From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Hampshire, UK

As someone with a reasonable professional understanding of genetics, it seems to me that there will be no genetic difference between seeds from the 500 Wallace 2003 and the 1068 Wallace 2003. (For each pumpkin, the other plant was the pollinator.) Within the population of seeds from each of these pumpkins there will be genetic variance but I believe that a 500 Wallace should be treated as genetically the same as a 1068 Wallace... and therefore of equal value. Anyone beg to differ.... and if you do then please explain in terms of chromosomes and the mechanism by which you think the seeds from the two pumpkins are will carry a different balance of genetic material.

12/30/2006 4:37:19 PM

SF Bay Area, California

Both fruit did indeed come from the same genetic stew but to say that there is no genetic difference between their seed populations is not correct.

No two fruit on a plant necessarily have the same set of female genes from the mother. There are many combinations of their genetic background possible. Also both fruit were pollinated by small number of flowers that also did not necessarily carry the identical male genes from the pollinator plant.

Even though usually the fruit on a plant seem generally similar, you will sometimes see obvious genetic differences in the fruit on the same plant with different shapes, sizes and even colors. I don't believe that all fruit on a plant have the identical genetic content - similar yes, identical no...

The 1016 and 1230 Daletas are an interesting study for this discussion. Both were from the same plant and were pollinated by the same pollinator plant. You might think that they should have identical genetics. In fact, the 1016 produced three 1200+, but the 1230's top three offspring barely cracked 1000. Both seeds were heavily planted by top growers. I would bet that if the genetics of these two seed populations were truly identical, their offspring would have shown a more similar weight distribution.

The 500 Wallace has popped its share of 1000 pounders but its top offspring so far is under 1200 pounds. It will never be planted as heavily as the 1068 because there were not as many seeds, but at this point, enough offspring have been grown to say with fairly good confidence that the seed doesn't have the same stuff of the reverse cross.

I don't really understand much of the genetic mechanisms of the AG plant but there is enough empirical evidence to suggest that no two fruit are identical genetically.

12/30/2006 5:26:46 PM

Coventry RI USA

Biggest pumpkin we had by far in the middle of August was the 500. Split at 1186 doing 20 pounds a day. Would have been interesting if it held together.

Ron

12/30/2006 6:06:41 PM

Leamington, Ont.

I beg to differ Malc, but I don't speak chromosomian so I guess I'll have to keep my theories to myself...?

12/30/2006 6:10:46 PM

Hampshire, UK

Vince,

Thanks for your long reply and consideration but when you say "No two fruit on the plant have the same set of female genes from the mother" I think that is wrong. The vast majority of the tissue of all fruit on the same plant will be diploid cells with the same genetic make-up as the rest of that plant. Within that female fruit will be some the haploid cells of the ovules, each of which carries a single set of chromosomes. These ovules will all carry different combinations of the chromosomes from the mother plant.

All the different gametes from any plant, be they ovules or pollen, will carry a different collection of the parent's chromosomes but there should be no difference in the balance of those chromosomes in pollen or ovules.

I still maintain that 500 and 1068 seeds should be as likely as each other to grow a big pumpkin.

I think your comparison with the 1016 and 1230 is very valid but the amount of pumpkins grow is not statistically significant. Again I would maintain that the seeds should be as likely as each other to grow a big pumpkin.


For some of the terms I have used above see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ploidy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete

(This is after all the genetics message board!)

Anyone else think I have it wrong?

12/30/2006 6:22:08 PM

Hampshire, UK

Ron, I reckon you can mix the 1068s and 500s all together in a pot and call them 1068/500s. LMAO!

12/30/2006 6:24:15 PM

Long Island,New York

Malcom....if you had 800 "wallace dollars" and the 500 and 1068 were on sale at Wallyworld.com which one would YOU buy?

12/30/2006 6:50:33 PM

Hampshire, UK

For my $800 I would have 5 x 500 rather than 1 x 1068. If they both cost the same I would genuinely be happy to have either for my, definitely imaginary, $800 seed budget!

12/30/2006 7:09:33 PM

Long Island,New York

My money says you take the 1068.

12/30/2006 7:35:21 PM

Greencastle, PA

it's not exactly a 50/50 split. The mitochondrial DNA of the mother alone is passed to the next generation. The 1068 recieved 845 Bobier mitochondrial DNA, the 500 recieved 898 Knauss mitochondrial DNA.
I wish my 500 had germinated.

12/30/2006 7:42:42 PM

Leamington, Ont.

This is indeed the genetics board, but is anyone really an expert on AG genetics? There has not been any, ‘real’ scientific studies done on these plants or seeds to prove that any of our ‘theories’ are correct. Until them, they are all just theories.

I believe having the 935 or 723/845, show up on the female side is very rewarding. Check out any of the 1400+ pumpkins listed and tell me what you see.

How many 1400+ pound pumpkins were grown from something that didn’t have the 935 somewhere on the female side?.......NONE! Coincidence? Maybe…

I’d almost bet on some of the second gen from the 500 to do even better than the first!
But the 500 being equal to the 1068? I doubt it!

Sav

12/30/2006 8:50:12 PM

So. Maine

Wasn't the 961 Wallace (03) the same cross as 1068 ... 845 X 898 ?

12/30/2006 9:59:20 PM

Minnesota(dw447@fastmail.fm)

I don't think the 1225 Jutras had 935 or 723/845 on the mother's side. It does on the father's side.

12/30/2006 10:24:00 PM

Leamington, Ont.

Doh, I overlooked that! Thanks Doug

12/30/2006 10:30:53 PM

Leamington, Ont.

Yeah... let me take that back all back LOL, I was looking at it wrong.

12/30/2006 10:35:42 PM

Simi valley, ca

Just a personal observation,,Iv grown the 958 T Ciliberto & got a weight of 872 my first yr & the conditions were only half of what they are now,, & next yr growen 1104 hester same cross but with a huge improvement it should have gotten much bigger but didnt It split but in comparison should have gotten bigger ,,then last yr grew the 1068 the reverse cross of thouse too But it also didnt grow as good as the 958 in comparison ,, What i have noticed is thouse crosses do have the ability to grow a longer time than average seeds ,, But id say if i was to make a bet it would be hard to pick which would do better the 958 or 1068 , from what iv noticed the 958 is as good & REALLY better ,,atleast for me it was ,, But i feel they are bolth risky seeds for spliting , even if it was the 958 yhat didnt ,, Ps first yr i had only maybe 300 sq ft , soil not amended as good huge roots going into patch << mant bolders in patch , & mostly the powdery mildew that i got early ,i didnt know what to do intill it killed half of plant ,then letting to much growth grow & removing tall leafes let the other leafs fall over ,,, With all thouse mistakes & improvements I feel the 958 did way better than 1104 or the 1068 !!!

12/30/2006 11:00:50 PM

Simi valley, ca

If we had the best growers in the best weather spots growing the 958 we would see (split pumpkins) & Also 1500 lb mark way in the distance !! WE would be halfways between the W R & the 2000 lb mark !!!

12/30/2006 11:09:43 PM

SF Bay Area, California

Malc in theory I gotta agree with you, but then not much in-depth genetic research has been done on the AG's - particularly competition AG's which have been outcrossed extensively. The amount of variation normally seen in one seed line is mind-boggling which could perhaps partially explain some of the variances seen in same-parent seeds lines like the 1068/500 Wallace and the 1016/1230 Daletas.

There is a new pair - the 1231 Pukos/998.6 Pukos which are reverse crosses from the same two plants. These two seeds did really well their first year out and stand a good chance of being heavily planted. This could add some statistically significant fuel to this discussion next year.

From the limited empirical evidence I've seen however, I'm still holding onto the theory that there are several mechanisms at work which make it unlikely that any two fruit will have seed populations with identical genetic distributions - close maybe, but then no cigar...

I may have to run my probability calc on the 500 Wallace and see just where the curve lies - or just what lies the curve may tell...

12/30/2006 11:50:24 PM

Minnesota(dw447@fastmail.fm)

Very interesting to ponder. Thanks Malc for starting this.
It would be nice to know more about the maternal mitochondrial influence.

12/30/2006 11:56:29 PM

Napa Valley, CA

True, the amount of pumpkins that have been grown on the 1016 and 1230 are not statistically significant, but if you take a look at the top fifteen pumpkins grown on each of these (AGGC stats), here is what you will find......
Both seeds were mostly grown by experienced growers.
The weather and geographical variance are somewhat consistent (or depending on your perspective, similarly inconsistent).
The average weight for the top fifteen 1016's is 1043 lbs.
The average weight for the top fifteen 1230's is 921 lbs.

I do not know much about chromosomes and their mechanisms or diploid cells but I do know how to operate a calculator and my calculator tells me these 2 seeds are somehow quite different.

Also, if we take a look at the top 9 pumpkins grown on the 1068 and the 500 (AGGC)you will find......
The average weight for the top 9 on the 1068 is 1346 lbs.
The average weight for the top 9 on the 500 is 970 lbs.

Are these seeds of "equal value" ? ....... maybe so........but with the few that have been planted so far, it doesn't seem so to me.

12/31/2006 2:01:41 AM

Hampshire, UK

Tom (hey you) thanks very much for mentioning Mitochondrial DNA which is the sort of answer I was looking for. I am sure we are getting into territory that no-one fully understands. I am going to hazard a guess that it is FAR less significant in growing big pumpkins than what is carried in the nuclear DNA and codes for things like cell walls and fruit development.

Al (Wait til next year) the difference with the 961 is that it is the same cross, but did not have both parent plants in common with the 500 and 1068. Essentially that means that these seeds have the same grandparents (genetically) but not the same parents. (Unless ONE of the parent plants was one of the same plants involved in the cross that made the 1068 and 500 in which case the seeds would be more closely related but not siblings)

Vince, Your statement about "unlikely that any two fruit will have seed populations with identical genetic distributions" is the crux of it and a point that needs a definite answer. I think we need to cultivate some plant geneticists as friends! It is a question that needs a definite answer and I will endeavour to ask this question in other places. There are some seed biology mailing lists I might join!

12/31/2006 4:25:45 AM

Ohio

Malc, The 500 Wallace is a great seed but if you compare both seeds with pumpkins they have grown how could you not buy the 1068 Wallace with your money and then with the change left over buy Glenn a beer?,LOL

No seriously, dont buy Glenn a beer. I kinda look at it like horse breeding, if you have a great horse that wins millions of dollars for you in racing, and lets say you breed that horses mother and father again, do you think that horses younger brother or sister will be just like the horse that won you millions? That horse could be a dud,but on the other hand could be better.

Brooks

12/31/2006 4:53:29 AM

Hampshire, UK

Brooks,

Thanks for your horse analogy. As a horse veterinarian I like it! I think I could get 5 x 500s and still get Glenn his beer.

I think the point is more fundamental. Apart from Tom's point about mitochondrial DNA, which is very valid but probably not a huge factor, and Vince's suggestion that different fruit might produce populations of ovules with different genetic potential (my understanding is that this is not something reported in any animal ovaries or fruiting bodies of plants) then the 1068 seeds and 500 seeds are all full siblings to each other.

Lets look at the 1068 plant that grew the 1502 and pretend he is the racehorse Cigar. Cigar's dam was Solar Slew and his sire was Palace Music. That means that means that other 1068 seeds would be full siblings to Cigar and well worth the money. The point is that different 1068 seeds are not like running the same racehorse... it is like running a full brother or sister to Cigar.

Having looked at this very hard this morning and read a fair bit on plant genetics we can say that the 500 Wallace seeds are also full siblings to the 1068 seeds. I cannot find a reason for a different balance of nuclear DNA depending on whether the 845 and 898 were male or female parent.

Unfortunately any 1068 "remakes" are not full siblings to cigar but if we continue the analogy, they merely have the same set of grandparents; in this case Seattle Slew, The Minstrel, Come my Prince & Gold Sun!

12/31/2006 6:37:53 AM

Hampshire, UK

I suppose it all comes back to my original reason for posting. I think the 500 Wallace is a very undervalued seed <$200 when the 1068 reaches over $800. When there is so much talk about the 1068, anyone who wants it should plant the 500. It really should be the same! For me, I will plant the 1082 Mackinnon instead so perhaps I better keep quiet. LMAO!

Thanks everyone who has posted on this discussion.

PS I think the AGs probably come from such a small genetic base that they may could all have the same mitichondrial DNA anyway. Wouldn't it be great to know?

12/31/2006 6:38:25 AM

Long Island,New York

Why not the 1252MacKinnon...same cross reversed with same parents and far less pricey?

12/31/2006 9:30:06 AM

Hampshire, UK

Glenn you definitely got one on me there. Why the hell not! LOL

12/31/2006 10:41:27 AM

Nova Scotia

1252 may be a good one to try there were not to many of them sent out

12/31/2006 10:47:18 AM

SF Bay Area, California

Now that us beer-swilling backyard pseudo-geneticists have shouted down Malc, I really like the 1082 Mackinnon and the 1252 too - sight unseen! Why hasn't someone planted that one?

The third largest 845 offspring mated to some 801 Stelts and some 935 Lloyd. It could go big and it could be orange... What's not to like??

12/31/2006 11:18:14 AM

Clayton Cal

Dose all this mean the 639 pugh (500 wallace x 1068 wallace ) is a golden seed cost $1.95 pumpkin post.com big smile thankyou.

12/31/2006 4:38:41 PM

Ohio

Malc, now I have someone to BS to about horses!!,LOL. I have a couple paint horses. I dont ride very much but my 14 yr old daughter does. Glad to meet you Malc.

Brooks

12/31/2006 5:40:27 PM

Germany

perhaps i havent understand all facts correctly, but if the 500 and the 1068 are full siblings (in theory they are not when it is not the same mother, mitochondrial DNA)they are not geneticall identic. But before proving them, they have the same predicted value for their progeny. The real genetic value can be quite different. (Example: the father of both has the combination Aa on one gene, perhaps the 1068 gets the A and the 500 gets the a). If you can compare the progeny of the fullsiblings with statistical methods you can predict the genetic value of the seeds and the average weight posted by geo.napa speaks for the 1068.
EMBE
Benny

1/3/2007 5:52:08 PM

Hampshire, UK

Benny,

The central point is that pumpkin seeds from one pumpkin are NOT ALL GENETICALLY IDENTICAL. All 1068s are not identical.... they are merely siblings. One 500 seed is also a full sibling of another 500 seed and each 500 seed is also a full sibling of each 1068 seed.

So it wouldn't be 1068 gets A and 500 gets a. Within the whole population of 1068/500 seeds some would get A and some would get a.

Cheers

Malcolm

1/3/2007 6:17:28 PM

Germany

Hi Malcolm, I tried to say the same : 1068 and 500 are full siblings (in that case we neglect the fact that they have different maternal effects (mitochondrial DNA ))so if you have no information about the progeny you must assume the same genetic value. But if the information about progeny comes and shows a difference between the siblings, you can predict 1068 gets probable A and 500 prabably not. Perhaps the genetics are mostly the same, but on a few Loci the 1068 is better. I am a farmer and breeding cows. When I am looking for a bull and have the choice between fullsiblings I could not prefer one, even the smaller one could have better genetics. perhaps he was ill or something else. But when I get information about the progeny (statistical relevant)I can say which one is the best.
Greetings
Benny

1/4/2007 7:45:31 AM