# Fastest growers from flask = best plants?



## e-spice (Mar 1, 2011)

I have heard a few growers remark that the fastest growing seedlings from a flask will be be best overall plants, both vigour and flower quality. What does everyone think, is this an accurate statement?

Thanks for any input,
e-spice


----------



## emydura (Mar 1, 2011)

I can't speak from experience as I am yet to flower my first flask seedling. Won't be long though hopefully. I did read once from one Paph grower who said he culled the largest fastest growing Paph seedlings as these generally had the poorest flowers. It was a bit bizarre for me. The increased vigour would have made up for any shortcomings in the flower for me.

David


----------



## nikv (Mar 1, 2011)

I don't know the answers to these questions but I look forward to the replies. This should be an interesting discussion.


----------



## Kyle (Mar 1, 2011)

Those by definition would have the most vigor. However, there would be no link between vigor and flow quality. There is no way to predict the flower quality. Give the plant optimal conditions and it will give you the best flowers its genetics allow. Using superior parents gives the best chance of having superior offspring. Having said that, I'm of the opinion that you should breed for vigour and hope that the flower qulaity comes along. kovachii and sanderianum are good examples of breeding for vigour not flower quality.


----------



## paphioboy (Mar 1, 2011)

> I did read once from one Paph grower who said he culled the largest fastest growing Paph seedlings as these generally had the poorest flowers.



I came across the same thing when reading about deflasking orchids (in general, not just paphs). It was advised to throw away theose which are much larger than the average seedling as they tend to be coarse and may produce deformed flowers.. I think the book was 'Orchid Growing' by Brian and Wilma Rittershausen..


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 1, 2011)

paphioboy said:


> ... It was advised to throw away theose which are much larger than the average seedling as they tend to be coarse and may produce deformed flowers...



I don't believe it. That's not been my, admittedly limited, experience.


----------



## Brian Monk (Mar 1, 2011)

Thog I have flowered only one seedling from flask, I have been advised time and again by very experienced hybridizers with literally hundreds of registered hybrids that the fastest growing, most vigorous seedlings are the best to grow on. They have seen no correlation with flower quality, though any plant can produce crippled flowers. Vigor cannot be duplicated, and one can always get at least a few plants with good flower quality from a group of seedlings. Why not grow the most vigorous. They are the ones that will produce the best results. One can breed forward for flower quality, but one should be using the best parents available in terms of flower quality to begin with. The average of two very good clones will always produce a decent flower, but those taht are most vigorous will flower sooner. How do you think the fast growing and soon-to-flower roths were created? By using the most vigorous plants. Doesn't look like they produced below average flowers either.


----------



## paphreek (Mar 2, 2011)

I have had some very good flowers on the first bloomers from a cross, but not all good flowers are on the first to bloom. I'm with the others in emphasizing the importance of vigor, but flower quality is a very close second. In fact, I don't like to breed with any plant that doesn't have both. 

I'd be interested in hearing from someone who throws out the bigger, faster growing plants. Seems counter intuitive to put it charitably.


----------



## Rick (Mar 2, 2011)

I think the fastest growing are just the most adapted to a persons particular growing conditions. Put the same twenty five seedlings in someone else's hands and you may get a totally different set of "most vigorous". There are too many variables in growing conditions to consider growth rate or "vigor" as strictly a genetic trait.

I have flowered a handful of my own seedlings, and the biggest/fastest come out fine (though not award quality).

I can't recall his name, but he bought out Krull. In an Orchids article on his strategy to produce award winning plants he kept the biggest and the smallest, and poked through the middle for odd differences of wide leaves or high or low leaf pigment. Namely if you want to change the direction of the plants genetics (and win awards), you look for the extremes. No one gets an AM for meeting the average. I believe he admitted its strictly a guess, but he had run out of space to keep every seedling until it flowered.


----------



## Bolero (Mar 2, 2011)

Yeah I don't agree with that premise. I believe that even slower growers can have the best flower. One judge once said to me: 'Keep the most vigorous growers from the flask but also keep the runt, the runt can often be the best'

She has about 40 years experience so I guess she might be right. I have seen flowers vary greatly in my short 10 years, sometimes the slower ones are better.


----------



## Brian Monk (Mar 2, 2011)

About eeping "runts" : Most Cattleya breeders acnowledge that polyploid plants are slower growers in flask when compared to their diploid siblings in the same flask, especially when polyploidy has been induced with oryzalin or colchicine.

As far as who bought out Krull-Smith, it was not the person you are speaking of. It was June Simpson.


----------



## Erythrone (Mar 2, 2011)

Maybe a silly question....

If the goal of the breeder is to breed miniature, I suppose that he should discard the biggest plants, shouldn't he?


----------



## goldenrose (Mar 2, 2011)

Rick said:


> I think the fastest growing are just the most adapted to a persons particular growing conditions....


IMO this is a most valid point. Another consideration would be ....
if the runts catch up a year later are they still the runts? 
Actually I dislike the term runt, has a bad connotation. Anyone involved in dog breeding has been approached by individuals to discount the price of the runt, like it's inferior, hmm .... thinking that way then how much extra should I charge for the largest? On several occassions I've kept the runt, by a year of age if not sooner they were comparable to the siblings. One litter of Labs I recall, the largest male at 6-7 weeks turned out to small, ill proportioned as an adult. Competition is the name of the game in the animal & plant world, it's a crapshoot after a period of time!


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 2, 2011)

For potential good flower quality:

I now look at the leaves shape and colour when I buy the plants (In addition to the health). Though I have not experimented with enough plants for a strong arguement, I now have an idea of what to pick based on what other people and I have. 

I look for round leaves for wide floral segments, dark bases, etc. depending on the cross. (light bases if I want a white bloom) Also depending on your desire, leaf shapes closest to the species you want the cross to look like. (eg. hangianum x armeniacum - look for non tesselated leaves if you want big hangianum sized blooms) Large thick leaves are probably better too.

Obviously I don't buy plants that I suspect grew slowly for the vendor anymore. I'd rather buy smaller plants from another vendor, of another cross of the same grex.


----------



## emydura (Mar 2, 2011)

Erythrone said:


> Maybe a silly question....
> 
> If the goal of the breeder is to breed miniature, I suppose that he should discard the biggest plants, shouldn't he?



In theory, they should should turn out to be similar sizes when mature. Just that the fastest growing seedlings will get there quicker. There will be a bit of variation of course. But if you want to breed miniature you would select small plants that are mature and breed with those. 

David


----------



## Rick (Mar 2, 2011)

goldenrose said:


> IMO this is a most valid point. Another consideration would be ....
> if the runts catch up a year later are they still the runts?
> Actually I dislike the term runt, has a bad connotation. Anyone involved in dog breeding has been approached by individuals to discount the price of the runt, like it's inferior, hmm .... thinking that way then how much extra should I charge for the largest? On several occassions I've kept the runt, by a year of age if not sooner they were comparable to the siblings. One litter of Labs I recall, the largest male at 6-7 weeks turned out to small, ill proportioned as an adult. Competition is the name of the game in the animal & plant world, it's a crapshoot after a period of time!



Yes

Typically in the orchid world we call them "compact" plants and are desirable by the time they reach flowering status and are still small.

It's kind of funny that the oddballs are the ones that get human attention the most. Average are the first passed over. Personally I don't find albino plants interesting or very atractive, but they are generally highly sought after (even though they usually are less vigorous than the normal colored forms too!)


----------



## Kyle (Mar 2, 2011)

A runt may end up being the same size when mature, but how fast it grows is important. It won't bloom as often and may not make as many growths. Overall, its best to buy the fastest growing seedlings.

Another way of looking at it, is bench space is precious. If something is going to take 50% longer to reach blooming size, I would rather replace it, or not own it in the first place.

However, when dealing with flasks, most flaskers select those plants when replating. I replate plants of simular size into the same flask. So, when I deflask, all the plants should be about the same size and vigour.

I agree with Paphreeks polite comment about throwing out the biggest seedling.

I also suspect that there are a couple of vendors in Canada ( and probably a few in the US), who buy flasks and sell the bottom 50% of vigour, while keeping the big ones to grow out.

Kyle


----------



## chrismende (Mar 3, 2011)

I'm assuming that growth speed and vigor are biological and greenhouse- economy advantages but not directly correlated with flower quality, since much of that is "fashion" (assuming a well developed flower, not a cripple). I, too, have that book that suggests discarding the largest. I'd rather keep the largest as well as several other quick growers and a couple that seem slower but still not tiny. I'm no expert yet, but I understand general genetics, and this seems simply logical. Lance Birk, though, also warns against keeping "snitches."


----------



## chrismende (Mar 3, 2011)

right. small adults might have grown either quickly or slowly!


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 3, 2011)

i've read that sometimes plants that grow very quickly from flask may not have the ability anymore to survive harsh conditions (if there has been lots of selection for fast growers), which probably wouldn't be a factor for a good, greenhouse vendor (but maybe for us under lights growers!  ). the premise is that those in nature with unrestricted growth wouldn't have the where-with-all to survive if bad conditions popped up at a bad time. I don't know if this makes any difference to home culture growers, just passing it along. ..and, trying to understand why someone might think a fast growing plant might not have the best flowers; they may be thinking that something growing really quickly might not as much 'control' over growing into a nice shape as something growing more slowly... this is just a guess trying to understand. though like someone mentioned before that some paphs had been selected as fast growers over some previously very slow growers (like roth and sanderianum), and their flowers turned out nicely... that's a good point, but then again maybe the quality of those species just happens to be very nice altogether in comparison to some other species. just for example, has anyone ever seen a badly-shaped roth or sandy?  could be if they were grown slow or quick, they would still look really nice because that's part of their general flower habit, while another species that could more easily have an ugly shape, would have more chance of looking poor if grown very quickly.

just like in the nutrition threads, it boils down to there are so many different genera and species, and they all have different requirements. who can tell which ones that are growing in flask well will do just the same when in culture, and whose particular culture? that said, I would probably end up choosing quickly-growing seedlings, though I don't like to throw any out because, "you never know" which one will be the winner


----------



## Pete (Mar 3, 2011)

the day i "throw away the biggest growing seedlings in a flask" will be a cold day in hell. im not saying they are predetermined to have some association with good flower quality but that just sounds stupid.
i have seen excellent flower quality out of many "middle of the road" growing plants as well as robust and vigorous plants.


----------



## Marc (Mar 3, 2011)

I've never extracted anything from a flask ( yet..... ) but I personally would never throw something away that has leaves and roots that come from a flask.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2011)

Brian Monk said:


> About eeping "runts" : Most Cattleya breeders acnowledge that polyploid plants are slower growers in flask when compared to their diploid siblings in the same flask, especially when polyploidy has been induced with oryzalin or colchicine.
> 
> As far as who bought out Krull-Smith, it was not the person you are speaking of. It was June Simpson.



Pretty crazy.

Digging back I was speaking of Ryan Kowalczyk with Ursa Orchids that the deal was originally made with. There was an old thread on ST I found that Frank explained the transfer, introduce (briefly) Ryan, and even mentioned the article by Ryan that I was referring too.

Didn't know there was another transfer or name change.


----------



## etex (Mar 3, 2011)

The biggest are keepers for me.

What about seedlings that autoclone in flask? Bought a few catt species flasks last year that had autocloned with tons of very,very tiny seedlings, in addition to normal seedlings. The vendor also sent a note to explain this. Potted up these tufts of seedlings. To be honest,they're not as vigorous. Would blooms be normal, if by some miracle,they reach BS?


----------



## Ernie (Mar 3, 2011)

I agree it's silly to throw out the most vigorous plants. Even if the very best flower happens to come from a runt, you may be faced with years of cultural difficulties if it continues to grow slowly. 

Anyway,I think it's impossible to generalize here. You'll see and hear of many cases for either argument and lots of others. If you don't have room to grow them all up, usually you can find a local orchid friend that is willing to take some off your hands. And if they bloom out great, they are close enough to negotiate reclamation.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2011)

Ernie said:


> I agree it's silly to throw out the most vigorous plants. Even if the very best flower happens to come from a runt, you may be faced with years of cultural difficulties if it continues to grow slowly.
> 
> Anyway,I think it's impossible to generalize here. You'll see and hear of many cases for either argument and lots of others. If you don't have room to grow them all up, usually you can find a local orchid friend that is willing to take some off your hands. And if they bloom out great, they are close enough to negotiate reclamation.



I agree Ernie. It seems like the biggest issue that we are not talking about is why not grow them all out and see, with space being the most limiting resource with this strategy.

As you mature in the hobby, I think there is a critical level of development when you start to do your own breeding/raising of seedlings conflicting with the instant gratification of buying a big adult plant with a big happy (or competitive) flower. And then it colides with finding all the space for raising up all those flats of seedlings!!!


----------



## Ernie (Mar 3, 2011)

Rick said:


> It seems like the biggest issue that we are not talking about is why not grow them all out and see, with space being the most limiting resource with this strategy.



You betchya. That's why I said keep the fast ones and spread the others around, like in your orchid society, if you don't have the room. That way, if one blooms out awesome and the owner brings it to the monthly meeting, you can grab some pollen or even a division. 

Instead of throwing plants away, give them/sell cheap to others and let them grow them up for you.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2011)

Ernie said:


> You betchya. That way, if one blooms out awesome and the owner brings it to the monthly meeting, you can grab some pollen or even a division.



You don't claim that it was stollen from your GH when you were on vacation, trip him and take it backoke:oke:


Teasing!!

But yes, Not only seedlings, but divisions of awarded plants. I haven't been growing that long, but I gave out some divisions of some of my awarded stuff to society growers, and ended up buying back (at discount society prices) some divisions when I lost what I had of the original plant.

It's very community building.


----------

