From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Stanwood, Washington

Its interesting to see just how narrow our genetic line is becoming. Every single one of the 16 Pumpkins grown over 2000 pounds in the last 3 years has the 2009 Wallace on at least one side of the family tree and 10 of them have it on both sides. The 2009 has been grown for 107 official weights and has pollinated 178 different fruit. And its progeny are being planted heavily as well. The 2323 the 2032 and the 1985 have been grown 155 times between them. I can only imagine how hot the 2230 is going to be. I suspect that 5 years from now pretty much everything grown other than orange seeds will have the 2009 genetics in it.

10/26/2015 2:16:05 PM

Portland, OR

Well said Captain. A lot less genetic variability out there.

If you look at the genetic lines, it basically boils down to Knauss Bobier & Knauss Cali crosses. (little 712 Kuhn in there)

Why is that? Because they were the hottest seeds at that time. They consistently produced the largest & heaviest fruit. Same thing will continue to happen now. Lots of common choices for selective breeding.

10/26/2015 3:18:38 PM

Alex, IN

I think there are seeds out there that will do it without the 2009. The 1965 Brandt was grown on the 1625 Gantner, no 2009 in that seed. The 2059 Dmg. Daletas was grown on the 1676.5 Daletas, no 2009 in that one. The 1730 Werner grew the 2008 Neptune, the 1730 has no 2009 in it. The last one I will point out is the 1921 Weston, grown on the 1714 Weston, also with no 2009 in the lineage.

The 2009 is special, yet these others are just as special.

10/26/2015 7:11:01 PM

Oak Grove, Mn

the 1965, the 2059 and the 2008 were all pollinated with a plant containing the 2009 genetics. Of the ones mentioned only the 1921 weston seed is still 2009 free. As the years go on, there may be very few at the top of the weights that dont have 2009 in them. I am wondering of the top 50 pumpkins how many have 1161 rodonis in their genetics.

10/26/2015 7:20:35 PM

Alex, IN

I know they were pollinated with 2009 genes. I was just pointing out they were all grown without 2009 genes.

Is it bad to have as much 2009 as we do, or are we moving away from the 2009 and seeing more of the varying genes that the 2009 had?

10/26/2015 9:12:45 PM

Stanwood, Washington

I don't think its necessarily bad In fact it may actually be good in that we are isolating the bigger genes. Like Ceis said this isn't the first time this has happened.

10/27/2015 11:20:02 AM

Stanwood, Washington

Even though the 1625 doesn’t have the 2009 in it the same genes are still there.

This will get a little complicated in written form but if you look at the family trees it will make sense...

the 1625 is a 1495 x self the 1495 is 1161 x 904 Stelts. The 1161 pollinator was a selfed 1068 Wallace and the 904 was pollinated with a 1068 Wallace so basically the genetics of the 1625 are 50% 1068 Wallace 25% 1370 Rose and 25% 1231 Pukos.

The 2009 Wallace has more generations in it but the players are similar
The 2009 is a 1725 Harp X 1409 Miller.

The 1725 Harp is a selfed 1385 Jutras. The 1385 Jutras is a 1068 Wallace X 998 Pukos. Therefore the 1725 Harp is 50% 1068 Wallace and 50% 998 Pukos

the 1409 Miller = 50% 1622 Young 50% 1558 young
the 1622 Young is 50% 1068 Wallace 25% 1370 Rose and 25% 998 Pukos
The 1658 Young was a 1288 Wallace x 1026 Young which were both 1385 Jutras X 1207 Young crosses Trace that back one generation and you find that means that the 1288 and the 1026 both have 50% 1068 25% 1370 rose and 25% 998 Pukos which is the exact same percentages as the 1622 was. Therefore the genetics in the 1409 Miller are 50% 1068 25% 1370 Rose and 25% 998 Pukos.

When you combine the percentages for the 1409 with the percentages for the 1725 You get the following genetics for the 2009.
The 2009 Wallace = 50% 1068 Wallace 37.5% 998 Pukos and 12.5% 1370 Rose

To sum up a very large portion of the genetics from the 1625 and the 2009 are very closely related.

10/27/2015 11:58:00 AM

Alex, IN

That I do agree with captain!

And those genetics run straight back to the 723/845 Bobier and 846 Calai. I think the genes that grow big have become increasingly isolated. Which makes sense, if a seed does not do well why would it get planted again.

Which seed do you all think was the catalyst behind the 2009 and other 2k producing seeds? The 1725 Harp or the 1385 Jutras?

10/27/2015 7:18:02 PM

Torrance, Ca.

Thank God for Gary's 1409.

10/27/2015 7:40:21 PM

west central IN/East central IL

1385 jutras

10/27/2015 7:56:18 PM

Austin MN

I'd you look into it almost every seed now has the 1068 Wallace in the back ground :)

10/27/2015 9:10:53 PM

Menomonie, WI (mail@gr8pumpkin.net)

We had the same discussion 10 years ago, see how that worked out

10/28/2015 7:19:26 AM

Alex, IN

I think a lot of it boils down to the fact that many of us can only grow a couple plants per year. We want to grow the biggest possible so we grow what grows big. If we could grow 10 plants I think we would see some different results but what we have is many small area growers just hoping to grow a monster.

10/28/2015 4:00:03 PM

Eddyz@efirehose.net

I believe the 935 Lloyd was the pumpkin that started all this, and then the 898 Knauss as a pollinator

10/29/2015 4:19:41 PM