Message Board - BigPumpkins.com

Ron Rahe (uncron1@hotmail.com)

Ankeny, Iowa

I've been at this sport for a little over 12 years now and I've seen a lot of improvement in breeding/ seed genetics, and of course larger pumpkins. But I was wondering which seeds you all thought were the best of all time?
Here are my top 5.

1: 723 Bobier
2: 998 Pukos
3: 1040 Wallace
4: 898 Calai
5: 1385 Jutras

Junior

1/1/2011 9:50:15 PM

Frank 4

Coventry R.I.

You mean the 1086 Wallace right.

1/1/2011 10:18:35 PM

Cincinnati,OH

1860 Wallace ?

1/1/2011 10:31:22 PM

Iwan Horde

Leerdam, The Netherlands

846 Calai?

1/2/2011 2:44:42 AM

Rhode Island

the seeds you mentioned all played a major roll getting the weights to where they presently sit.

we must now also add the 1161 rodonis as the latest top seed choice.rest assured there will be others as well depending on the outcomes each and every year.

greatest of all time though? is a tricky question. the outcome usually is determined by who plants the seed, and how many times they plant the seed.
if it does well once everyone wants to plant it? ya got an even hotter seed.

who knows there may be seeds that never got planted or pushed by the big time growers that were better than all of the above mentioned seeds.
we will never know

pap

1/2/2011 6:56:58 AM

Muddy Waters

935 Lloyd sure should be on list. Pap is so right,So many sleeping GIANTS.We need more Gamblers in this sport.

1/2/2011 9:34:23 AM

pumpkinJesus

The bottom of New Jersey

Lol @ Ron

1/2/2011 10:00:12 AM

Ankeny, Iowa

Sorry I got some numbers mixed up, 1086, and 846 is correct.

1/2/2011 10:35:52 AM

Ankeny, Iowa

That is true about the seeds that weren't pushed enough. I would like to see someone try to reserect the old gene pools. You never know maybe the 2000 pound pumpkin is hidden in there somewhere.

1/2/2011 10:39:33 AM

BPMailey TL

Ontario

Sure you don't mean the 1068 Wallace??

1/2/2011 11:26:06 AM

Frank 4

Coventry R.I.

That,s the one 1068 Wallace,,,,lol

1/2/2011 12:03:45 PM

Ankeny, Iowa

Yeah 1068, 100% sure this time lol, thanks. I used to have a notebook of seeds, crosses, parent plants etc from the past 10-12 years, but I've miss placed it and my memory is a little rusty lol. Another good seed I should probably mention is the 898 Knauss, it's grown some pretty decent pumpkins also.

1/2/2011 2:36:20 PM

Cornhusk

Gays Mills, Wisconsin

I think I'd have to nominate the 567.5 Mombert.

1/2/2011 3:10:07 PM

Orangeneck (Team HAMMER)

Eastern Pennsylvania

I think that after 2011, the 1421.5 Stelts and 1725 Harp are going to be right up in there.

And for now I would add the 1385 Jutras.

1/2/2011 5:11:12 PM

Richard

Minnesota

They should be on a plaque, nominated seeds, maybe a few nominated each year. Maybe then put on display at the Dill's farm?

1/2/2011 5:14:02 PM

Rhode Island

guys stick with the newer genetics. its the future of the weight gains in our hobby.
the older seeds were great for sure (i have grown most that wre mentioned ). but they were in the past and dont have anywhere near the power of say a 1725-1421-1161- or many of the 2010 monsters.
pap

1/3/2011 7:11:09 AM

Ankeny, Iowa

That's true about the new genetics. I'm interested to see what the 1161 does.
Junior

1/3/2011 7:15:03 PM

Orangeneck (Team HAMMER)

Eastern Pennsylvania

Hard to believe but the 1161 is 4 years old already.

1/3/2011 7:34:26 PM

Kennytheheat

Bristol R.I. USA

Junior the 1161 has already "done" something. It grew a 1810 pound pumpkin. Also some in the 1600 pound mark. certainly a notable seed.TIme will only show how great a seed it really is. Pap, so what your saying is given a choice between say a 998 Pukos or 1068, yound rather have say a 1421? What would you consider to be older genetics? I've asked a lot of growers this question. They've said that they'd rather plant a seed from a larger pumpkin because it came from a larger offspring rather then genetics that came from say a nine hundred pound fruit. Even if the generics are the same, growers have said that they'd rather plant the seed from a larger fruit. Also I've heard the magic bullet theory and I still havent got the hybrid vigor theory down 100%. I'll spair the request on an explination of hybrid vigor lol!!!! The magic bullet theory seems to be on target. Stand to reason why the lieber 1610 with it shinny color and the new world record of 1810 with its cracked extirior. Both from the 1161. Seeing what the 1610 does this year is gonna be interesting.

1/3/2011 8:14:48 PM

Muddy Waters

It only makes sense that a 1600 lb kin is more likely to produce a 2000 lb fruit then a 935 would Just Logical.

1/4/2011 11:03:48 AM

Brooklyn Corner, Nova Scotia

"They've said that they'd rather plant a seed from a larger pumpkin because it came from a larger offspring rather then genetics that came from say a nine hundred pound fruit."

That's one of the most illogical things I have ever read. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest seeds from a larger
fruit will out-perform those from a lighter one.

1/4/2011 11:30:54 AM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

It's easy enough to see if the quote Andy H disputes holds any water:

I looked at all the GPC data available, going back to 2005, and used just those entries that had the mother seed wt recorded along with the offspring wt.

Then doing a simple linear regression, I looked at the relationship between the two.

There is actually a statistically significant relationship. Here's the resulting equation:

Offspring_weight = 483 + (Mother_seed_weight x 0.304)

Here's a table with the expected average results for a range of mother wts.
mother_wt------Average_offspring_wt
200---------------543.8
400---------------604.6
600---------------665.4
800---------------726.2
1000--------------787
1200--------------847.8
1400--------------908.6
1600--------------969.4

It's noisy, of course, but explains about 8.5% of the variation (r^2=0.085).

If we assume the standard deviation is constant across the range of mother weights than larger mother weights would, on average, have a higher probability of growing that 2000 lb offspring.

I looked at individual years' data and they all show pretty much the same trend as all years combined.

1/4/2011 3:50:23 PM

Rhode Island

id rather have the baby from a big fat momma, chip eatin couch potato than a skinng cross country runner any day ---lol
especially if weight is my only goal.
if ui want pretty and a guarentee ill grow a ct field pumpkin.

kenny
in answer to your question regarding what i consider an older seed? after four or five years if its a great seed? its probably already used up.
as the weights go up however,eventually seeds will be desired longer than four to five years ( because the weights will be closer to the MAX the ag is capable of producing ) so these seeeds will be desired for a longer period of time.
once you get more 1700 and up pumpkins? then the demand for these seeds will last longet than four to five years. they should be in demand until the supply is exausted.

1/4/2011 4:29:08 PM

Brooklyn Corner, Nova Scotia

Bathabitat you obviously have a strong math background, your calculations are intriguing, I'm open minded but not sold yet. All things being equal, most would choose to plant a seed from a 1600 lb fruit opposed to a lighter one. That's if all things were equal. Take the 904 Stelts, a hot seed that saw a lot of dirt. Same cross seeds like 1348 Hester and 1235 Daletas didn't perform as well, for obvious reasons. Take a reverse example, the 1385 Jutras out performed all of it's lighter same cross cousins. Why? again it's obvious.

I looked at GPC data as well, this time from the bottom up and I didn't see any correlation between the weight of the mother and fruit size. To do a more accurate analysis, a sample from the middle third ( for 2010 that's about 615 weights ) would be more convincing to me.

I like your thinking bathabitat, feel free to prove me wrong, my wife does it all the time, lol.

1/4/2011 6:06:40 PM

Muddy Waters

Well Im not a smart man I thought it made sense to me Andy,Maybe I should plant my 789, 909 LlyodF X 723 Bobier do u think this has a shot a 2000 pds???

1/4/2011 7:04:52 PM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

Hey Andy,

Even though I think the way I did it before was the correct way, I looked at the middle 1/3 of 2010 offspring (653 to 956 lbs). The relationship was still positive actually, meaning as mother weight went up, offspring weight went up...It wasn't very convincing though. Looking at all 5 years in the middle third, (which increases the sample size), the relationship is statistically significant, but still not very big. I think that's a biased sample though. We're really interested in those bigger offspring so we don't want to exclude them from the analysis.

1/4/2011 8:00:38 PM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

So I looked at all offspring over 500 lbs from 2005-2010. Again I think the way I did it before was probably the best, but this could be informative:

Offspring_weight = 703 + (Mother_seed_weight x 0.190)
explains about 4.8% of the variation and still highly statistically significant.

1/4/2011 8:01:14 PM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

Mother weight is only part of the genetics story though. The seed father (that is the father that pollinated the seed, not the father that pollinated the offspring) is the other part and that data isn't as readily available for the type of analysis I did. However, I'd expect seed father weight to play an equal role as seed mother, given the 50/50 genetic split between mother and father. Favorable or unfavorable Mother x Father interactions could be another genetics player that's really hard to predict.

Even so, that leaves a lot of room for non-genetic variation in offspring size, so your point is well taken that a lot of other factors play a huge role. I tend to agree that it's very hard to say that any given seed family is better than any other when compared head-to-head, because of those other confounding factors and limited sample size. But my analysis here indicates that it does at least seem logical to go with bigger parents when there is a choice.

Besides this analysis, the logic follows that bigger parents verifiably carry genes that allow them to go big given the optimal care. Other smaller offspring (from poor climates, or late pollinations, or ??) may carry those genes, but they may not, it's hard to tell.

1/4/2011 8:01:42 PM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

Sorry for hijacking your post here, Junior

1/4/2011 8:05:22 PM

Brooklyn Corner, Nova Scotia

Great reply there, I appreciate the time you took to dig further, lots to consider that's for sure.
Handy- FYI I love that cross, is it capable of growing a 1800 lb. fruit, I don't know, but more importantly do believe in it? When I think of what will grow a 2000 lb'er I think in terms of growers, not seeds. The growers at the very top of the pecking order have a shot, the rest of us, not so much, regardless of what seed you have. Personally, I think there are many seeds that if in the right hands could grow a 1600, 1700 or higher.

1/4/2011 9:55:37 PM

Muddy Waters

So its more the Grower,soil has to be a big part of it,methods all seem similar,water,pruning,ferts,etc.I believe your right.it comes down to SOIL>TEMPS<CARE> SEED is last.

1/5/2011 7:20:00 AM

Kennytheheat

Bristol R.I. USA

Okay so according to you Pap, a seeds genetics that have been planted become part of the great Atlantic giant gene pool. therefore their genes have been used to produce much larger pumpkins in most cases..That being said a 991 Urena...or.....1385 Jutras a few years from now won't be as good as say the crosses of the future due to the genetics being bred into the pumpkins and the offspring reaping the rewards. That all sounds logical. I believe that. Lets not forget the magic bullet theory to. According to this, not every seed is created equal. it's sort of like picking a raffle in a bucket full of winners one is able to produce much more then the other champs in the bucket. am I on the right track here?

1/5/2011 8:58:55 AM

Ankeny, Iowa

It's allright. I like the disscussion we're having lol.

The theory of seeds from larger pumpkins producing larger off spring is interesting, because there're some cases were that appeared to be correct and other cases that it wasn't. I guess it's all about which genes happen to be expressed in the particular off spring and what the genes code for ie: color size, shape, etc....

1/5/2011 4:02:36 PM

Rhode Island

when it comes to growth though? i wanna know how jack did it to that beanstalk ........pap

1/6/2011 5:43:48 AM

nilbert

I think you're supposed to run over the beanstalk with your tractor, pap. That makes the beans grow larger.

1/6/2011 11:50:05 AM

Rhode Island

lol

1/6/2011 5:45:08 PM

Peace, Wayne

Owensboro, Ky.

jack, dint do it to that beanstalk, he planted it and grew it!!!(or climbed it & stole the Giants Gold) & thanks for awl the jacks,(except the one that drove his traktr over em) that keep growin em bigger (almost) every year!!! Now what was the theory again? Junior, let me know when ya figure this out!!! So, far the AG's seem to be setting New World Record's almost every year!!! Seem's to me the theory, is working!!! Peace, Wayne

1/7/2011 12:31:04 AM

CliffWarren

Pocatello (cliffwarren@yahoo.com)

You guys have me so confused. Where can I get one of those 1860 Wallace seeds???

1/7/2011 10:02:06 PM