Sure. Whatever scion you graft will act like the scion with its own rootstock. All rootstocks are indeterminate. Determinate is a mutation that was found and distributed to breeders in the 20th century. There are many mutations in tomato plants that have been bred and most if not all can be grafted as scions.

I am not an expert in getting better yield with grafting like some others seem to be, but my opinion is that it would be counterproductive in most cases to graft a determinate since grafts, I believe, the roots and junction won't have time to reach full potential fully develop and the yield is greatest as the plant continues fruiting.

If you begin fruiting while the stem is still increasing in girth and then all in one pop and it's over, you won't benefit on the back end of production when the grafted plant is largest.

Just my theory, though and I easily could be wrong so it would be best to experiment and post back to prove that wrong! I also don't believe grafting using regular rootstock such as a Big Beef rootstock, will be helpful. I think only high performance hybrid rootstock will get the benefit ... because I've never seen any study that showed much benefit for grafting one typical garden tomato on top of another.

PC

Agree that you can and it will "behave" as a determinate. But given the nature of determinates I sure can't see what you would gain from doing it.

I think the primary purpose of grafting - increased tolerance against soil borne diseases - has been lost in all the hype about other benefits; ones that just don't hold up. If it was all true then only a miracle could explain how anyone has ever been able to grow any non-grafted tomatoes. :)

Dave

Dave, what other benefits that don't hold up? From what I've read grafted plants generally benefit from enhanced vigor, various disease resistance, and nematode resistance. Depending on the characteristics of the rootstock.

For nematodes and for soil borne viral diseases - yes. That was the original purpose and the results are well documented.

But all the claims made that grafting increases production (some marketing hype goes so far as to claim doubled), fruit size, and plant resistance to fungal diseases? No. The majority of the common tomato diseases are airborne bacterial and fungal caused and in that case the rootstock makes no difference.

Increased "vigor" is a subjective call. It may be increased IF there is viral soil disease or nematodes present (depending on the rootstock used) but otherwise there simply is no documented research to support the claims.

And when balanced against the additional work involved, the additional costs incurred, and the high graft failure rate the hyped claims really have trouble staying afloat.

Dave

PS: and when nematodes are a serious issue using beneficial nems (Hb or SE) to eliminate them is quite effective.

And when root knot nematodes are a really, really serious issue, nematode resistant rootstock PLUS beneficial nematodes is more effective than either alone!

My primary interest is to keep my tomatoes producing until the end of the season with a minimum of disease issues. I live in the southeast where disease and nematode pressure is very high.

I've started to read some peer-reviewed articles about grafted tomato. The benefits are not limited only to resistance against nematodes and viruses.

If you look at the following table in the link below, you'll see that rootstock can offer resistance against a number of bacterial and fungal diseases.

Additionally, there have been reports of enhanced yield with grafted tomato. Cary L. Rivard and Frank J. Louws (NCSU) in "Grafting to Manage Soilborne Diseases in Heirloom Tomato Production" that plants grafted onto âÂÂMaxifortâ rootstock had produced 43% higher total yield than the nongrafted control (P = 0.05, Fig. 6).

I'm really not sure how you can say, "there simply is no documented research to support the claims" when it took me all of 10 minutes to find peer-reviewed articles reporting increased yield and enhanced fungal and bacterial disease resistance with grafted tomatoes.

Here is a link that might be useful: Description of Commercial Tomato Rootstocks as of February 6, 2013

The studies in the articcle that you referred to, "Grafting To Manage Soil Borne Diseases In Heirloom Tomato Production", were done where disease was present in the soil. Which goes back to what Dave said.

The article itself says:
"The results from this study are not clear as to whether grafting with âÂÂMaxifortâ under little or no soilborne disease pressure would be advantageous. In the CEFS trial, cumulative total yield was significantly higher (P=0.05) and was elevated, particularly late in the season (Fig.6). Sustained production may be very beneficial to growers as fruit production often declines late in the season, although markets still may be suitable. At the two organic on-farm trials, âÂÂMaxifortâ and âÂÂRobustaâ did not consistently impact cumulative yield. In one trial, âÂÂMaxifortâ tended to delay early fruit set,whereas âÂÂRobustaâ increased early fruit set as compared with all other treatments. In contrast, âÂÂRobustaâ was not as effective in sustaining late-season yield in the Orange County trial."

And goes on to say:

"The reason for yield benefit in the organic system at CEFS compared with the on-farm experiment is not clear and is a productive question for future research."..."In this study, we have documented the benefit of grafting heirloom tomato cultivars onto rootstock that confer resistance to indigenous soilborne pathogens. In one case, the presence of fusarium was unexpected,highlighting the usefulness of rootstocks to reduce risk of production losses. Grafting increased yield or did not impact yield in organic production systems. Thus,grafting heirloom tomatoes onto well-selected rootstocks decreases risk of catastrophic plant losses and provides similar or greater yields, which should add to the stability of farm income."

What I take from this is that grafting, by itself, isn't the cause of the increased yield. For example, if I were to graft a Brandywine onto a Maxifort rootstock and plant it in my yard here in Michigan where there isn't any soilborne disease, I most likely wouldn't notice an increase in yield compared to a Brandywine growing on it's own roots. However, in soils where disease is present, grafting does prevent soil borne disease from affecting the plants which would reduce yields.

Rodney

Here is a link that might be useful: Grafting to Manage Soilborne Diseases in Heirloom Tomato Production

Yeah I familiar with the study. But you can't read stuff into it - as the authors rightly point out.

The distinction I was making above - not too clearly apparently - is that folks and ad/marketing gurus (unfortunately for the average consumer) have then taken those studies to mean that just grafting, regardless of the soil condition or rootstock used, will increase production, etc. They can then hype and sell high priced grafted plants to the average home gardener who doesn't understand or need them.

The studies were done using infested soil for both grafted and non-grafted plants and using a specific rootstock. Their results do NOT claim otherwise nor do they support the many claims made by others that when grown in non-infested soil a grafted plant will out-produce a non grafted one. Nor do they claim that any rootstock will make a difference.

As for the table you link to - they are all soil borne diseases/pests and do not include any of the common tomato disease issues that affect the majority of the US tomato crops - Early Blight, Late Blight, Septoria, Anthracnose, Bacterial Spot and Speck, etc. etc. Grafting make no difference in those cases as the cause is primarily airborne and can kill a grafted plant just as easily as a non-grafted one.

Hope that clarifies.

Dave

It was pointed out that you are reading the results into the study that you want. A one-minute read of the abstract:

"MaxifortâÂÂrootstock significantly increased yield in one location (P = 0.05), but âÂÂMaxifortâ andâÂÂRobustaâ rootstock did not consistently impact yield at the other two locations.".

Another word that is easy to miss in the abstract is "ORGANIC". All trials were organic and did not address conventional growing methods. Conventional might kick butt in all three trials. You don't know.

K.I.S. If you identify a clear problem after the experience of a season, it is time to look for a solution, but don't start running with the cart before the horse.

PC

This post was edited by PupillaCharites on Mon, Feb 2, 15 at 18:28