Thrips are easy to see. I can see them crawling on the bloom without even
shaking them over paper. I do not have perfect vision, either. "Me" said he
had someone at a "store" look for thrips, and that he found none.

Two other situations to consider are excessive heat (especially when
coupled with drought, if present) and water/rain damage.

It does get hot here. For example, it was in the 90s yesterday. In July
and August it will stay there, and reach the 100s on occasion.



While most roses, as you point out, like a bit of a spray-off with the
hose (which also helps control pests and diseases), a prolonged rain
during the critical blossom-forming period will, for a few select
varieties (usually light-colored ones), result in brownish patches on
unopened blossoms

I take your word for this, though I have never seen it.

or outright "balling", where the blossom refuses to
open and sits tempestuously on the stem until it dries out.

Two of my roses did this: the ugly Peace and the uglier Amelia Earhart--
two roses with many petals. They did not have time to rot since I cut them
off.


We've had more than our normal share of rain this
spring in Southern California (I noted that the poster who asked about
this problem is also located here), in particular a full-day rainstorm a
couple or three weekends ago.

Your best point yet! There may indeed be conditions in N. California and
elsewhere I have never seen. While it is hard to fathom that water on rose
petals may be different there, I must concede that I really do not know.



Whatever the poster decides, I'd like to chime in with my appreciation
for the foliage!

Me too. Absolutely magnificent. The rose itself must have naturally dark
green foliage, my very favorite.

----

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."

Shiva wrote:
torgo wrote:

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.

Sadly, I know entirely too much about botrytis. When it just affects
the aging bloom, it often looks like this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~cbernstei...s/botrytis.jpg

On a light pink rose, I doubt that someone would see browning petals
and not see any of the polka dots that are so characteristic of the
scourge. That's certainly my experience, at least. On a dark red rose
it can be hard to see spots before the petals brown, but on a lighter
colored rose, those polka dots are visible long before the rot sets in.

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.

I'm fairly certain that not all petal rot is caused by botrytis. Some
just can't take untimely rain, gather the rain in the bloom, and
self-destruct from the inside out, as described by Saki.

On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:55:32 -0400 (EDT), "Shiva"
wrote:

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?

Perhaps - but Cass suggested rain damage, and you said nothing.
Radika also said she thinks it's probably rain damage, and again you
say nothing. Then I say I agree, I think it's probably rain damage
too, and you open fire at me with both barrels and with quite
offensive tones.

Now another poster pipes in that it could easily be rain damage, and
you still choose to come at me with heavy doses of condescension.

So regardless of how thick my skin is, how my day has gone, how much
lithium I have in my blood stream, and how many countless times my
parole officer has told me to turn the other cheek, you're still
bending over backwards to stroke my fur the wrong way.


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

Take it as a "yes, I have seen botrytis and its effects on dozens of
different plants from artichokes to zucchini".

You could easily throw in "Yes, I've battled it before - been there,
done that", and perhaps even "Take a hint - I'm more experienced with
it than you're giving me credit for here, and considering you didn't
even realize it was a fungus, I probably know more about it than you
do yourself, so knock off the patronizing attitude."


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.

I have indeed observed such a program. I use fungicides myself for
most of my established roses. And thanks again for the continued use
of such condescending responses.

If those were my roses, I wouldn't alter the treatment program until
I knew exactly what I was fighting. His foliage is incredible as is,
so the upside of any different course of action would be minimal.
There's simply no reason to change a single thing without knowing
exactly what or why.

I did not mention Orthenex by name, nor did I say that those ill
effects would specifically make the rose foliage unsightly. Try not
to think in such narrow, rose-only terms. All I said was that the
bad effects of strong chemicals could outweigh the good. And that's
quite true, even if the statement doesn't get the Shiva Seal Of
Approval.


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.

Hey, that's great. Congratulations on your healthy foliage. It's a
great systemic insecticide, and a good fungicide for preventing black
spot, rust, and other mild fungi. But neither version (the aerosol
and concentrate have differing formulas) is indicated for Botrytis
cinerea (but you knew that already, having read the label, right?) and
neither is sufficient for a real botrytis outbreak.

A small presence of spores in relaltively warm, dry weather would
succumb to Orthonex, but you'd get similar results under such
conditions from a control group sprayed with a non water based
placebo, or for that matter not treated at all. Even the manufacturer
doesn't recommend it for use against stronger fungi like Botrytis
cinerea. (Ortho's own advice = Go directly to Daconil. Do not pass
Go, do not collect $200.)

So I still question your prescription of Orthonex as the cure for your
diagnosis of botrytis. It is an illogical combination.


Try to remember that it is just a debate. I have no emotional or personal

No, it isn't a debate. The poster presented a problem. Several of us
responded with our suggestions of possible causes.

For whatever reason, you then chose to flame my response - and only
mine, despite the fact that several others had already stated the same
opinion - hammering it from top to bottom in offensive fashion. I
didn't think such behavior existed here, and I certainly wouldn't have
expected it from you.

torgo wrote:


Perhaps - but Cass suggested rain damage, and you said nothing.
Radika also said she thinks it's probably rain damage, and again you
say nothing. Then I say I agree, I think it's probably rain damage
too, and you open fire at me with both barrels and with quite
offensive tones.

Okay. Here is how personal my comments really a I probably read your
post last, because it was the latest post on the topic. Therefore I
addressed my comments to you. And an even more personal disclosu there
are some posters I do not read at all. I do not killfile, I just know them
and do not wish to read them, so I don't. Nothing personal, just my taste.



Now another poster pipes in that it could easily be rain damage, and
you still choose to come at me with heavy doses of condescension.

Torgo. I will not apologize for my tone. I will, however, apologize for
not being willing to apologize. Why don't you just killfile me now?


So regardless of how thick my skin is, how my day has gone, how much
lithium I have in my blood stream, and how many countless times my
parole officer has told me to turn the other cheek, you're still
bending over backwards to stroke my fur the wrong way.

No. You give yourself way too much credit. It is not personal. At all.


Try to remember that it is just a debate. I have no emotional or
personal

No, it isn't a debate. The poster presented a problem. Several of us
responded with our suggestions of possible causes.

This is a discussion forum. We debate the possible causes for certain
effects. That is part of what discussion is.



For whatever reason, you then chose to flame my response - and only
mine, despite the fact that several others had already stated the same
opinion - hammering it from top to bottom in offensive fashion.

Poor torgo. I am being condescending now. A flame? Really?


I
didn't think such behavior existed here, and I certainly wouldn't have
expected it from you.

You're new here, aren't you?

On Tue, 13 May 2003 00:15:10 -0400 (EDT), "Shiva"
wrote:

Okay. Here is how personal my comments really a I probably read your
post last, because it was the latest post on the topic. Therefore I
addressed my comments to you. And an even more personal disclosu there
are some posters I do not read at all. I do not killfile, I just know them
and do not wish to read them, so I don't. Nothing personal, just my taste.

Well then, I'll consider it a compliment that you deem my posts worthy
of reading. Case closed.

"torgo" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2003 00:15:10 -0400 (EDT), "Shiva"
wrote:

Okay. Here is how personal my comments really a I probably read your
post last, because it was the latest post on the topic. Therefore I
addressed my comments to you. And an even more personal disclosu there
are some posters I do not read at all. I do not killfile, I just know
them
and do not wish to read them, so I don't. Nothing personal, just my
taste.

Well then, I'll consider it a compliment that you deem my posts worthy
of reading. Case closed.

Good answer!
You have just been Shiva-tized, and lived to tell about it. The force must
be strong in you....you will be a very powerful rose-warrior. The enemies
of roses have much to fear....

JimS.
Seattle

torgo wrote: Well then, I'll consider it a compliment that you deem my
posts worthy of reading. Case closed.

What a generous and elegant response. Thank you.

Here is a little more of the story--not at all a commentary on you, not at
all an excuse for my acid tongue, just a bit more of the Big Picture
according to me, with regards to these groups:

There are always issues people feel strongly about. The big one with
regard to roses is chem/antichem.

While the anti-chem folks have some good points (and get to be annoyingly
More Organic Than Thou, from my point of view) so do those of us who use
fungicides and insecticides. I could list both, and either side could have
problems with said list, so why bother?

Point is, we are each entitled to our points of view. YOU have never said
otherwise. However--in many groups, the seeming Moral Superiority of the
anti-chem folks results in a Group Party Line, or at least the
uncomfortable silence of those who do use chemical controls. Probably the
worst thing about this Organic, Earth-friendly Tyranny is that fully most
of the anti-chem folks DO NOT LIVE IN THE SWAMPS. It is oh so easy to slip
into one's Birkenstocks in Utah and preach the doctrine of Never Spray
Poison on your Roses. Those of us who live in the swamps then are placed
in a no-win situation wherein we either go no chem and watch our roses
dwindle and die (or, as Saint Zappa once said, "just look ugly for a
thousand years) or use our chemicals but surreptitiously, hanging our
heads.

Join the Yahoo group Grow Roses. Read and learn (some great rosarians
there) then let's talk about the Party Line there. It's moderated, too, so
you won't get too many "tones," except of course from the moderator,
because, well he CAN.

I say Bullhockey to this. Everyone of us who drives a car contributes Bad
Icky Things to the Environment. And several more compelling arguments,
including the fact that in the four years I have been spraying, three
honest-to-God religiously, I have NOT seen any decrease in critters,
birds, or bugs--except the ones that eat my roses. Earthworms? Got 'em!
Bats? You bet! Chipmunks? Check! So where is the wasteland?

So I guess there sort of IS a personal part, but it isn't directed at any
individual, exactly.

The other thing is--and this really is the impersonal part--I really,
really like to debate. Argue. Counter. It's fun, but it makes lots of
people really mad. Especially when I switch positions just for fun.

One last thing, then we can shake on "Case Closed."

Personally, I like you. For whatever it's worth.

"JimS." wrote in message
news:rS%va.826911$L1.240824@sccrnsc02...

"torgo" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2003 00:15:10 -0400 (EDT), "Shiva"
wrote:

Okay. Here is how personal my comments really a I probably read your
post last, because it was the latest post on the topic. Therefore I
addressed my comments to you. And an even more personal disclosu
there
are some posters I do not read at all. I do not killfile, I just know
them
and do not wish to read them, so I don't. Nothing personal, just my
taste.

Well then, I'll consider it a compliment that you deem my posts worthy
of reading. Case closed.

Good answer!
You have just been Shiva-tized, and lived to tell about it. The force
must
be strong in you....you will be a very powerful rose-warrior. The enemies
of roses have much to fear....

JimS.
Seattle

That cracked me up.
Heh! Heh! :-

Theo

saki wrote:

My Climbing Souvenir de la Malmaison does exactly this. It hates the
rain---that is, hates it when it comes at a particularly sensitive time
in bud formation. We've had more than our normal share of rain this
spring in Southern California (I noted that the poster who asked about
this problem is also located here), in particular a full-day rainstorm a
couple or three weekends ago.

My Blue Girls did that this year. We were getting a lot of rain early
on and the first flush had brown spots at the edges of the outside
petals of the blooms. The rain has slacked off and this flush of blooms
are beautiful. I didn't do anything in between just decided to wait it
out. The Blue Girls were the only ones that did this, BTW.

Susan
shsimko at duke dot edu

Susan H. Simko wrote:
saki wrote:


My Climbing Souvenir de la Malmaison does exactly this. It hates the
rain---that is, hates it when it comes at a particularly sensitive time
in bud formation. We've had more than our normal share of rain this
spring in Southern California (I noted that the poster who asked about
this problem is also located here), in particular a full-day rainstorm a
couple or three weekends ago.


My Blue Girls did that this year. We were getting a lot of rain early
on and the first flush had brown spots at the edges of the outside
petals of the blooms. The rain has slacked off and this flush of blooms
are beautiful. I didn't do anything in between just decided to wait it
out. The Blue Girls were the only ones that did this, BTW.

Interesting. There are only two roses amongst my 100 plus roses which
exhibit this phenomenon of getting damaged by the rain also; one is Blue
Ribbon and the other is Sheer Bliss. Just two ... I wonder ...

I wonder if it is a function of certain kind of petal weight and colour
combination. All the roses the three of us have mentioned so far - SdlM,
Blue Girl, Blue Ribbon and Sheer Bliss are heavily fragrant as well as
lightish pink to mauve roses, aren't they.

Craig, I have forgotten now - that pink rose of yours that showed the
damage in the picture that launched this thread (of thousand posts?
heheh ...) - what kind is it and is it fragrant? Just curious, thanks.

--
Radika
California
USDA 9 / Sunset 15

"Susan H. Simko" wrote in message
...
saki wrote:

My Climbing Souvenir de la Malmaison does exactly this. It hates the
rain---that is, hates it when it comes at a particularly sensitive time
in bud formation. We've had more than our normal share of rain this
spring in Southern California (I noted that the poster who asked about
this problem is also located here), in particular a full-day rainstorm a
couple or three weekends ago.

My Blue Girls did that this year. We were getting a lot of rain early
on and the first flush had brown spots at the edges of the outside
petals of the blooms. The rain has slacked off and this flush of blooms
are beautiful. I didn't do anything in between just decided to wait it
out. The Blue Girls were the only ones that did this, BTW.

Susan

My Blue Girl is a regular Typhoid Mary too. She picks up everything. So
far, I've managed to keep the blackspot to a minimum, but I figure it's only
a matter of time. No blooms yet, so I don't know if they'll be brown yet,
but they were last year.

JimS.
Seattle

My Blue Girl is a regular Typhoid Mary too. She picks up everything. So
far, I've managed to keep the blackspot to a minimum, but I figure it's
only
a matter of time. No blooms yet, so I don't know if they'll be brown yet,
but they were last year.

JimS.
Seattle

My thrips seems to have a love affair with my Blue Girl..

I never hear anything good about this
rose why do people still try to grow it.

Just Curious.

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City


"Ol' Thornfinger" wrote in message
...


My Blue Girl is a regular Typhoid Mary too. She picks up everything.
So
far, I've managed to keep the blackspot to a minimum, but I figure it's
only
a matter of time. No blooms yet, so I don't know if they'll be brown
yet,
but they were last year.

JimS.
Seattle

My thrips seems to have a love affair with my Blue Girl..