Have been trying to find a source for Dr. Huey Rootstock. I know UC Davis has them but I don’t need $100 worth of it, just about 20 cuttings is all I am looking for. Anyone know of a source? I’m in MA and there are lots of wild multiflora around but everything I have read about using that as a rootstock is negative.
Thanks
Praveen
Not necessarily. Multiflora is quite useful for areas with neutral to acidic soil and water and decent water levels. It’s also significantly easier to bud to due to its thicker cambium layer. I prefer chip budding as it’s faster and easier for the home budder and I find multiflora and its hybrids MUCH easier to work with and provide easier successes because the cambium layer is so much thicker than Fortuniana and Huey. Multiflora is also more cold hardy as a stock than Huey. Huey is superior in arid alkalinity, such as in the western US. Fortuniana excels in sandier soils, particularly due to its resistance to root knot nematodes, but it produces much of its root system rather close to the soil surface where it is more susceptible to deep freezes and mechanical damage. So, are you still sure you want Multiflora is also easier to root than Huey. Are you still sure you want Huey?
Thanks Roseseek for the response. The problem is that it is illegal to use multiflora in CT, which is where the plants will ultimately end up. I used the multiflora this past year and yes it is easy to root, easy to bud and from what I’ve seen does pretty well out here.
Really? So customers in CT can’t purchase roses from Palatine (uses multiflora) and likely Hortico? Is it that it is illegal to plant roses budded on multiflora there or that you can’t plant multiflora itself there? I ask because I am not familiar and wish to understand.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/act/Pa/2004PA-00203-R00SB-00547-PA.htm
The following would suggest that plants that use multiflora as rootstock would be subject to a fine of $100 / plant
Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of any ordinance adopted by a municipality, no person shall move, import, sell, purchase, transplant, cultivate or distribute any reproductive portion of any invasive plant listed in subsection (a) or (b) of this section. For the purposes of this section, “reproductive portion” includes, but is not limited to, seeds, flowers, roots and tubers.
I can understand where that might give you that understanding. I have an inquiry in to folks in the Connecticut Rose Society. Baldo Villegas, the retired California State Entomologist who is a friend and who knows people in that society, reports that some he knows there grow multiflora for stocks and bud their roses on it. I believe the laws you cite refer to parts of the plant used to reproduce multiflora itself. Not commercial plants budded to its roots. Of course, I may be mistaken, but we shall see!
Thanks, looking forward to getting the real info from the CT folks.
You’re welcome! Multiflora is the superior stock for that area and those conditions. You already have access to it. Huey can be obtained but it isn’t as desirable there for the previously mentioned reasons. If you can ethically, legally use the multiflora, I want to enable you to! If not, we’ll work on Huey.
Thank you Kim, you have been super helpful.
You’re welcome! So far, no responses from two people who are involved in the Connecticut State horticultural end of it, but Palatine ships their multiflora budded plants to Connecticut and everyone who has commented on the question has agreed that the law is intended to prevent bringing more multiflora in and that if the law was interpreted as being illegal to bud roses on it, there are many rose growers in the State who should be subject to the fines. I’ll let you know what more I hear.
According to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, the identity of any grafted plant is that of the scion, not of the rootstock. Mind you, I do not know of any cases referring to the relevant Article or subjecting to any sort of legal scrutiny, but I would also be surprised if any exist. If the ICNCP were honored, I would think that use as rootstock overrides any identity of said rootstock once a graft union has taken hold; however, cases where the rootstock is able to (and allowed to) regenerate into a plant would obviously be less defensible. Now, sale or transport of viable plants even for the purpose of using them as rootstock would clearly be illegal, but that doesn’t seem necessary or applicable in this case. As Kim alluded, there is always the loophole of using a hybrid of R. multiflora rather than the straight species.
Oh, and ‘Dr Huey’ does quite well in the East with its highly acidic soil, or at least, it did–there were loads of them around Washington, DC (certainly that was the case a few years back), where commercially grafted roses had once been planted but only the rootstock survived. One advantage of R. multiflora as rootstock is that it is relatively easy to disbud; I’ve never gotten a rose from Palatine that showed any sign of growth from their beautifully prepared rootstock.
The consensus is, those laws are written meaning you may not bring Multiflora or its parts into Connecticut to be planted and maintained AS multiflora. Using it as a properly prepared root stock under roses is totally acceptable and legal. And, per a Master Rosarian in Connecticut, Marci Martin, Huey is totally hardy there, also. And, multiflora is a perfect choice in Connecticut as a rose stock. Does that help?
Thank you all for this information. It is super useful. Thank you Kim for reaching out to your contacts.
You’re welcome! I’m glad it helps.