THE DEVELOPMENT OF GRADSNG {N FLORICULTURE:
A STUDY OF QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR '{WO GREENHOUSE ROSE CULFWARS

Thesis for the Emma of M S.
MKHEGAN STATE UNIVERSWY
M. Jams Coleman
T955

 

11-45515

LIBRARY L

Michigan Scan
University

    
   
   

ABSTRACT

THE DEVELOPMENT‘OF GRADING IN FLORICULTURE;
A STUDY OF QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR TWO GREENHOUSE ROSE CULTIVARS

by M. Jane Coleman

In a decentralized system of marketing agricul-
tural products, grading and communications become important
factors enabling purchasers to buy specific goods from
points remote from the market—place. The purposes and
effects of grading are reviewed, with particular respect
to the United States Florists' Industry.

‘ Early methods and the developments in cut flower
grading are traced. Emphasis is given to the investigations
of the North Central Region group of Experiment Stations
who are working together to determine meaningful methods
of classifying cut flowers and potted plants.

One of the participating stations, at Michigan
State University, has been studying a possible system of
grading for hybrid tea roses, oultivars Better Times and
Yuletide. About 2,000 commercially graded roses have been
measured for stem length, bud length and diameter, top
and base stem diameters, maturity and the presence of hooks,
and total weight.

The results were compared with those obtained in
a previous study at the University of Illinois, from which

the proposed grades had been determined. It was found that

Better Times roses do not vary beyond those limits set by
the tentative standard grading system, in those factors
found to be important in determining sales quality, namely
bud length and stem length.

Yuletide roses fit well into the proposed system,
although the shorter buds seemingly will never make possible
top grade designations for the variety. This fact should
be recognized if the present minima are adopted.

It is suggested that, since bud length is but
weakly correlated with stem length, the grades should
refer only to bud length regardless of stem length. The

latter should however be stated on the package or box.

ii

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GRADING IN FLORICULTURE:
A STUDY OF QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR TWO GREENHOUSE ROSE CULTIVARS

by
. q,
[5A
“ \

M3 Jane Coleman

A THESIS
submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Horticulture

1965

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author acknowledges with gratitude the
help and guidance given by Doctor R. S. Lindstrom in
formulating this study; Doctor R. F. Stinson who en-
couraged and assisted in presenting it; and Doctor
J. D. Downes, for his advice in methods of data
analysis.

Appreciation is expressed to Doctor J. R.
Culbert of the University of Illinois, who made available
results from his previous study in rose grading.

Financial support for the project was obtained
from the Federal Government (through North Central Region
projects), the University of Illinois, and from Michigan

State University.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I INTRODUCTION

1. The decentralization of agricultural
markets

Competition in the decentralized
marketing system

2. Grading in Agriculture
Historical

Objectives of grading
Some economic results of grading

3. Standard grades are needed in the florist

industry

4. The determination of grades
Opposition to grading

PART II THE DEVELOPMENT OF GRADES WITHIN THE

FLOWER INDUSTRY

1. Some early grades

2. North Central Region Projects

3. SAF Developments

4. Some matters and problems which have
arisen during the grading programs

Summary of grading accomplishments to date

PART III ROSE GRADING
l. Developments to date
NOR tentative grades for roses

2. Testing program at MSU

Page

CD-QON U1 bu

ll
15
16

22
28
36

42
47

52
54
59

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Presentation of data:
Retailer viewpoint
Collection of data
Results and discussion

Summary
Conclusions

APPENDIX: Tables 13-22

LITERATURE CITED and BIBLIOGRAPHY

vi

PART II
Table 1.

PART III
Table l.

10.
ll.
12.

APPENDIX
Table l3.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of NOR and SAP grade standards

Bunches received, November 1964 to
June 1965

BETTER TIMES: Correlation coefficient
May '61 - May '62

BETTER TIMES: Correlation coefficient
Nov. '64 - June '65

YULETIDE: Correlation coefficient
Nov. '64 - June '65

Average stem lengths

Average stem weights

Average top stem diameter

Average base stem diameter
Average flower bud diameter
Average flower bud length

Average number of hooks per bunch

Average number of bullheads per bunch

Betterflimes: Monthly data showing the
distriEution of hooks and unsatisfactory
stems in 3 maturity groups, with and
without bullheads

Yuletide: Monthly data showing the
distribution of hooks and unsatisfactory
stems in 3 maturity groups, with and
without bullheads

vii

4O

68

84

85

86
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97

101

109

Table 15.

16.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)

BETTER TIMES. Summary of 8 months

data (Nov—June) showing the distribution
of hooks and unsatisfactory stems in the
different stem length groups

YULETIDE. Summary of 8 months data
(Nov—June) showing the distribution of
hooks and unsatisfactory stems in the
different stem length groups

BETTER TIMES. Summary of 8 months data
(Nov—June) showing the distribution of
hooks and unsatisfactory stems in each
month

YULETIDE. Summary of 8 months data
(Nov—June) showing the distribution of
hooks and unsatisfactory stems in each
month

Better Times. November-June data showing
the distribution of hooks and unsatisfac-
tory stems in 3 maturity groups, with and
without bullheads

Yuletide. November-June data showing the

 

distribution of hooks and unsatisfactory
stems in 3 maturity groups, with and
without bullheads

Better Times. November-June data showing
the distribution of hooks and unsatisfac-
tory stems in 3 maturity classes with and
without bullheads, in the different stem
length groups

 

Yuletide. November-June data showing the
distribution of hooks and unsatisfactory
stems in 3 maturity classes, with and
without bullheads, in the different stem
length groups

viii

Page

117

118

120

121

122

124

126

128

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

BETTER TIMES. Satisfactory and unsatisfac—
tory stems, with and without hooks, in all
stem length groups for the months November
'64 to June '65.

YULETIDE. Satisfactory and unsatisfactory
stems, with and without hooks, in all stem
length groups for the months November '64
to June '65.

BETTER TIMES. 8 months data showing satis-
factory stems, unsatisfactory stems and
hooks, by percentage in each stem length
group.

Page

70

71

72

YULETIDE. 8 months data showing satisfactory

stems, unsatisfactory stems and hooks, by
percentage in each stem length group

BETTER TIMES. 8 months data showing satis-
factory stems, unsatisfactory stems and
hooks, by percentage in each month

YULETIDE. 8 months data showing satisfactory

stems and unsatisfactory stems and hooks,
by percentage in each month

Correlation of stem length and base diameter

Correlation of stem length and total weight

73

74

76

79
80

Correlation of base diameter and total weight 81

ix

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page
Photographs to illustrate arbitrary standards
for bud maturity
a) BETTER TIMES 65
b) YULETIDE 66
Photographs illustrating two other maturity
designations 67

PART I

INTRODUCTION

1. THE DECENTRALIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS

The marketing of agricultural produce has been
moving away from large central markets for a number of
years (89). l/ The rate of decentralization varies from
product to product, with dependent factors including the
willingness of firms to cooperate in vertically coordi—
nating activities (47), and the adaptability of the
products to the methods used in direct and forward sales.

On the whole progress has been slow in agricul-
ture; Mehren (44) indicates that the lack of development
in agricultural marketing, relative to that of marketing
industrial products, is due to the heterogeneity of
producers, methods of processing, distribution, and
handling, scale of operations, and technologies.

Harold Breimyer (8) sees that there are two
possible directions which the present non-uniform
agricultural structure (including marketing) could take;
aggregation of the heterogeneous parts into multiple units
or "superfarms", or integration of farms and markets.
While the first development is fraught with problems,
movement towards the second has already progressed some
way. In many product areas there are, in some form or

other, the prerequisites for coordination — a network of

¥

1/ Numbers in parentheses refer to 'Literature Cited'.

-2-

-3...

physical communications linking the units of operations,
a communicating language, accurately characterizing

"the relevant economic variables", and a willingness to
use the system (15). Others, however, are lagging in one
or more of these requirements for efficient marketing

today.

Competition In The Decentralized Marketing System

The effect that decentralized marketing has
upon the competitive structure in agriculture is debated
by many agricultural economists. Breimyer (7) poses the
dilemma ”to what extent to preserve and service a
competitive system, and to what degree and in what ways
to protect the interests of producers (and other less
advantageous groups) in an imperfectly competitive system."
The removal of some produce from the open markets reduces
the number of both sellers and buyers, and the effect is
said to be nil (89); the assumption would have to be made,
however, that buyers and sellers are removed in equivalent
numbers.

Competition between vertically coordinated
marketing systems is hopefully maintained by federal action
in restricting the amount of horizontal integration that
can take place, thus limiting the size of any stage in
the coordinated chain (47).

No matter what the system is, all participants
in marketing strive to attain efficiency of operations

and pricing - to maximize profits (23). For the successful

-4-

operation of a decentralized marketing system, with its
inherent contracting and forward selling (81) p. 354
usable grades and standards for the commodities bought
and sold together, with adequate communication, are vital.

"A program of action to deal with de-

centralization in the marketing of

farm products, therefore, calls for

steps to bring market grades to the

highest possible level of detail and

accuracy, and disseminate market news

on a decentralized basis comparable

with the decentralization of the

marketing of the physical product." 1/

The following discussion and study will deal

with the development of grades, particularly in the one
area of agriculture that has not yet come under extensive

federal or state legislation - floriculture.

1/ Ref. (89) pt 59.

 

2. GRADING I

The nature 0
cmuwt, even
produced to
manufacture.
such stania
oflhr agric
normal cum
f0? aCCura‘
Spection, :

agree '1 ani

x...-

l/ The pul
mutual]
Charac.
or all

to Bra
Variou

2/ RSf. (

3/ The Q5
Spec11
Cohtrc
CQuld
which
rathe]

 

-5-

2. GRADING IN AGRICULTURE 1/

"The development of grading systems

is closely associated with the growth

of specialization in agriculture." 2/
The nature of most agricultural products is such that they
cannot, even with the latest technology and varieties, be
produced to order in the way that industrial goods are
manufactured. Although egg production can now approach
such standardization, the spread in size and quality of
other agricultural goods (which can be depicted by a broad
normal curve), including flowers, is such that in order
for accurate information to be transmitted without in-

spection, a crop must be graded according to some mutually

agreed and known specifications. 3/

 

l/ The purpose of gradigg is ”to sort products into
mutually exclusive groups of approximately the same
characteristics of type or size or quality or of two
or all of these characteristics.

The purpose of standardization is "to give permanence
to grades, so that the same grades can be used in
various markets and from year to year."

The purpose of inspection is "to determine the condition
of products and to ascertain to what standards given
lots conform." d3)

2/ Ref. (44) p. 276

3/ The development of mutually agreeable and meaningful
specifications of product quality is the cause of much
controversy in any agricultural industry. "Quality"
could be defined as that characteristic of the product
which induces a potential buyer to purchase that one
rather than another sample of the same product.

Historical

Such standards evolved with the first com-
mercialization of agriculture, and were initiated primarily
by trade groups. Grades for livestock first became used
in the 1850's, with early systems based upon the animals'
girth. In 1871 Illinois established the first govern-
mental grading and inspection service, for grain in
Chicago markets 013; grain standard grades became manda-
tory for the entire country in 1916. The only other
wholly mandatory grading scheme is for cotton, which was
established in 1914 when Congress passed the Cotton
Futures Act (40).

All other systems which have been instigated by
trade groups or researchers, and subsequently adopted by
the federal government, are permissive or tentative, with
the exception of certain products for export such as
apples and pears; for these, they are compulsory (mandatory).

State grades for certain products may also be
mandatory, as, for example, in California where fruits
shipped regularly out-of-state must fulfill the grade
standards.

Not all graded agricultural produce, however, is
marketed with U.S. or state grades: many cooperatives,
packers, and processors have developed their own system,
which may be based on the federal standards. These groups
or firms may have built up a brand name around their

individual standards.

-7-

To prevent or eliminate market abuses, standard
grades have often had to be introduced (or adopted) by
federal or state law. Produce graded by a recognised
system can be inspected by federal or state inspectors
on the request of any buyer or seller during marketing.

Much of the following discussion will be con-
cerned with evidence drawn from non-floricultural
agricultural commodities. The reason for this is that
little research as to the economic results of flower
grading has come to light, primarily because so little
standard grading has been done in this area. The impli-
cations of findings from other studies could well apply
to the floricultural market, though without evidence

this is speculation only.

88)(95)(96)

Many writers have stated objectives of grading,

Objectives of grading (6)(12)(l3)(40)(42)(45)(48)(63)(81)

and these are summarized by the following list:

1) Buyer satisfaction can be gained because quality is
consistent within each pack, and certain standards can be
requested for repeat purchases.

2) Grades and standards facilitate forward sales and
contracting.

3) Grades are essential for meaningful market news.

4) Often the price differentials achieved by grading pro-.
duce will enhance returns at least in the short run

(little experience recorded in long-run returns with grades).

--8--

5) A more accurate indication of consumer preferences will
be reflected back to the producer, by the presence and
magnitude of the price differential.

6) Poor quality will be eliminated from the market - if
the market is already saturated. Where there is a shortage,
poor quality grades will show economical returns as well
as the good grades.

7) Goods will be classified according to overall quality
and/or usefulness for different purposes. ~

8) Procurement costs will be decreased by eliminating
the necessity for purchase based on inspection.

9) Consignments from different producers, when graded by
the same standards, can be consolidated; this will re-
duce both selling and procurement costs.

10) Grades will facilitate the collection of claims
against damages incurred at any stage in the marketing
process; an impartial inspector can ascertain the extent
of the damage and give an unbiased report.

11) Financing will become easier if the potential value
of a particular product can be estimated by comparing
with prices presently received for similar grades. In

other words, with grades, the risk in marketing is lessened.

Some Economic Results of Grading
Mehren (45) hypothesizes that grades extend the

competitive devices in the market beyond price competition.

_9..

"Conceivably, grade and brand
specifications and combinations

may themselves alter preferences,
demands, and perhaps production
techniques over time; and, perhaps
most important, demands themselves
may be functions over time of the
introduction of new grades, brands,
qualities - in short, of new product
development." 1/

In the same article, Mehren justifies the use
of specialized grading according to the many possible
uses for produce, and the prices people are willing to
pay for quality, with the statement that an affluent
society contains the various alternative uses, require—
ments, and monies to pay for such a multiplicity of
grades. While he holds that grades would be of no economic
purpose in a non-affluent society, Southworth (90) points
out that they could; insofar as grading leads to more
informative market news and reduced procurement costs,
it would be feasible that a non—sophisticated system of
grading would have economic value. If, for example, corn
were graded into two parts, with only the better part
being shipped out of the area, reduced relative transpor-
tation costs would result since more of the consignment
would be useable on arrival at the distant market.

The relation between uniform grades and standards.and

 

1/ Ref. (45) 12.3186.

-10-

product differentiation 1/ is illustrated by Farris (25).

He suggests that product differentiation, while creating

imperfection in market competition and hence being opposite

in action to product grading and standardization, can be

used to the advantage of individual firms, ani may increase

the

variety of products offered - in other words, it en-

courages new product investigation. Thus product differen—

tiation and grading 2/ may well be complementary.

 

'Product differentiation': Kohls defines it as "that
condition under which a firm gets some particular recog—
nition from consumers because of some special attribute
that its product has which is not shared by the products
or services of other firms." Ref. (40).

There is often some confusion between the terms "Grade,"

"Grade" means to classify by distinct steps or stages,
according to visible attributes such as shape, size

and color. It is hoped that visible measures of quality
can be found so that a grade indicates produce quality

"Quality" has come to mean the characteristics of a
product that affect the price a buyer is willing to pay.
The characteristics may be physical or psychological." la/
In any grading scheme for perishable commodities, minimum
standards for quality characteristics of maturity, clean—
liness, and damage which is visible at the time of grading,
should be required. Other factors affecting quality are
the unseen ones; for example, taste in food products and
potential vase life for flowers, also at the time of

"Condition": The condition of produce at any given

time during its marketing is the quality resulting from
handling practices, type of container, means of transport,
temperature, and the time which has elapsed since grading.

 

 

U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Yearbook 1954 "Marketing."

1/

2/ Grade, Quality and Condition
"Quality," and "Condition."
as well as appearance.
grading.
lb/.

13/
p. 221.
2a/

"Tips on selecting fruits and vegetables". U. S. Dept.
of Agriculture Marketing Bulletin No. 13, April, 1961.

-11..

3. STANDARD GRADES ARE NEEDED IN THE FLORISTS' INDUSTRY
This need is based on several facts:-

1) Comparisons between markets are impossible without
grades, and growers are unable to take advantage of the
best of several markets at a given time 01).
2) While growers may grade well by their own standards
there is a distinct lack of common language between
sellers and buyers (9).
3) Growers need to know the returns on their various
grades to get a more accurate view of market preferences;
this is impractical and too costly to operate without
universal grades.
4) Time is wasted in determining prices for ungraded
flowers.
5) More than one-half of the wholesaler-retailer trade is
carried out by telephone, and an adequate well-known
language is necessary for accurate information to be
gpassed on. The reasons for the high proportion of
telephone business are given as:-

a. the parking problem in any market area,

b. the frequency of purchase of highly perishable
commodities,

c. most small towns (population less than 100,000)
do not have any wholesale florist to serve the
retail flower stores,

d. wholesalers find it profitable to call their
retailer customers and inform them of current
consignments, to boost their sales.

6) By reducing the quantity on the market as a result of

grading out the low quality stock, prices may be enhanced.

-12...

7) The development of flower sales through mass media

necessitates the use of standard grades.

8) Sellers may well exaggerate the relative quality of

the flowers they handle, if they are not labelled with a

known grade. (96).

9) Many retail florists have standing orders with their

wholesalers, and contracting involves the use of some

specification as to quality. (54).

"At the present time, the floricultural
industry is the only segment of United
States agriculture that does not market
its products according to a fixed system
of grades and standards. A nationally
recognised system of grades and standards
would make the marketing of floricultural
crops more orderly and would provide all
segments of the industry with a common
language that would be understood across
the country in all marketing channels.

A universal system of grades and standards
would strengthen the economic position
of this industry." 1/

"Grading is the retailers‘ problem and
at the same time the growers' opportunity." 2/

Brookins restated the necessity for standard grades, and

commented on the savings that can be made with them.

"The lack of uniform standard graded cut flowers
continues to add to the retailers' cost of
Operation. The retailers can materially im-
prove their upgrading positions by requiring
their suppliers,to furnish them with cut

flowers graded to uniform standards." 3/

1/ Ref. (56) p.1.
2/ Ref. 0,0)p.1.
3/ Ref. io)p.31.

-13-

Improved Production

With the great improvement in production volume
that has been made possible by biological research, the
major area for discovering further outlets for flowers
is to be found in marketing research (78). However,
marketing research results would be difficult if not im-
possible to apply in the industry without meaningful
standard grades and terminology (28). Furthermore,
neither marketing research nor price studies can be
carried out without some means of measuring flower quality
(21) (94).

The standpoint of the federal government was
made clear to wholesale florists by Mr. J. Dimond of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, in July 1964 (22 ). The
Produce Agency Act sanctions examination of wholesalers'
records, and the penalization of non-recording of ship—
ments and returns to growers and shippers. It "prohibits
destroying, abandoning, discarding or dumping any produce
received on consignment without good and sufficient
cause" l/, deliberate false reporting regarding quality,
condition, quantity, and handling of any consignment,
and deliberate false recording likewise, with intent to
defraud. The use of grades and standards will greatly
facilitate recording, and the determination of minimum

standards for acceptance.

 

I7—FEfT'K22 )p.2-3.

-14-

In summary of the stated needs for grades in

floriculture, a statement from one of the North Central

Regional reports:—

‘

l/

"The application of grades and
standards will facilitate trade
among industry groups. A common
terminology will be available to
all segments of the trade, that
has previously not been in exis-
tence. Flowers for specific uses
in the trade can be identified
and graded accordingly for market
and consumer satisfaction." 1/

Ref. (53) P02’30

_15_

4. THE DETERMINATION OF GRADES

"The best grading system will be
such that it will move the greatest
total amount into consumption and
secure the greatest total price for
that amount." 1/

One of the problems encountered in determining
grading specifications for a given product is in developing
standards which reflect economically significant differences
between grades. The criteria should be those the users
consider important, and those they are willing to pay for.
Criteria should also be easily recognizable, for accurate

and quick objective measurement.

There are no clear—cut breaks at the extremes
of each stated grade for agricultural produce. Not only
do grade standards have to be determined, but a system
<3f tolerance must be established. This allows for those
Ixroducts which are marginal in quality according to the
egrading system; in other words, a certain proportion will
Elsually have to be arbitrarily placed in one or other of
the possible grades. Failure to meet one or some of the
grade specifications is allowed in a small percentage of
1ihe total quantity in that grade; the amount is usually
5 <3r 10 percent. For food products, tolerance is generally
greater in the wholesale trade than it is for retail

Products. (24) .

¥

1/ Ref (40) p.205.

-l6-

Just where the grade boundaries will be placed
depends upon the "degree to which the various users will
pay premiums for certain qualities rather than substitute
adjacent qualities within the ranges available." 1/ It
can be demonstrated that a variation in the quality at
which boundaries are placed can increase total returns,
and an optimum proportion of produce falling in each
grade could be hypothesized (24) (40). However, the
problem is not so simple as this, for variation within a
season, and from season to season, in the crop average
and mean quality affect the quantity in each grade; and
the changing elasticities of demand (reflecting preference
and income alterations), affect the net returns.

Consumer loyalty will tend to be nil if grade
qualities are constantly changing in an attempt to adjust
to these dynamic factors.

"The best that can be done is to

approximate the best average dis—
tributions between grades over a

number of years." 2/

There is some controversy over the most suitable
vwxy of identifying grades. Historically, there has been
6: confusing multitude of names, often based on subjective
aund comparative measures such as "good", "fair", ”ordinary"
(4()). The simplification.of objective specifications for
1/ Ref (99) p.307.

2/ Ref (99) p.308.

-17-

grades seems to be impossible if a complete or even
semi-complete description is to be expected. waugh
states that "if everyone were thoroughly familiar with
all details of all grade specifications, the names by
which the different grades are called should not matter."
1/ This is true for the majority of buyers and known
products 2/; but when a new buyer or new product enters
the market, some quick measure of quality, indicated by
the grade name, is to be expected.

However, labels which imply quality or lack of
it without facts to guide the consumer as to the use to
which the product might be put, are misleading. To
compromise the conflict that labels should carry adequate
description and still be easily remembered and identified,
grading systems have to rely on short, simple names and
the ability of purchasers to learn through experience
send by reading descriptive bulletins.

Systems of non-descriptive identification that
kiave been used are the A—B—C method, which has achieved
some success in the canned foods industry (12). a numerical
Ilabelling technique for cut flowers (65), and colored

labels and wraps also for cut flowers.

#

w—

1/ Ref. (99) 13.3090

:L/ As indicated in the next paragraph, habitual buyers
have had to learn by experience and written descrip-
tions in bulletins, trade press, etc.

-18-

These systems do not indicate any more than a
linear gradation in quality, and not, as may be the case,
that a lower grade may well be perfectly adequate for
certain uses. For example, the smaller ripe tomatoes in
grade C may be better for immediate culinary purposes
than harder grade A fruits: in the florists' industry,
"shorts" are often graded low in the linear scale, but

these may be ideal for makedup work.

Clark and weld stated that consumers (or pur-
chasers in markets or wholesale houses) tend to buy goods
on the basis of personal inspection, the reputation of
the establishment, and price 1/. This situation still
exists in flower-buying where the florist is located.near
enough to the wholesaler to be able to go there in person.
These florists will say that they prefer to buy by in-
spection, but as the proportion of direct sending increases
‘the non-economy of the former practice is emphasized, as
:is the need for better grading systems.

The hypothesis (Page 8, number's) that grades
\Nill effect a more accurate reflection of consumer demand,
‘through prices, is discussed by Kohls (40). He notes the
ILack of relationship between price and quality of graded
Products such as tomatoes, potatoes, grain and soybeans.

"This, of course, means that the

rinciple objective of grading systems
to facilitate reciprocal information

‘

1/ Ref. (13) p.274.

-19-

transmissiOn between producers

and purchasers) is not being

fulfilled." 1/
He states that the foundations of some standards are very
faulty; the wrong criteria may have been given importance
by research scientists who imagined that they were
measuring factors which actually affect consumer pur-
chasing decisions (40). It seems pertinent here to ask
whether purchasers are entirely rational in their decision-
making processes, Whether they are judging products by
factors which are actually not related to quality at all.
That the latter is indeed the case in some instances is
illustrated by Bayton (4); in purchasing oranges, consumers
were wrongly relating skin thickness to juiciness. The
use of purchaser education could show potential customers

what are the correct cues 2/ to look for in deciding be—

tween grades of a product.

A further problem associated with grading and
rnarketing is that of product deterioration between grading
sand sales. Surveys of potatoes and eggs in retail stores
sihowed that a significant percentage in the stores did
rust meet the grade specifications it had when the lots
Were graded (24). The fact that flowers are among the
1/ Ref. (40) p.207.

2/' 'Cue': stimulus that'guides response of an organism;

in this context, the attribute(s of a product that
guides the purchaser to evaluate its quality.

-20-

most perishable of agricultural products seems to be a
major barrier to grading. The only solution to this
problem is to grade as near the final user as possible,
and as often as necessary along the marketing process.
In the flower industry, this may possibly mean that in
order to facilitate trading, grading would have to be
carried out between

a. producers and wholesalers,

b. wholesalers and retailers, and

c. retailers and consumers.
Some kind of resorting generally does go on between re-
tailer and consumers, but not between wholesalers and

retailers in the United States.

Opposition to Grading (lO)(l3)(40)(95)
Much of the opposition cited has been from two
groups:-

a. Producers who market relatively poor quality
goods and who would lose in their returns, until improved
production techniques were introduced, and

b. producers, processors and packers who already
.have their own grades and standards and who can see their
.self-made market advantage (by product differentiation)

(lisappearing as universal uniform grades are introduced.

PART II.
THE DEVELOPIVIENT OF GRADES WITHIN THE FLOWER INDUSTRY

-22-

A number of writers have stated the requirements
for standard grades in the floricultural industry.
Trotter (96) believed that such a system should

a. embody qualities for which buyers are willing
to pay a premium,

b. penalize those who use the system carelessly or
fraudulently, and,

c. be divorced from any one organization if it is
to be universally accepted.

Such a grading system has been discussed for
many years, but little progress has yet been made towards

nationally used flower grades.

1. SOME EARLY GRADES
Trotter (1955) (96) reported grades in several

areas in floriculture:-

l) Carnations were graded into No. l and No. 2's

 

according to absence or presence of split calyxes, in the
eastern United States. In the Spokane market there were
{Firsts (white label) and Seconds (red label), with criteria
of stem length, split calyxes, color and condition of

flower and foliage, and stem strength. (93).
2) Gladiolus: In Florida these were graded by

 

Spikxe length and the number of florets per spike. Labeling
was emgain by color and symbolic name - "Extra fancy",

"Speccial", and "A", "B", and "C" (62) (93)-

-23-

3) Rgggg were graded by diverse systems, all
using stem length as a basic measurement (see Part 111
for more details about rose grades).

4) Federal grades have been in existence for
some time, for two relatively unimportant crops: these
are Asparagus plumosus (1930) and cut Peonies (1938). (62).

A tentative draft prepared by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, for Florida cut gladiolus standards
in 1950, was rejected through opposition by a majority
of shippers. In 1951, U.S.D.A. grades for Virginia
outdoor-grown daffodils were developed, but were not
adopted as U.S. standards because they were not repre-
sentative of nation-wide quality (96). It is reported
that the wholesalers in the area where these grades were

used were in favor of them (54).

The search for factors to correlate with quality
led Post to develop the Cornell Standard Weight (CSW)
grades (1948). These are based on a stated high correla-
tion between weight and quality (63) (65). Grades for
;pompon Chrysanthemums, snapdragons, carnations, iris,
stocks, and roses were proposed. They were based on
weight and stem length. Pompon Chrysanthemums are
manketed in bunches, and in the CSW’grades, the number
<xf:3tems per bunch was also stipulated. A minimum number
or filowers per stem was required in each snapdragon grade.
Visual grading as to maturity, color, damage, and turgi—

ditY' was included with the proposed grade specifications.

-24-

Post also proposed that a standard trademark be adopted
in the label of every CSW graded bunch of flowers for
market. (64). H. Koenig, the president of the New York
Flower Growers Association, to whom Post proposed the
CSW grades, recommended that a committee be established
to ensure correct grading under the trademark. (39).

Grades for pompon Chrysanthemums were first to
come under fire from the industry; retailers were dis-
satisfied with the numbers of stems per bunch, which did
not easily convert to dozens for easy price calculation
(66) (70). A modified system, using 12 and 6 stems per
bunch was then proposed (67) (68).

In 1959 Post published revised grade labeling
for the CSW grades for stocks, snapdragons, and carnations,
and both different labeling and new criteria for the iris
grades (69). The original labelling had included numeri-
cal identification, which apparently was not successful
or was considered inferior to the new system.

CSW grades for out gladiolus flowers appeared
in.l950, and depended on weight per spike plus subjective
measures of crooked or weak stems (71). At the same time,
revised pompon grades were specified to include the very
langest and heaviest sprays in a new high grade -

"Exhibition" (72) .

A summary of CSW grades was published in 1953

(749 , for carnations, standard and pompon Chrysanthemums,

Snapfliragons, stocks, iris, and daffodils. Grades were

-25-

as named as follows, with color identification:—

"Special" Blue label
"Fancy" Red label
"Extra" Green label
"First” Yellow label
"Utility" White label

During the evolution of CSW grades a two-man
operated mechanical grader was developed, using four CSW
scales on a turntable. This was described by Leach in
1953 (43).

Despite the skepticism in the industry about
the validity of measuring quality by weight (96), the
Society of American Florists (SAF) officially adopted
CSW grades for carnations and snapdragons in 1953; these
were followed in 1954 by pompon and standard Chrysanthemum,
stock, and iris grades (88) (96) (97). These then became
known as SAF Standard Grades, although they were essenti-
ally the same as CSW grades. SAF gladiolus grades were
added in 1956 (88), an adoption of those advocated by
the Florida Flower Grower Association, Incorporated. The
Carnation grades were modified in 1956 to allow for those
growers who considered it a waste of time to strip the
lower foliage from the stem (88).

The first mention in the available literature
Of'ciifferential uses for flower grades is from the
SPOEHane Flower Grower's Association (92), indicating to

retail florists suggested uses for the SAF carnation grades.

 

-25-

In 1958 Ballentyne gt_al published a report of
their studies concerning the uses of SAP Standards in
the area of’Spokane (Washington) (3). They found that
SAF graded carnations, pompon Chrysanthemums, and snap-
dragons developed significant price differences between
the grades except for the two highest carnation grades,
"Special" and "Fancy". The conclusion that is drawn
from this observation is that "Fancy" carnations are of
acceptable standards for high-class work, and the separa-
tion of "Specials" is superfluous. The gain of returns
for graded over ungraded carnations and pompons was only
slight. Retailers buying graded flowers were enthusiastic
about the idea, but were disturbed at the lack of super-
vision to ensure that stated grades adhered to the system.

Although SAF encouraged the use of weight
grading methods, many growers gave it up quickly, as
being "too complicated for the average grower" (9). Those
that continued with it were very satisfied, and reported
continuing price differentials for the grades. (54).

The main objections to grading by weight are
cited as:-

a. the cost of operations to effect the grading,

b. the system is not an adequate measure of

quality, and,
c. the retailer has no idea of "what a 3/4

ounce carnation flower means." (51).

-27-

Gradingbygflower measurement was developed
for standard Chrysanthemums by Yoder Brothers of Barberton,
Ohio. The diameter of the flower was measured, and grades
were Specified for those flowers which exceed a stated
diameter, with strong stems, and clean foliage and

flower. (69).

-28-

2. NORTH CENTRAL REGION PROJECTS

In the North Central States both academic and
commercial floriculturists/horticulturists were becoming
aware of the need for standardization of grades in the
florists' industry. The retail sales figure value of
floricultural products in the country is about one-and-a-
half billion dollars per annum (1959 census), with this
region being a major producer at the national level.

With shifts in production to those areas most
suited to growing specific crops there was increasing
interregional shipment of produce, requiring a more com-
plex, necessarily efficient marketing system. This
increased the proportion of wholesale business carried out
over the telephone, and all sectors of the industry were
pressing for an adequate market information service. As
indicated on page 6 above, a market information service
cannot be conceived without some system of communicating
verbally the exact specifications of a given commodity:
i.e., standard grading and labeling throughout the
industry.

Another factor contributing to the urgency of
the need for grades and standards in the florists'
industry is the increasing interest and research being
caruried out using mass retail outlets for florists' crops.
[3863, for example, (37) (38) (61)]. That this trend

(nurtinued is evidenced by the following statement made

in February 1961 (27):-

-29-

"Supermarkets and many other food
stores have become important market
outlets for floricultural products
and supplies. However, there is very
little information available for use
as a guide to the efficient handling
of these items under the conditions
associated with food retailing o era-
tions. The committee (see ref. '7)
strongly reaffirms its previous re—
commendations that more work should
be directed toward the development of
improved methods, operating practices,
equipment and layout for flower and
plant departments, lawn and garden
outlets in order to lower the costs
of distribution and increase the
demand for these items."

With these important developments taking place,
balanced evolution of an efficient market for floricul-
tural products rests upon the formulation and acceptance
of national l/ industry—wide terminology and standards
for grades.

In 1950 the SAF and the U.S.D.A. jointly
sponsored a conference at which it was recommended that
research on standards and grading of floral products be
the "area of study for immediate attention." (59).
Directors of North Central Agricultural Experiment Stations
appointed a committee in 1956 to assist the florists'
:industry. The committee was made up of representatives
from universities in the region, and someone from the

(Jr-S.D.A. Economic Division. It became identified as
NONI-27, then NONI-22, and applied for financial support

‘

1¢’ To aim beyond the national level seems too remote an
objective until we have national agreement.

-30-

from the Regional ResearCh Fund (RRF) and under the Hatch
Act (as amended August 11, 1955). Participating states
from the beginning were Missouri, Iowa, Indiana (Purdue),
Ohio, and Minnesota (35). Illinois, Kansas, Michigan,
Alaska, Nebraska, Wisconsin, North Dakota and South Dakota
also became involved during the first three years.

Until March in 1959 no federal funds were forth-
coming, and most of the early research was carried out at
Purdue University and the University of Minnesota, where
funds were available to support projects (41).

The original project title of NCM-22 was
"Advisory committee in market grades and standards for
Chrysanthemums, cut and potted", but in 1958 this was
revised and expanded to "Market grades and standards for
Chrysanthemums, Carnations, and Roses."

After considerable discussion and investigation,
three objectives for the revised NCM—22 were set up:-

1) To identify factors determining quality in carnations,
Chrysanthemums, and roses, and to develop objective
methods for measuring these factors.

22) To develop specifications for market grades and
Estandards for carnations, Chrysanthemums and roses.

3 ) To determine the market acceptability of these grades
and standards. (52).

The early work at Purdue aimed to

:1) develop and recommend a set of uniform grades and

S1handards for standard Chrysanthemums, pompon Chrysanthemums,

 

-~‘v;. W —.T_ -.— ' ‘

Am ..._n-II ill-15mg“

-31-

and carnations,

2) test the acceptability of these grades and standards,
and

3) find better methods of evaluating market quality. (32)

(A description of some detail of the methods
employed at Purdue seems desirable here because this
method is the one by which the present study with roses
has been carried out.)

Gaylord and Hoxsie conducted their investigation
in two stages (32). First a questionnaire was sent to
growers, wholesalers, and retailers in Indiana, seeking
information regarding criteria for

a. flower size,

b. stem length,

0. stem rigidity,

d. maturity, and

e. freedom from insect and disease damage.

All respondents emphasised the importance of these factors

in their respective grading systems. These apparently

are the most important factors, for there is no record

of any additions to the list suggested in the questionnaires.

The survey also showed that even grades which
Iiad been proposed several years previously (CSW grades,
:for example) were not generally accepted, and that little
llad been accomplished toward better methods of placing
1?lowers on the market so far as grading was concerned.

Taach.grower had his own system of sorting into grades to

Hueet the specific market requirements — so they reported.

-32-

The second stage of the study was in visiting
growers in Indiana to study the engineering methods of the
individual systems of grading and to sample the flowers so
graded. Visits were made to, or samples of graded flowers
sent from similar establishments in Boston, Western New
York, Denver, St. Louis, Chicago, Florida, and California.

The data obtained in these descriptive studies
was assembled and analyzed. The fact that it was appar-
ently easily grouped and arranged in logical sequence
indicates that the method, of sampling from a number of
widely spaced areas, is valid for those flowers studied -
namely, carnations and chrysanthemums. In other words,
flowers grown in these remote places have the same, or
closely similar, characteristics and statistics.

"Based on the analysis of the flowers

now being graded and sold; on the results
of the data obtained on the five factors
(above) analyzed; suggestion of distri-
buters and the grading committee of the
Indiana Florists' Association; and
suggestions of members of the NOS com-
mittee;.......tentative grades have

been promulgated for the consideration
and criticism of the flower industry." 1/

Grade boundaries were determined from the per-
<zentage of flowers exhibiting similar objectively measurable
(Lharacteristics in a number of central markets. It would
appear that the majority fell into the second and third

Of four grades.

‘

1/ Ref. (32 )p.7.

 

-33-

The grades for carnations were used for two
years by one of Indiana's largest carnation growers,
Baur-Steinkamp and Company, Indianapolis. They received
a 5% increase in profit on graded carnations (51).

The grades received support from the Federal-
state Supervising Inspector for Indiana, Mr. J.E.Dickerson
..."I think the proposed grades are simple, objective,
workable, and just as practical as the majority of our
Federal grades on fresh fruits and vegetables, and, in
some instances, considerably less complicated than some
of them - citrus, for example." 1/

"The grading has been stressed more
with carnations than it has with
standard Chrysanthemums or pompous.
Both committees (NCM-22 and Indiana)
felt that the tentative grades on
both standard Chrysanthemums and
pompons needed further study before
they could be tested sufficiently
in order to meet the needs of the
industry." 2/

Ten growers and ll wholesalers in Indiana,
Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin parti-
cipated in programs designed to test the market accepta-
'bility of the tentative grades for carnations and standard

and pompon Chrysanthemums (59) .
While grading specifications for carnations and
Chrysanthemums were being developed in Indiana and tested

1¢/ Ref. (33) P.4.
2/ Ref. (35) p.3.

Jam‘s—WEE! .I‘Vludrfia
t V

.-34-

in Indiana and other states, other NCM-22 participants
were working on different floricultural products:-

Iowa and Missouri were discussing the possibi-
lities of pot Chrysanthemum grades, Minnesota, Missouri,
Indiana, and Wisconsin were planning first investigations
in rose standards; and Illinois and Indiana studied the
gladiolus crop with the view to determining grades for

the cut flowers (49).

By 1962, when funds terminated, the objectives
of NCM-22 had been only partly fulfilled:-
Objective 1 - factors determining quality and objective
measures thereof; these had been found for carnation and
Chrysanthemum crops. Considerable data about roses was
also gathered; but further information was still required
for the completion of this objective.
Objective 2 - specifications for market grades and stan-
dards for carnations and standard and pompon Chrysanthemums
were developed. Those for potted Chrysanthemums were
nearly complete in 1962.
Objective 3 — acceptability; proposed carnation and stan-
<iard chrysanthemum grades were tested, and found to be
sruccessfully (economically) functional during the three
JFears 1959-62 by producers and in major markets of the
North Central and other regions.
In the closing report of NCM-22 (53), it was

Ertated that grade specifications for carnations had been

-35-
submitted to the U.S.D.A. Standardization Section, and
that those for standard and pompon Chrysanthemums would
be sent later.

The committee reapplied for state support, and
obtained this, with a new identification and title -
NOR—40: "Grades and Standards for orderly marketing of
selected floral crops." Work in the North Central Regional
Experiment Stations continued toward the goal of determining
acceptable and objective measures of quality in flowers.

In 1964 a new project was approved, with a
Federal grant: NCM—35 "Market grades and standards for
specified cut flowers and potted plant crops (Potted
Easter lilies, Poinsettias, Snapdragons, Roses and Chry-
santhemums.") (57). This project is currently under way,
and will terminate June 30, 1967. Its objectives are:-

1. To identify and measure factors determining
quality in poinsettia and Easter lily potted plants and
cut snapdragons and hybrid tea roses. To develop objec-
tive methods for measuring these factors.

2. To develop specifications for grades and standards
ifor potted poinsettias and Easter lilies and for out snap-
:iragons, hybrid tea roses, and potted chrysanthemums.

3. To determine the market acceptability of the
sirades and standards previously developed for out chrysan-
Tihemums and potted chrysanthemums.

The procedures to be followed are similar to

tilose adopted by Gaylord and Hoxsie in the early North

-35-

Central Region work at Purdue (see page 30), and the plan

is outlined thus:—

Previous work and proposed plans for developing market

grades and standards for floral crops. January 1, 1964. 1/
Objective I Objective_II Objective III

Cut carnations Completed Completed Completed
Standard

Chrysanthemums Completed Completed 1965
Spray

Chrysanthemums Completed Completed 1966

Hybrid tea roses:

Better Times Completed Completed 1967
Other varieties 1966 1967 *
Snapdragons 1966 1967 *
Poinsettias 1966 1967 *
Easter lilies 1965 1966 *

* Renewal of project will be requested to complete objec—
tive III.

3. SAP DEVELOPMENTS

The SAF committee on Grades and Standards have
carried out investigations along the same lines as those
worked on by the North Central Regional committee. SAF
recognized their responsibilities to be:-
"1. To devise and promote a system of grading for cut
flowers which adequately classified the material commonly
dealt with in the florist trade.
"2. To choose a method for the evaluation of flower

qualities which is positive, based on universally accepted
scales of measurement, (ounces, inches, numbers), can be

 

1/ Ref. (57) Appendix A.

-37-
reduced to writing, and will remain inflexible from season
to season and from beginning to end of crop.

"3. To choose a nomenclature which will not depreciate
the merchandise in the eyes of the consumer.

"4. To establish grade limits for various cut flower crops.
"5. To offer such a system to the trade for voluntary
acceptance with the assurance that hope of a greater profit
will be the only pressure for its use.
"6. To establish a continuing re—examination of the use of
Standard Grades to reflect broader experience and changes
in the character of the material offered by the producer
or desired by the consumer." 1/

A master plan was adopted, using grade names
of "Special" (blue), "Fancy" (red), "Extra" (green), and
"First" (yellow) to apply to all cut flowers (the same
labeling used for the CSW grades after adoption by the

35'

SAF - see page'21). By 1958 standards (based on CSW) had
been accepted for carnations, standard and pompon chry-
santhemums, greenhouse daffodils, gladiolus (Florida),
greenhouse iris, and snapdragons. In addition, grades

were under test for greenhouse stocks, floribunda roses,

and hybrid tea roses.

V

Despite the increasing interest by the central
groups and organizations within the floricultural industry,
the use of any grading system was still very limited.

Results of a nation-wide survey by the SAF in 1962 (83)
indicated that few growers used one of the accepted systems —
generally only those who were participating in the testing

schemes in cooperation with their State Department of

 

1/ Ref. (82) p.1-2.

-38-

Horticulture. It should be stated here that while only a
minority of growers were using the NCR-4O or SAF standards,
they had found them profitable in the four years of testing,

and were in favor of extending their use.

At the same time that the North Central group
sent their grade proposals to the U.S.D.A., SAF also re-
ceived the plans. The SAP Grades and Standards committee
did not accept the schemes immediately since it was felt
that the interest of the industry, and success of the
grades proposed was not sufficiently widespread. The
scheme was presented to the American Carnation Society for
regional testing.

The U.S.D.A. did not accept the grades for the
asame reasons given by the SAF; government policy is to
Ixropose grades for an industry only after they are sure
iflaat there is acceptance on aihirly widespread national

basis.

"When and if there is assurance that
the grades and standards would be
reasonably acceptable, or a good
starting point, a preliminary draft
would be sent to industry represen-
tatives and to U.S.D.A. people, such
as the Inspection Service and State
Marketing officials, with a time
limit for comments on the preliminary
draft. It is hoped that on6........
would eliminate any bugs in proposed
grades and standards before they are
entered in the Federal Register, so
that they would be practical and
there would be some hope of acceptance." 1/

¥

1/ Ref. (84) p.4.

 

-39..

At the October 1963 All-industry Floriculture
Congress in Chicago (85), grades and standards were dis-
cussed at some length. A seminar was held, with represen-
tatives of all segments of the floricultural industry and
various agricultural experiment stations and the U.S.D.A.
Hopefully, the opinions and experiences of all sides were
voiced. The report covered the following questions:-
1) Do we need uniform national grades? -- Yes.
2) Does the industry truly want uniform national grades?-—
Yes, although it may not be feasible yet to introduce

national grades.

3) How do we get uniform national grades? - - _§udy and
researgh.

‘4) How can we get growers, wholesalers, and retailers to
Iwecognise and use them? What concrete suggestions do we
kuave for promoting acceptance of uniform grading standards?
- - Education, leadership, and action.

5) How do we enforce uniform national grades? - —"Opinion
was divided. Several said grades cannot be enforced.
Otflaers said enforcement should be on a voluntary basis.
Axupther opinion was that the program should go on its
.mexxits. If proper honest grading cannot win on its merits,
it :should be abandoned." l/ The discussion tends to be a
li1rtle vague regarding concrete suggestions on the last

IPOiIrt; the study by Ballentyne et a1 (3 ) (pageZG above)

‘

1/ Ref. (85) p030

-40-

showed that growers did not necessarily stick by the grades,
also that the system being used was acceptable, and that
there seemed a lack of adequate supervision. This in it-
self shows that enforcement of some kind gill be necessary,
and the most apparently acceptable kind that has been

introduced to the other agricultural industries is that

carried out by federal—state inspectors.

At the March 1964 meeting of the SAP committee

for Grades and Standards, a revised form of the SAP stan-

dard grades for carnations was released. This was reported

with enthusiasm in the FTD News (30) and the Ball 'Grower
Talks' (2 ). The scheme differs slightly but vitally from

‘that set out by NOR-40, as may be seen in the following

summaries .

Table 1 .
Ehmeary of NCR and SAP carnation grade standards. 1/

Flower diameter (in.) Stem len th (in.)

 

(minimum) (minimum) Minimum-max)

erade E§§_ §§£| Egg §§E

Ellie 3 3 28 28 ...

Red 2 3/4 2 3/4 22 22 27
Green 2 1/4 2 1/4 l6 16 21
Yellow ... ... 10 10 15
Whifite ... splits ... .. ...

1/ Ref. (59)

-41-

Later in 1964 the SAP committee reviewed their
position regarding grades for carnations, roses, standard
and pompon Chrysanthemums, and gladiolus. They released
for trial a proposal for standard chrysanthemum grades (EN).

The Committee for Grades and Standards lack
sufficient funds to press on as fast as it would like with
the program, and the SAF is looking to the North Central

Region group, and other projects for initial investigations.

-42-

4. SOME MATTERS AND PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE ARISEN DURING
THE GRADING PROGRAMS:-

1) Carnation grades.

"It was noted that the differences

between grades were inconsistent

and the carnation grades stressed

stem length more than flower size." 1/
Different flower sizes in carnations could be due either
to differences in maturity, or to cultural or positional
effects on the maximum flower size and/or number of petals.

Regarding the first, it was found by Workman at
Purdue that there was little difference in keeping quality
between tight, fairly tight, and open (outer petals at
right angles to the calyx) carnations (within the bounds
(of reasonable market quality) (33) (51). Thus if size
(difference is due only to maturity, the potential life
:ahould have little effect on the market price; unless,
Inswever, there is a long shipment involved, when factors
crther than vase life have to be considered (33).

Although inherently different sized flowers
wi;th the same stem length will be placed in the same grade,
"tune grower would have confidence that his wholesaler
thlld make a price differential that would take flower
SiJze into consideration." (51). Even so, direct sales
may well be damaged by this discrepancy.

The latest grades do consider flower size, but

onlgr to the extent that it is practical to do so in commercial

¥

1/ Ref. (49) 13-2-

-43-

grading methods, where only a few in each batch of flowers
may be actually measured to give the operator an idea of

the grades.

2) Pompon chrysanthemum grading.

Specifications for pompons were hard to define.
Should they be graded according to the number of stems
per bunch, or to bunch size? Flower size, a measure in
standard chrysanthemum grading, was not used for pompons,
but the number of open flowers per stem, and, more recently,
the number of fairly tight top flowers per stem, have been
two criteria.

Difficulties regarding the form of each spray
were raised in discussions in NCM-22 committee meetings,
'but seem to have been solved since the program continued

toward the grades presented here (page 48).

3) Grade Labeling.

The use of grade names, colors, or numbers have
tusen.suggested and tried at various times. Post
:fcnand that a numerical system was less acceptable than
neunes. Names intended to describe the grade content may
Well be misinterpreted, particularly by those not acquain-
teci with the system. In practice it has been found that
COJJDrS are those used most by the trade, and it was con-
clxuded.at the March 1964 SAF meeting that "all grades
ShOtfild be designated by colora" (86). It is believed

-44-

"that it is more important to set up a labeling grade

rather than a grading connotation." 1/

4) Seasonal grading.

It was suggested early in NCM-22 discussions
(49) that intermediate material should be graded according
to demand and supply. This is felt to be unnecessary,
since price differences will accurately reflect demand
only if supply can be measured in terms of quantities of
given grades. One of the purposes of standard grading
designations is that they "should not change from month
to month" 2/. Grade standards should be sufficiently

specific that very little "intermediate material" is left.

5) False claims.

Early in the life of NCM-22 the possibility of
EL wholesaler or retailer claiming that a grower has not
graded to the given standards was discussed. The committee
was aiming at setting up grades which would be acceptable
'to the U.S.D.A., so that, even though their use will be
voluntary, those using them would be subject to compliance

With the standards.

"Graded material on consignment
could not be dumped without Federal

certification." 3/

—_

1/ Ref. (51) p. 1.
2/ Ref. (86) p. 3.
3/ Ref. (49) P. 2.

Jinan-infiginfleilllides

-45-

6) "Are there benefits from the standard grades other
than for the grower?" 1/

In a word, yes. Since well over half of the
wholesaler to retailer trade is carried out over the tele-
phone, standard grades, when they are understood by all
concerned, will enable retailers to buy more accurately
and reduce labor and dumpage costs. Without standard
grading the retailer must buy a larger quantity than re-

quired to get enough of the correct quality.

7) "Will standard grades reduce cross and back hauls,
thus lowering the distribution costs?" 1/

If it were assumed that products in all regions
are homogeneous; that the market is perfectly competitive
and priced therefore uniform, differing only by transpor-
‘tation and handling costs; and that purchasers (retailers)
zare indifferent to the source of flowers; then an optimum
ciistribution pattern could be hypothesized (similar to one
drawn up by Judge, for eggs (36)).

Standard grades will increase the homogeneity
OI? floral products. However, particularly at certain times
01? the year, produce from certain regions will be superior
1:O ‘that from other areas of production. For example, in
mithwinter, carnations grown in California are better quality

than: those grown in the poorer light conditions in Michigan.

1/ and 1/ Ref. (76) p.21.

 

-45-

In addition, production costs differ by region, and the

model built up from the assumptions cited above is invalid.

-47-
Summary of grading accomplishments to date: (59)

Factors found to be most important in determining quality
in carnations, standard and pompon Chrysanthemums, and
roses:-

a. Freshness 1/

b. Stage of flower maturity

0. Flower size of carnations, standard Chrysanthemums,
and roses

d. Number of flowers per spray in pompon

Chrysanthemums

Flower symmetry and form

Stem length

Stem rigidity

Damage of any kind to flower, stem, or foliage.

5'09 H90

Objective measures of quality in carnations, standard
and pompon Chrysanthemums and roses were developed by the
North Central Region group. These are easily and accurately

determined, usually with simple measuring equipment.

Carnation grades were submitted to the SAF in 1962, modi—

fied, tested, and adopted for release in March 1964.

Standard chrysanthemum grades were modified by the SAF and

released for trial in August 1964.

Pompon Chrysanthemum grades have been presented and dis-

cussed by the SAF in July 1964.

Better Times and similar variety rose grades were trans-
mitted to Roses Inc. in October 1963, for study and review

by the Grades and Standards committee.

 

1/ 'Freshness': mainly subjective observation of color and
turgidity.

—48-

SUMMARY or GRADES PROPOSED BY NCM-35 (88).

l) NCR GRADES FOR CUT CARNATIONS
Grade Flower Diameter (in.) Stem length (ins)
(Minimum) (Minimum)
Extra fancy
(Blue) * 3 28
Fancy (Red) 2 3/4 22
No. 1 (Green) 2 1/4 16
Design (Yellow) -- 10
2) NCR GRADES FOR STANDARD CHRYSANTHEMUMS
Grade Minimum Flower Minimum stem
Diameter (ins) Length (ins.)
Extra fancy
(Blue) 6 36
Fancy (Red) 5 30
No. 1 (Green) 4 24
Design (Yellow) -- 18
3) NCR GRADES FOR POMPON CHRYSANTHEMEMS
Grade Minimum number fairly Minimum stem
tight top flowers per Length (ins.)
stem
Extra fancy
(Blue) 9 3O
Fancy (Red) '1 25
No. 1 (Green) 5 20
Design (Yellow) 3 l5
4) ' NCR TENTATIVE GRADES FOR CUT ROSES
Grade Minimum stem Minimum Flower
Length (ins) Bud Length (ins.)
Extra fanc (Blue) 30 13 3/4
Fancy Red 24 1 1/2
No. 1 Green) 18 1 1/2
Design (Yellow) 12 1 1/2
Corsage (White) 6 1 1/4

* Color designation as agreed by NCM-35 committee, September
1964 (58)

-49-

Definition of terms used in the full grade statements

may be found in the report.

Tolerance (for all grades): "incident to proper grading
and handling, not more than 5%, by count, of any 100 shall

fail to meet the specifications of the grade." (88)

PART III

ROSE GRADING

ROSE GRADING

Roses are among the highest value flower crops,
both monetarily and in prestige importance. They are
generally marketed with some kind of stated specification
as to stem length and quality. For this reason roses are
probably the nearest to being graded on a uniform national
basis, yet there are many differences between individual
growers' grading systems. The main measure of grade is
stem length, with increments varying from 2" to 6". All
roses longer than the stated minimum but less than the
next longer grade are placed in the same group. The stems
usually are not cut to one length after sorting, as is
often done in Europe particularly for the longer grades.

Some growers measure the bud as part of the
stem length while others do not.

Grading by stem length alone does not give an
adequate measure of quality; within the same grade there
may be variation due to bud size, maturity, strength of
stem, condition of foliage: "It seems logical that grades
of roses should take into account these differences in
quality which are often more important than stem length
in determining utilization and value" 1/.

Buyers tend to think that because longer roses

cost more they are automatically of better quality, but

 

1/ Ref. (96) P066.
-51..

-52-

this may not be the case. Post (65) commented that weak-
stemmed, small-flowered roses could well be graded highly.
In his CSW grades for roses, weight per inch of stem en-
sured that there was adequate thickness and strength to
support the flower, although the size of the flower was
still left undesignated.

l. Developments to Date

CSW specifications for roses were stated in 1951.
The system required two stages; first the cut roses should
be sorted according to stem length, and then re—sorted
within each stem length category by weight (73).

Previously a system was proposed and adopted
by Roses Incorporated as the result of a questionnaire
survey of the members in 1946 (79). But it was not widely
accepted, neither was the CSW method used for long, and
Roses Inc. have taken further action in the last few years.
There have been discussipns, and support has been given to
the work by the North Central Region group.

At the University of Illinois, Dr. Culbert in-
vestigated possible modifications and the requirements of
the retail trade regarding rose grades. A mail question-
naire to retail florists revealed that

a. nearly half of the respondents (120 in all)
:favored 3" increments in stem length,
b. the greatest preference is for, and the most use

caml‘be made of, the l8"-24" range,

-53-

c. freshness is considered by retailers to be the
most important characteristic to be accounted for by rose
grading, and secondly flower size; these are more important
than stem strength,

d. the most widely used bunch size, of 25, was re-
ported satisfactory by 86% of the respondents,

e. there is a lot of dissatisfaction over the methods
used by growers in grading roses,

f. a major complaint is the inclusion of imperfect
flowers (bullheads l/ and hooks 2/) in an otherwise per-
fect bunch. (5) (14) (17) (56) (80).

At the May 1964 Annual Meeting of Roses, Inc.

(80) it was stated that growers need to adhere more closely
to their present grading schemes, to exclude bullheads,
hooks, and weak stems. In addition, the grades ought to

be changed for every additional day a consignment lays

in the wholesale house before sale. It would be more
;practical to persuade growers to tighten up their methods
21nd standards for their own designated grades, than to try
to make all producers change to one standardized grading
scheme. However, should one system prove better than
another in equalizing quality within the bunch, it ought
to ‘be promoted with the hope that the majority, if not all,

1/ :VBullheads": malformed flowers often characterized by
:anurling petal edges.

2/ ‘"Hook" refers to the portion of stem cut below the
tireak, which adds to the total length of the cut rose.

-54-

of the rose growers will adopt it. Certainly a standard
scheme will make bookkeeping and actual purchasing more

easy for wholesalers and retailers alike.

HOOKS

Regarding hooks, a study at the University of
Illinois in 1961 showed that when a good preservative is
added to the water, the presence of hooks does not sig-
nificantly affect water uptake and vase life of roses
(18). But it is hard to ensure that such a preservative
will be used by all handlers. Furthermore, the appearance
of hooks detracts from the apparent value of roses, and
they are virtually impossible to use satisfactorily in

flower arrangements.

NCR TENTATIVE GRADES FOR ROSES

In the North Central Region projects the early
work on roses was done at the University of Illinois.
The station concentrated on collecting data from hybrid
tea roses grown under glass, and using the data as a basis
for developing tentative grades.

One variety, Better Times, was measured for the
thirteen—month period of May 1961 to June 1962. A bunch
of 25 of each of the stem lengths 9-12 inches,

12-15 "
15-18 "
18-21 "
21-24 "
24-27 "
27-30 "

and 30 inches and up, was

measured each month. The measurements were:—

1) Stem

2) Stem

3) Stem

4) Stem

5) Stem

a.

b.

-55-

length. The length in inches was measured from
the base of the stem to the tip of the flower.
Measurements were made to the nearest inch, with
a yardstick.

weight. This included the flower, stem, and
foliage in a fully turgid state, after the excess
water was shaken off. A CSW Grading scale was
employed.

strength. The flower stem was held vertically
with the greatest angle of the stem toward the
grader. Stiffness (strength) was then measured
in degrees from the vertical.

straightness. The greatest angle of the stem was
measured from the vertical in degrees. This
measurement includes stem strength.

diameter. Measured with a V-shaped caliper, to
the nearest 32nd of an inch, at

top, just under the ovary,

middle, halfway between the base of the stem and
the tip of the flower, and,

bottom, at the base of the stem and just above

the hook if present.

5) Flower bud diameter. The greatest diameter of the bud

was measured in inches when held firmly within

the above mentioned caliper.

7) Flower bud length. The distance from the base of the

flower to the top of the bud was measured in

inches in a straight line.

-56..

8) Stem weight per inch of stem. This is the stem weight
divided by the stem length in inches.

9) Flower petal number.

10) Information as to insect and disease damage, broken
stems, hooks, and bullheads, was noted and

recorded. (16)

From this data, and the results of the survey
of retail florists (pageeb) the following tentative grades
were developed. They do not apply to any of the so-called
"sweetheart" roses, but to hybrid tea varieties Better

Times, Briarcliffe, and similar varieties.

NORTH CENTRAL REGION TENTATIVE GRADES FOR CUT ROSES+
+Apply only to varieties Better Times, Velvet Times,
Briarcliffe, etc., sports of these varieties and other
varieties similar to these in flower and growth charac-
teristics, and grown one flower per stem.

Extra Fancy (Blue) Grade shall consist of a flower that
shall be fresh (1), fairly tight (2), of typical form for
variety (3). and not less than 1 3/4 inches in length (4).
The stem shall be not less than 19 inches in length (5),
fairly straight (6), free from buds, suckers and "hooks"
(7), and rigid enough to hold the flower in a fairly up-
right position. Flower, stem and foliage shall be fresh

(1) and free from damage (8).

Fancy (Red) Grade shall consist of a flower that is not
less than.;_l/2 inches in length on a stem not less than

-57-

24 inches in length, and, in addition, meet all the other

specifications for Extra Fancy Grade.

No. 1_(Green) Grade shall consist of a flower that is not
less than 1 1/2 inches in length on a stem not less than
18 inches in length, and, in addition, meet all the other

specifications for Extra Fancy Grade.

Design (Yellow) Grade shall consist of a flower that is
not less than 1 112 inches in length on a stem not less
than 12 inches in length, and, in addition, meet all the

other specifications for Extra Fancy Grade.

Corsage (White) Grade shall consist of a flower that is
fresh, fairly tight, of typical form for variety, and not
less than.l_l[4 inches in length. The stem shall be not
less than 6 inches in length. The flower, stem and foliage
shall be free from damage. Otherwise the rose does not

meet the specifications for Extra Fancy Grade.

Tolerance (For All Grades) -- incident to proper grading
and handling not more than 5%, by count, of any lot shall

fail to meet the specifications of the grade.

De finitio ns

11. Fresh means that the flower, stem and foliage are
bright and not badly wilted.

£2. Fairly tight means several outer petals are slightly

separated from the remainder of the bud which remains

-58-

tight and pointed.‘

Typical form means that the flowers are of normal
petallage and are similar to the accepted form for
the variety and are not "bullheaded", "bullnosed" or
otherwise misshapen.

Flower length means the distance from the base of the
petals to the top of the unopened petals in the bud.
Stem length means the greatest distance from the
bottom of the stem to the top of the flower.

Fairly straight means that the stem is of normal growth
and not more than slightly curved or crooked.

Hook means the section of "old wood” attached to the
base of the stem and positioned to make a noticeable
angle with the stem.

Damage means any injury or defect caused by dirt or
other foreign material, discoloration, moisture, in-
sects, diseases, nutritional, chemical, or mechanical

means which affects the appearance or shipping ability.

When bunched, all flowers per bunch shall be of the same

'variety.

SUMMARY
NCR TENTATIVE GRADES FOR CUT BETTER TIMES ROSES

Flower Length (in.) Stem Length (in.)

Grade (Minimum) (Minimum)
Extra Fancy (Blue) 1 3/4 30
Fancy (Red) 1 1/2 24
No. 1 (Green) 1 1/2 18
Design (Yellow) 1 1/2 12

Corsage (White) 1 1/4 6

2. TESTING PROGRAM AT MSU

A proposed testing program on these tentative
grades was put out to participating North Central Region
stations, with fewer measurements than the original tests.
1) Stem base diameter to be recorded in 32nds of an inch,
2) Bud length to be recorded to the nearest .5 centimeter,
3) Stem length to be recorded to the nearest .5 centimeter,
4) Stem stiffness or straightness to be recorded as satis-
factory or unsatisfactory,

5) Presence of maturity to be recorded as tight, fairly
tight, and opening; and

7) Total weight of stem and flower to be recorded to the
nearest .5 gram. (60)

The subproject (46) proposed by Dr. Lindstrom
at Michigan State University includes the above testing
program on the rose variety Better Times, and an extension
of the investigations to a similar variety, Yuletide.

Both of these varieties are grown extensively in the state
of Michigan and are used by all retail florists. The

early results of the study are contained in this thesis.

PURPOSES

a. To determine how similar are Better Times roses grown
in.Michigan to those grown in Illinois, with reference to
the proposed grades.

‘b. To discover whether the same grading criteria can be

used for both Better Times and Yuletide roses.

. —60-
Presentation of Data

RETAILER VIEWPOINT

In the fall of 1964 a few retail florists in
the Detroit area were visited and interviewed informally
and briefly about roses and the grades then being received.
While the stem lengths supplied were considered satisfac-
tory, it was generally agreed that growers could do a better
Job of selecting a single quality of roses for the same
bunch. If one bunch of 25 has two or more bullheads in it,
or otherwise unacceptable roses, there remains one dozen
and part of a dozen good roses. Florists do not like
"broken dozens" in stock, (particularly in the higher in-
come areas) because rose orders often call for one or more
dozens.

Inevitably a retail florist regrades his roses
according to the various uses for which they are destined.
The amount of regrading that must be done today, however,
and the volume which needs to be bought in order to pro-
vide a given number of top notch flowers (this may be two
or even three times the volume required), is too great.
Here is a reason for the apparently high margin between
wholesale and retail prices. One can speculate that if
the grower did a better job of grading, not necessarily to
standard grades, but to his own specifications, retail
florists would waste fewer flowers. Since more would be

throwm.away before marketing, the prices received would

-51-

be at a higher level - especially when buyers know they
need only buy the number required. Hopefully the retail
price could then be lower than with large wastages through

poor grading.

-52-

COLLECTION OF DATA

At the beginning of each month, starting in
November 1964, five grades each of varieties 1/ Better
Times and‘hflxmide were received from Floral Avenue Green—
house in Mount Clemens, Michigan. Stem lengths of 9", 15",
21", 27", and 30-33" were requested, according to the pro-
posed testing program on the tentative grades of Better
Times roses (60). However, these stem lengths were not
always available, and we received five bunches of each
variety to cover the stem length available at the time.

The measurements that were made on each rose
were those included in the program (60) with some additions.
1) Stem diameter. This was measured with a V-shaped

caliper to the nearest 32nd of an inch, at

a. top, just under the ovary; the stems of both
varieties were frequently flat in this region,
and the narrower diameter was measured;

b. bottom, at the base of the stem and just above
the hook if present. Rose stem diameter in—
creases at the nodes, so measurements were taken
at the narrower internodal regions whenever
possible.

‘2) Bud length. The distance from the base of the petals
to the tip of the longest petal was measured
with a straightedge, and recorded to the nearest

.5 centimeter.

 

i;’ The words "variety" and "cultivar" are used synonymously
in this paper.

-53-

3) Bud diameter; measured with an automatic measuring
caliper (Federal Products Corp. Model 49P-l-Rl,
Y-6542), to the nearest .5 centimeter across the
bud at a point noted as widest on a tight bud of
both varieties; this is 7 millimeters from the
petal base. The position was used for buds of
all maturities.

4) Stem length. The length from the base of the stem
(or hook if present) to the top of the flower
was measured with a meter stick to the nearest
.5 centimeter.

5) Stem stiffness or straightness; holding the stem near
the base in a vertical position, the angle at
which the flower head came to rest was noted.

If the stem curved or was bent further than an
estimated 10° from the vertical, in any direction
(position of the hands at 10 to 2 on a clock face),
it was recorded as unsatisfactory.

6) Presence of hooks or soft pinches; recorded as present
or absent.

7) Degree of maturity. This was recorded as tight, fairly
tight, and opening with and without bullhead
formation: i.e., a total of 6 groups, tight,
tight with bullheads, fairly tight, etc.

Exact definitions of the three maturity stages

for the two varieties are as follows:-

a. Better Times
Tight: not more than one outer petal free of a
hard bud.
Fairly tight: one to three outer petals free of
a hard bud.
Opening: four or more petals free of a hard or
soft bud center, or a soft centered
("blown") bud with fewer free petals.
b. Yuletide
Tight: hard bud with up to one layer of petals
becoming free or loose from the bud.
Fairly tight: center of bud still hard, with
up to 6 or 8 petals free.
Opening: bud soft centered, any number of free

petals.

These are arbitrary measures, and are still some-
what subjective, particularly with respect to the
hardness or firmness of the bud. The two Culfiuaxf
open in a different manner, hence the variation in
definition of the maturity terms.

8) Total weight of stem and flower, measured on a Mettler

balance model K-6T, to the nearest .5 gram.

-55-

Photographs to illustrate the arbitrary standards for
bud maturity (p.64 ).
a) BETTER TIMES

Tight

 

 

 

Fairly tight

 

 

 

 

-55-

Photographs to illustrate the arbitrary standard for bud
maturity (p.64 )
b) YULETIDE

Tight

 

Fairly tight

 

 

Opening

 

-57-

Photographs illustrating two other maturity designations
p.44 . '

YULETIDE:

"Tight bullhead"-

bud shortened in center
with petals curling in
particularly at the top.

BETTER TIMES:

A soft, or "blown"
bud - classified as
"opening."

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

The data obtained were punched onto IBM cards
for correlation and regression analysis by computer
(FORTRAN 3600), and for easy cross-classification purposes.
An additional variable was added for the computer analysis,
that of stem length corrected for the presence of hooks.
Based on estimates made from time to time, a standard of
5 centimeters was used, this being subtracted from the
total length of all stems with hooks. It made no appreci-
able difference tc the linear correlation coefficients
(see Tables 2, 3, 4).

The stem lengths which were received each month
are as follows:-
TABLE 1 BUNCHES RECEIVED, NOVEMBER 1964 to JUNE 1965.
Variety/Month

BETTER TIMES 9" 12" 15" 18" 21" 2 2 3C" 33"
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
iay
June

IHIINHHH a

4
l
2
l

HHHHIIHH
IIIIHHII
HHHHHHHH
HIIIIIII
NHNHHUHI
IHIIIHHH
!|II|I|I

YULETIDE

Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May

June

HHPHHHHH

HHHHHHHH
IHHHHHHH
[HHHHHHH
IHIIHHHI

illllllH

no! II II II
HIIIOIII
IIHHIIII

-69—

l. Satisfactory and unsatisfactory stems, and hooks.

Figures 1 and 2 show the numbers of satisfactory
and unsatisfactory stems and hooks in each bunch measured
in the eight-month period. It can be seen that in both
varieties more unsatisfactory stems were found in the
shorter stem lengths, while the number of hooks per bunch
increased with stem length. These trends are more clearly
illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, which give the totals for)
the entire period in each stem length group, on a percentage
basis. In these graphs the sum of the total satisfactory
and total unsatisfactory stems is equal to 100%. The
presence of hooks is an additional factor, their distri-
bution being shown in Tables 13 and 14 (pagelel-ub) .

The fact that the proportion of hooks increased
with stem length was observed in 1961 in the University
of Illinois studies. "This is understandable. Because
of pinching and cutting to crop, the hooks appear on longer
flowers." 1/

 

“fi— W'—

1/ Ref. (80) page 7.

-70-

Figure 1. BETTER TTMES (See Table 13)

Satisfactory and unsatisfactory stems, with and
without hooks, in all stem length groups for
the months November '64 to June '65

“3—3

LlnSatiS-facfora stew

LLnsocflsTyaqu rte ms, that kooki
gafisfictor CW5, wd’t‘ ROCK.
Sod-Tiffacl-ong dam r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35’ . 2?
E “ : f
I» k E r038.
Nov. Dec. 7 0
qt! ’5" 2'“ Q7u3dl
H H 9‘ F “7
Jan. _ q A? 0 Fab. 0
:9: as“ 2:" :47" 30" la" 15" :11“ :47"
, 35’ :45
p L W L i
Mar. 0 Apr. _ —0
q“ ’5" .2", 24!; qt! ‘gu .2!" ”to
a§ 25'
H H a. LA 1 i m
Maj oJone. o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9" I§' an" :v"3d' 7” IS";?'2V

-71-

Figure 2. YULETIDE (See Table 14)

Satisfactory and unsatisfactory stems, with and
without hooks, in all stem length groups for
the months November '64 to June '65

K83

Unsahi°acton siems ,
LLnsafiS 00mg? stems, wens hadki

Satufo do Gems, New hooks
Satqfodora 3'ka

~ .1? ,_ as
L L F j r-o St” 4

Nou. Den.
4" 15’" .21" .27" 33" 6" IS" Jo 27"30"

LL‘R‘KLEL “”5“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jan. 0 Feb.
in II M o H .. u H a u o
‘1 I5 .2/ .27' 3o 9 15' .21' .27 3o”
._ 2f - 25'
L L L L rest?
Mar. 0 Apr.
w n u .. u n n O
‘i )5 .2: a: 27" 9 IS .2! 24"27”
' a? 35’
l.- L L L 1.7 rose”;
M . J
3.3 0 0'16 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9' ’5" JJ" 17" 30" 9" L7." [5"18"

-72-

Figure 3. BETTER TIMES (See Table 15)

Eight months data showing satisfactory stems,
unsatisfactory stems, and hooks by percentage
in each stem length group

"xfit'
9cfiti ,’
1807. -
707. <
60L -

:07.-

 

 

 

 

((9

~ -..---- SOU‘JS‘EOCtOrD 1Pm§
Numb-9V 01;. ,l/OOkg
——————— HOSQl‘V‘JfElciOVU KLQMS

 

-73-
Figure 4. YULETIDE (See Table 16)
Eight months data showing satisfactory stems,

unsatisfactory stems, and hooks by percentage
in each stem length group

loo}..- ,.

iodz- I V’ \

702,4
6 O7, .
3'07;
407;,-
30 z.

amaze \

 

107, - \, ',..

9‘ .’ \.\."

 

 

0?

Q r l’ l

q w (an ’1‘” It» 9:." 3‘90. a?“ up 3'30

{:33} ------ Sahkfaalorj gram;

Number of book-5
....... _ Lanfisfacmo—zg STemS

 

-74-

2. Monthly variation. Figures 5 and 6.
a. Unsatisfactory stems:
Better Times had a high percentage, (20%), of
unsatisfactory stems in January, with a second,
lesser peak in March, (13%).

Yuletide - the months of maximum percentage of

 

unsatisfactory stems were November (19%), January
(16%), and May (13%).

b. Hooks:
Better Times. The greatest proportion of hooks
was found in November and January (more than 20%),
while the May sample included 14% hooks. Indivi-
dual bunches show a high proportion in the long
stem lengths in November, December, and January
(Figure l). Coorts and Culbert (’6) found the
highest numbers of hooks were present in the months
of June, September, December, and February. It is
possible, however, that the maximum periods would
vary from grower to grower, with different schedules
of pinching and cutting.
Yuletide. Maximum total hooks are seen in November
(32%) and May (15%). This is also true of the

longer stem lengths in individual bunches (Figure 2).

-75-
Figure 5. BETTER TIMES (See Table 17)
Eight months data showing satisfactory stems,

unsatisfactory stems, and hooks by percentage
in each month

1007., 1‘
907.4 \ / \ ”-----.
30701 ‘~’
707. «
607$
50% .
+07.-
307:
.107. 1
/07.‘

07.. . r \s .a ..
Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.- Afr. N83 Jone.

 

 

’33s
""'"" Satt'sgoctovtj gem:
Numva 0% book!

_______ LL!" gate-17216 Lord SKN

 

-75-

Figure 6. YULETIDE (See Table 18)

Eight months data showing satisfactory stems,
unsatisfactory stems, and hooks by percentage
in each month

'00?“

I \ I \ /
7070‘ I \ I’ \\ /

5'02 .
4oz -
30?. -
207. -

lo7. -

 

 

0?. T I I T l I fl
Nov. Dec. J'an. Feb. Mar Apr: ”35 Iona

V

 

 

he.
------ SQbeOCbV'Ej skms

Numbev 0-5» HOOKS
''''''' LLnsatzJ’fzatonj stems

-77-

3. Correlation analyses

Linear correlation coefficients were determined
between stem length, base diameter, top diameter, bud
length, bud diameter, stem and flower weight, presence of
hooks, and the stem length adjusted for the presence of
hooks. The two varieties were run both together and
separately for each month's data, and separately for the
total eight month period. The most consistently strong
correlation coefficients were found between stem length,
base diameter, and total weight. These are graphically

represented in Figures 7, 8, and 9.

Figure 7. Stem weight correlated with base diameter:
the individual varieties both show a greater correlation
in the winter months than in spring or summer months
illustrating the more rapid growth and hence the younger
stems produced in spring and summer. Stem diameters of

the latter do not vary appreciably with stem length.

Figure 8. Stem length correlated with total weight:

again, a reduction in the 'r' value is seen towards summer,
particularly with the variety Yuletide. An explanation

for this effect could be that when growth is rapid, as in
summer, compared to that in winter, longer stems are thinner
and lighter per unit length than Short ones. Certainly the
weight per inch (Coorts and Culbert 1961-2 (16)) does show
a tendency to fall between February and May (Better Times
roses), although it is not known how significant the re—

<hlction is of, for example, 0.042 ounces per inch to 0.038

-78-
ounces per inch, for 27" roses, between these months.

Figure 9. Base diameter and stem weight are more nearly
correlated in the winter months. This restates the in-
formation given by Figure 7, that the more quickly grown
summer stems show less significant variation in diameter

along their lengths.

ImPU
0:3 mm: i4 am: thou {and .80 .sbz

 

 

4. . )t b _ p P r .
owner; a. / m
meccfirxwfimm. x xx "
were; 0 o/ 3.9
worthiwfimmw 6.
may //
, , I P.Q
.ANE/ rM.Q
I v.0
AV
1Q,—
HOPOEGHU omdp 6G6 M$JQ>L

 

hemmed aopm Ho soapsdonaoo

.a assess

 

\wgofi fin: is: Lmi Don, .Chfl .o ca 32
L p P p L Pl k . J“
"
«TEE swfiwm x v $6
vessefi o ,
wwEuLikwjmfl q 1
may 1
.. 5.0

 

 

O. .0 \
H\ /./ | )1! M -/. 0 l ®.O
/ \ / o :.a*’.. .
\ // d
(if! . s
q .11).) q
l 0 .\
MQ3~6> L

passe; Here» are
zpmsoa Roam Mo soavmdohuoo
.m enemas

 

 

9454 .92 Sr: . JR: .mmu .13 .85 32
“u. n.
V‘sbwgr N \ O
moire shrew x
wastes/o
amkbrhawflnwm Q
awe as
. V6
. m6
r wd
V
Laws)? L
panoe Hopop was
assessao omen mo soapsaossoo

 

. m enemas

ADDENDUM TO FIGURES 7, 8, and 9

COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION 1/

Figure 7. Stem length x Base diameter
Better Times Yuletide Better Times/
Yuletide
NOV. 0826 0705 0750
Dec. .916 .807 .829
Jan. .806 .867 .830
Feb. .859 .863 .857
Mar. .864 .845 .813
Apr. .724 .801 .764
May .818 .730 .750
June .800 .608 .598
Figure 8. Stem length x Total weight
Better Times Yuletide Better Times/
Yuletide

NOV. 0914- 0837 .840
Dee. 0954 0877 0915
Jan. .924 .909 .907
Feb. .894 .911 .900
Mar. .880 .892 .858
Apr. .848 .890 .869
May' .946 .880 .869
June .858 .485 .688

Figure 9. Base diameter x Total weight

Better Times Yuletide Better Times/
Yuletide
Nov. .884 .774 .829
Dec. .939 .840 .872
Jan. .830 .870 .855
Feb. .884 .886 .882
Mar . . 891 .911 .911
Apr} .888 0899 0903
May .864 0877 0879
June .845 .575 .724

H..—

1/ All coefficients here are significant at the

1% level.

-83-

4. Comparison with Illinois correlation.

The total Better Times and Yuletide correlation
coefficients obtained for the eight months at Michigan
State University, and those for the same variables deter-
mined for Better Times at Illinois in 1962, are presented
in Tables 2, 3, and 4. There is a similarity between the
'r' values for correlation between

stem length and base diameter,

stem length and total weight,

base diameter and total weight,

top diameter and bud length, and

top diameter and bud diameter.

Values for the other variables show more than a 0.2 dif-

ference between the results from the two stations.

~84-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2
BETTER TIMES: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS, MAY ‘6l-MAY '62 Q6)
STEM BA SE TOT> BUD BUD STEM 8c
LENGTH DIAM. DIAM. LENGTH DIAM. FLR. WT.
STEM
LENGTH 1.000 .928 .658 .414 .441 .973
BASE
DIAM. .928 1.000 .828 .413 .432 .935
TOP ,
DIAM. .658 .828 1.000 .467 .475 .711
BUD
LENGTH .414 .413 .467 1.000 .861 .536
BUD
DIAM. .441 .432 .475 .861 1.000 .566
STEM &

FLR.WT. .973 .935 .711 .536 .566 1.000

Table

3

—85-

BETTER TIMES: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS, 1/ NOV.'64-JUNE '65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STEM BASE TOP BUD BUD STEM E KEUUSTED
LENGTH DIAM. DIAM. LENGTH DIAM. FLR.WT. STEM
STEM
BASE
DIAM. .787 1.000 .083 .017 -.042 .870 .801
ns pg
TOP
DIAM. .105 .083 1.000 .286 .564 .108 .129
BUD
LNGTH .107 .017 .286 1.000 .282 .152 .113
ns
BUD
DIAM. -.100 -.042 .564 .282 1.000 -.065* -.077*
-BE.
STEM &
FLR.WT. .873 .870 .108 .152 -.065* 1.000 .871
ADJ.
STEM .995 .801 .129 .113 -.077* .871 1.000

 

1/ All coefficients are significant at the 1% level except
those marked * or ns.

*—

— Significant at the 5% level

ns = Not significant at the 5% level.

-86-

Table 4
YULETIDE: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS, l/ NOV.'64-JUNE '65

STEM BASE TOP BUD BUD STEM & ADJUSTED
LENGTH DIAM. DIAM. LENGTH DIAM. FLR.WT. STEM

 

 

 

STEM

LENGTH 1.000 .724 .456 .206 -.008 .810 .997
ns

BASE

DIAM. 0724 10000 0529 0286 -0013 0832 0731
ns

TOP

DIAM. .456 .529 1.000 -.190 -.097 .546 .459

BUD

LENGTH .206 .286 -.l90 1.000 .189 .339 .208

 

 

 

BUD
DIAM. -.008 -.013 -.097 .189 1.000 -.028 -.061
__ ns ns ns ns

STEM &

FLR.WT. .810 .832 .546 .339 -.028 1.000 .804
ns

ADJ.

STEM .997 .731 .459 .208 -.061 .804 1.000
ns

 

1/ All coefficients are significant at the 1% level except
those marked ns.

ns = Not significant at the 5% level.

-87-

5. Comparison with Illinois average values, and of Better

Times with Yuletide average values. Tables 5-12.

Average data gathered in the eight-month period
November 1964 to June 1965 at MSU were transformed from
centimeters and grams to inches and ounces, using conver-
sion standards 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters, and
1 ounce = 28.375 grams.
Although in this study fewer bunches were measured, a com—
parison is made between the average figures for a comparable

period to indicate the trend of agreement or otherwise.

Table 5. Average stem lengths.

These are clearly longer in Michigan data than
that from Illinois. This could possibly be due to the fact
that the participating grower knew he was being tested, but
the consistency with which the stem's average value is
greater than the stated bunch length throughout the period
indicates that it is probably inherent in his grading

techniques.

Table 6. Average stem weight.

While there seems to be little difference between
the Better Times values in both tests, the average weight
of Yuletide stems are clearly greater for all stem lengths.
'Varietal differences in stem weight and the complication of
Lhaving a different system for each variety grown are clearly

opposed to any kind of weight grading system.

-88-

Table 7. Average top stem diameter.

The values for the two sets of Better Times co-
incide closely, but that for Yuletide is consistently below
the others. The top internode of any Yuletide stem was
usually much narrower than the remainder of the stem below
it, and retailers report that the variety is known well to
be "weak-necked", requiring wiring. This factor would not,
however, affect a standard grading system for all hybrid
tea varieties, since it is known that flower stems of at

least one variety tend to turn over at the top.

Table 8. Average base stem diameter.
Again, the average values for Yuletide are dif-
ferent, being greater than those of Better Times; while the

latter variety does not show any distinct regional variation.

Table 9. Average flower bud diameter.

The Michigan values for Better Times are slightly
and consistently greater than those obtained in Illinois.
This could reflect either larger buds obtained in Michigan,
or more advanced maturity at the time of measuring. If
buds were larger, their lengths should also be greater, but
this is not the case. (Table 10). Since measurements were
made as soon as possible after picking, the bunches being
refrigerated until this time, it might be theorized that
the roses are picked at a later stage in the MSU supplier's
,greenhouse than in Illinois

Yuletide buds are much larger in diameter than

those of Better Times.

—89-

Table 10. Average flOwer bud length.

The values for Better Times agree closely, but
those for Yuletide are considerably shorter. Comparing the
values with the proposed grading system requirements, it is
clear that not even the longer Better Times grades would
make the "Extra Fancy" minimum bud length of 1 3/4 inches.
However, this is not to say that there should be no 1 3/4
inch designation, for some of the monthly averages did
exceed this. It is doubted whether Yuletide roses would
ever be available in sufficient numbers of this length to
warrant separation into an "Extra Fancy" grade. But buyers
are (or should be) aware of this, and could be expected to

pay top prices for Yuletide "Fancy" grades.

Table 11. Average number of hooks per bunch.

The trend for more hooks to be present in the
longer stem length groups is seen in both sets of Better
Times and the Yuletide data. It can also be seen that the
Yuletide bunches measured at MSU included fewer hooks than

the corresponding Better Times bunches.

Table 12. Average number of bullheads per bunch.

More bullheads are apparent in the longer stem
length groups than in the short ones, for both Better Times
eunl'Yuletide roses tested at MSU. The Illinois results do
zurt show such a clear trend, so it is clear that the pro-
Portion of bullheads varies from season to season, and

Probably with different cultivation methods.

-90-

 

 

TABLE 5 AVERAGE STEM LENGTH in inches
Better Times Yuletide Better Times Yuletide
Ill. M175. ic . . Mich. Mich.
'61-2 '64-5 '64-: '61-2 '64-2 '64-5

9" Nov 10.4 11.6 12.3 12"Nov 14.5

Dec 10.7 11.9 12.4 Dec 13.3

Jan 1003 ---‘ 1200 Jan 1109 1505

FGb 1107 ‘--‘ 1209 Feb 1400 1504

Mar 11.5 12.1 12.2 Mar 13.9

Apr ---- 12.8 12.3 Apr 13.5

May 11.3 12.3 12.6 May 13.5

Jun' 10.8 11.8 11.7 Jun 13.4 15.1
Average 10.9 12.1 12.3 Average 13.5 15.45 ---—
15"Nov 15.9 18.0 18.2 18"Nov 19.7

Dec 15.5 17.9 18,0 Dec 19.5

Jan 16.6 18.2 17.9 Jan 19.3

Feb 16.3 17.8 18.2 Feb 19.7

Mar 15.7 18.2 17.8 Mar 19.5

Apr 16.5 16.8 18.6 Apr 20.4

May 15.9 17.9 18.3 May 19.0

Jun 16.5 17.9 17.8 Jun 18.9 21.0 20.2
Average 16.1 17.8 18.1 Average 19.5 --~- ----
21"NOV 2203 ““ 2309 24"NOV 2600 260‘

Dec 21.6 23.9 23.3 Dec 24.0

Jan 22.1 24.1 24.3 Jan 24.3

Feb 22.7 23.9 24.4 Feb 24.3

Mar 22.6 23.9 23.8 Mar 24.2 27.0 27.0

Apr 22.1 23.6 23.5 Apr 25.5 26.6 26.7

May 21.5 23.9 24.0 May 24.4

Jun 2203 2305 --—‘ Jun 2406
Average 22.2 23.8 23.9 Average 24.7 26.7 26.9
27"Nov 27.3 29.8 29.8 30"Nov 30.8 32.4 ----

Dec 27.8 29.9 30.0 Dec 30.7 33.0 32.7

Jan 28.3 29.9 30.3 Jan 30.9 32.8 32.8

Feb 27.2 29.8 29.5 Feb 29.6 ---- 32.7

Mar 27.4 ---- 30.9 Mar 29.5 --- --—-

Apr 28.1 ---- 29.9 Apr 30.3 ---— ----

May 27.6 29.3 29.7 May 30.7 32.7 32.5

Jun 27.1 —--- -—-- Jun 30.2 ---- ----
Average 27.6 29.7 30.0 Average 30.3 32.7 32.7

*June 1961 for the Illinois data, in all stem lengths,

Tables 5 to 12

-91-

 

 

TABLE 6 AVERAGE STEM WEIGHT (02.)
Better Times Yuletide Better Times Yuletide
Ill. Mich. Mich. 111. Mich. Mich.
'61-2 '64-5 '64-5 '61-2 '64-5 '64-5
9" Nov .35 .42 .53 12"Nov .51
Dec .38 .42 .44 Dec '.45
Jan .37 -.. 040 Jan 0‘9 051
Feb 0‘5 ""’" 047 Feb 051 048
Mar .41 .36 .54 Mar .50
Apr --- .47 .54 Apr .47
May 035 034* 0‘9 May .40
Jun .43 .39 .57 Jun .54 .71
Average .38 .40 .50 Average .46 .495 ---
15"Nov .54 .57 .83 18"Nov .76
Dec 053 059 065 Dec .66
Jan .58 .53 .61 Jan .62
Feb .60 .56 .61 Feb .78
Mar .58 .63 .76 Mar .75
Apr .59 .68 .78 Apr .78
May .53 .53 .75 May .61
Jun .64 .67 .79 Jun .72 .74 .77
Average .57 .60 .72 Average 1 .69 --- ---
21"Nov .90 -" .94 24"Nov 1.03 .92
Dec .75 .76 .83 Dec .87
Jan .75 .67 .72 Jan .86
Feb .88 .78 .77 Feb .94
Mar .87 .82 .93 Mar .98 .94 1.11
Apr .81 .88 .98 Apr .99 1.02 1.16
May e70 075 097 May .85
June .88 .92 -—- Jun 1.00
Average .79 .80 .88 Average .92 .96 1.14
27"Nov 1.11 1.00 1.20 30"Nov 1.30 1.11 1.31
Dec 1.03 1.00 1.00 Dec 1.13 1.07 1.04
Jan 1.08 .85 .96 Jan. 1.18 .98 1.00
Feb 1.14 .99 .92 Feb 1.20 1.09
Mar 1.13 ---- 1.22 Mar 1.23
Apr 1.14 ---- 1.26 Apr 1.23
May 1.04 1.01 1.26 May 1.20 1.11 1.32
Jun 1.02 --.- ---- Jun 1.16
Average 1.08 .97 1.11 Average 1.17 1.07 1.15

-92-

TABLE 7 AVERAGE TOP STEM DIAMETER (in 32nds of an inch)

Better Times Yuletide

Better Times Yuletide

Mich.

 

ic .
'64-

'61-2

’Mich.

'64-5

Mich.
'64-

 

Ill.

‘64-5

 

 

'61-2

4.3

1
8
4.95

269719338
000000000

444454544

Jun
Average

cnnhewnivu
adage “Pa
DJFMAM

12"Nov

401 32263
000000000

444444444

950871.146
e e e e e

4.6

O
5

489232260
0.00 000000

444555545

Jun
Average

Mww
DJ

Feb
Mar

rnd
“ya
ARM

18"Nov

066777647
0 O O O O O O O 0

544444444

.1023181
_eoeeeeee

.55555445

11 9810757
0 O C C C O . . 0

344455544

n
a
.J

Jun
Average

r
wmpw
FMAM

15"Nov
Dec

89

114

4.85

5.5

229265783
0 e e e e e e e e
554555545

4444444.4

.45442244
0 O 0

_55555555

7993521811
009000000

444555545

Jun
Average

rnd
was

Feb

on
sea
Dru

21"Nov

nZJRZU Re no
0 O O O O O
.5:{4:2 4..5
071 a; 7.
O O O O
’08, a; a;

635809037
0 e e e e e e e e
555565655

Jimgdflm .qllnjr

-w-

TABLE 8 AVERAGE BASE STEM DIAMETER (in 32nds of an inCh)

Better Times Yuletide

Better Times Yuletide

Mich.
‘64-2

Mich.
'64-

 

Ill.

Mich.
'64-5

 

MiCh.
'64-

Ill.

 

'61-2

'61-2

 

 

 

6.3

69

4:4

4.75

739701468

444455544

Jun
Average

cnbwry
eae Pa
DJFMAM

12"Nov

265802080

544455555

.19565

.44444

51"
44.

82875.135

34444.544

Jun
Average

cnb r
Maeupw
MJFMAM

9" Nov

7.6

5
I
6

243891936
ooooooooo

555556555

m

wry
MEN

18"Nov
Dec
Feb

Average

706624572

665566666

613165422

555555545

873126712

5

960, A6

7;! 7.

nu qaq, A9
0 O I O
7. fogs ,6

302459145

666666766

urv.
mumm

Feb

nun
pea
ntd

24"Nov
Average

9054032-9

6766777-6

.92036‘14
—00000000
.56666676

669144390

555666656

Jun
Average
27"Nov

nb r
aeMPW
JFMAM

21"Nov
Dec

739 6 6
O O O O O
777 7 7
828 1 2
O O O O O
776 7 7

085552136

867778877

571199540

£367AIEZI7;07.

m

Dec
Feb

ry
mum

Jun
.Average

-94-

TABLE 9 AVERAGE FLOWER BUD LENGTH (in inches)

 

 

Better Times Yuletide Better Times Yuletide
lll. Mich. Mich. Ill. Mich. Mich.
'61—2 '61-§ '64-§ '61-2 '64-: '64-§
9" Nov 1.54 1.6 1.5 12"Nov 1.54
Dec 1.67 1.6 1.4 Dec 1.70
Jan 1081 -’“ 104 Jan 1079 107
Feb 1062 --- 105 Feb 1063 107
Mar 1.75 . 1.6 1.5 Mar 1.74
May 1.37 1.7 1.5 May 1.39
Jun 1.60 1.5 1.5 Jun 1.75 1.5
Average 1.62 1.6 1.5 Average 1.65 1.7 ---
15"Nov 1.65 1.6 1.6 18"Nov 1.70
Dec 1.71 1.7 1.5 Dec 1.71
Jan 1.82 1.8 1.8 Jan 1.77
Feb 1.72 1.8 1.5 Feb 1.72
Mar 1.74 1.7 1.5 Mar 1.81
Apr 1.71 1.8 1.6 Apr 1.74
May 1.43 1.6 1.6 May 1.47
Jun 1.69 1.4 1.5 Jun 1.78 1.5 1.5
Average 1.68 1.7 1.6 Average 1.71 --- ---
21"NOV 1.75 --- 105 24"NOV 1073 106
Dec 1075 107 105 Dec 1078
Jan 1.80 1.7 1.8 Jan 1.82
Feb 1.73 1.8 1.5 Feb 1.74
Mar 1.74 1.8 1.5 Mar 1.78 1.8 1.5
Apr 1.70 1.8 1.6 Apr 1.71 1.8 1.7
May 1.47 1.6 1.6 May 1.56
Jun 1076 105 --- Jun 1077
.Average 1.71 1.7 1.6 Average 1.74 1.75 1.6
27"Nov 1.77 1.6 1.6 30"Nov 1.77 1.6
Dec 1.80 1.7 1.5 Dec 1.60 1.7 1.4
Jan 1.88 1.8 1.5 Jan 1.86 1.1 1.5
Feb 1.76 1.8 1.6 Feb 1.75 1.6
Mar 1.80 "‘ 105 Mar 1076
Apr 1.80 --- 1.6 Apr 1.72
IMay 1.60 1.7 1.7 May 1.53 1.6 1.6
Average 1.77 1.7 1.6 Average 1.72 1.65 1.53

-95-

TABLE 10 AVERAGE FLOWER BUD DIAMETER (in inches)

 

 

Better Times Yuletide Better Times Yuletide
111. Mich. Mich. . 'c . Mich.
'61-2 '64-2 '64-2 '61-2 '64-§ '64-§
9" Nov .85 --— --- 12"Nov .80
Dec .83 -- --~ Dec .91
Jan .96 -‘- 101 Jan .91 101
Feb 085 --- 102 FBb 081 101
Mar .92 1.0 1.2 Mar .88
Apr ." 100 103 Apr 086
May .68 1.2 1.2 May .77
Jun .83 1.0 1.3 Jun .93 1.2
Average .85 1.1 1.2 Average .86 1.1 ---
15"Nov .90 —-- --- 18"Nov .85
Dec .93 --- ~-- Dec .90
Jan .98 1.2 1.2 Jan .93
Feb .88 1.2 1.2 Feb .93
Mar .87 1.1 1.2 Mar .96
Apr .83 1.1 1.2 Apr .83
May .79 0.9 1.3 May .79
Jun .91 0.9 1.1 Jun .95 0.9 1.2
Average .89 1.1 1.2 Average .89 --— ---

21"Nov .98 -- --- 24"Nov 1.05
Dec .92 -- --— Dec .93
Jan .91 1.0 1.1 Jan .92
Feb .92 1.0 1.2 Feb .96
Mar .86 1.2 1.1 Mar .92 1.1 1.3
Apr .86 1.0 1.3 Apr .85 1.1 1.4
May .80 0.9 1.2 May .82
Jun. 097 100 --- Jun 096
Average .90 1.0 1.1 Average .93 1.1 1.35

27"Nov 1.02

30"Nov 1.04

Dec 099 ... “" Dec 089
Jan. .99 1.1 1.3 Jan .97 1.1 1.1
Feb .97 1.1 1.2 Feb .97 1.2
Mar .96 -- 1.3 Mar .96
Apr .92 --- 1.3 Apr .94
IMay .84 0.9 1.2 May .80 0.9 1.2
Jun .96 -- --- Jun 1.00

Average .96 1.0 1.2” Average .95 1.0 1.2

-95-

NUMBER OF HOOKS PER BUNCH

Better Times Yuletide
ic .——MTEET—

'61-2 '64-: '65-5

TABLE 11

Better Times Yuletide
III. Mich. MicK.

'61-2 '64-5 '64-§

9" NOV 0 O O 12"Nov 4
Dec 0 O 0 Dec 1
Jan 0 - 0 Jan 0 0
Feb 1 - 0 Feb 1
Mar 0 O 0 Mar 0
Apr - O 0 Apr 0
May 0 O 0 May 0
Jun 0 O 0 Jun 2
Average 0.2 O 0 Average 1.0
15"Nov 6 O 1 18"Nov 16
Dec 1 1 1 Dec 10
Jan 1 O 0 Jan 4
Feb 3 O 0 Feb 12
Mar 1 O 0 Mar 3
Apr 0 0 0 Apr 4
May 0 0 0 May 3
Jun 3 O 0 Jun 5 0
Average 1.9 0.1 0.2 Average 7.1
21"Nov 16 - 5 24"Nov 17 9
Dec 15 2 0 Dec 19
Jan 8 O 0 Jan 14
Feb 10 2 0 Feb 9
Mar 3 0 0 Mar 8 8
Apr 5 3 0 Apr 8 6
May 6 2 0 May 9
Jun 12 O — Jun 14
Average 9.4 1.3 0.7 Average 12.3 7.7 O
27"Nbv 23 19 5 30"Nov 1O 18 -
Dec 14 13 5 Dec 19 2O 6
Jan 13 1O 4 Jan 11 19 7
Feb 16 2 0 Feb 19 -- 2
Mar 15 - 0 Mar 7 - -
Apr 7 - 4 Apr 6 -- -
May 8 6 5 May 13 9 14
Jun 10 — - Jun 20 - --
.Average 10 4.7 Average 13.1 14

gain, I‘lldaa
.- . ....JEWDII r .. w
s.

-97-
TABLE 12 NUMBER OF BULLHEADS PER BUNCH

Better Times Yuletide Better Times Yuletide

. 10 . c . . c . c .
'61-2 '64-2 '64-5 '61-2 '65-5 '64-5
9" Nov 0 2 0 12"Nov 0
Dec 0 1 0 Dec 1
Jan 1 - 3 Jan 0
Feb 2 - 5 Feb 1 1
Mar 2 0 2 Mar 1
Apr - 3 0 Apr 1
lay 2 0 0 May 1
Jun 0 0 0 Jun 0 0
Average 1.0 0.8 1.2 Average 0.6 — -
15"Nov 0 3 0 18"Nov 0
Dec 1 0 0 Dec 0
Jan 1 1 7 Jan 0
Feb 1 0 12 Feb 3
Mar 1 O 5 Mar 1
Apr 1 0 0 Apr 1
May 1 0 0 May 1
Jun 1 O 1 Jun 0 4 1
Average 0.9 0.5 3.1 Average 0.8 - -—
21"Nov 2 - 0 24"Nov 3 10
Dec 0 O 14 Dec 1
Jan 0 0 3 Jan 0
Feb 0 5 12 Feb 1
Mar 1 0 2 Mar 2 1 6
Apr 1 1 0 Apr 1 1 0
May 1 1 1 May 1
Jun 2 3 - Jun 3
Average 0.9 2.8 4.6 Average 1.5
27”Nov 3 8 0 30"ch 1 11 0
Dec 0 3 7 Dec 3 1 4
Jan 0 O 2 Jan 0 0 3
Feb 1 8 0 Feb 2 7
Mar 0 - 7 Mar 0
Apr 0 - 0 Apr 0
May 0 0 2 May 3 2 5
Jun 3 - - Jun 1
Average 0.9 3.8 2.6 Average 1.3 3.5 5.8

-95_

The purposes and effects of grading agricultural
produce have been reviewed, particularly those pertaining
to the florists‘ industry. The work of the North Central
group of Experimental Stations was examined, and one aSpect,
that of cut rose grading, was the subject of the present
study.

As part of a testing program for the grades for
Better Times roses which were developed in Illinois, re-
search was planned to determine the applicability of these
grades to Better Times roses grown elsewhere, in Michigan.
It was also hoped to discover how nearly the Better Times
rraie criteria may be used for a similar variety, Yuletide.

The method of grading roses which is at present
in widespread use is by total length and general appearance.
The North Central Region proposed system includes measures
of both stem (total) and bud length. Bud length and
freshness of roses are of value to the retail florist,
more so than stem strength or even condition of foliage;
the reason for this lies in the nature of the United States'
Florists‘ business, which is mainly in flower arrangements
ordered by telephone, rather than cash-ani-carry sales of
out hybrid tea roses.

Commercially graded hybrid tea roses, cultivars
Better Times and Yuletide, were measured for those factors
previously found to be pertinent in quality determinations.

These are stem length, bud length and diameter, top and

..CO-

." .1

1

(3

y.

base of stem diameters, maturity and the presence of .
and total weight. Samples were measured each month from
November 1964 through June 1965, and totalled approximately

2,000 individual roses.

CONCLUSIONS

do appreciable difference was found between the
physical characteristics presently in use for grading of
Better Times roses grown in two states, Illinois and
Michigan, nor between those of Better Times and Yuletide.
This shows that the proposed grading system will probably
be useable interregionally, and for at least one cultivar
other than Better Times, i.e. Yuletide.

The one factor of bud length indicates that under
the proposed system, Yuletide will never be offered for
sale under the grade "Extra Fancy." The required minimum
bud length for this grade is 1 3/4 inches, with stem at
least 30" long, but the data which was obtained gave few
Yuletide bud length values this high.

However, it is clear that while buds do not
exceed the stated minimum, Yuletide stem lengths do, and
this point leads to a suggestion for a modification of
the proposed grading scheme. It would insure grade desig—
nation for such roses without necessitating their inclusion
111 shorter stem - shorter bud grades. This involves naming
roses gply by bud length and appearance, and stating the

Ininimum stem length to be found in each bunch on the

v1

wrapper. In other words, there could be an oxtra Fancy
Urade in several lengths, say 15", 21", 27" and 50".
This is not so complicated as it first seems, with the
possibility of 25 different labelings, as any one grower
generally produces roses which grade into a few of these
only, from th same p uning, cutting, and cultivation
schedule.

Ldrth evidence that bud length should not be

(D
e

tied to given stem lengths is the low correlation that

t MSU, between bud length and

in

was found, in the study

stem length (see Tables 3 and 4, Pages 85 and 86).

If the grading system were to account for
different bud lengths in any stem length group, the unde—
sirable characteristic of hooks (which are included to
incre so the apparent ster length) might be eliminated,
and this problem would be overcome. A shorter bunch of
top quality (as measured by long buds) would make as high
a price if not higher than a long-stemmed bunch of short
buds (mediocre quality). The value of maintaining stem
length and, supposedly, price, by including hooks would
be lowered if not lost entirely, since retail florists

prefer never to handle roses with hooks.

APPENDIX
Tables 13—22

-lOl-

TABLE 13 (BETTER TIMES

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and without bullheads
Tight/ Fairly Faif7 Open/

 

 

 

 

 

NOVEMBER Tight Bull tight Bull 0p§n Bull Total
9"
Satis.,no hook l 2 9 0 9 0 21'
" ,with hook O 0 0 O 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook O 0 2 0 2 0 4
" ,with hook 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 2 ll 0 ll 0 25
Satis.,no hook 2 0 9 2 10 l 24
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook l 0 0 0 0 0 l
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
Total 3 0 9 2 10 l 25
-24"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 7 5 l 3 l6
" ,with hook 0 l 3 0 3 l 8
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 0 1 10 5 5 4 25
Satis.,no hook 0 0 l 3 l l 6
" ,with hook 2 0 8 3 5 1 l9
'Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 0 9 6 6 2 25
"mt
Satis.,no hook l l 4 0 1 0 7
" ,with book 1 4 6 4 l 2 l8
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 5 10 4 2 2 25

 

~102-

Table 13 BETTER TIMES

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and without bullheads

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tight/FairlyfiFair7' 0pen7
DECEMBER Tight Bull tight Bull Qpen Bull Total

9"
Satis.,no hook 0 l 3 0 l9 0 23
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
" ,with book 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 0
Total 0 l 3 0 21 0 25

15"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 4 0 15 l 20
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 l O l
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 4 O 4
" ,with hook O 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 4 0 20 l 25

21"
Satis.,no hook O 0 6 0 l6 0 22
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 l 0 l
" ,with hook 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 6 0 l9 0 25

27"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 3 l 7 l 12
" ,with hook 0 0 5 O 7 l 13
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" ,with hook 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 8 l 14 2 25

30"
Satis.,no hook O 0 4 0 l 0 5
" ,with hook 0 0 8 1 ll 0 2O
Unsat.,no hook 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 l2 1 l2 0 25

-103-

Table 13 BETTER TIMES

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups
with and without bullheads (gontinued

Tight/ Fairly Fair/5* Open/

 

 

 

 

 

JANUARY Tight Bull tight Bull Qpen Bull Total

12"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 3 0 l4 0 l7
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 l 0 7 0 8
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 4 0 2l 0 25

15"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 l 0 14 l 16
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook O 0 l 0 8 0 9
" ,with hook 0 0 0 O O O 0
Total 0 0 2 0 22 l 25

21"
Satis.,no hook 2 0 9 l 10 l 23
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 l 0 l 0 2
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
Total 2 0 10 1 ll 1 25

27"
Satis.,no hook O 0 4 0 9 0 l3
" ,with hook 0 0 l 0 8 0 9
'Unsat.,no hook 0 0 l 0 l 0 2
" ,with hook 0 O 0 0 l 0 l
Total 0 0 6 0 l9 0 25

30"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 2 0 4 0 6
" ,with hook 1 0 5 0 10 0 l6
lJnsat.,no hook 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
" ,with hook 0 0 l O 2 0 3
Total 1 0 8 0 l6 0 25

 

~104-

Table 13 ' BETTER TIMES

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity grou s,
with and without bullheads (continued?

 

 

 

 

Tight/Fairly Fair/' Open/
FEBRUARY Tight Bull tiggt Bull Open Bull Total
12"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 8 1 l6 0 25
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
" ,with book 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 8 l 16 0 25
15" '
Satis.,no hook I O 10 0 l4 0 25
" ,with hook 0 O 0 0 0 0 O
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
" ,with hook O 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 0 10 0 l4 0 25
21" -
Satis.,no hook 3 l 12 3 4 0 23
" ,with hook O 0 0 l l 0 2
Unsat.,no hook 0 O 0 O O 0 0
" ,with hook O 0 O 0 0 0 0
Total 3 l 12 4 5 0 25

 

27" (2 bunches)
Satis.,no hook
" ,with hook

I]nsat.,no hook
" ,with hook

Total

U1 OO OU‘I
O OO 00
O
U! 00 CW
O
w 00 Ow
O

 

-lO5-

Table 13 ' BETTER TIMES

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity grou s,
with and without bullheads (continued

 

 

 

 

 

Tight/ Fairly Fair/ Cpen/
MARCH nght Bull tight Bull Qpen Bull Total
911
Satis.,no hook 0 0 ll 0 8 0 l9
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 4 0 2 0 6
" ,with hook 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 l5 0 10 0 25
15"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 9 0 9 0 l8
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 3 0 4 0 7
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 l2 0 l3 0 25
21"
Satis.,no hook 0 0 8 0 l4 0 22
" ,with hook 0 O O 0 0 0 0
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 2 O l 0 3
" ,with hook O 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 10 0 15 0 25
*-
24H
Satis.,no hook 3 0 18 l 20 0 42
" ,with hook 0 O 4 0 4 0 8
Unsat.,no hook 0 0 0 O 0 O 0
" ,with hook 0 O 0 0 0 O 0
Total 3 0 22 l 24 0 5O

*2 bunches

 

~106-

Table 13 ‘ BETTER TIMES

Monthly data snowing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups
with and without buliheadsgLCQntinued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tight/ Bairly Fair/5 Cpen/v
APRIL ____._ VTightp_Bpllv_tight 7 Bull_0pen Bull-jpjgl
9" ‘
Satisfact.,no hook 0 0 9 2 6 l 18
" ,with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsatis., no hook I 0 A 0 2 0 7
“ , with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3 C 13 2 8 l 25
15"
Satisfact.,no book 3 0 ll 0 ll 0 25
" ,with hook C O 0 0 O 0 O
Unsatis., no hook 0 0 O 0 0 0 O
“ , with hook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3 0 ll 0 ll 0 25
2111*
Satisfaot.,no book 6 0 20 0 18 l 45
" ,with hook l 0 l 0 0 0 2
Unsatis., no hook 0 0 l 0 l O 2
" ,with hook O 0 3 0 O 0 l
* Total 7 0 23 0 19 l 50
2 bunches _
24H
Satisfact.,no hook I 0 9 0 8 1 l9
" ,with hook 0 0 2 0 2 O 4
Unsatis.,no hook O 0 0 0 0 0 0
" with hook 0 O l 0 l 0 2
Total 1 0 l2 0 ll 1 25

-lO7-

Table 13 'BETTER TIMES

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and withoutgbullheads (continued)g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIght7rFairly Fair7' 0pen/—'
MAY Tight Bull tight Bull_gpen Bull Total
9"
Satis., no hooks O 0 5 0 l6 0 21
" , with hooks 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat., no hooks l 0 1 0 2 0 4
" , with hooks 0 0 O O 0 0 0
Total 1 0 6 0 l8 0 25
15"
Satis., no hooks 4 0 l2 0 5 0 21
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat., no hooks 2 0 1 0 l 0 4
" , with hooks 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 0 13 0 6 0 25
21"
Satis., no hooks 5 0 ll 0 4 l 21
" , with hooks 0 0 l C 0 0 l
Unsat., no hooks 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Unsat., with hooks 0 O l 0 0 0 1
Total 5 0 15 0 4 l 25
27"
Satis., no hooks 3 0 . 12 0 4 O 19
" , with hooks 2 0 l 0 2 O 5
Unsat., no hooks O 0 0 0 0 0 0
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 5 0 13 0 7 0 25
30"
Satis., no hooks 3 C) 9 2 2 0 16
" , with hooks 3 0 5 0 l 0 9
I?nsat., no hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 0 14 2 3 0 25

-108-

Table 13 3 BETTER TIMES

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with_and without bullheads (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

Tight/IFairly Fair/' Cpen/
JUNE 7' Tight Bull tight Bull Open Bull Total
9"
Satis., no hooks 5 0 7 0 10 0 22
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat., no hooks l O 0 0 2 O 3
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 0 7 0 l2 0 25
15"
Satis., no hooks 6 3 3 0 ll 0 23
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat., no hooks 0 0 1 C l 0 2
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 3 4 0 l2 0 25
18"
Satis., no hooks 4 2 7 2 9 0 24
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unsat., no hooks O 0 1 C C 0 l
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 4 2 8 2 9 O 25
2111*
Satis., no hooks 5 4 9 6 22 3 49
" , with hooks 0 0 l 0 0 0 l
Unsat., no hooks 0 0 0 O O 0 0
" , with hooks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*(2 bunches)
Total 5 4 10 6 22 3 50

 

135594303}. :3.
_. ;.
l. .

-109-

Table 14 YULETIDE

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and without bullheads
Tight/5Fairly Fairly/ Open/7

 

 

 

 

 

NOVEMBER Tight Bull tight Bull Open Bull Total
9"
Satis., no hooks 2 O 3 0 ll 0 l6
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks l O O O 8 O 9
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 3 O 3 0 19 O 25
15"
Satis., no hooks 5 O 8 O 10 O 23
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O l O l
" , with hooks O O O O l O 1
Total 5 O 8 O 12 O 25
21"
Satis., no hooks 6 O 5 O 5 0 l6
" , with hooks 2 O O O 2 O 4
Unsat., no hooks O O l O 3 O 4
" , with hooks O O O O l O 1
Total 8 O 6 0 ll 0 25
27"
Satis., no hooks 2 O l O 3 O 6
" , with hooks 3 O 6 O 4 O 13
Unsat., no hooks O O l O 3 O 4
" , with hooks O O l O l O 2
Total 5 O 9 0 ll 0 25
33"
Satis., no hooks O O. l O 4 O 5
" , with hooks 2 0 7 O 8 O 17
Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks l O O O l O 2
Total 3 O 8 O 13 O 24

 

-llO-

Table 14 YULETIDE

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,

with and without bullheads (continued) _¥

Tight/Fairly‘Fairly/fi' Cpen/

 

 

 

 

 

DECEMBER ‘_Tight Bull tight Bull Open Bull Total
9"
Satis., no hooks 2 l 3 1 ll 2 2O
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks l O O O 4 O 5
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 3 l 3 1 l5 2 25
15"
Satis., no hooks 2 . O 4 2 8 7 23
" , with hooks O O l O O O l
Unsat., no hooks O O l O O O l
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 2 O 6 2 8 7 25
21"
Satis., no hooks 3 4 5 6 3 4 25
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 3 4 5 6 3 4 25
27"
Satis., no hooks 4 3 7 3 2 l 20
" , with hooks O O 2 O 2 O 4
IInsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O l O O O 1
Total 4 3 10 3 4 l 25
3O"
Satis., no hooks 7 3 O 7 2 O 19
" , with hooks l l O 3 l O 6
[Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 8 4 O 10 3 O 25

 

—lll-

Table 14 YULETIDE

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and without bullheads Lcontinuedl

Tight/’Fairly‘Fairly/— Open/

 

 

 

 

 

QAyUARY Tight Bull tight Bull Open Bull Total
9"
Satis., no hooks O O l 2 ll 0 l4
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O 2 l 8 0 ll
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 0 O 3 3 19 O 25
15"
Satis., no hooks O l O 3 l3 3 2O
" ,with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O 5 O 5
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 0 l O 3 18 3 25
21"
Satis., no hooks 2 l 7 l 12 O 23
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O l l 2
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 2 l 7 l 13 l 25
2'?"
Satis., no hooks O O 2 0 l7 1 20
" , with hooks O O l O 2 O 3
Unsat., no hooks O O O O O l l
" , with hooks O O O O l O 1
Total 0 o 3‘ o 20 2 25
30"
Satis., no hooks O O 3 l 12 l 17
" , with hooks O O 2 O 4 l 7
Unsat., no hooks O O O O l O l
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 0 O 5 1 l7 2 25

 

-ll2-

Table 14 ' YULETIDE

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and without bullheads (continued)
'7 Tight/ Fairly Fairly/7 Open/'

 

 

 

 

 

FEBRUARY Tight Bull tight Bull Open Bull Total
9"
Satis., no hooks l l 2 3 ll 0 l8
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O l l 4 O 6
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 1 l 3 4 l5 0 24
15"
Satis., no hooks l 3 4 6 7 2 23
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O l l O 2
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 1 3 4 7 8 2 25
21"
Satis., no hooks O 3 3 5 7 4 22
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O 3 O 3
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 0 3 3 5 10 4 25
27"
Satis., no hooks O 2 4 6 8 3 23
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks l O O O l O 2
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 1 2 4 6 9 3 25
30"
Satis., no hooks 4 l 7 5 5 l 23
" , with hooks 2 O O O O O 2
Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O 0 O O O O 0
Total 6 l 7 5 5 l 25

 

Table 14

-ll3-

YULETIDE

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,

with and without bullheads (pontinued)

Tight/Fairly Fairly7' FOpen/

 

 

 

 

 

MARCH Tight Bull .tight Bull Open Bull Total

9"
Satis., no hooks l O 6 2 l2 0 21
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O 4 O 4
" , with hooks O O O O O 0 0
Total 1 O 6 2 l6 0 25

15"
Satis., no hooks 2 3 7 2 10 O 24
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O l O l
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 2 3 7 2 ll 0 25

21"
Satis., no hooks 2 l 13 l 8 O 25
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O ' O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 2 l 13 l 8 O 25

24"
Satis., no hooks O 2 7 3 12 l 25
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 0 2 7 3 12 l 25

27"
Satis., no hooks O l 9 6 9 O 25
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
‘Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 0 l 9 6 9 O 25

 

-114-

Table 14 ' YULETIDE

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and without bullheads(continueg)
Tight7Fair1y Fairly7 Cpen7'

 

 

 

 

 

APRIL Tight Bull tight ‘_Rull Open Bull Total
9"
Satis., no hooks O O 5 O 12 O 17
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O 8 O 8
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 0 O 5 0 2O 0 25
15" —
Satis., no hooks 2 0 ll 0 8 O 21
" with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks 2 O l O l O 4
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 4 O 12 O 9 O 25
21"
Satis., no hooks 4 0 ll 0 8 O 23
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O l O l O 2
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 4 O 12 O 9 O 25
24"
Satis., no hooks 4 O 11 O 10 O 25
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
‘Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 4 0 ll O 10 O 25
27"
Satis., no hooks 6 O 9 O 6 O 21
" , with hooks 2 O 2 O O O 4
[Insat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 8 O 11 O 6 O 25

 

-ll5-

Table 14 YULETIDE

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and without bullheads (continued)
Tight/7Fairly Fairly/ Open/5

 

 

 

 

 

MAY Tight Bull tight Bull Open Bull Total

9"
Satis., no hooks l O 3 0 l3 0 l7
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks 1 O 2 O 5 O 8
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 2 O 5 O 18 O 25

15"
Satis., no hooks 2 O 8 O 11 O 21
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O 2 O 2 O 4
” , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 2 O 10 O 13 O 25

21"
Satis., no hooks 3 l 8 O 9 O 21
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks 1 O l O 2 O 4
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 4 l 9 0 ll 0 25

27"
Satis., no hooks 3 O 7 O 9 1 2O
" , with hooks 2 l O O 2 O 5
Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 5 l 7 O 11 l 25

30"
Satis., no hooks 2 O 2 O 6 O 10
" , with hooks O 2 7 3 2 O 14
Unsat., no hooks O O O O 1 O 1
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 2 2 9 3 9 O 25

-ll6-

Table 14 YULETIDE

Monthly data showing the distribution of hooks and
unsatisfactory stems in 3 maturity groups,
with and without bullheads (continued)
Tight7 Fairly Fairly7w VOpen/—i

 

 

 

 

JUNE Tight Bull tight Bull Open Bull Tgtal
9"
Satis., no hooks O O 3 O 20 O 23
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O 2 O 2
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 0 O 3 O 22 O 25
12" (2 bunches)
Satis., no hooks 8 O 16 O 25 O 49
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O l O l
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 8 O 16 O 26 O 50
15"
Satis., no hooks 9 0 ll 0 5 O 25
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O O O O O O O
" , with hooks O O O O O O 0
Total 9 O 11 O 5 O 25
18"
Satis., no hooks 1 O 3 1 2O 0 25
" , with hooks O O O O O O O
Unsat., no hooks O ,O O O O O O
" , with hooks O 0 O 0 O O 0
Total 1 O 3 1 2O 0 25

 

 

[,I'IIII,‘

-ll7-

TABLE 15 BETTER TIMES

SUMMARY OF 8 MONTHS DATA (NOV-JUNE) SHOWING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF HOOKS AND UNSATISFACTORY STEMS
IN THE DIFFERENT STEM LENGTH GROUPS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOOK NO H00K5 TOTAL
No. A% No. No.
Satisfactory 0 0.00 124 82.67 124 82.67
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 26 17.33 26 17.33
Total 0 0.00 150 100.00 150 100.00
12"
Satisfactory O 0.00 41 82.00 41 82.00
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 9 18.00 9 18.00
Total 0 0.00 50 100.00 50 100.00
15"
Satisfactory l 0.50 172 86.00 173 86.50
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 27 13.50 27 13.50
Total 1 0.50 199 99.50 200 100.00
18"
Satisfactory 2 8.00 22 88.00 24 96.00
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 1 4.00 1 4.00
Total 2 8.00 23 92.00 25 100.00
21"
Satisfactory 8 3.56 205 91.10 213 94.66
Unsatisfactory 2 0.89 10 4.45 12 5.34
Total 10 4.45 215 95.55 225 100.00
24"
Satisfactory 20 20.00 77 77.00 97 97.00
Unsatisfactory 3 3.00 0 0.00 3 3.00
Total 23 23.00 77 77.00 100 100.00
27"
Satisfactory 48 32.00 98 65.34 146 97.34
Unsatisfactory 2 1.33 2 1.33 4 2.66
Total 50 33.33 100 66.67 150 100.00
30"
Satisfactory 63 63.00 34 34.00 97 97.00
‘Unsatisfactory 3 3.00 0 0.00 3 3.00
Total 66 66.00 34 34.00 100 100.00
TOTAL: All Stem
Lengths Groups
for 8 months
Satisfactory 144 14.4 771 77.1 915 91.
IJnsatisfactory 10 1.0 75 7.5 85 8.5
Total 154 15.4 846 84.6 1000 100.0

—1l8—

TABLE 16 YULETIDE

SUMMARY OF 8 MONTHS DATA (NOV-JUNE) SHOWING THE

DISTRIBUTION OF HOOKS AND UNSATISFACTORY STEMS
IN THE DIFFERENT STEM LENGTH GROUPS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOOKI N0 HOOK TOTAL

N0. 5% N0. ppm No. 1
Satisfactory O 0.00 146 73.37 146 73.37
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 53 26.63 53 26.63
Total 0 0.00 199 100.00 199 100.00

12"
Satisfactory 0 0.00 49 98.00 49 98.00
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 1 2.00 l 2.00
Total 0 0.00 50 100.00 50 100.00

15"
Satisfactory 4 2.00 176 88.00 180 90.00
Unsatisfactory l 0.50 19 9.50 20 10.00
Total 5 2.50 195 97.50 200 100.00

18"
Satisfactory 0 0.00 25 100.00 25 100.00
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 O 0.00 0 0.00
Total 0 0.00 25 100.00 25 100.00

21"
Satisfactory 4 2.29 157 89.71 161 92.00
Unsatisfactory l 0.57 13 7.43 14 8.00
Total 5 2.86 170 97.14 175 100.00

24"
Satisfactory 0 0.00 49 98.00 49 98.00
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 1 2.00 1 2.00
Total 0 0.00 50 100.00 50 100.00

27"
Satisfactory 29 16.57 135 77.14 164 93.71
‘Unsatisfactory 4 2.29 7 4.00 11 6.29
Total 33 18.86 142 81.14 175 100.00

 

continued

TABLE 16 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF 8 MONTHS DATA (NOV-JUNE) SHOWING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF HOOKS AND UNSATISFACTORY STEMS
IN THE DIFFERENT STEM LENGTH GROUPS

-ll9-

YULETIDE

 

 

 

 

HO0K_ N0 HOOK TOTAL
_*, No. N0. N0. %
30"
Satisfactory 29 29.00 69 69.00 98 98.00
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 2 2.00 2 2.00
Total 29 29.00 71 71.00 100 100.00
33" _
Satisfactory 17 70.83 5 20.83 22 91.66
Unsatisfactory 2 8.34 0 0.00 2 8.34
Total 19 79.17 5 20.83 24 100.00
GRAND TOTAL 7* ‘_—
(A11 Stem Length
Groups. 8 Months)
SATISFACTORY 83 8.32 811 81.26 894 89.58
UNSATISFACTORY 8 0.80 96 9.62 104 10.42
GRAND TOTAL 91 9.12 907 91.88 998 100.00

 

 

l 1
JJWDP-mnlfl1qulrf ii“

I Ili|il
|
|

-120-

TABLE 17 ' BETTER TIMES

SUMMARY OF 8 MONTHS DATA (NOV-JUNE) SHOWING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF HOOKS AND UNSATISFACTORY STEMS
IN EACH MONTH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—' HOOK NOIHOOK’ TOTAL
No. % No. % No.

NOVEMBER
Satisfactory 45 36.00 74 59.2 119
Unsatisfactory 1 0.80 5 4.0 6

Total 46 36.8 79 63.2 125 1
DECEMBER
Satisfactory 36 28.80 82 65.6 118
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00 7 5.6 7

Total 36 28.80 89 71.2 125 10
JANUARY
Satisfactory 25 20.00 75 60.0 100
Unsatisfactory 4 3.2 21 16.8 25 .

Total 29 23.2 96 76.8 125 100 0
FEBRUARY
Satisfactory 4 3.2 121 96.8 125 100.0
Unsatisfactory 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

Total 4 3.2 121 96.8 125 100.0
MARCH
Satisfactory 8 6.4 101 80.8 109
Unsatisfactory 0 0.0 16 12.8 16

Total 8 6.4 117 93.6 125 100.0
APRIL
Satisfactory 6 4.8 107 85.6 113
'Unsatisfactory 3 2.4 9 7.2 12

Total 9 7.2 116 92.8 125 100.0
MAY
Satisfactory 15 12.0 98 78.4 113
Unsatisfactory 2 1.6 10 8.0 12

Total 17 13.6 108 86.4 125 100.0
JUNE
Satisfactory 1 0.8 118 94.4 119
IJnsatisfactory 0 0.0 6 4.8 6

Total 1 0.8 124 99.2 125 10

 

11:55“; .1 y! Sufi .
_ , . .. A.”

—121-

TABLE 18 YULETIDE
SUMMARY OF 8 MONTHS DATA (NOV-JUNE) SHOWING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF HOOKS AND UNSATISFACTORY STEMS

IN EACH MONTH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOOK ONO HOOK, TOTAI
’- NO. % NO. W j N00 %

NOVEMBER

Satisfactory 34 27.42 66 53.22 100 80.64

Unsatisfactory 6 4.84 18 14.52 24 19.36
Total 40 32.26 84 67.74 124 100.00

DECEMBER

Satisfactory 11 8.80 107 85.6 118 94.4

Unsatisfactory 1 0.80 6 4.8 7 5.6
Total 12 9.60 113 90.4 125 100.0

JANUARY

Satisfactory 10 8.00 95 76.0 105 84.0

Unsatisfactory 1 0.80 19 15.2 20 16.0
Total 11 8.80 114 91.2 125 100.0

FEBRUARY

Satisfactory 2 1.61 109 87.91 111 89.52

Unsatisfactory O 0.00 13 10.48 13 10.48
Total 2 1.61 122 98.39 124 100.00

MARCH

Satisfactory 0 0.00 120 96.0 120 96.00

Unsatisfactory O 0.00 5 4.0 5 4.00
Total 0 0.00 125 100.0 125 100.00

APRIL

Satisfactory 4 3.20 107 85.6 111 88.8

‘Unsatisfactory O 0.00 14 11.2 14 11.2
Total 4 3.20 121 96.8 125 100.0

MAY

Satisfactory 19 5.2 89 71.2 108 86.4

'Unsatisfactory 0 0.0 17 13.6 17 13.6
Total 19 5.2 106 84.8 125 100.0

JUNE

Satisfactory 0 0.00 122 97.6 122 97.6

Unsatisfactory O 0.00 3 2.4 3 2.4
Total 0 0.00 125 100.0 125 100.0

Jinan—.8 Janufllqarflium ,.

 

ImNHI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

mNH o H» H mm 0 3H Hmpoe
o o o o o o o mxooa spH; . =
m o m o o o o mxoo: o: ..pommmemmsD
o o o o o o o mace: ang . =
mmH o o> H mm 0 na mxoon on .mpopoMMmesm
mass
mmH H mm m 04 a mH Hopes
o o o o o 0 Ho mace: spa; . =
AH o OH 0 m o m mace: 0: ..pommmemmc:
0H 0 a m A m m mace: ng; . =
mm H as 0 mm H HH mace: 0: .Huopommmeam
- ~42
mmH 0 am 0 Hm o om Hmpoa
o o o o o o o mace: an; . =
sH 0 OH 0 m o m mxoon 0: ..poommemmup
4 o o o m o m mace: ans . . =
POH o as 0 vs 0 ma mxoon o: .AHOpomHmewm
Ir HHmmM
mmH H mm sH ms a m Hopes
o o o o o o o mace: spH; . z
m o m o o o o mxoon 0: ..pomMmemmcp
o o o o o o o msooz :pH; . =
omH H Hm 4H Na A m mHoon on .suopomeHpom
7 :17 ‘7 11711 .11 mom<s
Hopes HHsm ammo HHsm pHMH» HHsm pHMHa
KWmmo MthMHm » nHw Ma Ir
cmdsHpcowa 1:

mammnaadp vdonpfls new spa; mommmao

 

mxoos Mo GOdeanpmHu map msfisonm mpmu oQSninmnSw>oz

mQHBMQDM

pHudpse m cH msopm hpopommmapwmsd cam

ON mdnma

lmNHI

 

 

 

 

 

mm o m m w m H Hopes

o o o o o o o mxoos 39H; .

H o o o H o o mxoon o: .hhopommmewmcD
m o m o o o o mace: HHH; .

mm o N m N N H mxoo: o: .hpopommmewm

:mH

oom m QOH N mm m 0H Hopoa

o o o o o o o mxoo: 59H; .

wm o nH o m o m mxoon on .huopoommemmcb
H o H o o o o msoon gHH: .

me m on N mm m mH mxoos o: .hpopomHmeom
1 ‘FmH
0m 0 NM H NH 0 o Hopoa

o o o o o o o mxoon HHH; .

m o n o H o o mxoon on .hHOHOHMmHHMmcb
o o o o o o o mxoon SHH; .

HH 0 mm H- HH 0 o mxoon on .aHOPomeHHMm

=mm

.OmH H on m mm m m Hmpoe

o o o o o o o mxoo: 29H; .

mm o NH 0 HH 0 m mHoon 0: .HcoposHmeamcs
o o o o o o o mxoog HHH; .

«NH H mm m HQ m m mxoon o: .hmopomMmemmm
proe HHsm ammo HHsm HAMHp HHsm pana

{mmmmo HthHHmm HHHHmm prgmHH

 

mmiopm‘npmme sopm pampmmmHo ozp sH
masozHHSQ pdoan; can an3 mommMHo thHdpma m nH mampm muopommepmmCS was
mxooz mo COHpannpch on» mcHgogm mpmu mcdhlpm28o>oz

mmEHa mmeemm

Hm mHmHB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HNH OH NH HN HN OH m Hmpoe
o o o o o o o mHoon HHH; . z
HH 0 m N H o H mHoog 0: ..HomHmHHmmcs
N o o o o o N mxoog HHH; . =
moH OH Hm mN ON 0H m mxoon on .HHOHomNmHHmm
.p 1: - 1 \mesmmmm
mNH N NE a NH N N Hmpoe
H o H o o o o msoog :HH; . =
mH N HH 0 N o o mxoon on ..HomHmHHmmcc
OH H H o H o o msoon HHH; . =
mm m mm a HH N N mxooz on .HHopomHmHHmm
'1- u, 1 77wm4bzmh
mNH HH Hm NN HN NH 0N Hmpoe
H o o o H o o mHoon HHHa . =
o o H o H o H msoog on ..HommmHHmmq:
HH 0 H H H H H mxoon HHH; . =
NOH HH mN mH mH HH DH mxoon on .mpopomNmHHmm
r; v-1:attt-:v..c.. 1¢711 7 1 ‘1 l1 7:: swmsmomm
«NH 0 mm 0 HH 0 HN Hapoe
a o H o H o H mxoon HHH; . =
HH 0 HH 0 N o H mHooH on ..HomHmHHmmsn
HH 0 HH o HH 0 H msoon HHH; . =
mm 0 mm o NH o mH mxoon 0: .HpopoHHmHHmm
I5: 111‘ :Eiw11 11 1i1 HHEESZ
ape HHsm cums HHsm HHNHH HHsm HHHHH
:1 u\:mmo kamHHHmh, mHnHma .anme

 

 

msNNCHHzo pdoapHa was CPH; momdeo HpHpfipmS m CH mampm zpopomHmemmc: was

mxooz mo COHpanHpme on» mconnm spas madmlpmosm>oz

mQHHMQDM

om mnmde

IONHI

 

 

 

 

 

 

mxoo: mo COHHSQHHHmHO map mcHzosm Quad mcswlpmpEm>oz

mmEHa mmaamm

OOH N mm O HO O O HOHOH
H O N O H O O mHoon HHH; . =
o o o o o o o mxoon o: ..pOOMmHummcD
HO N HN O ON H O mxoon OHH; . =
HO O O N OH H H mHOOs on .HHOHOmHmHHOOH
Lflw =0
OOH O OO NH .HO o NH Hmpoy
m o m o o o o mxoon SHH; . =
w o H o H o o mxoo: on ..pommOHPOOCD
OH N HN H OH O H mHoon OHH; . =
HO O Hm m OH 0 n mxoon o: .OHOHOOMmemm
7 ‘Etw
OOH m CH O OH H v Hdpoe
m o m o H o o mxoon 39H; . =
o o o o o o 0 me02 on ..pomMmHPMmcD
ON H O O O H O mHoon OHH; . =
NH O ON O HO O H mxooz 0: .HHOHOHHOHHOO
«7 1 Ohm
mmm O mm HH mm m mm proe
N O O O N O O msoon OHH; . =
OH o O o O o o mxoon o: ..aommmemmcD
O O H H H O H mHOO: :HH; . =
OON O OO OH OH O HN mHooO o: .HHOHoOHmHHOm
=Hm
Hmpoe HHsm comm. HHsm HSMHH HHsm HQMHH
[\OOOO NHHHHWO HHHHHO HHHOHH
HOodCHHcddq mmHOHM1mpmde Empm HQOHOMMHO on» cH It
mammnHHsp HSOQHH; Ocm 39H; mommmHo HpHnspme m CH mampm OHOHOOMmemmss Osm

Hm prwa

ImNHl

 

 

 

 

 

ON O ON H O O H HOHOH
O O O O O O O mHoon OHH; . =
o o o o o o o mxoo: o: ..pomMmemmcb
O O O O O O O mxoon OOH; . =
mm 0 ON H m o H mxoon o: .hho»oOMmemm
xwwmw
OON NH OO OH NO N ON HOHOH
H O H O O O O mace: HHH; . :
OH O OH H H O N mHoon on ..HomHmHHOmcs
H O H O H O O mHoos HHH; . =
OOH NH OO OH HO O HN mHoo: on .HHOHomHmHHOO
F 1 E
OO O ON O OH O O HOHOH
O O O O O O O mHOO: :HH; . =
H O H O O O O Oxoon Oc:..HomHmHHOm:O
O O O O O O O mHoon HHH; . =
OH 0 ON 0 mH o w mxoon o: .hhowommmemm
wwtww
OOH N OOH OH HO N OH HOHOH
.O O O O O O O mHoos OHH; . =
HO o HO N O o m mxooz Os ..HomeHpmmso
O O O O O O O OHOOO OOH; . =
OOH N HOH w ON N O mxoon oc .OHOHommmemm
=O
HOHOH HHsm ammo HHsm HHOHH HHsm HOOHH
\cmgO \HHHHOO HHNHOO \HHOHH

 

.mmwo m EPMGOH Seam pcouomuHO on» GH

admonHHsn psoan; Odd 39H; mommmHo thHdpwa m sH mampm hHouowmmemmn: can
mxoon no :OHHHQHHHOHO on» msHsosm mpmd madmlnopao>oz

maHHMHDM NN mnm¢a

ImNHI

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOH O OO O HO O OH HOOOO
O O O O O O O mOoon OOH; . =
m o m o o o o mxooz o: ..pommePOOCD
ON H O O NH O O mxooO OOH; . z
OO N ON O OH O OH mOoon 0: .OOOOOOOOHPOO
=OO
OOH O OO OH OO O ON HOOOO
O O N O N O O Oxoos OOH; . =
O H O o H o H mxoon oc ..poOMmeOmcD
ON O OH O HH H O mmoon OOH; . =
mMH o Om mH mm o mH OM00: o: .hhopoOMmemm
II :N
OO H NN O OH N O HOOOO
O O O O O O O mmoon OOH; . =
H O H O O O O mxooz 0: ..poOOmeOOOO
O O O O O O O mxoon OOH; . =
OO H HN O - OH N O mxoon on .OOOOOOOOHOOO
OON
OOH O OO OH OO OH ON Hmpoa
H O H O O O O Oxoon OOH; . =
OH H OH o O o H mxoon on ..pommmemmcm
O O N O O O N mxoo: OOH; . =
OOH O NO OH NO OH ON mxoog on .OOOOOOOOHPOO
kHW
Hmpoe HHsm HHsm OOOHO HHOO OOOHO
\OOOO OOOO‘IxOHpHOO OHOHOO \OOOHO
Admschcoou mmfiopm SRMde Empm unmpmmmHO mm» :H
OOOOQHHSQ pdoan; dam anz mmmmmHo Othspma m :H mampm hpopomMmemmcd Ocm
mxoo: mo COdeanpde m2» mquosm Opmv mcdwihm98m>oz
mQHemqu mm meme

IOMHI

 

 

ON O OH O O O O Hmpoe

N O H O O O H mxoon OOH; . =

O O O O O O O mxoog 0: ..poOOmHPOOOO

OH O O O O O N mxoon OOH; . =

O O O O H O O mOooO on .OOOOOOOOHOOO
..MM

Hmpoe HHOO ammo HHOO OOOHO HHOO OOOHO
Ixammo .OOHOHOO OHOHOO \OOOHO

 

1HOm5cHPCOOQ mmdopm npchleOpm‘McmmOMMHO ms» uH
OOOOSHHOQ pdosza Oca mpH; mmmmmHo mpHnSpma m :H mampm OHOpommepmmcs dam
Oxooc mo :OHPSQHupmHO ms» mcHzonm OPOO mcsmlpmnSm>oz

MQHHMHDN mm mHDwB

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

-l3l-

LITERATURE CITED AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

BakerLMerritt W. Grades and Grading. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Yearbook "Marketing" 1954. 157-164.

Ball Vic. The case for grading cut flowers. 'Grower
Talks', Geo. J. Ball, Inc. g #1 May 1964.

Ballantgnea David J.L E. W. Kaling and A.H. Harrington.

ra ing 0 Carnations and nap ragons in e a ion
to Economic Conditions in Spokane Washington",
Journal of Farm Economics, 59 948-55, 1958.

Bayton,_James A. Psychological problems in the promo-
tion offfarm products. Mimeograph.

Berni er Lou. "Do we need standard grades for roses?"
Roses Inc. Bul. July, 1964.

Blount.G. R., 1954, SAF June 15 and 16, 25p.

Brei er H. F. "Fifty Years of Federal Marketing
Programs", Journal of Farm Economics, 12’ 749-58,
Nov. 1963.

 

. "Future Organization and Control of
U18. Agricultural Production and Marketing,"
Journal of Farm Economics, gg 930-44, Dec. 1964.

 

Brookins H. B. "Standard Grades for Cut Flowers Dis-
cussed", Florists' Exch. 124 (15). 13, 17, 1955.

. "Grading is the Retailers' Problem."
N.Y15§tate Flower Growers Bulletin 2§t, 1, 3.

 

Brunk, M. "Facts Important in Selling Flowers," New
York State Flower Growers Bul.‘2;, 4-6. 1953.

Brunk,_Max E. and L. B. Darrah. "Marketing of Agricul-
tural Products", The Ronald Press 00., New York.
1955.

Clark and weld. "Marketing Agricultural Products in
e United States", The MacMillan Co., New York,

1955.

Coles Jessie V. Compulsory grade labeling. U.S.Dept.
o? Agr. Yearbook "Marketing" 1954. 164-169.

Collins,Norm§n. "Changing Role of Price in Agricultural
"

markets , Journal of Farm Economics, 1; 528—34,
AuguSt 1959 o

Coorts; Gerald D., and John R. Culbert. Unpublished
data.

gmlfiflulflfiq!

19.

N)

R)

[0

2

R)

p)
O

.A

5.

U

-132-

Coorts, Gerald 3.,gand John R. Culbert. Retail views
on rose grading: a survey. Florists' Exchange,
Feb. 8, 1964.

Coort§J_Gerald D., and J; B. Gartngr. The effects of
various solutions on keeping quality of Better
Times roses with and without "hooks". Proc.

A.S.H.S. g; 833—8 1963.

 

Culbert, John R. "Retail views on rose grading: a
survey“. Presented at the SAF Annual Meeting
1963, and reported in the Roses Inc. Bulletin,
Annual Meeting Report, 1963.

Crittenden, E. C. Units and standards of measurement.
U.S. Dept. of Agr. Yearbook ”Marketing" 1954.
143-1500

De Loach, R. 1955. In the Report of special conference
on problems and research proposals pertaining to
grades and standards of floricultural crops in
the United States. ed. Fossum., U.S.D.A. Agr.
Marketing Serv. 12p.

DimopgJ J. J. "The Produce Agency Act". An address,
presented on July 27, 1964.

 

Dubovi Irying. "Goals and Conflicts in Agricultural
Marketing Research." Journal of Farm Economics
13' 1523-32, Dec. 1962.

 

Erdman, H. E. "Problems in Establishing Grades for
Farm Products." Journal of Farm Economics gg

g1} 15-29 1950.

Farris, Paul L. "Uniform Grades and Standards ,
Product Differentiation and Product Development".
Journal Farm Economics. 5g, 854-63 Dec. 1960.

Fienup, Darrell. Economic effects of recent changes

 

in lamb standards.. Journal of Farm Economics 3;
1388-96 and 1396-98. December 1961.

Excerpt from the Report and Recommendations of the 7th
meeting of the Food Distribution Research and
Marketing Advisory Committee held Feb. 8-10,
1961, at Washington, D. 0. (Ditto sheet).

Fossum, MLTT. 1953 Marketing Research Problems for

 

the Biological Scientists of Floriculture and
Ornamental Horticulture, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Bureau Agr. Econ. 8p.

29.

31.

32.

33.

35.

36.

37.

38.

40.

41.

-133-

Fossum, M.T. 1955. Report of special conference on
problems and research proposals pertaining to
grades and standards of floricultural crops in
the United States. U.S.D.A. Agr. Marketing
Service. 12pp.

 

FTD News, May 1964. "Carnation grades can help all",
p.14, and "Industry-wide grades for carnations
announced by SAF." pp 64,65.

Gallahue, 3.3. Price is a nexus and a symbol. U.S.
5 Dept. Of Agr. Yearbook "Marketing" 1954. 150-157.

 

Gaylord, F. C. and C. E. Hoxsie. Market Grades for
Ornamentals - Chrysanthemums and Carnations.
Purdue University Agr. Expt. Sta., Lafayette,

. Market Grades for

 

Ornamentals - Chrysanthemums and Carnations.
Purdue University Agr. EXpt. Sta., Lafayette,
Indiana. Res. Mimeo HO-79-3. 1960.

Gray,‘Roger W. Some thoughts on the changing role of
price. Journal Farm Economics 36 117-127. Feb.
1964.

C. E.

Hoxsie Purdue University.

Judge,_George G. Competitive position of the Connecti-
cut poultry industry, No. 7. A spatial equilibrium
model for eggs. Storrs Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 318,
January 1956.

Progress Report of

KellyI R. A. Floriculture Sales in Mass Market Out—
lets. Bulletin 675. University of Illinois. Ag.
Expt. Station.

Ki li er D. C. and R. W. Sherman. Florist Crops for
Mass Market Outlets. Res. 351. 928. Ohio Ag.
Expt. Station, Wooster, Ohio. Nov. 1962.

KcenigI H. 1948. A Message From Our President. N.Y.
State Flower Growers Bul. 32 2,3,8.

Kohls Richard L. Marketing of Agricultural Products.

The MacMillan Co., New York. 2nd ed. 1961.

KroneJ P. 1955. Projection of the marketing program
in floriculture for 1955-8. Michigan Florist

a228-

 

‘gh! I: all r. «Iv ERIE-......-

42.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

-134-

Kross, J.L. 1954. Report of work group on grading
and marketing. In the report of the 2nd work-
shop on floricultural economics, under the
auspices of the Foundation for Floriculture,
Society of American Florists, at Ambassador
Hotel, Washington, D. 0., June 15 and 16, 1954.
25p.

leach. A. 1953. Brookins Rotary Grader. N.Y. State

 

Mehren,gGegrgg L. Market Organization and Economic
DevElopment. Journal of Farm Economics 31 1307-
15, Dec. 1959.

. The Function of Grades in an Afflu-
ent Standardized-Quality Economy. Journal Farm
Economics 13 1377-83, Dec. 1961.

 

Michigan Agricultural EXperiment Station, Project
Outline. Subproject (to NCM-35) entitled "Market
grades and standards for cut roses and potted
lilies and poinsettias". Duration - 1964-67.

Mighgll,gRonald L: and Lawrence A. Jones. Vertical
Coordination in Agriculture. U.S. Dept. of Agri-
culture Ag. Econ. Report #19, Feb. 1963.

Ne1§ong_K.S. 1954. Standard Flower Grades - What,
Why, and How. Florists' Exch. 122(14) 12,49.

NCM-22. Advisory Committee on Market Grades and
Standards for Chrysanthemums, Cut and Potted.
Minutes of Sept. 23 and 24 meeting of 1958, held
at Purdue University in the Memorial Union.

NCM-22. Committee for Project on Market Grades and
Standards for out Chrysanthemums, carnations,
gladiolus, and roses. Minutes of committee
meeting held June 3 and 4 at University of
Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 1959.

NCM-22. Regional Meeting at Indianapolis. Mimeo-
graphed minutes. Oct. 20, 1960.

MGM—22. Project outline. Market Grades and Standards
for Chrysanthemums, Carnations, and Roses. Feb.
7, 1958. Revised Nov. 15, 1961.

NCM-22. "Cooperative Regional Project Termination
Report. Supported by allotments of Regional Re-
search Fund Hatch Act, as amended August 11, 1955."
Terminated June 30, 1962.

54.

55.

56.

57.

60.

01.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

-135-

NCM-22. North Central Marketing Project No. 22. Re-
view of Literature, Undated.

NOR-40. Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, Dec. 13-14, 1962.
Minutes.

NCR-40. Market Grades and Standards for Carnations,
Chrysanthemums and Roses, by the North Central
Regional Committee, Undated.

NCM-35. NCR Project, approved Feb.-April 1964.
"Market Grades and Standards for Specified Cut
Flowers and Potted Plant crops."

N M-35. Meeting. September 10-11, 1964.

MOM-35. Market Grades and Standards for Carnations,
Chrysanthemums and Roses; a North Central Regional
Research Publication. Draft prepared by Dr. J.

R. Culbert, Sept. 1964, amended by N CM- -35 Comm.

ROM-35. Proposed testing program on tentative grades
of Better Times Roses - issued to nine universi-
ties from the University of Illinois.

von Oppenfeld, Horst. Special Sales a Regular Feature
in Lansing Florist Shop. Mimeo — article for
Micnigan Florist, August, 1954.

Pfj

 

ost.K %353_Florist Crop Production and Marketing.
‘ nge Judd Pub. Co., New York. 891p.

.1948 Weight Grading of Cut Flowers. N.Y.State
Flower Growers' Bul. 32_ 4-7.

.1948 Trade Mark for Weight Grades. N.Y. State
Flower Growers' Bul. 33_ 1.

.1948 CSW Grades Approved by New York State
lower Growers, Inc. N.Y. State Fl. Grs. Bulfili 2.

.1948 New Yo k St ate Flower Growers ' Directors'
Meeting. N. Y. State F1. Grs. Bu1.3_. l.

.1948 CSW licensees meet. N.Y. State Fl. Grs.
E111. _4_Q_ 30

.1948 Pompons by the Dczen. N.Y. State F1. Grs.
Bul 4O 2- -3-

.1949 CSJ Grades Revised. N.Y. St. Fl. Grs. Bul.
“1.1.45

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

770

78.

79.

80.
81.

82.

83.

84.

-136-

Post K. 1949." Directors' Meet. N.Y. St. Fl. Grs.
Bul. 2; 1.

. 1950. Grades for Gladiolus. N.Y. St. Fl.
Grs. Bul. 69 2.

. 1950. Chrysanthemum Pompon Grades. N.Y. St.
Fl. Grs. Bul. _6_Q_ 2.

. 1951. Cornell short course best ever. N.Y.
St. Fl. Grs. Btll. & 4.

. 1953. CSW Grades 1953. N.Y. St. Fl. Grs.
Bul. 33’ 4.

. 1954. Back from sabbatical leave. N.Y. St.
Flo GI‘S. 8111. 110 2-40

Proceedings of interregional meeting of horticultural
Specialty marketing committees, Washington, D.C.,
Nov. 8-10, 1960.

RhodestV. James. Acceptance and yield of choice and
good beef; research results and implications. Jnl.
Farm Economics 53, 181-96. May 1961.

Roland,gR. H. 1955. Report of Special conference on
prEblems and research proposals pertaining to
grades and standards of floricultural crops in
the United States. Ed. Fossum. U.S.D.A. Ag.
Marketing Service. 12pp. ‘

Roses Incorporated. Grading standards adopted at a
meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, Nov. 4, 1946. Re-
ported at the 1964 Roses Inc. Annual Meeting.

Roses Incorporated Bulletin, May 1964.

Harold B. Forward Selling. U.S.D.A. Yearbook,

Rowe
"Marketing" 1954 p. 316-323.

SAF. Annual report; committee on grades and standards
covering the period July 1, 1957-June 30, 1958-
Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington, D. 0., June 30,
1958.

SAF. Report on survey on labeling and grading of
floral crops. Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington,
D.C.

SAF. Report of the grades and standards committee
meeting; Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington, D. C-
March 19, 1963. Minutes.

4311,51} .. i
.—

 

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

~137-

SAF. All Industry Floricultural Congress, held at
Palmer House, Chicago, Oct. 22, 23, 24, 1963.

SAF. Report of the meeting of the committee on grades
and standards. Sheraton Park Hotel, Washington,

SAF. July 27, 1964. Report of breakfast conference
discussion of Grades and Standards. Sheraton-
Park Hotel, Washington, D. C.

and
"Trial Grade Standards for Standard Chyrsanthe-
mums." - a press release.

Society of American Florists Publications:-
Standard Grades for Carnations (approved June 2,
1953) IP-
Standard Grades for Flowers. 1953 2p.
Standard Grades for Sanpdragons (approved June 2,
1953) 1p. .
Standard Grades for Iris (approved July 26, 1954)
1p.
Standard Grades for Stocks (approved July 26,
1954) 1p.
Report of the Committee on Grades and Standards.
1956 4p.

ShepherdLgG. S. Changes in Structure. U.S.D.A. Year—

 

book, "Marketing" 1954. p.52-59.

Southworthj Herman M. Discussion on "The function of
grades...." Journal Farm Economics 43 1383 —
Dec. 1961.

. Historical evolution of impor-

 

tant marketing problems. Journal Farm Economics
.12 1243-53 Dec. 1963.

Spokane Flower Growers' Association. 1956. SAF Stan—
dard Grades on the Spokane Market. Spokane. 1p.

Stevenson, JordanL and Harrison. (Management Engineers)
wI939. Report of;fiationa1 survey of the florists‘
industry for the SAF and Ornamental Horticulturists.
New York. 24p.

Thompson, G. 1949. Wholesale Prices. New York State

 

Flower Growers' Bul. 48 9-10.

95. Thomsen Frederick Lund . Agricultural Marketing.
McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc. 1951.

960

970

98.

99.

-138-

Trotter, W. K.' 1955. Problems in Marketing Florists'

 

Crops. Cornell Univ. xgeriment Station,
Dept. Agr. Econ. A. E. 9% 65- 3, 101.

U. S. D. A., War Food Admin. 1949. Regulations (other
than rules of practice) of the War Food Adminis-
trator tor the enforcement of the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act, 19 50, as amended:
Text of the Act. Serv. & Reg. Ann. 12; 10-23.

Manual of Procedures for cooperative regional research.
U. 3. Dept. of Agriculture., Coop. State Expt.
Sta. Service, Washington, D. C. CSBSS-OD-1082.
Nov. 1963.

Waugh, F. V. (Ed.). Readings on agricultural marketing.
glowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. 1954. 456p.

 

CUJJECTlULS to "The Development of Grading
in Floriculture: a study of duality
neasurements for two Greenhouse Rose

Cultivars" as ihesis, h. Jane Coleman 1965

1. page V, line 14: for 'Upposition to grading 16'

read I II H H 20

2. page 9, last line: add 'and' after 'standards'

3. page #8, line 1: for 'Sbnufiny OF Gnabds....(86)'

read I H H H ....(56)|

L». page 46, under '4) 140.1 1‘.31.i‘..1'1’v1:s 6.11.0.5 .903

CDT RossS', the hinimum Flower bud Length
for the Extra Fancy Grade (plus) should

read 1 3/H, not 13 3/9.

4. page 62, line 10: add the word 'range' to read

'stem length range available at the time.‘

. . ..mfitimsfiga
A. ,.
|w

 

{Imaging flp'j_.

MICHIGAN STATE U

I IIII

31293

Y

1111111111!
03046 6

LIBRARIES

209