sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Hope this works,, Just some pictures to show water sucker vs swords pups.







I have an ever growing collection of pups and plants... somebody STOP ME LOL

:woohoonaner:

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Coolio.......Now which turn out to be better fruit producing plants?

Wanters want to know lol!:08:

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

How they produce has mixed opinions. I will know in time as i have many of both in the growing process. Its hard for me to toss any pups as i enjoy growing them so much, BUT in time Im going to run out of room. My fault is not marking them to know what kind they are. I just gather them up and pot them on a given day. I have so many kinds. I hope to know what they are once they mature.

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

I believe sword suckers tend to have a shorter time to maturity and produce a larger initial bunch, but after the first bunch, the plants are pretty much the same.

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

I am not sure about having a shorter time to maturity and producing a larger initial bunch, but I do agree that after producing the initial bunch both plants are pretty much the same.

They both die after producing the initial bunch.

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Regarding the initial bunches, it would largely depend on environment.

Sword suckers have much larger root masses, so the rougher the conditions during that first fruiting cycle, the more of a disparity there would be between the initial bunch of a sword sucker vs water sucker. If conditions are perfect, there should be little difference; if conditions are rough, that extra root mass would be extremely valuable and could make a sizable difference in growth rate and bunch size/quality.

After the first cycle, the relative difference in root mass between the two types would become negligible, so the difference in bunch size/quality would become negligible as well.

That's what I think is going on, anyway.

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Wow thanks.... I hope to kill a dozen of either (after the intitial fruiting of course:}) next year..

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Thanks GreenFin, it is nice to hear someone talk about roots using some actual facts.
I spend much time examining the roots and have not noticed a difference between the roots of sword and water suckers.
Where exactly are these much larger root masses?
I realize in the ground but where in relation to the corm?
Distance and depth?

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Check out the photo and comments by Pitangadiego in this thread.
http://www.bananas.org/f2/water-suckers-5285.html

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

I mean that sword suckers have bigger corms, more roots, and bigger roots.

Here's a pic that shows what I mean (water sucker on left, sword on right):

Another example (water sucker on left, sword suckers in middle and on right):


Another sword sucker:

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Mark that is not really a fair comparison, you are comparing a golfball and a softball sized corms and then saying "see the one with the greater surface area has more roots".
I could easily show you a WS with a basketball sized corm that has more roots than the than the SS in the photo.
A better comparison would be two plants with the same size P-stem at the time of flowering. That is how I compare roots, bananas to bananas not apples to oranges.
At the age in those photos the WS does not have the leaf area to support fruit and the SS does not have the root mass to support fruit, so it is irrelevant at that point which has larger leaves or more roots.

I studied the difference in yield and found it to be almost exactly the same, however I did not track the "days to harvest" because of the difficulties of determining the age of the plants "DAY 1"

Your goal should be to have sufficient root mass and leaf area to provide proper fruit filling.

I did read what Pitangadiego has written, quote
"Roots can extend as much at 10' from the trunk of the plant."
Now that could be a completely different explanation because the roots of my plants extend much futher, easily in the 20 to 25 foot range.
10 foot roots cover 314 sq ft
25 foot roots cover 1963 sq ft and gives a plant 6 times the area to collect water and nutrients.

Try to be more objective when making a comparison, this will lead to more accurate and useful data.


The bunch on the left was from a sword sucker (18.1 lbs), and
the bunch on the right was from a water sucker (28.3 lbs)
The weight only includes the fruit, not the stem.
These bunches are both from African Rhino Horns and the photo does not prove which is better, but does prove they both produce fruit.
[IMG][/IMG]

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Keith, it's a completely fair comparison if you are talking about suckers when they are separated, rather than when fruit are harvested from those plants when they are full grown (as you are). When people assert that sword suckers have a larger corm and more roots, I think they are always talking about when the sucker is separated and planted. At that point, on average, sword suckers have more roots and a larger corm. Thus, they tend to establish themselves faster initially. This is why many people advise others to choose sword suckers over water suckers as material for planting.

As for whether it matters in terms of time to harvest, bunch size, etc., I haven't seen any data from a properly designed experiment that could be used to answer that question. Gabe has stated that some experiments have shown an advantage of starting with sword suckers instead of water suckers, and other studies have shown no difference. So, mixed results. Whether there is a real advantage in starting from sword versus water suckers could depend on any number of factors (e.g., climate, genome, fert and water regime, etc.). I would have no qualms about starting a mat from either type. If I had the luxury of choosing between two suckers to start a mat, I'd choose the one with the bigger corm, regardless of type. More stored energy to get growth going.

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

I still do not think it is fair to compare roots from corms of drastically different sizes, but I will try again to make my reasoning clear.
The last water sucker I planted in the field had roots longer than 20 feet, the roots needed to be cut back to 24 inches before moving. This WS had many more roots than the sword sucker in the photo.
This WS had an 8 1/2 foot P-stem and weighed between 300 - 350 lbs.
I personally do not think this would be a fair comparison, but I see your point.
The time when a sucker is separated and planted has too many variables for that to be the deciding factor for comparison.
I feel the corm or the where the corm and p-stem meet the best way to make a fair comparison.

BTW it is normal for me to separate and plant P-stems of 5 to 9 foot.
When people ask for a plant, they are always happy to see an 8 or 9 foot P-stem come out of my truck.

I would not even waste my time digging a hole to plant that tiny WS in your photo.

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Thanks for all the input.. As far as which is better, guess its all in who you ask and condictions. To me,, its just the fun of growing them :bananas_b

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

LOL

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

I've noticed a huge difference in growth rate, size and fruiting. But that's only for where I live. I tend to leave some water suckers strictly for foliage. They tend to fall over in storms easily, due to their thin p-stem, where as sword suckers are much stronger and thicker.

As far as getting the fasted strongest growth and the fruit sooner, sword sucker.

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

Found this in Julia Morton's Fruits of Warm Climates. "Sword suckers of plantains have yielded 54,984 fruits per acre (135,866 fruits /ha); water suckers, 49,021 fruits per acre (121,132 fruits/ha)." I would have thought there would have been a bigger difference, but only one study.

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

It seems like I am the only one that can't distinguish between the two suckers, so if someone can tell me where to look for the main differences I would be grateful.
Here are photos of each, they were planted side by side on the same day.
I measured the circumference at the height of 30 inches (C@30)
One has a diameter of 9.09 inches and the other 9.11 inches.
They are both from the same mother and appear to have the same P-stem height.

What is the easiest way to see the difference?

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]


After measuring the circumference I noticed that they had both sent up their flags during Tropical Storm Isaac.
One appears to be a few hours ahead of the other, maybe a sibling rivalry.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

By looking at them when they're young, like all the rest of us, instead of waiting until they're adults. Maybe this is a language thing, because virtually everyone except you is using the word 'sucker' to apply to young plants, whereas you are choosing to continue to refer to adults as suckers.

Adults that started off as water suckers should be very similar to adults that started off as sword suckers, since they've had a long lifespan (a year?) to catch up on root development. So if you're looking to differentiate, it just doesn't seem like it would make any sense at all to wait until they're adults before trying to determine which is which.

If you're wondering, "Well, if as adults water suckers eventually catch up to sword suckers in terms of root development, at least in nearly ideal conditions like are found in Puerto Rico, then why would the bunches tend to weigh slightly less?" the answer is almost certainly that nutritional deficiencies along the way during development have lingering effects at flowering/fruiting time. (Richard, iirc, has posted a study showing that potassium deficiencies in early development have a lingering negative impact on fruit production as an adult during that first fruiting cycle. So since water suckers have vastly inferior root systems during the early and adolescent stages, it seems to make perfect sense that adults that started off as water suckers would tend to have smaller first bunches.)

Re: sword vs water sucker - pictures
 

That's not the only goal.

You're ignoring the fact that nutritional deficiencies during early stages of development have lingering effects on initial fruit production.

The fact that water suckers start off with vastly inferior root systems means that they're more likely to have nutritional deficiencies during early development, which in turn means that water suckers should tend to have smaller initial bunches.

You might counter that sword suckers start off with fewer leaves, which is a detriment, and that this should counteract the advantage that sword suckers have with their superior roots. The detriment of lacking leaves, however, is more easily overcome than the detriment of having a puny weak root system. It's pretty easy for a sword sucker with a huge root system to quickly push out some leaves, whereas it's a tougher and longer job for a water sucker to generate a massive root system.