I don't see a problem. Even if many old rose nurseries go to growing roses primarily own root, there's no reason they couldn't graft those varieties that grow poorly on their own roots. And there will continue to be a demand, I suspect, for roses grafted on specific rootstocks for certain environments, as for example grafting roses on nemotode-resistant Fortuniana in Florida.

The economic incentive is there to continue to propagate roses by budding: it's simply cheaper to do so.

I don't know. Commerce follows demand. How many of the currently active US based (except Fl) forum members have bought a budded OGR in the last few years? I wonder.. I read so many comments here about this or that rose getting the shovel since it didn't do well on its own roots that prompted me to write this.

I guess 'roses getting lost' may be an exaggeration with so many old rose collections maintained around the world, but making them pretty difficult to find in commerce may be a real danger?

Of course budding will always be used for large scale propagation but we're talking antiques here.

PS. and as much as I hate stereotyping, I think that impatience may characterize many gardeners in the US, maybe it characterizes us all in this day and age, which can make things even worse.

Unfortunately, many own-root nurseries apparently refuse to bud anything. My guess is they just don't have the skills or equipment. The biggest (by far) supplier of budded OGRs was Pickering. Palatine is carrying a lot more of them, but there are still major holes.

So far the problem is mostly in roses that are difficult to root. How many times have people asked for sources for spinossisimas that are impossible to find in commerce? I have a lot of them by modern standards, and almost all were purchased as budded plants.

I don't think the weak growers will be impossible to find so much as they are going to alter who can grow what and change the economics of the industry. If too many nurseries are chasing too few customers, more than the weak growers are going to be affected.

Do you think, Nik? Here in the UK, contract budders are getting harder to source (my hort.tutor started out as a contract budder 60 years ago and has seen many, many changes)...but the mechanisation of rose-growing (seeds, then mechanised undercutting, then mechanised uprooting) means that many of our rose-growers are going to be locked into that system for a good while. The main differences with commercial own-root, is that there is simply no need to lease endless fields for stock plants - simply one field to hold the entire catalogue with cuttings rooted under cover. The short time under cultivation - a few months - is appealing for many small propagators but the public still expect to buy a large plant and NOT bands or rooted cuttings. I seriously considered setting up a small nursery selling rooted cuttings here in the UK - an impossibility with traditional over-capitalised rose fields...and this, more than anything, speaks to the possibility of keeping a bigger variety of roses in commerce...as we certainly see with smaller specialised nurseries in other areas of horticulture. There are many variables in this debate and it could go any way - cheap labour from eastern europe has revitalised many rose-growers who had been experiencing difficulties in finding budders prepared to work in situ, for a short season.

Personally, I see absolutely zero chances of good roses vanishing - the garden enthusiasts in England will walk through flames to source this or that plant and would simply bud their own (i certainly would). Roses which do vanish from commerce, often, to my mind, deserve no better, although I will concede that a rose which is a dog in the UK might be glorious in Cali or Florida...in which case, we still see the enormous variety of roses being maintained, somewhere, around the globe. A global database, similar to the millenium seed bank project might be a better way of preserving genetics.

Finally, I am ambivalent about varietuies disappearing - this has ever been the case, and yet newer and often better varieties are being bred - heirloom does not mean better, healthier, tastier, better yielding or any of thses things which we are told we will lse without vigilance - it just means old. I have around 100 roses and will be happy now to just have multiples of the ones I know and love - after all, how many single, white roses does one person need...I simply don't feel that choice is always the great thing we are told it is...I would rather see a local issue solved in a local way - that is, roses bred specifically for a local climate with specific soil requirements - it is just crippling, trying to maintain a ridiculously huge inventory so people can choose from thousands of varieties...but then, being something of a socialist, I am inclined to a bottom-up, local solution to a global problem...and own root plants can be an innovative solution: although you complain about the Austin trick of removing roses from commerce, Nik, personally, I don't much care - after a while, they all start to look the same anyway. I have heard this argument for apple varieties and, indeed, have been evangelistic about old varieties myself...apart from the fact that many of them are rubbish with health issues, fungal problems and hopeless harvests, compared to some innovative modern bred apples. We need to view this with dispassionate eyes I think, and not just sentimental or profit driven ones - there is never just the one solution to fit all situations.

Growing a small number of good plants, well suited to local conditions, without the depredations of ruined, over-worked fields which is so often the result of a global ag./hort.trade (not to mention the carbon footprint of across the globe deliveries and bad employment practices) is a valid answer to global issues which involve greed, profit and that sometimes petulant demand for yet more and more choice. Many tentacles, complex but always worth discussing. There are other factors at play - not just the loss of choice to the consumer.

I have a question - does anyone know when budding became the normal way of propagating roses in the rose industry?

Jackie

Budding became 'big' before the rose industry became big.

In one of the Dean Hole books, there was a description of someone starting a rose garden. First he contracted for two thousand slips of R. canina. Once they were planted in his garden and grew over a winter, THEN he brought in bud wood and budded his garden, rootstock already being established there.

(The slips came from the fencerows of England.)

Another level in this sort of effort was when there was a publication listing whether particular roses did better as standard plants or as dwarfs (the dwarfs being grafted much lower on the rootstock.)

By the 1920s, a book I have about growing plants (it was a university text book) illustrated ten different roses being budded onto one stem of R. multiflora) and each one was labeled.

I for one would have no problem with buying budded plants if the rose does better that way. Case in point is Carding Mill which I bought from Austin Roses years ago which grew like a fiend versus my own-root Carding Mill now which refuses to budge, ditto Charles Rennie McIntosh. In water-poor areas it seems wasteful to lavish water on little plants year after year versus garden-worthy specimens in one year. It would be nice if the method of propagation were chosen according to how a rose fares best. However, even that may depend on climate and other circumstances, so I'm not sure if there will ever be a clear-cut answer.

Interesting exchange of ideas. Keep it coming please.

Camps, I'm in the process of considering starting a small business with warm (mostly) climate antiques over here targeting mainly foreign mail order bare-root customers in the EU and taking advantage of low labour costs (but other costs of doing business here are high). I don't think this may ever take off, for lots of reasons, one being there are already established and reputable business with huge collections doing the same thing, the other being there's almost zero local market, but anyhow I'm trying to make a business plan as an exercise. Maybe you could help me appreciate what would be involved form the propagation / cultivation side of things? If you could, maybe an offline conversation might be useful?

People should appreciate that very many of the OGRs that we so love were never bred to live on their own roots (regardless if they're good at at it not). I'm not sure when budding became the norm but I think it was much earlier than most people think. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the norm, at least in Europe, much before the 20th century. Maybe someone can enlighten us about this.

Copying from a comment on Felicite et Perpetue in HMF:

'The Cottage Gardener 112-113 (Nov 20, 1851)
Hardy Climbing Roses: Evergreens
Donald Beaton

The best of all this class is unquestionably Felicite Perpetuelle, or
Perpetue, as some call it, because every other free-growing Rose will
grow on it by budding. If I had a castle to cover round and round with
all manner of Roses, I would guarantee that I could flower the Malmaison
Rose on the highest pinnacle of it by means of this one climber, and
the way I would go to work would be this: I would plant young plants of
this climber at nine, ten, or twelve feet apart, according to the height
of the building, and to guard against suckers. I would have the plants
from strong cuttings made in October and November, and all the eyes
picked out of them except the two top ones,—the cuttings being six
inches long, there would be at least four inches of clear stem between
the roots and the first branches, and that would be quite sufficient to
keep down suckers from where they are most apt to grow. Supposing the
two eyes to grow, I would give them their own free will the first year,
and perhaps some manure water into the bargain, if the summer was dry.
At the end of October I would cut them down to ten inches, leaving three
or four buds on each for shoots to begin to bud on. I would bud the
strongest sorts near the bottom, and would leave some shoots unbudded
every season until the top was reached. On them, and near the top, I
would bud the more dwarf sorts. In this way a whole collection of
Perpetuals might easily be established, at little cost, on one kind of
climber, or on half-a-dozen of them if it was preferred, such as I shall
name presently; a shoot here and there of the climbers themselves would
be left to make a greater variety of flower;'

Thanks, Nik - 1851 is pretty early!

My complaint about budded roses is that, in my garden, every single rose I have been able to identify as budded shoots up Dr. Huey suckers continuously. (I take that back - one of them produced De la Grifferaie suckers, which I liked so much better than the boring yellow standard scion that I cut down the standard, and now have a glorious plant of De la Grifferaie). I have even rooted one or two of them (such as Peace) to get a plant which was NOT budded on Dr. Huey. The new own root Peace is growing happily.

I don't know if it is because the producers do not follow the instructions you posted from 1851 about how not to have suckers, but Dr. Huey just takes over around here. My MIL had 2 dozen new HTs planted in her garden a few years ago, and within 5 years ALL of them had rampant Dr. Huey suckers. Also, there are many many neglected gardens (or just gardens where the bushes are pruned by gardening contractors who know nothing about roses) around here where you can see LOTS of Dr. Huey plants growing and mildewing, which I'll bet were originally planted as something else. It just adds another layer of continuous maintenance, if you don't want the roses to revert to Dr. Huey. I put in a couple of rose hedges years ago, and I made sure to buy own root plants, as I could just imagine trying to climb between the closely grown roses to deal with suckers.

I am sure there are some roses which, in some climates, either cannot survive on their own roots, or do not grow fast enough, and are not allowed to mature by impatient gardeners. So be it.

Jackie

No suckers on either Laxa or R. indica major over here... Had a few on roses bought from Germany, I suppose on R. canina of some sort. Good nurseries should remove budeyes from stocks which, I understand, is an art in itself. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about the pros and cons of budding vs own-root. I just thought that the own-root fad might have some negative side effects which some may not readily think about.

I admit to being an impatient gardener but I've spent years nurturing Annie Laurie McDowell, No 92 Nanjing, the early hybrid tea Souvenir du President Carnot, La France, Romaggi Plot Bourbon, The Ingenious Mr. Fairchild and a few others that I unfortunately lost to canker. I'm not giving up on the slow growers now, which includes my newer teas. I did give up on Celine Forestiere but it was in the wrong spot, close to a juniper, and I had no other place for it at the time. If a rose is worth keeping or special to me for any reason I hang in there; with roses that don't thrill me or hate my climate, not so much.

Burling Leong -- Burlington Rose Nursery -- will bud roses if you request it.

And there ARE roses that don't do well on their own roots -- or at least which perform better budded.

Take the 'Eugene de Beauharnais' in my garden. My mature own-root plant never had a clean leaf, once I quit spraying. This still-young plant on Fortuniana is clean as a whistle. 'Barcelona' -- sold as 'Francis Dubreuil' -- is a weakling on its own roots, but makes a lusty 5-footer, budded on Fort. There are many more.

Even Tea Roses, which for the most part are just fine on their own roots, will certainly get bigger, faster, if budded on the right rootstock.

I don't think the method of propagation makes a difference in the survival of OGRs. What is important is that we keep specimens alive. Letting places like Vintage Gardens disappear is the real danger. What we need is specimen museums, which is sort of what the Friends of VG is trying to do with the VG mother plants. The roses will come in and out of vogue; commercial nurseries can pick and choose, propagate however they want. What we need is a Great Benefactor or a govt that will provide fund land, trained personnel, and professional management. Kind of like the Seed Bank. Relying on volunteers and donations doesn't cut it. Many of us with large collections, including the few samples of the many rare roses Gregg struggled to keep in commerce, have no one to pass our collections on to.

Passalong, while certainly an excellent practice, won't help much in the case of roses which cannot produce real garden worthy plants on their own roots as, I suppose, most 'passalongs' occur via the cutting sharing method. If I pass alomng such a cutting to somebody and this somebody fails to be impressed by the plant produced there's little chance this will be further passed along. Demanding own-roots from nurseries almost forces them to hesitate propagating the one's which do not do well one their own roots and this was my original premise when I started this thread.

I don't think grafted roses are dead. I will do OGRs as own root, but there are many that I prefer grafted. It's hard to realize that you have to wait 3+ years for a rose to really look great. Maybe I've just become impatient, but then again, time does not stand still.

The problem with your premise, Nik, is that there are too many variables. Roses behave differently in different environments and nurseries are local affairs. Yes, Roses Unlimited in SC (for example) propagates own root roses that do well in the Mid-Atlantic and southeast. Some will do well anywhere, others won't. As a consumer, I like having a nearby nursery that I can count on to deliver products that will do well for me here. If I want roses that don't do well here, I need to get someone to bud/graft them for me, just as people in Michigan who want to grow Noisettes should also do. Vintage grew thousands of roses own-root. I bought hundreds of them. Most did fine, some struggle, some never made it. My climate and soil are vastly different from N. CA. Given that there are thousands of roses that do do well here, I have no desire to find budded versions of the ones that didn't make it.

Catsrose, I don't see that as a problem with my premise. I see it more as a confirmation...

I live in zone 4. I love own root roses :)

I actually get the same rose the next spring...that I planted the year before!

"Demanding own-roots from nurseries almost forces them to hesitate propagating the one's which do not do well one their own roots . . . "

Really, I don't think people for the most part "demand" own-root roses. I think they take what they can get.

For a long time, what you could get was budded. Nowadays, in Old Roses, what you can get is mostly own-root.

What dictates that is not, for the most part, what the customer prefers, but rather what a nursery has the ability to produce -- and budding on a large-scale, requires a sizeable workforce, made up of skilled individuals, who are willing to work cheap. These days, that can be hard to find.

I know of only one CA nursery which can give you your choice. In most cases, if I can choose, I will choose own-root, but in a handful of cases, I opt for budded.

It takes me about 45 minutes to drive to Northland Rosarium....so that's where I shop. No shipping charges and Carol is wonderful :)

http://northlandrosarium.com/

Yes, I agree it can work both ways. It is often difficult to know which came first the chicken or the egg. Still, I'm only judging from what I read here and what I read again and again is a preference to own roots (whether this is justified or not is not important in this discussion).

How many plants do you think one of the OGR specialized nurseries sell in the US per year? A skilled budder can bud upwards of 1000 roses per day so I think cost may not be an issue. Skill scarcity might well be. In Europe budders tend to be seasonal contract workers paid per plant, not employees.

I would think that if a rose is good, no matter what roots it's on, and it continues to be popular and sell it will probably remain available. Usually only the ones that really aren't so good don't stay in commerce. Even then there are some roses that, as far as growing is concerned are pretty terrible, that still stick around because they're just so beautiful people grow them anyway.

..I don't think this question was meant for us here but I'll stick my oar in, in any case..

...no chance of budded roses dying out in this country... own roots just wouldn't be cost effective and band size roses just wouldn't sell... grafted roses are ready for sale in 18 months from budding... several years for own roots to achieve the same dimensions...

...also slightly disagree with Nik, that good budders are quite skilled and hard to find these days, apparently... although I know that lots of migrant workers are familiar sights in the rose fields here, but I usually see them pruning back... not sure what else they do...

....if we leave the E.U... then our access to own roots on the Continent, will dry up... which will be a shame.. but I doubt customers in the U.K. are major importers, although Austin's here sell a select few own roots...

...if you have a spare 15 minutes, this is a really good video via you tube, showing how Pococks Roses here do their grafting... the rootstocks used, and much more... you might also see a spotted dog or two... I think it's quite informative from our point of view...
Pococks rose video

I think rather than that consumers "pushed" nurseries to sell own-root roses, nurseries opened up and promoted own-root roses as an alternative to budded roses -- because that's what they were set up to produce. That people have come to prefer many -- but not all -- that way indicates that the change had some merit.

Personally, I think that own-root makes for a better growing most garden roses -- note I'm not speaking of HTs for showing, or other more "finicky" roses. I mean your average "flowering shrub" rose, either modern or old. Areas with particular climate and/or soil conditions which dictate preferences for particular rootstocks would be better served by specialists. If your "average rose" is budded, will that "average rootstock" be the one recommended everywhere? Nope. So if you're in a specific region where 'Fortuniana' is what needs to be below the surface, own-root would be just as inappropriate as one of the other rootstocks. If the big producers put everything on 'Dr. Huey' as a default, you're just as out of luck as if the default was own-root. So perhaps the answer would be more smaller nurseries set up for those regional specifics. Anyone willing to learn custom budding could become very popular with their local ARS chapter.

:-)

~Christopher

It is interesting that I have never heard of a "found rose" being originally found on anything other than its own roots. This is not to say that they could not be budded at a later date. What have others come across ?

I think it's all down to the cost per unit. Own root rose is cheaper and easier to produce, you have a mother plant, then you can have the babies. For the budded ones you have to purchase the root stocks, and to bud the roses........am I right? Did I hit the nail right on the head?? :-)

Roseguy --

In the late 80's, when I began looking for Old Roses, the only CA supplier was Roses of Yesterday and Today. Many of their roses originated as Francis E. Lester's Foundlings, but by the time I came along, Lester was long, long gone.

ROY&T was then selling roses grown by a contract-grower in Wasco, and sold budded on Dr. Huey.

The first O.R. roses I experienced came from Antique Rose Emporium in TX, and these were true Own-Root/true BARE Root roses, washed clean of soil, and shipped in damp newspaper.

God help us, we put those poor little things in the ground. Some grew. Most ... for us ... didn't.

By the time we tried again, they were sending O.R. plants in 1-G. Then, Heirloom Old Garden Roses began selling their O.R. plants in "tree bands," and you might say that Everything Changed.

I have since bought two budded OGRs from Burlington Rose Nursery -- plants that would simply not grow here, in my old cool coastal climate. Budding made it possible to grow them.

Another factor to consider is that cuttings from some roses are difficult to strike. Budding such a rose on an understock is simple but if the nursery does not bud the chances of that rose being propagated are slimmer.

summers,

For a small backyard operation propagating own roots may be cheaper, not so for the larger operation. A single cutting can produce many buds for budding, rootstock is bought cheaply as it is farmed in monocultures, usually raised from seed (in Europe) and sold to the nurseries in bulk. The chances of a rootstock failing when replanted in the nursery field are slim, budding has a much greater success rate than striking cuttings and the roses are ready to sell as sizeable plants sooner. The video that Marlorena linked to above explains this clearly.

I also disagree with some of the ideas expressed by Christopher above, but as I said, it is not my intention to argue about own root vs budded in this thread. My idea is that people should not develop some kind of 'religious' aversion to budded roses as this may result in some (many?) old roses getting lost.

From what I can see, nurseries selling own root roses are not selling them conspicuously cheaper than grafted roses...and this, for sure, is a stumbling block in the UK. If own root roses were half the price of grafted ones, I think they would find a market very quickly. Nik, roses are always lost from commerce but I doubt that budding or own root differences would be as instrumental, as fashion, marketing, price and other variables.

Whatever we think, as customers, we are going to be caught in the mass production loop for some time to come...although I do think a responsive campaign of growing a smaller appropriate inventory for more niche markets will always keep good plants in commerce while rubbish, however it is marketed, will die off - witness the expensive, heavily pushed and absolutely awful echinaceas which the public have had foisted on them - for a few years, we were all rushing to buy this or that cultivar but in the UK, many nurseries now no longer stock the likes of Art's Pride and all those other e.paradoxa x e.angustifolia/pallida hybrids because they are weak, unreliable and, consequently, unwanted. Unlike politics, the public are not easily or endlessly manipulated to spend hard cash on useless plants.