From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Bristol R.I. USA

Does anyone know if there are any seeds out there that come from a small fruit yet have a history of throwing larger offspring on a regular basis?

1/13/2011 2:18:24 PM

Ontario

Kenny, two that are for sure's are the 275 VanHook 06 and the 227 Leland 06. Both 1000+ producers..

1/13/2011 2:40:12 PM

Ohio

344 Hoffman (05) and 125 Wolf (05). The 125 has a couple over 1000# and the 344 has a couple inbetween 800-1000#.

1/13/2011 2:57:27 PM

Midway, UT

Colorad's new state record came from a seed of a 50 pound pumpkin. One question you have to ask is why the pumpkin was small to begin with. Was it picked early because of damaged, was it just a pollinator plant, etc.

Most of the most popular seeds came from "smaller" pumpkins. Look at the 985, 998, 898, 991 and 1161. Not very big of pumpkins by most people's standards. Genetics is a funny thing.

1/13/2011 3:58:09 PM

Frankfort Ohio

664 liggett

1/13/2011 4:20:34 PM

Santa Rosa, CA

Kenny,

That is a good question. In addition to the replies above, the 519.5 Veader (2007) has produced larger offspring. It is a 1260 Weir X 998 Pukos cross.

It produced one over 900 pounds, one over 1,000 pounds and one over 1,100 pounds.

Chuck

1/13/2011 6:35:35 PM

New York

The 227 produced a 1500 pounder in 2007.

1/13/2011 6:42:35 PM

norway , maine

364 Webster

1/13/2011 9:09:54 PM

Brooklyn Corner, Nova Scotia

Those are all excellent examples of small fruit that can produce sizeable pumpkins. As stated before, there is no evidence to support the theory that large pumpkin offspring produce larger fruit. ie) genetics patch
Jamie's example is perfect, seeds from a 50 lb pumpkin grow the Colorado record.

1/13/2011 9:25:51 PM

Owensboro, Ky.

Think JVH, said that he has grown a 275 each year (4 total) and results were 4 over 1K!!! Peace, Wayne

1/13/2011 10:19:55 PM

Bristol R.I. USA

Andy I've been trying to look everywhere for any evidence to my question. After this post I'm just as confused as I started. Im hearing that genetics are the only issue I should be worried about. The reason why I ask these things is I'd like to grow my own seeds in 2012 and I'd like to get the right genetics to give me the best chance of producing a respectable seed as well as a big pumpkin. Jamie's example sure is a good example of what one powerful seed can do. I understand that several factors have to be considered such as how many times the seed has been planted and who planted it and possible what the might have done different or the same to get the pumpkin to grow like they did. The 275 seems to be a great example of what a seed is capable of doing in the hands of a motivated grower. I'll continue to search and learn about this..great responses, thanks.

1/14/2011 12:11:34 AM

Johnston, R.I.

Kenny grow a seed from the pumpkin you weighed at Frerich's last Oct, and one from something else,, I think you will be happy with your results......

1/14/2011 1:32:46 AM

Honesdale, Pennsylvania

My 218 Sandercock produced the 816 Box. Andy had 2 other pumpkins on that plant as well The 218 has never been given a full plant with only one fruit to grow. I think it to has huge potential. They have been weighing over 10 percent heavy as well and flame orange coloring.

1/14/2011 8:23:18 AM

Pocatello (cliffwarren@yahoo.com)

Small fruit can definitely produce large offspring. This doesn't mean that large fruit do not produce large offspring. Again, one must look at why the fruit came to the size it did.

1/14/2011 10:44:09 AM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

I think Cliff states the situation well.

Andy H, are you just saying that fruit size, in a genetics patch, doesn't matter as far as the offspring those seeds might produce? I can agree with that.

However, I did show some evidence that seed mother weight is related to offspring weight overall (on Jan 4):

http://www.bigpumpkins.com/MsgBoard/ViewThread.asp?b=19&p=377628

That analysis included every pumpkin with a weight and parent weight in the GPC database from 2005 to 2010, so it even included genetics patches and poorly cared for plants along with the competition plants.

1/14/2011 3:10:59 PM

norway , maine

582 Hester

1/14/2011 4:51:22 PM

Brooklyn Corner, Nova Scotia

Bathabitat, I don't question your math. My daughter is familiar with linear regression from her stats class in University. It looked OK to her but she thought some blanks were missing and had a question. How did you derive a constant and did you use a standard error formula. I don't know what that means but after looking at the GPC data, it's premature to state that seed mother weight is related to offspring weight overall, here is why. In 2010 there were 607 fruit listed under 500 lbs.,only 229 had mothers listed and only 29 of those mothers were lighter than 500 lbs. On the other end, of the top 500 heaviest pumpkins listed, only 38 do not have a mother listed. The data is skewed in favor of heavier pumpkins.I don't know how accurate the equation would be with the absence of data in the lighter weights.

Using the law of averages, it is reasonable to predict that either seed mother weight is related to offspring weight or it isn't. The balance would lean in favor of one or the other. For now I am not convinced that there is any significant difference. I enjoy the discussion though.

1/15/2011 12:38:09 PM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

I'd say that the statistical analysis is evidence. You don't have to believe it, I guess, but it is evidence.

The missing or incomplete data was excluded. There was no way around that. The blank data has to be left out or it could show up as zeros in the dataset, which would really skew the results.

The constant (y-intercept) is part of the standard regression procedure. I just plugged the dataset into a stats package and it provides the equation in that standard form and all the associated statistics. A person could do that in excel too by plotting the data and inserting a trendline.

The constant (483) is a very useful number for your side of the argument actually. At a theoretical mother weight of 0 pounds the average offspring is still 483 lbs. However from there average offspring weight goes up as mother weight goes up. At 1600 lbs the average offspring weight is 969 lbs. That's almost a 500 lb average benefit in offspring size associated with a weightier mother.

Especially in the complete data set from 2005-2010 the data fits well across the range of mother weights. I plotted the residuals (modeled - actual) vs mother weight and it showed that the equation fit well over the whole range of data. That is, there was no systematic bias, even though there were fewer offspring on the very low end of mother weight.

The fact that some of your other methods don't detect the difference isn't surprising. ANOVA's, t-tests, etc are less powerful than a regression with this kind of data structure especially with the huge variation around the mean.

1/15/2011 7:19:37 PM

Brooklyn Corner, Nova Scotia

Ok, I throw in the towel, lol. You're too good for me.

1/15/2011 7:50:11 PM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

Ha ha. Ok, I'll argue your side then. lol.

The downside of regression or correlations like this (and all other ‘observational’ data analysis) is that they don't necessarily demonstrate causation. It could be that some other confounding factor is actually related to both offspring weight and mother weight. One possibility is that heavy hitters tend to choose seeds from large mothers and the "heavy hitter-ness" leads to bigger offspring.

1/15/2011 8:57:06 PM

nOVA sCOTIA

On paper means absolutly nothing when it comes to growing these freaks of nature.664Liggett, 227 Leland ,275 Vanhook,998 Pukos ,500 Beauchemin.If you place these seeds in the hands of any of todays top 5 monster growers they are as capable as any other seed available!!!

1/15/2011 9:26:47 PM

Alabama

The 360 Slone grew the 1031 Slone first year out it could be a good one.

1/17/2011 12:34:13 AM

Going Green

I think that we can all agree that the pumpkin genetics are certianly 1/3 but another 1/3 would be the correct soil with the proper nutrients and proper maintenace!

1/18/2011 1:50:27 AM

Before the discussion on linear regression kicked in, ArvadaBoy stated that one factor to consider is the reason behind a small fruit's size.

The 227 was a clone/cutting grown in place (but severed from the main vine) so as not to suck energy from the plant that was heading to the main fruit (which ended up popping in the blossom). The 227 was pollinated in August and grown on something like 20 square feet of actual plant. Still kicking myself for not handling the main vine fruit better.

1/18/2011 9:46:03 AM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

That's a good point, Neal.

My intent is definately not to pick on "genetics" patches.

I tended to generally agree with you and others on that point despite my full dataset analysis. That point being that small fruit size (from genetics plants) doesn't necessarily mean small potential offspring size. In that case a mother of 50 lbs might be just as good as a 400 or 500 lbs mother from a genetics patch. The weight isn't a good indicator of potential in the case of "genetics" plants. The pedigree will be the key, I think.

I did an analysis that only included mother weights less than 500 lbs figuring that many of those might be "genetics" plants. I wasn't too surprised to find that, in that set, there was no relationship between mother fruit size and offspring weight. (That may be what Andy H was getting at?) The average offspring weight is 571 lbs for mother weights less than 500 lbs.

However, that lumps all the different "genetics" and non-genetics mothers together from that weight range, which could mask an individual mother that excelled. There were some notably big offspring in there. Data are just too variable and sample size too small to do fair mother to mother comparisons.

However for fruit grown in full competitive patches, I would be inclinded to use the information provided by the original full regression analysis.

1/18/2011 1:24:49 PM

Owensboro, Ky.

Pumpkin Farm, what is the other 1/3? Peace, Wayne
PS...and thanks to awl for this informative thread!!!

1/18/2011 11:10:18 PM

Pleasant Hill, Or

I'll throw in my opinion here, for what it is worth. Having taken statistical methods in college (forgetting a lot of it), I would agree that Bathabitat is correct, but there is way too much bias and subjectivity to approach this mathematically.

If growers were to choose their seed strictly by genetic lineage without knowing the parent weight (blind test), then your analysis would apply. But we all know grower name, previous results, even hype and excitement created for a seed on this board all contribute to the seeds success.

The 275 and 227 are perfect examples; Of the top 15 growers in the sport right now, how many of them have grown either seed? How many of them have grown the 1385 or 1161 etc. multiple times? The data is too skewed because of subjective reasons to be of any value.

Thad

1/19/2011 3:58:06 PM

The bottom of New Jersey

It's 1/3 genetics, 1/3 soil and nutrients, 1/3 weather, and 1/3 luck! And that's only 1/3 of my opinion.

1/20/2011 9:38:28 AM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

Thanks for chiming in Thad. Your point is mostly well taken. Except for the not being of ANY value part. :)

I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Assuming the regression tells us SOMETHING useful (although some folks might disagree with that assumption), I come up with a couple explanations for the regression:

1. Taking the regression at face value: Bigger mothers actually do grow bigger offspring (on average with huge variation around the average) - This is compelling to me because it is consistent with basic plant breeding genetic principles, assuming fruit weight has a genetic component (which I think it does).

2. The best growers tend to produce the biggest pumpkins and the best growers apparently tend to pick bigger mothers, so the regression could, in part, be a reflection of that relationship. (I think this is what you're saying, Thad.)

In either case, I struggle to find a reason to NOT grow seeds from bigger parents. Either I do it because it makes biological sense to me (supported by regression data and every plant breeding textbook I've read) OR I do it to emulate the best growers, who seem to be on to something.

If anyone has a hypothesis or theory as to why I shouldn't grow seeds from big parents, I seriously would be interested to discuss the merits of that alternate theory.

How do you (Thad or anyone else) pick your seeds? (I mean that sincerely, I'm curious how different people do it.)

Maybe I'll start a different thread on that.

1/20/2011 11:51:34 AM

Littleton, Colorado

This is a fascinating line of discussion,& I was straining brain cells even 39 years ago when I grew my first Colorado state record---trying to figure out how & why giant pumpkin & squash plants do what they do. Just to give you guys a little more of the vitals on the 50 Todd: In 2008 I had a spectacular 1535 1/2 Glasier plant going. I started it & a 1092 Martin on April 13th. They both germinated fully on 4/17. By June 1st the 1535's main was 16' out with a female wanting to bloom the next day. I checked with Wiz,Biz,Cojoe,Madman,& a couple others- no pollen in Colorado on June 2nd. After a couple aborts & my blundering, I kept 1535's # 5 at 32'10" on main-July 5th. My work kept interfering with far more important matters (pumpkins) for the rest of July & August, so the 1535 took matters into it's own hands (vines) & decided to be somewhere around 4000 sq.ft. I did get a few chances to see Biz's 1385 & really liked it. I got pollen from it & crossed with the 1535 on August 9th. It was a side of a side of a side of a---you get the idea. It was really late (especially at 5700' elevation) to hope for viable seed. I carried it out of the patch under 1 arm. (The 50 Todd may have actually been closer to 40). I'm pretty sure I can't carry much more than 50 under 1 arm so I'm stickin' to it being 50 Todd (est). I could have tried a 1207,1385,1502,1566,or even an 1161 last year thanks to great guys like Don Young, Bill Rodonis, Joe Jutras, & Ron Wallace, but after seeing what Biz's 1385 did as a pollenator for his 1019--produced the Colorado State record in 09'- 1283 for him, & having loved the aggressiveness of the 1535, I just had to see if the 50 had what I thought it had (genetically)! Barry

1/20/2011 6:59:53 PM

Littleton, Colorado

I forgot to mention that #5 on the main of my 1535 1/2 Glasier (at 32'10" was 694lbs, & there were at least 15 other pumpkins on the monster plant, many which were 150 to 300 lbs. each. The 50 was just the latest one pollenated, was way downstream on the plant, & barely had time to produce seeds with developed embryos. The main vine on this crazy plant was 81 feet 5" long on Oct.9th & still growing happily when I whacked it by accident! I grew two 50's last year & the really neglected one still grew a 1067 for me! The plant was really starved for water, but I put quite a bit more energy (& water) into my #1 50 plant, & it grew the 1308 for me. I'm convinced that if #2 50 had been given the same care & water as #1, it had every bit as much potential as the other 50. From the start I was excited about what both parent plants of the 50 did in 08', & couldn't care less that the mother pumpkin was 50lbs. (or probably less!) Believe me, I'll sure grow the 50 again! Barry

1/21/2011 2:41:12 AM