From what supplier did those bare own-roots come?

They came from Edmunds Roses.

The growers test their varieties in the field for whether they grow better as own-root varieties or as grafted plants.

Some roses -- i.e. Belinda's Dream -- do great as own root plants. That is not normal however -- most varieties do better grafted.

kstrong, unless by "varieties" you mean within the class of hybrid teas, no, most varieties do not do better grafted. Most antique and early modern classes of roses, ie, polyanthas, hybrid musks, etc, do much better own root. Grafting is primarily for winter hardiness, which is not good in many hybrid teas because of the Tea ancestry, and in some cases for disease resistance, much of which has been bred out of hybrid teas. There are also a few soil problems, such as the nematodes in FL that make grafts a better option. But by and large, roses have been surviving on their own roots for over 30,000,000 yeas.

Fewer and fewer roses will be sold grafted, as time goes by.

There are fewer and fewer people who know how to do it, and are willing to spend days on their knees in the rose fields for field-workers pay.

Jeri

No, catsrose, I do not mean just "hybrid teas." The old roses that have survived have largely done so because they "made the cut," i.e. the natural weeding out process called evolution that results in the stronger varieties surviving. Thus, yes, I agree -- the oldest roses around largely are strong on their own roots. But those roses of relatively modern vintage are, by and large, better on Dr. Huey, Fortuniana and/or multiflora rootstocks, if there is someone available to do that work (which as Jeri correctly points out, is becoming rare now). But even here is SoCal, I far prefer modern roses to be grafted to having them on their own roots -- so I strongly disagree with your blanket statement that "grafting is primarily for winter hardiness." Nope. Grafting is to give the rose a shot of (usually much needed) vigor from my vantage point. Thirty million years?? Did you mean that?

Reviewing rose literature from the 19th and very early 20th centuries, one finds frequent references to, and vocal recommendations in favor of, grafting.

When rose fanciers' tastes changed fairly radically in the early 20th century, the older varieties essentially became pass-along plants. It's reasonable to conclude that a number of once-popular roses were doomed to extinction simply because they were no longer being routinely grafted, and were feeble growers on their own roots. Not only did they fall out of favor, but, for lack of the "push" of a vigorous root system, they fell out of existence. As kstrong states above, they failed to make the cut. Fortunately, images of some of those lost beauties are preserved in antique prints and catalog illustrations.

I agree with kstrong's remarks about HTs on their own roots. IMO, the vast majority of HTs (and I'll add Floribundas) on their own roots are hardly worth the effort.

Yes, roses have been around for at least 30-35,000,000 years and have been cultivated for about 5000 years.

I agree that many HTs (and their cousins, floribundas, grandifloras, and many of the arge flowered climbers/climbing HTs) do not do well on their own roots even in mild climates. However, many modern cultivars of other classes do do well on their own roots: modern polyanthas, rugosas, hybrid musks, ramblers, etc all do fine.

Also, a great many of the pre-20th century roses have survived--that is what the Antiques forum here on GW is all about. They did not fall into extinction for lack of grafts or vigor. I have a relatively modest collection of 500 varieties of antique roses of all classes and all are own-root.

I'm guessing that more than a few of us here retain a relatively good command of the obvious, and are fully aware of the fact that " . . .a great many of the pre-20th century roses have survived" and, indeed, are celebrated even today on these post-20th century forums.

But the unfortunate reality remains that, for a variety of reasons, many roses developed and marketed in pre-20th century eras did not survive, some because they didn't grow well on their own roots -- altho countless others certainly did, & inhabit gardens around the globe to this day.

It's not difficult to find evidence that pre-20th century growers did not hesitate to resort to the ancient art of grafting to propagate and distribute varieties that, without grafting, would have had no market value. Even now there are a few notable OGRs that are hardly worth attempting unless one can find them grafted to a vigorous rootstock.

Regarding kstrong's initial post on this thread: It seems to me that even a casual reading of those comments indicates that kstrong was commenting specifically about present-day growers and modern roses. I'd wager that I'm not the only one who shares her opinions.

We have a communication problem here. Your are using words very generically and that is misleading. We obviously cannot continue this discussion until terms have been defined. As I have been attempting to point out, as long as your term "modern roses" refers to Hybrid Teas, I will, as I have done, agree. Strictly speaking "modern roses" are those classes developed after 1867, of which Hybrid Teas are only one and many of which, as I mentioned above, do very well own-root. What is normal for one class is not necessarily normal for other classes. For instance, most of the OGR growers in the US are own-root, including many of the modern classes.

Catsrose -- I do NOT confine "modern roses" to hybrid teas. Hope that clarifies things.

Kathy Strong
San Juan Capistrano, CA

I grow mostly old garden roses here in Texas, and own root seems to work the best. However, in the last year or so, haven ventured into the modern hybrids which are grafted. We shall see how they do in our climate...

kstrong,
Instead of making sweeping statements about what is normal in modern roses, perhaps you can discuss the +s and -s of own-root and grafts and to which classes of modern roses they apply. For instance, there is a discussion right now on the Antiques forum about using grafts to avoid the suckering of gallicas (old and newer varieties). And I noticed your name on an earlier discussion of own-root Austins, where several people noted that rootstocks were transmitting RMV. Such a discussion would probably be a lot more helpful.

Catsrose -- please just accept that we have a difference of opinion. And differences of opinion are to be expected on discussion boards of this type. No big deal. No one says you and I have to agree.

In general, for me, grafted roses are far more vigorous than ungrafted roses. Unless I have particular information that a rose will grow vigorously on its own roots, which is not that often, I will chose to get the grafted rose as my default position, regardless of what "class" of roses it happens to fall into. And we could get off on an whole different discussion about whether one should trust the various classifications, anyway, because those classifications can be quite random also. Face it, we have to have a "default" position when choosing roses, as there is quite often no information to be had on a particular variety, especially if you grow many, as I do, that are not popular in commerce.

I surely know there are exceptions to this general position, and every once in a while, I happen on one that is truly quite surprising -- I have, for example, one in mind that grows MUCH better on its own roots than the other one I have grafted and growing on Fortuniana, and THAT's saying something. That rose, by the way, is a shrub called Phantom (aka Phantom of the Opera), which I highly recommend whenever I get the chance.

I have another general default position though, if you want to hear it. (tee hee). That is that the miore unique a color a rose has, the more likely it is got problems in other areas, such as in vigor when growing on its own roots. I also have an explanation, having dabbled in breeding. And that is that the more unique a bloom, the more likely it is not to be culled, notwithstanding the vigor issues or other problems. Thus, if a rose from seed turns out to be "just pink" then it needs to have a multitude of blooms or great vigor/health or something else wonderful to survive the culling process. BUT, if it is orange with purple overtones, then I am keeping it no matter what the other issues. Probably the same thing goes on in broader scale for the general universe of breeders.

All of which means . . . I have a right to expect a pink rose to grow better than an orange and purple rose.

I'll accept that we have a difference of opinion on own-root, to that is not really what I took issue with.

As to your color theory, it holds only where color is genetically linked to various forms of vigor. For instance, rosa foetida is very prone to blackspot, or, more specifically, coming from a hot, dry climate, it has not needed to select for BS resistance. So, roses with foetida in their genes will be more prone to BS, all else being equal.

Also, roses with unique blooms may not be culled immediately, but if their overall hardiness is poor, eventually they will be dropped. As you pointed out above, the weaklings are left behind.

Eventually we will map out the various rose genomes and breeders will be able to manipulate accordingly. And then all roses will be grown own-root because why bother bother to produce a rose that has to be grafted when you can skip that whole mess and simply breed for own-root vigor.

Sara Ann,

I am no expert but I can speak from personal experience. For me the advantage to own root roses is they usually grow more leaves at the bottom of the plant so that the rose is less likely to have "bare legs' (canes). The plants tend to be fuller for me when mature. I like grafted roses when I need more vigor to establish a rose quickly. Many modern hybrid tea, grandiflora and floribunda roses are only available grafted because they lack the vigor to easily establish themselves own root. Some are available eventually own root if they are vigorous enough. Some examples are Icebergs, Julia Child, Livin' Easy, Gertrude Jekyll, Golden Celebration, Carefree Beauty, Bonica, etc. These more modern roses are available both own root and grafted.

My goals, my past personal results and the shared experiences of those who are kind enough to share their thoughts and are more talented than I (like Kathy and Catsrose), help me to optimize my results. What I have heard many times on this and other forums is what does not work for many others in your climate zone most likely will not work for you. So I try to pick wisely and hopefully end up dealing with fewer problems. Sometimes advice is also not "absolute" as my results vary somewhat from the experiences of others.

The answer to your question is "it depends" on your goal(s) for growing your roses. Personally, I have different motives depending on my goal for a particular area of my yard. I don't spray and I try to garden organically so I try to pick roses that are capable of thriving without protection. This limits my choices a lot but I am not exhibiting roses and I like not having to spray regularly.

I have an area where I am growing all grafted modern hybrid teas along a fence. I was looking for high vigor, immediate bloom production and plants that would establish themselves quickly. I planted companion plants around them to cover any bare legs.

In pots, I like own root roses when I can get them because in my experience they are fuller, better looking bushes when mature. I have to be more patient with them because they take some time to build out as previously mentioned by Kathy and Catsrose.

All of my Old Garden or Antique roses, like Reve d'Or, Reine de Violettes, Maman Cochet, Mon. Tillier, etc. are own roots because they grow vigorously that way and they are widely available for purchase.

I have areas of my yard that are all own root old garden roses and some that are all grafted more modern roses. Most of the old garden varieties are widely available own root but can be ordered grafted from specialty nurseries willing to graft plants for you, like Burlington in Ca.

If I had the goal of huge plants and larger flowers, had a lot more space and did not mind staking them I would choose roses that are available grafted on Fortuniana root stock.

I like seeing pictures of mature whole plants to see how they look and with further research about what grows well in my local climate shared by others on this site and Help Me Find I believe I am making better decisions when deciding what to plant where.

I believe more gardeners today are 'requesting' own root roses and the growers are now responding by offering those varieties that can be grown either way. That's not to say own root is better than grafted but it's really up to you based on your gardening goals. I also personally believe it's cheaper in the long run for the grower to produce own root roses if the plants mature fast enough. The growers have to be careful that the casual gardener does not judge their roses negatively if a neighbor is growing the same rose grafted and their bush is performing better so the growers pick and choose those varieties where the difference is minimal.

Good luck and happy gardening....

Lee

This post was edited by leezen4u on Wed, Sep 25, 13 at 14:52

Lee,

What roses do you grow that are likely to have bare legs when grafted, but don't when grown own-root? I'm curious because I've never observed that difference. My very healthy own-root Climbing SDLM has a super-bare set of legs. Among my few own-root HTs, 'Governor Rosellini' is always bare almost half way up his 6 ft+ height. I have a couple of other foliage-challenged own-root HTs, the Governor just happens to be the only one I can see thru my window at the moment.

Another surprise on this thread was the poster above who stated that her/his private garden of 500 roses is a *modest collection*. Not in my dimension is that modest. :)

Maybe it's modest compared to the Dark Lady's collection of 2000+ roses in Virginia.
My roses are all grafted on Huey or multiflora, and I haven't observed much in the way of bare legs, even on my few HTs, which do grow more stiffly and upright than shrub roses. Most of the floribundas have quite pleasing shapes with the exception of one or two (Ebb Tide and Sisters Fairy Tale). But I have so called HTs which don't grow like HTs at all (Frederic Mistral, Abbaye de Cluny and others), so it's quite a mishmash of growth habits, none of which have much to do with what the roses are grafted on. Diane

I'm also curious about that generalization Lee -- your claim that grafted roses are more "bare-legged" than own root roses. That would not be true in my location, and I do grow quite a few roses where I have both a grafted plant and an own root plant of the same variety.

And I do think it is important to compare apples with apples here -- i.e., only roses of which you grow two specimens, one grafted and one not grafted. Comparisons between two different varieties, even though in the same "class," i.e. florries or hybrid teas for example, could not provide an accurate basis for that type of generalization. There is just too much variation amongst the various growth habits of say, "hybrid teas" to do that.

No doubt Mr. Lincoln (which is prone to bare legs anyway) would have that fault even as an own root plant, although I don't know anyone who has grown it own root.

Rose gardeners the world over, esp those having short growing seasons (like Canadians and the majority of Europeans), doubtless are cringing in horror at Catsrose's prediction of that brave new world to come in which all roses will be own-root. I myself am already despondent about a bleak future in which all "unique blooms" growing atop plants having less than robust roots "will be dropped . . . weaklings left behind."

It's odd that the disdain for grafted plants doesn't extend also to other other genera. Almost 100% of all tree fruit we consume is grown on grafted trees; the finest tree peonies are grafted; almost all Japanese maples are grafted; many camellias are grafted (esp some having "unique blooms"), and the list goes on and on . . . It's only roses, it seems, that are under increasing demands to either produce the goods on their own roots, or bite the dust.

It's fortunate for the rose world in general -- & esp for rose preservationists -- that the headlong rush toward own-root production is exclusively a U.S. phenomenon. Producers elsewhere will continue their wise practices of grafting to seed-grown rootstock, and producing healthy roses that perform well under a variety of conditions. To do otherwise (ie, declare that the genus Rosa shall henceforth be own-root or nothing) is tantamount to a baby-out-with-the-bathwater proposition, isn't it?

My most vigorous Austins are the two that are own root. But in no way does that make me think that all Austins are better one way or the other. And only the two grown side by side can I consider as a good test of that one Austin. Yes the own root (self rooted) baby is a tad smaller than the mother plant I separated it from, but only by a tad and when you consider the difference to start with, I have no doubts that baby will over take mom in to time at all.

The only virtue in grafts is to provide vigor that is not inherent in the plant. If one could tweek the genes, either by manipulating the site or by more informed breeding, one could produce beautiful blooms on hardier roots. Also, tastier fruit, lacier maples, etc. Grafts are like furnaces and air conditioners: they allow an existence that the environment itself does not support. But this from someone who cannot fathom why the Pilgrims stayed in MA instead of heading south.

Windeaux -- actually, I think the trend in the U.S. is more towards grafting in other -- non-rose -- plants than the other way around. Good point.

Here in California the new hot thing this year was grafted veggie plants. Mostly tomatoes. There has always been an issue here with soil borne diseases that affect tomatoes that makes it the general wisdom that you have to "rotate": your growing areas, so you don't use the same plot of land two years in a row for tomatoes. The new grafted tomatoes both add vigor in general (a lot of vigor) and solve the rotation problem because the rootstocks are selected to withstand these soil-borne diseases. I grew the plants and they -- the grafted ones -- can put out 5 times as many tomatoes in a season as the ungrafted ones, same variety. And the rotation rule is a nuisance. Generally, I would rather grow tomatoes wherever I grew them last year than to have to prepare a whole new plot. It's just easier. And with lot sizes getting ever smaller and land ever more scarce, this would seem to be something that is going to be coming to all areas of the U.S. soon.

Moreover, in countries where growing land is scarce, like Japan, grafted veggies have been the norm for a long while. We are just coming late to the party here in the U.S.

Here is a link that might be useful: Mighty Mato's

I am neutral in this discussion (I like both grafted and own root). I am not trying to be right in this discussion just offering an opinion. My comments are all based on my personal experience only. The plants that (seem to be) fuller (for me) own root are icebergs (pink and white), Frederic Mistral and Livin' Easy. I also have own root plants that I am comparing to grafted plants at the South Coast Botanical Gardens.

My apologies to anyone upset by my comments. They are my personal opinions based on my own personal observation and I am not stating them as facts.

This is an interesting discussion, thanks for sharing your experiences

Lee

That's interesting about your Frederic Mistral, Lee, because I have an enormous, fat, Fred that's grafted on Huey. It's so wide and thick we can't get by on the grass path around it, and have to stomp through a flower bed to avoid smashing into Fred. I think this rose would be thick if it were grafted on petunia roots! Ar least around here. Diane