From

Location

Message

Date Posted

No Place Special

While cruising the message boards I came across a message (http://bigpumpkins.com/MsgBoard/ViewThread.asp?b=24&p=191446)
That said “squash line with no 895* hester”, this got me wondering. With the 1068 being the new kid on the block, almost everyone will be planting a seed that is crossed with the 1068 and those that are fortunate enough to have a 1068, they will surely be using it as a pollinator. Will the 1068 be incorporated into every decent giant pumpkin producing seed stock in the future? In a few years from now will we be seeing posts looking for seed stocks that do not have the 1068 in it? Now its obvious the 1068’s genetics are superior, but should some of us be trying to preserve some lines that differ from those of the 1068? Rob and I will be guilty of mixing heavily with the 1068 this year and wonder if that will be the same story for most of us.

3/7/2007 2:32:20 PM

No Place Special

Now its difficult today to find seeds that do not trace back to the 846 Calai, 723 and 845 Bobier, 801 stelts and oh im missing a couple im sure. Is this a bad thing, I don’t know? Our weights have increased dramatically over the past few years but would they be even better if we tried to avoid this “VanHook” type of southern breeding? (sorry VanHook bros. I was trying to think of a southern grower who could take a joke). Heck I don’t know, just wondering what others might think. Maybe breeding with the best all the time like we have been is the way to go? Im at home sick today and also my boy is sick. Not much else to do except come up with this crazy post.

3/7/2007 2:32:38 PM

Somerset,Ky

Mike,

Good point! We at Van Hook Inc. lol Love to make some nice
crosses. James (Green Goblin) Loves 1068 and would mess
himself if he got one! Is it the super seed of the future?
Who knows it could be. We must also keep in mind the
consistancy of the plants we breed. Do they perform well
in most climates? Do they go heavy to the charts? Then
what about color? Lots of modifiers in the mix now !
So before we do any crosses whether it's a 1068, 1407,
ect. What are our goals?

John Van Hook

3/7/2007 6:58:37 PM

South Bloomfield, Ohio

I posed a question at the SOGPG meeting in Chillicothe last Saturday:

Has anyone ever tried to cross two proven champions with very dissimilar backgrounds purposely? It seems that most large AG's share similar heritage on both the male AND female side.

Now that growing AG's has blossomed to what it is today, we are not limited to the few backgrounds that growers just a few years ago had to choose from.

I can't help but think like livestock breeders do since we ARE dealing with DNA here: the less inbreeding, the better.

3/7/2007 7:04:49 PM

Ohio

Mike here’s what I think, if we keep crossing with the best pumpkins like a 1068 that grow bigger and bigger each year then why would someone want to find a new all together different kinda cross to grow to get bigger, that might not even grow big anyway?(if that makes sense, lol) I think most growers stick with what is working. Its good to try something new don’t get me wrong, but I think growers want to win weigh offs and have nice genetics that grow big pumpkins. I think we are going to have a lot of the 1068 Wallace in the next generation of seeds, it would be hard for me, and Im sure most growers to try to grow say a,572 Bosworth 04' if they have a 1068 Wallace to plant instead, especially when they know the 1068 has a way better chance of growing huge. This is one of the reasons I think the 1068 will be in the next generation of seeds. Growers just want to grow the biggest , so what grows the biggest at the time they will try to grow . I don’t think most growers at the time care about if a 1068 is going to be in every seeds back ground that most growers grow, as long as its breaking world records, they are growing it. They just want a big pumpkin that year and want their seeds to grow big like their mom.
I do think there will be a lot of other pumpkins grown that don’t have the 1068 crossed into it, not many, but some,lol.(unless they are going to cross everything in their patch that year with a 1068 Wallace,,,,like I will probably do,lol)
Cont...

3/7/2007 7:31:19 PM

Ohio

If weights start falling off the mark and pumpkins don’t seem to be growing big in the futrue like they are today then we will need to find something else in a cross to start growing to get the weights back up and over the mark again, but for now I think the pace us growers are on we wont have to worry about that for a long while because I also think these pumpkins we grow are coming real close to their plato anyway, I just cant see how a pumpkin will hold itself together if it reaches say 1800 to 2000lbs

3/7/2007 7:31:29 PM

Rhode Island

i have said it before and i will say it again. the true life cycle of a giant pumpkin is between 85 and 100 days from pollination. rarely will you get one to grow over that, mostly we are happy if they grow for 95.

a pumpkin like rons had to weight 140 plus over the charts to get to 1502. like wise my 1,450 was around 90 plus over.

both grew exceptionally well during their cycles and had really great, steady taper downs. this i attribute to our general care,feeding and health of the plants.

the point is to get to 1,600 is a far reach. will it happen? possibly. when will it happen ? who knows.

but i do know that for a pumpkin to weigh 1,600 it need to tape close to 1,500 going in and weigh over. i dont thing you can tape 1,600 going in and expect to weigh that.to many balloons when they get that big.

thats where the genetic history comes in. if you are trying to grow a world record the first thing you do is annalize your soil and get it in tip yop pumpkin growing shape.

secondly, select seeds that you know tend to grow big with thick walls.

thirdly, be sure to replace nutrients and especially calcium levels by mid season. a tissue test is the best measuring stick. add what you know it needs, not what you think it may need.

pap

3/7/2007 7:59:35 PM

Rhode Island

a very interesting post by mike frantz.

i agree that for no other reason than its history to date the 1068 will be geneticly tied into many of tomorrows great seed stocks. just as some great genetics went into that genetic milk shake that was the 845 bobier x 898 knauss

but i also believe the 1068 is the link to the ceiling of this great hobby of ours. heres why i say that.

1. the percentage of championship pumpkins it has produced during its brief three year run
think about that for a minute ? three years and it over took seed stocks that got more plantings and a larger seed supply to boot.
2. it last year alone could have possibly produced a second world record had it not been for a unfortunate happening north of the border.

this year we plan on doing several crosses that will introduce in some cases genetics to reinforce the existing line and, we will also attempt to pollinate a 1068 or two with big and heavy genetics outside (as much as possible ) from the 845-898 lines.
last year i wanted to use the lorraine orr 887 seed from the mid ninties, because it was a great performer and had most genertics that are not in the 1068.
unfortunately that was the only dud 1068 plant we had in the patch and the results were not conclusive.

hey whatever happens. its been a great run and we are glad as many people as possible got to enjoy the seed and the success it has help bring to our club.

pap

pap

3/7/2007 8:23:14 PM

South Bloomfield, Ohio

Sounds like we're on the same page pap.

3/7/2007 9:12:14 PM

Rhode Island

yep. but what to use is the first hurdle, getting the stars to line up is another thing

3/7/2007 9:22:51 PM

Hudsonville, Michigan (michiganpumpkins@sbcglobal.net)

Mike:
I think you are right - in five years 1068 will be so prolific in the seeds we will be growing that we will be looking for 'outcrosses.'Save your seed collection! You never know what may come in handy down the road...

3/9/2007 11:54:06 AM

Greencastle, PA

I have a completely non-1068 related project that I'll be working on in 2007 and 2008. We'll see where that gets me.

3/10/2007 1:00:21 AM