ABSTRACT STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF POST-HARVEST HANDLING PRACTICES ON THE KEEPING QUALITY AND MARKETABILITY OF BETTER TIMES ROSES by Philip E. Parvin Faced with sharply declining sales of roses, while sales of other cut flowers were increasing, the economic health of the rose industry was apparently at stake. In 1960, a survey of retail florists revealed two recurrent reasons why decreasing numbers of roses were being used. One was the relatively short period of time roses would last in the home. Included in this complaint was the rapid color change to an undesirable bluish cast by the Better Times rose, the principle red rose in production. The other reason given was the lack of confidence the florist felt in the ability of the rose to Open and develop in the customer's home. There was an increasing awareness that it was impos- sible to tell from the appearance of the rose while still under the influence of refrigeration, whether it would develop satisfactorily or whether within a short period of 2% to 36 hours the portion of the stem directly under the flower would become limp and the head droop over, never opening. An extensive investigation, lasting three years, was begun in June 1960. Five general areas of study were pursued: the effects of preservatives; materials known as "foams", usually of an ureaformaldahyde base used to hold flowers in position when arranged in containers; packaging; N6-Benzylaminopurine and three-stage handling interactions: on keeping quality. Philip E. Parvin Over 2,000 roses were used in screening commercially available and experimental chemical preservative formulations. The influence of pH and iron content on the efficacy of preservatives, as well as preliminary work on the influence of time and duration of application of preserva- tives is reported. Since the use of "foam" materials is such a wide-spread practice among retail florists today, another study area involved the influence of various "foam" materials on rose keeping quality. Eighteen hundred roses were used in the screening of available materials, as well as studies of water loss and the effect on vase life when maximal moisture conditions were provided in a vase containing a preservative solution. These results were compared to those obtained when no reservoir of water was provided. It should be pointed out that this data refers to products in use from 1960 - 1963 and do not necessarily reflect on the modified formulations currently available. The effect of shipping roses in plastic bags, with and without techniques for supplying moisture enroute, was determined. An experi- mental vertical shipping carton was designed and subjected to trans- continental shipping tests. Rates of respiration of roses, in water and in preservative solu- tions, were determined on over a thousand roses. The effect of N6 when used as a dip on the rate of respiration, is reported and a study was conducted on techniques for applying N6 to the rose. The influence of four variables in handling practices was studied at three stages in the marketing channels. Data was collected on the effect of time out of water, temperature of solution, use of preserva- tive vs. water, and conditioning at low temperatures on the vase life Philip E. Parvin of roses. After studies were made of these variables at the grower, wholesaler and retailer stages of marketing, extensive interaction trials were conducted of all combinations of selected treatments. The tentative recommendations for handling were then further tested under actual conditions by a California grower who shipped the roses to Michigan for the wholesale and retail handling phases. Based on the results from 138 different treatments, replicated three times, involving vase life determinations on over 3,500 roses, specific recommendations for handling roses are made. By following these practices, the problem of "bent neck" can be eliminated, confidence in the dependability of normal development and opening can be restored, and the vase life of roses can be more than doubled. STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF POST-HARVEST HANDLING PRACTICES ON THE KEEPING QUALITY AND MARKETABILITY OF BETTER TIMES ROSES By Philip Eugene Parvin A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Horticulture 1965 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation for the assistance so freely given him by the faculty of the Horticulture Department of Michigan State University, and the cooperating rose growers during the course of this study. A special debt of gratitude is acknowledged to Professor Paul Krone for his years of encouragement, patience and guidance, and to the Joseph H. Hill Memorial Foundation for the grants which made this work possible. ii INTRODUCTION . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study I: The effect of chemical preservatives on the keeping quality of the Better rose 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Screening Trials: . . . . . . . Materials and Methods, 1960 . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and Methods, 1961 . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and Methods, 1962 . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and Methods, 1963 . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . Influence 2f Quality 2: Water 22 O_f Preservatives: o o o o o o o Materials and Methods . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . Times Influence of Time and Duration of Appli- cation gf Preservatives: . . . . Materials and Methods . . . . . Results............ Study II: Effect of "foam" materials on keeping OfrOSeSoooooooooooooo Ratio of Quantity of Solution 32 Materials and Methods . . . . . ReSUItSoooooooooooo iii quality "Foam": an an 2;. 25 25 27 32 32 32 36 37 #0 #0 Al iv Retailer Handling Practices: . . . . . Materials and Methods, 1962 . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and Methods, 1963 . . . . . Results 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0'. 0 Study III: Packaging for shipment. . . . . . . . . . . Study IV: Study V: Effect of Polyethylene Shipping Bags 22 Keeping anlity: o o o o o o o o 0 Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Shipping Cartons: . . . . . . Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of N6-Benzylaminopurine on keeping quality of roses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and Methods, 1961 . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and Methods, 1962 . . . . . Respiration Study . . . . . . . . . . Method of Application Study . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respiration Study . . . . . . . . . . Method of Application Study . . . . . Interaction of three-stage handling practices on "bent neck". . . . . . . . . . Phase 1. Effect of variables at the grower level: 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . Results 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 53 53 5A 5A 54 56 58 58 58 6O 6O 61 61 61 65 68 68 68 69 Effect 93 California Handling pp Vase Life 13 Michigan: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 ReSUlts O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 77 Effect of Method of Reconditioning Roses Stored E: 2l° gppgfibsequent Vase Life: . . . . 79 Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Results 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 79 Phase 2. Effect of variables at the whole- Baler level: 0 C O O O O O C O O O O O 79 Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Results . C C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 81 Phase 3. Effect of variables at the retailer level:................ 83 Materials and MethOdS o o o o o o o o o o o o 83 Results 0 O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 85 Phase A. Effect of interaction of three levels of handling: . . . . . . . . . . 89 Materials and Hethcds o o o o o o o o o o o o 89 Results00.000000000000000. 89 Effect pf Various Handling Techniques 22 Transcontinentally Shipped Roses: . . . . . . 92 Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 LITERATURE CITED 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 110 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. LIST OF TABLES Preservative screening trials, 1960 . . . . . . . . Preservative screening trials, 1961 . . . . . . . . Preservative screening trials, 1962 . . . . . . . . Preservative screening trials, 1963 . . . . . . . . The effect of water quality on vase life of roses . The effect of time and duration of application of preservatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The effect of quantity of solution to "foam" materials 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O The effect of type of "foam" material and solutions on keeping quality, 1962 o o o o o o o o o o o o o Gms. liquid lost from various foil-wrapped "foams," tenrosesperblOCkoooooooooooooooo Performance of "foam" materials in maximum mOiSture, 1962 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O The effect of type of "foam" materials and solutions on keeping quality, 196} . . . . . . . . Performance of "foams" in maximum moisture, 1963 . Performance of "foams" in minimum moisture, 1963 . The effect of various treatments on roses in plaStic bags 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The effect of N6-Benzylaminopurine on vase life,l96l.................... The effect of N6 on rate of respiration of roses . The effect of method of application of N6 on vase life 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The effect of grower treatment on keeping quality Interaction of water vs. preservative and temperature of solution - retailer level . . . . . Interaction of water vs. preservative and conditioned vs. non-conditioned roses . . . . . . . vi 38 42 1.1+ #6 #8 A9 51 52 55 59 62 67 70 72 73 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 31. vii Interaction of water vs. preservatives and time out of solutions . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of five grower treatments on keeping quality 0 O O O O O I O I O O O O O C O O O O 0 Effect of water and preservative solutions on conditioning 31° dry stored roses . . . . . . . Effect of wholesaler treatment on keeping quality Interaction of water vs. preservative and temperature of solution - wholesaler level Effect of retailer treatment on keeping quality Interaction of water vs. preservative and temperature of solution - retailer level . Treatments used in interaction study . . . Effects of interaction of treatments on keepingquality.............. Treatments used in shipping study . . . . . Effect of handling during shipment on keeping quality.................. 78 8o 82 84 86 88 9O 91 93 94 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. LIST OF FIGURES Rate of rose respigation, stems in water, with and without N dip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Rate of rose respiration, stems in preservative solution, with and without N dip . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Rate of rose respiration, stems in water and preservative solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 viii Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. LIST OF APPENDIXES Analysis of water samples used in tests showing the effect of water quality on PreservativeSeeeeeeeeeecoono... Changes in rose production and sales, 1959-1963, in six states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of retailer handling methods on roses properly handled by grower and wholesaler . . . . Effect of retailer handling on roses improperly handled by grower and wholesaler . . . . . . . . ix Page 106 107 108 109 INTRODUCTION In 1959, floricultural crops, including cut flowers, pot plants, bedding plants, cultivated greens, bulbs and flower seed crops were valued at wholesale prices at approximately $305 million (105). There were over 16 million rose bushes in production from which 360.2 million flowers were sold at a value of 850.9 million. This ranked the rose crop highest in value of all cut flowers in the United States. Roses have always ranked high in the opinion of the customer, too. In 1948, Swingen (95) published the results of a market survey that showed the rose was the preferred flower of shoppers in Texas at all times of the year. A short time later, the Opinion Research Corporation (65) released a consumer motivations study which reported that the "image" of the rose was of the highest quality. Sherman (90) in 1956 reported that in a test in Ohio, involving a large number of housewives, 51 per cent chose roses, when asked to express a preference between prepackaged units of roses, carnations and Chrysanthemums. In Spite of these consumer attitudes and opinions, rose sales dropped sharply in the 2 years from 1959 to 1961, while carnations virtually held their own and Chrysanthemums increased. The United States Department of Agriculture reported on these changes in 6 states, representing approximately “A per cent of the nation's producing rose plants, #5 per cent of the cut roses sold and #2 per cent of the total value of sales. While carnation sales went from 815.88 to 815.80 million and Chrysanthemum sales increased from 817.5 to 818.2 million during the 2-year period, 1959-61, roses declined from 312.6 to 311.6 million (95). 2 Faced with this sharp decline in sales, rose growers, acting through their trade association, Roses, Incorporated, expressed grave concern. Immediate assistance was sought and research grants were tendered in hopes of remedying this situation. Professor Paul R. Krone, of Michigan State University, responding to this request, laid the groundwork for this series of investigations by surveying a large number of retail florists as to their opinions on the rose. An analysis of replies from this survey revealed that two major factors were consistantly offered as reasons why retail florists didn't use more roses in their shops. One was most frequently listed as "poor keeping quality". The other was "undependable performance." Subsequent interviews revealed that in 1960, there was a high incidence of a physiological disorder variously referred to as "bent neck" and "rose neck droop" (#2) (8A). This term refers to a condition that can occur when apparently high quality roses, in a firm turgid condition are removed from refrigeration, only to wilt after a few hours at room temperature. The specific symptom is flacidity of the stem region directly below the bud, resulting in the flower head hanging down at an acute angle and not opening. The wilting develops rapidly, usually after the flowers have been delivered to the customer. It was thought that this condition was responsible to a large extent for the reluctance of many retailers to use roses. In 1960 a research project was initiated to investigate ways of improving the competitive position of the rose in the cut flower market. Since it is impossible to judge from the external appearance of the rose while under refrigeration, which will wilt and which will deve10p normally, it seemed imperative that the causal factors be 3 determined and avoided. Although there have been extensive research reports published in the field of post-harvest physiology, much of the work relates back to the influence of pre-harvest environmental factors. The purpose of this series of studies was to investigate the influence of various handling practices and post-harvest environmental factors on the keeping quality of roses. An educational program could then be launched to attempt to change the "unreliable" image resulting in an anticipated increase in sales. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The literature on research to investigate means of increasing the longevity of cut flowers is extensive. Aarts (1) credits Palladius with being one of the earliest authors in this field. He wrote a chapter "De rosis viridibus servandis" (on the storage of green roses) in his publication "De Re Rustica" in 350 A.D. At the opposite end of the chronological scale, two papers (16, #5), were presented at the 196k American Society for Horticultural Science meetings on physiological changes in senescing roses. I. General Summaries of Keeping Quality Research Several good reviews of general factors affecting keeping quality have been published (1, 21, 59, 59, 77, 78, 101, lOA). Twigg (lOQ) suggested that five factors be considered in a study of keeping quality of roses: 2. "Bluing" and fading of the petals, g. wilting or bending of the stem directly below the flower bud, g. wilting of petals and foliage, 2. rapid opening of the bud, and 3. failure of the bud to open. Aarts (1) published in 1957 an outstanding review of the literature on chemical treatments to affect keeping quality. He reviewed in detail research into various chemical compounds and reported his work on bacterial compounds, the influence of sugar, acidity, fungus develop- ment, growth substances and inhibitors, enzyme poisons, glucosides, and inorganic salts and micro-elements on keeping quality of cut flowers. He believed that research in the area of metabolic inhibitors to reduce sugar requirements offers the most promising area for success. Mastalerz (59) published in 1960 a good review of the internal physiology of the flower stem after cutting, and issued a strong plea I, 5 for all segments of the floricultural industry--from the grower through the wholesaler, to the retailer, to become concerned about extending cut flower life. Poor handling practices were endagering the economic health of the industry. In 1962, Rogers (77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 84, 85) published a series of nine articles reviewing many aspects of keeping quality, considering factors applicable to both pre- and post-harvest conditions. He stated that short vase life of flowers could be one of the most important reasons why florists are apparently unable to develop an appreciable home use market in the U.S. (77). II. Relation of Stored Carbohydrates at Time of Harvest to Subsequent Keeping Quality. Undoubtedly, the size of the carbohydrate reserve at time of har- vest has an important bearing on the cut flower's keeping quality (5#, 55, 41, #5, 78). Holley (55) estimates that one-third of the cut flower life is influenced by the pre-harvest environment. Carbohydrate content is influenced by environmental factors such as light intensity, available water, growing temperature, and age of plant. Holley (5%) reported that unless these factors are in balance, allowing plants to accumulate stored food materials, cut flower life cannot be expected to be maximized. In 1955, Knappenberger (#1) published charts showing the correlation of sugar content in stems with vase life of carnations. He found that flowers with the highest sugar content in the stems at harvest time kept longest. To further correlate these two factors, Karma (#3) has reported that the percentage of dry matter decreases steadily as the cut flower ages. 6 Rogers (78), in an excellent review of pre-harvest environmental factors affecting keeping quality, reported again a direct relation- ship between dry matter and keeping quality. Nutrition Several reports have been released on the relationship of nutrient levels during growth to keeping quality of cut flowers (22, 55, 59, 55, 89, 105, 115). Dorner (22), in reviewing work done at Illinois, reported poor keeping quality from flowers cut from "over-fertilized" plants, and Knapp (59) observed in 1950 that high nitrates resulted in a high per cent of premature wilting. Seeley (89) experimented with a range of soil nitrate levels for roses. Although 25 to 100 ppm of nitrate was recommended for optimum production and stem length, he reported no dif- ferences in keeping quality of roses grown at levels of 50 to 400 ppm. Twigg's (105) work in 1955 supported this when he reported that all roses kept equally well regardless of the nitrate levels used in the test. Rogers (78) and Twigg (104) concluded from their extensive reviews of the literature that in general, if the nutritional practices are within the range for normal growth, then nitrate is not a critical factor in keep- ing quality. Light Intensity The relationship of light intensity during growth of the plant affects subsequent keeping quality of cut flowers because of its effect on the accumulation of carbohydrates (56, 57, 58, 55, 88, 115). Tests conducted in 1944 by Howland (56) showed that roses cut in the afternoon kept better than those cut in the morning. In an elabora- tion of this work (58) Howland measured the rate of accumulation of dry matter in rose leaves and plotted this data on a daily and seasonal é: It. I A. ’3 w l v . {,' in: 9 5r .. V“! I ’ . l_gf t r" to O ‘1 7 basis. Not only could he show the difference in dry weight between morning and afternoon, but also significant differences between accumu- lation in December and April. In this test, roses cut in the afternoon kept 7 per cent longer during the winter and spring, and 11 per cent longer during August than those cut in early morning. Rogers (78) suggests this as a possible explanation of the generally poorer keeping quality of roses at Christmas as compared with Mother's Day. Hastalerz (55) cautions that a reduction in light intensity prior to cutting not only reduces the vase life but also reduces the length of time that flowers can be successfully stored at 51°F. In a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Society for Horticultural Sciences, 1964, Wesenberg (115) reported an interaction of night temper- ature and light intensity during the day. A night temperature as high as 75°F did not decrease the longevity of flowers on potted Chrysanthe- mums unless the light intensity was reduced. Shading consistently decreased flower life. Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Due to the comparatively recent increase in research having to do with plant growth in higher than normal concentrations of carbon dioxide, only two reports are cited. Holley (55) reported that under conditions where keeping quality is reduced due to low carbohydrate accumulation, the practice of adding carbon dioxide to the greenhouse atmosphere may be found to give significant improvement in the life of the cut flower. Rogers (78) also reports that the addition of CO to the environment 2 during the growing period should be useful in increasing the dry matter. Additional work is currently underway to study the effect of elevated carbon dioxide levels on subsequent keeping quality. Stage 2; Maturity Cutting the rose at the proper stage of maturity has a decided effect on its keeping quality (39, 42, 104). This is due to the relationship of stored carbohydrates to stage of development and the maturation of the stem in the "neck" section at time of cutting. Knapp (39) reported that in order for the same variety of rose to produce maximum vase life, it must be allowed to remain on the plant longer in the winter than in the summer. Kohl (42), in a study of factors affecting "rose neck droop", correlated the relative strength of support tissue in the neck of the rose stem with age of shoot. He found that roses out too early, tended to be unable to support the weight of the flower bud in certain varieties. III. Post-Harvest Factors Affecting Keeping Quality Factors affecting keeping quality of flowers after they have been cut include storage conditions, involving temperature, duration, humidity, controlled atmosphere and re-conditioning factors after storage; ethylene injury; chemical additives such as sugars and respiratory inhibitors; bluing of red roses, and metalic pigment stabilizers; plastic coatings, the matter of water uptake; sanitation; use of commercial preservatives and various handling practices. A. Storage Conditions. Marketing flowers in Europe differs from marketing in the United States in many ways. One is the almost complete lack of storage facilities (79). Growers are generally located close to their markets, and flowers not sold the day they arrive, are either dumped or returned to the producer. In this country, the use of storage facilities to PU 9 extend the sales period of a given crop, as well as permitting the establishment of markets thousands of miles from the grower, is an important part in the handling of cut roses. Several workers have investigated various aspects of cut flower storage (20, 24, 51, 55, 64). Temperature and Humidity Reducing the temperature, to reduce the rate of respiration, has been shown to be effective in extending the vase life of flowers (6, 59, 48). Siegelman (92) measured the rate of respiration of cut heads of roses as a function of temperature. He reported a Q10 for the 5°C - 15°C range as 5.7. As early as 1904, Perret (69) recommended the use of low temperature storage and stressed that the humidity should be relatively high. In 1937. Bancroft (6) reported that roses would keep one day longer if conditioned overnight at a low temperature and 80 per cent relative humidity, rather than for only 5 hours. Laurie (48) recommended a temperature of 45°F and a relative humidity of 60 to 80 per cent for conditioning roses. Hitchcock (27) found no advantage in raising the humidity over 80 per cent. Later, Knapp (59) reported best vase life for roses that had been conditioned at 58°F. He claimed that 58°F was significantly better than 42°F for this purpose. Neff (64) is credited with a major contribution to the literature, when he published his paper on dry storage of carnations in 1959. He discovered that carnation heads held 55 days dry at 55°F had only slightly less total sugars than when freshly cut, but similar flower heads in water held at the same temperature for the same length of time had lost one-half of their total sugars. 10 Fisher (24) worked with several cut flower species and varied the temperature in storage from 51°F to 44°F. His data showed 51°F storage best for roses, while those stored dry were generally superior to those stored with stems in a commercial preservative. Mastalerz (55), working with the length of time various flowers could be successfully stored suggested 15 days for Better Times roses in 51°F dry storage. The importance of critical control of storage temperature in this range is emphasized by Wright's (116) work which showed that the freezing point of rose petals is 50.0°F. When properly handled, roses can be stored dry successfully for 2 weeks at 51°F. It is important though that they be properly recondi- tioned when they are removed from storage. Mastalerz (56) plotted the water uptake of dry stored roses as a function of water temperature. By varying the initial temperature of the water into which the stems of the stored roses were placed, he was able to show a 25 per cent gain in weight of roses within 24 hours using 122°F water, and only a 10 per cent increase with 40° water. Modified Atmosphere Another approach used to conserve the carbohydrate supply in storage is to reduce the rate of respiration by modifying the atmosphere (29, 51, 99, 102, 106). Over thirty years ago, Thornton (99) found that with increases in carbon dioxide content, the storage period for roses could be extended 7 days at 58°. When the concentration of carbon dioxide exceeded the 7 to 10 per cent range, the tissues were injured. Injury increased as the storage temperatures dropped below 58°F. Some techniques were devised to increase the carbon dioxide from natural metabolic processes. Hague (29) credited the natural build-up ll of carbon dioxide in roses packaged directly after cutting for the increase in keeping quality over similar roses in water at the same storage temperatures. Uota has been attempting to increase the storage life of roses by still another approach. He is working with low oxygen atmospheres, and in a recent report (106) he stated that not only did low oxygen atmos- pheres lengthen the storage life of roses held at 52°F, but controlled atmospheres of 1/2 to l per cent oxygen used at "transit temperatures" (50-70°F) have been very effective in decreasing the rate at which roses open. Asen (5) reported successfully retarding the opening of roses treated with ethylene oxide, but the limit of tolerance of the rose (and humans) to this gas is small. B. Ethylene Girardin is reported to have blamed illuminating gas for injuring trees almost 100 years ago, but it wasn't until 1901 that ethylene was identified as the responsible constituent (116). Since then, there has accumulated an extensive literature on sources, effects and controls of this gas. Krone (44).published a comprehensive bulletin on the effect of ethylene gas on flowering plants. Excellent recent reviews include Rogers (81) and Williamson (116). Its physiological effects on roses include hastening maturity and senescence, and pre-mature petal drop. Although ethylene is a normal metabolic by-product, proof that a plant disease can stimulate production of this gas is quite recent (115). Minute concentrations of ethylene, on the order of one part of gas in forty million parts of air can produce decided responses. Since chemi— cal or mechanical methods of analysis were inadequate to detect such 12 small quantities, over a period of 20 years, a number of methods of detecting ethylene by measurable test plant responses have been devised. Krone (44) suggested the use of various indicator plants including Lycopersicon and Swainsona. Using pea seedlings, Williamson (116) was able to show the relative production of ethylene from various rose diseases. With 0 equal to he production through 5 for the maximum response of pea seedlings, he reported powdery mildew as l, rust - 2, anthracnose - 5, brown canker - 4, and maximum ethylene - 5, from black spot. It was interesting to note that healthy rose leaves produced little or no ethylene, black spot fungus on agar produced little or no ethylene, but black Spot on rose leaves produced enough ethylene for the maximum response rating. Mechanical damage to rose leaves or leaves injured by spider mites also yield greatly increased quantities of ethylene. Among recommended control measures are included complete insect and disease control and avoidance of bruising (115), low temperature for storage (25) (68), and absorbtion from the atmosphere by brominated activated charcoal (81). C. Hater Uptake The maintenance of a continuous, plentiful supply of water through- out the stem of the rose is essential for maximum keeping quality. Many of the common practices in commercial handling are aimed at this goal, e.g., smashing or splitting woody stems. In most cases, the side effects of such practices are worse than the original condition. Any practice that tends to reduce vascular blocking should be considered. In 1911, Overton (66) proposed that cells, injured in cutting, may produce toxins which result in premature wilting and death. In 1955, 13 Ratsek (75) using dyes to microscopically trace accumulations of bacteria in flower stems, concluded that these accumulations, especially in the sieve plates, formed a mechanical obstruction to water movement. Aarts (1) has presented evidence that there is both a direct and indirect effect of bacteria in the water. He states that their harmful effect is based on the formation of filterable, proteinaceous particles which mechanically block the vascular bundles. Ford (26) identified 19 differ- ent species of bacteria from swabs of flower containers. The bacteria most commonly associated with cut flower containers are naturally occur- ring soil and water forms. Laurie (47, 49) has emphasized the importance of using bacteriacides, while Knappenberger (40) further supports this by reporting that calcium hypochlorite, a dilute bacteriacide, was effective in extending vase life only if the water or vase was dirty. Aarts, in addition to establishing pH 4.0 as optimal for extending rose vase life, also showed a non-bacterial blockage of vascular bundles. Even under conditions where the development of bacteria was completely inhibited, blockage was frequently noted. As a result of his investi- gations (1) he concluded that active vascular bundle blockage is an aerobic, phosphorolating process. Before active bundle blocking can occur, three factors must have taken place: 1) damaging of the cells, 2) presence of air, and 5) release of a certain enzyme. He postulates that one advantage of low pH in extending rose vase life is that this enzyme may be inactivated by a low pH. Pokorny (72) supports the value of a pH of 4.0 for maximum rose life. The aerobic requirement for active stem blocking may help explain why placing roses in deep water is beneficial. Laurie (47), Mastalerz (57), and Pridham have presented data to show that little or no water l4 enters the stem via the bark, so the absorbing surface is not increased by plunging in deep water. Aarts suggests that the assumption that cutting stems breaks the cohesion of the water in the vascular bundles and the resulting air uptake hinders water uptake is not in accord with more recent research on the movement of water in higher plants. He found that the air entering the vascular bundles does not necessarily affect the water uptake in the form of air bubbles breaking the water column. Consequently it is assumed that even though the stem is not re-cut under water, the placing of rose stems in deep water has a favor- able effect, if the presence of oxygen is a requisite for the develop- ment of active vascular bundle blocking. This, too, could explain the favorable results obtained by placing stems in very hot water. Due to increased water movement, this practice aids in removing the air which might be a major factor in actively blocking the vascular bundles. Above all, placing stems in boiling water would neutralize or break down the harmful enzymes. Tinga (102) suggests that one function of a detergent as a wetting agent may be to act as an enzyme poison, breaking down pectin esterase. A water deficit is also a major problem involved in "bent neck" of roses. Kohl (42) reported that this symptom was due to a water deficit in the immature cells of the stem. Under microscopic examination, it was determined that the water conducting vessels in the neck portion of the rose flower were poorly developed, particularly if the rose had been cut in the tight bud stage. This underdevelopment results in two weak- nesses: the flow of water is restricted, and with even a slight deficit, the reduced turgor combined with the lack of mechanical support from the thin walled semi-flaccid cells, permits the heavy flower head to droop 9‘“- II! no.0 5‘. 15 over, preventing normal development and unfolding of the petals. Kohl reported that an additional 24 hours of development on the plant could allow sufficient increase of fiber content to provide the necessary support and increased water-conducting system. Plastic dips, to reduce water loss from transpiration have proven successful under limited conditions (91, 114). D. Chemical Additives The goal of many research projects in keeping quality has been to discover a simple chemical that might be added to the water for extending the vase life of flowers (1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 19, 27, 28, 50, 40, 49, 55, 54, 88, 98, 101, 102, 109). In general, the function‘of these additives is to either conserve or replenish the carbohydrate supply present at time of harvest, or to assist in maintaining water uptake. In 1950, Arnold (4) showed that 5 per cent glucose was beneficial in prolonging the cut flower life of a wide variety of flowers. Working with carnations, Knoppenberger (40) was able to increase cut flower life two to six days with the addition of ammonium or potassium alum - 1/2 teaspoon per gallon. Sugar, at the rate of 2 teaspoons per gallon, added to the alum solution, increased flower keeping another two to four days. Tinga (102) reported in 1956 the fact that the amount of sugar required for post-harvest treatment to provide maximum vase life, varies with the season of the year. Dahl (19), working with the rose variety "Pearl of Aalsmeer", tested a range of sugar concentrations and recommended a 4 per cent solution, with 50 ppm AgNO and 0.1 per cent Ca (N03). 5 16 Aarts (1) reports that glucose was slightly better than sucrose as a carbon source for roses, while maltose, in low concentrations also has a favorable effect. The literature generally agrees that sugar has an indirect action on keeping quality by supplying the necessary respir- atory substrates. In his thorough investigation of chemical additives, Aarts came to the conclusion that aside from "vascular blocking", the addition of sugar was the only factor that had a general influence on the keeping quality of cut flowers. He demonstrated that: l) the favorable influence of light on the keeping quality of stocks could be replaced by the addition of sugar; 2) the influence of the leaf is mainly due to the formation of assimila- tion products; and 5) water uptake is limited by sugar. The addition of sugar protects the plasmo proteins. The colloidal structure of the plasma is directly protected by the sugar so that the plasma is not involved in the metabolism. Respiratory Inhibitors In addition to supplying additional carbohydrates, another approach to extending vase life is to conserve the available supply by slowing down the rate of respiration. Siegelman (92) measured the rate of respiration of cut heads of roses and reported that at time of commercial harvest, they are either at a post-climacteric stage or do not exhibit a climacteric rise. His charts emphasized the influence of temperature on the rate of utilization of accumulated sugars. Mastalerz (54) reported that roses placed in water before storage were found to have a lower rate of respiration in storage than those packed without being placed in water. 1? Coorts (16), working under a more elaborate experimental set-up, reported a respiration drift downward, until the third day after cutting. The rate then climbs, climaxing on the sixth day. He found, too, that a much greater rate of respiration is obtained when rose stems are placed in a floral preservative as compared with roses in tap water. Laurie (47, 49) considered a respiratory inhibitor an important means of extending keeping quality. Bennett (7), Griesel (28) and Weinstein (109) have reported positive results in using maleic hydra- zide to extend the vase life of flowers. Bennett found that dipping in solutions varying from 200 to 1,000 ppm enhanced the keeping quality of roses. The major problem encountered with this procedure was the develop- ment of molds after treatment and storage at 40°F. Aarts, on the other hand, cound find no positive results during further investigations with maleic hydrazide (0.0005 to 0.025 per cent) using Eggg var. Pearl of Aalsmeer. This group of growth regulator substances, due to their involvement in maintaining protein synthesis in detached plant parts, has attracted the interest of recent workers in the field of post-harvest physiology. One in particular, Verdan (N-6-benzyladenine) has produced spectacular results in slowing down the aging process in lettuce. Although Hesenberg (115) reported that this compound influenced the flower longevity when sprayed on potted chrysanthemums, and Link (51) produced positive results in retarding loss of leaves and bracts on poinsettias with Verdan sprays, limited research on this material at Missouri (86) did not result in any beneficial effects on the keeping quality of snapdragons. 18 Recently, Uota (107) produced a significant increase in storage life of stock through the use of Verdan. E. Color Changes in Roses. Some red rose varieties, notably "Better Times", characteristically undergo a distinct color change two to three days after being placed at room temperature in tap water. This is commonly called "bluing", and can result in an unsalable product while still firm and turgid. There are several good reviews of research on this phenomenon of bluing (18, 45, 52, 104, 108). As a basis of understanding the references to the influence of various factors on the pigments of the rose, attention is directed to two excellent sources: Bonner (9) on the biochemical nature of anthocyanins and Blank (8) for a review of the occurrence, physiology, morphology and genetics of anthocyanins. Twigg (104) reported that the Better Times rose had an anthocyanin, having an absorption peak at 515%; in an acid extract, and an anthoxanthin, having an absorption peak at 35§A¢ in an ethyl acetate extract. He suggested the anthoxyanin pigment was a cyanin, which was supported by Ahiya (2) in 1962 when he identified the anthocyanin in "Pink Coronel" and "Happiness" as cyanidin. Curry (18), studied the relationship between the quantity of anthocyanin pigment and tannin present in a rose variety, "Hadley" that blued easily, and "Lady Maureen Stewart" that seldom blued. He reported in 1927 that a combination of low tannins, plus low pigment concentra- tion, resulted in bluing. His explanation was that the tannin acted to stabilize the red color and that the bluing was caused by the alkalinity in the cell sap, due to the low concentration of tannins. Twigg (104), however, 24 years later, suggested that the change in tannin content was a result and not a cause of bluing. He determined that a high potassium 19 concentration in the petals played a direct role in bluing and suggested the possibility of the formation of an additional complex between the potassium and anthocyanin pigment. He listed three factors associated with bluing in the Better Times rose: higher pH values, higher potassium content of petals and higher concentrations of an anthoxanthin pigment. Weinstein (108) operating on a grant to the Boyce-Thompson Institute from Roses, Incorporated, made a thorough investigation of the physio- logical changes that occurred in cut Better Times roses as they aged. With reference to the color change, his results indicated this sequence of events. First, the content of various sugars falls sharply. Next proteins are broken down gradually into their component parts, the amino acids. Free amino acids there begin to accumulate for a period of time and then they are broken down because of the lack of sugars for energy. The breakdown of amino acids liberates free ammonia into the tissue, which becomes toxic and causes bluing. Kuc (45), in 1964, confirmed and amplified this sequence of events. The changes in total ammonia, amide and organic acid content were measured throughout the cut life of Better Times roses, and compared with similar measurements for every stage of development in roses allowed to age on the plant. In aging cut flowers, ammonia levels increased rapidly after 5 days. On the plant, ammonia accumulation was more gradual and never reached the level of that in cut flowers. Measurements indicated increased amino acid oxidation was the source of the increased ammonia content in the maturing cut flowers. Amide synthesis increased for two days in cut flowers, while it continued into senescence in flowers remaining on the plant. Kuc presents evidence that amide synthesis is partially effective in ammonia detoxification, 20 suggesting neutralization of the excess ammonia by the organic acid as an explanation. Her data confirms the hypothesis that color change in aging cut roses is directly related to the ammonia nitrogen levels in excess of the acid equivalence. This excessive ammonia level is reached 4 to 5 days after cutting. In flowers aged on the plant, the ammonia level never surpasses the acid equivalence and the rose does not blue. Bluing is so characteristic of approaching senescence that it is generally accepted as the best indication of keeping quality (88). Water relations (59, 55), light (65), excessive carbon dioxide (100) and ethylene oxide (5, 10, 106) have all been shown to have a direct effect on the expression of this color change. The influence of metallic ions on keeping quality should also be considered. The beneficial effects of silver (87, 88) and zinc (12) are related to their bacteriacidal action. Aluminum, on the other hand, has been shown to form additive complexes with anthocyanins, resulting in a change of color (5, 15). The unnatural color of petals, associated with the use of preservatives in Better Times rose, is indicative of an additive complex formed in the petals with a material found in the preservative (108). F. Commercial Preservatives. Fourten (27) was one of the earliest authors to report on the successful extension of cut flower keeping quality, in 1906. During the ensuing years there have been many such reports (10, ll, 15, 50, 52, 40, 42, 49, 60, 76, 82, 85, 101, 109). Investigations have usually centered on bacteria and fungus inhibitors, sugars, metallic salts and respiratory inhibitors. In the mid forties, a new group of proprietary 21 compounds began to appear on the commercial market, called floral preservatives. In 1948, Laurie (49) reported two formulations to reduce respiration, destroy bacteria and increase vase life of flowers. Weinstein (108, 109) developed a floral preservative specifically for extending the vase life of cut roses. Patents were applied for but difficulties were encountered in finding a manufacturer (112). Mastalerz (60), commenting on the specificity of some compounds noted that preser- vatives effective for roses are also very effective for chrysanthemums, but compounds designed for carnations are not usually as effective with roses or Chrysanthemums. ' Rogers (71), in summarizing the role of preservatives, said that most of the commercial preparations are composed primarily of sugar, usually either dextrose or sucrose; an acidic substance to reduce the pH of the water; metallic salts to help maintain better petal color; and substances to control the growth of microorganisms in the solution. Some of them in addition may contain a chemical respiratory inhibitor. There still seems to be some area of doubt on the minimum time period required for cut flowers to be in preservative solutions in order to produce beneficial results. Most reports agree that any absorbtion of preservatives after the flower is cut is useful, but for maximum results, continuous use is required (59, 85, 98). Tayama (98) varied the number of treatment days in preservatives, after which the flowers were placed in tap water. His data ranged from 7.5 days in water to 17.1 days, continuously in preservatives. Mastalerz (59) reported that 50 per cent of the effectiveness of floral preservatives can be lost in the first 14 to 48 hours if flowers are placed in water first. Bancroft (6) suggested that there was too little absorption in refrigeration to 22 justify the use of preservatives. Weinstein (108) went even further by classifying two types of preservatives to be used at different stages of handling. He proposed a "Grower Type" preservative, composed of metabolic inhibitors to slow down rate of food consumption and complexed metal salts to retard breakdown of pigments, and a "Consumer Type" preservative. This would substitute sugar (succrose or dextrose) for the metabolic inhibitor, and add an acidic substance, and a substance to prevent the growth of bacteria. IV. Need for Dissemination of Information MiKesell (61) reported that no other segment of the agricultural industry is as lax and negligent with their end product as the florist industry. Moore (62) in discussing the possibilities of expanding the retail market for floral products, claimed that there was an urgent need for information on how to care for cut flowers both in the marketing channels and in the home. In a Texas consumer panel, Sorensen (95) reported that a need for information on the care of cut flowers in the home was cited as a major obstacle to expanded usage of flowers. Pfahl (70) made recommendations on how retail florists could process flowers in advance of sales, and Mastalerz (59), in 1960, came out with a strong plea that all segments should become concerned with the importance of their handling practices on the salability of their product. As has been pointed out, basic information on the response of cut flowers to various chemicals and environmental factors has been avail- able for many years. The economic crises faced by the rose growers in 1960 emphasized the need for a compilation of available research and a further investigation of current handling practices and new materials. 25 Projects were designed to develop data upon which a sound educational program could be launched with the goal of improving the keeping quality and image of the rose in the hands of the consumer. STUDY I: THE EFFECT OF CHEMICAL PRESERVATIVES ON THE KEEPING QUALITY OF THE BETTER TIMES ROSE Screening Trials Screening trials were conducted from 1960 through 1965 in order to evaluate the experimental formulations becoming available as well as the modifications of commercial products. Materials and Methods, 1269 In June, 1960, nine chemical formulations intended to extend the vase life of cut flowers were obtained. Three of them: Bloomlife, Floralife, and Petalife, were commercially available, nine: Roselife, Boyce Thompson rose preservative, and codes 681.5, 908.4, 1155.5, and 1562.6 were still in the experimental stage. Concentrations used fol- lowed manufacturer's recommendations. Two solvents were used in the preparation of the solutions: tapwater, and "ionized" water. The latter was produced by drawing water through a "Sil-A-Zin Ionizer." This device, made by the Omaha Chemical Co., is designed to electroly- tically dissolve the preservative metals to the proper concentration in the water stream as it passed over metal electrodes sealed in a section of aluminum tubing. The test solutions were carried to Floral Avenue Greenhouses, Mount Clemens, Michigan, the source of the roses used in these studies. The commercial grade, 15-18 inches, of Better Times rose was used. As the roses were cut, they were graded, divided into treatment lots of 40 roses each, placed directly into the various test solutions, and transported, in solution, to East Lansing for a 24-hour storage period at 40°F. They were then removed, stems recut, each lot subdivided into 24 25 three uniform replications of ten roses each, and placed at room tem- perature in 2-quart waxed cartons, containing 48 oz. of freshly prepared preservative solution. Temperature and relative humidity recordings were made on a 7-day recording hydrothermograph. There were 10 roses used in each of three replications of the 20 treatments, making a total of 600 roses under observation. Beginning with the third day at room temperature, the relative effectiveness of various treatments was measured daily by a panel of judges, drawn from the staff of the department. By means of indexing the judges scores, ranking each replication per judge, assigning points based on each judge's ranking, and adding up the total ranking per treatment based on the assigned points, the relative performance of each treatment was recorded. Results The results of the initial screening trial are shown in Table 1. Although there was a difference in the response of Better Times rose to the various treatments, one factor was uniform-~the effect on bluing. All of the chemical treatments were effective in retarding the appear- ance of the undesirable bluish cast. Relatively speaking, on the sixth day of vase life, seven treatments looked better than the rest: Roselife and Floralife in ionized and tapwater, Bloomlife and Petalife in ionized water, and Code 681.5 in tapwater. On the seventh day, all treatments were discarded except the Roselife treatments which were still quite acceptable. These treatments were discarded on the eighth day. Materials 229 Methods, 1261 In November, 1961, two new experimental preservatives, Fl-S-X and Fl-S-XX, were tested and the results compared with the effect of 5 26 Table 1. Preservative screening trials - 1960, treatments ranked according to relative effectiveness. Treatment No. days judged Preservative Solvent "acceptable"a Roselife ionized water 7 Roselife tapwater 7 Floralife ionized water 6 Floralife tap water 6 Bloomlife ionized water 6 Code 681.5 tap water 6 Petalife ionized water 6 Code 1562.6 ionized water 5.5 Code 681.5 ionized water 5.5 Code 908.4 ionized water 5.5 Code 1155.5 ionized water 5.5 Code 1562.6 tap water 5.5 Code 908.4 tap water 5 Code 1155.5 tap water 5 Petalife tap water 5 Check ionized water 4 Check tap water 5.5 Boyce Thompson ionized water 2.5 Boyce Thompson tap water 2.5 aEach figure represents average of three replications, lO roses each. 27 commercial preparations, Floralife, Petalife-H, and Roselife on the keeping quality of Better Times roses. Only plain water was used as a solvent and check. The roses were cut on the morning of November 25, and within 1 hour, had been graded, divided into treatments and placed in warm (110°F) solutions of the appropriate chemical. They were transported to East Lansing and placed in the laboratory for vase life determina- tions without refrigeration. The temperature during transit and first day averaged 60°F. Daily temperature readings made during the remainder of the trial showed variations from 64°-71°F. Due to the large amount of uptake of the initial solutions by the roses, fresh solutions were prepared and added on the morning of the fourth day of vase life, Novem- ber 27. Ten roses, 15 to 18 inches long, were used for treatment and each treatment was replicated three times. Data from a total of 180 roses was taken for this test. Each day the number of "acceptable" flowers, based on the criteria of color, substance, turgidity, general freshness of appearance and resistance to shattering, was recorded for each treat- ment. At the conclusion of the trial, the average number of days of vase life was determined by totaling the daily readings and dividing by the number of flowers in the treatment. This method is explained in detail by Tayama and Kiplinger (98). Results Table 2 lists the treatments used, with the average number of days of vase life obtained per replication and an average figure per treat- ment. The value of using a good preservative was again demonstrated, with an increase in vase life of 5.5 days reported between the water 28 Table 2. Preservative screening trials, 1961. Average Days Vase Life Replication No.5 Treatment 1 2 5 Treatment Floralife 7.9 8.0 7.7 7.9 Fl-S-X 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.1 Fl-S-XX 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.6 Petalife-H 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.6 Roselife 7.9 7.9 7.5 7.8 Water 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.6 a . . Average of ten roses per replication. 29 "check" and Fl-S-X. The specificity of response was also indicated. For example, Petalife, a carnation preservative, had no effect on Better Times roses vase life, although there was an improvement in color over the water check. There was little difference between the Floralife preparations and Roselife. All of them produced good results. Some differences were observed between these preparations in the effect on the rose. Roses opened more quickly in Floralife. On the sixth day of vase life, nine out of thirty roses in Roselife were from 1/4 to 5/4 open. The remainder were fully open. While only four in Fl-S-X were 5/4 open, all were fully open in Floralife and two had shattered in Fl-X-XX. The color clarity was similar in all of the chemical treatments. The most obvious difference in response was that when the roses in Floralife were finally discarded it was due to shattering. The petals maintained a crisp turgid appearance. When the roses in Roselife were discarded, it was due to a general softness or wilting. In neither case did these symptoms appear until after the eighth day. Materials 22g Methods, 1262 Due to the increasing interest from formulators of preservative preparations, it was necessary to schedule two screening trials in 1962, one in January, one in July. Roses were obtained from a large commercial grower in Mount Clemens, Michigan. The roses were cut, graded, put into the test solutions within one hour and transported to East Lansing for 24 hours of conditioning at 40°F. They were then removed, divided into three replications of each treatment and placed into warm (110°) freshly prepared solutions in l-quart cylindrical cartons for vase life deter- minations as described for the 1961 trials. Ten roses, 15 to 18 inches long, were used for each replication. 50 The first test began January 2. Two experimental formulations, Fl-S-X and "Brite Flower" were tested against three commercial prepara- tions, Bloomlife, Floralife and Roselife, and water. The second test began July 26. Two different experimental formula- tions were tested, O.F.P. and 562-X. Their effect on the vase life of roses was compared with the effect of Floralife and Roselife and a water check treatment. A total of 11 treatments were run in 1962, with three replications of each treatment, ten roses per treatment, totaling 550 roses under observation. Results These trials proved once again the value of a good preservative in extending the vase life of Better Times roses. None of the experimental formulations tried in 1962 were better than products currently available. Table 5 combines the results of both the January and July trials. Roses in water developed the characteristic muddy blue color by the second day in winter and third day in summer. Preservative treatments maintained a clear red throughout the life of the rose. Materials 223 Methods, 1265 In April, 1965, the final screening trials of this project were conducted. The source and grade of roses, method of collecting, trans- porting and conditioning, were the same. After 24 hours at 54°F, the stems were recut and placed in fresh solutions of 70°F. They were sub- divided into lots of ten roses per replication, three replications per treatment. For vase life determinations, a constant 74°F. temperature room was used with 12 hours of light, 1200 foot candles intensity per day. Data was collected as before. 51 Table 5. Preservative screening trials, 1962. Average days vase life Replicationa , Treatment 1 2 5 Treatment Average January 251215 Bloomlife 6.2 5.6 5.1 5.9 Briteflower 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8 Floralife 6.4 6.5 5.2 6.0 Fl-S-X 5.6 6.0 6.2 5.9 Roselife . 6.2 5.9 6.2 6.1 Water 2.5 2.0 2.6 2.5 Code 562-X 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Floralife 6.1 5.8 6.2 6.0 OFP 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.1 Roselife 6.4 6.2 5.9 6.2 Water 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 aEach figure represents average of data taken on ten roses. 52 Three experimental formulations, 187-X and 550-4801 from General Foods Corporation and CU-X from Cornell University were tested. For comparison, six commercial preparations were used: Bloomlife, Burpee Everbloom, Flora Magic, Floralife, Petalife and Roselife. Ten roses were used per replication, three replications of ten treatments equaled 500 roses under observation for this trial. Results The effect of these preservatives on the vase life of Better Times roses is shown in Table 4. It is important to remember the difference in environmental conditions surrounding the roses in this test as compared with previous trials. The 1965 trials were conducted at a constant temperature of 74°, while other trials had been subjected to fluctuating diurnal variations from lows of 62°F to highs of 78° to 80°F. Relatively speaking, the story is the same. Bluing showing up the third day in water treatments, no bluing in preservative treatment. The other observation repeated here is that although bluing was repressed in the preservative treatments, some, such as Burpee Everbloom and Flora Magic, shattered upon touch at 5.4 and 5.2 days. Influence of Quality of Water on Action of Preservatives Materials and Methods In order to produce data showing the influence of pH on the action of preservatives in extending the vase life of roses, a test using distilled water adjusted to an alkaline and an acid level, was designed. At the same time, a test was run using local well water, before and after it had been run through a Culligan sodium exchange water softening system. An analysis of the water determined the mineral content. Table 4. Preservative screening trials, 1965. Average days vase life Replication Treatment 1 2 5 Treatment Average Bloomlife 4.7 4.8 5.0 4.8 Burpee Everbloom 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.4 Code l87-X 4.7 4.7 5.0 4.8 Code 550-4801 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.1 CU-X 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 Flora Magic 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.2 Floralife 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.2 Petalife 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.2 Roselife 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.2 Water 5.7 5.9 4.0 5.9 aEach figure represents average of data taken on ten roses. 54 Aluminum sulfate was used to adjust the pH to 4.2, a series of mono and di-basis phosphates were used to adjust the pH to 5.0 and 6.2, while calcium carbonate was used to adjust the pH to 8.0. A Beckman pH meter was used to measure the pH of the various solvents, before and after addition of the preservative, and again five and seven days after vase life determinations were begun. Better Times roses, 15 to 18 inches long, were taken from the grading table and put into the various test solutions within an hour of cutting on November 17, 1960. They were transported to East Lansing and placed in 40°F storage for 24 hours. They were then removed, stems recut and divided into three replications of each treatment, with ten roses per replication. Room temperatures in the laboratory varied from 64°F at night to a high of 77° during the day. Days of vase life were determined as detailed by Tayama and Kiplinger (98). Three replications, ten roses each, of ten treatments, resulted in a total of 500 roses used in this test. Results The treatments, pH values and days of vase life are shown in Table 5. Roses in distilled water at a pH of 7.0, with no preservatives added, lasted an average of 5.5 days at room temperature before exces- sive bluing and wilting made them unacceptable. Roses in the same water, to which a preservative had been added (lowering the pH to 5.6) lasted 6.4 days. Roses in distilled water with the pH adjusted to 8.0 (simulating an alkaline water supply) to which preservatives were added (lowering the pH to about 4.0) lasted 5.5 days - cutting 1 day off their vase life. 55 Table 5. The effect of water quality on vase life of roses. pH values of solutions Average Initial After adding 5 days 7 days days vase Treatment pH preservativea later later lifeb Distilled water 7.0 7.0e 6.4 — 3.5 Distilled water 7.0 5.6 5.7 5.7 6.4 Distilled water adjusted to 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.5 Distilled water adjusted to 6.2 4.2 4.2 4.0 5.6 Distilled water adjusted to 5.0 4.5 4.2 - 2.7 Distilled water adjusted to 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 6.0 "Hard" waterc 7.1 7.18 7.0 - 2.3 "Hard" waterc 7.1 5.8 6.5 6.2 5.5 "Soft" waterd 7.1 7.1e 6.9 - 3.0 "Soft" waterd 7.1 505 6.2 602 5c? aFloralife. bEach figure represents an average of 5 replications, 5O roses. c5? ppm Iron. le ppm Iron. eCheck treatment, no preservative added. 56 Roses in distilled water with the pH adjusted to 4.2 (simulating an acid water supply) to which preservatives were added (altering the pH to about 4.0) lasted 6 days. Roses in deep well water, pH 7.1, lasted 2.5 days. Roses in the same water to which a preservative had been added (lowering the pH to 5.8) lasted 5.5 days. Roses in this well water, "softened" by the Culligan process, pH 7.1, lasted 5.0 days. Roses in "softened" water to which preservatives had been added (lowering the pH to 5.5). lasted 5.7 days. Influence of Time and Duration of Application of Preservatives Materials 329 Methods After the 1960 screening trial, two of the preservative formulations were chosen as most effective on Better Times roses. The next step was to study the interaction of the use of plain water and preservative solutions at various stages in the movement of cut roses through the marketing channels, from growers, through the wholesalers, retailers and to the customer. Three "handling periods" were devised, extending over a 4-day period, and various combinations of using water and pre- servative solutions in each period were established. The method of handling the roses during each of the periods was as follows: 1. Grower. Roses were graded, bunched and placed in various solutions within one hour of cut on September 15, 1960. They were transported to East Lansing and placed in 40°F storage for a total of 48 hours from time of cut. 57 2. Wholesaler. At the start of this handling period, the roses were removed from refrigeration, taken from the solutions and placed on a table at a room temperature of approximately 75°F for four hours. They were then placed in containers of fresh solution, according to the specified treatment, and returned to the refrigerator for 20 hours, making a total of 24 hours. 5. Retailers. At the start of this period, the roses were removed from the refrigerator, stems recut, and the roses placed into fresh solutions indicated by treatment number. The temperature of the solu- tions was 100°F. The roses were then returned to refrigeration for 24 hours at 40°. At the conclusion of the simulated retailer handling period, the roses were brought out into room temperatures of approximately 75°F, placed in containers of fresh solutions of the same formulation in which they were last stored. Vase life determinations were made according to the method already detailed. Ten Better Times roses, 15 to 18 inches long, were used per replication, three replications per treatment, with thirteen treatments totaling 590 roses used in this test. Results The list of treatments and average days vase life is presented in Table 6. Under the conditions of this test, the roses in nothing but water lasted an average of four days. Little effect could be noted in treat- ments using Floralife first, followed by water, which resulted in an average of 5.86 days. Roselife, on the other hand, used only at the grower level, resulted in 5 days vase life. The longest period resulted 58 Table 6. The effect of time and duration of application of preservatives. Days vase life Handling Period Replication No. Treatment Grower Wholesaler Retailer l 2 5 Average Floralife Floralife Floralife 6.6 6.0 6.9 6.5 Roselife Roselife Roselife 6.5 6.9 7.0 6.8 Floralife Floralife Water 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.8 Roselife Roselife Water 5.5 4.5 5.0 4.9 Floralife Water Floralife 6.5 6.1 6.2 6.5 Roselife Water Roselife 6.5 6.8 6.5 6.5 Floralife Water Water 4.2 5.2 5.8 5.8 Roselife Water Water 5.1 4.7 5.6 5.1 Water Floralife Water 5.2 5.5 4.5 5.0 Water Roselife Water 4.5 5.5 5.2 5.0 Water Water Floralife 5.9 7.5 5.9 6.4 Water Water Roselife 6.9 6.9 6.2 6.7 Water Water Water 5.2 4.5 4.5 4.0 aAverage of data from ten roses. 59 from treatments using the preservatives in all stages of handling, with Roselife producing 6.8 days and Floralife 6.5 days, no significant difference. STUDY II. EFFECT OF "FOAM" MATERIALS ON KEEPING QUALITY OF ROSES Due to widespread use by retail florists of "foam" materials to hold the stems of roses, it was necessary to study the relationship of water-holding capacity, the relative rates of water uptake and loss through various foam materials, and the effect of wetting agents used in some foams on the vase life of roses. Ratio of Quantity of Solution to Foam Materials and Methods In September 1960, three levels of solutions were set up with two foam materials, Sno-pac and Hydrafoam. The "minimum" moisture condition was arranged by using plastic "0" bowls that were 1 inch deep. The "medium" and "maximum" conditions were arranged in glass bowls, 6 inches in diameter. The medium moisture treatments were in bowls 2.75 inches deep and the maximum moisture treatments in bowls 6.0 inches in depth. One-third of a commercial block of foam material, having 72 square inches of surface area was used. Each was saturated in a preservative solution. In treatment #1, only the bottom inch of the block was in the solution. In treatment #2, the medium treatment, approximately one- half of the block was submerged. In treatment #5, the maximum moisture treatment, the block was totally submerged. Ten roses were used in each replication. The bases of the stems in the minimum and medium moisture treatments were inserted to within one-quarter inch of the solution level, so that the liquid had to move up through the foam to reach the stem. Levels of solution were maintained daily. 41 Roses were cut September 10, 1960, graded and placed into pre- servative solutions. They were placed in 40°F for 24 hours, brought out and divided into treatments. Two different "foams" in which the preservative solutions were held at three levels, plus a check treatment of water in a glass bowl, resulted in seven treatments. With three replications, 210 roses with 15 to 18 inch stems were used for vase life determinations. Results The average number of days of vase life per replication and for each treatment is shown in Table 7. Since the solution levels were maintained, the results were the same, regardless of the ratio of solution to "foam." The minimal moisture treatments had to be refilled on the average of two times a day, while the medium moisture treatment only once every two days. The maximum moisture treatments did not have to be touched. Retailer Handling Practices Foams are generally used by retail florists in two ways: in a container to which a solution can be added, or saturated initially, then wrapped in foil or plastic to act as an independent reservoir supplying moisture to thestems of flowers inserted at any angle. In order to study the effect of retailers' handling practices on the keeping quality of roses in "foam" materials, tests were conducted in July 1962 and July 1965. Materials 22g Methods, 1262 The purpose of this test was to compare the action of six foam materials under two conditions: 1) minimal water and 2) maximum water, using both tapwater and preservative solutions. 42 Table 7. The effect of quantity of solution to "foam."a Average days vase life Treatment Replication No.b Moisture "Foam" l 2 5 Treatment Minimum Hydrafoam 7.1 7.5 7.0 7.2 Minimum Sno-pac 6.1 7.6 7.0 6.9 Medium Hydrafoam 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 Medium Sno-pac 7.1 7.1 6.6 6.9 Maximum Hydrafoam 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.4 Maximum Sno-pac 5.5 4.5 5.2 5.7c aStems in "minimum" and "medium" moisture treatments within 1/4 inch of solution level. bAverage of data from ten roses, each replication cNot adequately pro-soaked 43 Better Times roses were cut in a commercial range July 26, 1962. They were graded dry and placed in either a Floralife solution or tap- water and transported to East Lansing where they were conditioned at 40° for 48 hours. Weights were taken of all "foam" materials both dry and after initial saturations, to determine amount of water uptake. At the end of vase life period, dry block treatments were re-weighed to determine amount of water lost during test. On July 28, roses were removed from refrigeration and placed in appropriate "foam" treatment at room temperature which ranged from 67° to 78°F for vase life determinations. The individual treatments are listed in Table 8. Conventional sized blocks were cut into half, and weighed. The "minimum water treat- ment" consisted of soaking the foam according to the manufacturer's recommendation, wrapping in foil and inserting stems of 10 roses. The "maximum water treatment" consisted of saturating the "foam", placing it in a 6-inch glass bowl to which an additional quart of the appropriate solution was added. Each treatment was replicated twice. A total of 440 roses was used. Results The effect of two handling methods on six foam materials as compared with "no foam" checks is shown in Table 8. Roses lasted longest in the open vase of preservative solution, Treatment No. 21 - 6.1 days, as compared with the water, check, Treat- ment No. 22 - 5.5 days. To better comprehend the data, the two moisture conditions are separated out. Table 8. 1+1. The effect of type of "foam" and solutions on keeping quality, 1962. (Average of 2 replications, expressed in Average Days Vase Life) Treat. Foam Average days No. Material Solution Treatment vase life 1 Aquafoam Water In bowl 2.8 2 " " Foil wrapped 2.5 5 " Preservative In bowl 5.5 4 " " Foil Wrapped 5.0 5 Hydrofoam Water In bowl 5.2 6 " " Foil Wrapped 2.8 7 " Preservative In bowl 4.5 8 " " Foil Wrapped 5.6 9 Quickee Water In bowl 5.0 10 " " Foil Wrapped 2.6 11 " Preservative In bowl 5.5 12 " " Foil Wrapped 5.1 15 Speediblock Water In bowl 5.0 14 " " Foil Wrapped 2.8 15 " Preservative In bowl 4.0 16 " " Foil Wrapped 2.9 17 Aquatainer Watera Man'f. Recom. 5.0 18 Camelets Watera Water Added Daily 2.8 19 " Watera Initial Filling Only 2.8 20 Camelfoam Watera Man'f. Recom. 2.4 21 Check, Open Vase Preservative Open Vase 6.1 22 " " " Water Open Vase 5.5 aPreservative included in foam by manufacturer. 45 A. Minimal Moisture Table 9 presents the "foil wrapped" foam treatments, with their weights and days of vase life. Several items of interest arise from a study of this data. 1. Under minimal moisture conditions, roses lasted longest in preservative saturated Hydrofoam - 5.6 days. 2. Up to a full day can be added to the life of roses in dry block situations by using preservatives instead of water for the initial saturation (5.6 days in preservatives vs. 2.75 days in water). 5. There may be a correlation between the increased release of moisture with a wetting agent such as a preservative and the extra vase life. Both of the Hydrofoam treatments started out with approximately the £223 amount of moisture: When Hydrofoam was saturated with water, it took up 855 to 854 gms of moisture. When Hydrofoam was saturated with preservative, it took up 846 to 862 gms. Ranked according to vase life, the foil wrapped treatments provided the following results: 1. Hydrofoam + preservative 5.6 days 2. Quickee + preservative 5.1 days 5. Aquafoam + preservative 2.95 days 4. Speediblock + preservative 2.95 days 5. Hydrofoam + water 2.75 days 6. Speediblock + water 2.75 days 7. Quickee + water 2.65 days 8. Aquafoam + water 2.50 days 46 Table 9. Gms. liquid lost from various foil wrapped foams, ten roses per block. Final Days Initial weights in Gms Weight Gms H20 vase Treatment Dry(Gms) Wet(Gms) Gms H20 (Gms) released life Aquafoam+Water 18 758 720 620 110 2.5 17 759 742 642 117 2.5 Aquafoam+Preservative 17 715 698 562 155 5.1 17 719 702 549 170 2.8 Hydrofoam+Water 25 858 855 740 115 2.7 26 880 854 745 155 2.8 Hydrofoam+Preservative 24 870 846 666 204 5.7 25 887 862 696 191 5.5 Quickee+Water 257 901 644 791 110 2.6 246 898 652 778 120 2.7 Quickee+Preservative 286 955 669 824 151 5.2 275 916 641 790 126 5.0 Speediblok+Water 19 895 874 772 121 2.8 19 889 870 795 94 2.7 Speediblok+Preservative 19 900 881 775 167 5.1 19 917 902 745 172 2.8 47 B. Maximum Moisture Table 10 presents the results of the treatments where the "foam" material was placed in a bowl with additional solutions, ranked according to vase life. In all cases, roses lasted longer when the foams were saturated with preservative solution. 531 foam in preservative is better than 22y foam in water. But the longest vase life was still obtained when the roses were placed in an open vase of water containing a good preserva- tive. Materials 22d Methods, 1265 In July 1965, a second screening trial of two new "foam" materials, "Fill-Foam-Fast" and "Jiffy", plus the current modifications of Hydro- foam, Oasis, Quickee and Sno-pac were conducted. The experimental set-up was the same as detailed for 1962 with the exception that Roselife was used as the preservative treatment. There were 780 roses used in vase life determinations. Results The effect of two handling methods on six "foam" materials as compared with "no foam" checks is shown in Table 11. The 1965 trials confirm the 1962 trials on general concepts with individual "foams" responding differently. The longest vase life was obtained by the use of adequate preservative solutions. In these trials, the use of "Jiffy" foam in a container filled with preservative solution equaled the vase life of the roses used in water to which a preservative had been added. The Fill-Fast-Foam used in these trials evidently contained some chemical that was harmful to roses unless soaked in preservatives. Following these trials the company made adjustments in the formulation of this material 43 Table 10. Performance of foams in maximum moisture, 1962. Treatment Foam Solution Average days vase lifea Hydrofoam Preservative 4.5 Speediblok Preservative 4.0 Aquafoam Preservative 5.5 Quickee Preservative 5.5 Hydrafoam Water 5.2 Quickee Water 5.0 Speediblok Water 5.0 Aquafoam Water 2.8 aAverage of two replications, twenty roses. 49 Table 11. The effect of type of foam and solutions on keeping quality, 1963. Average days Foam material Solution Treatment vase lifea Fill-Fast-Foam Water In container 1.6 Fill-Fast—Foam Water Foil wrapped 1.2 Fill-Fast-Foam Preservative In container 4.6 ‘Fill-Fast-Foam Preservative Foil wrapped 1.8 Hydrafoam Water In container 5.6 Hydrafoam Water Foil wrapped 2.2 Hydrafoam Preservative In container 4.4 Hydrafoam Preservative Foil wrapped 5.2 Jiffy Water In container 5.5 Jiffy Water Foil wrapped 2.9 Jiffy Preservative In container 5.0 Jiffy Preservative Foil wrapped 5.9 Oasis Water In container 2.6 Oasis Water Foil wrapped 1.2 Oasis Preservative In container 5.0 Oasis Preservative Foil wrapped 1.0 Quickee Water In container 5.1 Quickee Water Foil wrapped 2.5 Quickee Preservative In container 5.4 Quickee Preservative Foil wrapped 5.1 Sno-Pac Water In container 5.7 Sno-Pac Water Foil wrapped 2.9 Sno-Pac Preservative In container 4.6 Sno-Pac Preservative Foil wrapped 4.5 Check Preservative In container 5.0 Check Water In container 5.5 aAverage of three replications, of ten roses each. 50 which resulted in much better results. In water, roses wilted in the Fill-Fast-Foam within 1.6 days, while in preservative solution, they lasted 4.6 days. According to the manufacturer, the only difference between Oasis and Hydrofoam is the wetting agent in Oasis, permitting uptake of moisture by submersion of the block. In order to wet Hydrofoam, moisture must be drawn into the foam by a partial vacuum. The difference in effect on vase life was striking: Average days vase life Treatment Oasis Hydrofoam Foil wrapped + water 1.2 2.2 Foil wrapped + preservative 1.0 5.2 In container + water 2.6 5.6 In container + preservative 5.0 4.4 This emphasizes the significant influence various handling practices can have upon the keeping quality of uniformly grown roses. The effect of various "foams" under conditions of maximum moisture are shown in Table 12, and under conditions of moisture from original saturation only (foil wrapped) in Table 15. The "foams" are ranked in descending order of effect on vase life. Table 12. Performance of foams in maximum moisture, 1965. 51 Treatment Average days Foam Solution vase lifea Jiffy Preservative 5.0 Sno-pac Preservative 4.6 Fill-Fast-Foam Preservative 4.6 Hydrafoam Preservative 4.4 Sno-pac Water 5.7 Hydrafoam Water 5.6 Quickee Preservative 5.4 Jiffy Water 5.5 Quickee Water 5.1 Oasis Preservative 5.0 Oasis Water 2.6 Fill-Fast-Foam Water 1.6 aAverage of three replications, ten roses each replication. 52 Table 15. Performance of foams in minimum moisture, 1965. Treatment Average days Foam Solution vase lifea Sno-pac Preservative 4.5 Jiffy Preservative 5.9 Hydrafoam Preservative 5.2 Quickee Preservative 5.1 Sno-pac Water 2.9 Jiffy Water 2.9 Quickee Water 2.5 Hydrafoam Water 2.2 Fill-Fast-Foam Preservative 1.8 Oasis Preservative 1.0 aAverage of three replications, ten roses per replication. STUDY III: PACKAGING FOR SHIPMENT Two major complaints have been raised concerning the physical movement of roses to the retailer. One involved the adverse effects of lying on wholesalers' tables without moisture, and the other involved mechanical injury and bruising of the petals in shipment. Two areas of investigation were conducted. Effect of Polyethylene Shipping Bags on Keeping Quality Materials and Methods Treatments were devised in September 1960, to determine the effect of bagging roses in polyethylene with and without "foams". A commercial bunch of 25 roses was used for each treatment. Each treatment was repeated three times using either 12, 15 or 18 inch Better Times roses. After cutting and grading, the roses were placed either in water or a preservative solution, as the treatment dictated, then placed in the refrigerator at 40°F for 24 hours. The roses were then‘transported to East Lansing where they were bunched, packaged according to treatment and packed in a commercial shipping container with ice. They were held in this container for 24 hours to represent period of shipment, after which time they were removed and laid on the table at room temperature for 4 hours, in the bags. After the period on the table, they were returned to the refrigerator for approximately 24 hours. The bagged treatments were placed in an empty can for support, the unbagged treat- ments were placed in water. This represented the wholesale period. Next, the roses were unpacked, stems recut, and placed in solutions of warm preservative. They were refrigerated for 24 hours to represent 55 54 the retail period. They were then removed and placed in 2-quart milk cartons at room temperature in preservative solutions to determine vase life. There were 450 roses used in this test. Results Table 14 lists the individual treatments and their effect on subsequent keeping quality. An inspection of the data reveals little justification for recommending that growers should ship in plastic bags, if the roses are treated in preservative solutions when they are finally set out at room temperatures. Vertical Shipping Carton Materials and Methods In order to investigate the possibility of designing a carton that would permit roses to be shipped vertically and reduce handling at the wholesale level, the following procedure was followed. Conferences with representatives of the Floriculture Section, Michigan State University, and prominant Michigan rose growers were held to outline the basic packaging requirements of the commodity. Next, these require- ments were sketched and presented to the Packaging Department, Michigan State University, for their suggestions and improvements. Finally, a representative of the Research and Development Department, Hinde and Dauch Division of West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, took over the plans for final modification and supplied a series of cartons for evaluation trials. These cartons were shown to the growers' and whole- salers' sections of the 1961 Michigan State Florist Association meeting in Detroit. Suggestions for further improvement were incorporated into another version which was shown to the Board of Directors of Roses, Incorporated, April 8, 1961. 55 Table 14. The effect of various treatments on roses in plastic bags. Average days vase life Treatment by stem lengtha "foam" saturated in solution 18 inch 15 inch 12 inch .Rose stems in: Hydrafoam Preservative 5.4 4.6 5.9 Hydrafoam Water 4.8 5.5 4.2 Shredded Sno-pac Preservative 5.5 4.2 5.1 Shredded Sno-pac Water 4.9 5.2 4.5 Check treatment, bagged No foam used 5.0 5.2 5.0 Check treatment, no bag Paper wrap 4.8 4.8 5.0 aAverage based on vase life of twenty-five roses per grade. 56 Since no further modifications were suggested at the April 8 Ineeting, negotiations were begun to prepare a test carton to meet shipping standards and to conduct a shipping test to compare the experi- Inental design with a vertical container already in use for another commodity on the West Coast. Results The experimental vertical carton that was tested by shipping roses from California to Michigan differed from the Crown-Zellerbach carton primarily in that the test carton contained interior cross supports, dividing the area into cells, holding one bunch of roses each. Both cartons had the side zip tab feature, with water—proof tray in the base, allowing the wholesaler to zip off the top one-third of the carton, add solution to the base and display the product in the carton without further handling. Roses were packed in the Crown-Zellerbach and experimental cartons in Redwood City, California, by Enomoto and Company on September 15, 1961. They were shipped that afternoon, arriving in East Lansing the night of September 14. Cartons were photographed and notes taken on the condition of boxes and contents. The roses were placed in vase life trials, reported in Study V. There was no difference in keeping quality of roses shipped in either carton. In general, the test indicated the need for internal support to prevent shifting. The primary problem encountered with this test ship- ment was accomodations for ice. Water from the melting crushed ice around the stems produced weakening of the carton walls. No provisions had been made in the design for holding bagged ice in place. 57 Recommendations based on this test for improvement of future experi- mental designs include: 1. Make adequate provision for icing. 2. Modify the design to permit shipping mixed grades of roses, i.e., different stem lengths, and mixed shipments of floribundas and hybrid teas. 5. Provide for the adaptation of small experimental models to larger shipping cartons, keeping internal sub-divisions. STUDY IV: EFFECTS OF N6—BENZYLAMINOPURINE ON KEEPING QUALITY or ROSES Since there were references in the literature of the effect of a kinin called Verdan (N6—Benzylaminopurine) in extending the life of leafy vegetables, and a preliminary report by Mac Lean indicated promising results on carnations, an investigation of its use on roses seemed feasible. A preliminary trial was conducted in March 1961 to study its effect at various concentrations as a dip and in a preservative solution on the vase life of Better Times roses. Materials and Methods, 1961 Fifteen treatments were designed as detailed in Table 15. Ten roses, 15 to 18 inches long, were used in each treatment. Roses were cut, February 27, 1961 at the Plant Science Greenhouse, Michigan State University, conditioned in water at 40°F for 48 hours and graded. Treatments were applied as indicated, and the roses were set out at room temperature in the laboratory for vase life determination. The preserva- tive used was Floralife, at manufacturer's recommendation of 1 teaspoon per quart. One hundred and fifty roses were used. Results The vase life of roses, subjected to the fifteen treatments listed, is shown in Table 15. Vase life determination began on March 1, two days after cutting. Roses in preservative solution alone lasted 5.4 days, while roses in water alone lasted 2.6 days. Verdan was ineffec- tive when placed in the preservative solution for absorbtion by the stem. Dipping the roses for 60 seconds in a 100 ppm concentration of Verdan then placing them in preservative solutions added almost a day 58 59 Table 15. The effect of N6-benzylaminopurine on vase life, 1961. Average days Treatment vase lifea Check - water 2.6 Check - preservative solution 5.4 N6, 25 ppm in water 5.0 N6, 200 ppm in water 2.1 N6, 10 ppm in preservative solution 5.9 N6, 25 ppm in preservative solution 4.6 N6, 50 ppm in preservative solution 4.4 N6,lOO ppm in preservative solution 4.1 N6,2OO ppm in preservative solution 5.7 N6, 10 ppm 60 sec. dip, then in preservative 5.9 N6, 25 ppm 60 sec. dip, then in preservative 5.9 N6, 50 ppm 60 sec. dip, then in preservative 5.6 N6 100 ppm 60 sec. dip, then in preservative 6.4 N6 200 ppm 60 sec. dip, then in preservative 6.2 N6, 25 ppm daily spray, stems in preservative 6.2 aAverage of ten roses per treatment. 60 to the vase life as compared to those that were placed directly in the preservative solution without the dip. Materials and Methods, 1262 RESPIRATION STUDY. As the basic research on the effect of N6-Benzyl- aminopurine increased in the Horticulture Department, it was possible to cooperate with other workers in order to study the effect of this kinin on the rate of respiration of roses. Roses were cut February 6, 1962, graded, placed in water at lOO°F, and conditioned at 55°F for 2 hours. They were then removed, packed in a box with crushed ice and transported to East Lansing where they were placed in cool (60°F) water and stored at 40° for 6 hours. Total time from out until removal for treatment was 10 hours. The stems were cut to an overall length, including the flower, of 8 inches to fit in the respiration chambers. The stems were placed either in 250 m1 of plain water or the same quantity of a Roselife (1 tablespoon per quart) solution. For the "dry" treatments, the roses were leaned against the side of the respirometers. All roses were dipped prior to placing in jars, either in a 10 ppm solution of N6- Benzylaminopurine, or water. Six roses were used per unit with three respiration units per treatment, totaling 162 roses in this test. Treatment list: 1. N6 dip, stems in water. 2. H20 dip, stems in water. 5. N6 dip, stems in preservative. 4. H20 dip, stems in preservative. 5. N6 dip, stems dry. 6. H20 dip, stems dry. 61 7. Rose flower only, N6 dip, dry. 8. Rose flower only, H O dip, dry. 2 Carbon dioxide evolution was determined by the Claypool-Keefer method at 8 hour intervals for 144 hours. METHOD OF APPLICATION STUDY. A test to determine the best method of getting N6 into the rose was conducted in May, 1962. Seven treatments were set up: 1. N6 in solution for uptake by stem. 2. N6 forced into stem by partial vacuum in bell jar. 5. N6 used as a daily dip. 4. N6 used as an initial dip only. 6 5. N used as a single dip, when flower one-half open. 6. Control - water dip. 7. Control - no dip. Ten Better Times roses, 15 to 18 inches long, were used for each of three replications. The roses were cut May 16, treated and placed in water in a 70° constant temperature room for vase life determinations. Results RESPIRATION STUDY. Carbon dioxide evolution was measured every eight hours for over six days. Each of the eight treatments was replicated three times, making a total of 456 individual measurements. Treatment averages for each sampling period for the CO evolved are presented in 2 Table 16 0 Figure 1 indicates with smooth curves the effect of an N6 dip on rates of respiration of roses, in water. Figure 2 indicates the effect of an N6 dip on rates of respiration of roses in preservative solution. Table 16. 62 The effect of N6 on rate of respiration of roses. (Expressed as mg COz/kg/hr evolveda) Treatment Numberb Hour measured 1 2 5 74 5 6 7 8 2400 629 613 646 681 620 603 694 682 0800 479 450 453 520 452 444 509 491 1600 502 468 550 556 411 402 520 490 2400 471 450 553 533 440 400 498 491 0800 421 391 444 424 305 305 383 380 1600 366 387 472 419 328 360 401 397 2400 390 385 439 414 328 396 418 426 0800 434 387 446 431 368 356 430 411 1600 408 402 420 385 328 340 459 433 2400 520 557 556 547 508 510 574 574 0800 465 443 554 497 495 434 515 474 1600 358 324 382 386 359 314 401 440 2400 376 322 401 419 329 346 457 477 0800 394 354 419 409 569 360 456 409 1600 379 344 411 394 341 361 436 408 2400 554 505 585 572 554 556 416 409 0800 341 293 550 362 326 338 413 390 1600 291 314 364 371 361 354 405 366 2400 279 278 517 506 504 507 552 550 8‘Each value is average of three respiration units. b Key to treatment code listed on pages 60 and 61. 65 .mfio wz usonuaz cam spa: .mopmz ma msopm .coaumnwmmou omom mo opmm mam>uoumw anonlw .H opsmwh I 00w com 64 .mao wz psospflz was now: .sowusaom o>wum>momomm :H msopm .mowummammom moon «0 comm .N madman mam>uouma hsomnw con 65 The data clearly indicates that under the conditions of this test, a 10 ppm concentration of N6 used as a dip did not inhibit respiration, but apparently stimulated it. Figure 5 shows the effect of a preservative solution on the rate of respiration of roses, as compared with water. The preservative solution, with added sugars, enables the roses in that treatment to maintain a higher rate of respiration for a longer period of time. METHOD OF APPLICATION STUDY. The effect of various methods of trying to get N6-Benzylaminopurine into the rose on its vase life is reported in Table 17. The roses were all in water for vase life determinations, and the data confirms the 1961 test. N6 had no apparent effect on vase life under the conditions of this test. 66 .mmoa s on o>a m>momomm am no m: as msoum .coa meadows omom 0 sum . a . . . . mambhoumfi anonuw $0 050 l o>apm>uomomm I II .M omsmfih 000 67 Table 17. The effect of method of application of N6 on vase life. Average days Treatment vase lifea N6 in vase for stem uptake 4.0 N6 absorbed under vacuum 5.5 N6 as a daily dip 5.8 N6 as an initial dip only 4.0 N6 dip when rose half opened 5.8 Control - water dip 5.9 Control - no dip 5.6 aAverage of three replications, thirty roses. STUDY V: INTERACTION OF THREE-STAGE HANDLING PRACTICES ON "BENT NECK". After studying many aspects of factors affecting the keeping quality of roses, this fifth and final study was organized. While the first four studies had as their goals, the general extension of vase life with roses opening and developing normally, this one was designed to investigate handling practices that affected the incidence of the premature wilting called "bent neck". In order to combat this problem it is necessary to understand what produces the symptoms. Preliminary investigations suggested four handling practices should be studied. Phase 1. Effect of Variables at the Grower Level Materials and Methods In order to observe the effect of various methods of handling roses by the grower, the following treatments were set up: 1. 1123 222.22.!E£2£° Five time periods were used, ranging from minimum, (in which buckets of solution and plain water were placed in the greenhouse and as roses were cut, they were placed in these buckets instead of the usual dry racks at the end of the benches) to l, 2, 5 and 4 hours dry after cutting, before placing into water or preservatives. 2. Temperature 2: solution. Roses from each of the five time periods were placed in warm water and preservative solutions at 110° and cool water and solutions at 60°F. 5. £233; Z§° Preservatives. Half of the roses from each treatment were placed in tapwater, the other half in Roselife. 68 69 4. Conditioning XE' Non-conditioning. The fourth variable divided all the other treatments into two lots. One group was placed directly into vase life determinations at room temperature (which varied from 62° to 70°F) while the other group was placed in refrigerated storage at 54°F for 24 hours, and then brought out into room temperatures, which varied from 60° to 72°F, for vase life determinations. Roses were cut May 17, 1961. Each treatment consisted of ten Better Times roses, 15 to 18 inches long and each treatment was repli- cated twice. Seven hundred and twenty roses were used. Results The effect of the 56 combinations of the four variables under investigation, on vase life are shown in Table 18. For easier interpretation, the same data is summarized in Tables 19, 20 and 21 using the average days vase life per treatment grouped under treatment headings. A study of this data reveals that: Up to 5 hours out of water, there were only slight differences between hot and cold water, and conditioned and non-conditioned treat- ments. The longer the roses were out of water, the shorter the vase life. Under the conditions of severe water deficiency,(4 hours out of water) hot water was more effective than cold and 24 hours refrigeration materially increased the keeping quality. The same general response was noted in treatments using preserva- tives, i.e., little benefit was derived from heating the preservative in treatments up to 5 hours, but in severe dessication, the action of the preservative was greatly enhanced by use of hot water and 24 hours of low temperature conditioning. 7O mm.© 0.5 m.w O 0>Hpm>hmwmhm : : : : : 0:.N :.N :.N 0 mops: : = z : : om.m m.s m.n :m o>apn>uomoaa : = : : : ow.m m.m w.m :m mops: no: : z : : mw.m 0.5 5.0 o o>wum>momoum : : : : : ON.N N.N N.N O houm3 : : : : : 0m.b :.m N.h :N m>wum>hommhm : : : : : mn.m m.m s.m em noose eaoo ones .nnsos m sea oa.s H.s H.s o oesesssonosa : e e e e mm.m m.n w.m 0 nova) : : : = : om.u w.n m.m :m o>Hum>uomoAQ : : = = : ow.“ 0.: 0.“ :N R0003 non : = : : mn.w m.m m.m o o>wpm>aomom9 : : : : : 0:.m :.m :.m 0 hops) : : : = : 0:.5 :.B :.u :N 0>Hpm>howmum : = : : : mw.n m.m w.n :m scum: uHoo ouma .msom H hum o:.s a.u s.s o as as oesssenooona e e 05.: 5.: m.: 0 mm mm mops: : : mw.s m.m m.s am so as oeaosesonoes e e mw.s 5.: o.m am so on none: as masseuse ommuo>m N H .mauwou umosumoma acosumoua mofiumoaamom musom omwa omm> ohms ommmo>< .hufiamsv wmwmoox so pmosumou» u~3oum mo Became one .wa magma 71 OO.m New we: 0 m>flum>hmmmhm : : : = : 0m.m m.N H.m 0 mops: : z = : : 0w.h 0.5 5.5 :m o>Hum>uomoam : : : = : omfi n6 m.m :m have: so: = : z .. m®.m :.M B.m O O>Hum>hommhfl : : : : : mm.H 0.H H.H 0 nous: : : : : : 0w.n w.u w.u :m o>Hum>mowoam : : = = : 0m.H :.H w.H :N nous: vHoo OusH .mmson : mun OH.N N.m 0.5 O 0>va>h0m0hm : : : : : one 0m 0m 6 none. .. .. .. .. .. mw.u w.u 0.5 :N o>Hpm>uomomA : z : = = mm.m m.N w.N :N noun) pos : : : : 00.5 m.m w.m 0 o>Hpm>uomomm : : : : : mH.N n.m 0.N 0 mops: : : z : : Ow.u ®.h w.b :N mbfipm>h0wmhm : = = : : om.m m.m m.m em noose oaoe ones .mnsos m sea owmmo>m N H .MHamou . uuospmoua uaosomoma moHumoHHmom masom oMHH omm> ohms mmmuo>< Aooscwusoov .apHHmsc wchoox so unospmou» moronw mo vacuum one .wH oHme 72 Table 19. Interaction of water vs. preservative and temperature of solution - retailer level. (Expressed in average days vase life.) Water Preservative Treatment colda hotb coldc hotlD Non-conditionedd Solution in greenhouse 4.7 7.4 Roses out of sol. 1 hour 5.4 5.6 6.4 7.1 Roses out of sol. 2 hours 2.2 2.4 6.8 7.0 Roses out of sol. 5 hours 2.2 2.5 7.0 7.1 Roses out of sol. 4 hours 1.4 2.5 5.8 5.0 Conditionedé Solution in greenhouse 4.8 7.8 Roses out of sol. 1 hour 5.6 5.8 7.4 7.6 Roses out of sol. 2 hours 2.4 2.6 7.5 7.9 Roses out of sol. 5 hours 2.5 2.6 7.8 7.8 Roses out of sol. 4 hours 1.5 5.5 7.8 7.8 a - 58 degrees F. b - 110 degrees F. c - 60 degrees F. d - Roses placed out for "vase-life" determinations directly after grading. e Roses placed in 54 degree refrigerator for 24 hours after grading. 75 Table 20. Interaction of water vs. preservative and conditioned vs. non-conditioned roses. (Expressed in average days vase life.) Water Preservative Treatment N0;::0;d:5__00;d:5 N0;:;0;d:a_00;d:b Solution in greenhouse 4.7 4.8 7.4 7.8 Roses out 1 hour then in cold sol. 5.4 5.6 6.4 7.4 Roses out 1 hour, then in hot sol. 5.6 5.8 7.1 7.6 Roses out 2 hours, then in cold sol. 2.2 2.4 6.8 7.5 Roses out 2 hours, then in hot sol. 2.4 2.6 7.0 7.9 Roses out 5 hours, then in cold sol. 2.2 2.5 7.2 7.8 Roses out 5 hours, then in hot sol. 2.5 2.6 7.1 7.8 Roses out 4 hours, then in cold sol. 1.4 1.5 5.8 7.8 Roses out 4 hours, then in hot sol. 2.5 5.5 5.0 7.8 7Roses placed out for "vase life" determinations directly after grading. bRoses placed in 54°F refrigerator for 24 hours after grading. 74 .wsHemam moumm mason :m mom hooonmHumom h moonmou an mH coomHm momom o .h moomwoo 0HHo .h moomwoo 00 I mooaMoo wmn .wsHomuw seams mHuoomHo msoHumsHsuouoc :oMHH some: now p50 ooomHm momomm w.u n.n w.u 0.N 0.5 m.N 0.5 w.n w.u w.: ochHusHom pom m.u m.H w.u m.m m.m :.m :.n m.m nmmoHpsHow vHoo coocowpwosoo 0.m n.m H.n m.m 0.5 :.N H.u w.m 4.5 5.: omeOHpsHom pom w.m :.H m.m m.m w.0 m.m :.w :.n nmmoHusHom uHoo muocoHuHocooumoz .>omoam hops) .>omoum nous: .>omoum nous: .>omoam mops: .>omoam mops: pmospmoma masom : p50 masom n p30 memo: N 990 moon H poo omsonsooau A.oMHH and» mass ommuo>m mH commoaaxmv .meoapSHom mo uso 05H» one mo>Hom>uomoam .m> meow: no moHuomaousH .Hm oHnt 75 The greatest differences existed between the use of water and the use of the preservative. Effect of California Handling on Vase Life of Roses Shipped to Michigan Materials and Methods In order to provide more realistic data on the grower handling effects on subsequent keeping quality, a shipping test was arranged with a California rose grower. The grower applied five treatments to six varieties of roses. All roses were shipped on the afternoon of September 13, 1961. Treatment 1. Cut on the morning of September 9, placed in 31°F dry storage for approximately 80 hours. Removed on theafternoon of September 12 and placed in 65°F water. Held overnight in 38°F refriger- ator; shipped September 13. Varieties used: 1. Baccara 2. Happiness 3. Red Delight Treatment 1;. Cut September 11, roses were placed in water at 65°F and into 38°F storage refrigeration for approximately #8 hours. They were removed and shipped September 13. Variety used: 1. Christian Dior Treatment 22;. Roses cut on September 12 were placed in water at 65°F, then into 38°F storage overnight. They were shipped September 13. Varieties used: 1. Baccara 2. Happiness 3. Red Delight 76 #. Mayday 5. Honeygold 6. Gold Top Treatment IV. The roses were treated in a manner similar to those in Treatment III, except that Roselife was used instead of water. They were cut September 12, then placed in Roselife at 65°F and stored at 38° overnight and shipped September 13. Varieties used: 1. Baccara 2. Happiness 3. Red Delight #. Mayday 5. Honeygold 6. Gold Top Treatment 1. The roses were cut on the morning of September 19, placed in water at 40°F. Stored for 3 hours in a h0°F refrigerator and shipped the same day. Varieties used: 1. Happiness 2. Gold Top The roses were packed in two vertical shipping cartons and shipped Air Express, arriving in Lansing, Michigan approximately 30 hours later. Each bunch of roses was wrapped in newspaper with crushed ice in the paper and with bags of ice attached to the top and bottom of the boxes. Upon receipt of the roses in East Lansing, it was noted that the cartons had begun to collapse due to wetting, but much ice still remained unmelted inside the individual bunches. The layer of fiberglass insula- tion apparently was highly effective in maintaining a low internal temperature. 77 Each bunch of roses was divided, so that one-half of the roses were placed in hot (llO°F) water and one-half were placed in a hot (110°F) solution of Roselife. The roses were unpacked near midnight, Thursday, September 16, and after being placed in the appropriate solutions, were placed in hO°F storage over Friday for conditioning. They were removed from storage Saturday morning, September 16 and placed in freshly prepared solutions of the same composition in which they had been conditioned over the past 32 hours. They were then placed at room temperature (67° to 79°F) for vase life determinations. A total of 21 bunches of roses were received, each one being split into two lots at East Lansing--one lot was placed in water and the other one in Roselife, making a total of #2 lots of 10 roses each, or #20 roses under observation. Results Table 22 presents a list of the various treatments administered in California and Michigan, and the average number of days vase life resulting from each treatment. There was no observable difference between any bunches of roses when they were unpacked in Michigan. They all were apparently crisp, firm and turgid. The same was true upon removal from refrigeration on the morning of September 16. All lots were of comparable quality, which is substantiated by other studies, which indicated that it is difficult to detect differences between treatments on roses still under the influence of refrigeration. At this time, the rate of respiration is too low to show differences in keeping quality. 222, differences 23g show up quickly under higher temperatures. At the end of 2h hours at room temperature, 8 out 2; 19 Happiness roses that had been improperly Table 22 o 78 (Expressed in average days vase life.) Effect of five grower treatments on keeping quality. California Treatment Treatment after arrival in Michigan (Prior to shipment) Water Preservative I. Three days - 31°F Dry One day - 38°F EATER Varieties: 1. Baccara 2.3 “.5 2. Happiness 1.3 4.1 3. Red Delight 1.2 3.6 II. Two days - - 38°F EATER Variety: 1. Christian Dior 3.9 5.6 III. One day - - 38°F EATER Varieties: l. Baccara 2.6 5.9 2. Happiness 2.2 3.7 3. Red Delight 2.5 3.3 h. Mayday 4.6 5.7 5. Honeygold “.3 5.3 6. Gold Top 3.3 5.3 IV. One day - — 38°F PRESERVATIVE Varieties: l. Baccara #.5 6.2 2. Happiness 1.1 4.7 3. Red Delight 2.3 3.9 #. Mayday 5.1 5.5 5. Honeygold #.h 5.2 6. Gold Top 3.5 #.8 V. Three hours - #O°F EATER Varieties: 1. Happiness 0.2 3.9 2. Gold Top 3.3 505 79 conditioned (Treatment No. V-l) had collapsed, while roses of the same variety, picked 2# hours earlier and conditioned overnight in preserva- tives were still in good condition 5 days later (Treatment No. IV—2). Effect of Method of Reconditioning Roses Stored at #1‘ on Subsequent Vase Life Materials and Methods Another important handling practice at the grower level which can influence the expression of "bent neck" at a later date is the storing of roses dry for a 2h hour period at 31°F. This test was set up to determine the effect of preservatives vs. water in reconditioning Better Times roses stored dry for three days at 31°F. The treatments applied are outlined in Table 23. One hundred Better Times roses were used in this test. Results The data proves the importance of using preservatives at the grower level when handling roses stored dry for extended periods at 31°F. The vase life for each treatment is listed in Table 23. Phase 2. Effect of Variables at the Wholesaler Level Materials and Methods The next step was to prepare a quantity of roses at the grower level in an optimum manner, so that they could be expected to give maximum vase life, and determine the effects of various handling methods by the wholesaler on their subsequent keeping quality. Roses were cut August 10, 1961 and within one hour, placed in hot (100°) water containing a commercial preservative. They were then 80 mas o .hooaan .momoa annex» .msOflumomeoa oz» mo owmam>flum>aomoam non ousw amps: pen can“ mo>aum>aommam so: oaea amps: non ousw mo>Hpm>aomoam Hooo ma homm I mQSOS :N mo>Hpm>aommam aooo ad ho5m I mason 4m amps: does a“ oBM I mhfiog mm anus: Hooo cw aoam a mason em mo>wpm>aomoam Hooo sfi ho5m I mason :N mo>fium>aomoam son as homn I mason 4m amps: Hooo sH ho5n I mason :N amps: oaooo as ho5n I mason :m mo>apm>aomoam son as homm I mason :N moaflam>aomoam won as moon I mason :m amps: non sw homn I mason :N amps: Anon aw homm I mason :N «son» dean am has soaopm momoa HH< nomad omm> mums ommam>< soapmswsamuov mafia omm> messages awaawpmm messages aoammosonz mnwavsmn aoroaw .hoan pm mason :m aom has soaoum momoa mswsowawssoo no o>wum>aomoam cam amps: mo uoommm .nm manna 81 refrigerated at 3h°F for 24 hours. At the end of this time, they were loaded on a wholesaler's refrigerated truck, along with the rest of the shipment, and transported in the solution to East Lansing. Four hours after leaving the grower, they were delivered to the local whole- saler where they were taken over by the investigators for various treat- ments. The major variable in this phase was the effect of time out of water (simulating the laying out of roses at a commission house). The other three variables studied in the grower phase were also included to determine their action on overcoming the adverse effects of being out of water. The time out of water at this level consisted of Q hoggg, (roses placed directly into solution) 2, 4 and 6 hours on the table, dry, then into solutions and either refrigerated or put out for vase life. In another treatment the roses were placed in solution, then placed at room temperature for 6 hours, then refrigerated. The temperatures of the solutions were the same as before, and the other variables were also the same. After the treatments were completed, the roses were placed at room temperature (62° - 76°F) for vase life determinations. Each treat- ment contained 10 Better Times roses, 15 to 18 inches long, with 2 replications. Six hundred roses were used. Results Table 2% presents the 30 combinations of treatments used, and shows the average days of vase life resulting from each treatment and the average keeping quality of the two replications combined. Table 2"". 82 Effect of wholesaler treatment on keeping quality. Average days vase life Hours Replications Treat. Treatment Refrig. l 2 Ave. Roses placed: Directly into hot water 24 4.5 4.1 4.3 n .. .. .. o as 4.3 4.4 " " " presv. 24 5.8 5.3 5.6 n n n n O 6.2 6.3 6.3 In hot water, left on table 6 hrs. 24 3.8 3.7 3.8 II II presv. II II II II II 21, 6 . 6 6 . 3 6 . 5 Dry 2 hrs. - into cold water 24 3.9 4.4 4.2 II II II _ II II II 0 5.0 1+.7 1+.8 H N H _ H H presv. 21+ 7.0 6.3 6.7 II II II _ II II II 0 7.2 7.2 7.2 II II II _ II hot water 21, 4.2 4.2 4.2 II II II _ II II II 0 4.2 1,.5 4.4 II II II _ II II presv. 24 6.4 6.0 6.2 II II II _ II II II 0 5,8 6,1 6.0 Dry 4 hrs. - into cold water 24 4.3 4.5 4.4 II II II _ II II II 0 1+.6 4.8 D“? II II II - II II presv. 21} 6.1 6 , 8 6.5 II II II _ II II II 0 6.3 6,5 6,4 " " " - " hot water 24 3.9 4.1 4.0 II II II _ II II II o 4.6 4.8 14.7 II II II _ II II presv. 21} 6. 4 6, 5 6. 5 II II II _ II II II 0 5.7 6 ,1 5, 9 Dry 6 hrs. - into cold water 24 4.0 4.0 4.0 II II II _ II II II 0 1+,6 4.8 4.7 n n n _ n n presv. 24 6.3 6.7 6.5 II II II _ II II II 0 5.7 6.0 509 " " " - " hot water 24 4.0 4.0 4.0 II II II _ II II II 0 4.5 4.7 4.6 II II II _ II II presv. 21+ 5 . 9 6.1 6.0 II II II _ II II II 0 5, 9 6,6 6.3 83 For easier interpretation, the same data is summarized in Table 25 using the average days of vase life per treatment grouped under treatment headings. In examining the Table, it is well to remember that the figures presented represent the average number of days roses in each treatment lasted at room temperatures which varied from 62°F to 76°F. The "conditioned" roses were 24 hours older than the "non-conditioned" gggg. All roses arrived in excellent shape at the wholesalers. They had been chilled and placed in preservatives. Phase 3. Effect of Variables at Retailer Level The third phase of this study used uniformly treated roses handled in an optimum manner by the grower and wholesaler in order to determine the effect of various handling methods by the retailer on subsequent keeping quality. Materials and Methods Roses were cut September 8, 1961, and within an hour, placed in solutions of hot preservatives. They were refrigerated at 34°F for 24 hours. They were then transported to the wholesaler in East Lansing via refrigerated truck. They were then taken over by the investigators. At this point, the "wholesaler" treatment consisted of placing them in cold preservatives and storing at 40°F for 24 hours. The roses were then removed from refrigeration and various treatments applied at the "Retail" level. Five variables were used: 1. Time Out of Water. The treatments here consisted of 0 hours (roses placed directly into solution) and 3 hours on the table at room temperature (74°F). 84 Table 25. Interaction of water vs. preservative and temperature of solution - wholesaler level. (Expressed in average days vase life.) Water Preservative Treatment EZI§E__-_-§Z?° Cold3 Hot0 I. Non-conditionedc 1. dry 0 hours ‘ 4.4 6.3 2. dry 2 hours 4.8 4.4 7.2 6.0 3. dry 4 hours 4.7 4.7 6.4 5.9 4. dry 6 hours 4.7 4.6 5.9 6.3 II. Conditionedd 1. dry 0 hours 4.3 5.6 2. dry 2 hours 5.2 4.2 6.7 6.2 3. dry 4 hours 4.4 4.0 6.5 6.5 4. dry 6 hours 4.0 4.0 6.5 6.0 5. in sol. 6 hours 3.8 6.5 a 60°F. b 110:1. c Placed directly out for vase-life trials from treatment. No refriger- ationo d Placed in 40°F for 24 hours after treatment, then out for vase life. 85 2. Cut vs. Not-Cut. After the above treatments, and before placing in water or preservative solutions, stems of one-half of the roses were cut in a slanting manner so as to remove approximately 1/2 inch. The others were placed in appropriate solutions without cutting. 3. Temperature of Solution. The same temperatures were used as in the other phases - cold, 60°F, hot, 110°F. 4. Water vs. Preservatives. The treatments were the same as those described in the other phases - Tapwater and Roselife. 5. Conditioned vs. Non-conditioned. Conditioning treatments consisted of 24-hour storage at 40°F, after the other treatments had been applied. Results Table 26 presents the 32 combinations of treatments used with the average days vase life resulting from each replication and the average keeping quality of the two replications combined. For easier interpretation, the same data is summarized in Table 27 using the average days vase life per treatment, grouped under treatment heading. In examining the data presented in Table 27 it is well to keep in mind that the figures represent the average number of days roses in each treatment lasted at room temperature, which varied from 64°F to 70°F. The "conditioned" roses were 24 hours older than the "non-con- ditioned" roses and all roses arrived in excellent shape, chilled and in a preservative solution. 86 Table 26. Effect of retailer treatment on keeping quality. Average Days Vase Lifea Cut vs. Temp. of Water vs. Time out Conditioned Replications Treat. Not-Cut Solution Preserv. of Water vs. N-C l 2 Ave. C Hot W 0 Hrs. C 2.6 2.7 2.6 C H W 0 N-C 2.5 2.3 2.4 C H P O C 4.2 4.3 4.2 C H P 0 N-C 3.8 3.8 3.8 C Cold W 0 C 2.5 2.7 2.6 C C W 0 N-C 3.1 2.7 2.9 C C P 0 C 4.9 4.7 4.8 C C P 0 N-C 4.2 4.1 4.2 N-C H W 0 C 2.6 2.6 2.6 N-C H W O N-C 2.9 2.7 2.8 N-C H P O C 5.5 5.3 5.4 N—C H P o N-C 3.6 3.8 3.7 N~C C W 0 C 2.5 2.6 2.6 N-C C W O N-C 3.6 3.5 3.6 N-C C P 0 C 3.9 3.7 3.8 N-C C P 0 N-C 4.2 4.0 4.1 C H W 3 Hrs. C 3.0 3.0 3.0 C H W 3 N-C 3.4 3.1 3.2 C H P 3 C 4.1 4.3 4.2 C H P 3 N-C 3.4 3.0 3.2 c c w 3 c 2.9 2.8 2.8 C C W 3 N-C 2.6 3.0 2.8 (Continued) 87 Table 26. Effect of retailer treatment on keeping quality. (Cont'd) Average Days vase Lifea Cut vs. Temp. of Water vs. Time out Conditioned Replications Treat. Not-Cut Solution Preserv. of Water vs. N-C l 2 Ave. C C P 3 C 4.0 4.1 4.0 C C P 3 N-C 4.2 4.1 4.2 N-C H W 3 C 2.9 2.8 2.8 N-C H W 3 N-C 3.2 3.0 3.1 N-C H P 3 C 3.0 3.2 3.1 N-C H P 3 N-C 3.7 3.7 3.7 N-C C W 3 C 2.6 2.4 2.5 N-C C W 3 N-C 2.3 2.5 2.4 N-C C P 3 C 5.9 6.3 6.1 N-C C P 3 N-C 4.5 4.1 4.3 aConditioned roses were 24 hours older than non-conditioned ones. 87a The results emphasize the importance of handling practices on the retail level. Using roses that had been well conditioned, turgid and filled with preservatives, results of vase life trials ranged from 2.4 to 6.1 days, depending upon the handling practices. The poorest results, 2.4 days, came from non-conditioned roses in water. The best results,6.l days, came from roses that were conditioned in cool preservative solutions. On these well-conditioned roses, no correlation was found between cutting and not cutting the stem. The three hour "dry" period was not enough to induce cell collapse or mechanical blocking of the conductive tissue. The interactions, presented in Table 27, also show little influence of cutting the stem, and under the conditions of this experiment, would suggest that the cool preservative treatment is best. 88 {Table 27. Interaction of water vs. preservative and temperature of solution - retailer level. (Expressed in average days vase life.) Water Preservative Colda HotD Coldc Hotb Time Out of Water N-Ca Ce N-C C N-C C N-C C I. 0 Hoursf a. Non-Conditionedg 3.6 2.9 2.8 2.u 4.1 4.2 3.7 3.8 b. Conditionedi 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.8 4.8 5.a u.2 II. 3 Hours8 a. Non-Conditionedh 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.2 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.2 b. Conditionedi 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.0 6.1 4.0 3.1 4.2 58°F. 110°F. 60°F. Stems not cut. Stems cut before placing in solution. Roses placed directly in solution from Wholesaler. Roses held dry at Retailer for 3 hours. No refrigeration at retailer - placed out for vase life immediately after being placed in appropriate solution. Refrigerated 24 hours at 40°F after being placed in appropriate solu- tion, then removed for vase life determinations. 89 Phase 4: Effect of Interaction of Three Levels of Handling Materials and Methods The fourth phase of this study was designed to investigate the effects of "good" and "bad" treatments in interaction with each other at various stages of handling. In the three previous phases, treat- ments were uniform in all but the handling stage under study. This was done to isolate the effects of various factors at that specific stage. For the purposes of providing data for more general recommenda- tions, this interaction study was designed. By using data on vase life from each of the other three phases, treatments were chosen that could be expected to produce a maximum and a minimum number of days of "acceptable" keeping quality. Then treat- ments were set up that combined all combinations of the "good" and "bad" treatments at each handling stage. After the retail level treatments were administered, the roses were placed out for vase life determinations. Table 28 lists the treatments used in each handling stage. The preserva- tive at the manufacturer's recommended concentration was used where treatments called for preservative solutions. Roses were cut October 13, 1961. Each treatment consisted of 10 Better Times roses, 15 to 18 inches long, and each treatment was replicated twice. Four hundred and twenty roses were used in total. Results Table 29 presents the 21 combinations of treatments used, with the average day's of vase life that resulted from each replication. It also shows the average days of vase life resulting from the combination of the two replications. Table 28. Treatments used in interaction study. Treatment Handling symbol used stage in Tables Treatment Grower level P Roses graded and placed in hot (110°) preservative solution within 1 hour of cutting, then refrigerated for 24 hours at 55°F. 4w Roses held dry 4 hours after cutting then graded and placed in cold (60°) water and refrigerated 20 hours at 35°F. Wholesaler level I’U Roses placed in cold (60°) preservative solution immediately upon receipt and refrigerated for 24 hours at 36°F. Roses placed in hot (110°) preservative solution immediately upon receipt and refrigerated 24 hours at 36°F. Roses held dry 6 hours at room temperature (76°), then put in cold (60°) water and refrigerated 18 hours at 36°F. Retailer level I’U It Stems cut and put in cold (60°) preserva- tive solution as soon as received and refrigerated 24 hours at 36°F. Stems cut and put in hot (110°) preserva- tive solution as soon as received and refrigerated 24 hours at 36°F. Held dry for 3 hours, stems not cut, placed in cold preservative (60°) solution and refrigerated for 21 hours at 36°F. Held dry for 3 hours, stems not cut, placed in cold (60°) water and refrigerated for 21 hours at 36°F. Stems cut and placed in cold (60°) water and refrigerated for 24 hours at 36°F. 91 Table 29. Effect of interaction of treatments on keeping quality. (Symbols used refer to treatments detailed in Table 28.) Average days vase life Grower - Wholesaler - Retailer Replications Treatment 1 2 Average P p p 6.7 6.6 6.6 P p P 5.7 5.7 5.7 P P 3P 6.5 6.6 6.6 P p 3w 3.0 3.2 3.1 P p w 3.1 3.1 3.1 P 6w p 6.1 6.1 6.1 P 6w P 5.3 5.2 5.2 P 6w 3w 3.4 3.3 3.4 P 6w w 3.0 3.2 3.2 “V p p 5.5 5.8 5.6 4w p P 5.0 4.7 4.8 “W p 3w 3.6 3.5 3.6 4w p w 3.4 3.2 3.3 4w P p 6.1 6.2 6.2 4w P P 3.0 3.1 3.0 4w P 3w 3.7 3.7 3.7 4w P w 3.0 3.0 3.0 4w 6w p 5.9 5.5 5.7 4w 6w P 4.2 4.5 4.4 4w 6w 3w 3.1 3.4 3.2 4w 6w w 3.1 3-3 3-2 P - Hot (110°) preservative solution. p - Cold (60°) preservative solution. w - Cold (60°) water solution. 3, 4, 6, - Hours held dry. 91a This study shows the influence of post-harvest handling practices on the vase life of roses. Starting off with as uniform a group of roses as possible, vase life trials showed a range of keeping quality from 3.0 to 6.6 days. Roses, left to dry four hours in the greenhouse, then placed in cold water and conditioned at 35°F for 20 hours, shipped to the whole- saler where they were left dry for 6 hours, then placed in cold water and conditioned for another 18 hours at 36°F, and finally left to dry at the retailer's for 3 hours before being sent out in water, lasted less than one-half as long as the best treatment. The treatment resulting in the best keeping quality was the one involving the use of preservative solutions throughout the marketing channels. The influence of the preservative solution after the rose is removed from refrigeration is also emphasized. When preservatives were used in vase life trials, the influence of mistreatment earlier in the marketing channels was marked. Roses left to dry at the grower and wholesaler levels lasted 3.2 days in water, while roses similarly treated, yet placed in preservatives, lasted 5.7 days. 92 Effect of Various Handling Techniques on Transcontinentally Shipped Roses Materials and Methods To test the validity of recommendations based on the interaction study, this shipping test was used. In order to focus attention upon the effects of handling at the Grower, Wholesaler and Retailer levels, all variables used in former work were eliminated except for the "good" treatment, following recommended procedures, and the "bad" treatment, which had been modeled after undesirable practices being used in the industry. Each treatment consisted of 10 roses, 15 to 18 inches long, and each treatment was replicated twice. A total of 180 roses of each variety were used. Three varieties of roses were included in this test: Better Times, Red Delight and Gold Top strain of Golden Rapture. The roses were cut in California on the morning of August 18, 1962, treated and conditioned overnight at 35° and shipped August 19. They were received in Lansing, Michigan on August 20, at which time they entered their "Wholesaler" treatments. The next day the "Retail" treatments commenced and on the afternoon of August 22, the roses were placed out for vase life determinations, approximately four days after being cut. Temperatures ranged from 60° to 82°F in the room during the period of vase life determinations. Results Table 31 presents the nine treatments used, with the average day's vase life of the two replications of each treatment combined for each of the varieties used. Symbols refer to treatments detailed in Table 30. 93 Table 30. Treatments used in shipping study. Treatment Handling symbol used stage in Tables Treatment Grower level P Roses graded and placed in hot (90°) preservative solution immediately after cutting then refrigerated 24 hours at 35°F. 4! Roses held dry 4 hours after cut, graded and placed in cold (65°) water and refrig- erated 20 hours at 35°F. 1 Roses placed immediately into cold (60°) water and refrigerated 24 hours. Wholesaler level P Roses placed in hot (110°) preservative solution immediately upon receipt and refrigerated 25 hours at 40°F. 2! Roses held dry 5 hours at room temperature (80°), then put in cold (60°) water and refrigerated 19 hours at 40°F. 1 Roses placed immediately into cold (60°) water and refrigerated 24 hours. Retailer level 2 Stems cut and put in cool (75°) preserva- tive solution as soon as received and refrigerated 24 hours at 40°F. ! Stems cut and placed in cold (60°) water and refrigerated for 24 hours at 40°F. 94 Table 31. Effect of handling during shipment on keeping quality. Handling stage Average days Variety Grower Wholesaler Retailer vase life Better Times Pa P p 5.2 Gold Top 4.6 Red Delight 5.9 Better Times P P w 2.5 Gold Top 2.0 Red Delight 2.1 Better Times P 5w P 4.0 Gold Top 4.1 Red Delight 3.7 Better Times P 5w w 3.0 Gold Top 2.2 Red Delight 2.0 Better Times 4w P p 4.4 Gold Top 4.1 Red Delight 5.4 Better Times 4w P w 2.7 Gold Top 2.5 Red Delight 1.9 Better Times 4w 5w P 4.1 Gold Top 3.6 Red Delight 3.8 Better Times 4w 5w w 2.1 Gold Top 2.0 Red Delight 1.3 Better Times w w w 2.6 Gold Top 2.3 Red Delight 2.2 P - Hot preservative solution. p - Cool preservative solution. w - Cool water. 4, 5 — Hours held dry. aTreatments detailed in Table 30. DISCUSSION Over a four-year period, twenty chemical formulations, intended to extend the vase life of cut flowers, were tested. Two thousand roses were used in the keeping quality determinations. One of the most striking aspects of the four-year preservative screening trials was the manner in which all of the chemical mixtures used prevented bluing of Better Times roses. The roses in water changed color, expressing the characteristic bluish cast in the petals within 2.5 days. There was a definite difference in effect on vase life between the formulations tested, confirming Mastalerz's work (60). Consistently, though, throughout the screening period, two formulations, "Roselife" and "Floralife", produced the maximum extension in vase life. The average vase life increase through the use of these preservatives varied with the season of the year, from 25 per cent in April (Table 4) to approximately 165 per cent in January (Table 3). The screening trials produced ample evidence of the value of appropriate chemical additive in improving the keeping quality of roses. In like manner, the initial study on the influence of time and duration of application of preservatives provided the direction for the major four-phase handling study. Under the conditions of this test, roses in water in all three stages lasted an average of four days. Little effect could be noted in the treatments using a preservative first, followed by water in the last two stages. The longest vase life resulted from treatments using 95 96 preservatives in all stages of handling which resulted in over six and one-half days vase life. Perhaps the most interesting results of this trial concerned the effect of preservatives when applied only at the final stage. It was to be expected that good results could be produced by using the chemicals on the grower and retailer levels, but it was encouraging to see that even when used in only the final phase, two and one-half days vase life could be added when compared to similar treatments in water. An important source of retail florists' complaints on the keeping quality of roses was the poor results obtained in the popular "foam" products. Basically, foams are used in two ways: 1) in a container and 2) foil or plastic wrapped - without a container. The ability of the rose to hold up satisfactorily under either of these conditions is due, in part, to the ability of the rose to compete with the physical struc- ture of the "foam", for the available moisture supply. Obviously this "competition" is most serious under the second condition, where no additional moisture is available to replace that which is lost. The data produced by these tests also showed that the use of certain "foams" can drastically reduce the keeping quality of roses. Using ten different "foam" materials and a total of over 1,800 roses, data was produced showing that the keeping quality of roses with stems inserted in a preservative-saturated, foil-wrapped block of foam varied from 1.0 days (Oasis) to 4.3 days (Sno-pac), Table 13. Elimin- ating the factor of minimum moisture, immersing the "foam" in containers of solution showed the importance of the proper choice of "foam". Table 12 lists a range of vase life from 1.6 days to 5.0, depending on the choice of foams. 97 Respiration studies on roses dipped in N6-Benzylaminopurine confirmed reports from Mastalerz that he had been unable to reduce the rate of respiration of roses with this material. The higher respiration rates of roses in preservatives as compared with roses in water (Figure 3) supports the work of Coorts (16). The increased rate is apparently due to the presence of elevated levels of respiratory substrates. There was a direct correlation between the appearance of the blue color and the time at which the CO2 evolution fell below a level of approximately 390 mg/kg/hr. In the water treat- ment, both factors occurred about two days after treatments started when the rose stems were in water, and on about the fifth day when roses were in preservative solutions. The studies of effect of various handling practices at the grower, wholesaler and retailer level, produced interesting and useful data. Grower Handling One of the most striking responses to grower handling practices was the masking effect of refrigeration. Although wilted roses in the non-conditioned treatments were slow to revive, if at all, all of the treatments, regardless of time out of water, seemed quite turgid and firm when removed from the 24-hour hardening period, substantiating the florist's claim that he couldn't tell from external appearances, which would collapse. Those treatments which had developed a water deficit, and were then placed in cold water, went down rapidly after being brought out to room temperature, while the identical treatments, except for the substitution of preservative solutions for water, held up as well as roses that were never out of solution. 98 The results of this study of four variables of handling on the grower level emphasized the importance of proper handling to obtain subsequent consumer satisfaction. The most important single factor reflected in these keeping quality trials was the outstanding benefit derived from using a good preserva- tive solution. Roses put directly into hot water in the greenhouse and hardened overnight lasted 4.8 days, while roses that had been left out of water for four hours, and then placed in preservatives and conditioned overnight, lasted 7.8 days and showed markedly better color quality. Proper conditioning adds materially to the life of a rose at this stage of handling, and is of particular importance in helping preserva- tive action overcome severe water deficits. If it is not possible to condition the roses after cutting, then it is very important to get the freshly cut roses into hot preservatives as soon as possible. In general, longer vase life can be expected, especially in non- conditioned roses, if they are placed in 110°F solutions. Table 20 shows that there is little difference between the action of cold and hot preservatives if properly conditioned. In general, the longer roses are held dry after cutting, the shorter time they will last in the consumer's home. Wholesaler Handling In evaluating the role of the wholesaler in the handling of roses, it might be well to put "rapid turnover" at the top of the list. This is a highly perishable item, and, unlike the grower, the wholesaler can do little to improve the keeping quality IE he is handling well- conditioned roses from the grower that are chilled, turgid, and filled with preservatives. 99 Using well-conditioned roses fresh from the grower, the time that they were out of water had little effect on the vase life of roses subsequently placed in water. The same is generally true for roses in preservatives. The keeping quality of roses put in cold preservatives and not conditioned is directly proportional to time out of water. The differences were less when warm preservatives were used. Within each "time out of water" treatment, conditioning reduced vase life slightly if preservatives were not used. This is under- standable when we remember that all roses in this trial were properly conditioned by the grower, so at the wholesale stage, conditioning merely involved adding another 24 hours to the age of the flower before placing in vase life trials. As in the grower trials, under adverse conditions (4 and 6 hours out of water) the beneficial effects of the preservative were enhanced by refrigeration. In water, temperature of solution has little effect on lasting qualities. The same is generally true for the preservative treatments with the exception of the treatment in which the roses were kept dry for 2 hours. Here, the use of cold preservative added almost a day to the life of these roses. A possible explanation might involve the fact that the roses arrive in excellent condition, turgid, filled with preservative and chilled, most probably had a low rate of respiration. Two hours were not long enough to induce a serious disbalance internally and so the use of £22 preservatives tended to speed up the respiratory rate hastening matura- tion, while the cold preservative tended to maintain the lowered rate of respiration with resulting increase in vase life. 100 The use of water vs. preservatives proved again to be the most significant variable of all at the wholesale level. The data shows that as much as two and one-half days can be added to the vase life of roses with the use of a good preservative at this stage. Retailer Handling Data presented in Tables 26 and 27 show that if the retailer puts his well-handled and conditioned roses in water, he can expect an average of 2.8 days vase life. Cold water is better than hot water on turgid roses. Conditioning is of questionable value if preservatives are not used, due to the short period they will last. If the retailer puts his well-handled and conditioned roses directly into preservative solutions, he can expect an average of 4.8 days vase life, an increase of §.921§ over those in water. Cold preservatives yielded better results than hot preservatives on turgid roses. Combinations of harden- ing and preservatives produced the best results. No clearly defined evidence can be produced at this time to support the value of recutting stems when roses have been well handled all along the line. Obviously from a practical standpoint, it would be better not to assume ideal prior handling, and to cut stems to insure better uptake. Interaction §32§l Considering the final interaction study, reported in Tables 30 and 31, it can be stated that for roses subsequently well-handled by the wholesaler and retailer, the grower can add from one-half to a full day's vase life through the use of preservatives as compared with water, depending upon the variety (treatments 1 and 5, Table 30). Where the retailer uses water, the effect of the grower's treat- ment does not show up in additional days vase life, but there was a lOl difference in quality. When the grower started the roses in preserva- tive, the roses maintained a firmer substance than roses started in water (treatments 2 and 6, Table 30). As before, little effect can be determined in wholesaler handling when roses end up in water at room temperature, but the wholesaler can add from one-half to over two days to the vase life of the roses, depending on variety, by using recommended handling practices on sub- sequently well-handled roses (treatments 1 and 3, 5 and 7, Table 30). The most striking beneficial effects of the use of a preservative in the handling of cut roses occurs at the stage where the flower is no longer under refrigeration. Low temperatures are highly effective in reducing the rate of respiration. The use of a preservative in con- junction with refrigeration is even better. But when flowers are removed from refrigeration and set out at the higher temperatures experienced in the average home, then the use of preservatives is mgst important. They can greatly prolong the life of roses, increasing their keeping quality and customer satisfaction. For example, in Table 30. treatments 1 and 2 show that the use of a preservative solution 222.!2ES.£§§£ double the vase life of roses at room temperature. (From 2.1 to 5.9 days in the case of Red Delight.) Not all varieties of roses react the same to the use of preserva- tives. We have never found any variety that did not benefit in some manner, but some types respond more dramatically than others. For example, in treatment 9, Table 30, which depicts roses kept in water throughout their handling, the vase life was quite similar for all three varieties. But when compared with treatment 1, using preservatives throughout, varietal differences are obvious. 101a Since the literature is filled with references to the influence of pre-harvest factors on keeping quality, it would have been advisable to analyze samples of roses used for their mineral and carbohydrate levels. In this series of studies, no analysis was run, and the only attempt at uniformity was securing each group from a single cut of a given greenhouse, produced under uniform growing conditions. It also would have been better to have analyzed the "commercial products" (foams and preservatives) in order to know the materials with which we were working. Since the formulations were considered propriatary secrets, the decision was made to accept the materials as presented by the manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS As a result of the five studies reported here, covering a period of four years and utilizing over 9,500 roses, it is possible to provide the following recommendations for handling roses by growers, whole- salers and the retailers in order to avoid "bent neck" and insure maximum keeping quality and consumer satisfaction. Grower For maximum keeping quality, it is recommended: 1. Roses should be cut at the proper stage of maturity. Immature stems and buds are highly susceptible to wilting and bending. The "proper stage" varies with the variety and must be determined by experi- mentation. Generally, it is at the stage when the first outer petals are starting to unfold. 2. Avoid bruising at all stages. 3. Place freshly cut roses in containers of hot (100° - 110°F) solutions of a good preservative and refrigerate at 34° as soon as possible. The importance of proper handling in the period immediately after cutting the rose cannot be over-emphasized. A well-conditioned rose can survive much more mistreatment enroute than an improperly handled one. In order to rapidly reduce the rate of respiration, roses should be left in the preservative solution under refrigeration for at least 3 to 4 hours before grading. The subsequent period on the grading table will then have little effect so long as they are returned to the preservative solutions and refrigerated for an additional 12 to 24 hours after grading prior to shipping. 102 103 Wholesaler For maximum keeping quality, the following practices are recom- mended, depending upon the appearance of the roses on arrival: 1. If roses are received in buckets of preservative solution from the grower, leave them in that solution and refrigerate immediately at 33° to 40° until sold. 2. If roses arrive in boxes, well iced, firm and turgid, place them in a cool preservative solution and refrigerate at 33° to 40° until sold. 3. If roses arrive in boxes that have been delayed enroute, the ice has melted and they appear slightly wilted or not firm and turgid, place them in a warm (100°) Preservative solution and refrigerate at 33° to 40° until sold. 4. It is important to unpack roses and place in preservative solution upon arrival. Laying dry on the table for long periods adversely affects their keeping quality. 5. Avoid jamming too many roses into a single container. Iced roses will snap off at the neck easily, and all can be bruised by over-crowding or rough handling. 6. Use 21333 containers. Stems are clogged by bacteria found in dirty containers and cannot absorb the necessary solutions for hardening. Retailer It is fortunate that the retailer, who has closest contact with the customer, can so greatly influence the keeping quality of the roses he sells. The data derived from this study indicates that by using the recommended practices, the retailer can double the life of his roses as compared with the same roses in plain water. For maximum keeping 104 quality, it is recommended that the retailer should, upon receipt of his roses: 1. Cut the stems with a slanting cut, remove the lower foliage, and place immediately in freshly prepared 2231 preservative solution. 2. Condition them 6 to 12 hours in COLD refrigerator (35° to 40°) unless direct shipments are received in solution. 3. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL - Add a preservative solution to all rose arrangements. If "foam" material is used to secure flowers in vases or arrangements, it should be saturated with preservative solution 4. Allow sufficient space in the container for the customer to replace the water lost through evaporation. When foam materials com- pletely block the container, it isn't convenient to replace the liquid. Therefore, as they dry out, the roses wilt and die. 5. Place an Add_!§tg£ Daily card on all rose arrangements before delivery. Roses absorb and transpire a surprising amount of water, which must be replaced. 6. If the roses are delivered loose or boxed, include an envelope of preservative powder along with a "rose care folder" telling the customer how to get maximum satisfaction from the roses. The results of this project clearly show that by the use of recommended handling procedures all along the line from the grower, through the wholesaler and retailer, to the ultimate consumer, the effective keeping quality can be doubled with resulting increase in customer satisfaction and confidence in the rose. Based on this research, Roses, Incorporated launched a massive educational program on the "Care and Handling of Roses". The handling practices listed above were reported at meetings of all segments of the 105 industry, on a local, regional and national basis. Color pictures of roses undergoing treatment were a part of full-page advertisements announcing the association's "Quality Control" program and a complete report of the effects of handling on keeping quality of roses appeared in the major trade publications in April 1961. Specific recommendations were distributed to growers and posters were prepared for posting in wholesale and retail establishments. A measure, then, of the effects of post-harvest handling practices on the marketability of Better Times roses would be the trend in sales. Using the U.S.D.A.'s crop reports for six selected states (94, 95), representing 45 per cent of the national production, it is seen that from the decrease in sales of 81 million experienced from 1959 to 1961, rose sales increased $500,000 from 1961 to 1962, and increased approxi- mately 81 million from 1962 to 1963. The outstanding changes in pro- motional activities for roses during this period, was the inauguration of the "Care and Handling" program by Roses, Incorporated, based on this research. Appendix A. Analysis of water samples used in tests showing the effect of water quality on preservatives. Sample Element 1 2 3 4 P - % .004 .005 .007 .003 Ca - 96 .080 .050 .070 .050 Mg - 96 .050 .035 .040 .055 Mn - ppm 3 2 4 0.5 Fe - ppm 57 24 10 9 Cu - ppm 0.7 1.0 2.0 0.2 B - ppm 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.3 Zn - ppm 10 6 6 2 Mo - ppm ‘ 0.10 0.15 ’ Al - PPm 5.0 1.2 5.0 5.0 .Not detectable 9292‘ Sample No. 221323 Water Type 1 5 cc Hard 2 2.5 cc Hard 3 2.5 cc Softened 4 5.0 cc Softened 107 Appendix B. Changes in rose production and sales, 1959 - 1963, in six states.8 Value of sales Year Plants in production Blooms sold at wholesale 1959 6.989.000 161.597.000 812.581.000 1961 6,752,000 148,059,000 $11,600,000 1962 7,175,000 153,988,000 312,164,000 1963 7.257.000 162,697,000 813,092,000 aFigures from Sp Cr 6 - 1 (62) and (64), U.S.D.A.' 108 Appendix C. Effect of retailer handling methods on roses properly handled by grower and wholesaler. Treat.#l: Preservatives used in all stages of handling. Treat.#2: Handling at grower and wholesaler levels the same as #1, cool water without preservative used at retailer level. Appearance when removed from refrigeration. Appearance after five days vase life. 109 Appendix D. Effect of retailer handling on roses improperly handled by grower and wholesaler. Treat.#7: Grower: 4 hrs.dry, cool water. Wholesaler: 6 hrs. dry, cool water. Retailer: warm preservative solution. Treat.#8: Handling at grower and wholesaler levels the same as #7, cool water without a preservative used at retailer level. Appearance when removed from refrigeration. Appearance after five days vase life. 1. 2. 3. 6.. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LITERATURE CITED AARTS, J. F. TH. 1957. Over de houdbaarheid van snijbloem. Laboratorium voor Tiunbouwplantenteelt Pub. 174, Landbsu- whogeschod, Wageningen, Nederland. AHUJA, K. G., W. J. CARPENTER and H. L. MITCHELL. 1963. Identi- fication of the anthocyanin in petals of rose cultivars Pink Coronet and Happiness. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 82:562-565. ALLEN, R. C. 1943. Influence of aluminum on flower color of r Hydrangea macrophylla. 2. Q. Cont. Boyce Thompson Inst. 13: 221-242. ARNOLD, Z. 1930. Einige orienteirende versuche zur frage der kUnsrlichen fischerhaltung der schnittblumen. Garten- bauwissensch 3:47-58. F"— ASEN, S. and M. LIEBERMAN. 1963. Ethylene oxide experimentation aimed at cut flower longevity. The Florists' Review CXXXI, 3398 : 27 e BANCROFT, C. P. 1937. Studies on the keeping qualities of flowers. Thesis, Ohio State Univ. BENNETT, J. L. and J. E. SMITH. 1953. Effects of some growth regulators on storage and after-storage life of certain cut flowers. Abstract, 50% Ann. Mtg., Proc. Amer. Sgg. Hort. §gi., Madison, Wisconsin. BLANK, F. 1947. The anthocyanin pigments in plants. 223° Review 13:241-347. BONNER, J. 1950. Plant Biochemistry. Academic Press, Inc., No Y0 537 P- BOSSARD, R., and M. VERDIER. 1951. A propos de la conservation des fleurs.‘ Revue Horticole 123:314-315. BOWDEN, R. A. 1949. A study on maintaining red color in roses. Thesis, Mich. State College. CARPENTER, W. J. and W. W. WILLIS. 1957. A preliminary study of the effect of silver and zinc ions as flower preservatives. Kansas State College Florists Bulletin 48(12):l. CHENERY, E. M. 1948. Aluminum in plants and its relation to plant pigments. App. Bot. 12:121-136. COORTS, G. D. 1962. Correspondence to P. E. Parvin, November 12, 1962, East Lansing, Michigan. 110 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 111 COORTS, G. D. and J. B. GARTNER. 1963. The effects of various solutions on keeping quality of Better Times rose with and without "hooks." Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 83:833-838. , and J. P. MC COLLUM. 1964. Respiratory measurements of the senescing Velvet Times rose. Abstract N2. 162, 6lst Ann. Mtg., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., Boulder, Colorado. CULBERT, J. R. and E. I. WILDE. 1948. The effect of various amounts of potassium on the production and growth of Better Times roses under glass. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 52: 528-536. CURRY, G. S. 1927. The cause of bluing in red roses. Journal 2: the Royal Society 2f New South Wales. 61:307-314. DAHL, P. 1958. Afskgrne blomsters holdbarhed. Gartner-tidende 74. 3:32-33. —— ---- DEWEY, D. H. and G. BUNEMANN. 1956. Cold storage of cut flowers of tulips. The Mich. Florist 302:23. DICKEY, R. D. 1950. Factors affecting the keeping quality of cut flowers. Proc. Fla. Sta. Hort. Soc. 203-206. DORNER, H. B. 1934. Handling cut flowers to prolong their keeping qualities. The Florists' Exchange. April 28, 1934. EARLY, J. W. 1958. The sale of flowers . . . . preference factors and merchandising methods. 5'.§° and R. S. No. 16, Penn. State Univ. FISCHER, C. W., JR. 1950. Ethylene gas, a problem in cut flower storage. New York State Flower Growers Bul. 61:1-4. . 1953. Long-term holding of cut flowers. Proc. Amer. SOC. Hort. éE—ji. 61:585-592. FORD, H. E., D. T. CLARK and R. F. STINSON. 1961. Bacteria associated with cut flower containers. Proc. Amer. S23. Hort. FOURTEN, L. and V. DACOMET. 1906. Sur la conservation des fleurs coupees. Revue Horticole 70:260-262. GRIESEL, W. O. 1954. Retardation of maturation in magnolia flowers by maleic hydrazide. Science 119:843-845. HAGUE, A., W. BRYANT and A. LAURIE. 1947. Packaging of cut flowers. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 49:427-432. 30. 31. 32. 33- 31+. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42. 43. 44. 112 HAMBLETON, M. E. 1933. Studies on the effect of chemicals and other treatments on prolonging the life of cut flowers. Thesis, Ohio State Univ. HAWES, J. E. and C. B. LINK. 1951. Physiological studies of pre-packaged cut flowers. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 57: 423-431. HITCHCOCK, A. E. and P. W. ZIMMERMAN. 1929. Effect of chemicals, 3:- temperature and humidity on the lasting quality of cut flowers. Amer. J. Bot. 16:433-440. HOLLEY, W. D. 1954. Potassium, sodium and calcium nutrition of carnations. Colorado Flower Growers Bul. 60:1-3. . 1959. Some major factors affecting quality and grade of carnations. Colorado Flower Growers Bul. 109. L . 1963. Grow keeping quality into your flowers. In Symposium of the 17“ Ann. Univ. of Mo. Florists' Conf., Living Flowers That Last. University Press, Columbia, Mo., pp. 9-18. HOWLAND, J. E. 1944. Tests show roses cut in afternoon keep better than others. The Florists' Review 95(2447):33-34. . 1945. A study of the keeping quality of cut roses. Amer. Rose Annual 30:51-56. . 1946. The rate of photosynthesis of greenhouse roses. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 47:473-481. KNAPP, D. M. 1950. Studies on the keeping quality of greenhouse roses. Thesis, Ohio State Univ. KNAPPENBERGER, R. L. and W. D. HOLLEY. 1955. Tests with cut flower preservatives. Colorado Flower Growers B21. 63. and M. G. PAYNE. 1955. The sugar content of flower stems is a reliable measure of carnation cut flower life. Colorado Flower Growers Bul. 72:183. KOHL, H. C. and R. L. NELSON. 1961. Factors involved in rose neck droop. Calif. State Florists' Assoc. Magazine 10(11): 4-5. KORNS, C. H. 1962. The percentage of dry matter decreases with age of cut carnations. Colorado Flower Growers Bul. 152. KRONE, P. R. 1937. Reaction of greenhouse plants to gas in the atmosphere and soil. Mich. Agr. Exp. Spec. Bul. 285:1-35. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 51+. 55. 56. 57. 580 59. 113 KUC, R., M. WORKMAN and D. DURKIN. 1964. Nitrogen and organic acid metabolism of aging Better Times roses. Abstract No. léS, 6lst Ann. Mtg., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., Bouldgr, Colorado. LAURIE, A. 1928. Use of cut flowers. Mich. 555. Expt. SE3. Sp. Egg. 176:22 p. . 1936. Studies of the keeping qualities of cut flowers. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 34:595-597. F and D. C. KIPLINGER. 1944. Culture of greenhouse roses. Ohio Agg. Expt. Sta. Bul. 654. and . 1948. Commercial Flower Forcing. Blakiston Co., Phila., Pa. pp. 522-523. ‘9’ - -. LIEBERMAN, M. and L. W. MAPSON. 1962. Inhibition of the evolu- e tion of ethylene and the ripening of fruits by ethylene oxide. Nature 196:660-661. LINK, C. B., F. J. MAROUSKY and J. B. SHANKS. 1964. The influence of a senescence inhibition on the keeping quality of poin- settias. Abstract N2. léé, 61st Ann. Mtg., Proc. Amer. S23. Hort. S£$., Boulder, Colorado. MASTALERZ, J. W. 1952. Bluing of Better Times roses. New York State Flower Growers Bul. 87:2-3. . 1952. Nitrate levels, light intensity, growing temperatures and keeping qualities of flowers held at 31°F. New York State Flower Growers Bul. 88:2-3. . 1953. The effect of water absorption before low temperature storage on the density of blue color in Better Times roses. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 61:593-598. . 1953. Packaging flowers for holding at low tempera- ture. New York State Flower Growers Bul. 90:3. . 1953. Conditioning flowers after holding at 32°F. New York State Flower Growers Bul. 94:2. . 1956. Transpiration and water absorption in cut carnations and roses. Abstract fig. 256, 53rd Ann. Mtg., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. . 1960. Calcium deficiency in carnation. Penn. Flower Growers Bul. 109. . 1960. Keeping quality of cut flowers. Pennsylvania Retail Florists' Bul. 39:3. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75- 114 MASTALERZ, J. W. 1962. Rose research at Penn. State. Presented at the Annual Meeting of Roses, Inc., New York City, September 1962. MIKESELL, R. V. 1963. Care and handling of cut flowers at the wholesale level. Roses, Inc. Bul. March, 1963. MOORE, E. J. 1959. Expanding the retail market for floral products: some economic aspects. U.S.D.A. ANS-286. 11 p. NEFF, M. S. 1939. Color and keeping qualities of cut flowers. Bot. Gaz. 101:501-504. . 1939. Problems in the storage of carnations. Plant Physiology 14:271-281. OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION. Consumer motivations in the purchase and use of roses. Princeton, New Jersey. 20 p. OVERTON, J. B. 1911. Studies on the relation of the living cells to transpiration and sap flow in Cyperus I and II. Bot. Gaz. 51:28-63 and 102-120. PARVIN, P. E. and P. KRONE. 1960. Handling, processing and packaging of roses. Roses, Inc. Bul. October, 1960. pp. 3-6. . 1961. Troubled with "sleepy" flowers? Roses, Inc. 313. March, 1961. pp. 20-22. PERRET, A. 1904. Le froid en horticulture. Rev. Sci. 5:170-174. Paris. PFAHL, P. P. 1963. Don't wilt the florist. Roses, Inc. Bul. March, 1963. PIERSON, A. A. 1964. Report on the trade relations committee. Presented at the Annual Meeting of Roses, Inc., Portland, Oregon, August, 1964. POKORNY, F. A. and J. R. KAMP. 1953. Water acidity and cut flower life. Penn. Flower Growers Bul. 25:1-2. POST, K. and C. W. FISHER, JR. 1952. Commercial storage of cut flowers. Cornell Univ. Agg. Expt. S33. S33. 853, 14 p. PRIDHAM, A. M. S. and R. G. THOMPSON. Factors influencing the keeping quality of gladiolus as a cut flower. Proc. Amer. S33. Hort. Sci. 27:298-304. RATSEK, J. C. 1935. Tests metal containers in an attempt to increase life of cut flowers. The Florists' Review 76:9-11. 76. 77- 78. 79- 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 115 REED, P. 1936. Studies on the keeping quality of flowers. Thesis, Ohio State University. ROGERS, M. H. 1962. Sell flowers that last. The Florists' Review CXXX, 3378:13. . 1962. Environmental factors. The Florists' Review CXXX, 3379:17- . 1962. Flower storage practices. The Florists' Review CXXX, 3380:25. . 1962. Controlled atmosphere storage. The Florists' Review CXXX, 3381:21-22. . 1962. Dry pack storage methods. The Florists' Review CXXX, 3382:23. . 1962. Ethylene gas injury. The Florists' Review cxxx, 3383:21. . 1962. Two basic factors controlling vase life. The Florists' Review CXXX, 3384:71. . 1962. Water loss and water uptake. The Florists' Review CXXX, 3385:29. . 1962. Grower, wholesaler and retailer responsibilities. The Florists' Review CXXX, 3386:25. . 1963. Flower preservatives and how they work. In Symposium of the 179 Ann. Univ. of Mo. Florists' Conf., Living Flowers That Last. University Press, Columbia, Mo., pp. 67-73- RYAN, W. L. 1957. Silver and zinc ions for the preservation of cut flowers. The Florists' Review, Nov. 14, 1957. SCHOLES, J. and J. W. BOODLEY. 1964. Improved lasting life of Velvet Times rose with chemicals. S. S. State Flower Growers Bul., July. SEELEY, J. S. and K. POST. 1948. Soil nitrate levels for roses. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 51:613-617. SHERMAN, R. W., D. C. KIPLINGER and H. C. WILLIAMS. 1956. Con- sumer preferences for cut roses, carnations, chrysanthemums. Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta. Research Circ. 31:1-7. SHERWOOD, C. H. and C. L. HAMNER. 1948. Lengthening the life of cut flowers and floral greens by the use of plastic coatings. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Q3art. Bul. 30:272-276. 92. 93. 94. 95- 96. 97- 98. 99- 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 116 SIEGELMAN, H. W. 1952. The respiration of rose and gardenia flowers. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 59:496-500. SORENSEN, H. B., R. E. ODOM and A. F. DE WERTH. 1961. Consumer preference for flower and ornamental plants. Texas Agr. EbCEte Sta. B111. MP'Lf890 STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE. 1962. Cut flowers - production and sales, 1959 and 1961 in 6 selected states. U.S.D.A. . Sp. Cr. 6-1(62). Washington, D. c. A . 1964. Cut flowers - production and sales, 1959 and 1961 in 6 selected states. U. S. D. A. Sp. Cr. 6-1(64). SWINGEN, J. T. 1948. A study of pre-packaging and marketing of cut flowers. Thesis, Ohio State University. SYKORA, J. 1960. Correspondence to Paul R. Krone. East Lansing, L Mich., November 4, 1960. TAYAMA, H. and D. C. KIPLINGER. 1960. The effect of Petalife on the keeping quality of carnation flowers. Ohio Florists' Assoc. Bul. 370:2-3. THORNTON, N. C. 1930. The uses of carbon dioxide for prolonging the life of cut flowers, with special reference to roses. Am. J. of Bot. 17:614-626. . 1934. Carbon dioxide storage VII. Changes in flower color as evidence of the effectiveness of C02 in reducing the acidity of plant tissue. Cont. Boyce Thompson Inst. 6:403-405. TINCKER, M. A. H. 1942. The care of cut flowers. Journ. Royal Hort. SOC. 67:373.380e TINGA, J. H. 1956. The effect of modified atmosphere storage at low temperature and treatments after low temperature storage which affects the keeping quality of cut flowers. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University. TWIGG, M. 1953. The whys of poor keeping qualities of roses. Roses, Inc. Bul. 183:1-3. . 1952. Physiological and chemical studies on the keeping quality of Better Times roses. Thesis, Ohio State University. U. S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. 1962. U. S. Census of Agriculture: 1959. Vol. V, Sp. Rpts., Part I. - Horticultural Specialities. U. S. Gov't. Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 117 UOTA, M. 1964. Low oxygen atmosphere for rose storage. Progress Report presented at the Annual Meeting of Roses, Inc., Portland, Oregon, August, 1964. and C. M. HARRIS. 1964. Quality and respiration rates in stock flowers. U.S.D.A. AMS 537. Washington, D. C. WEINSTEIN, L. H. 1957. Senescence of roses. 1. Chemical changes associated with senescence of cut Better Times roses. Contr. Boyce Thompson Inst. 19:33-48. . 1957. Progress in research . . . . Boyce Thompson activity surveyed. Roses, Inc. Bul. 231:9-10. . 1959. Production of high quality roses. Rpt. No. 6. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc., Yonkers, N. Y. , W. R. SMITH and H. J. LAWRENCOT, JR. 1958. Senescence of roses III. Isolation and identification of l-quinic acid from Better Times roses. Contr. Boyce Thompson-Inst. 19:341- 348. . 1959. Production of high quality roses. Rpt. No. 7. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research Inc., Yonkers, N.Y. WESENBERG, B. G. and G. E. BECK. 1964. Influence of production environment and other factors on the longevity of flowers on potted chrysanthemums. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 85:584- 590. "-" -"' "‘ "" "" WILDON, C. E., J. B. GARTNER and C. H. SHERWOOD. 1948. Plastic prolongs life of flowers and greens. The Florists' Review CI, 2625:43.44. WILLIAMSON, C. E. 1950. Ethylene, a metabolic product of diseased or injured plants. Phytopath. 40:205-208. . 1963. Plant disease affects keeping quality. In Symposium of the 17m Ann. Univ. of Mo. Florists' Conf. Living Flowers That Last. Univ. Press, Columbia, Mo. pp. 1.9-31+. WILLIS, W. W. 1958. Preservation of cut flowers. Kansas State Florists' Bul. 51. WRIGHT, R. C. 1937. The freezing temperatures of some fruits, vegetables and florists' stocks. U.S.D.A. Circ. 447. T "TlTI'I‘fIflfltflileflfljlllfliflflmmfflilfilflm