2004 OSU/OFA Poinsettia Cultivar Trials
PART I CONSUMER EVALUATIONS
By Claudio Pasian, Steve Carver and Monica Kmetz-González
Tables 1 and Table
2 present the results of the 2004 OSU/OFA Consumer Poinsettia Evaluation.
In this issue of OHIO FLORICULTURE On Line
, we are providing you with a summary of the
results in tabular form and allowing you to draw your own observations. In
a future issue, we will share our observations. We will also present
results of the grower evaluations and a summary of the cultural conditions
under which the poinsettias were produced. Here are some quick points to
help understand the parameters of the consumer portion of the evaluation.
We asked each of the suppliers for their newest cultivars, i.e. nothing
that has been in the trade for more than two years. Each supplier was
allowed to include two older cultivars for comparative
purposes.
The plants were grown at four
locations around Ohio: AJ Rahn Greenhouses in Cincinnati; Barco & Sons
Inc. in Medina; Bostdorff Greenhouse Acres in Bowling Green; and Dill’s
Greenhouse in Columbus. One plant of each cultivar was shipped to the
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science at The Ohio State University
and placed in the Howlett Hall greenhouse.
From December 4 through December 6,
the horticulture honorary student society (PAX) held its annual poinsettia
sale in the Howlett Hall headhouse. We “borrowed” these poinsettia buyers
to evaluate the new cultivars. We asked them to rate the cultivars in two
ways.
First, we asked
them to rate each cultivar (four plants of each cultivar grouped together)
on a 1 to 5 scale, with “1” =
do not like the
cultivar and “5” = like it a lot. This rating scheme allows for positive and negative feelings for each cultivar. Results are given in Table
1 .
Second, we asked participants to tell
– of the 51 cultivars that we had, which were their three favorites. That
is, which three (maximum) they would buy on an impulse if they found them
while shopping. This rating scheme allowed for only positive feelings to
be expressed and resulted in a different ordering of favorites, see Table 2 .
|