From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Udine, Italy

These are only speculative considerations, I know that statistic base of data in not large enough to gave solid conclusions; unfortunately (or fortunately) AG plants, for her size is not an easy model of study. Moreover I consider all the mentioned seeds great seeds, in fact their genes are consistently present in the new hot-seeds.
Based on the data from AGGC, mean weight of the 5 best producers in the period 2000-2005 increased from 845 till 1207lbs (+30%; 20% in the period 01-05). Probably this result is a multicomponent value, due to improvement of growing techniques, breeding, large amount of growers that means more probability of large weights, etc.
Now the goal is to estimate how much is the contribution of every single component. For example, analyzing progeny of 723 from 01 till 05 (I didn’t consider first year out) mean weight of top 5 progeny increase from 1096 till 1265 (+13%); obviously genetic is the same, so this could be explained by improvement of growing techniques; quite similar trend for 805 from 02 till 05. On the other hand, seeds as 846, 801,5, 845, didn’t shown a great increase in the top 5 progeny during 2000 or 2001 till 2004; for ex. 846 top 5 progeny mean weight in 01, 02, 03, 04 were respectively 1036, 1133, 1102, 1081, and more or less the same trend for 801,5 and 845. What is your explanation about this data? The potential of some seeds like 723 are not fully expressed and are they suitable for future breeding programs? The potential of some other are fully expressed? Why some top-breeders like to came back in “old genes” for the new crosses? Is that justified in breeding for weight or only for colour and other characteristics?
Just to have your opinions and stimulate discussion.
Paolo

2/13/2007 7:18:19 AM

Montoursville, PA

My two cents....We have no controlled studies using research and planting of a specific seed. We may have some intellegent guessing but that's about all. To get better we would need major grant bucks to field those studies which would have to deal with all the possibilites of crossing and result factors. I don't see the support or cash flow that would support those studies. Therefore the very moment of surprise is just about equal for any good to good cross. I feel that the top growers sharing and crossing with each other is good to good at it's best today only because there are larger numbers in the top growers grouping. Only when the crosses can be duplicated and produce the desired result consistantly will be have a better way to go.

2/15/2007 10:26:21 AM

Owensboro, Ky.

The mystery is what makes this game (sport, hobby, competition) so much fun!!! Grow 'em big!!!! Peace, Wayne

2/15/2007 10:56:18 PM

Phoenix, AZ

Paolo,

I really like your thinking and am surprise that not many people have commented.

Here is what I am getting out of your comments: We are improving our growing techniques. How is the next question.

2/16/2007 11:21:45 PM

Minnesota(dw447@fastmail.fm)

Paolo,
You ask good/interesting questions. I think at this point answers would be based mostly on opinion, or educated guesses. I would think better growing methods(plant management, soil fertility, etc.) is one part of the equation, of increasing weights. Was the generalized switch to smaller plants(400-800 sq. ft.), a significant factor in this? I wonder if our breeding efforts will be a significant factor in increasing weights in the future?

2/16/2007 11:43:46 PM

Nashville, TN

The primary hurdle that most researchers have commented upon; is the lack of the creating/maintaining of multigenerational inbred lines with which to do research with.

This is why it's taken me into my third season prior to even having my P generation with which to get the F1 crosses.

The secondary hurdle is the fact that these plants take so much growing space; space which is at a premium in University-maintained fields.

The Third hurdle is the fact that this is not considered a commercial crop and has little economic value in the sceme of things.

2/20/2007 1:41:09 PM

Rhode Island

Most people like myself are not that interested in scientific studies. growing atlantic giants is really just a hobby. The real research needed in my opinion is for improvement of food crops, disease research , childrens and adults,etc.

growing giant pumpkins is just something we learn from our own experiences and / or learn from others we have faith in.

I try not to get to tecnical because its only a hobby. Even if you grew a 2,000 pound pumpkin it would for most outside our small circle of growers be just a passing novelty

Pap

2/20/2007 11:23:11 PM

Minnesota(dw447@fastmail.fm)

Well said pap.

2/20/2007 11:31:41 PM

Central Pennsylvania lauralie1978@yahoo.com

Has anyone ever tried cooking with AG's? Technically they are like an orange squash aren't they? They should be edible. If the genetic research would zero in on flavor and texture qualities, we could be doing things with them to help fight world hunger or something. Change the world of mass produced pumpkin pies from factory bakeries forever! Heck, just one good plant could feed a family for five years...LOL!

2/21/2007 1:48:01 AM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

I like the "techie" side of our sport but I can clearly see why the money to fuel research isn't here.

Actually I believe that Libby & other canners used to sponsor some weigh-offs & did engage in some research trials. But the Dill's Atlantic Giant doesn't fit the model of a marketable food commodity.

Taste (lack of sugars) & yield doom our beloved AG.

In agriculture it all boils down to identifying a crop that is marketable (taste) first and then the farmer/university will start looking at maximizing yield in pounds per acre. Pounds per plant or pounds per fruit doesn't do anything to maximize yield or profit. If a forklift is needed to harvest each fruit then certain efficiencies go right out the window.

In other words, our goals are in conflict with the industry that is best suited to fund research.

Paolo is correct that the space required to perform real grow-out trials (for genetic purposes) is the limiting factor. Hence the best we've been able to come up with is getting a dozen good growers to commit to a seed & review their findings. The trouble is that sometimes these growers are in radically different areas of the worlds so their results are skewed by soil, pest & weather anomalies. They are also likely to use different cultural practices which skews the data even more.

For sure sharing ideas via the the internet (communication) has provided us a better growing program so the same old seeds are now producing better results. This very website has a lot to do with why the results keep improving.

2/21/2007 7:49:14 AM

Nashville, TN

The real research needed in my opinion is for improvement of food crops,

****Ahhh, but think of the POTENTIAL if we could isolate the gene and understand the biochemical pathways for the GPs extremely rapid growth! I've gotten several senior-level bio and chemisty majors at TSU and Vandy intrigued.. All of these kids are going on to grad school - so eventually we may have several Phd researchers involved in the hunt.

Just think if a biotech company inserted this rapid growth gene into a crop such as soybean, alfalfa or switchgrass.. We'd be able to produce more livestock feed per acre, and more swithcgrass for ethanol production.

My small research project is hopefully just the start, of a larger interdisciplenary field of research.. I'm just trying to fill the void - of maintaining/creating several inbred lines and getting basic inheritance patterns understood.

3/19/2007 7:17:03 AM