There is probably a selection
bias involved. A plant that
is vigorous enough to live on its
own roots is probably vigorous enough
to fight of disease etc.

"Cass" wrote in message
.. .
In article .com.au,
Daniel Hanna wrote:

In m Shiva wrote:
Just an observation, no theories or claims etc. But I am thinking I'm
not going to buy anything but ownroots next year. What do you all
think about this? Can anyone offer any theories as to why this is?

There are many roses that I grow own root that
will probably do much better grafted.
Dublin Bay, Kaiserin Aguste Viktoria & Sombreuil
spring to mind.

I saw a 14' monster Som. growing on neighbhors
porch that was grafted and had received
no real consideration while my own root
was euthanized after growing 8" in 2 years.


It stumps me too, Shiva. Possibly the grafts are grumbling about
rootstock that is waterlogged, whereas on their own weaker roots the
plant can pace itself better in poor conditions.

Waterlogged, soil chemistry, susceptibility to nematodes, who knows.
But I've only rarely found own roots to have weak roots. But I only
have a few really modern roses.

I doubt the fact that some of them are Austins makes too much
difference.
Bear in mind they are bred primarily for England's wet climate. In
Sydney Australia I find they tend to die MORE easily than HTs and
floribundas, but all mine are grafted anyway.

Austins are not particularly more tolerant
of rain. If anything they are less tolerant.
Esp. w/ disease and balling. I've always wondered
how they grow such disease prone roses
in wet england. Do they spray constantly?

Abe Darby spots like crazy. And it actually
had clean clean new dawn as a parent.

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City