M111 doesn't crop annually and has small fruit? Since when?

So what's the difference between G41 and G11? I'm pretty sure 11 is all of those.

What they need is an M9 like rootstock that anchors.

myk:

Since you know more about apple rootstocks than the Washington state apple industry why don't you enlighten us further.

I'm with Mykl here. Those evaluations are geared to commercial growers and sizing up is about getting almost every apple on the tree to a uniform large size in commercial conditions (least possible labor, maximum water and N).

I bet 111 will size up better than any of the other rootstocks listed here in most soils on a dry year in an unirrigated situation. In any situation size will be much more affected by pruning, thinning, nutrition and irrigation than by rootstock. I think you may have misread what was said about 106 as it is always touted as sizing well for a vigorous rootstock. I read the article but don't remember what was written about 106.

M7 often is too loose during first years of heavy cropping but will eventually anchor perfectly well if you stake it early in its life (first 7 or 8 years). Having to stake it is a pain although vigorous late fruiting varieties seem not to need staking IME.

The latest new thing is always the best but lets give these Cornell rootstocks a couple of decades before we pronounce any of them ideal.

Somehow the Japanese are able to produce the largest and highest quality apples in the world with European productivity on seedling rootstocks. Of course there's probably a lot more labor per apple than anywhere else.

By the way, the article wasn't written by the Washington state apple industry.

As best as I can tell one article was from a talk given by Tom Auvil horticulturist with the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission. This is the one giving comparisons of all the rootstocks. To me that pretty much qualifies as the industry opinion.

The companion article about G41 was quoting Herb Aldwinckle Cornell plant pathologist.

The propogation issues with G41 are stoolbed issues. It is hard to build supplies of this rootstock and that's why it isn't more available. It's not issues with the rootstock during budding or grafting.

"myk:

Since you know more about apple rootstocks than the Washington state apple industry why don't you enlighten us further."

I don't and never claimed to.
I have just NEVER heard that (until now) or experienced that with M111 (only have one bearing but have known and heard of many). When I was researching G11 before I bought it last year I recall seeing it with what you posted saying about it plus that it isn't as bad about replant as the other Genevas (at the time).

I haven't looked into G41 and going by memory on G11, crown rot for G11 vs wooly aphid for G41 (G11 is moderate for wooly aphid). Unless you forgot to list something I can't say that either of those resistances would make either "best" for everyone.
Fireblight, replant, hardy, precocious and high yielding (possibly overly so) apply to both.

I'm trying to talk my niece into a real orchard and am trying to learn about rootstock so I can be ready with the "best" when she gives in. So is there something else that makes G41 the best or is it simply the newest?

Since you reminded me, what are spines in the stoolbed?

Here's something from Cummins about the Genevas, http://www.cumminsnursery.com/aboutroot.htm
They compare G41 to M9 and G11 to M26. But they also say G11 isn't as resistant to FB as other Genevas.

Fruitnut, I believe industry opinion is best gauged by what the industry is buying and even if this rootstock was widely available, most people in the industry are much too conservative to put all their chips on the current opinions of the pedigreed gurus.

Industry opinion swings much more slowly than the opinions of experts whose livelihoods aren't directly based on growing and selling apples for profit. Growers tend to be quite conservative. I expect most of them are at the point of trialing G41 only and not fully endorsing it.

The only "opinions" that I've ever listened to were the results from the NC140 trials. It always seems that theirs always something better than something else and it always comes from some person who usually has some type of interest in mass production or related in some way to them. This type just may be all that its said to be, and I'm sure all of us in the commercial side of it hope so, but for the propagator like us were interested in how it preforms in our market areas soils,, only time tells I guess.
It seems to grow readily as tissue culture samples, setting up for micro budding.. who knows.

MKY,

The primary difference commercially is that G.41 has much better resistance to replant disease than G.11. Otherwise, they are similar.

I like M111 because it is an easy, low-maintenance rootstock. But it does produce a large plant -- a small tree, not a large bush, like the real dwarfing rootstocks produce. I think many of the newer rootstocks (and M9) are said to confer larger fruit in commercial settings, but if you are a backyard grower, that's unlikely to be an important consideration. My M111 is a little biennial in its bearing. You could probably manage it so as to avoid that.

It is always strange when someone pulls something out of the archives. Reminds you that you have to be careful what you post. You may casually send something off at the other side of a hard days work and a couple beers and it could haunt you for years.

"Industry opinion swings much more slowly than the opinions of experts whose livelihoods aren't directly based on growing and selling apples for profit. Growers tend to be quite conservative. I expect most of them are at the point of trialing G41 only and not fully endorsing."

I agree, you can say that with almost any industry.

Greetings:

M7 was once a favorite for MN & WI orchardists. Most of what I planted years ago was on M7 at the commercial
orchards I worked at. Yes it does sucker a lot with age,
but we never staked our trees and they did fine.

While out of favor now to all the orchardists here planting on Bud-9, I still know of several orchardists who still plant it.
They never stake their trees and have grown them on M7 for more years than I care to count.

No offense to anyone who finds their M7 tips unless staked,
I just want to point out I do not see that happening here in
Wisconsin unless they were planted on sandy soils.

Rootstocks all seem to perform differently in different areas
of the country (soils, temps, ect). That is why we have so many to choose from. None are perfect (yet) for all situations.

I have M7 and M111 currently and do fine on a very windy
site with clay soil. None of them are staked. Bud-9 and
M26 do need staking for me when I grow them.

SA, If you google M7 rootstock and poor anchorage you will see that it is a widespread problem- in Europe, Canada, Ca , etc.. You may have worked in a particular soil where it isn't a problem, but I bet there are sites even in your region where tipping is a huge problem with this rootstock. I've certainly had issues with it with many varieties in many soils. I can't see how climate would make all that much difference- got any theories?

Thanks Harvestman. No I have no theories on the issue.
A friend of mine plants M7 in his commercial orchard in
NW WI and loves them. He also has Bud-9 but prefers
M7 when he can find them. They are getting hard to find since commercially it is no longer in favor.

My experiences with M7 mimic his. Perhaps we are just lucky. We both plant on heavy clay soils. It seems the Geneva series are still not widely available. For now I am happy with M7. If I can find trees on G-41 I will give them a test.