From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Western NY

Andy's post got me going in a way different direction, so I'll post it here -

Although I have enjoyed planting some older seeds from time to time, the question still lingers on what the best genetic scenario would be. In my daydreaming, I take a look not just at the parent seed, but would sometimes compare a few generations back.

For example, let's compare two unproven seeds. For this, I am looking at 3 generations back from the seed, where there are 8 "parents".

1554 Matheson (1409 Miller 2010 x 1674 Marsh 2010) - 1161 Rodonis (07), 1385 Jutras (07), 1407 Wolf (05), 1306 Jutras (07), 1026 Young (08), 1288 Wallace (08), 1385 Jutras (07), and 1207 Young (07). This makes the average year for that generation 2007 (easy math for this example). Remember - the "youngest" that generation could average would be 2008, unless you squeeze in an extra generation in the southern hemisphere.

Now, let's take the 1502 Daletas. 3 generations back, we're looking at some pretty old stuff on the 898 side. Even the 1725 side is back at 2005 and 2003. The final average year for that generation comes out to 2001.

Would the 1554 have more potential than the 1502? I don't know if a more "progressive" genetics set will help or not. It won't hurt. I don't think it has been a factor in the past, but it could very well be one of the factors that puts us over 2000#.

12/28/2011 9:40:10 AM

President - GPC

Good thinking here Andy....You posted right before my post on the opposite...

12/28/2011 10:01:00 AM

Hinckley MN

Have growing techniques changed much since 2001? If older seeds were planted Today, would they grow bigger pumpkins because we fertilize better or prune better?

12/28/2011 11:31:10 AM

Colorado

Growing techniques are partially responsible for increased weight gains.What % is anybodys guess. I would of had something like a 18% improvement on my PB(had it got to a scale) this year. I attribute that gain to a great seed since I didnt do anything different in the patch.

12/28/2011 12:30:37 PM

Arden, NC

My "take" is that over time we as growers constantly select the larger producing pumpkins to plant and therefore actively "set or lock in" more of the genes that produce even larger pumpkins. While its true that horticultural practices have helped our kins reach their potential the trend is up for the average size of all Ag's grown. With that thought in mind I somewhat prefer to grow from the kins that have produced the largest pumpkins and hope that however the seed unfurls genetically that it will have all the best traits possible for producing a "monster". I'm with Andy on this one, the progressive nature of "selection"
combined with great horticultural practices and the right weather will push the benchmark over 2000 pounds.

12/28/2011 12:55:24 PM

Ohio

I agree with Cojoe on the new and improved growing techniques that come about each year.

A Lot of the older seeds still have that shot of breaking that world record, for example the
991 Urena'05 (1420 LaRue 2004 x 1446 Eaton 2004).
Follow the 991 seed from the year 2004 up until 2011 and see how it keeps growing bigger pumpkins each year.
the 991 was only a 100 lbs or so shy of growing a pumpkin of what the world record pumpkin was this year.

Or the 723 Bobier 1999 (935 Lloyd ''97 x 965 Metler '98). Up until 2005 it was growing 1400 lbs, and again, this old seed was just 50 or so lbs shy of what the world record was for that year of 2005.

Makes you wonder if New x New is really the way to go sometimes.

12/29/2011 9:36:07 AM

Willamette Valley, Oregon

Andy has hit on a point, which is a very valid one.

As far as the genetics side goes - more selection in the family tree is generally better. Selection for weight (of the mother, pollinator, grand parents, etc.) is obviously key, and seeds from fruit with more recent genetics in their backgrounds have probably gone through more selection. Not only selection for weight, but de facto selection for making-it-to-the-weigh-off. Both have value as I see it.

I don't want to pick on any seed in particular, so lets say there are two seeds:

1700 Alpha 2011 (1600 parents 2010 , 1500 grandparents 2009, 1400 great-grand-parents 2008, etc.)...every year grown from a huge cross from last year. 11 generations of selection since 2000.

vs.

1700 Beta 2011 (1600 parents 2007, 1500 grandparents 2004, 1100 great-grand-parents 2000). 4 generations of selection since 2000.

In terms of expected consistency for weight and for making-it-to-the-wiegh-off 1700 Alpha is clearly superior in my mind, even though parents and grandparents were the same weight as 1700 Beta. More generations of selection make for a better seed.

To clarify I wouldn't grow a seed just because it had more generations. There has to be 'selection' at each generation. Not just crosses. By 'selection' I mean the seed from the best fruit is used from numerous fruit produced in each generation by the same seed.

1/10/2012 12:26:43 AM

England, essex

and then a BIG old proven seed comes along and ?

of course you have to plant it
lol

1/10/2012 11:59:31 AM