Tweet
Has anyone noticed any striking correlation between tree size and fruit quantity, that is, cultivars that tend to produce a lot of fruit for their size, as opposed to cultivars that tend to be big relative to the amount of fruit they produce? Mainly interested in potted growing conditions, where size per fruit often matters more than it does for in-ground conditions.
In my experience not only does Celeste produce small individual fruits but it produces a small volume of fruit compared to its tree size. Have others experienced this?
The Late Bordeauxs on the other hand in my observation produce a lot of fruit per tree size, if, however, you can get that fruit to ripen. The main crop is not early.
Improved Celeste and the Mt Etnas seem to fall in the middle, though with the Mt Etnas closer than IC to the Late Bordeauxs. Ronde de Bordeaux seems to have a decent ratio, as does O'Rourke, and others. Hunt seems to grow a lot of tree per volume of fruit, as has Grantham's Royal this year.
Since most cultivars may occupy a middle ground, tree/fruit, it may be worth pointing only to the near outliers and think of the question as amount of fruit per pot: the Late Bordeauxs, the Mt Etnas, Ronde de Bordeaux, and some LSU cultivars quite a lot, Celeste, Emerald Strawberry, Grantham's Royal, and others not so very much? Last year I harvested far more fruit from the Mt Etnas than from the Late Bordeauxs, not because the Mt Etnas necessarily set more fruit per tree size than the Late Bordeauxs, but because most of the Mt Etna fruit actually ripened. That said, the fruit set per tree size might have been comparable, or nearly. I can say something similar this year of Ronde de Bordeaux, and possibly O'Rourke.
I'm not referring to individual fruit size but to overall volume of crops.
Quantity of fruit per pot also depends heavily, probably overwhelmingly, on quality of fertilization and pruning, external environment and growing medium; however, all external factors equal I assume that there are inherent differences by cultivar regarding tree size to fruit volume ratios, when grown in pots or not.
In my experience not only does Celeste produce small individual fruits but it produces a small volume of fruit compared to its tree size. Have others experienced this?
The Late Bordeauxs on the other hand in my observation produce a lot of fruit per tree size, if, however, you can get that fruit to ripen. The main crop is not early.
Improved Celeste and the Mt Etnas seem to fall in the middle, though with the Mt Etnas closer than IC to the Late Bordeauxs. Ronde de Bordeaux seems to have a decent ratio, as does O'Rourke, and others. Hunt seems to grow a lot of tree per volume of fruit, as has Grantham's Royal this year.
Since most cultivars may occupy a middle ground, tree/fruit, it may be worth pointing only to the near outliers and think of the question as amount of fruit per pot: the Late Bordeauxs, the Mt Etnas, Ronde de Bordeaux, and some LSU cultivars quite a lot, Celeste, Emerald Strawberry, Grantham's Royal, and others not so very much? Last year I harvested far more fruit from the Mt Etnas than from the Late Bordeauxs, not because the Mt Etnas necessarily set more fruit per tree size than the Late Bordeauxs, but because most of the Mt Etna fruit actually ripened. That said, the fruit set per tree size might have been comparable, or nearly. I can say something similar this year of Ronde de Bordeaux, and possibly O'Rourke.
I'm not referring to individual fruit size but to overall volume of crops.
Quantity of fruit per pot also depends heavily, probably overwhelmingly, on quality of fertilization and pruning, external environment and growing medium; however, all external factors equal I assume that there are inherent differences by cultivar regarding tree size to fruit volume ratios, when grown in pots or not.
Comment