I’m a little new to this, and in my pea-brain can’t quite tell what the benefit of one vs. the other is between these two.
The parentage and size, resistance or tolerance to this or that seem the same, no real difference I can discern in the ‘product sheet’ or readings here & there.
My interest is backyard orchard in upper midwest Z5, maybe some grafting from feral/wild and/or nursery cultivar. I’m ordering 3 apple trees from Cummins (Alkmene, Ashmead’s, & Roxbury–unless any prove unavailable as did a couple I’d originally had), A couple were available on both; so I just sort of guessed… But there must be some difference and I ought to know!
It is growing straight up which I understand is a characteristic. I’ll be notching the bark above some petioles this early spring to try and get it to branch.
I was just combing through all the differences in the Geneva rootstocks for another project. The two are very similar. The biggest difference is that 969 seems to have a higher yield to the point fruit quality might be impacted if not managed appropriately. I went with 890, as the goal was to make trees that require as little fuss as possible. In a professional orchard setting, 969 or one of the more dwarfing selections would be a better choice, as it would up the yield and profits per acre. In a home setting, sometimes the best play is a lower fuss tree even if the theoretically attainable yield is lower.
I have both G890 and G969. I am growing the 100+ 890s as freestanding trees, and the 100 or so 969s on a 4 wire trellis system, planted 42" apart, 12 feet between rows. Different management styles, as it seems the 969 dontend to be heavier bearing.
OK, as I sort of thought, seems like a subtle difference more important to the larger-scale orchardist than the bloke with six garden apples eh? (my other three are on 111, Antonovka, & ‘seedling’).
I have Roxbury Russet on G.890. It is in its 5th year, and 2nd year setting fruit. Seems to be doing well, as are most of the trees I have on that stock. I have a few trees on G.969 as well. They are doing pretty well, but definitely less vigorous than 890.
Let me put it more clearly: if you want higher yield and don’t mind the extra work of trellising and thinning, go with 969. If you want “enough” of a yield with a more reasonable amount of effort, go with 890.
So 969 is for trellising not growing as a regular free-standing tree (or maybe just better at it)? I didn’t notice that in the Geneva data sheets, etc. but perhaps I misunderstood. Is there a best technique for a backyard orchard tree with this then? I’m hoping for the ‘no trouble’ variant of just having some fruit trees free-standing.
Anyway, too late to turn back now I guess ((I’ll have on 969 & 2 of 890).
Somehow I guess I’ll survive (there is an overwhelming number of heavily fruiting wild/feral apples of all sizes & sorts all over here, more than I could ever even eat one off each tree!)
The 969 will make a fine tree that is free standing, as will the 890. Many folks are just using the 969 as it is supposed to be a smaller tree at maturity and will do well on a trellis.
I have 2 trees on 969 and have staked them to keep them growing nice and straight for now. I expect/hope that won’t be necessary eventually. But I do remember reading a comparison somewhere that showed the caliper of the trunk fattened up faster on the 890, which probably makes it easier to grow without support earlier.
Frankly what you have grafted to the rootstock probably has as much of an effect as anything. One of mine is Kerr, which seems pretty straight on its own if tending toward a smaller tree, and the other is MonArk, which is more weepy/willowy and definitely needed the support.
969 had that whole size issue going with it. It was supposed to be a M7 size tree. But a lot of places out west it comes in just a bit larger then M26.
890 takes that a step further according to Treco. 50% out West; 60-65% in NY