Opal or Victoria Plum?

[Garden_Chris]

Hi Guys,

I'm in the market for buying plums!
Just some things to consider: Both will be in containers (sufficiently large, with more than enough room to grow happily), both will be on VVA-1 Rootstock, and price isn't an issue. Here's the problem I have:

VVA-1 Victoria - 2 Years old, Bareroot
OR
VVA-1 Opal - 1 Year old, Bareroot

Is the quality of the fruit, i.e. it's taste, inherent natural disease resistance, etc. worth waiting an extra year before it begins to bear fruit when compared with the Victoria plum which will be a year earlier to fruit?

In essence, is it worth waiting another year for Opal plums, rather than Victoria's?

Cheers!

EDIT: Or, should I go for something like this? http://www.blackmoor.co.uk/products/15856#.UNrkTuTZaSo

[Bigmallly]

Well Chris, buying the cocktail tree will certainly stop any regrets should you buy the wrong one.....

[Nicos]

I would think you should buy one of each...then let us know the results of your research!!!

...can't offer you advice as I know almost nothing about fruit trees

[yummersetter]

I'd look for plums you can't buy in supermarkets or farm shops.
You can find some interesting ones here

[Marcher]

Opal is supposed to taste better, but Victoria is heavy bearing and a good all rounder with decent flavour. Victoria is probably a bit less fussy than Opal too, although both are very good varieties.
I have a Victoria that I planted bare root last year, Opal was one I considered - Opal and Victoria. I only had space for one sadly. I'd go for Victoria because it is slightly older and so will in theory bear fruit sooner (it varies by tree though).

My Victoria tree was very small and twiggy when I bought it, but it grew exceptionally well in its first year. It went from being about 5 foot to surpassing me in height (I'm about 6 foot) and I'm very pleased with it so far. It is planted in clay loam. but I dug a large hole, improved it with compost and extracted as much clay from the hole as possible and put in loam instead.
You can't go wrong with either, Victoria are bigger, but Opal apparently have a very good taste.

[boundtothesoil]

I'd go for Victoria (the UK's most popular variety for decades, and not without good cause). I've had one or two trees on the go for twenty years or so. They are quick to bare fruit, sometimes too many, so often need thinning, produce at least half a crop each year, and in my experience are no more prone to plum maggot, splitting and wasp damage, than either czars or Warwickshire drooper, which I also grow. They are also good for jam, cooking or eating fresh, the latter particularly if allowed to ripen on the tree fully.
I have lost a couple of these trees to what looks like canker or some kind of collar rot, striking at the base of the trunk, but I live in a very wet area on heavy soil -this may not be a problem for you. I've also had several branches splitting off due to too much fruit, so you may have to keep an eye on their shape and strength, although this may not be so much of a problem in a fairly short pot-grown tree.
As for Opal, great reviews, so I bought three of these for £5-99 each in a sale at my now defunct DIY superstore three years ago, planting them in generous holes. Already eight foot high this year, but not one flower on any of them, so I'm a bit suspicious of this variety, at least for West Wales, despite the frequently expressed opinion that the flavour is superior to Victoria. These Opal trees are also looking like they will have rather thin weak branches, unless I take action - and I hate pruning plum trees due to the serious disease issues surrounding this.

[FB.]

Victoria can be very prone to diseases and also to broken branches (which offer even more chances for diseses to attack).
I would choose Opal.

[chris]

I have an Opal, my neighbour has a Victoria. Have had 2 fruit off mine, and hers was laden. However, mine is a very young tree. As FB says, as Victoria is so popular, it'll be more susceptible to disease.

[Marcher]

As FB says, as Victoria is so popular, it'll be more susceptible to disease.

Not necessarily. If plum trees as a whole become too common then they'll become susceptible to disease. Disease evolve in monocultures, and I don't think Victoria's are different enough from other plums to get their own diseases or be more prone to them just because they're common. They'd only be more prone to disease if their original breeding conferred little disease resistance to them.

[chris]

Maybe I should rephrase - specific disease that's more common to Vics will be more noticeable, as there's more around.

BTW, I've not forgot about those poppies - the seed heads have pretty much just finished forming Very odd year. Infact, I still have one flowering out my back door.

[FB.]

Not necessarily. If plum trees as a whole become too common then they'll become susceptible to disease. Disease evolve in monocultures, and I don't think Victoria's are different enough from other plums to get their own diseases or be more prone to them just because they're common. They'd only be more prone to disease if their original breeding conferred little disease resistance to them.

Yes, diseases evolve in monoculture commercial orchards (often derelict orchards), but can then blow on the wind and infect trees of the same variety in gardens potentially tens of miles away.
Alternatively, a diseased old garden tree of Victoria will have those well-adapted strains of disease and will pass them on to any new trees of the same variety in the vicinity.

As an example: there are a few John Downie "full standard" (vigorous rootstock thought to be M25) ornamental crab apple trees in my area and they often suffer from scab or mildew, but their diseases do not affect my trees. However, a garden a few streets away used to have a huge Laxton's Superb tree which was very scabby and always passed it onto my Laxton Superb (but not to any of my others). When the tree was removed a few years ago, my tree ceased to suffer from scab.
No doubt the old tree was harbouring a Laxton Superb-specific strain of scab which was not bothering my other trees but was ruining most of the fruit of my Laxton Superb even in dry seasons.

[VirginVegGrower]

I have a Victoria but find the fruit watery. I was recommended an Opal which I now have planted, my favourite plum for flavour is the Mirabelle - they are honeyed.

[Marcher]

Maybe I should rephrase - specific disease that's more common to Vics will be more noticeable, as there's more around.

BTW, I've not forgot about those poppies - the seed heads have pretty much just finished forming Very odd year. Infact, I still have one flowering out my back door.

We've had a mild winter I guess, they sound much better at flowering than Common Poppies.

Yes, diseases evolve in monoculture commercial orchards (often derelict orchards), but can then blow on the wind and infect trees of the same variety in gardens potentially tens of miles away.
Alternatively, a diseased old garden tree of Victoria will have those well-adapted strains of disease and will pass them on to any new trees of the same variety in the vicinity.

As an example: there are a few John Downie "full standard" (vigorous rootstock thought to be M25) ornamental crab apple trees in my area and they often suffer from scab or mildew, but their diseases do not affect my trees. However, a garden a few streets away used to have a huge Laxton's Superb tree which was very scabby and always passed it onto my Laxton Superb (but not to any of my others). When the tree was removed a few years ago, my tree ceased to suffer from scab.
No doubt the old tree was harbouring a Laxton Superb-specific strain of scab which was not bothering my other trees but was ruining most of the fruit of my Laxton Superb even in dry seasons.

Makes sense, but I wouldn't downplay the trees own biology in resistance to disease. Slight changes such as a difference in bark or pores could allow in disease more easily than on another variety.
Ultimately though we won't get increased disease resistance unless we allow tree to reproduce sexually instead of cloning old varieties constantly. Some old varieties will become so poor at disease resistance that they'll have to be abandoned. We should cross good tasting varieties with disease resistant ones and breed for good flavour as well as disease resistance. It takes a lot of time and trial and error, but lack of government funding doesn't make it any better. Most fruit trees are diverse genetically and will readily adapt, we just need to allow them to.

[FB.]

They'd only be more prone to disease if their original breeding conferred little disease resistance to them.

I'm of the opinion that most varieties have at least a few minor resistance genes. The problem is that those same genes are passed on and on and on by inbreeding and breeding from only the same few varieties (e.g. Cox, Golden Delicious, James Grieve, Worcester etc), which means a narrowing of the gene pool and therefore less "tricks up its sleeve" for the new apple varieties bred from disease-prone ancestors and inheriting mostly the same old resistance genes but in mixed combinations.

Borrowed from a reply I made to an earlier thread:
I've often explained it in a simplified way, like this:

Cox has scab resistance genes A and B.

Worcester has scab resistance genes C and D.

Localised strains of scab have, over many years of extensive growing, managed to defeat the AB resistance of Cox, while other strains have managed to defeat the CD resistance of Worcester.
However, Worcester remains resistant to the AB-defeating Cox strains, while Cox remains resistant to the CD-defeating Worcester strains.

When we cross Cox and Worcester to get Winston, we end up with resistance genes A from Cox and C from Worcester. Winston = AC.
Therefore, the "A" blocks the CD-defeating Worcester strains of disease, while the "C" blocks the AB-defeating Cox strains of disease.

However, the AB-defeating strains of disease only have to defeat the "C" to become ABC-defeating strains which will break Winston's resistance; just one mutation required.
Similarly, the CD-defeating strains only have to break the "A" to become ACD-defeating strains and also overcome Winston's resistance.

However, if we introduce an unrelated and uncommon variety in the UK (and triploid as a bonus - say Belle de Boskoop) then Boskoop may well have different disease-resistance genes - say E,F,G (three genes because it's triploid).
Thus while it only takes one mutation for the disease strains of Cox (AB) or Worcester (CD) to break Winston's (AC) resistance, it takes three simultaneous mutations for the AB-defeating or CD-defeating disease strains to defeat all three of Boskoop's E,F and G resistance mechanisms.

So while "modern" varieties may show initially impressive disease resistance, I am not convinced that it will be as strong or long-lasting as a rare old variety - especially if that variety is triploid.

I do appreciate that there is some genetic randomness, so some offspring will be lucky and get more (or better) disease resistance genes than others.

[Marcher]

I'm of the opinion that most varieties have at least a few minor resistance genes. The problem is that those same genes are passed on and on and on by inbreeding and breeding from only the same few varieties (e.g. Cox, Golden Delicious, James Grieve, Worcester etc), which means a narrowing of the gene pool and therefore less "tricks up its sleeve" for the new apple varieties bred from disease-prone ancestors and inheriting mostly the same old resistance genes but in mixed combinations.

Borrowed from a reply I made to an earlier thread:
I've often explained it in a simplified way, like this:

Cox has scab resistance genes A and B.

Worcester has scab resistance genes C and D.

Localised strains of scab have, over many years of extensive growing, managed to defeat the AB resistance of Cox, while other strains have managed to defeat the CD resistance of Worcester.
However, Worcester remains resistant to the AB-defeating Cox strains, while Cox remains resistant to the CD-defeating Worcester strains.

When we cross Cox and Worcester to get Winston, we end up with resistance genes A from Cox and C from Worcester. Winston = AC.
Therefore, the "A" blocks the CD-defeating Worcester strains of disease, while the "C" blocks the AB-defeating Cox strains of disease.

However, the AB-defeating strains of disease only have to defeat the "C" to become ABC-defeating strains which will break Winston's resistance; just one mutation required.
Similarly, the CD-defeating strains only have to break the "A" to become ACD-defeating strains and also overcome Winston's resistance.

However, if we introduce an unrelated and uncommon variety in the UK (and triploid as a bonus - say Belle de Boskoop) then Boskoop may well have different disease-resistance genes - say E,F,G (three genes because it's triploid).
Thus while it only takes one mutation for the disease strains of Cox (AB) or Worcester (CD) to break Winston's (AC) resistance, it takes three simultaneous mutations for the AB-defeating or CD-defeating disease strains to defeat all three of Boskoop's E,F and G resistance mechanisms.

So while "modern" varieties may show initially impressive disease resistance, I am not convinced that it will be as strong or long-lasting as a rare old variety - especially if that variety is triploid.

I do appreciate that there is some genetic randomness, so some offspring will be lucky and get more (or better) disease resistance genes than others.

We have this problem with potato blight now since some idiots decided to import potatoes from blight homeland and brought a new strain with them. Now blight can sexually reproduce, so formerly resistant strains are now at risk.

Triploid trees can be a pain in the arse to fertilise though as a practical consideration. My point is that we should actively breed for disease resistance and test and allow for more chance seedlings. Triploid varieties may have more resitance to disease but apple trees would become a lot more common if we had to plant more trees in order for triploids to be fertilised, increasing the chances of disease transmission. I suggest a mix of new and old varieties with high disease resistance, if more trees become resistant then the disease has fewer hosts to develop and evolve on in theory.