Well, it’s definitely not folklore, that I’m certain of. I researched this rather extensively a few years ago. As I said, I don’t know how to explain the normal genetic variation, but my failure to understand it does not lead me to automatically dismiss it.
I was thinking after reading your initial post that root suckers could be the source of the stock and not the seeds, but if the tree roots were originally a seedling and chosen for it’s good sizing, vigor, pest resistance etc, then I suppose that even though clonally propagated from cuttings, may still be loosely defined as seedling rootstock (since that’s where it sprang from and a pip was it’s origin).
That’s the best explanation I can think of other than my earlier guess. Like I said…I dunno. It’s not folklore, urban myth or any type of horticultural myth though…it’s very real.
At some point breeders recognizing the size attributes and wooly aphid resistance began making crosses with East Malling rootstocks and Northern Spy as a parent and that is where Malling Merton rootstock came from, at least that’s my understanding anyway.
The entire use / development / timeline of NSS I’m uncertain of. It’s such a difficult subject to google because using all the keywords necessary returns scores of unrelated articles that need sifted through.
Interestingly enough though, the Aussies didn’t refer to the recently used rootstocks as MM, but rather as Northern Spy Seedling.
Appleseed, nothing of what you said supports the claim of a particular stability of N. Spy seedlings (besides your recollections), but maybe you’ve seen other things you aren’t quoting here. If you have any interesting sources you can link me to on the subject it would be interesting.
All of the English rootstocks began as individual apple trees. All of them had the quality of N. Spy in being easily reproduced from cuttings, I assume. That does not mean the seeds from these trees produced trees of nearly identical vigor. That’s obviously the whole point of clonal rootstocks. They were also originally called the name of the apple before being given a shortened code name by researchers.
Alan…you need to read more carefully. There was no particular claim of genetic stability…don’t go putting words in my mouth.
I didn’t realize I was being forced to provide evidence, since after all I was very clear in the fact that I couldn’t explain it from the get-go.
You say it’s folklore or whatever…why don’t you support that notion? Where is your evidence to the contrary?
You say all the rootstocks were trees on their own. Well, not according to your beloved Cornell they were not.
Geesh…I didn’t even mean to get off topic with this. Actually, I didn’t.
Stopped by my local Home Depot today, and must say I was not impressed with their selection of fruit trees. It was all very boring varieties. Gala and Granny Smith apples, Bing and Raineer cherries(good luck grown them in Iowa), and some other peaches I didn’t look at.
I have been impressed with Lowes this year. They have Lapins and Van cherries. Also noticed quite a few Methley and Santa Rosa plums.
I know not knowing the root stock isn’t ideal, but I think I might jump on adding a Van to my mix and see how it does. One at the Lowes had a really nice structure for an open center.
Appleseed, I’m sure you can find a more graceful way of suggesting I’ve misunderstood something you’ve written than to say I need to read more carefully. How exactly did this discussion take a hostile tone? strong text
"Alan…when I spoke of Northern Spy, I was not referring to the variety as a scion, but rather as a rootstock grown from Northern Spy seed. I am sure you are aware, rootstock grown from Northern Spy were widely used in early America for their medium size, uniformity, and I think DR as well".
You said a rootstock grown from northern spy seed without making it clear you were talking about a seedling of N. Spy that was used as a clonal rootstock. I’m guessing that’s what you are actually stating.
I’ve read a lot about early American orchards and have never encountered any information that confirms the part of the statement about the wide use of N. Spy seedling rootstock, so I was hoping you could find a source beyond your recollection- not at all for the pleasure of challenging you, but out of intellectual curiosity.
Cornell doesn’t contradict anything I have stated about rootstocks originally being from named varieties, but you are correct that further breeding was done and N. Spy was used, creating new cultivars of apple trees to be used as rootstocks.
I hope at some point you will realize when I’m simply trying to have a relaxed discussion and seeking clarification that it is not a challenge to your intelligence.
Alan…I’m not busting on you at all. I’m simply telling you that I’m not making strong assertions of anything since I cannot myself explain it.
"You said a rootstock grown from northern spy seed without making it clear you were talking about a seedling of N. Spy that was used as a clonal rootstock. "
I wasn’t making it clear because I’m not clear on it at all. If you read carefully and within the context of the discussion I think my position was quite clear. I think my lack of understanding was VERY well stated. Taking snippets from a conversation without the benefit to others of reading through it all is unhelpful.
Again…if you go back and read it, I suggested that clonal propagation could be an explanation…not that it was or is. Furthermore, that came only later after you posted about their inclination to root sucker.
As far as finding graceful ways of stating things, well that’s not a strong suit of mine, but for whatever I lack in that department, you are far worse imo (sorry man. but it’s true).
“Sorry man but it’s true” is another example. Nothing I’ve written to you on this forum is deserving of that comment. I tend to attack statements, not people, and there is a big difference. I’m only trying to keep things clear and factual and get their as directly as possible.
I certainly have nothing I need to prove on this forum except maybe surprising statements about fruit trees.
The issue with not listing the rootstock goes even beyond the BB stores and extends to some good nurseries as well. Anyone with even remote knowledge of fruit trees understand the importance of root stocks, but I think that’s just it. Most consumers (purchasers of their trees, especially from BB stores) are not knowledgeable and I think that the nurseries simply don’t bother with it feeling the demand isn’t there so why complicate things. I too cannot get over how silly this is.
Alan…again…there is absolutely no hostility on my part…none. I greet strong verbage with strong verbage…that is all.
I will say though that your notion of there being a difference in how an attack is directed is baseless. How would attacking someone’s words be any different than attacking the person? How?
In some ways it is worse. No matter, most folks would consider either to be one and the same.
If someone posts about something (particularly when that something is in reply to being questioned) that they freely and clearly admit to not understanding then WHAT is the point of asking for proof of their THEORY of an explanation? Furthermore, if you, or somebody else feels they may be able to clarify their misunderstanding then wouldn’t it be incumbent on them to clearly state why they feel the misunderstanding exists?
Dismissing everything which one doesn’t understand as folklore or a myth is dumb. There are many, many things I don’t understand, but yet I’m certain they do exist. I just know that I lack the knowledge to make sense of it.
To me their is a big difference attacking ideas versus people. If I say Alan is stupid for believing in global warming, that is attacking the person, or instead If I said well the data from NASA shows cooling, I’m not attacking him, but his words. I think this is really important. When people say global warming deniers, they are attacking the person, not the idea. I guess the motive is to discredit them without having to supply any evidence. That kind of talk irks me a lot. It’s so shallow. That is when I become suspicious of their beliefs, I often though would say in return global warming alarmists, but it is meant strictly as satire.I can’t help myself!
This seems to follow the same line of logic as grocery stores selling red grapes and green grapes, red cherries and yellow cherries, yellow peaches and white peaches. Would it kill them to list the actual name of the variety or would this just be WAY to confusing to consumers?
Appleseed, I can see your point as far as using the word attack, which has negative connotations, but what I should have said is I criticize statements on the question of accuracy, I don’t criticize the poster.
To me your responses to my questions came off as defensive as if I was challenging you personally. Statements like “I didn’t realize I was being forced to provide evidence” or “you need to read more carefully” carry a very defensive tone to me.
And then when I suggest that telling me I need to read more carefully is in itself a bit jarring or not the most graceful you create an entire “department” apparently bringing up long past history and stating that I am far worse based on that history. So much better, I think, to stick to the discussion at hand or it just goes on and on
What in my statements on this specific topic provoked that defensiveness? I was only curious about your sources.
My local lowes just got their first big shipment this season. They looked pretty healthy and were from somewhere in Michigan. Lots of peach but nothing too cuttIng edge. I may just pick up one of their honeycrisp trees since it’s our favorite variety. And maybe a Santa Rosa plum.
Dave…I see you are in WV…I don’t however know where in WV. If you have a Southern States nearby, give them a look-see. They sell trees from a nursery in VA whose name I cannot recall at the moment, but they are generally much better quality than Lowe’s and although they do not state the rootstock a short email will get a quick, courteous and knowledgeable reply. They do cost more, so I’d look there and then base the extra cost against your judgment of quality against the Lowe’s version. I think the effort would be worth your time if you have a bit of time to spare that is.
The nursery supplier (has been the same for a number of years at least) did graft their Honeycrisp to M106. I’ve had great success with mine, although I realize that is just one tree. Their trees over the past decade have been of far greater quality than that which Lowe’s normally sells.
I think there is a good chance there is a Southern States near you. If you need the nursery supplier name, let me know…I have it here…just gotta dig it up.
That nursery however does not sell to individuals though…I asked them about that and they emphatically said “NO”.
Apparently it would kill them Idaho. I agree with you 100%. Americans just aren’t careful consumers anymore…and I’m not just talking about fruit.
You can sometimes look up the ID# on the fruit if the sticker has the orchard name…I’ve used that before to identify varieties in stores that I found to be good. Most of the huge Cali/Wash operations have websites now and some (not all) have their codes listed.
Thanks I’m from Northern WV and yes I have a southern states nearby. I was there yesterday in fact. They still do not have their fruit trees in stock at this time. They are close though as they were scrambling around trying to make room for their gardening section. Should be any day. On a side note I talked to raintree yesterday and they said I should be getting my trees middle of next week. Said mid Atlantic orders are shipping this Friday the 20th.
Sorry to all for taking the subject off topic. I wish there was a section on this forum to go to to resolve minor conflicts that are only of interest to the folks involved. I prefer use e-mail, but that wasn’t an option this time.
Not so much about the hijacking issue as stinking up the joint.
