RMV... What do you do after?
 

I have a climbing angel face that I ordered from Wayside Gardens this
spring. It has been growing well, but now shows clear signs of RMV.
What do you do after you find that one of your roses is virused? Do
you shovel prune or let it live its life out? The problem for me is
that most climbers take at least 3 years to establish and by that
time, I'm not sure what to expect from a virused rose in terms of
vigor and general performance. On the other hand, the plant looks to
be doing fine, and I'd hate to toss it.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

In article , Moyesii
wrote:

I have a climbing angel face that I ordered from Wayside Gardens this
spring. It has been growing well, but now shows clear signs of RMV.
What do you do after you find that one of your roses is virused? Do
you shovel prune or let it live its life out? The problem for me is
that most climbers take at least 3 years to establish and by that
time, I'm not sure what to expect from a virused rose in terms of
vigor and general performance. On the other hand, the plant looks to
be doing fine, and I'd hate to toss it.

Depends on how the plant looks. I have a few that perform, flower and
are reasonably disease resistant. But if it gives me any problems, I
kill them fast.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

RMV can be tranmitted to another rose by the root system if they are close
enough that the root systems grow togather.

Many plant virus are spread by this means and the only way to ensure that
the disease does not spread is to be absolutely certain that the infected
plants roots don't involve other plants.

Tim



"Cass" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Moyesii
wrote:

I have a climbing angel face that I ordered from Wayside Gardens this
spring. It has been growing well, but now shows clear signs of RMV.
What do you do after you find that one of your roses is virused? Do
you shovel prune or let it live its life out? The problem for me is
that most climbers take at least 3 years to establish and by that
time, I'm not sure what to expect from a virused rose in terms of
vigor and general performance. On the other hand, the plant looks to
be doing fine, and I'd hate to toss it.

Depends on how the plant looks. I have a few that perform, flower and
are reasonably disease resistant. But if it gives me any problems, I
kill them fast.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Wow! Do you have any research
to back that up.

Several of my plants are virussed
and grow close to plants that are
non virused.

As far as I know the only real
chance of virus spread is if you
don't sterilize your shears.

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

"Tim Tompkins" wrote in message
...
RMV can be tranmitted to another rose by the root system if they are close
enough that the root systems grow togather.

Many plant virus are spread by this means and the only way to ensure that
the disease does not spread is to be absolutely certain that the infected
plants roots don't involve other plants.

Tim



"Cass" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Moyesii
wrote:

I have a climbing angel face that I ordered from Wayside Gardens this
spring. It has been growing well, but now shows clear signs of RMV.
What do you do after you find that one of your roses is virused? Do
you shovel prune or let it live its life out? The problem for me is
that most climbers take at least 3 years to establish and by that
time, I'm not sure what to expect from a virused rose in terms of
vigor and general performance. On the other hand, the plant looks to
be doing fine, and I'd hate to toss it.

Depends on how the plant looks. I have a few that perform, flower and
are reasonably disease resistant. But if it gives me any problems, I
kill them fast.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

"Tim Tompkins" wrote in message ...
RMV can be tranmitted to another rose by the root system if they are close
enough that the root systems grow togather.



I've never heard of this happening before. Doesn't this imply that the
roots of different plants would somehow have to graft to each other?
It seems unlikely.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 07:05:36 -0600, "Tim Tompkins"
wrote:

RMV can be tranmitted to another rose by the root system if they are close
enough that the root systems grow togather.

Many plant virus are spread by this means and the only way to ensure that
the disease does not spread is to be absolutely certain that the infected
plants roots don't involve other plants.

Tim

Tim--while I am the first person to appreciate the power of an
authoritative tone, here yours is misplaced. This is nonsense. Post
proof or recant, please.





"Cass" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Moyesii
wrote:

I have a climbing angel face that I ordered from Wayside Gardens this
spring. It has been growing well, but now shows clear signs of RMV.
What do you do after you find that one of your roses is virused? Do
you shovel prune or let it live its life out? The problem for me is
that most climbers take at least 3 years to establish and by that
time, I'm not sure what to expect from a virused rose in terms of
vigor and general performance. On the other hand, the plant looks to
be doing fine, and I'd hate to toss it.

Depends on how the plant looks. I have a few that perform, flower and
are reasonably disease resistant. But if it gives me any problems, I
kill them fast.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:17:24 GMT, "Theo Asir"
wrote:


As far as I know the only real
chance of virus spread is if you
don't sterilize your shears.

NO way, Theo! You are telling me I can spread Rose Mosaic
Virus from my Sonia Rykiel to my other roses if I don't sterilize my
felcos?? Here is where I ask you to cite your source. If this is true
then RMV is a much bigger deal than I thought.






--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

"Tim Tompkins" wrote in message
...
RMV can be tranmitted to another rose by the root system if they are close
enough that the root systems grow togather.

Many plant virus are spread by this means and the only way to ensure that
the disease does not spread is to be absolutely certain that the infected
plants roots don't involve other plants.

Tim



"Cass" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Moyesii
wrote:

I have a climbing angel face that I ordered from Wayside Gardens this
spring. It has been growing well, but now shows clear signs of RMV.
What do you do after you find that one of your roses is virused? Do
you shovel prune or let it live its life out? The problem for me is
that most climbers take at least 3 years to establish and by that
time, I'm not sure what to expect from a virused rose in terms of
vigor and general performance. On the other hand, the plant looks to
be doing fine, and I'd hate to toss it.

Depends on how the plant looks. I have a few that perform, flower and
are reasonably disease resistant. But if it gives me any problems, I
kill them fast.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Here's a link to an article from the Central Florida Heritage Rose Society:
http://members.aol.com/mmmavocad3/Mosaic.html (It's from 1993, though, so
there could have been discoveries made since then.)

Anne Lurie
Raleigh, NC

"Theo Asir" wrote in message
news:2c27bade3df537f78e90318c918526a8@TeraNews...
Wow! Do you have any research
to back that up.

Several of my plants are virussed
and grow close to plants that are
non virused.

As far as I know the only real
chance of virus spread is if you
don't sterilize your shears.

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

"Tim Tompkins" wrote in message
...
RMV can be tranmitted to another rose by the root system if they are
close
enough that the root systems grow togather.

Many plant virus are spread by this means and the only way to ensure
that
the disease does not spread is to be absolutely certain that the
infected
plants roots don't involve other plants.

Tim



"Cass" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Moyesii
wrote:

I have a climbing angel face that I ordered from Wayside Gardens
this
spring. It has been growing well, but now shows clear signs of RMV.
What do you do after you find that one of your roses is virused? Do
you shovel prune or let it live its life out? The problem for me is
that most climbers take at least 3 years to establish and by that
time, I'm not sure what to expect from a virused rose in terms of
vigor and general performance. On the other hand, the plant looks to
be doing fine, and I'd hate to toss it.

Depends on how the plant looks. I have a few that perform, flower and
are reasonably disease resistant. But if it gives me any problems, I
kill them fast.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

"Anne Lurie" writes:

Here's a link to an article from the Central Florida Heritage Rose Society:
http://members.aol.com/mmmavocad3/Mosaic.html (It's from 1993, though, so
there could have been discoveries made since then.)

I think Dr. Manners is considered the ultimate authority on RMV and to my
knowledge the article you mentioned is still the most current information
available. He lists an email address on his site, if anyone cares to ask him.
Or perhaps he will see this message title and respond here. He has been known
to post here on occasion.

Julie

RMV... What do you do after?
 

I can't find my original source but
if you google, a few sites do recommend
this as a conservative precaution.

http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/she...ediseases.html

http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/roses/disease-disease.html

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City



"Shiva" wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:17:24 GMT, "Theo Asir"
wrote:


As far as I know the only real
chance of virus spread is if you
don't sterilize your shears.

NO way, Theo! You are telling me I can spread Rose Mosaic
Virus from my Sonia Rykiel to my other roses if I don't sterilize my
felcos?? Here is where I ask you to cite your source. If this is true
then RMV is a much bigger deal than I thought.






--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

"Tim Tompkins" wrote in message
...
RMV can be tranmitted to another rose by the root system if they are
close
enough that the root systems grow togather.

Many plant virus are spread by this means and the only way to ensure
that
the disease does not spread is to be absolutely certain that the
infected
plants roots don't involve other plants.

Tim



"Cass" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Moyesii
wrote:

I have a climbing angel face that I ordered from Wayside Gardens
this
spring. It has been growing well, but now shows clear signs of RMV.
What do you do after you find that one of your roses is virused? Do
you shovel prune or let it live its life out? The problem for me is
that most climbers take at least 3 years to establish and by that
time, I'm not sure what to expect from a virused rose in terms of
vigor and general performance. On the other hand, the plant looks
to
be doing fine, and I'd hate to toss it.

Depends on how the plant looks. I have a few that perform, flower and
are reasonably disease resistant. But if it gives me any problems, I
kill them fast.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 07:05:36 -0600, "Tim Tompkins"
wrote:

RMV can be tranmitted to another rose by the root system if they are close
enough that the root systems grow togather.

Many plant virus are spread by this means and the only way to ensure that
the disease does not spread is to be absolutely certain that the infected
plants roots don't involve other plants.

Tim


Here is what Malcolm Manners says about contagiousness of RMV:

"Means of Transmission

RM is believed to be non-contagious in the field, except possibly
through rare natural root grafts. There is no evidence that it ever
spreads naturally in the garden or nursery, or through pollen, seed,
or seedlings (2). Extensive tests also have failed to transfer RM
mechanically (e.g., on pruning tools, grafting knives, etc.) (3). The
only known means for transmitting the disease is by vegetative
propagation. Cuttings rooted from infected plants, or budded plants
produced from infected scions or rootstocks, will be infected in
virtually every case. The disease is systemic, so the entire plant is
infected, whether or not all of the branches show symptoms. A plant
which is infected at the time of propagation will remain infected
throughout its life, and a healthy plant at the time of propagation
should remain healthy for its entire life, unless an infected scion is
budded or grafted onto it."

Thanks for the link, Anne. I guess I am safe keeping my Sonia Rykiel.
tim, where do you get this stuff?

RMV... What do you do after?
 

See the following link:

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/mis_info_about_virus.htm

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

In article , Henry Kuska
wrote:

See the following link:

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/mis_info_about_virus.htm

This is all rather annoying, since, as Dr. Kuska points out, none of us
can prove that *any* of our roses is virus-free. I share others'
concerns about spreading virus through pruning, especially winter
pruning. For no reason other than pure conjecture, I tend to think that
the pollen and root transmission is a remote threat I can live with.

Have any hybridizers reported virused seedlings produced from virused
pollen and/or seed parent?

BTW, I can't understand why my Bonica image was picked up by Google in
the rose mosaic virus images. Weird.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Cass, your question: "Have any hybridizers reported virused seedlings
produced from virused
pollen and/or seed parent?" was answered in my post. Yes.
"Ping Lim, an All American Rose winning hybridizer, stated in
rec.gardens.roses that he has observed virused seedlings from virused
parents.
He is not the first hybridizer to report that some of his seedlings
were virused. Harvey Davidson reported in 1988 (Davidson, H., The American
Rose Magazine, volumn 29, page 16, (1988)) that some of his seedlings were
virused and that he had heard, in a recent lecture, Dr. Dennison Morey state
that rose mosaic can be transferred through pollen. Dr. Morey was at one
time the head of the breeding program for Jackson and Perkins."


Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:59:07 GMT, "Henry Kuska"
wrote:

Cass, your question: "Have any hybridizers reported virused seedlings
produced from virused
pollen and/or seed parent?" was answered in my post. Yes.
"Ping Lim, an All American Rose winning hybridizer, stated in
rec.gardens.roses that he has observed virused seedlings from virused
parents.


It remains a fact that we have seen no evidence at all--so far--that
Rose Mosaic Virus can spread from one plant to another in our gardens.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Shiva said: "It remains a fact that we have seen no evidence at all--so
far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread from one plant to another in our
gardens."

My reply. Oh?
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html



Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

I found the following errors in the sites you mentioned. When a site contains
two items of misinformation I start to doubt the reliabilty of the rest of
their information. Cleaning your pruners between plants isn't a bad idea, but
since symptoms of RMV may not show up for several years you would have to
disinfect everytime you work on a different plant.

"Mosaic:
snip
Control:
snip
Plant virus resistant roses if possible. "

There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an infected root
to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.


"Rosette and Witches Broom:
snip
Control:
The exact cause of this disease is unknown. Infected plants cannot be cured.
Try to control insects, particularly leaf hoppers and plant hoppers....."

RRD is caused by a mite. And there is an insecticide which kills the mites
that spread the disease. See Ann Peck's site for more details.
http://web.ntown.net/~apeck/index.htm

Julie

"Theo Asir" writes:

I can't find my original source but
if you google, a few sites do recommend
this as a conservative precaution.

http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/she...ediseases.html

http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/roses/disease-disease.html

RMV... What do you do after?
 

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:57:28 GMT, "Henry Kuska"
wrote:

Shiva said: "It remains a fact that we have seen no evidence at all--so
far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread from one plant to another in our
gardens."

My reply. Oh?
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

Oh please, Henry! You are a scientist, no? Retired, maybe, but once a
scientist always a scientist. Yet you are claiming that a second-hand
tale told by Ann Mansker about a SINGLE study--in other words a study
that has not been replicated anywhere, ever--in which some rows of
multiflora, some virused, some not, were planted close to one another
and trimmed with hedgetrimmers, and in a couple of years showed a ONE
to TWO percent incidence of the virus in plants ALLEGEDLY virus free
at the beginning of the study

is proof that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread in our gardens?

Is this what you are saying?

In addition to all the tacit problems with this statement, how do we
know--how did THEY know the original plants that were allegedly virus
free really were?

Thanks for the information, and please take this in the spirit in
which it is offered--that of a good lively debate.

I have noticed in Gardenweb and other fora that there are people who
get very, shall we say, emotional about RMV, and they tend to be
alarmists who love to exaggerate its ill effects.

It is going to take more than the above to convince me that it is
going to spread in my garden.



Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:01:53 GMT, (Shiva) wrote:

Correction-- should read "Yet you are claiming that a second-hand
tale told by Ann Mansker about a SINGLE study [...] is EVIDENCE that
Rose Mosaic Virus can spread in our gardens?"

Oh please, Henry! You are a scientist, no? Retired, maybe, but once a
scientist always a scientist. Yet you are claiming that a second-hand
tale told by Ann Mansker about a SINGLE study--in other words a study
that has not been replicated anywhere, ever--in which some rows of
multiflora, some virused, some not, were planted close to one another
and trimmed with hedgetrimmers, and in a couple of years showed a ONE
to TWO percent incidence of the virus in plants ALLEGEDLY virus free
at the beginning of the study

is proof that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread in our gardens?

Is this what you are saying?

In addition to all the tacit problems with this statement, how do we
know--how did THEY know the original plants that were allegedly virus
free really were?

Thanks for the information, and please take this in the spirit in
which it is offered--that of a good lively debate.

I have noticed in Gardenweb and other fora that there are people who
get very, shall we say, emotional about RMV, and they tend to be
alarmists who love to exaggerate its ill effects.

It is going to take more than the above to convince me that it is
going to spread in my garden.



Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

"Unique Too" wrote in message
...
I found the following errors in the sites you mentioned. When a site
contains
two items of misinformation I start to doubt the reliabilty of the rest of
their information. Cleaning your pruners between plants isn't a bad idea,
but
since symptoms of RMV may not show up for several years you would have to
disinfect everytime you work on a different plant.

"Mosaic:
snip
Control:
snip
Plant virus resistant roses if possible. "


There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an infected
root
to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.

True.
I assume they meant virus free stock.

I realize this may change your cultural practice
but seriously, sterilizing between plants is good
advice for other diseases as well. most notably
crown gall.

Also this is such a grey area. When
in doubt sterilize. you can try to get tetanus
deliberately for years and not get it, but
it takes just one random infection in literally
millions of tries to kill you.

"Rosette and Witches Broom:
snip
Control:
The exact cause of this disease is unknown. Infected plants cannot be
cured.
Try to control insects, particularly leaf hoppers and plant hoppers....."

RRD is caused by a mite. And there is an insecticide which kills the
mites
that spread the disease. See Ann Peck's site for more details.
http://web.ntown.net/~apeck/index.htm

Its not 'caused' by a mite, its spread by it.
But no one knows the cause really. probably a virus.
I realize ann peck is a supposed expert
by this is truly laughable.

First the mites are too small to be seen.
So how do you know you have a
mite infestation. Usually when the
disease manifests, its too late.

Second if it is for preventing further
spread in your garden RRD is really
a rural garden disease. It comes from
elsewhere on the wind. how do you
cut off the source.

Near where I live RRD has a strong rural
presence. but Multiflora is becoming resistant
and will no doubt continue to act as a carrier.

Slash & burn is probably the only effective
method available.


--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Shiva, Your statement was: "It remains a fact that we have seen no evidence
at all--so
far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread from one plant to another in our
gardens."

Please look up the meaning of each of the words that you utilized
(particularly the "at all"). I suggest that you modify your statement to
say that there is some evidence (or even some preliminary evidence) but it
is not sufficient to convince you..
------------------------------------------------------------
You may be interested in downloading the full paper cited in:
http://www.actahort.org/books/246/246_40.htm
"Incidence of Rose Viruses in Spain", M. Cambra, J.L. Martinez-Torres, M.J.
Benaches, E. Camarasa, and M.T. Gorris, Acta Horticulturae, vol 246,pages
309-312, (1989).
They studied 4,730 rose samples. They found 4.2% of the roses had Prunus
necrotic ring spot virus. The breakdown was: 44.0 % of the minatures, 1.1 %
of the hybrid teas, and 1.5 % of Manetti rootstocks. They state: "The high
rate of PNRSV contamination in minature varieties seems to be associated to
their long existence."
Later in another paragraph they say:"....since this virus is pollen
transmitted (in addition to grafting). They later state: "The rate of
contamination in Manetti rootstock is quite low; this is probably due to the
usual nursery practice of preventing mother plants from flowering." Their
next statement is: "Manetti plants giving PNRSV positive, might have been
graft-contaminated in the most part." "
-------------------------------------------------------------

Also, does it concern you that the virus has been found in naturally
occuring wild roses?

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:19:48 GMT, "Henry Kuska"
wrote:

Shiva, Your statement was: "It remains a fact that we have seen no evidence
at all--so
far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread from one plant to another in our
gardens."

Please look up the meaning of each of the words that you utilized
(particularly the "at all").

I looked it up. It is not in my dictionary. Have you got a source for
me?


I suggest that you modify your statement to
say that there is some evidence (or even some preliminary evidence) but it
is not sufficient to convince you..

So you DO consider the link you furnished, in which you or Paul quote
Ann describing a single, never repeated study in which 1 to 2 % of
allegedly virus-free multiflora plants were allegedly infected via
pruners or perhaps simple *proximity* to be "evidence that rose mosaic
virus can be spread in our gardens."

I am surprised. Not only do I not consider it to be sufficient to
convince me, I do not consider it evidence at all. I imagine you must
run yourself ragged keeping up with every unreplicated study that
comes up.





You may be interested in downloading the full paper cited in:
http://www.actahort.org/books/246/246_40.htm
"Incidence of Rose Viruses in Spain", M. Cambra, J.L. Martinez-Torres, M.J.
Benaches, E. Camarasa, and M.T. Gorris, Acta Horticulturae, vol 246,pages
309-312, (1989).
They studied 4,730 rose samples. They found 4.2% of the roses had Prunus
necrotic ring spot virus. The breakdown was: 44.0 % of the minatures, 1.1 %
of the hybrid teas, and 1.5 % of Manetti rootstocks. They state: "The high
rate of PNRSV contamination in minature varieties seems to be associated to
their long existence."
Later in another paragraph they say:"....since this virus is pollen
transmitted (in addition to grafting). They later state: "The rate of
contamination in Manetti rootstock is quite low; this is probably due to the
usual nursery practice of preventing mother plants from flowering." Their
next statement is: "Manetti plants giving PNRSV positive, might have been
graft-contaminated in the most part." "
-------------------------------------------------------------

I think not, as the above apparently does not treat rose mosaic virus.



Also, does it concern you that the virus has been found in naturally
occuring wild roses?

Tell me why it should. Please. I am trying to learn here.




Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Shiva: http://www.realdictionary.com/A/dir/atall.asp

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Shiva" wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:19:48 GMT, "Henry Kuska"
wrote:

Shiva, Your statement was: "It remains a fact that we have seen no
evidence
at all--so
far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread from one plant to another in our
gardens."

Please look up the meaning of each of the words that you utilized
(particularly the "at all").

I looked it up. It is not in my dictionary. Have you got a source for
me?

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Henry Kuska wrote:


http://www.realdictionary.com/E/dir/evidence.asp


Thanks, Henry, you're a peach. Here's one for you:


http://www.realdictionary.com/E/dir/evidence.asp


You know that most serious scientists would not consider a single
study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything, now
don't you? Of course you do.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Shiva said: " You know that most serious scientists would not consider a
single study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything,
now
don't you? Of course you do."

No, I do not. If the results of a study are not evidence, then what are
they? How can you state the above when you just gave a link for definitions
of "evidence"? Are you mixing up the concept of "accepted fact" and
"evidence"?

You may want to reexamine the following (please look for the appearance of
the word "evidence" in both links):
"The two links below address natural spread of RMV:
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

and

http://www.goldcoastrose.org/pdf/clean-stock.pdf

This is what the U.C. Davis rose virus cleaning document states (the
goldcoastrose link above):
"The viruses that cause rose mosaic disease are most commonly spread through
propagation procedures such as budding an infected scion onto a healthy
understock, or a healthy scion to an infected understock. Disease symptoms
are not always obvious, which is why the use of virus-tested planting stock
is advantageous. There is some evidence that rose mosaic spreads in
commercial rose plantings. UC researchers are presently looking for possible
explanations.""

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

From: "Henry Kuska" :

Shiva said: " You know that most serious scientists would not consider a
single study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything,
now
don't you? Of course you do."

No, I do not. If the results of a study are not evidence, then what are
they?

Silly man. You are playing semantics here, the last refuge of those
who have no rational let upon which to stand. The phrase was "evidence
that Rose Mosaic Virus may be transmitted in our gardens," for one
thing. Not just "evidence." The study you cited might just provide
evidence that the guys doing it didn't know what the hell they were
doing. In that sense, any study does indeed provide evidence--of
something, even if it is the sloppiness or stupidity of those
conducting it.


How can you state the above when you just gave a link for definitions
of "evidence"? Are you mixing up the concept of "accepted fact" and
"evidence"?

I think you are using the word incorrectly, and you think I am using
the word incorrectly. The fact is, any idiot knows that the single
study you cited can not be considered "evidence that Rose Mosaic Virus
may be transmitted in our gardens." Why? Because something occuring
once may simply be a fluke. This is why real scientists look for
replication of studies, examine the scientific methods used,
investigate the use of controls and the credentials of the body that
conducted the so-called study. For you to claim to be a scientist and
yet pretend that anything you find on the Internet is a study that
provides valid evidence for the topic at hand leads me to suspect that
that you might just be one of the Rose Mosaic Alarmists I have run
into before.

Meanwhile, this hairsplitting is getting on my nerves, so I imagine
others are sick of it too.

In addition to the fact that I do not believe any single study that
has never been replicated anywhere can be considered to provide
evidence that Rose Mosaic Virus may be transmitted in our gardens, the
study you cited did not convince me.



You may want to reexamine the following (please look for the appearance of
the word "evidence" in both links):
"The two links below address natural spread of RMV:
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

and

http://www.goldcoastrose.org/pdf/clean-stock.pdf

This is what the U.C. Davis rose virus cleaning document states (the
goldcoastrose link above):
"The viruses that cause rose mosaic disease are most commonly spread through
propagation procedures such as budding an infected scion onto a healthy
understock, or a healthy scion to an infected understock. Disease symptoms
are not always obvious, which is why the use of virus-tested planting stock
is advantageous. There is some evidence that rose mosaic spreads in
commercial rose plantings. UC researchers are presently looking for possible
explanations.""

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

From: "Henry Kuska" :

Shiva said: " You know that most serious scientists would not consider a
single study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything,
now
don't you? Of course you do."

No, I do not. If the results of a study are not evidence, then what are
they?

Silly man. You are playing semantics here, the last refuge of those
who have no rational let upon which to stand. The phrase was "evidence
that Rose Mosaic Virus may be transmitted in our gardens," for one
thing. Not just "evidence." The study you cited might just provide
evidence that the guys doing it didn't know what the hell they were
doing. In that sense, any study does indeed provide evidence--of
something, even if it is the sloppiness or stupidity of those
conducting it.


How can you state the above when you just gave a link for definitions
of "evidence"? Are you mixing up the concept of "accepted fact" and
"evidence"?

I think you are using the word incorrectly, and you think I am using
the word incorrectly. The fact is, any idiot knows that the single
study you cited can not be considered "evidence that Rose Mosaic Virus
may be transmitted in our gardens." Why? Because something occuring
once may simply be a fluke. This is why real scientists look for
replication of studies, examine the scientific methods used,
investigate the use of controls and the credentials of the body that
conducted the so-called study. For you to claim to be a scientist and
yet pretend that anything you find on the Internet is a study that
provides valid evidence for the topic at hand leads me to suspect that
that you might just be one of the Rose Mosaic Alarmists I have run
into before.

Meanwhile, this hairsplitting is getting on my nerves, so I imagine
others are sick of it too.

In addition to the fact that I do not believe any single study that
has never been replicated anywhere can be considered to provide
evidence that Rose Mosaic Virus may be transmitted in our gardens, the
study you cited did not convince me.



You may want to reexamine the following (please look for the appearance of
the word "evidence" in both links):
"The two links below address natural spread of RMV:
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

and

http://www.goldcoastrose.org/pdf/clean-stock.pdf

This is what the U.C. Davis rose virus cleaning document states (the
goldcoastrose link above):
"The viruses that cause rose mosaic disease are most commonly spread through
propagation procedures such as budding an infected scion onto a healthy
understock, or a healthy scion to an infected understock. Disease symptoms
are not always obvious, which is why the use of virus-tested planting stock
is advantageous. There is some evidence that rose mosaic spreads in
commercial rose plantings. UC researchers are presently looking for possible
explanations.""

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

In article , Henry Kuska
wrote:

Cass, your question: "Have any hybridizers reported virused seedlings
produced from virused
pollen and/or seed parent?" was answered in my post. Yes.
"Ping Lim, an All American Rose winning hybridizer, stated in
rec.gardens.roses that he has observed virused seedlings from virused
parents.
He is not the first hybridizer to report that some of his seedlings
were virused. Harvey Davidson reported in 1988 (Davidson, H., The American
Rose Magazine, volumn 29, page 16, (1988)) that some of his seedlings were
virused and that he had heard, in a recent lecture, Dr. Dennison Morey state
that rose mosaic can be transferred through pollen. Dr. Morey was at one
time the head of the breeding program for Jackson and Perkins."

I missed it. Thanks. And the information about UC's hedge trimming
experiment is discouraging as well. Then there are the reports about
heat-treated, so-called virus-cleaned, varieties showing symptons after
a number of years. Bad stuff. One wonders what percentage of garden
roses is clean!

RMV... What do you do after?
 

In article , Henry Kuska
wrote:

Shiva, Your statement was: "It remains a fact that we have seen no evidence
at all--so
far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread from one plant to another in our
gardens."

Please look up the meaning of each of the words that you utilized
(particularly the "at all"). I suggest that you modify your statement to
say that there is some evidence (or even some preliminary evidence) but it
is not sufficient to convince you..
------------------------------------------------------------
You may be interested in downloading the full paper cited in:
http://www.actahort.org/books/246/246_40.htm
"Incidence of Rose Viruses in Spain", M. Cambra, J.L. Martinez-Torres, M.J.
Benaches, E. Camarasa, and M.T. Gorris, Acta Horticulturae, vol 246,pages
309-312, (1989).
They studied 4,730 rose samples. They found 4.2% of the roses had Prunus
necrotic ring spot virus. The breakdown was: 44.0 % of the minatures, 1.1 %
of the hybrid teas, and 1.5 % of Manetti rootstocks. They state: "The high
rate of PNRSV contamination in minature varieties seems to be associated to
their long existence."

What does this mean, "associated with their long existence?"

Later in another paragraph they say:"....since this virus is pollen
transmitted (in addition to grafting). They later state: "The rate of
contamination in Manetti rootstock is quite low; this is probably due to the
usual nursery practice of preventing mother plants from flowering." Their
next statement is: "Manetti plants giving PNRSV positive, might have been
graft-contaminated in the most part." "
-------------------------------------------------------------

Also, does it concern you that the virus has been found in naturally
occuring wild roses?

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

In article , Unique Too
wrote:


There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an
infected root to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.

I do not know that this is true at all. Rosarians have observed for
years that some virused roses are weak, sickly and damaged, while
others are vigorous, floriferous and viable. Really, there are too many
variables to know exactly what is going on, whether the really sickly
ones have RMV of both the rootstock and the scion, whether some of the
RMViruses are more virulent than others, whether the problems are
caused by rootstock incompatibility. Until testing is more accessible,
we can only speculate what is going on.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Cass asked: "What does this mean, "associated with their long existence?" ".

I have the actual paper, but it does not say anymore about this. I "guess"
that one or both of the following may be what they mean (the translations
that foreigh papers go through often leads to problems of this type): 1)
that the minatures were allowed to keep their flowers (i.e. they were not
pruned) so there were many opportunities for virused pollen contamination by
bees; or 2) the minatures tested were old plants that had many years
exposure to the 1 or 2 % transmission rate.

Explanation 2 was given by a European member of one of the forums as an
explanation for the high virus percentage found in old Europen rose gardens.


--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Shiva, scientists communicate in Formal English. I do not feel that your
original statement is defendable in Formal English. ("It remains a fact that
we have seen no evidence at all--so far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread
from one plant to another in our gardens.").

I offered you the opportunity to revise your statement (with a suggested
revision): " I suggest that you modify your statement to say that there is
some evidence (or even some preliminary evidence) but it is not sufficient
to convince you.".

I also asked you to reference what part of the dictionary definition of
"evidence" you felt supports your use of the word (I referred you to
examples of how others were using "evidence").

I have presented the viewpoints of a number of respected scientists,
hybridizers and the Royal Botanical Garden, Sydney . Your attempt to
question (attack) my scientific judgment is disappointing; are you attacking
the scientific judgement of the above also?

Your statement: "For you to claim to be a scientist and yet pretend that
anything you find on the Internet is a study that provides valid evidence
for the topic at hand ..." deserves comment.

The above quote has a number of words but what do they collectively mean in
Formal English?

For example, you use the word "pretend":
http://www.realdictionary.com/p/dir/pretend.asp
then you use "anything"
http://www.realdictionary.com/a/dir/anything.asp

???????????????????????????????????????????

I was pleased to see that you placed the word "valid" in front of evidence -
"valid evidence" is a completely different statement than "no evidence at
all".
"Valid" is a subjective term: http://www.realdictionary.com/v/dir/valid.asp
(definition of subjective:
http://www.realdictionary.com/s/dir/subjective.asp i.e. what you consider
valid, someone else may not and vice versa.

If I am interpreting correctly what you are now stating, you are now
approaching my suggested revision to your original statement. To save
scrolling here it is again:

" I suggest that you modify your statement to say that there is some
evidence (or even some preliminary evidence) but it is not sufficient to
convince you..


Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

"Henry Kuska" wrote in message news:07QYa.65537
...
Shiva, scientists communicate in Formal English. I do not feel that your
original statement is defendable in Formal English. ("It remains a fact that
we have seen no evidence at all--so far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread
from one plant to another in our gardens.").

Henry, I have already stated that it is obvious that we disagree about the "proper" use of the
word "evidence." As I'm sure you noted, there were several definitions. As I am also sure you
noted, I said that I am not going to play around with you about semantics because you cannot bear
to admit that you are wrong. It was ONE study. In response to my statement, you posted a link that
contained this:

"The following comments are an addendum to the Virus article written by Jeri Jennings, posted by
Tom Liggett in a discussion group as a follow-up to said article:

U.C. Davis FPMS has LONG (!!!!!) reported that "virus-free" (read that heat treated/indexed)
plants that were grown in insect-segregated greenhouses saw the spontaneous re-occurrence of virus
after five years. In my view, there is NO way to remove Mosaic (and mayhaps other) virus(es) from
plants once they re infected. Say what you want, but I am a rose grower of long standing that
worked in HUGE clinical research labs. Am I infallible? Hardly but I know just how small (and
tenacious) some types of viruses are. IF they are not a type of a virus (such as them as cause
influenza) that dies as a naturally-occurring end stages a part of its life cycle, then it is in
said host organism forever (at least with today's technology).

BTW; what some folks that have a vested interest (MONEY!!!!!) in virus in rose say PRIVATELY, is
MUCH different from what they say PUBLICLY (don't ask for details on this last part, as I ain't
givin' out no names). Tom

Also made were the following remarks by Ann Mansker:

It's an excellent article, but I have one caveat. There is some evidence that virus could possibly
be transmitted plant to plant. I had someone from UCD's Foundation Plant Materials Service come
and talk to Sierra Foothills, and he mentioned some preliminary work they were doing to see if
virus could be introduced into a plant via unsterilized cutting tools. The work was funded by an
association of commercial rose producers, who were puzzled to find low (1 - 2%) but consistent
emergence of virused plants in their supposedly clean blocks.

FPMS planted rows of R. multiflora (which shows distinct virus symptoms when it's infected), and
introduced virus into alternating plants. Over the course of the year, they cut the plants back
with hedge trimmers, just going straight across all the plants without regard to their virus
status. Over time (not sure if it was one year, or more, can't remember), they found virus in 1 -
2% of the plants which had not been innoculated. I can't remember how they eliminated the
possibility of root grafting (maybe the plants were too far apart?), but the speaker indicated
that this very limited and preliminary result was cause for thought. Ann M.


This website made possible by a grant from the Uncommon Rose"

Now then, the source of the information or, as you say, "study", coming third or fourth hand, is
allegedly University of California--UCD, as Mansker puts it. This is what I was responding to, not
anything from any other agency. It was a ridiculous link for you to post as "evidence that Rose
Mosaic Virus can be spread in our gardens," and you know it. Even if this alleged study was
legitimate, it is ONLY ONE STUDY, and no reasonable person would accept that as "evidence that
Rose Mosaic Virus can be spread in our gardens." Particularly since it showed a ONE TO TWO PERCENT
incidence of "infection" of plants we do not have any way of knowing did not have RMV to begin
with.

You clearly cannot find another study that replicates these results or even comes close, so you
want to argue more semantics.

No. You may be retired, but I am not.

Until you can produce another study that even begins to suggest that RMV can spread in our
gardens, you have not produced any evidence AT ALL that it can.

Learn to admit it when you're wrong. I do it all the time. It is no big deal.

P.S. I am glad to see you posting again.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Shiva said: "As I'm sure you noted, there were several definitions."
My reply: yes, and in order for me to see if there is any justification to
your original statement, I need to know which meaning you are using?
Remember, you provided the link to that set of definitions for "evidence".
This is a very straight forward request.

Your continuing "habit" of reading the motive of other posters is very
interesting. I doubt that you were instructed to do that in your Formal
English studies.

Your statement:
"Until you can produce another study that even begins to suggest that RMV
can spread in our gardens, you have not produced any evidence AT ALL that
it can."

contradicts itself.

How can you use "another" (
http://www.realdictionary.com/a/dir/anothera.asp ) and then state "you have
not produced any evidence AT ALL"? In case you are unable to open the
dictionary link, here is what it says:
"another(a) - different, some other, additional
Detailed description:-
3 Dictionary Entries found
---------------------------
1) s :distinctly separate from the first
---------------------------
2) s :any of various alternatives; some other
---------------------------"


..

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Addition to last post.

The third meaning was dropped. It is:
3) s :one more or an added

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Henry Kuska" wrote in message
.. .
Shiva said: "As I'm sure you noted, there were several definitions."
My reply: yes, and in order for me to see if there is any justification to
your original statement, I need to know which meaning you are using?
Remember, you provided the link to that set of definitions for "evidence".
This is a very straight forward request.

Your continuing "habit" of reading the motive of other posters is very
interesting. I doubt that you were instructed to do that in your Formal
English studies.

Your statement:
"Until you can produce another study that even begins to suggest that RMV
can spread in our gardens, you have not produced any evidence AT ALL that
it can."

contradicts itself.

How can you use "another" (
http://www.realdictionary.com/a/dir/anothera.asp ) and then state "you
have
not produced any evidence AT ALL"? In case you are unable to open the
dictionary link, here is what it says:
"another(a) - different, some other, additional
Detailed description:-
3 Dictionary Entries found
---------------------------
1) s :distinctly separate from the first
---------------------------
2) s :any of various alternatives; some other
---------------------------"


.

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

RMV... What do you do after?
 

"Henry Kuska" writes:

Also, does it concern you that the virus has been found in naturally
occuring wild roses?

I missed that one the first time around. Where is it stated RMV was found in
naturally occuring wild roses?

Julie

RMV... What do you do after?
 

"Theo Asir" writes:

"Mosaic:
snip
Control:
snip
Plant virus resistant roses if possible. "


There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an infected
root
to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.

True.
I assume they meant virus free stock.


I didn't assume that at all. We do use the term disease resistant when
referring to either blackspot or powdery mildew so it seems logical to me they
meant there were RMV resistant roses.



RRD is caused by a mite. And there is an insecticide which kills the
mites
that spread the disease. See Ann Peck's site for more details.
http://web.ntown.net/~apeck/index.htm

Its not 'caused' by a mite, its spread by it.
But no one knows the cause really. probably a virus.

You're right on this one, it is SPREAD by a mite, not caused by. That was
definitly my error.

Julie

RMV... What do you do after?
 

In article , Cass
writes:

There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an
infected root to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.

I do not know that this is true at all. Rosarians have observed for
years that some virused roses are weak, sickly and damaged, while
others are vigorous, floriferous and viable. Really, there are too many
variables to know exactly what is going on, whether the really sickly
ones have RMV of both the rootstock and the scion, whether some of the
RMViruses are more virulent than others, whether the problems are
caused by rootstock incompatibility. Until testing is more accessible,
we can only speculate what is going on.

Interesting. Are you saying is an RMV infected rose which remains vigoruous,
floriferous and viable "may" be RMV resistant? That is possible.

This entire RMV thread has been most informative.

Julie

RMV... What do you do after?
 

Julie wrote:
In article , Cass
writes:

There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an
infected root to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.

I do not know that this is true at all. Rosarians have observed for
years that some virused roses are weak, sickly and damaged, while
others are vigorous, floriferous and viable. Really, there are too many
variables to know exactly what is going on, whether the really sickly
ones have RMV of both the rootstock and the scion, whether some of the
RMViruses are more virulent than others, whether the problems are
caused by rootstock incompatibility. Until testing is more accessible,
we can only speculate what is going on.

Interesting. Are you saying is an RMV infected rose which remains vigoruous,
floriferous and viable "may" be RMV resistant? That is possible.

This entire RMV thread has been most informative.

Julie

I agree, this has been a great thread. I have only one clear case of Rose Mosaic Virus in my
gardens,and it is the Arena Sonia Rykiel I got at a local grocery store a couple
of years back. I say clear case because when stressed by drought and
heat it showed the CLASSIC pattern--not any deficiency, not over-watering, etc.
What is odd about this rose is that it is flourishing in these very
wet conditons we have had this year. It has stayed in bloom and has
had very little blackspot when compared with my other grafted roses, and
has more leaves than any but my ownroot Austins and Don Juan. I KNOW this
rose is virused, but under adverse condtions, with no protection against
insects or black spot, it has done very well when compared with my other
roses. Lends credence to Cass's comments.

RMV... What do you do after?
 

This quote was made, in a previous posting he

"The following comments are an addendum to the Virus article written by Jeri
Jennings, posted by
Tom Liggett in a discussion group as a follow-up to said article:

U.C. Davis FPMS has LONG (!!!!!) reported that "virus-free" (read that heat
treated/indexed)
plants that were grown in insect-segregated greenhouses saw the spontaneous
re-occurrence of virus
after five years. In my view, there is NO way to remove Mosaic (and mayhaps
other) virus(es) from
plants once they re infected. "

I should point out that after that statement was made, I had a flood of emails
about it, so I called up the folks at FPMS. Talked to several of them,
including Mike Cunningham, head of their rose program. I was assured,
absolutely, that no knowledgeable FPMS employee had ever said any such thing,
and that it was certainly not true, in their experience.

So, either the quote is a direct lie, or (more probably) a gross
misunderstanding of some other statement, enlarged through several generations
of gossip.

Malcolm Manners