Don't be too disappointed- you rolled the dice, took a chance and now it's time to cut your losses, IMO. It was an experiment and because of Methely's high susceptability to black knot it seems it wouldn't be useful as stock for grafts even if it was hardy enough for your climate not to get cambium shakes and frozen flower buds. Better to start with a tree with known hardiness that you can graft your experiments to. Here, in S. NY, Methely is not worth growing at many sites just by virtue of being the typhoid Mary of black knot. I actually am surprised that this weakness is rarely noted in the literature.

Plums are slow, wait for year 3 or 4 to get a couple of plums. Year 5 or 6 for a lot of plums. It will change a bit depending on rootstock. For quicker results peaches are faster.

Pretty hard to diagnose plant problems sight unseen but what you describe sounds a lot like bacterial canker, which can be extremely common in members of the Prunus genus. Ideally, it would be best to confirm the diagnosis with your local extension office. They are usually very good at these things so if they said nothing to worry about, chances are good to follow that directive. It helps if you provide them with as complete a history as possible - sufficient samples and photos (not just a verbal description) for them to make an accurate assessment. Then they can direct you in the recommended treatment. Or you can Google 'bacterial canker' and take it from there. Have you tried orchard mason bees for pollenization? These are some of the earliest pollinators, available online or at many garden centers,

Like animals, trees grown from seed must pass through several phases of development before they become sexually mature and capable of producing reproductive parts (blooms/ seeds/ fruit). The plant phases of seed - seedling - juvenile - sexually mature are roughly mirrored in human developmental stages of embryonic - infantile - juvenile - adult/ sexually mature. A freshly sprouted seedling is no more capable of producing reproductive parts (blooms/ seeds/ fruit) than an infant. Too, a plant's aging process is different than an animal's. Where animals age chronologically, plants age ontogenetically. Ontogenetic aging can be thought of in terms of how many cell divisions have occurred to move the plant to its current phase of development. One might reason that the most recent new growth would be the youngest part of the plant, but ontogenetically, it is the the oldest part of the plant because it has taken many more cell divisions to produce the newest parts. Ontogenetically, the youngest part of a tree grown from seed will always be the root to shoot transition area at the base of the trunk, no matter how old the tree is chronologically. Pruning a tree back hard can easily remove all existing mature growth and return it to a juvenile phase that would require a considerable amount of new growth before the wood again becomes mature. All factors that influence growth rate have an impact on how long (chronologically) it takes a plant to become sexually mature, so thinking that a change in nutrition alone will cause a plant to bloom is misguided. The fastest seedlings to mature within any given species will depend on how proficient Mother Nature or the plant's grower is at providing ideal cultural conditions. Ideal cultural conditions = most rapid growth rate and shortest period of time to reach maturity; this, simply because ideal conditions are most conducive to cell divisions and therefore a fruitful tree at a younger chronological age. It should be noted that applying nutrients or other products in willy nilly fashion with no knowledge of whether or not there is an actual deficiency of those nutrients or no good reason to apply them is highly likely to be limiting in terms of both growth and rate of maturation. Whenever we discuss what is or isn't an appropriate part of the methodology we use to make certain our plants get all the nutrients essential to growth and good health, we would probably first want to be sure our objectives are on target. It's difficult to argue with the idea that our focus in supplying supplemental nutrition to our plants should be on ensuring all the nutrients plants normally assimilate from the soil are A) IN the soil and available for uptake at all times, B) in the soil in a favorable ratio - that is to say in a ratio that mimics the ratio at which the plant actually uses the nutrient, C) at a concentration high enough to ensure no nutritional deficiencies, yet still low enough to ensure the plant's ability to take up water efficiently, and the nutrients dissolved in that water won't be impeded (by a high concentration of solubles in the soil solution). The part in bold is where growers often run afoul of sound husbandry. By adding unnecessary nutrients we A) skew the ratio of nutrients, each to the others, such that an excess of one nutrient causes a deficiency of one or more other nutrients, and B) make it more difficult for the plant to assimilate water and nutrients. So, for plants in containers, best results can be had by choosing 1 fertilizer with an appropriate nutrient ratio and all the nutrients essential to normal growth. Forget the snake oil products and claims made on product packaging by sellers whose only goal is separating you from your money. For plants in the landscape, a soil test is ESSENTIAL for any grower aiming at providing the best cultural conditions possible. "A little extra" is almost always going to be limiting rather than beneficial; otherwise, it wouldn't be "extra". Al