AOE - Award of Excellence, to Spray or Not to Spray

The ARS, AOE trials last 2 years for regular minis and mini floras, and 3 years for climbers. How important to you is it that disease resistance be assessed for entries in these trials? Should the trials be “spray free”? Or, would you prefer to have the test gardens sprayed, and the most beautiful entries be awarded as the winners?

The question is: Should the AOE trial gardens be sprayed for pests and diseases, or should they be spray free?

There is no “right” answer, so the more who respond to this question, the better. Thank you!

That’s rather difficult, Jim. It’s as if you’re changing the rules once the trial has begun. If the entries had been specifically bred for disease and pest resistance, and had they been entered into the trials with the understanding they would have to fend for themselves without chemical assistance, that would be one thing. They weren’t, though and changing the trials to no chemical support pulls the rug out from under the entrants.

I agree no spray trials are needed, and perhaps the next trial year to begin should be changed to reflect that. I don’t know about halting spraying in the middle of a test, though.

I would expect that entries bred closer to the individual test garden to probably be more disease resistant, particularly to the prevalent strain of black spot in that area, than “outside” entries which probably haven’t been tested against that specific population of the fungi. Not spraying might point to the regionality of the entries. If it did, and there was no clear ‘best rose’, but each region’s entry was found healthiest in its region, how could an award be made?

Do not spray! It is needed because this is a class that has been bred a lot in artificial environments. Some of the newer breeders have broke this, but the backbone of the class is still present.

I would really love to like miniatures, but they need to be on par with garden performers. Otherwise, they do not have an edge over any other mini out there. This is especially important since a lot of sales go to Poulsen and Kordes for their lines of forced cuttings sold as minis. Since exhibition is not really a mainstay anymore, something else needs to give incentive for people to want to have minis in their yards.

I dont think they should spray, it enables the plant to be represented on its degree of disease immunity, may it be to a lesser or greater extent of infection. Just my thoughts.

No, they should not spray! The purpose of the trials, as I see it, is to not only see how well they grow, bloom, repeat, etc, is to see what disease resistance they have ‘au naturale’. I can take a plant that is diseased, and by spraying it every few days have a fairly good looking plant. But with so many restrictions and the mindset of so many nowdays that spray of any kind is posionous; roses that get on the market should be as disease resistant as possible. Trials like the AOE should bring this out.

[size=medium]Those that are planted under a new no-spray rule can be planted far enough away from those that are “grandfathered in” (if people would prefer to proceed in that way) to allow the previously entered varieties to be sprayed while keeping the newer entries unsprayed. But I’m not sure people would like to have asterisks next to their winners’ names (that is, This rose was not grown under no-spray conditions or This rose had to be sprayed so it would survive the trials). Wouldn’t that be perceived as certification of inferiority?[/size]

I’m fine with them spraying the trial fields. Most everything has to be sprayed here anyways for mildew, whether sprayed in the trial fields or not, due to my coastal (read: damp) conditions, and near perfect temps for fungal multiplication (any kind of fungus). I’m looking for the prettiest rose to win – not necessarily the most disease resistant. Disease resistance is always nice, but it’s not the be all, end all that it seems to have become lately.

And I do think the “rose industry” (such as it is) has gone overboard with “landscaping” roses that make a certain color statement in the garden, without any atttention whatsoever paid to the form or beauty of the flower. Think “drift” or “carpet” roses, and knockouts in whatever color you may think you need. I don’t know anyone who really wants those – they end up getting sold because that is all that is offered – and because the buying public usually thinks they are getting a “real” rose (classic hybrid tea shape) with all the added disease resistance and so forth, until the dern thing blooms and they see what they’ve really bought.

Whilst these trials have no direct relevance to me in my part of the world, I fully support no spray trials. I am totally over roses that are sold as disease resistant and end up looking like bare sticks producing one magnificant flower every other month!

No spray! Give roses a 1-10 scale number on how disease resistant they are.

Well, some of you bring up a good point – that you believe that every rose trial – no matter what its purpose should be “no spray.” That certainly seems to be the gist of it, anyways. And that will likely lead us to more of the same “landscaping” roses that have been the primary ones intro’d as “disease-resistant” of late. Doesn’t anyone believe that people actually grow roses because they want pretty, cut flowers to bring in or otherwise to show off for their beauty in one way or another? Does everything you buy have to care-free, or are some things worth the effort you put into them? This is actually a much broader question on our goals than I originally thought.

I’d like there to be at least one “trial” out there someplace that values beauty over care-free. It does seem to be a trade-off.

I vote no spray. We need the trial to be relevant to the general American gardener, nurseries, and an effective tool for the ARS to promote the use of miniatures. If pretty, but chemically dependent roses are winning, the general public will be disappointed and the mission of ARS and the program of promoting the use of miniature roses in this time of environmental stewardship / reduction of pesticide use in the American public will be compromised. Breeders are understanding and transferring disease resistance from the breakthrough landscape rose cultivars into different market classes of roses now, although it may not be as quick and complete as many would like for getting high resistance into “exhibition” formed roses.

If AOE is going to have impact in the marketplace beyond a great article in the American Rose every year for the current winners, but hard to get cultivars for even ARS members, no spray is part of what is essential to be implemented. We need to have winners that have an elevated level of disease resistance compared to the standard miniatures. Nurseries use their precious catalog space for what sells for them and for most nurseries that has shifted towards roses that make low maintenance landscape plants- at least in the realm of pesticide use. Gardeners may still be relatively willing to water, fertilize, and mulch. Miniatures now are primarily throw away florist potted roses to consumers and if we are going to expand their use again into the general garden, we need them to perform well in the general garden as gardeners care for their plants. Miniatures are being registered and sold as compact landscape shrubs because calling them miniatures does not sell to general gardeners. Roses like Oso Easy Mango Salsa, Oso Easy Paprika, etc. could have been registered as miniatures as they are compact and have miniature parents in their backgrounds. Wouldn’t it be great to get these types of roses with higher resistance entered into the trials?

Pretty roses that need to be preventatively sprayed is something we can still grow and enjoy if we want to. However, that is not what the general gardeners seem to be willing to do anymore and the AOE award is meant to promote miniature rose growing and fit under the ARS mission as an ARS program. The AOE program has generally become more and more internal to ARS, especially as the smaller miniature rose businesses we would order from have gone out. We have each year’s list of top exhibition miniature roses that may serve the needs of ARS members that exhibit and choose to spray preventatively and miniatures for the masses can better be advocated for by AOE.

As time goes by, I trust we will be able to combine useful disease resistance with all variations of flower forms we enjoy. Raising the bar for AOE winners in disease resistance will raise the value and outreach of this program with shrinking impact and significance to the marketplace.

I vote ambivalence!

In theory, no spray would be awesome, but…

If test gardens are also display gardens, you are asking for a validation of “how bad can roses look” – unless hybridizers get a good heads-up on the upcoming changes – and images of sickly gardens behoove no one in the rose industry. (I can see ‘em now…) Also, as Kim stated, roses’ disease-resistance is so variable from one region to another this could give regionally skewed results. While George meant it as a support for no-spray, his statement, “I am totally over roses that are sold as disease resistant and end up looking like bare sticks producing one magnificant flower every other month [ in his garden ]!” actually supports the argument that a single regional no-spray garden might serve little purpose. Strains of BS notwithstanding, Shreveport would have high BS pressures, but mildew and rust would be comparably uncommon. I’ve had folks on this forum frequently tell me what roses are bullet-proof for them only to find them to be fungal fodder in my climate, and vice versa.

But then I have been advocating regional rating systems for years…

I do think a gradual phasing out of spraying would definitely be in order, though I’m not sure how that is executed. I also think a broad network of test gardens is essential. (As I say, I do not know how many AOE gardens there are…)

I’m withholding my ambivalent vote: In theory, no spray, but in practice…

I agree the ideal is no spray, but I also maintain you can’t turn an AARS type, Orthonex supported trail into an Earth Kind type mid stream. That is guaranteed to sour the majority of participants on the whole program. Maintain the existing trials using the same guidelines as they were begun with. Start new ones with the new policies, rules and regimen.

Until some major breakthrough occurs, I predict a no spray policy will result in as many regional “winners” as there are test sites, with one universally “eh” winner which looks uniformly bad from one site to the next. You can’t run tests and trials resulting in no winners very long before it ceases to draw entrants and generate interest. You can’t award prizes to lackluster roses, either.

How eager will any of us be to pay for a new rose which won with an average score of so much percentage of infection in all areas? The definition of “excellence” is going to have to be reworked and publicized so consumers understand it ain’t what it used to mean. Unfortunately, it’s probably going to require more than one trial program to satisfy both camps. I seriously doubt we’re going to see a Knock Out type plant with anything approaching a florist, or even attractive, cuttable flower, given the gene set we have to draw from. I agree that we can’t continue dumping toxins in the environment to maintain cocaine addicted mistresses, but we also can’t expect anything more than a more rapidly dwindling ornamental industry from “excellent” winner introductions which are increasingly more of the same.

The market has shrunk and continues to shrink because of our economic times and pressures. Even with the educational results of thirty years of English Rose advertising, the exhibition HT form is still what draws the lion’s share of customers. It’s what stimulates the average consumer to pick up the catalog, the body bag, lean to sniff the flower and open their wallets.

“Doesn’t anyone believe that people actually grow roses because they want pretty, cut flowers to bring in or otherwise to show off for their beauty in one way or another? Does everything you buy have to care-free, or are some things worth the effort you put into them? This is actually a much broader question on our goals than I originally thought.”

Gret question indeed indeed.

From a pure market perspective, the jury as voted. Otherwise J&P would still be the strongest rose company out there. Doesn’t mean that there is no market for the other type, but it has been shrinking fast, even on the West Coast where Hybrid Teas are much better overall “landscape” plants than in black spot country. The solution is long term, as David said, breeding the disease resistance of the best landscape roses into the beauty of the hybrid tea flower. Since it still takes 8 to 10 years to develop new roses commercially, I expect to see a lot of improvements in that category in the future.

I’m sort of torn on this one too. Like Kathy there is nothing that won’t black spot in my garden, even Knock Outs. It’s just a fact of life. If I want perfect, clean foliage I have to spray and spray with the big guns and do it all the time. Now, mind you, I don’t spray much. I never spray regularly and usually with the least offensive thing I can find and only once I already have an outbreak. I’ve learned to be content with the spots for the most part. So for me whether of not the test gardens spray really makes little difference. Even if something was totally spot free for years in the trial bed chances are it’s gonna spot here. But I suppose for others it might make a big difference and mean a lot to know whether or not the rose was sprayed and/or how well it did in a no spray situation. For me I’m looking at other things in a rose than disease resistance. Again, like Kathy, I want a beautiful form (and I’m not just talking about “exhibition” here) or a beautiful color or fragrance or…something, whatever it is, that makes a rose a winner.

Right, Seil. Even if it won’t spot in the test gardens, unless they have the same strains of BS you do and as severe pressure for it, you’re probably going to have the issues even when they didn’t.

The solution is long term, as David said, breeding the disease resistance of the best landscape roses into the beauty of the hybrid tea flower.

Jacques, this may be a delicate question but what roses do you recommend that we work with to bring good disease resistance?

The problem we have is identifying and obtaining the best roses.

For instance Kordes, which has one of the most rigorous disease program I know of, makes its roses nearly impossible to obtain here except for a few and those lag behind their current European offerings by many years. We do have a few worthwhile Meilland/Star cultivars but none are very recent introductions. We have no idea at all what the merits are for Delbard, Tantau, Poulson or other European breeders.

Don, until they are able to be tested against the strains of black spot they will be subjected to in OUR climates, of what real benefit will knowing which a foreign breeder finds useful? Even the best we have to work with here, now, are no guaranty in our various climates. What is spotless for me, defoliates for you. What is highly disease resistant for Kordes there, is a dog in many areas here. We NEED some method of determining what is going to provide the Knock Out type resistance here before investing in and beginning to use what works for Kordes, Meilland, etc.

I would think we would be better served polling the spot free or spot resistant HT form roses in the various American climates to see what, if any, overlap there might be. Hopefully, that might give some clue whether they may have the horizontal resistance demanded to produce the Knock Out plants with the HT form.

of what real benefit will knowing which a foreign breeder finds useful ?

Oh, I’m thinking this particular breeder has a great deal of useful information.

We NEED some method of determining what is going to provide the Knock Out type resistance here before investing in and beginning to use what works for Kordes, Meilland, etc.

Your promotion of localized testing is valid to the extent that pathogen strains (‘races’) are geographically isolated but only if we are concerned about vertical resistance to a single pathogen. A strict no-spray paradigm selects for horizontal resistance to all pathogens which is what makes Kordes roses and the ADR test program so valuable. Moreover, I’m not convinced that (for example) diplocarpon strains lack regional overlap even across the pond.

I would think we would be better served polling the spot free or spot resistant HT form roses in the various American climates to see what, if any, overlap there might be.

The diplocarpon screening program that Earth Kind uses has generated good information for us but the latency in publishing and limits of time, space and money leave us begging for more. You may live long enough to see more such results and for similar programs to be put into place for the other major pathogens but I doubt I will.

For that reason alone I study as much information from as many sources as I can put my hands on. So far the most valuable has been the advice I have gotten through this website from you all.

Thank you all for your comments and votes! The poll will remain open for others who may yet want to weigh in. As you can see, the majority would prefer that the AOE test gardens be spray free (92%).

There are good points made by all.

Kim notes that the trials should not be changed “mid-stream” so to speak. The rules should not be altered for entries that have already been made. Others note that care-free roses in general lack the beauty and allure of the exhibition type roses. David and Jacques point out that care-free roses with good form are achievable with controlled and directed breeding.

I doubt if anyone would rather spray their roses for the sheer enjoyment of the exercise, but those that do spray, do so for the love of the rewards of beautiful blooms, foliage and fragrance. It is these qualities in roses that has drawn most of us into growing them.

Though I do agree with the comments that there is no rose that fits all climates and disease pressures in various areas of the country/world, I see no reason why not to evaluate roses under no spray conditions. Even if some roses will look great in one area, while others will do better in other areas. That is good information to have. Also, I do think that there will be some roses that will perform well in most climates. We will not be able to find these latter type roses unless we have a way to evaluate them under wide growing conditions without spraying them.

My hope is that the AOE and ARS would solidly move in the direction of no spray. It is clear, that is what the public wants. They are voting that way with their dollars.

I think that the ARS would serve itself well to create sections in rose shows where entries are “no spray”. I suspect that there would be much interest in those sections.

Would you be interested in “no spray” sections in rose shows?