I am not sold on using only clonal rootstocks. Antonovka is a fine rootstock if conditions require it. There are many other apples that reproduce true to seed that have been and can be used as rootstock. I am advocating against using random seeds as rootstock since the results will be random.
P22 is a clonally propagated cross of M9 and common Antonovka. It is not grown from seed.
P22 would have no use here. I need big trees in order to deal with deer and bears Apple Rootstock Info: P.22 â Apples
I was mistakenly thinking you were referring to P 18. That rootstock would at least be worth trialing here. I assume it is a clonal rootstock.
Antonovka seems perfect for your site. Why donât you use it?
I use some antonovka. It hasnât proven to be as hardy as dolgo, ranetka, baccata, or wild crab/apple rootstocks however. Antonovka requires good snow cover for winter hardiness. Here on the edge of the plains, reliable snow cover isnât a given. In the northeast where antonovka excels, snow cover is far more reliable. Constant, desiccating winds are also less of a factor in the NE US.
Have you tried the frame method using Antonovka as the rootstock and one of the others as the frame with scions grafted to that? Seems common in the Canadian plains and Alaska.
Also, when using dolgo, ranetka, or baccata do you grow them from seed or clonally propagate them? Just curious.
I buy dolgo, ranetka, and baccata seedlings. I grow some of my own seedlings from crabs/apples that have proven themselves hardy and adaptable here. I grow apples largely for wildlife with human consumption as a secondary factor for the most part. I need trees that can deal with deer standing on their hind legs browsing fruit/limbs and bears climbing to get at the fruit. I mess around with grafting scions to wild crab/apple limbs with some success, but I realize that the critters could ruin that progress in one night.
Your methods seem anything but random
I have plenty of failures. Thatâs all part of the fun along the way 
Right? Maybe. But, I have an Antonovka seedling that has red veins like a Budagovsky rootstock wouldâŚit crossed with SOMETHINGâŚand Iâm going to nurture it to see
the result!
No apples reproduce 100% true to seed.
Second hand as in you know people that have grown out both and compared them? Or second hand as in you heard it through the grapevine? Regardless, how true apples (the fruit) from seedling trees are to the parent is really beside the point if the seedlings are going to be used only for rootstock. The real question is variability in the portion of the tree that remains after grafting and how that variability compares to the variability in seedlings grown from random apples. If youâre trusting the grapevine to definitively answer that question for you, then you have a very unscientific approach.
I personally know many people who have grown seedling apples and used them as rootstocks. There are also many people on this message board who have done the same. In addition there is much information from the efforts at the Geneva program. These efforts planted over 300,000 seedlings in order to produce only a handful of suitable rootstocks.
Why donât you go ahead and experiment?
What were their selection criteria? Were they even looking for good rootstocks that would produce full-sized trees and with a correspondingly long time before theyâd begin to bear? University and grant-funded research programs tend to invest in relatively shorter term research projects, so it wouldnât be at all surprising if they would have automatically rejected all rootstocks that were neither dwarfing nor precocious. But then thereâs a place for such rootstocks.
Iâd be interested in hearing reports about any such plantings. Thatâs basically why I started this thread. Of course, if these people only planted very small numbers of trees and/or didnât plant seedlings from selected varieties (like Antonovka) for comparison and/or didnât keep track of which seedlings were which, then it would be very hard to sort out the critical variables, but it would still be interesting to hear the results of any specific trials.
One reason is that Iâd first like to see what actual evidence other people have already gathered. Thatâs the standard scientific process: begin by reviewing the existing research. If thereâs already evidence that shows dramatic differences between different options for full standard seedling rootstocks with regards to specific risk factors, then Iâd be inclined to invest my efforts according to how strong the evidence is and how applicable it seems to my location and circumstances and priorities.
The Geneva rootstock project started in 1968. The primary purpose was to produce disease resistant rootstocks. It is still ongoing and not short term, 52 years so far. Some of the rootstocks produced were semi-standard similar in size to mm111.
You can find many reports of people planting random seedlings as rootstocks by searching just this thread, the entire forum, some facebook groups, and google. I have done this. As I said before using random seedlings will produce random results.
G890 is not the size of MM111.
And I know of no other Geneva rootstock bigger.
Most are B-9 to M26 size. Smaller than M7.
G890 is reported to be about the same size as mm106 depending on the site.
CG 8534 is 80% of standard or about the size of mm111. CG4002 and CG5463 are also 80% of standard.
Hi BLueberry, â
I have read that Winesap isnât a true triploid. It just acts like it because its pollen is so weak as to be ineffective. Sure tastes good though.
John S
PDX OR
I think itâs important to remember that while your trees will probably be just fine on seedling rootstocks, the reason we have clonal rootstocks (beyond knowing exactly what you are getting) is that the trees were found to have exceptional characteristics for a given application. Random seedlings are likely to have average, rather than exceptional, characteristics.
Note that I say likely, not definitely. Also note that a random distribution of traits doesnât mean an even distribution. Almost all the trees will have whatever traits are dominant (standard-ish size, varying disease resistance, etc). Think of it like a bag of marbles. If you put 950 blue marbles and 50 red marbles in a bag, then randomly select 50, youâll almost certainly end up with all or almost all blue marbles. You could get 50 red marbles, but itâs highly unlikely. Itâs the same with planting seedling apples, only this time the red marbles are desirable genetics and the blue are average. Plus the odds are more stacked in favor of the average. If you want anything other than standard size trees, average disease and drought resistance, etc, youâre going to have a hard time. You can improve your odds by crossing two trees that both have all or most of the traits youâre looking for and plant seeds from that, but itâs still a slim chance.
What a great way to put it.
Thanks