apple tree

[FB.]

I've never heard of "New Herrington", but a quick search suggests it's in North-East England (but I could be wrong - there are often multiple places with the same name in different UK regions).

Looking at a hundred-year-old paper which recommends varieties suitable for growing as large "standard" trees in Cumberland, Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire and North Yorkshire, I see the following recommended varieties which are still fairly easy to find:

Early cooker:
Early Victoria (Emneth Early)
Grenadier

Mid-season cooker:
Lord Derby
Golden Noble
Stirling Castle
Blenheim Orange

Late-season cooker:
Bramley
Lane's Prince Albert
Annie Elizabeth
Dumelow's Seedling
Newton Wonder
Tower of Glamis
Edward VII

Early eater:
Beauty of Bath
Lady Sudeley
Devonshire Quarrenden
Gladstone
Irish Peach

Mid-season eater:
King of the Pippins
Ribston Pippin
St.Edmund's Pippin/Russet
American Mother
Ellison's Orange

Late-season eater:
Adam's Pearmain
Claygate Pearmain
Sturmer Pippin *
Duke of Devonshire
Barnack Beauty *

* I doubt Sturmer and Barnack will ripen properly because they both prefer a long, hot, dry growing season with lots of warmth and sunshine in autumn and a light sandy soil. Usually only East Anglia offers what they really need, although some coastal locations up North may be warm, dry and sunny and have quite light soil.


It was also noted that some growers reported (unspecified) problems with the following varieties already mentioned in this topic: Emperor Alexander, Devonshire Quarrenden, Irish Peach, Ribston Pippin.

Of those in the RHS "top ten", only Blenheim, Bramley and Lane's Prince Albert match. They're a bit common and boring when there are so many good unusual varieties with potential.
Why bother growing something so common? Go for something unusual to experience new tastes and to broaden the ever-narrowing apple gene pool.

Of those from my recommended list, Beauty of Bath, Gladstone, Irish Peach, Grenadier, Ribston Pippin, Blenheim Orange, Tower of Glamis and Annie Elizabeth match.
A few others on my list also get a "worth trialling" recommendation in the hundred-year-old paper: Edward VII and Gascoyne's Scarlet are suggested.

Other varieties not on my list but which are still readily available and were also suggested for trialling were: James Grieve, Worcester Pearmain, Charles Ross.

[TrialAndError]

"Of those in the RHS "top ten", only Blenheim, Bramley and Lane's Prince Albert match. They're a bit common and boring when there are so many good unusual varieties with potential.
Why bother growing something so common?"


Because the original poster is clearly not an apple tree expert. "Common" does not neccessarily equate to not good, common may well equate to excellent. The three apple varieties mentioned are unquestionably excellent for their own purposes.

The other advantage of choosing "common" varieties is that they are readily available at a wide range of times throughout they year and at prices far cheaper than many less common varieties. With online delivery costs for single apple trees being a very large £10 at the least, this may mean that some of us simply can't afford that. A cheaper option, boring I know, may be to go to a nursery or garden centre which sells bare-rooted trees and buy an apple tree at the same price as an online purchase but without the £10+ delivery premium. Phone the nursery / garden centre before you go to check they are in stock.

[orangepippin]

Looking at a hundred-year-old paper which recommends varieties suitable for growing as large "standard" trees in Cumberland, Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire and North Yorkshire, I see the following recommended varieties which are still fairly easy to find:

We did a survey of old orchards in Yorkshire some time ago. Few used the standard trees. Most used smaller trees, or perhaps local conditions made the trees naturally smaller. It made me question whether our modern view of a "traditional" orchard consisting of large standard trees was as widespread as we think it was.

[FB.]

We did a survey of old orchards in Yorkshire some time ago. Few used the standard trees. Most used smaller trees, or perhaps local conditions made the trees naturally smaller. It made me question whether our modern view of a "traditional" orchard consisting of large standard trees was as widespread as we think it was.

In this area, full standard apple trees were rare.
Most of those planted on seedling or M2-equivalent rootstocks were trained as half-standards; there's not usually enough regular penetrating summer rainfall to get a tree up to full standard size in any sensible period of time. Of course: eventually any tree can get quite large, but in this area it can take several decades for a seedling-equivalent tree to reach 20ft - if ever.

Pears of any kind were rarer still; too dry for them even on seedling rootstock, while Quince rootstocks don't like the slightly alkaline and rather dry soil (quince suffers lime chlorosis if the soil isn't acidic).
I think the reason why I can bring seedling pears into cropping by their third year is because they are so stressed by the droughty conditions.

Quite interestingly, the relatively slow-growing apple varieties were often preferred or recommended in this area; I suppose a slow-growing tree on a big rootstock will not suffer as much drought stress in the usually droughty summers here.
Certainly D'Arcy Spice - a very slow-grower compared to other varieties when grown in good conditions - doesn't grow much slower than other varieties in this area because when the growing season is at its peak the soil is usually bone dry and rock hard down to about 3ft.
So no matter how fast or slow growing the tree, there's only just about enough water to keep the tree clinging to life until our least dry month of August arrives with its thunderstorms which often bring downpours and replenish the soil - average August rainfall is an inch-and-a-half to two inches (4-5cm).

Along similar lines of water availability limiting growth, once established, MM111 and M25 aren't much different in annual growth in this area; both usually only make bushes or half-standards and can even be used for cordons.
M25 trees grow quite quickly after leaf-out but the soil moisture soon disappears (spring is our driest time, with an average of inch to an inch-and-a-half of rain per month), causing their growth to be brought to a stop. MM111 trees seem to hold water in reserve in peculiar root structures and only pass it up to the canopy at a medium rate, therefore MM111 falls behind M25 early in the season but catches up in the middle of the season.
Where water wasn't a limiting factor, M25 would continue to power ahead and would outgrow MM111.

[FB.]

"Of those in the RHS "top ten", only Blenheim, Bramley and Lane's Prince Albert match. They're a bit common and boring when there are so many good unusual varieties with potential.
Why bother growing something so common?"


Because the original poster is clearly not an apple tree expert. "Common" does not neccessarily equate to not good, common may well equate to excellent. The three apple varieties mentioned are unquestionably excellent for their own purposes.

Are they excellent? Not in my experience. An amateur could have a lot less trouble if they planted certain different varieties.

All three can be prone to disease problems due to their resistance being "worn out" because so many diseased old trees of that variety harbour cunningly-adapted strains of disease which specialise in attacking them - scab in the case of Blenheim and Bramley; mildew in the case of Lane's Prince Albert.
All three are prone to woolly aphid attack and difficult to keep Blenheims and Bramleys clear of woolly aphids in this area, with young trees being ruined as a result of the split and twisted twigs which remain after woolly aphid attack.
Blenheim and Bramley are slow to start cropping, difficult to persuade to form nicely-spaced branches, abnormally vigorous growers and part-tip-bearers which makes pruning more complicated (not ideal for an amateur).

The modern "Discovery" is also a lot more troublesome than, say, the often-shunned early-ripening variety Irish Peach.
Discovery is prone to bitter pit, codling maggots in the fruit and woolly aphid; Irish Peach suffers from none of the above here, when grown alongside Discovery.
Sure, Irish Peach isn't such a heavy cropper and is a significant tip-bearer (Discovery is part-tip), but what use is a heavy crop of Discovery apples if they're full of bitter pit and maggots, produced on a tree that's been ruined by woolly aphids?
Contrary to the widely-accepted view on Discovery, I find it follows in its father's footsteps (Beauty of Bath) and it will sometimes dump its entire crop of fruit on the ground two or three weeks before it would have been ripe. I didn't get many home-grown Discovery this year as a result of most being dropped and the remainder full of bitter pit or maggots.
In this area, Irish Peach also has better resistance to scab and canker than Discovery; probably because there are so many disease strains now beginning to master the commonly-planted Discovery.

I'm not impressed by any of the RHS top ten; I don't consider any of them as worthy of growing as larger trees, although I have some of them growing as smaller bushes/cordons.

But if someone wants a cheap tree then the RHS top ten will be among the most easily available.

However, considering that a single carrier bag of apples can be worth the cost of a tree, I'd rather pay a little more upfront so that I have a good chance of getting years of trouble-free crops, than skimp a few quid on upfront cost and have problems with diseased crops or a short-lived tree.

I also think that if someone didn't bother to grow some of the rarer varieties, we'd soon end up with the loss of many valuable old varieties and the useful genes they carry.
The modern breeding programmes are alarmingly narrow in their gene pool - have a read of this link (which I've posted before but have no connections to the website owners):

Inbreeding/genetic narrowing in modern apple cultivation, DIVERSITY website

.