I’m looking to try my hand at grafting some apples for the first time this year using whip & tongue. I am “no spray” except OMRI copper, Bt, Spinosad, & Kaolin.
I “heard” these rootstocks were solid choices for “organic” growing
What say you folks?
I’ll start there…
Thank you.
G.969 gives higher yields. Where G.890 seems a less fussy tree. Often preferred in smaller operations. If you are aiming for a high production orchard; G.969 will likely give larger crops.
G.210 is often seen in University collections. But seems to be becoming less available. I suspect this is due to newer and better Geneva root stocks being released. Like G.257 and 3 others.
Thank you for that.
I accidentally bought a Pixie Crunch on 969 two years ago when I was going for 935. But now I’m happy I have it to see how that stock does.
There is little doubt G-969 is a superb rootstock. It my require more pruning to keep higher production rates{ie a bit more labor} But G.890 is slightly less productive and more care free.
I was hoping to trial G.257 and a few others to test it’s fireblight resistance in co-operation with Cornell/Geneva. But 2 shutdowns in a row seem to be killing that now. If it survives our fireblight it should be excellent.
Nice to know, thank you.
G.210 is a difficult RS to graft. I experienced a 60% death rate on G.210 and a very low success rate for grafts on those that survived. (That was from 100 G.210 root stocks ordered and grafted). I did find they did quite well and the grafting success rate improved if I just planted them out and grafted them a year or two later. I would suggest G.210 isn’t the right RS for someone grafting for the first time. That being said, I really like the RS in the orchard, but it’s a real pain to get it started. I agree that it isn’t as readily available as it used to be.
Thank you.
What sort of density and planting system (supported how? spindle? central leader? etc…) are you thinking of?
I have been eyeing these rootstocks (and a few others). I see plenty of both for sale, but not as much info as I’d like about other qualities (like @AndySmith’s info about getting the trees started).
One thing I did notice about these two is that in the eastern U.S. G.210 is (mostly) listed as larger than G.969 but if you look at some of the western growers it’s listed as smaller.
This is from the patent for G.210:
With regard to apple tree rootstock ‘G.969’, a variety from the same parents as ‘G.210’, ‘G.210’ produced trees that were at approximately 10 to 15% more vigorous than ‘G.969’, when grown in the northeast United States. ‘G.969’ showed higher cumulative yield efficiency than ‘G.210’, when grown in the northeast United States. ‘G.210’ is more efficient at absorbing and translocating sodium to the scion leaves than ‘G.969’.
I also saw one other study that indicated that G.210 was especially good at nutrient transport.
Another interesting thing I saw is that the Geneva site lists G.210 as “Mostly for Organic Production”. Which is confusing to me - what would make it suitable for organic production and not for regular production? (FYI in the same document G.969 is listed as “Excellent rootstock for weak scions like Honeycrisp” so maybe those are just special features listed?)
Anyways, I’ll be interested to see what else folks have to say about these two!
It just means less spraying needed. IMO G.969 is just as resistant. But not bothered by commercial spay regimen. It is a lot higher grade to meet then organic. So spraying is accepted.
Is G.210 bothered by commercial sprays? I definitely have to spray my apple trees… and I use non-organic stuff.
Not to my knowledge. But G.969 was purposely introduced for commercial growers. And is grown at rootstock nurseries accordingly. They typically stock huge numbers of G.969 and better M9 clones.
Like I said. G.210 is an earlier generation of Geneva product. Stocks are decreasing as new releases are in process of planting in. Breeding for organic usage is a newer market. But an expanding one.
It’s only one year earlier and they seem really similar, so it makes me really curious! It must be extra good for something?
I see they specially mention “replant disease resistance” when writing about G.210 so maybe it’s that organic growers wouldn’t use chemical means to treat this- but this rootstock works?
Also found this:
Geneva rootstock have an army of types in one narrow size range.
On the Cornell forums; commercial growers do not like G.210’s suckering problem and report some graft union issues.
I have been disappointed with the G series rootstocks- not very productive, straggly growth, sort of odd growing pattern. Of the ones I used I have taken out most of them because of these issues.
I did put in a G969 as an experiment to see if it has of these issues since it is a newer developed rootstock. I also put in a G890 for the same reason. Having fruit trees is always an experiment and it is a learning process each year you grow fruit.
Yeap. After our disaster with G.214, the 7 survivors seem to be growing well. Especially the ungrafted ones. Not worth it losing 43 though.
All crispy black brown leaves with the cute Shepard’s hooks.
Yep, losing that many is definitely not worth it to learn that.
“Suitable for organic production” usually means a higher vigor rootstock since organic production doesn’t use synthetic fertilizers.
Normal commercial production now uses dwarf rootstocks, irrigation and synthetic fertilizers.
Replant disease resistance is useful for everyone since it means the rootstock has resistance to soil born diseases. It’s especially useful to commercial growers that are reusing old orchard ground because they can avoid fumigating the soil. Many of the Geneva series rootstocks have full or partial replant disease resistance.