Print

[Inyan]

Or should I wait for the stock to grow a bit more?

2 Likes MeanGreen and MorningDew like this.

[MeanGreen]

Haha I'd wait a couple more weeks if I were you 

2 Likes Inyan and MorningDew like this.

[Auxin]

Thats a Quiabentia, isnt is MeanGreen? Someday I hope my country gets those.

Inyans are certainly big enough

1 Like Inyan likes this.

[Inyan]

You think if I wait a few weeks these will get that fat? Mine are no where near as short as yours and yet... yours are so much fatter.

1 Like MorningDew likes this.

[Auxin]

His are an entirely different genus of cacti, lol

[MeanGreen]

Not quiabentia, they do look close but I'm 99% sure this is Pereskiopsis aquosa a.k.a Jumbo Pere, either way I'm propagating the hell out of it. Also have some variegated P. diguetti.

Edit: @Inyan I was just kidding, and that's a very impressive stock you have there I would love to see how much growth a pere that big would pump in a seedling.

Hit me up if you want a few cuts of the jumbo, guys.

[Auxin]

Not quiabentia, they do look close but I'm 99% sure this is Pereskiopsis aquosa a.k.a Jumbo Pere, either way I'm propagating the hell out of it...Hit me up if you want a few cuts of the jumbo, guys.

Pereskiopsis aquosa (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose 1907
Plants shrubby to treelike, branching basally or from above,
2-4 m (6.6-13 ft) high, often with distinct trunks. Stems
glabrous, green, glaucous when young, 1-2.5 cm (0.4—1 in)
in diameter. Leaves obovate to nearly elliptical, 3.5-8 cm
(1.4-3.1 in) long, 2.5-3.2 cm (1-1.3 in) wide, acuminate api-
cally. Areoles round, producing long hairs when young, gray.
Glochids yellow. Spine usually one, sometimes as many as 4,
sometimes absent, rigid, pale yellow to yellowish white, later
gray, 0.5-3.6 cm (0.2-1.4 in) long. Flowers borne at the ends
of branches, golden yellow with reddish tint, 10-16 cm (3.9-
6.3 in) long, 6-7 cm (2.4-2.8 in) in diameter; pericarpels
with bracts. Fruits pear shaped, yellowish green, edible, 6-13
cm (2.4-5.1 in) long, 1.6-3.5 cm (0.6-1.4 in) in diameter,
with abundant glochids.

I stand corrected. I can see why you say 99%, it matches everything but the long hair on young areoles. An awesome looking stock.
I'd love to trade for some but, looking at your grow list, is there anything you dont have yet?

1 Like MeanGreen likes this.

[Inyan]

...

His are an entirely different genus of cacti, lol

Are you trying to say that because it is a different genus mine is somehow inferior for grafting.... sorry, I'm missing your humor.

Do you think a different stock (Genus) would help me graft smaller specimens Auxin?

[Auxin]

I didnt say the common Pereskiopsis was inferior.
You said..

You think if I wait a few weeks these will get that fat? Mine are no where near as short as yours and yet... yours are so much fatter.

And so I pointed out his was another genus species.
Its not likely for yours to change species in a few weeks

[Inyan]

I didnt say the common Pereskiopsis was inferior.
You said..

You think if I wait a few weeks these will get that fat? Mine are no where near as short as yours and yet... yours are so much fatter.

And so I pointed out his was another genus species.
Its not likely for yours to change species in a few weeks

I'm still confused... Did you think I was implying that a species or genus could change by allowing them to grow a bit more? If so, I apologize for anything I might have said that may have been misconstrued to make you think that.

I'm all for whatever makes my seedlings or areoles graft better though, so if the consensus is that I need to try a different stock I'm all for trying new things. Not that I'm going to go out of my way to try new things when I can make areole and seedling grafts with 98.5% success with my current methods.

[Auxin]

You wanted your apple to look like an orange.
I was just saying, no, your P. spathulata wont look like a P. aquosa if given more time.

[Inyan]

You wanted your apple to look like an orange.
I was just saying, no, your P. spathulata wont look like a P. aquosa if given more time.

I wanted my stock to get bigger, not change from one species to another. But I think I see where the confusion is now.

Now, if you think this is the absolute maximum size this stock can get and any further growth will not be beneficial, that may indeed be true. I'm one of those fools that for someone reason has to experiment and see for myself however if any additional growth may indeed increase things like girth, size of leaves, etc. As my experience has often dictated that the smaller the stock the smaller the girth etc.

A change or hope for a size difference or increase as something ages is not the same as a hope or wish for phenotype change whereby something grows a new structure because it ages or enters a new stage of development.

Again, I am sorry if my implied hope for size to increase as this one ages was taken as a request for a change in phenotype as this one ages.

Now, I can indeed see why you were laughing as I would laugh to if I thought someone believed an apple could literally turn into an orange with age. Perhaps with a few million yeas of evolution something nearing that might be possible, but I was not talking about that kind of change. 

Again, my apologies for the miscommunication. 4.5 billion years in the making and communication is still imperfect.

[Auxin]

...if you think this is the absolute maximum size this stock can get and any further growth will not be beneficial, that may indeed be true. I'm one of those fools that for someone reason has to experiment and see for myself however if any additional growth may indeed increase things like girth, size of leaves, etc. As my experience has often dictated that the smaller the stock the smaller the girth etc...

Oh I experiment too.
That is not the maximum size it can achieve. I grew one until it was over 5 feet tall with 4 main branches and a 3 cm trunk at the base, it was still growing and I only killed it because it had become very awkward and unwieldy to move around. Mainly because at the beginning I didnt plant it deep enough and it began to lean severely.
Its often argued that the typical pereskiopsis, like yours and mine, may not actually be the Pereskiopsis spathulata of Britton & Rose, but if it is they noted it as routinely growing to 6.6 feet tall.
As for ultimate height and girth of scion growth, I'd be surprised (and intrigued) if you havent already passed the point where those would be at a practical maximum.
I routinely see people use stocks way too short but with your two I wouldnt expect much improvement over stocks half that height.
If girth is what your after I do notice one thing. The leaf shape and spines on your two show that they have grown under half to full intensity sun. If I was after maximal girth of scions I would expect that to be produced more from intensity of light than height of stock, provided the stock was at least 1/3 the height of your two.
For ultimate over all size of scion growth, this is totally unverified and purely anecdotal, but I recently read an intriguing post by a thai grafter. We all graft to tender young new growth and pereskiopsis is temporary stock that fails after a year- give or take 6 months, its pereskiopsis 101, he asserted that if one took a grafted peres where the stock had turned 'brown', you know- that aged look with thick waxy cuticle they get after 6 or 8 months, and one degrafted the scion and grafted a new scion to the old woody pereskiopsis that the graft union would be semi-permanent. That the pereskiopsis would not reject the scion after a year or so like normal grafts do. Now, since the one I killed had grown into a bush with a 3 cm trunk its clear that a pereskiopsis base can support substantial mass if given the chance and if that guy was actually correct about that grafting technique producing permanent or semi-permanent graft unions one could grow a HUGE scion on an 8 or 10 inch stock. I like to imagine a bowling ball sized Astrophytum held up by 3 stacks of bricks surrounding a four year old pereskiopsis stock
I dont claim that will work, but I do intend to try it some day!

1 Like MorningDew likes this.

[Inyan]

...if you think this is the absolute maximum size this stock can get and any further growth will not be beneficial, that may indeed be true. I'm one of those fools that for someone reason has to experiment and see for myself however if any additional growth may indeed increase things like girth, size of leaves, etc. As my experience has often dictated that the smaller the stock the smaller the girth etc...

Oh I experiment too.
That is not the maximum size it can achieve. I grew one until it was over 5 feet tall with 4 main branches and a 3 cm trunk at the base, it was still growing and I only killed it because it had become very awkward and unwieldy to move around. Mainly because at the beginning I didnt plant it deep enough and it began to lean severely.
Its often argued that the typical pereskiopsis, like yours and mine, may not actually be the Pereskiopsis spathulata of Britton & Rose, but if it is they noted it as routinely growing to 6.6 feet tall.
As for ultimate height and girth of scion growth, I'd be surprised (and intrigued) if you havent already passed the point where those would be at a practical maximum.
I routinely see people use stocks way too short but with your two I wouldnt expect much improvement over stocks half that height.
If girth is what your after I do notice one thing. The leaf shape and spines on your two show that they have grown under half to full intensity sun. If I was after maximal girth of scions I would expect that to be produced more from intensity of light than height of stock, provided the stock was at least 1/3 the height of your two.
For ultimate over all size of scion growth, this is totally unverified and purely anecdotal, but I recently read an intriguing post by a thai grafter. We all graft to tender young new growth and pereskiopsis is temporary stock that fails after a year- give or take 6 months, its pereskiopsis 101, he asserted that if one took a grafted peres where the stock had turned 'brown', you know- that aged look with thick waxy cuticle they get after 6 or 8 months, and one degrafted the scion and grafted a new scion to the old woody pereskiopsis that the graft union would be semi-permanent. That the pereskiopsis would not reject the scion after a year or so like normal grafts do. Now, since the one I killed had grown into a bush with a 3 cm trunk its clear that a pereskiopsis base can support substantial mass if given the chance and if that guy was actually correct about that grafting technique producing permanent or semi-permanent graft unions one could grow a HUGE scion on an 8 or 10 inch stock. I like to imagine a bowling ball sized Astrophytum held up by 3 stacks of bricks surrounding a four year old pereskiopsis stock
I dont claim that will work, but I do intend to try it some day!

That particular Pereskiopsis is growing in full sun. I have some Pereskiopsis that I am currently growing in partial shade however. As you can probably tell from many of my grafting pictures, a great many of my grafts are planted directly in the full sun outdoors in tilled soil.

Some of my grafts are planted in the shade as well though and like you, I like to experiment.

It is one thing to assert something as a possibility, it is an entirely different thing to show that assertion has actually occurred. It is possible that I am from a planet called Kryptonite. if I was going to make a woody graft attempt I would personally use self-adhesive coban to ensure a tight union. I might even try sandwiching that layer of coban with parafilm.

What method does this person explaining that grafting procedure suggest to make such a union and does he have pictures to show before and after?

[Auxin]

He didnt go into detail. His english seems to be pretty good after hes had coffee so I'm trying to get more information, particularly on just how long hes maintained woody-grafted grafts. He gave this pic as an example of a graft made to woody peres, not the sexiest or most inspiring pic but I think it was intended only to show that the graft can take.