From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Brooklyn Corner, Nova Scotia

Not to be contrary but I do not agree with AGGC and the list of Top Pollinators. I don't discredit any seed but the criteria for the best pollinators is flawed. Average weight for offspring produced is misleading to say the least. To me the data would suggest the best pollinators over the past ten years, not average five fruit weight would be 898 Knauss, 1068 Wallace and 723 Bobier. ie) 1068 Wallace was the pollinator in 117 fruit over 1000 lbs. 898 Knauss is the king and 723 Bobier is still a marvel at # 3.

PS- tomorrow's high temperature is 2 degrees, let the games begin, lol

10/30/2010 9:55:30 PM

Milmine, IL

Andy,

While I respect your opinion, I dont believe my criteria to be 'flawed'. The report in question simply lists the total weight of the progeny, the quantity, and the average reached by dividing that total weight by the quantity. The list is then sorted by that averaged weight. Yours is simply another approach that focuses only on offspring weighting over 999 pounds. Using your criteria, the top 10 of the report would look like this:

898.0 Knauss 2001 - 167
998.6 Pukos 2005 - 119
1068.0 Wallace 2003 - 117
1446.0 Eaton 2004 - 81
723.0 Bobier 1999 UOW - 80
865.0 Mettler 1998 - 67
846.0 Calai 1999 - 53
1450.0 Wallace 2006 - 49
1231.3 Pukos 2005 - 43
712.2 Kuhn 2000 - 40

This probably isnt the proper forum to be discussing another web site so feel free to email your response to me privayely.

Thanks,
Mike

11/2/2010 7:18:53 PM

Minnesota

Exactly why I have in my genetics project a 898Knauss remake, a opposite cross of the 898Knauss, and the 689Beauchemin, it has 5 generations of 898Knauss, there has got to be a reason why 898Knauss is in all the family trees. (almost all) (not trying to steel your post)

11/2/2010 8:23:20 PM

Brooklyn Corner, Nova Scotia

Not at all Mike. As you well know I frequent your site more than most and I don't presume to be a genetics expert. My formula and opinion may be different than yours, however, without having access to your site I wouldn't have been able to formulate an opinion, such as it is. I like the order of the top pollinators in your post and I must say it is much closer to my way of thinking. That doesn't necessarily mean I am correct, rather to me it represents a truer historical inerpretation of which seeds made a greater contribution to today's genetics. I am a big fan of your site Mike, but you already knew that.

11/2/2010 9:54:01 PM