I keep reading that there are 5 or 10, sometimes 15 or more different strains of black spot. This, I'm led to believe means that blackspot life forms are like the BORG.
So obviously resistance is futile.

But if indeed it is a hoax, then it seems that even HMF has been taken in because I increasingly find rose descriptions that include a shocking new term:
"black spot resistant."

Or maybe black spot resistance is a clever deception to fool folks, who don't, or won't, or for whatever reason cannot apply chemicals, into buying certain roses in the hope of having healthy ones.

If so, IMHO, it is a much cleverer ruse than that deceptive practice I so often observe on this forum which is posting photos of roses that ARE chemically treated while "inadvertently" neglecting to mention that fact.

Or similarly, highly touting the "disease" resistance of a rose grown in an area where black spot rarely causes a problem.

I remember one post where when questioned, the author responded that she never said anything about BLACK SPOT resistance. She had after all only said "disease" resistant.

These have been VERY long running acts, or should I call them....

Blackspot resistance must be a hoax.

Just wondering...

Jackie

After reading comments here for many years, I conclude that the areas with the heaviest blackspot pressure and/or most virulent races are the Mid-Atlantic from NY down to DC and here in Appalachia. Pressure is less in places with very hot summers and less frequent rain. One peculiarity is that in my area we have BS that can defoliate the tea and china roses that are mostly resistant in the deep South.

When I mention BS resistance for a variety, I try to remember to say "for me" or "in some gardens."

One way to find disease resistant roses is to visit nurseries and public gardens and look for roses with clean leaves surrounded by diseased plants.

Then you need to do some research to see if the plant has issues. For instance, Geoff Hamilton is highly disease resistant--but is noted to be a stingy bloomer by many folks and is frequently shovel pruned.

Once bloomers often have good disease resistance, but there are exceptions. The Fantin Latour in our yard has lots of spotted leaves. It has also won Victorian Queen, so it stays, while Geoff is available to anyone willing to dig it up...

I have to admit--I am amused occasionally when I read a poster's claim that such and such a rose is highly disease resistant--and then a sentence or two later admits that he/she uses an anti-fungus spray in their garden. Since the job of an anti-fungus spray is to eliminate the fungus, I would think a sprayed rose probably would exhibit good disease-resistance. Like, duh!

Anyone who doesn't believe some roses are more BS-receptive than other roses, please come and compare my Gypsy Carnival HT with any other rose in my garden. The difference (in terms of black spots) will be immediately observable.

That reminds me--I do need to get rid of that Gypsy Carnival--but I do love its gorgeous red and yellow blooms, despite its bare-naked canes!

Kate

By far the biggest thing I learned from the exhibitors, is that *YOU* are in charge of the asylum that is your garden. If a rose doesn't perform under your care regime, and your care regime isn't totally disconnected from reality, ditch the rose. Because there actually are a fair number that will defoliate even with a serious spray program. There are a lot that will defoliate with a spray program that follows the recommended upper limits. So it helps a lot to decide in advance how far you intend to go because sometimes doing whatever is necessary isn't enough.

Anyhow: I'm almost 100% certain I've never seen any blackspot on 'Belinda's Dream'. Like, 99.99% sure. I bought it specifically because it's considered one of the most disease resistant hybrid teas. From the same breeder, 'Basye's Purple' is almost disease free, but is such a thorny thing I come close to removing it every year.

A couple other roses I tried...from breeder/collector Paul Barden IIRC...were terribly bedeviled with black spot and various other foliar issues which would have required spraying. I still have one and got rid of the other.

Once your accept the fact that "disease resistant" does NOT mean "disease immunity," it all becomes a lot simpler--and considerably less aggravating!

Kate

Disease resistance is one thing that the buying public (me included) look into when making purchaser decisions. It is too much to ask the vendors to refrain from exploiting the label. They would be right too: there is bound to be somewhere a rose WILL do well, but just in your or my neck of woods. Exhibit #1: Golden Celebration in full Austin regalia sold for about forty dollars a pop at Northern Jersey nurseries with that Austin label proudly proclaiming that it is very healthy.

Then there are the occasional headscratchers: my Sunsprire was BS free for 4 years, and this year she won the prize of most barenaked rose. Might be a case of bs mutation overtaking Sunsprite's immune system.

I don't spray for foliage disease, and rely on my roses being healthy without chemical assistance. That said, the disease resistant label can be misleading and, as in other situations, it is buyer be ware.

I'm not accusing any of them of deliberately deceiving the public, but evidently in those cases, they have only a particular region of the country in mind (no BS pressures in parts of California does not mean the rose is BS-resistant in all regions across the country!) or, in their eagerness to sell, they have "inflated" the positive statements about disease-resistance.

I usually take it that if the rose description says absolutely nothing about disease-resistance, then the rose probably suffers from BS problems, at least in a number of regions.

And as I've mentioned before, David Austin rarely mentions disease-resistance (too negative). He usually talks about how "healthy" certain roses are (they are BS resistant) or he, like the other places, says nothing (the rose probably attracts BS). I notice that a couple other places are beginning to use the more positive designation of "healthy" in place of "disease-resistant" also--which is fine with me, as long as I can figure out what they mean.

I would still argue that, on a public forum like this, most posters mentioning "disease-resistance" mean "bs-resistant"--unless they go out of their way to specify rust and mildew resistant.

As to why a perfectly good rose, after a couple years, suddenly develops BS problems, I haven't a clue. But I also have a couple roses that started out with some BS problems, and after a couple years, seemed to "outgrow" most of those problems. The best explanation I can give for that is that they got stronger and more mature and therefore more capable of resisting BS problems. But I'm guessing on that.

Kate

Kate

Asylum. That's great!!!

I know that when I made my first mistakes with rose selections - back then I'd look at those roses and think I was running a sanatorium.

So glad I gave that up early.

I keep trying to understand your statement:

"I have to admit--I am amused occasionally when I read a poster's claim that such and such a rose is highly disease resistant--and then a sentence or two later admits that he/she uses an anti-fungus spray in their garden."

And I keep failing to understand it.

Yes, you also wrote:
"Since the job of an anti-fungus spray is to eliminate the fungus, I would think a sprayed rose probably would exhibit good disease-resistance. Like, duh!"

But my question remains, how and why is it amusing?

I think you've got it, Michael. There are many different fungal diseases that all fall under the name black spot. A rose may be resistant to one or more of them but then succumb to some others. Without a way to test which are which and which ones effect which roses and which strains are present in your garden it's impossible to say definitively that a rose is BS resistant to any of them.

It turned out, they appeared to be resistant to blackspot, where tested ... (a disease we rarely see). They were just not tested for rust or mildew.

Jeri

It isn't that the use of the term "disease resistant" only misleads folks looking for blackspot resistance. It can mislead anyone!

The term "disease resistant" is meaningless in a nation with such broadly varying climates with specific diseases for each. Not nameless vague possible diseases but a few major well known diseases - namely blackspot, mildew, and rust.

We need to abandon "disease resistant" usage entirely.

As I pointed out in my initial post, the term's usage can be misleading at best and deceptive at its worst.

We need to abandon the usage of the term "disease resistant." It should never actually have been employed, IMHO.

Jeri

And, as jeri says, ask if that includes rust and mildew if "we" are not sure and that is an important consideration to the gardener.

Kate

Granularity indeed.

You wrote that you think that "everyone agrees that disease resistant can be vague in meaning." I understand that to mean that you agree that it is vague.

That's because it is.

The very disturbing thing is that with a couple of notable exceptions the majority of folks who are defending the term with their posts in this thread, SPRAY.

Yes, that includes dublinbay. BUT only the hybrid teas, even though In the thread linked below, dublinbay explains (just last year) that she even sprays the phlox.

I cannot understand how the opinion of someone who sprays is germane to the subject.

I, sandandsun, do not use any fungicide treatment of any sort.

IF I sprayed, I don't think I'd give a hoot about the term.

WHY is it SO important for folks who SPRAY to DEFEND the term?

There is NOT a meaningful difference between regular spraying and periodic spraying in terms of being able to say that a rose under such treatment is resistant (as seil so aptly pointed out - the rose is resistant or it isn't).

Platitudes are unnecessary, but your point about this thread being informative or a potential learning experience is, after all, the ONLY reason I initiated it - to help.

As I said in the thread linked below,
"some things take time. I understand that."

Which is to say, if a point is made clearly enough I have reasonable faith that it will be understood. Sometimes it has to be repeated or said differently to become clear and therefore:

Some things take time. I understand that.

It is not necessary for you to understand. No one has to justify themselves to you or anyone else on this Forum.

Lyn

S&S--What you don't know is that I rarely spray. I do it a couple times in the spring and a couple times in the fall and that is it. Those are the time periods when the BS pressure is the strongest. Our summers are so hot that BS rarely becomes a problem during that time.

And it was Seil who explained to you my viewpoint on gardeners who brag that their roses are BS resistant AFTER they spray them with a fungicide. Somehow you have twisted that around to Seil and I having opposite viewpoints on that subject. I assure you that Seil and I agree 100% on most subjects dealing with roses and we share a mutual respect for each other -- so quit trying to set us up as opponents in some way.

You also make the mistake of assuming I grow all (or mostly) hybrid teas and therefore spray all (or most) of my roses. Wrong again, S&S. Only about 1/3 of my roses are hybrid tea and only about half of them need an occasional spray in the spring and fall. The other 2/3s of roses in my gardens are not hybrid teas and rarely or never need to be sprayed.

In other words, if you were ever in my garden (and I'd never invite such an unfriendly person to visit my gardens), you would have a hard time finding much spraying going on at all most of the time.

Now what do BS resistant roses have to do with all this? If I grew BS-magnets in my garden, I probably would have to spray my roses twice a month all season long. However, since I buy only very disease-resistant roses (as the catalogs usually list roses with good BS resistance), I usually only need to spray a couple times in the spring and a couple times in the fall, and that is almost always ONLY about half of my hybrid teas.

There that wasn't so hard to understand now, was it?

And about that link to an earlier post of mine, you really misunderstood (or deliberately distorted) what I said there, didn't you. The subject was how to dispose of extra fungicide that one does not need. Since it can't be saved and used later, the only thing to do to empty the container is to spray some other things also. But if you read carefully, I advised to plan better so that there is no extra left-over fungicide that needs to be disposed of. You missed that statement, didn't you. It might have changed your understanding of what I was saying if you had read my post more carefully.

This thread has become a ridiculous farce. Someone is trolling, just trying to provoke other posters. The way what I've said was twisted around is a perfect illustration of how trolls work as they try to rile up a good fight among the posters.

Well, no thanks, S&S. Go squabble with yourself and leave me alone. I'm done wasting my time on this thread and don't plan to come back to respond to any outrageous things you may say.

Everyone else--you are warned to stay away. This poster just wants to cause trouble.

Bye-bye. I'm outta here!

Kate

That is how my personal experience with the issue has evolved.

I have numerous older posts about "disease resistant" roses. I have subsequent posts about "very disease resistant" roses. In both types, folks with no blackspot pressure wrote in with recommendations.

Hmm.

Why is that?

The most obvious answer is that the broad term "disease resistant" allows it.

That's a problem.

It is a problem because it misleads inexperienced rose growers.

And that is a serious problem.

Someone recently wrote something to the effect that we should live with the vague term and ask for clarification as necessary.

Inexperienced, budding, novice rose growers wouldn't know to ask for disease clarification. They'd be trusting that they'd get good reliable advice here.

I know that from personal experience because early on I took the advice of well respected folks on here that unfortunately live in areas where they have little to no experience with blackspot.

THEY should have known better. Maybe they did. BUT the broad terminology allowed them to recommend outside their knowledge base any way.

This is a problem - not just for the novice grower - but for the rose industry, rose socieities, home gardens, etc. when that novice after wasted money, time, and energy subsequently gives up.

I think we can fix the problem, but we have to recognize that the problem exists.

And then we have to be willing to think about it constructively.

I believe in our ability to do that.

If you only want people from your area to respond to your posts then say that in the post. It's a little rude and short sighted of you but you're entitled. For myself I prefer to get the free discussion, opinions and points of view of all posters from all areas. You'd be amazed at how much I've learned about roses from people like Kate, Jeri and Kim, who all live in very different environments than mine, over the years of discussion here on GW and other sights. Just because their climate is different doesn't mean they have nothing to teach you. AND limiting your respondents to just your area will NOT mean that you will only get the proper recommendations for "disease resistant" roses. From my experience a rose that is completely spot free in the yard down the street may be a leafless mess in mine and vice versa. We can use all the labels we want or not the roses do what THEY want!

- seil on Mon, Sep 15, 14

I tried to make it clear that understanding the different disease pressures in different areas isn't an issue confronting experienced folk (WE).

Experts theoretically don't need help. BUT real experts are constantly learning and adapting to change because they know that they don't know everything and never will.

My plea for change has NOTHING to do with what WE know.

It's about what newbies DON'T KNOW.

Inexperienced, budding, novice rose growers wouldn't know to ask for disease clarification.

NEITHER would newbies know to disregard responses from posters who have no experience with the disease(s) where the novice wants to grow roses.

That isn't fair to them.

Whether it is or isn't fair to the rest of us isn't the point.

It isn't fair to expect inexperienced folks to be able to understand these nuances.

Well, that isn't to say that it will be understood by everyone.

But hopefully it will be understood by those who need to know it.

I appreciate your wanting to learn more about BS. Simply use the SEARCH feature on this forum and you will find many threads dealing with disease resistance/black spot resistance, etc. with more depth and substance.

A discussion of semantics is just skimming the surface of information available to you.

It seems that SAS's discussion of the usuage of these terms in the rose industry and rose literature might be somewhat misleading. In one aspect it is correct, roses have been marketed as if they were suitable for all climates, but that, again, is just superficial information. Review of rose literature shows that this discussion has been on-going since the the early 1900s.

Keep in mind as rose breeders have consistently been working for improved disease resistance and the definition of "disease resistance" changes over time as the bar is raised.

SAS is sharing his/her point of view. There are many more informed threads in the GW archives.

There are a lot of variables which can influence the disease resistance of a given rose in a given garden. I think you will find more about them in the other threads.

Smiles,
Lyn

Edited to correct typo

Kate

"Generally, disease is not an issue for me, so I don't worry too much about that...

Smiles,
Lyn"

- roseblush1 on Sat, Jan 25, 14 at 9:58

Volunteering to be an example of the issues I pointed out in my initial post is commendable.

I live in the mountains of northern California. I do have black spot in my garden. The roses that defoliate in our wet springs have been shovel pruned as they are more disease prone than those that remain.

It's garden management and selection that allows me to say that ""Generally, disease is not an issue for me, so I don't worry too much about that... "

Therefore, the quote above does not support your theory that I do not have the right to weigh in on the issue.

Go to your room for a time out for bad behavior.

Lyn

Edited for typo .. again ... lol

I’ve been on a search to find those that are healthy in my area. I am an organic grower and never, meaning not one single time, have used pesticides or fungicides. So far I have two roses that are very disease resistant, easy to grow, need no spraying at all, and are vigorous. Julia Child and The Fairy. I have five others that I’ve added and I’m waiting another season to see how they do. Aloha, Brother Cadfael, Marie Pavie, Prairie Sunrise and New Dawn. Not the most exciting list, I realize, but they all offer fragrance, except The Fairy, so if they work out, I'll be very happy.

I’ve already shovel pruned about a half a dozen roses over the years, including ‘Golden Celebration’ mentioned by Farmerduck as being labeled disease resistant. The few roses I bought locally in pots, were the worst offenders. I’ve had better luck since ordering bare root from Pickering.

I am not a rose collector and really will be happy with a half a dozen healthy fragrant roses in my garden. I don’t have a lot of full sun, so I’m limited in how many roses I can trial at a time. Which is the reason for my short list.

I don’t agree that all that is needed, is to ignore the foliage diseases and ‘just enjoy the blooms’. It is not simply a case of a few spots on the leaves. I’ve had roses that were covered with it, dropped foliage and each season the plant weakened further. And I really don’t enjoy blooms on a shrub with ugly diseased foliage. If the bloom is all I was interested in, I’d just buy a few bouquets of roses over the season and grow something else.

That statement sums up why people who spray can't provide meaningful input on blackspot resistance. If a person sprays and the rose STILL gets blackspot, then the rose isn't prone to blackspot; the rose is a seriously weak disaster.

A rose dependent upon chemicals to be healthy CANNOT ETHICALLY be described as resistant AT ALL.

It seems that people who use fungicides ASSUME that everyone does or that anyone who wants to grow healthy roses MUST spray. This is definitely true for those whose PRIMARY concern is ONLY the flower, because the industry will introduce weak plants that have beautiful flowers FOR exhibitors and the florist industry. The rose industry fully expects exhibitors and the florist industry to know, understand, and compensate for the plant's weakness using the required chemical treatments.

A rose dependent upon chemicals to be healthy CANNOT ETHICALLY be described as resistant, healthy, disease free, or any related descriptor.

It seems that you assume that people who use fungicides sometimes on some of their roses are commenting on how healthy their roses are as a result of spraying them. Wrong, s&s.

Gardeners like me do not start spraying until the rose starts showing BS problems. If it has no significant rose problems, we do NOT spray those roses. Those are the roses we are describing on this forum as having good or excellent resistance.

If we have to spray them, they are NOT BS resistant. That is what we have been telling you from the beginning, but you can't seem to believe us for some reason.

I did mention above being amused by the OCCASIONAL rose grower who says my rose is BS resistant and I spray without noticing their own contradiction. But that is amusing because it is the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Nearly all the posters commenting on disease-resistance/bs-resistance are NOT saying I spray and my roses are healthy. They are saying these roses are healthy in my garden so I do NOT NEED TO SPRAY THEM.

You keep putting the cart before the horse and then lashing the cart for not pulling the horse.

I repeat: WE ALL AGREE THAT A ROSE THAT HAS TO RELY ON CHEMICALS TO BE HEALTHY IS NOT A DISEASE-RESISTANT/BS-RESISTANT ROSE.

That is what we have been telling you all along. So why do you keep trying to argue an issue that everyone already agrees on?

We all agree: A ROSE THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE SPRAYED IS A DISEASE-RESISTANT/BS-RESISTANT ROSE.

Now that I think of it, what you may be arguing about is that you are an absolutist and many of us are relativists when it comes to rose gardening. I say that because I would add another category--one that starts s&s foaming at the mouth.

I have some roses that occasionally get some blackspot--usually briefly in the spring and briefly in the fall. They do not get blackspot all season long. I would describe those roses as having above average resistance to BS (compared to roses that are plagued with BS problems most of the season and sometimes totally defoliate as a result) and I spray them once or twice in May and in October, but I do not spray them for the months in between. If that is all that is needed to keep them healthy, then I think that qualifies as reasonably bs-resistant (but not excellent bs-resistance). Most of us do use those qualifying phrases--somewhat resistant, very resistant, excellent resistance, etc--to indicate the DEGREE of health the rose exhibits.

Another exception for us relativists: Some years a rose will show almost no signs of BS problems and then suddenly the following year come down with a BS attack. I don't know why the difference, but if it is suddenly zapped rather seriously with BS, I will spray it a couple times even though I don't spray it the rest of the growing season nor most years at all.

The point again is that I don't spray first and then decide if a rose is subsequently bs-resistant. I wait to see if it is going to have bs problems first (or NOT), and then decide if it is a big enough problem that I need to spray it a couple times.

Now if I spray it a couple times and it turns right around and gets bs again and again, then I kick it out of my garden because I consider it a bs-magnet and I don't want bs-magnets in my garden.

Now if I lived in bs-he11, as some people call their gardening regions, I might have to spray every couple weeks all growing season or just give up on growing roses. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision and my heart goes out to the gardeners having to wrestle with that problem.

It will be interesting, now, to see how my points are twisted around so that s&s can continue arguing. I think he/she enjoys seeing how long he/she can make this thread go on.

Kate

Not sure what you are attempting to do with this thread, but this discussion is not helping anyone. Not to grow roses, or find healthy roses, or discuss roses, or make friends with rose growers.

My choice is dictated by the fact that I believe I simply don't have time to add another gardening chore to maintain my garden. I garden on five levels and time management is quite tricky.

There is always another rose I'd like to try that will thrive without any TLC in my climate. I won't know for sure that it will meet my standards until I grow it. I don't have enough room to grow all of the roses I'd like to grow and I do miss the blooms of some of the roses I've had to let go. I can live with that.

I believe whether or not someone else chooses to spray their roses in their garden is their choice and none of my business. We each have our own gardening style and make our own choices as to how we want to maintain our garden.

Seil ... I agree. This thread should die. No one is going to change SAS's mind about anything and we are just providing ammunition for its sly and mean-spirited troll attacks. Sad isn't it ?

Lyn

- prairiemoon2 on Mon, Nov 4, 13 from the thread linked below.

prairiemoon2,

ALL of my posts in this thread and my posts in the thread linked below are expressly written to help folks who want roses that can perform well under blackspot pressure without having to apply chemicals to UNDERSTAND how to find and choose those roses.

Almost all of my posts on these rose forums focus on growing roses successfully without having to use chemicals.

Finding roses that will fulfil that criteria can be very difficult. Understanding as many of those difficulties as possible allows us to be aware of and sort through them.

In this thread I have identified some of those difficulties and made a recommendation to correct them.

I was taught that sort of behavior is called approaching a problem constructively.

"ALL" ? I have no spray garden.

"Finding roses that will fulfil that criteria can be very difficult. Understanding as many of those difficulties as possible allows us to be aware of and sort through them."

You have not even begun to identify the other variables that can make a rose disease prone. A LOT is missing from your educational attempt. You are just skimming the surface of the issue so that you can stand on your personal soapbox.

"In this thread I have identified some of those difficulties and made a recommendation to correct them.

I was taught that sort of behavior is called approaching a problem constructively. "

You haven't.

Lyn

- ken-n.ga.mts

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

I have documented that in cool climates many virused roses are a big deal and have attempted to explain that those in hot climates should not be attempting to extrapolate their experience to rose virus afflicated rose growers in northern climates.

I also used to try to explain that if someone insists on spraying they probably will have disease prone plants as the plants cannot benefit from the beneficials that exist naturally in healthy soils but are killed by fungicides. I documented that it typically took about 5 non spray years for plants to reach an equilibrium with their natural surroundings.

As an example, I found that Illusion did not get blackspot. I posted that on this forum. I received feedback that people tried Illusion but in about 5 years it was as blackspot prone as their other roses. A common explanation was that Illusion must of met a new strain of blackspot that it was not able to fight. My thinking was/is that you cannot grow healthy roses is a chemical cess-pool. A common question I would ask a sprayer who felt that he/she had healthy soil because thay do observe earthworms in their rose beds was whether they observe the mycorrhizal fungi in their rose garden. I feel that this would be a much better test.

You may find the following thread of historical interest.
http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/roses/msg032241271666.html

Within the topic of this thread, I suggest that in general you cannot separate the concept that a particular rose is blackspot resistant from the concept that roses grown in healthy soil are better able to resist blackspot than the same rose grown under poor growing conditions.

I might keep trying with a little adjustment to my approach, that’s all. Thanks for the effort.

We seem to be on the same page as far as not spraying roses, at least.

A common question I would ask a sprayer who felt that he/she had healthy soil because thay do observe earthworms in their rose beds was whether they observe the mycorrhizal fungi in their rose garden. I feel that this would be a much better test.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- --

Hi Henry,

Its my understanding that some things rose growers do can actually hinder the growth of mycorrhizal fungi...
Like to much watering, fertilizing, etc...
So how could that be a real test in a rose garden?

H.Kuska comment: I do not understand your point. Yes, there are other ways to not have a healthy environment for growing roses.

The link that you provided states: "To encourage these hard-working and beneficial fungi in your plant community, you’ve got to cut down the junk (plant) food - stop using soluble phosphate fertilizer! If soil tests show you’ve got too much phosphate already, research has found that
conservative additions of nitrogen fertilizer or organic material can increase mycorrhizal infectivity. Warm temperatures and daylight favor mycorrhizal colonization, as does mild drought or nutrient deficiency. Plant roots need to be receptive to infection, and the best way to ensure this is to avoid overwatering and overfertilization. Other environmentally friendly practices, such
as reducing pesticide use and tilling while increasing the diversity of plant materials will favor increased numbers and biodiversity of mycorrhizal species."

----------------------------------
The link you cited does not include references. Below I link to a recent published scientific paper.

"ABSTRACT
Nutrients play an important role in improving productivity and quality of banana. It has been observed that the nutrient applied alone was less effective in improving banana production as compared to nutrients applied in combination with organic manures and biofertilizers. Keeping in view the conservation of soil health and quality production on long term basis, a field experiment was conducted during 2009 ��" 2011 to find out the influence of Integrated Nutrient Management of banana on leaf characteristics, growth and nutrient status of tissue cultured banana cv. ‘Grand Naine’. The study indicates that combination of inorganic fertilizers with organic manures, biofertilizers and bioagents significantly increased growth parameters, leaf characteristics, and leaf nutrient status of banana. The leaf characteristics in terms of functional leaves, total number of leaves, phyllochron, leaf area, and leaf area index were significantly influenced by the combination of inorganic fertilizers with different biofertilizers and organic manures. Similarly, leaf nutrient status like nitrogen, phosphorus pentoxide, (P2O5), potassium oxide (K2O), and leaf relative water content were also influenced greatly by different nutrients. Treatment involving combination of 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) + Azospirillum+ Trichoderma harzianum showed overall superiority in most of the parameters."

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/rosesant/msg0214503432350.html?20

Since most of you are familar with Paul Zimmerman, I suggest that the readers pay particulat attention to his post on Posted by pfzimmerman 6/7 Upstate SC (My Page) on Sat, Feb 5, 11 at 13:03

Anyone who has grown roses for a time knows that the descriptions of disease resistant is merely a suggestion. The way I look at it, if a rose doesn't say disease resistant, then it's trouble. Since my area is more prone to BS, I know I'm going to have to spray. I do find some bushes more resistant, but that doesn't mean they never get BS. But they don't get it as badly or completely defoliate if they are not sprayed.

As for viruses, even here in the south a virused rose can die over winter. I think we all experienced that here last winter. The weaker ones didn't make it through last winter, or were severely damaged.

But I disagree that you can't have a healthy rose that is sprayed. I spray most of my roses. Many are 10+ years old, and still quite healthy. I do use all organic fertilizer, including alfalfa and composted manure and my own compost. I am going to be planting roses with different root stocks this year, Multiflora and Fortuiana because I have read that these root stocks can mean healthier roses.

My focus was mainly on mycorrhizal fungi...
I'm no spray here but still have never seen mycorrhizal fungi here on any rose or shrub roots etc.... We get a lot of rain here which may be a factor as to why...
But roses grow and bloom well here with only top dressing the soil with compost and no other fertilizers so our soil might not be the best but its still good ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------- --

Henry wrote:
A common question I would ask a sprayer who felt that he/she had healthy soil because thay do observe earthworms in their rose beds was whether they observe the mycorrhizal fungi in their rose garden. I feel that this would be a much better test.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Henry, I took this as saying you must have mycorrhizal fungi for healthy soil which is true...

But with common rose practices such as adding extra fertilizer for more blooms, contant waterings to get those blooms, etc. there is no reason for mycorrhizal fungi to grow in those conditions so how can that be a true test?

The following is just one of many articles about having a healthy rose soil:

"After considering the soil pH, we need to look at the beneficial micro-organisms in the soil. We must keep them healthy in order for the proper breakdowns of the elements that provide the food for our rose bushes to take up. Healthy micro-organisms will crowd out pathogens (the disease making bad guys…) in the soil by competitive exclusion. In the process of competitive exclusion, the beneficial micro-organisms reproduce themselves quicker than the bad ones and sometimes even feed upon them."

http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/flowers/roses/rose-soil-preparation.htm
----------------------------------------------------
Buford stated: "But I disagree that you can't have a healthy rose that is sprayed. I spray most of my roses. Many are 10+ years old, and still quite healthy."

H.Kuska comment. Healthy is a relative term. You did not put any particular statement in quotes so I am not sure what you are replying to. Here is the statement I made relative to this thread: "Within the topic of this thread, I suggest that in general you cannot separate the concept that a particular rose is blackspot resistant from the concept that roses grown in healthy soil are better able to resist blackspot than the same rose grown under poor growing conditions."

I understand what your saying....

To indicate how confident the ARS appears to be in the information presented in the manual I quote the following that appears at the beginning of the manual:

"THE AMERICAN ROSE SOCIETY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY RECOMMENDATION MADE BY A CONSULTING ROSARIAN THAT IS CONTRARY TO THIS MANUAL."

What does the Manual say about Mycorrhizal fungi?

Because of copyright restrictions, the information below is only part of the pertinent section of the manual:

"MYCORRHIZAL ��" SOIL ORGANICS
Many rosarians are finding that adding these fungi as a soil amendment in the rose garden has shown some positive effects on their rose plants by improving the overall planting medium especially when dealing with less than perfect soils. The fungi are able to free up phosphorus and zinc or phosphorus and nitrogen bound in organic matter and make it readily available from clay particles to their host plants. For over 400 million years these tiny organisms have been working their special magic while hidden beneath the soil.
.......................................................
Research in the past 40 years has shown that Mycorrhizal fungi inoculants have shown some very promising results by their symbiotic relationship with plants as they are nourished by root exudates and in return deliver increased amounts of soil nutrients and moisture to their host plants. The fungi attach themselves to the outer layer of the host’s roots and then they grow their filaments or hyphae into surrounding soil from a few centimeters to a meter or more. The hyphae absorb nutrients and water and brings them to the roots of their host plant.
..............................................
Despite being microscopic, they encourage and keep in balance the roots of plants, other fungi, bacteria, earthworms and other tiny life forms. A plant treated with mycorrhizal fungi in the surrounding soil can take in 100 times more nutrients that those left untreated while producing better plant roots and healthier plants.
In some areas where heavy clay soils are present, Mycorrhizal amendments may not work well. It is recommended for sandy soil however.
Caution should be used in applying fungicides to any soil that has been amended with Mycorrhizal fungi as this will most likely kill them."

H.Kuska comment. Please especially note: "A plant treated with mycorrhizal fungi in the surrounding soil can take in 100 times more nutrients that those left untreated while producing better plant roots and healthier plants."

I cannot give the link to the Manual as the Manual must be purchased from the ARS.

I always thought Mycorrhizal fungi would look similar? I notice the article says its microscopic? So can you even see Mycorrhizal fungi?

"Picture of Mycorrhizal fungi on plant:

http://www.bucknur.com/acatalog/Index_RootGrow.html

This is why the Bayer All in one drench is not a good idea. If you do spray fungicides, don't spray so much that it drips onto the soil or spray the soil.

"For the most part, therefore, individual hyphae are so fine that they cannot be resolved by the eye. To give you some idea of scale, a human hair is about 100 um = 1/10th of a millimetre (click here). Under ideal conditions a fungus can colonize a substrate and produce masses of hyphae visible to the eye. A hyphal mass is referred to as a mycelium."

H.Kuska comment. Tebuconazole is a systemic fungicide so even if none reaches the ground, the tebuconazole will contact the Mycorrhizal fungi that are connected to the roots and/or trying to connect with the roots.

In order to demonstrate this I tried to find a scientific paper on this subject that was available in full, free.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227160342_Side_effects_of_the_sterol_biosynthesis_inhibitor_fungicide_propiconazole_on_a_beneficial_arbuscular_mycorrhizal_fungus/file/3deec517500a73af23.pdf

This paper covers propiconazole which I assume that the more scientific trained readers will be willing to accept as a substitute for tebuconazole.

I personally would not lay anything under your roses to spray your leaves with the Cornell formula...

I'm lucky here as I can just apply compost and they seem to grow and bloom ok so I'm not going to fuss much anymore except for pruning and deadheading...