Postharvest of Specialty Cut Flowers – NC State Report of 2002
go.ncsu.edu/readext?223650
en Español / em Português
El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.
Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.
Português
Inglês é o idioma de controle desta página. Na medida que haja algum conflito entre o texto original em Inglês e a tradução, o Inglês prevalece.
Ao clicar no link de tradução, um serviço gratuito de tradução será ativado para converter a página para o Português. Como em qualquer tradução pela internet, a conversão não é sensivel ao contexto e pode não ocorrer a tradução para o significado orginal. O serviço de Extensão da Carolina do Norte (NC State Extension) não garante a exatidão do texto traduzido. Por favor, observe que algumas funções ou serviços podem não funcionar como esperado após a tradução.
English
English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.
Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.
Collapse ▲F.L. Fanelli, J.M. Dole, W.C. Fonteno, B.T. Harden and S.M. Blankenship, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
This project was supported by the American Floral Endowment, the Association of Specialty Cut Flower Growers, and numerous suppliers. The authors would like to thank Ingram McCal and Diane Mays for growing the cut flowers and for assisting with the postharvest studies.
Follow through is the key to success when hitting a golf ball, shooting a hoop or providing a service or product to a customer. You spend a great deal of time, energy and money growing fabulous cut flowers but the job is not yet over. You must figure out the best follow through or, as we know it, the best postharvest treatments to assure that the harvest gets to market in top condition and stays fresh as the consumer expects. Hopefully the postharvest testing of twenty-one herbaceous species and cultivars that we conducted this past summer will help as you make future postharvest handling decisions. The purpose of our work was two fold: 1) to test the vase life in a simulated consumer environment, 2) to determine the effect of hydration and holding preservative solutions on vase life.
Several species/cultivars had a vase life over 14 days, which is optimum for marketing and consumer enjoyment, including: celosia ‘Toreador Red’, dianthus ‘Amazon Neon’, dianthus ‘Bouquet Purple’, Eupatorium cannabinum, eustoma ‘Alice Pink’, and physostegia ‘Summer Spires’. Many other species had a vase life of 10 days or more which is the minimum for wholesale production and handling.
The Details
Field grown flowers were harvested at the optimum stage of flower development into tap water. The stems were subsequently sorted and placed in the following treatments:
- Hydrator only
- Holding preservative only
- Hydrator followed by holding preservative
- Distilled water only (control)
Chrysal Professional RVB Hydrating Solution (hydrator) was used at the 0.2% rate and Chrysal Professional #2 Processing Solution (holding) was used at the 1% rate. After treatment, stems were placed at 68±4°F under approximately 200 ftc light for 12 hrs/day.
Our Results
Achillea ‘Cassis’ This flower should be placed directly into clean, high quality water to obtain a 12 day vase life. Hydrating and holding solutions decreased vase life.
Celosia ‘Toreador Red’ An amazingly long lasting flower. A vase life of 33 days was obtained by using a holding solution. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Dianthus ‘Amazon Neon’ This brilliantly-colored flower had a vase life of 15 days when a holding solution was used. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Dianthus ‘Bouquet Purple’ Another of the new heat tolerant dianthus which had a vase life of 18-19 days when placed in a holding solution. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Dahlia ‘Naomi’ Vase life averaged 5-6 days regardless of treatment.
Dahlia ‘Thalia’ Vase life averaged 5-6 days regardless of treatment.
Eupatorium cannabinum Flowers last 20-24 days regardless of treatment.
Eustoma ‘Alice Pink’ A vase life of 17-21 days was obtained with a holding solution. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Eustoma ‘Malibu Purple’ A vase life of 12 days was obtained with a holding solution. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Gladiolus callianthus (Acidanthera) This species, which is related to the common gladiolus, had a 10 day vase life when a holding solution was used. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Helenium ‘Helena Gold’ This daisy-like flower lasted 16 days in water only. It was able tolerate the use of either a holding or a hydrating solution, but not the use of hydrating plus holding solutions which reduced vase life.
Helenium ‘Helena Red Shades’ Same results as ‘Helena Gold’.
Leucanthemum ‘Polaris’ This classic daisy lasted 12.5 days with a holding solution. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Physostegia ‘Summer Spires’ A vase life of 15 days was obtained with a holding solution. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Scabiosa ‘QIS Deep Red’ A holding solution had a slight effect and increased vase life only by one day compared to water only, which was 7 days.
Sunflower ‘Lemon Éclair’ Vase life averaged 8 days regardless of treatment.
Sunflower ‘Stella Gold’ A holding solution increased the vase life by only one day compared to water only, which was 7 days.
Trachelium ‘Summer Purple’ A vase life of 13 days was obtained using a holding solution. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Trachelium ‘Summer White’ A vase life of 12.5 days was obtained using a holding solution. Hydrating solution had no effect.
Zinnia ‘Benary’s Giant Lime’ This flower should be placed directly into clean, high quality water to obtain a 23.5 day vase life. Hydrating and holding solutions decreased vase life; when both were used together the vase life was only 1.3 days.
Zinnia ‘Sun Cherry’ This flower should be placed directly into clean, high quality water to obtain a 12 day vase life. Holding solution decreased vase life.
Zinnia ‘Sun Gold’ This flower which was best handled by placing directly into clean, high quality water to obtain a 11 day vase life. Hydrating and holding solutions decreased vase life.