Oh, ok Ken. I see the form now. I don't think I need 1 gallon trees right now. I ordered quite a lot of understock that will be arriving in bare root form which will tie me over. for next year. I understand if your graft does not take that you can use that same understock again the next year. Year 3 I will analyze how much I have left and work from there. At least I will have enough understock again for next year. Also, I received information on how to make my life much easier from a friend by watering my understock with sprinklers set on a timer. That will be heaven for me and alleviate my concerns if I go out of town. I think I may be able to begin grafting some of my trees this weekend. I am so excited and will report back on my success.

They can be branched, certainly. If You were to graft a scion that size, you'd need a seedling that looked similar, i.e. the same amount of foliage/thicker trunk/more roots. Everything when grafting has to be of proportionate size. So, returning to grafting a very small scion on a large seedling, a decent amount of foliage on the seedling is retained until the scion seems proportionate on its own/w/o the need for foliage on the seedling to survive from a certain point on forward... It may be years until all the seedling-rootstock foliage is slowly removed over a period of time while the scion grows during those years... and eventually the end result is a remaining scion on the rootstock that is supporting the root-system with all all the energy the roots need coming from the scion. Every situation is up to the grafter to decide what to do. Some more extreme than others. I've kept branching on a grafted plant for 5-years or more until my scion was ready to support the need of balance to feed the root system. It's a feel..... something you learn, sometimes the hard way. Dax

Alex- Re: "Now, I have also heard that in certain cases, the rootstock is left on and even if it has no foliage, that it will still be beneficial to the plant's health and it is about this that I'm curious." -I have never heard this. A shoot without foliage eliminates photosynthesis and nutrient cycling, thereby cancelling root/shoot growth benefits. -A stub might be better in many instances rather than a near-flush-cut wound depending on the plant's ability to heal and the site of CODIT (Compartmentalization of Decay in Trees). If the understock is similar diameter to the graft, or larger, the ability of the remaining understock to heal the wound following complete removal of the understock could be limited and could invite additional infection or decay. As such, if you remove the understock to a stub 1-2" above the graft union, then allow the grafted plant to develop larger, then remove the stub completely after the grafted plant is 2x or more the diameter of the stub, it will more completely heal and cover the graft union. "Which plants might be good candidates for this sort of treatment, and why would you do this rather than leave on a full branch with leaves (one which is not shading the scion of course)? Why would you "remove the understock gradually" rather than leave a branch on until no longer needed and cut it off all at once?" -The more understock foliage you maintain, the larger the understock diameter will be. You don't want a massive diameter, because when you ultimately remove it, you want the wound to heal quickly. By removing the understock gradually on graft-sensitive varieties, you still maintain the beneficial root-shoot interactions, but keep the caliper of the understock minimized. -Good candidates for this have been mentioned above: true miniatures, many golden or variegated varieties. -Timing related to removal of the understock: this depends on growing conditions, health of the plant overall, etc. Dax's advice on when you can remove understock for a miniature is good, I might upgrade from a "golf ball" size to a "tennis ball" size. For golden/sensitive varieties, it depends on health, growth rate, sun/shade, etc. -Brent

The reason that I asked this question is that in a Spanish paper minatures had a high rate of virus infection which the authors attributed to pollen infection. They did not state whether the minatures were own root or grafted plants. Has there been any discussion of this finding in Europe? Title: "Incidence of Rose Viruses in Spain" Authors: M. Cambra, J.L. Martinez-Torres, M.J. Benaches, E. Camarasa, and M.T. Gorris. Published in: Acta Horticulturae, volumn 246,pages 309-312, (1989). They found 4.2% of the roses had Prunus necrotic ring spot virus. The breakdown was: 44.0 % of the minatures, 1.1 % of the hybrid teas, and 1.5 % of those budded on Manetti rootstocks. They state: "The high rate of PNRSV contamination in minature varieties seems to be associated to their long existence as opposed to little contamination in the hybrid varieties which were more recently established. The rate of contamination in Manetti rootstock is quite low; this is probably due to the usual nursery practice of preventing mother plants from flowering. Manetti plants giving PNRSV positive, might have been graft-contaminated in the most part." Later in another paragraph they say:"....since this virus is pollen transmitted (in addition to grafting)." They studied 4,730 rose samples, which they state "included all varieties and rootstocks most commonly grown in Spain for cut flower rose cultivation. They were collected from a number of nurseries and commercial plantings."