From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Knopp, Germany

After reading x amount of times that there is a reason why the 842 is so much better then the other 846 x 723 crosses, I finally decided to break it down in a way that makes the 842 look good using the available numbers. Please look at this and tell me if it makes any sense:

Seed / (% heavy)/ male pollinator progeny /(% heavy)
419 (-.5) 1024 (+8)
707 unknown unknown NA
802 unknown unknown NA
842 (+8) 1236 (+10)
845 (-5) 695 (+4)

So, the 842 itself was 8% heavy, it was pollinated by a 723 that grew a 1236 pound pumpkin that was 10% heavy.

Does this make any sense, hold any water, anything? If not, no big deal, it was fun figuring this out.

GP's theory of why the 842 is so good....ROFL.

10/25/2004 8:54:17 AM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

Owen,

Your thought process seems logical to me. If all of the other data are available, then this can be turned into a good hypothesis.

Along those lines, I decided to look at progeny of all same crosses (846x723) with data available.

842 Eaton Progeny list already long.

1446 Eaton 19.4% over but could be a taping error & should be removed.
1301 Eaton 1.8% over
1043 Lyons 3.2% under
1039 Vader 8.5% over
1019 Catapano flat
1018 Colbert 1.3% under
1017 Kennedy 4.86% under
1009 Picketts 3.2% over
991.8 Lancaster 7.5% over

At the risk of taking all day, the top 10 run about 4.5% over with the 1446. If we remove the 1446 for averaging OTT variance purposes, the 842 runs 1.5% over.

The 707 Toftness '01 (846 x 723) hasn't seen the same level of exposure.

1141 Sundstrom (Not on AGGC yet)
705.6 Hopkins 1.5% under
628 Olsen 7.68% over
Tracking 3% over if we only look at yours & Billy's.

845 Nesbitt's top 10 average is 4.8% over.

1038 Emmons' top 5 variance is 8.87% over.

855 Kuhn is about flat.

802 Dill top 3 (only 3 reported) tracking at about 8% over.

419 Pukos top 3 (only 3) is tracking 4% over.

10/25/2004 10:31:28 AM

That State Up North

Eaton, Eaton, Lyons, Vader, Caapano, Colbert, Kennedy, PIckets,

vs

The guys and gals that grew the 845 Nesbit, 707 TOftness, 1038 Emmons, 855 Kuhn, 802 Dill

Examine the average weight of the top 5 fruit these growers had over the last 5 years, then compute the mean for each group. Find the comparative ratio.

Then, look at top 10 averages for the 842, and the other group of 846x723 seeds. Find the comparative ratio.


So, what was this about? Genetics? Oh, well


Nic Welty

10/25/2004 10:46:02 AM

Eddyz@efirehose.net

I agree with Nic, It's genetics and any one is as good as the other!!!
Eddy

10/25/2004 11:12:21 AM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

I was trying to be diplomatic with respect to overall weight. LOL

10/25/2004 11:15:51 AM

Knopp, Germany

Nic, you make a good point. I disagree.

Many very good, if not already designated heavy hitters have grown the other seeds listed and are just as experienced as the list of 842 growers.

So what is the difference?

I believe that like all seeds from a great parent (846, 723) there are duds, average and great ones. My point, and I will stand by it, is that the 723 that Al used to pollinate his 846 was an above average seed from the 723 fruit. This above averageness (is that a word) crossed into the 846 he had is obvious from the fact that he produced a 1236 pound pumpkin from it (he doesn't do that with every seed contrary to belief) showing that this male was a great choice.

Why haven't more of the group of people that you listed grown any of the other 846 x 723 crosses? I am not so sure it doesn't have anything to do with genetics.

Any other theories out there?

10/25/2004 11:42:52 AM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

There is a bit of both.....genetics and grower experience

10/25/2004 12:11:53 PM

That State Up North

Yup, unarguably, the 1236 was a superior 723, and an ideal parent. I left out the 419 Pukos in my comments for similar resons. The 419 also had a high quality father, maybe not so much for growth as structrual integrety in avoiding splits. You are right in saying that there is a range of productivity within each seed, even the legendary seeds such as 846, 723 ect ect. Each has its unique gene set. The 1236 is a seed to mention. How has it compared to the 842? One very important factor to a good seed, is getting that big fruit (1301) that excites many other top growers to plant it. The result is greater success in better patches. The 842 may be better by an edge in overal comparison, but the most important factor in getting maximum size is the growers.

10/25/2004 2:55:26 PM

That State Up North

What I like about this topic is that it introduces the problems encountered in this work. What is the best way to analyze such things? Many people may look at my aproach, and not fully understand it, or figure that it is simply playing with numbers to get more numbers, and lots of meaningless result for all the hassle.
Some important numbers for comparison are simple rank in each grower's patch, ie fruit size rank out of X number of plants in the patch. An 1000 pound fruit in Jack LaRue's patch was not all that geneticaly special this year, but an 1100 pounder in my patch would have been a remarkable variant. This is difficult in the small patches have less statistical significance than in larger plantings, but it remains to be a useful observation. Even more useful is to assume a normal distribution to the genetic trend. Calculate the patch mean, and standard deviation. Then assign each fruit a number based upon a multiplier of standard deviations from the mean. Following this calculaton is most useful. If you can compare each patch, and look at what genetics were present, and look at these ranks and standard deviation multipliers, a sense for actual genetic value can be associated with each seed.
Other more simple analysis is useful, but limited, so with more views of the situation, we can get a better feel for what is going on.
Following % heavy is one very tricky subject. It is not such a complicated trait that it will act in the standard blending distribution of quantitative trait, yet there are still a large number of genes involved such that it is very difficult to model what is going on. I have had no luck in figuring it out. Keep following those trends in % heavy of offspring, see if you can find any patterns, it would be very interesting.

Nic Welty

10/25/2004 3:04:57 PM

Knopp, Germany

Nic, you again are right that I do not follow all of the numbers, and or reasons behind the numbers that you have given. I am trying to look at this as simple as possible. There are some obvious givens from this thread:

1- Not all seeds from the same fruit have the same potential, some seeds got it, some don't.
2- Not all growers given the same seeds are going to be as successful, some growers patches, skills, etc are just better
3- A 600 pounder in my garden is just as impressive as a 1400 pounder in Al's

One thing is common, given the same grower, same patch and 2 seeds from the same fruit, one seed will produce different from the other. Those two seeds given the same opportunity will show which one has been given the superior genes, or was just luckier (put luck into a model). Just like offspring of a triple crown winner horse, one will be maybe great, and the other is going to the glue factory.

I have no intent of following any trends or building a model, I simply want to give my reason to why I think that the 842 Eaton has been such a fantastic seed.

My conclusion:
The 842 has within my very limited reasoning produced so well because the pollinator was a superior seed. I will in the future attempt to look at the male pollinator closer in determining which seeds I plant when I have 2 or more seeds with the same cross.

have a great evening,
owen

10/25/2004 3:35:36 PM

Long Island,New York

LOL Steve....Diplomatic huh.....I think you tossed that out the window when you inferred the world's most consistently successful grower taped his fruit wrong....lol.....G

10/25/2004 3:57:27 PM

That State Up North

Good conclusion, and a great point for everyone to take note of. Pay attention to what was grown on the plant that was used as the male in every cross you intend to plant. Many prime examples of how this played a key role, and the 842 is yet another.
I will leav the number crunching, and model building to Glenn haha

10/25/2004 4:15:57 PM

Appalachian Mtns.

When I look at seed choices to possibly plant I look for 2 main things....#1) the female progeny's weight and how heavy OTC it was, and #2) how big and heavy OTC a pumpkin the male pollinator for that seed produced.
Example...977 Hester 8.60% heavy, the 898 pollinator for the 977 produced the 1104 Hester @ 21% heavy OTC = Winner! (in my book) Or I simply look at how heavy OTC a pumpkin was, and how heavy it's mother and father were...when there's no pollinator progeny available.
I have begun to using these methods for determining any unproven seed I attempt to grow...this year I chose the 797 Handy, 851 Handy, and 977 Hester simply from this type info.
Look at the 1071 Houghton, 654 Houghton, 723 Houghton, 822 Hester, from last year. Some 2004 examples are the 851 Davies, 897.5 Davies, 604 Kaczenski, 1019 Catapano, 1058.8 Papez/1201.8 Dueck, etc., etc.
It doesn't always work flawlessly though. My 977 Hester fruit went 7% heavy this year, but I saw 2 others that went light.
BUT...It's really a very good indicator on what a seed *might* do, and certainly better than choosing with no information at all.

10/25/2004 4:27:07 PM

I'm with Gordon... GO UTES!

This thread has touched on something that I think we should
investigate further, something that has been on my mind for
some time... that seeds from each stock (from the same
pumpkin) have a "distribution" of potential.

Think of it as a "bell curve". I hate bell curves. But they
have some application here, I think.

The seed stock of a well known awesome seed might have, for
example, a "mean" of 900 pounds, with a range of 500 to 1300
pounds, potential... IF all seeds of that stock were treated
exactly the same.

So how do you know if you're making that hot cross with the
worlds best (or worst) 723? If you have only one seed, there
is no way to know.

But statistics tell us that a representative sample of seeds
could be only 12 to 15. Here is my formula for creating a
SUPERSEED... take 12 to 15 seeds from any "good" seed stock.
Plant them all, and try to give all of them equivalent
conditions. For pollinating... this is the tough part,
but try to limit the variation in males if possible, (all
from one plant???)... anyway, pick your absolute best
specimen. Of the 15 plants, one (maybe two) fruits would
survive to create the next generation.

Repeat this a few years. If several growers did this...
then cross those superseeds... hmmm???

10/25/2004 5:49:26 PM

That State Up North

Yup, and who knows, maybe someone is already doing this
hehe
If you, or anyone else is interested in such a project, I am a few hundred plants short of what I am used to growing next season, and have no shortage of seeds and crazy ideas.

In terms of a bell curve, that is what I was refering to in my normal distribution stuff. Read some of what I have written in Don's book, or go find a genetics text book and read the chapter on population genetics, and some statistics books too. It is fun stuff.

10/25/2004 6:57:22 PM

Wisconsin

Nic, You are like a breath of fresh air. It's nice to hear a little science and mathematics at work.

10/25/2004 8:20:15 PM

Sask, Canada

Wow!!!

Nice thread, all of you are really turning up the heat and starting to think now.

Alot of good post's....

I'll make a few comments.

Nic yes it is already being done(snicker)and not by me. yes the male plays a role in the genetics of a seed and has to be taken into account.

Kyle why don't you take your theory's and grow a couple and put the screws to them, see what you can get from them.
You are on the right track. For other traits dark orange look at it the same way but what color the mother produced, father produce, what did any other offspring produce.

I understand genetics but hate talking in numbers I prefer to use visual observation for a trait. Take heavy fruit for example.

Al's 1446 like Tremor said could be taping error and could be wrong take things like this into account. If a grower has a new OTC fruit at say 22% heavy look to see if all his fruit from past years if possible go heavy it could signal taping error, in Al's case it is most likely as he even states this. (grower info on this one)

If you have to look at other offspring how did they do, If you find a seed that produces heavy OTC alot of the time in different regions, different growing conditions and by different growers, chances are you have a seed that will throw heavy.

TTYL
Ernie
Giant Veggies

10/25/2004 8:38:28 PM

Appalachian Mtns.

Thanks Ernie...despite my bitchin', you *are* very helpful with your knowledge :0)

10/25/2004 10:04:26 PM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

I wasn't dissing Al Eaton. I read somewhere his saying the 1446 was a bear to measure. Look at that monster! LOL

Perhaps we need a new querie option at AGGC. Weight of largest fruit & OTT grown on male pollinator. This does seem to be a valid set of information for breeders & growers. Unless of course the grower made a conscious decision to start a seed or keep a cutting exclusively as a pollen donor & never even tried to set a fruit on it. I believe this has been the case too many times to dismiss all genetics where the grower decided to rip up a plant that had donated pollen. The "space challenged" growers likely do this quite often.

10/25/2004 10:51:33 PM

I'm with Gordon... GO UTES!

Ah, well I should have known that NicWelty would be doing
that. If I didn't have a job and 5 kids I'd do it myself.
Actually I can manage the job. It's the 5 kids that give me
trouble. (Been experimenting with genetics for many years,
as you can see......)

10/25/2004 11:52:54 PM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

Not meantioned here are the potential benefits of propagation. It is but a matter of time when someone takes my suggestion and keeps a clone off a silver bullet plant and crosses it back into its own selfed offspring.

Sure, the initial genetics of that plant can be isolated a bit by pollinating itself with its own male flowers. A back cross can also be made to strengthen a specific parent trait within that genetic. Sibb crossing is yet another method. All of the three options can be used to "stabilize" and "isolate" that silver bullet genetic, but propagation opens up a new opportunity door the others can't.

Lets say Al Eaton selfed his record fruit initally. After harvesting, he pulled the seeds and dried them. At this time also he propagates the plant that grew the record fruit. Next season, he plants both the clone and one of the selfed seeds. The seed plant grows a female which is then pollinated with males from the clone. Those seeds will have the genetic blueprint then of its original "mother", which has the silver bullet genetics. This gives those seeds two generations of silver bullet "blood". What or how those offspring would do is just pure speculation, but its a good bet the seeds using that technique would out perform seeds created with any other method. It's just a matter of time...

10/26/2004 12:58:54 AM

Knopp, Germany

Madman's idea is like killing two birds with one stone.

I would take it one step further though. Do the reverse cross as well. Pollinate the clone with one of the seed plants (doesn't have to be the same plant the clone pollinated). When the numbers are in on %+-, then perhaps one might even consider the clone pumpkin to have the potential to produce the purer (for heavy purposes) seeds.

Marc, have you already done, or started this? I do not have the experience, logistics or time to take care of a clone, but if you have already started this project I would be willing to be an "outside, unbiased" test subject for the seed that you think has the most potential. Let me know.

owen

10/26/2004 2:42:44 AM

Tremor,

I believe the AGGC already has an option like you describe. If you look at the hierarchy trees display, you will see the largest weight and variance percentage displayed in red at the pollinator node. Been this way ever since I can remember.

10/26/2004 8:07:00 AM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

Oh great. As if I don't spend enough time there this time of year already LOL

Thanks AG, I'll check it out.

10/26/2004 8:17:35 AM

Ontario

So let me see if I have this right. I see that Kyle mentioned my 1058.8 04 so I'll use that as an example. The 1058.8 was the 898 Knauss(female) x 805 Pukos(male). The 805 male pollinator produced the 1201 dmg dueck and went 14.24 % heavy and the 898 produced the 1058.8 that went 2.28% heavy. So both parents produced a fruit that went heavy and both went over 1000 pounds, so what your saying is that the 1058.8 has good potential and should be planted? I would mention the 1201 which was the reverse cross but it only had 2 seeds in her. I think this is what your talking about, so are we abandoning hybred vigor here or just taking a different route. Still too many variables each seed has a different gene makeup, grower, patch conditions weather etc etc. Interesting subject thou.

drew

10/26/2004 12:11:58 PM

I'm with Gordon... GO UTES!

Not abandoning hybrid vigor... but I would make the statement
that hybrid vigor won't really happen until you first have
some purified lines. Cross two distinct but purified lines to
get hybrid vigor.

The trouble we get into is that we cross-cross-cross... and
then we have nothing but mixed up genes. (Well, having said
that, nobody can argue with the progress this sport has made!)

But I think the real hybrid vigor crosses out there that
really made a difference... those seeds were crosses from
relatively purifed lines.

By the way, your 1058.8 could be an excellent seed. It
should be selfed, and if I could get one I'd self it.

10/26/2004 12:29:11 PM

Key West, FL

hmmm 880 Bortner, (grown on 695 Handy, split underneath early, 16% heavy) x sibb (grew 1247 handy, don't know off the top of my head how heavy it was.) ;)

10/26/2004 1:09:58 PM

ontario

ok for those so inclined to studying the seeds...why has no one pointed out the 767 Catapano.......produced two 1000 lbers....hmmm ..I believe its a 846 x 723 cross....I will be growing the 842 again, but I am still strongly considering this one....I saw one fruit up at Port Elgin and it looked like a rock......my two cents worth on this subject...first you need top notch soil.....secondly,a top notch seed( proven or genetically strong to perform) and then the experience to get the most out of it....abit more history behind the seed would help all... abit more male background would be very helpful......here is an example......1373 Dueck....two fruit both very heavy to chart first year......1373 was pollinated with 845 out of Papez patch I believe....now not all know Drew had soil troubles with his patch( very low Ph 5.5 ???), 845 didn't achieve what it might have....so does everyone know this...my point is some hidden info, whether accidentally or not......could greatly change ones choices on seeds.....I believe we all including myself need to try each year a unproven seed or two...

10/26/2004 7:07:53 PM

Ontario

Good point Wayne. Soil Ph was 5.6 last year and here is an example of the male pollinator not doing well. Still a crap shoot any way you look at it. If your soil is in tip top condition almost any seed will do well but to get to 1300 pounds and above the seed has to do the rest. And if there is only 10 or so good( silver bullets) out of 500 seeds then your chances are preety slim.

drew

10/26/2004 7:54:00 PM

Appalachian Mtns.

Papaez seed is killer, Bortner seed is killer, and I'm glad someone else noticed the Catapano...it's on my short list after this years performance....goes *way* heavy.
Drew...yes, you got the idea. Just like when I e-mailed you about my suspicion that you and Chris swapped pollen...(2) 1000+ at both ends, and both heavy. All the ingredients for some good progeny from either seed...or shall I say from either of the 2 seed from Chris's :0)
Stats like those with the male pollinators cannot be ignored, it has become a critical factor in my determinations of good seed potential.

10/26/2004 8:22:01 PM