I've had to remove two plants this year because of RRD. I only see it once in a while, and I'm lucky!

According to this article, the redness can be Round Up. I have wondered about contrails, Malathion that the city sprays for mosquitoes, and other chemicals that are sprayed without our knowledge.

I have heard about what is in the contrails or chemtrails, but do not know how that may affect my garden --- or me.

Around here there are many rosarians who believe that RRD is diagnosed far too often, and that there may be many causes of the irregular growth we see in roses. We had months of drought and the hightest temperatures ever this year and last, and this winter it will more than likely get very cold.

I wish there were more interest in this subject in this part of the country. Each area has its own unique weather patterns, and I am not sure that what I see occasionally is RRD, chemicals, or weather.

Sammy

I have never seen RU cause redness, soft canes or hyper thorniness. Has there been a study done on this? It should be very easy to prove or disprove.

buford, one of the pictures by Don Plunkett University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension on the web page link below shows red with Round-Up damage.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for picture

Also one of the links you provided from the Rose Society around San Francisco showed the red. (Marin County).

I wonder if besides RRD, the roses could have irregular growth that might look like RRD if the purchased soil, compost or mulch has been treated or contaminated. We must purchase these products since our ground is mostly clay. Some of the dirt comes from Georgia, Louisiana, and all over. We just buy whatever Lowe's has.

Sammy

Henry, there is a URL in the article for a pdf by NC State University. The content page numbering was wrong in my download (article actually starts on page 10), but anyway, the NCSU pathologist supports everything you have said in your posts. For ease of use, I will insert the link below.

Here is a link that might be useful: NCSU Pest News

Oops, you included that URL in your post. Sorry, I missed that. I went directly to the link.
On the positive side, they're both in as links now.

What exactly does it support? The article states that shoot proliferation and leaf deformation can also be caused by herbicides. No one has ever denied that this is true. What isn't true is that every case of RRD is caused by herbicides. And certainly not the ones that have extensive red foliage massively distorted leaves and buds and other growth.

The article also says that RRD is on the rise, not herbicide damage.

I do not think that anyone has thought that RRD is caused by herbicide damage. Many people have claimed that the red is a distinction between the two conditions. That seems to be untrue.

From what I am reading the thorniness is the one distinction.

I am only a gardener, not a scientist, and am looking for a simple answer. Thorniness works because my roses do not have the excessive thorns. They have the redness and many other attributes, but not the thorns. Therefore, I make a note of them, watch them, and hope they will survive. (they often do)

However, if I see the thorniness, they are history. That really helps me.

Sammy

The picture of herbicide damage with red growth appears to me to be normal reddish new growth that has herbicide damage. The red isn't caused by herbicide damage. RRD does cause excessive red growth that last longer than normal along with soft thorny canes.

buford, I don't know. I'm not a scientist. My understanding is that Henry was, and therefore is still qualified as such.
But in general, it seems like a lot of posters want to say Henry is wrong about everything. Sometimes it seems like some folks - not you, still believe the sun revolves around the earth which is flat and they could fall off the edge.
According to the pathologist's article, in general, Henry was right.

Buford stated: "RRD does cause excessive red growth that last longer than normal along with soft thorny canes."

H.Kuska comment: I suggest that the above be modified to: "RRD may cause excessive red growth that last longer than normal along with soft thorny canes."

The reason for the modification is that both Ann Peck and others show RRD infected roses without the red color. In the Pathologist's article linked to here see the growth on the left side of the picture labeled: Leaf and flower deformation (L); Red coloration, shoot elongation and hyperthorniness (R). (note there are 2 sick branches or roses, the (L) stands for the symptoms of the branch or rose on the left, the (R) stands for the branch or rose on the right

Now, with that modification there is still a problem with the "last longer than normal" part of the statement as the point is to remove the cane with symptoms or bush early before the "possibility infected" bush becomes a source of further infection in one's rose garden.

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

Regarding "Hyper thorniness"
Ann Peck's book states: "Hyper thorniness is not a dependable indication of RRD, it does alert rosarians to be vigilant. It appears on some HTs, but sick OGRs and roses related to 'R. multiflora' may have thorns no denser than ususal. Further confusing diagnoses, many classes of old garden roses are extremely thorny and no one could look at a sick rugosa, damask, or spinossissima and declare it�s hyper thorniness to be aberrant. Likewise basal breaks on some healthy HTs appear thornier closer to the bud union, but become less thorny with increasing healthy growth. This year, I have also seen a characteristic of some roses from cold hardy breeding programs to have denser thorns near the base; these roses have a built in rodent deterrent that I had not noticed until a question from New Brunswick about the possibility of RRD in that part of Canada."

One of the things that I admire about the North Carolina Pest News, August 31, 2012 article is statements such as the following two statements:

1) "Management. The jury is still out on how to best manage rose rosette, so the following recommendations are provisional. This could be called the "RSVP" approach: removal, spacing, vigilance, and patience."

H.Kuska comment: please note "jury is still out" and "provisional".
AND
2) "Patience. As plant pathologists and entomologists continue to do experiments over the next several years, we'll be in a better position to know what works and what doesn't."

H.Kuska comment: please note "better position".

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

I realise that there are those who are frustrated that I cannot give them "do this" and "do not do that" answers but nature is complex. An example that I would use with my students is that we are like blind men, fixed in position, trying to describe an elephant from what each of us is able to touch.

As someone very concerned about RRD, I want to say how much I appreciate Mr. Kuska's attempts to explain an obviously complicated subject.

He has been continually vilified while making every effort to caution us about the complexity of the symptoms.

Having been a student, a teacher, and a mentor in various roles in my life, I know that holding an instructor in reproach for one's own inability to fully grasp a concept is not just disrespectful; it is extremely offensive and just plain wrong.

No level of frustration justifies such reprehensible behavior.

"Having been a student, a teacher, and a mentor in various roles in my life, I know that holding an instructor in reproach for one's own inability to fully grasp a concept is not just disrespectful; it is extremely offensive and just plain wrong."
Not being a frequent visitor here, I have a comment. No one has said anything negative about Mr. Kuska in this thread, why start berating folks?

I like the RSVP approach for now. I think we are all concerned about RRD.

I read this forum daily, and i agree with sand and sun. The older threads on RRV are all available to peruse today if you are curious.

Essentially, Henry often posts studies about Rrv- which apparently he has a abiding interest in. Some folks don't appreciate his opinions and have been a bit bullyish suggesting he should buzz off. Why would it bother anyone to read a study? And if it does- quit reading them. It's not like he is telling everyone to quit using herbicides.

I've seen Henry posting studies which do suggest RRV is more likely the culprit for excess thorns than herbicides too. He's canvassing the issue well, i think.
Knocking on wood- I've not had any RRV yet but I've twice had a scare when new growth seemed too thorny. Those who suffer RRV regularly, understandably promote a "if it looks suspicious -pull it out yesterday approach". But thankfully, There's a middle camp that recognizes people may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater (especially in low pressure areas).
Everyone is trying to get to the bottom of it.
me, I like henry's info. It's a lot like the cold/ hot climate divide on pruning. It really depends on your perspective.

I do not think disagreements should be perpetuated and folks berated in a thread where there is zero disagreement. No one has said anything negative about Henry in this thread.

You know Lucille, after rereading the posts- i do see your point. There was just a regular question posed....I think that perhaps there was a bit of preemptive reffing. Past is prologue- as they say... It's hard to see someone dogpiled regularly.

Perhaps the best thing is for us all to return to the original topic now. RRV.
Im heading out to my garden to enjoy Mr.lincolns last blooms. (Long into our hard frosts). You all enjoy your evenings too!

Peace!