Cattleya Flower Manipulation

[Bayard]

Looks like I've created a little controversy. I was interested to learn this technique, since my clones of certain awarded plants looked nothing like their award photos. In my opinion, anything done to optimize the presentation of flowers is horticulturally valid. This starts with hybridization for specific traits, and ends (maybe) with the flower manipulation you see above. Years ago, I went on a tour at Rod McLellan Orchids. At that time (1980's), they were still selling Gardenia flowers for corsages which were made flat via their 'secret' process. Although I never try to win awards by flattening Cattleya flowers, it has been done. Some examples are Lc. Longriver Compton 'Gold Star', Blc. King of Taiwan 'Orchis', and Lc. Orglade's Grand 'Yow Chang Beauty'. All were exhibited by Taiwanese growers and awarded by AOS judges. Would Billie Holiday have looked as good with non-manipulated Gardenia flowers in her hair? I don't think so!

[buckie]

My point is, if someone see's a flower that has been played with and they arn't told that is has been played with this gives that person a FALSE idea about that plant, They then go out and buy the same plant ( M/C ) and flower it only to get what to them is a sub standard flower compard to the one they seen, this is where it is mainly wrong in my view, it is not in the best interest of orchid growers worldwide for this to happen.

Warren

[catwalker808]

Bayard. I think some of the things you say are very interesting.

["I was interested to learn this technique, since my clones of certain awarded plants looked nothing like their award photos."]

This is exactly one of my points. Didn't you feel cheated when you realized that you needed to resort to this technique to make your flowers look like how they had been represented for sale? And why should every buyer of these plants experience the same deception?

You also compare this practice to the preparation of a cut-flower florist arrangement. There is no attempt at deception in the case of a floral arrangement. What you see is what you get. There is no expectation by anyone that the recipient of the bouquet will attempt to re-bloom a cut-flower.

["In my opinion, anything done to optimize the presentation of flowers is horticulturally valid ... Although I never try to win awards by flattening Cattleya flowers, it has been done."]

I don't understand your ambivalence about entering your plants for awards. If you truly feel it is entirely permissible to manipulate flowers as depicted in your photos, then it follows that you should be entirely comfortable entering them for awards. Perhaps you also feel that the practice is unethical if done for awards or promotional purposes.

Yes, I have also seen such altered flowers awarded. More often, I have seen judges scoff and walk away, insulted by the obvious manipulations.

I respect your right to do anything you want with your own plants. My main point was that such manipulations are more often intended to deceive.

The one thing I am really confused about is that, except for the few comments posted here, most of the readers seem to be rather indifferent to this practice. I have seen posts about readers raving about finding a $4 bargain plant, or complaining about a store plant dropping buds. So obviously everyone cares about getting your money's worth.

Does it not disturb readers to be deceived in this manner? A flower manipulated to receive an award or as a sample may not be a direct sale to you. However, it does affect your perception of the quality of the clone and the price you are willing to pay. "Buy this awarded plant and bloom these beautiful flowers!"

(What! They didn't bloom like the award photo. Oh yes, you didn't encase your flowers in plastic for 2-3 weeks to get the same results).

I'm curious to see readers' reactions. Not a long essay, just:
"The flower manipulation is ok." "The flower manipulation is fantastic." "The flower manipulation is deceptive." "The flower manipulation is deceptive and unethical."

Just something simple like that. Just curious.

[camille1585]

Just because I didn't post doesn't mean I don't care! Don't assume that. I would do the flower flattening too. BUT for my pleasure only. Let's say I bought a NOID at the supermarket, and the blooms don't open very well. Then I would do it, to increase the esthetic value of the plant in my eyes. But for named and awarded plants in my collection (I don't have any btw), I think if the clone you got truely deserved it's award then there is no need for manipulation. If you have to manipulate an awarded plant, then that's not a very good plant.

As for showing manipulated plants, that is completely wrong. If the blooms don't open correctly in the first place, then the plant wouldn't deserve an award. People who buy clones of it will feel disappointed when their doesn't bloom as well.

As for "In my opinion, anything done to optimize the presentation of flowers is horticulturally valid ... Although I never try to win awards by flattening Cattleya flowers, it has been done."
I don't agree. For showing what is valid in my eyes is modifications in culture. Let's say that increased humidity or temperature or light gives better blooms. That's fine, it just shows grower savy, by giving the plant the conditions it needs to bloom to its fullest potential. But bloom shaping is just cheating, because it would never naturally have that shape!

[Royal]

Physically or mechanically manipulating a flower is fine at home, but it is not ok if the plant is to be judged. I'm not sure what page of the judging handbook -- but trust me, it's in there.

Guiding growth with stakes, wires, wedges, etc, is cultural. You are convincing the plant to grow a certain way on its own. But manipulation after the fact is physical, not cultural.

[littlefrog]

Well, at least section 5.3.4

"(4) Cotton, styrofoam wedges or other material may be used on a developing inflorescence to encourage the buds to develop naturally. Attempts to manipulate flower parts after the flower has opened are usually self-defeating because of damage to the flower. An inflorescence may be disqualified by judges if it is evident that an attempt has been made to force a flower mechanically to a more desirable conformation."

And you aren't supposed to use polish on your leaves, either (5.3.3)
"(3) Plants should be entered in the most presentable condition possible. Pots should be clean or covered, and dead pseudobulbs and leaves removed. Leaves should be clean but not treated to produce an artificial shine. Inflorescences may be staked to permit them to appear to best advantage, but staking should be as unobtrusive as possible and may be removed temporarily during judging if the judging team feels this is necessary to evaluate the inflorescence. Additional staking or artificial supports may be needed while a plant is being transported but should be removed before the plant is entered."

The general take home of this is that you are allowed to manipulate your flowers a bit (for example to make their arrangement on the inflorescence better). Proper staking of inflorescences is allowed. However there is a limit. Disbudding (often done in cattleyas, to give the plant more resources to make the remaining flowers bigger) is taboo. Pressing flowers to make them perfectly flat is taboo (an experienced judge will be able to see this).

Rob

[Bayard]

cattwalker makes some good points, especially about feeling cheated. I can't really say that I felt cheated when my Blc. King of Taiwan 'Orchis', purchased right out of the display, didn't flower the same way again. Rather, I was interested to know how such a display was achieved. Others (rightfully so) may feel misled by the display of flattened flowers - especially if they think the Cattleya they just bought will look the same when they bloom it themselves.

As Rob has shown, such flower manipulation is specifically prohibited in the AOS judging system. However, that doesn't mean it is an unacceptable practice in other judging systems. My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with flower manipulation.

More than 100 years of hybridization have produced Cattleya flowers that scarcely resemble the wild stock from which they came. I happen to like the product of such genetic manipulation. So for me, the physical manipulation of flowers is as valid as any other horticultural technique.

Also, when well flowered, my unmanipulated Blc. King of Taiwan 'Orchis' looks perfectly acceptable:

[catwalker808]

Guidelines in the judging manual of the Japan Orchid Growers Association (the nationwide judging body for a very large community of professional growers and hobbyists) indicate that if judges determine that flowers or stems have been obviously and purposely reshaped, such plants may be disqualified from judging.

Buckie's comments also indicate that the same or similar quidelines exist for Australia. Are the guidelines in Great Britain or other countries also similar?

All I'm saying here again is that your plants are yours to do with as you please. But please do not invoke the auspices of any judging systems. I do not believe that any of the major judging systems condone the practice.

Again, I would like to point out that physically misshaping a flower with intent to deceive (as in doing it to receive an undeserved award) cheapens the results of the more that 100 years of effort, accumulated knowledge and experience in improving flowers by hybridization.

It's kind of like using Photoshop to put boobs on the Mona Lisa.

[johnblagg]

I myself think they should look like they grow with as little manipulation of the blooms themselfes as possible.....

Genitic manipulation I.E. hybridising is breeding and still a result of what nature put into them to be strenghtend by crossing to other plants with desirable traits also.

I think manipulating the blooms for your own satifaction at home is just fine but if I did not like the way the blooms looked naturally I simply would not buy that plant for collection.

I would be unhappy to buy one that had been treated this way and never see another bloom like that again ....If I buy a bulb at wal mart that shows a great photo of what it is supposed to be and I end up with a wild type that should be a cull "And I have" I will never buy from there again "And I do not"

[stitz]

Thank you, Rob, for the reference. I found section 5.3.4 on page 41 of my June, 2009 Handbook.

Please, note the language: "An inflorescence may be disqualified by judges if it is evident that an attempt has been made to force a flower mechanically to a more desirable conformation."

In section 5.3.5, please note the much stronger language, "Plants showing signs of obvious disease or infestation by pests shall not be judged..."

There's a significant difference between "may be disqualified" and "shall not be judged...". I believe that the words in the Handbook are carefully selected.

Good discussion!

--Stitz--