w

BU

LL

ET

IN2

47

PE

NN

SY

LV

AN

IA

FL

OW

ER

GR

OW

ER

S

JAN

UA

RY

,1

97

2

SU

PP

OR

TFL

OR

ICU

LT

UR

ER

ESE

AR

CH

AT

PEN

NST

AT

EC

ON

TR

IBU

TE

TO

DIL

LO

NR

ES

EA

RC

HFU

ND

SC

EN

ES

FR

OM

RE

SE

AR

CH

GR

EE

NH

OU

SE

SIN

JAN

UA

RY

Lilyforcing

andheightcontrol;fastcrop

potmum

s;Riegerbegonia

nutrition;fastcrop

geraniums;

supplem

entaryrose

lighting;controlled

environments

forpetunias;

growing

media

forA

fricanviolets;

lightingforpotm

ums;dahlias

asa

cutflowercrop;settingcontrols

forautom

aticw

ateringand

fertilization.

Williamsport Community College

Enrolls First Floriculture Students

The new Ornamental Horticultureprogram at The Williamsport AreaCommunity College opened in September of 1971 with a total of 36 students with twenty-six enrollees inNursery Management and ten in Floriculture. Students are presently from14 counties throughout the stateand one from the state of New Jersey. Interest and attitude of the students has been excellent. We can expect even better learning experiencesfor the students when we move intoour new facility. Moving should becompleted by February 1, 1972 whenthe second semester starts. Whenmoved we will occupy a new greenhouse 32' x 80' with an adjoining headhouse plus an additional laboratorydesigned for Horticultural use. Landscaping of the facility and planting ofnursery are projects that will be started in the spring.

The Western Pennsylvania TelefloraUnit has established a scholarship of$125.00 per semester for a worthyand needy student in the FloricultureProgram. Our first recipient has received her award.

Our staff in Horticulture needs tobe increased by one full time instructor. The applicant should have atleast a Bachelors Degree in the discipline with experience in teaching orin the business. Details can be received by contacting: Joseph G. Sick,Chairman, Earth Science Department,The Williamsport Area CommunityCollege, 1005 W. Third Street, Williamsport, Pa.

Students are also being interviewedfor the fall term of 1972. Interestedstudents should contact the Admissions Office, The Williamsport AreaCommunity College, 1005 W. ThirdStreet, Williamsport, Pa.

Covering Pentachlorophenol

With B-l-N PaintReprinted from Ohio Florists' Assn., Bulletin No. 504, October, 1971

Pentachlorophenol is a materialwhen applied to wood prevents itfrom rotting. Unfortunately, thefumes of pentachlorophenol are verytoxic to plant material, and it or anywood preservative that has creosotein it should never, repeat never, beused to treat wood used in construction of greenhouses or benches, flats,refrigerators, etc.

Each year we get several inquiriesabout mysterious leaf burns on plants,and often pentachlorophenol is theculprit. During the summer when thegreenhouse ventilators are wide open,the fumes readily escape and little orno damage may be observed. However, in fall, winter, and spring whenventilation is reduced or fewer exhaust fans are used, the fumes accumulate and the damage is soon verynoticeable.

Side posts for plastic houses, bench

lumber, flats, and wooden walls in retail shops are the most usual objectsthat are treated with pentachlorophenol. Typically, a call is made tothe local hardware for a wood preservative and invariably pentachlorophenol is furnished as the material totreat the wood to keep it from rotting. That it will do, but the side effect, phytotoxicity, is not commonknowledge of hardware store employees, and strangely enough, neither domanyflorists know of it either despitethe fact that the dangers of this material have appeared in many publications for years.

Once wood has been treated, whatcan be done? Some florists havewaited for the material to volatize tothe point where the fumes no longercause harm. This, of course, may takeseveral years and is obviously not the

(Continued on back page)

USDA SURVEYS

FLOWER CROP

PRODUCTION

Flower growers in 23 states againare being asked to cooperate fully inthe annual survey of commercialflower and foliage plant productionand sales value, sponsored by theDepartment of Agriculture. Society ofAmerican Florists Executive VicePresident John Walker urges allgrowers who receive the questionnaire tocomplete and return it promptly.

The survey, conducted by USDA'sStatistical Reporting Service, will begin early in January 1972, to determine the 1971 production and valueof sales for carnations, roses, chrysanthemums, gladioli and foliage plants.Results of this survey will be published on April 14,1972.

The flower business in the UnitedStates is sizable. In 1970, the totalvalue at wholesale of the four important flowers and of foliage plants estimated in the 23 major producingstates amounted to $226,000,000.

The statistical program for commercial floriculture, requested by thefloriculture industry and funded byCongress, is in its sixth year of expanded coverage. Continued successof the survey depends upon the voluntary cooperation of flower producers.

PENNSYLVANIA

FLOWER GROWERS

BULLETIN 247

JANUARY, 1972

OFFICERS

PRESIDENT MARTIN P. GOHNGohn's Greenhouses

Willow Grove, Pa. 19090

V. PRESIDENT ... J. ROBERT OGLEVEEOglevee Floral Co.

Connellsville, Pa.TREASURER AND EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY ... HOWARD G. KRUPPP.O. Box 247, Chalfont, Pa. 18914

EDITOR JOHN W. MASTALERZ907 Glenn Circle SouthState College, Pa. 16801

V^

PROGRESS REPORT III

EASTER LILY HEIGHT CONTROL

Past research on height control ofEaster lilies was summarized in an

earlier report (1). In a more recentpublication (2), the effects of a newchemical growth retardant (Quel)on lily height were compared withthe effects of stress from low soilmoisture and high fertility levels.Quel1 was very effective in controlling height without reducing flowersize; whereas, flower size reductionand other adverse effects accompanied height reduction produced bymoisture or fertilizer stress. The effects of time of application, concentration and method of application ofQuel on lily growth are persented inthis report.

METHODS

Ace lilies, 9 to 10 inch bulbs, werereceived direct from the west coastfields.2 Cultural practices before andafter forcing were identical to thosedescribed in Progress Report II, except in the application of Quel.

Drench or spray applications generally were applied between January18 and February 12. The time of application was based on shoot lengthrather than a given date. Quel wasmetered into the irrigation water beginning January 26 and discontinuedMarch 1. Between these dates, approximately 78 ounces of solution wasadded to each pot. The amount ofactive Quel per pot was calculated onthe basis of concentration at each irrigation times total solution appliedduring the treatment period. Sixounces of solution was applied to eachpot for the single drench treatments.

1 Quel was donated by Elanco ProductsCompany (a division of Eli Lilly).

-' Bulbs were supplied courtesy of Geo. J.Ball Company, West Chicago, 111.

J. W. White

The Pennsylvania State University

TREATMENTS

1. Control — no retardant

2. Quel — 40 ppm spray applied at 16.3 inches of shoot growth

3. Quel — 40 ppm spray at 6 inches4. Quel — 40 ppm spray at 9 inches 17.5. Quel — 40 ppm spray at 3 inches

and again at 6 inches 18.6. Quel — 40 ppm spray at 3 inches,

6 inches and 9 inches 19.

7. Quel — 0.25 mg active/pot applied as a soil drench at 3 inches 20.

8. Quel — 0.25 mg drench at 6inches 21.

9. Quel — 0.25 mg drench at 9inches 22.

10. Quel — 0.25 mg drench at 3inches and 6 inches 23.

11. Quel — 0.25 mg drench at 3inches, 6 inches and 9 inches 24.

12. Quel — 80 ppm spray at 6 inches13. Quel — 0.50 mg drench at 6 25.

inches

14. Quel — 160 ppm spray at 6 26.inches

15. Quel — 1.00 mg drench at 6

inches

Treatment 2 plus 0.121 mg active/pot metered into irrigation system

Treatment 3 plus 0.121 mg metered

Treatment 4 plus 0.121 mg meteredTreatment 12 plus 0.121 mg metered

Treatment 14 plus 0.121 mg metered

Treatment 2 plus 1.21 mg metered

Treatment 3 plus 1.21 mg metered

Treatment 4 plus 1.21 mg metered

Treatment 12 plus 1.21 mg metered

Treatment 14 plus 1.21 mg meteredQuel — 0.484 mg active/pot metered into irrigation system(Progress Report II)

Sprays were applied to all top growthuntil runoff.

Height was measured from theground line to the point of bendingof the tallest bud on the day the firstflower opened. Days to flower wascalculated from December 28 to the

day the first flower opened. Data aremeans of 5 replications.

RESULTS Growth Stages (Table 1)Lily height was reduced more by

a 40 ppm spray application of Quelat 9 inches of shoot growth than anapplication at 3 or 6 inches (in). Twoapplications one at 3 in. another at 6in. reduced height more than any ofthe single drench applications. However, three applications (3, 6 and 9

in.) were no more effective than thetwo.

Lily height was reduced more by a0.25 mg drench application at eachgrowth stage than by a 40 ppm spray.The relative effect of the 0.25 mgdrench on height at each growthstage and with single versus multipleapplications, was the same as thespray.

A combination of 40 ppm spray at3, 6 or 9 in. plus Quel metered intothe irrigation water at 0.121 mg activeper pot produced plants with heightscomparable to the two and three application 0.25 mg drenches. A combination of 40 ppm spray at 3, 6 or 9in. plus Quel metered into the irrigation water at 1.21 mg active per pot

— 1 —

Table 1. Growth Response of 'Ace' Lilies to Quel Applied at Various Growth Stages.Mean Flowering Mean

Mean height Days No. ofat flowers

Treatment (cm) (in) Date 60° F per pot

1. no retardant

7.

8.

9.10.

11.

16.

17.

18.

21.

22.

23.

Spray 40 ppm3 inches6 in.

9 in.

3 in. + 6 in.3 in -j- 6 in + 9 in.

Drench 0.25 mg3 in.

6 in.

9 in.

3 in. + 6 in.3 in. -j- 6 in. + 9 in.

Spray 40 ppm -J- metered0.121 mg3 in.

6 in.

9 in.

Spray 40 ppm + metered1.21 mg3 in.

6 in.

9 in.

76.0

71.869.265.2

57.458.6

67.8

61.8

62.6

53.054.0

53.4

49.0

53.2

22.223.4

23.0

29.9

28.3

27.225.7

22.6

23.1

26.724.3

24.6

20.921.3

21.019.3

20.9

8.7

9.2

9.1

3/30

3/314/54/44/44/8

4/84/64/84/64/9

4/34/54/7

4/114/124/11

94

95

100

99

99

103

103

101

103

101

104

98

100

102

106

107

106

7.5

9.2

8.8

9.6

8.8

8.8

8.0

9.4

9.6

9.2

8.6

8.0

8.0

9.4

8.4

8.0

8.0

Table 2. Growth Response of 'Ace' Lilies to Quel Applied at Various Concentrations asEither a Spray or a Drench.

1. no retardant

Spray at 6 inches

76.0 29.9 100 3/30 94 7.5

3. 40 ppm 69.2 27.2 91 4/5 100 8.8

12. 80 ppm 50.6 19.7 67 4/7 102 8.4

14. 160 ppm

Drench at 6 inches

43.6 17.2 57 4/9 104 8.4

8. 0.25 mg 61.8 24.3 81 4/6 101 9.4

13. 0.50 mg 52.4 20.6 69 4/9 104 8.8

15. 1.00 mg 33.8 13.3 44 4/9 104 10.0

Table 3. Growth Response of 'Ace' Lilies to Quel Applied as a Spray, Drench or Meteredinto Irrigation Water.

1. no retardant

2. 40 ppm Spray at 3 in.7. 0.25 mg drench at

3 in.

16. 40 ppm spray -f-metered 0.121 mg

19. 80 ppm spray +metered 0.121 mg

20. 160 ppm spray +metered 0.121 mg

21. 40 ppm spray +metered 1.21 mg

24. 80 ppm spray +metered 1.21 mg

25. 160 ppm spray -f-metered 1.21 mg

26. only metered 0.484 mg(P.R.II)

76.0 29.9 100 3/30 94 7.5

71.8 28.3 94 3/31 95 9.2

67.8 26.7 89 4/8 103 8.0

53.4 21.0 70 4/3 98 8.0

50.2 19.8 66 4/10 105 9.2

43.4 17.1 57 4/8 103 8.6

22.2 8.7 29 4/11 106 8.4

23.0 9.1 30 4/11 106 8.6

23.2 9.1 31 4/14 109 7.0

30.6 12.0 40 4/11 106 7.8

— 2 —

produced the shortest plants of alltreatments. These latter plants wereless than half as tall as those withthe spray plus 0.121 mg metered andless than one-third as tall as the noretardant control plants.

The later and the more frequentQuel was applied, the greater its effect in delaying flowering date.

Flower numbers were not adversely affected by any of the Quel treatments. In fact, these data showed thatQuel increased the number of flowersper pot, but this data should be verified before such a result could be expected consistently.

RESULTS Concentrations (Table 2,Figures 1 and 2)

Increasing concentrations of Queleither as a spray or a drench proportionally decreased height withoutadversely affecting flower number orgeneral plant appearance. Quel wasmost effective in height reductionwhen applied as a 1.00 mg drenchand least effective when applied as a40 ppm spray when the shoots were 6inches long. The 80 ppm spray and0.50 mg drench were similar in theireffect, reducing heights to 67 and 69percent of the controls plants, respectively.

Increasing the concentration ofQuel delayed flowering as much as10 days. Plants treated with Quel hadmore flowers per pot than the control plants.

RESULTS Methods(Table 3, Figure 3)

Combinations of Quel sprays plusdilute Quel additions to the irrigationwater were more effective in reducinglily height than single spray or drenchapplications. Increasing concentrations of Quel spray from 40 to 160ppm, when combined with 0.121 mgmetered, reduced height proportionally but such was not the case whenthese levels of spray were combinedwith 1.21 mg of Quel metered intothe irrigation water.

Combinations of Quel sprays andmetered solutions delayed floweringmore than single spray or drench applications. Treatment effects on number of flowers per pot were variable,with no obvious relationships betweentreatments and flower number.

(Continued on page 12)

— 3 —

Figure 1. Grovvtli Response of 'Ace' Liliesto Quel Applied as a Spray When Shoots-Were (J inches Long. Left to right: Treatment 1, no retardant; T3, 40 ppm; T12, 80ppm and T14, IfiO ppm. Potted and coldframed October 29, forced December 28and photographed April 15.

Figure 2. Growth Response of 'Ace' Liliesto Quel Applied as a Soil Drench WhenShoots Were 6 inches Long. Left to right:Treatment 1, no retardant; T8, 0.25 mg;T13, 0.50 mg and T15, 1.00 mg. Potted andcold framed October 19, forced December28 and photographed April 15.

Figure 3. Growth Response of 'Ace' Liliesto Quel Applied as a Spray, Drench or Metered into Irrigation Water. Left to right:Treatment 1, no retardant; T7, 0.25 mgdrench at 3 inches; T19, 80 ppm spray +metered 0.121 mg; T26, only metered 0.484mg and T24, 160 ppm spray + metered1.2 lmg. Potted and cold framed October29, forced December 28 and photographedApril 15.

COMPLETE LIST

1971 CONTRIBUTORSDILLON RESEARCH FUND

American Horticultural Supply Co., New York, New YorkAnderson s Greenhouse, FranklinWm. Baird & Sons, GreenvilleGeo. J. Ball, Inc., West Chicago, IllinoisBeall Greenhous Co. Inc., Vashon, WashingtonCharles A. Bortmas Greenhouses, BuderBrighton By-Products Co., Inc., New BrightonBryfogle's Florists, Inc., MuncyBuzas Greenhouses, EastonCalifornia-Florida Plant Corp., Stuart, FloridaStan Cassel Greenhouses, ChalfontCharlett Greenhouses, CabotCremer-Florists, Inc., HanoverL. B. Coddington Co., Murray Hill, New JerseyGuy B. Daymont, Vaughan's Seed Co., IrwinGeorge Didden Greenhouses, Inc., HatfieldDietz Florists, McKees RocksJ. L. Dillon, Inc., BloomsburgDillon Floral Products, Inc., BloomsburgPete Donati & Sons Florist, PittsburghDrayer Florist & Greenhouse, RevnoTdsvilleDuerr's Flower Garden, MeadvilleEd's Greenhouse, CroydonPaul Ecke, Inc., Encinitas, CaliforniaEdward's Flower's, Inc., TamaquaBard Eichelberger, NeffsvilleElmira Floral Products, Inc., Elmira Heights, New YorkDr. Michael A. Farrell, State CollegeRaymond A. Fleck, Inc., SouthamptonFloral Acres, Inc., Delray Beach. FloridaL. Edward Folk Florists, Inc., BloomsburgFord's Greenhouse, CoatesvilleFriedl Elverson Pottery Co., New BrightonThos. R. Fries Sons, LancasterGarland Maintenance Products, Inc., Cleveland, OhioJoseph Gaydos, Fort Durkee Greenhouse & Farm, Wilkes-BarreE. C. Geiger, HarleysvilleGeorge's Flowers, CarlisleH. G. German Seeds, Inc., SmethportFred C. Gloeckner & Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.Garber the Florist, Highland Falls, New YorkGood's Greenhouses, MohntonGraham Greenhouses, BradfordGrandview Florists & Greenhouses, JohnstownGohn's Greenhouses, Willow GroveJ. Clarence Groff, StrasburgGeorge K. Groff, Inc., Bird-in-HandErich Gumto Greenhouses, Inc., PittsburghLouis Hahn & Son, Inc., PittsburghN. V. Hansen, Port Chester, New YorkJoseph Harris Co., Inc., Rochester, New YorkHeemskerk Bulb Company, Hawthorne, New JerseyPeter Hellberg Company, ChalfontJohn Henry Company, Lansing, MichiganJoseph H. Hill, Richmond, IndianaJ. A. Himes. Friedl-Elverson Pottery Co., New BrightonF. C. Hinkel & Bro., Inc., PittsburghHoliday Gardens, Inc., RutledgeKasarda Greenhouse, WyomingKocher's Grove City Floral Co., Grove CityKrueger's Greenhouses, BethlehemLandis Greenhouses, SugarloafLayser's Flowers, Inc., MyerstownHerman Lederer Son, ParkerfordLincolnway Flower Shop &Greenhouse, YorkS. Locher & Son, PittsburghLinn C. Longenecker, Manheim

G. E. Malmborg, ManheimJohn H. Marx, MendenhallWarren Mathias, American Can Co., HersheyMcCurio Florist Co., Inc.. PittsburghMcFadden Greenhouses, Inc., OxfordMercer Greenhouses, Inc., FredoniaHenry F. Michell Co., King of PrussiaPaul H. Mikkelson, Henry F. Michell Co., EmmausArthur H. Miller, LandisvilleClint Miller, CoopersburgMong's Greenhouses, FranklinNeffsville Flower Shoppe & Greenhouse, LancasterNevill's Flowers, MontoursvilleNorthwest Pennsylvania Flower Growers Assocation, Grove CityOelschigs' Nursery Inc., Savannah, GeorgiaOglevee Floral Co., Inc., ConnellsvilleMartha Orient, BridgevilleFrank M. Palmer, Kennett SquareGeo. W. Park Seed Co., Inc., Greenwood, South CarolinaPennsylvania Perlite Corp., Lehigh ValleyPennsylvania Perlite Corp. of York, Pa., AllentownL. S. Peterman Co., Juniata, AltoonaRobert B. Peters Co., Inc., AllentownPittsburgh Cut Flower Co., PittsburghJohn J. Pranulis Greenhuoses, BuderDonald S. Pratt, AvondaleS. Russell Prizer, Florist, ParkerfordProper's Greenhouse, BradfordReiniger Brothers, Inc., HatboroHenry W. Ridgway, Mickleton, New JerseyF. C. Rinker & Sons, Inc., BloomsburgH. Stanford Roberts, NewtownRough Brothers, Inc., Cincinnati, OhioDr. M. O. Robinson Associates, Dover, DelawareRuofs Flowers, Inc., LancasterSawyer & Johnson, Inc., BethlehemOR. Scott, Rydal Flower Gardens, JenldntownSchraders Greenhouses, JohnstownGustav H. Schroeder, Newtown SquareSensinger's Greenhouses, LehightonBernard R. Sherman, Continental Casualty Co., LancasterClaymore C. Sieck, Baltimore, Md.Gene Smith Florist &Greenhouses, WilliamsportX. S. Smith, Red Bank, New JerseyCarl Springer, E. C. Geiger Co., LansdaleStoney Ledge Greenhouse, IrwinJ. E. Streater & Son, BloomsburgSyracuse Pottery, Inc.. Syracuse, New YorkHoward Tegge Greenhouse, SouthamptonJ. H. Thompson, Inc., Kennett SquareW. W. Thomson Co., West Hartford. Conn.Tinari Greenhouses, Huntingdon ValleyVosters Nurseries &Greenhouses, Inc., SecaneE. C. Wagoner's Sons, Beaver FallsE. B. Walton & Sons, Kennett SquareRobert M. Way Greenhouses, Kennett Square*£"* ?»VValt?n' E- B- WaIton &Sons» Kennett SquareAlbert Weiland, New CastleChas. M. Wernig's Sons, YorkJames P. Whalen, Henry Whalen &Sons, Drexel HillWilt s Wholesale Florist, AltoonaWinandy Greenhouse Construction Inc., Richmond, IndianaN. H. Wright^ Inc., Cranbury, New JerseyP. J. Yeatman's Sons, Inc., Kennett SquareZelienople Greenhouse Co., ZelienopleZieger & Sons, Inc., Philadelphia

OUR SPECIAL THANKS

_4 —

Promote Floriculture Research

at Penn State

CONTRIBUTE TO

DILLON RESEARCH FUND

IN 1972

Allburn Florist, Inc., Erie

Charles A. Bortmas Greenhouses, Butler

California-Florida Plant Corp., Stuart, Florida

George Didden Greenhouses, Inc., Hatfield

J. L. Dillon, Inc., Bloomsburg

Dillon Floral Products, Inc., Bloomsburg

Drayer Florist & Greenhouse, Reynoldsville

Paul Ecke, Inc., Encinitas, California

Edwards' Flowers, Inc., Tamaqua

Raymond A. Fleck, Inc., Southampton

E. C. Geiger, Harleysville

George's Flowers, Carlisle

Joseph Harris Co., Inc., Rochester, New York

The John Henry Company, Lansing, Michigan

James A. Himes, Friedl-Elverson Pottery Co., New Brighton

Kasardas' Greenhouses, Wyoming

Herman Lederer Sons, Parkerford

— 11

John H. Marx, Mendenhall

McCurio Florist Co., Inc., Pittsburgh

Oelschigs' Nursery, Inc., Savannah, Georgia

Pennsylvania Perlite Corporation, Lehigh Valley

Peterson's Greenhouse, Springdale

John J. Pranulis Greenhouses, Butler

Reiniger Bros., Inc., Hatboro

Rydal Flower Gardens, Rydal

Otto A. Schmidt, Florist, Fox Chase, Philadelphia

Gustav H. Schroeder, Newtown Square

Syracuse Pottery, Inc., Syracuse, New York

E. B. Walton & Sons, Kennett Square

Frank P. Walton, Kennett Square

Chas. M. Wernig's Sons, York

Winandy Greenhouse Construction, Inc., Richmond, Indiana

Zelienople Greenhouse Co., Zelienople

r*'!

The new

half-size Heggcould enlargeyour market.

M

Our new, smaller version of the popular AnnetteHegg could give your poinsettias more potential. Ithas the same wide, flexible bracts as the regularHegg. The same attractive foliage. It's just shorter,so it goes places the full-sized plants can't. We thinkthe mini-multi-flowered Annette Hegg is going toplay a big part in the poinsettia business.

Paul Ecke Poinsettias ENCINITASCALIFORNIA

— 12 —

LILY HEIGHT CONTROL-

(Continued from page 2)

SUMMARY

The effects of time and method ofapplication and concentration of Quelon the growth of 9 to 10 inch, coldframe cooled Ace lilies were presented. Each method and combinationof methods was effective in reducingheight. The higher the Quel concentration, the greater the height reduction. The only adverse effect was adelay in flowering date.

Before answering the question,what is the best combination of time,method and concentration of Quel touse; three other questions must beanswered.

1) What is the desired height?2) What is the expected height

without a retardant?

3) How much delay in floweringdate can be tolerated?

If one knows the desired height andthe expected height; it is theoreticallypossible to predict the approximatepercent reduction in height of a givenQuel application. If the case is, as Isuspect, that a range of heights isneeded for various market situationsthen several concentrations of Quelshould be applied.

If a compromise must be reachedbetween height reduction and delayedflowering, lower concentrations mustbe used than when delayed floweringis not a problem. Our research plansfor 1972 include studies with Queland with and without low intensitysupplementary lighting. It may bepossible to counteract the internodeelongation caused by lighting byusing more Quel. It is also possiblethat these two factors may cancel outeach other with no beneficial effects.

Unfortunately, this whole discussion is academic until Quel is available for commercial use. Hopefully,by the time Quel is on the market wewill have better information on whichto base our recommendations.

LITERATURE CITED

1. White, J. W. 1970. Progress Report —Easter Lily Height Control. Pa. Flo. Gro.Bui. 233:3-5,10.

2. White, J. W. 1971. Progress Report II— Easter Lily Height Control. Pa. Flo.Gro. Btd. 246:3-5.