Message Board - BigPumpkins.com

Deer Park, WI

Im hijacking Wiz's post at the bottom of a recent thread to give it its own place on the message board. See below:

What is your opinion on the "lucky seed" trait? What I mean is what separates a good 1161 from a fair 1161, from a super 1161 assuming all growing conditions equal. There must be a super gene in there somewhere...a trait we have isolated within this three headed line.....??

Its amusing to watch recurring discussions on a year-to-year basis. We seemingly rehash the same topics each winter, building on perspectives through the influx of new growers, more experience, and added information.

Last year's discussion on the topic Wiz states was fruitful and warrants review by those interested. Looky: http://www.bigpumpkins.com/MsgBoard/ViewThread.asp?b=19&p=373127

I will again acknowledge Cliff's contribution to the post, which summarized states that within any population, whether it be a litter of pigs, a family of siblings, or a 1161lb pumpkin with hundreds of viable seeds, one can graphically represent the frequency of expression of specific traits displayed by the offspring in a bell curve.

The frustrating thing we have to accept is that there is no clear explanation for why the "outliers" (the unexpected outcomes of a trait, in our case an amazingly large fruit or a disappointingly small fruit) happen. Nor do we have a metric to predict which candidates within a brood will display desired outlier characteristics.

1/19/2012 6:10:23 PM

Frank and Tina

South East

The "lucky seed" is just that what it states, Luck. If within a pumpkin a small portion of seeds show more vigor, or more potential, then that can be only concluded afterwards. Never before. However, with growing pumpkins its impossible to give every plant the exact same soil and weather, because every square foot is diffrent. The number of factors involved is almost to big to keep track off. It could range from sunlight and wind, to the number of nematodes under the plant. They all one way or another play a role in the outcome. That being said, i dont think there is a super gene Joze, i think theres several kinds of seeds in a pumpkin, several groups, that influenced by the nutrients and hormones it gets, and their position withing the fruit, either get a complete or incomplete package of genes. I think the seeds within these groups are all equal and almost identical. The diffrence in the outcome is a combination of the hundreds if not thousands of factors that affect a growing cycle.
But,,,nature every now and then throws a curveball and produces something amazing. If that happens to be the pumpkin seed your growing then your one LUCKY growers and your right,,theres no way of predicting it.

1/19/2012 6:55:49 PM

Deer Park, WI

For clarity purposes...I absentmindedly left quotes off Wiz's original statements that prompted me to repost this topic.

Wizzy's rhetoric:

"What is your opinion on the "lucky seed" trait? What I mean is what separates a good 1161 from a fair 1161, from a super 1161 assuming all growing conditions equal. There must be a super gene in there somewhere...a trait we have isolated within this three headed line.....??"

1/19/2012 7:19:32 PM

Cornhusk

Gays Mills, Wisconsin

Don't you think some of the responsibility for the "same genetics" (sister seeds) giant pumpkin growth potential/variance is the result of certain genetic switches being stimulated by the environment?

As a grower there are a lot of variables we can effect, thus determining at least a part of the genetic's potential realization.

For example, I believe that a sprout breaking dirt on a sunny day is getting programmed (having some switches modified) differently than one sprouting on a dark n cloudy day.

Trying to remember something about ?sp Lammelle Triggers?, Joze, you know what I mean? John

1/19/2012 7:47:12 PM

Frank and Tina

South East

Agreed Cornhusk. Take two equally brillant infants. Let one be raised by wolves and one by loving parents. You will see a totally diffrent outcome. Although the potential is the same. I think something simular is happening in growing. 10 diffrent seeds. exact same potential, now throw in 10 diffrent growers and 10 diffrent growing situations. You will see 10 different fruit, thats somehow resemble each other , but are all different. External factors might be of far more importance then the whole gene factor. And next to that, we have far more control over external factors then we have over genes. After all we are growers, not breeders.

1/19/2012 8:10:13 PM

Deer Park, WI

John, it seems you may be implying the activation of genes via the concept known as epigenetics.

The Cooks allude to environmental factors, which we are all aware of and have a locus of control over (except weather).

In the realm of epigenetics, as John alludes to, certain external factors are able to modulate the expression of various genetic factors that have a long term effect on the activity of the organism.

This gets into some pretty heavy, speculative, and very difficult to control aspects.

Again, its frustrating we do not have the tools to more effectively measure and manage the complexity of all the biological processes taking place. But maybe that would take all the fun outa it?

1/19/2012 11:24:37 PM

Bry

Glosta

Take 2 cows from same mother. One gets feed brought to ut, the other is free range pasture fed. Which will be fatter? Enable as many genes as you can by having available nutrients. This we can control the best.

1/20/2012 9:38:36 AM

meaford

Ontario

Now, I'm no expert by a long shot, but I wonder if the size of the nutrition sack in a seed,is in part responsible for the difference in seed performance,between sibs.I think maybe so,that is why this year I am weighting my seeds and planting the heavyiest.The scale I am using is the scale shooters and hunters use when reloading their own shells,it weights in grains.The scale I bought cost $39.00.You would be supprized at the different weights of similar seeds,of 380 seeds from one of my kins.two had the same high weight,the rest where less in verying degrees
Now I may be blowen smoke,but I'm going to try it ,and I guess the weigh-off will be the proof -in the pudding Terry

1/20/2012 10:08:39 AM

Andrew PF

Denver, CO

This discussion is confusing me.

Are two seeds from the same pumpkin genetically identical or not? (By genetically identical, I mean: the exact same DNA.)

Put a different way, are two seeds from the same pumpkin more like human identical twins, or more like human fraternal twins?

Does the answer to the above change if multiple flowers (from the same plant) are used for pollination? What about the seperate lobes in the female flower, do they each produce something different genetically?

Thanks all

1/20/2012 10:29:26 AM

Joliet, IL

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_genetics

1/20/2012 10:29:51 AM

Deer Park, WI

Andrew- the straightforward answer to your question is that pumpkin seeds within the same fruit are "fraternal" twins. Every seed in a pumpkin is its own "egg" (ovule) that is fertilized by a single "sperm" (pollen grain).

In this regard, no two seeds have exact DNA sequences.

I am not aware of any biological explanation regarding significant differences between pollen contained within male flowers on the same plant. We engaged in this discussion heavily last winter too, initiated by Eddy.

Here's another way to understand this argument- is the sperm created in a man's sack today significantly different from sperm created a week ago, a year ago, etc? The genetic/biological answer is no. It is not.

And to my knowledge, there's no evidence out there to believe lobes on a female flower have any influence on genetics.

1/20/2012 11:40:33 AM

Andrew PF

Denver, CO

Thanks Joze. This is great information and is helping my understanding greatly.

While thinking about this I stumbled upon a discussion that happened a year ago that is also quite illuminating:

http://www.bigpumpkins.com/msgboard/Viewthread.asp?b=19&p=373206

1/20/2012 11:48:10 AM

don young

heres a question
4 or 5 years ago marty schickner asked me
do i pay attention to the amount of petal;s on males
he went thru my patch picked males that were open that day 3 petals 4 petals 5 and one 6 i now pay attenion ever since then dont know if it matters im talking about the orange flower part we tear off or cover up to keep bees out

this pic shows petals of 5 on a 5 lobe female
http://www.bigpumpkins.com/Diary/DiaryViewOne.asp?eid=164453

not the best pic but heres a male looks to be 5 petals one is hidden in pic

http://www.bigpumpkins.com/Diary/DiaryViewOne.asp?eid=163712

1/20/2012 12:10:08 PM

Joliet, IL

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/51285095

Here is a good chapter on quantitative genetics. Statistics show there are both genetically superior silver bullet lucky seeds and there will be duds with the majority falling in the average median range. That doesn't mean the duds can't grow big pumpkins. It is all relevant. An 1161 dud is still superior genetically for size compared to the seeds from the 1980s. No one ever knows prior what the seed can do in the right environment prior. But by selective breeding the seeds that came from the heaviest pumpkins the median slowly rises. The odds of the very best genetically programmed for weight atlantic giant seed from one of the best overall producing proven seed crosses winding up in the hands of one of the top growers in a better than normal growing year is like winning the lottery. Hopefully one of these years one of those seeds that has the magic ends up in Quinn's patch in a perfect growing year. With his consistancy for excellence for both technique and genetic selection, a silver bullet seed might put Quinn into the1900s. I have been averaging around 1150 range the last 4 years but hit 1493 with what I believe was a seed that had the magic. Over 300 pounds over my average. Hopefully the 1495 that grew Daves monster was just one of those median average seeds and the silver bullet 1495s are still out there.

1/20/2012 12:18:45 PM

Joliet, IL

And that goes for the 1404 also. Hopefully there are both 1404s and 1495s that have more magic than what has already proven in 2011.

1/20/2012 12:25:21 PM

Don Crews

Lloydminster/AB

Wow Don I never noticed a difference in male petal. Most likely because I wasn't looking for it!
Talking about duds, what we consider a dud is very different than what nature considers a dud.. For example a late maturing fruit (including seeds) wouldn't stand a chance in some climates. We are taking genetic selection in a new and different direction. That's why weights continue to go up. We are finding a new "path". There may be a long long way to go.

1/20/2012 12:31:53 PM

Andrew PF

Denver, CO

Shazzy that is a great link.

You guys are takin' me back to school! Thank you, professors!

1/20/2012 12:59:18 PM

Andy W

Western NY

I think I'd rather be lucky than good, if only I could be lucky consistently.

Joe touched on one of my favorite new interests with epigenetics. I think we are anecdotally seeing evidence of it already, and I think it will be playing a more major role 10+ years out from now. I don't think that we will ever have a way to quantify the difference, though.

I would take issue with the comparison to human gametes as it relates to age, though. We know that as the age of the mother and/or father increases, there is an increased chance of genetic disorders. Now, whether this translates to a similar situation in plants would be debatable, and in my opinion unlikely. That said, I could see a possibility with pumpkins since they are annuals. Reproductive strategy would want to put more favor toward earlier fruit sets.

If so, it could throw a monkey wrench into the cloning projects, which would be compounded by possible epigenetic factors. That is, unless that particular plant cloned happened to be one of the "lucky" ones. So lucky, in fact, that its superior genetics would still outweigh the other factors which could be diminished by time.

1/20/2012 1:40:03 PM

Scott M

Roblin, Manitoba

I think there is definitely merit in the silver bullet/lucky seed(s) theory. MJ growers will sometimes grow out a huge lot of say 50-100 or more plants with the same genetics under identical conditions and select only one or two plants which are superior to the rest then do work with them (making new seeds, and/or cloning) with those superior individuals.

1/20/2012 2:02:40 PM

President - GPC

Nice JoZe...WiZZzy's Rhetoric...lol

1/20/2012 2:32:25 PM

bathabitat

Willamette Valley, Oregon

I'll chime in on Wiz's original question...

I'm skeptical it's one super gene or even 3 or 4. I think there is naturally a distribution of genetic potential, caused by many multiple genes (Quantitative Genetics), that makes some individual seeds capable of bigger fruit than others even within the same seed family, in the same way that kids in a human family are different in height. (That is - some people-families are short on average, some are tall on average. Want to find the tallest person? odds are you'll find them in the family with the tallest average height (assuming equal variation within families)).

With every generation of selection for pumpkin weight (optimally on both the mother AND the pollinator side) those various beneficial genes become more common in the gene pool increasing the odds that they come together favorably in the next generation.

Shazzy's book chapter covers it all well, if in excruciating detail. ha ha.

1/20/2012 7:37:51 PM

Brooks B

Ohio

I try to compare seed genes like we do human jeans, but that doesn't always work especially when I try to compare it to the way my family genes are and here's why.

When looking back on my family genes and starting at my grandparents on both sides and also my wife's family genes, her grandparents on both sides, then looking at her brothers kids, my brother kids,my Dad,my great Uncles, etc.etc... there is exactly Zero people that is over 5'11 inches tall.

I have a boy that just turned 16 and he is 6'3 tall and wears a size 15 1/2 shoe..and hes not done growing yet!, he still has another 3 years of growing! and also eat me out of house and home..

So What side of the gene pool did my son come from?,,,LOL Im only 5'11 and wear a 9' 1/2 shoe. His sister is 18 years old and she is as tiny as a button, she is 4'11 maybe 108 Lbs, and Im sure she is done growing.

So I think my boy is part of that lucky seed theory? Or maybe it was a lucky Milkman?

1/20/2012 8:05:05 PM

Peace, Wayne

Owensboro, Ky.

Brooks, you stand very tall, here on bp.com!!! LOL Peace, Wayne I would vote, Golden Pollen!!!

1/21/2012 3:21:13 AM

Joliet, IL

Lol Boz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You so funny!!!!!!!!

1/21/2012 6:34:55 AM

pap

Rhode Island

brooks id get a dna test and go from there? lol

1/21/2012 7:15:30 AM

Green Gene

Putnam Ct.

Lol Got milk ?? good one Brooks.

1/21/2012 9:48:58 AM

Deer Park, WI

Andy, you raise a good point, relating reproduction on the basis of age is a poor comparator.

I am a strong believer in using metaphors and analogies to convey points on topics where technical expertise is required but may not be shared by all participants. Sometimes it can be difficult to conjure up apples/apples comparisons for the sake of demonstrating a principle. I've rethought the analogy I used above and would like to restate it-

The multitude of male flowers on a pumpkin plant could be compared to men having two testicles. The point again being that there is no biological advantage of using sperm from one teste versus they other, assuming a man is in generally good health. Likewise, there's no biological advantage of using pollen from a male flower on the main vine vs a tertiary. The genetics of each in these examples have the same statistical properties of producing offspring on the inverted U-curve continuum.

1/21/2012 4:21:10 PM

Heatstroke

Central Ca

Brooks, one genetic explanation for your tall son is an "average to the mean". In other words...there's too many short people so he had to balance it out. Not the best explanation, but it's one I remember from college.

1/22/2012 5:17:21 AM

Eastern Washington State

What a fun and interesting discussion!

I agree that for as far as we know and as much as we can measure, the pollen from two different flowers from the same male plant will be equivalent. Not identical, but equivalent. That's because there will be genetic segregation going on during pollen production.

To continue the colorful analogy, my daughters are obviously closely related but not identical. That's not because they came from different testicle(male flower), its because of genetic segregation. If I had 100 daughters they would all be similar but not identical. That would hold true even if I only had one ball. Or three!

1/22/2012 1:15:49 PM

LIpumpkin

Long Island,New York

I hardly think the third one wouldn't be special.....just say'n.......

1/22/2012 2:06:52 PM

Eastern Washington State

Lol Glen I suppose any analogy can be carried a bit far.

Brooks no need to shoot the milkman just yet! It's entirely likely that you son has the right set of genes in the right environment. Basically your grocery bill attests to the fact that you are providing him alot of calories and the modern lifestyle (ie not backbreaking work) that allows for maximum growth. Maybe someone 2, 3 generations back had that genetic potential but not the right environment. Also maybe you accidentally sprayed him with seaweed extract in the patch a few years back.

1/22/2012 5:38:02 PM

President - GPC

Hey Brooks...does he look like the milkman?

1/24/2012 2:50:09 PM

Eastern Washington State

I think that these same discussions keep coming up because the basic mendelian genetics in AG haven't yet been fully explored. It seems more than likely that size per se is a quantitative trait, and what I've observed in progeny of AG X non-AG squash seems to agree with this. That would appear to indicate that many independent genes are involved in fruit size in AG. However the when we are comparing the differences between a lucky vs unlucky sibling, there is still the possibility that only a few genes are involved in the 'lucky' seedlings, (ie heterosis at only a few loci). My reasoning for this is because top AG germplasm almost has to be very inbred at this point. Most of those quantitative studies have been done on populations with more genetic variation. Just a thought.

1/24/2012 5:32:32 PM

President - GPC

So indeed, WiZ was correct....their is that lucky seed....the one with the potential if given the perfect climate, with our ever improving techniques we get to the next level. We must be doing something right as our weights, hoever slight, still continue to go up. I would wonder if we kept stats as a whole..... LIke...in 2011...the average mean pumpkin weight went up.....so many pounds...compared to the average mean say years ago when Master Wallace popped the 1500 barrier.... Our club averages are going up....and I bet yourZ are too..... we are all getting a bit luckier....and smarter too

1/24/2012 5:49:18 PM

cojoe

Colorado

I agree with whatever brian just said I think.lol. Brian how many genes(Minimum #) would you think might be involved?

1/25/2012 12:15:17 PM

MNFisher

Central Minnesota

Now if someone would get lucky enough and "self" one of these "Lucky Seeds" we would be making a step in the right direction. I think the 1725 Harp is a great example of this, but someone is really going to hit a homerun with a "selfed" seed very soon.

Lucky Seed X Self = better "odds" of more Lucky Seeds

1/25/2012 3:55:19 PM

Pocatello (cliffwarren@yahoo.com)

Hi guys! (And gals...)

Just now seeing this thread... I've been busy, lol. I've got a lot to digest and think about, and maybe I'll have some comments and questions. (I'm just so excited that we finally have a good thread going this winter!)

1/25/2012 6:24:26 PM

Pocatello (cliffwarren@yahoo.com)

OK, you guys are killing me. I want to respond, even though I haven't read *every* last word here.

Basically, the situation is this... The bell curve phenomenon exists, so how do we locate the "lucky" seed(s)?

The way to do this does exist! It is a proven method in the field of statistics. This would absolutely work.

Assume a population of 500 seeds from a promising pumpkin. Take any 12 to 15 seeds from that pile of 500 seeds, at random. Plant them in identical conditions, and quantify the results. Of course, identical care is critical.

Why only 12 to 15 seeds? Because, with 12 to 15 seeds, the chance that you happened to pick a seed from the top 5% of the population is around 95%. OK, stop and read that line again. What I'm saying, is that if you took 12 seeds from the same pumpkin and grew them out in identical conditions, the chance that at least one of those was one of the best seeds is very high (like,... 95%).

The above is a statistical fact.

So, the downside to this approach is that nobody wants to grow 12 plants of the same seed.

The upside, perhaps, is that we kinda-sorta already do this, just doing what we do. We like to see 1600 pound pumpkins and plant those seeds. The chances are good that we're already selecting from among the best genetics. Maybe not the top 5%, but probably the top 20%.

1/25/2012 6:42:24 PM

Pocatello (cliffwarren@yahoo.com)

So send me a dozen 1161 and I'll plant them. ;-)

1/25/2012 10:07:38 PM

President - GPC

See that BiZ....keep planting them 1019's and see which one goeZ BIG....

1/26/2012 9:51:49 AM

Pocatello (cliffwarren@yahoo.com)

Something that BrianB said is very important. In other words, I don't believe there is one gene out there that says, "You will be 1600 pounds.". We constantly select seeds based on weight, with other factors given lesser attention.

Do we need measurements for leaf size, vine thickness, plant vigor, root growth (if it were possible to measure), etc. etc? Fruit wall thickness and density, roundness and resistance to cracks.

How many of these factors are heavily influenced by nurture?

On the other hand, any fruit that reaches 1600 pounds probably had a good plant to begin with.

I think, what we tend to do is endlessly "stir the genetic pot", without rhyme or reason. This is successful because of the phenomenon above, we "pick" those fruits that go biggest and save those seeds. But if we want to take another approach, we would need to start isolating some lines (assuming some lines still exist) and work through individual lines for many generations before combining them again. (For example, I think the "lines" approach was only successfully done once, when the Dill line was combined with the other one... Neilly/Craven?)

Anyway, my random thoughts, is what this post turned into... lol

1/26/2012 10:37:07 AM

Deer Park, WI

Cliff- you allude to a thought that's been stirring in my head for the last couple days. Shazzy's link to the quantitative genetics chapter was illuminating and it made me pause to consider what genetic factors are direct contributors to pumpkin weight.

Consider this for a moment- Pumpkin weight is ultimately a function of two fundamental determinants: Cell division/count and cell enlargement.

Same principle applies to any living organism. Weight can be reduced to the number of cells and and the volume packed into each cell.

Its not easy, but for the sake of argument, try to ignore the affect of environment on these processes. To extrapolate further, one then considers the genetic factors that govern these processes. Cell division is regulated by hormones and undoubtedly other internal factors that are genetically controlled.

Cell volume is also hormonally regulated and I can only speculate that there are a host of other factors that govern this process. (side note: ever wonder how your body "knows" when/how to stop growing?)

Truth is, on a genetic level, this is a big ole black box. The one thing that is certain, however, is that "growth" ie, the rate of cell division and cellular expansion and, ultimately, fruit weight are in fact quantitative genetic factors that cannot be reduced to a single allele (gene).

Are there any lurking molecular biologists on staff at a major academic institution that wanna take on a project?!?!?

1/26/2012 7:43:24 PM

Pocatello (cliffwarren@yahoo.com)

Good thoughts... I would say, at this point it seems that we would find greater success in the hormonal realm than in the genetic. Or at least, that is the unplowed ground.

1/27/2012 12:07:25 PM

Spudley (Scott)

Alaska

Unles you hybridize them it's a crap shoot. The more diverse the genetic pool the wider the range of results you're gonna get. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea if you're looking for a sport. That gigantic freek of nature. Untill someone comes up with some sort of DNA/RNA home test kit I think we're stuck with what we got. If we ever advance that far then my guess is we'd be growing some sort of a GMO and that would be like shooting ones own foot. Hybridizing starts with plant selection. Picking a plant with the traits your looking for. The problem IMHO is too much time is spent looking at the end result the fruit and not enough time is taken to examine the vine. Making that link between the two. Their is a correlation between the two. I bet ya lots of growers start a few seeds and never cull because of how the vine looks or grows. It's all about the seed who grew it before them and the weight. A weak seedling is a weak plant that's never gonna amount to much. So if you're limited on space your natural inclination is to start maybe one or two seeds. I always no matter what I'm growing start a bunch of seeds then after they reach a certain age I look for certain traits then pick. It's not fool proof by any means but it's better than buying one lottery ticket than say 20. So in IMHO for now it's about selecting the pick of the litter from a large group of babies.

1/27/2012 1:58:21 PM