From

Location

Message

Date Posted

San Diego

My year was a blank basically for my patch from bad luck, but I managed to have seeds from one pumpkin grown for genetics only. My 980 Kuhn was going to be my polinator plant, so I grew it in 8 inches of soil and then over grass, yup, a tiny area heheheh The dirt was terrible too:) The plant was small and I got one selfed (the polination was controlled and covered) pumpkin estimated at 80 lbs, put her on a scale and she weighed 120 lbs, 33.3% over the chart. The seeds should be great, her walls were very thick and the pumpkin was smooth skinned, nice shape, and light orange. She was only 34 days old too, but the seeds look great.

Anyway, If anyone is interested, send my a self addressed bubble pack with postage on it and I'll send some your way.
Jimmy Fredricks
899 Waterloo Ave.
El Cajon, Ca. 92019

the seeds are drying so I'll get them out when they are ready. Thanks, Jimmy

8/23/2004 7:39:02 PM

San Diego

I'm not sure on this over the chart thing, maybe I'm wrong:) Maybe someone can help, if my pumpkin was estimated at 80, and weighed 120, it was 40 lbs over, or 50% of the original estimation of 80 lbs. But 33.3% over the estimated weight. So would this pumpkin be 50% over the chart or 33.3%? Never tried to figure it out before:) Jimmy

8/23/2004 9:40:47 PM

Www.extremepumpkinstore.com

Thanks,
SASBP on it's way!
Tom

8/23/2004 10:01:27 PM

Syracuse, NY

uhhh, i THINK that, with a small, immature pumpkin like that, things like over the chart and heavy for its size do not apply as well as when the fruit gets to be like 300-400
pounds because the pumpkin itself is almost entirely "meat".

so, if you cut open a fruit of let's say 100 pounds and the walls are incredibly thick compared to the size of the fruit, well, okay, that's nice, but i think pumpkins need to be more mature before an "over the chart" determination can really be established. so i am not sure about the percentage thing there, i guess it would be 33.3% over the chart. chart say 80, you got 120. mentally i am dividing things by chunks of 40, so you got 1/3 more weight than you had anticipated. so i would say 33.3% over the chart,
taking into account what i had "theorized" previously, lol!

and now, from the experts:

8/24/2004 6:35:22 PM

San Diego

that's a good point, but I still have to wonder because of experiences I had. I have weighed two pumpkins in the same weight rang that were culled or stopped growing. So I weighed them to see if they compared to the ott chart. Both pumpkins weighed right on to the chart even at this size. Makes me wonder what the pumpkin would have done if I would have grown her in a good patch:) Jimmy

8/24/2004 7:45:21 PM

Belgium

SASBP on the way Jimmy!!

Thanks,
Jake Byrd

8/24/2004 9:15:22 PM

central Missouri

I think it depends on which number you start with. If you start with the 80 pound estimate, then the 120 pound actual weight is 50% over the estimate. If you start with the actual weight, then the 80 pound estimate is 33.3% lighter than the actual weight of 120 pounds. Does that sound right?
Mark

8/25/2004 1:30:35 AM

Syracuse, NY

i dunno. i dunno even less than yesterday. lol.
it'll be neat to see if anyone can answer this
riddle, or what it is. and , cool, Duster that you have seen the actual smaller chart section in action! eric

8/25/2004 6:57:11 PM

Appalachian Mtns.

I agree with Eric...heavy OTC % doesn't/shouldn't apply to pumpkins under 400#, too skewed.
The 2 culls that were right on?, a fluke or something.
How can those charts apply to something so small when they were statistically developed from info that were from pumpkins *all* over 500#? Not possible nor feasible.

8/25/2004 9:25:47 PM

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Why would the Over-The-Top chart list total inches beginning with 91" = 21.3 pounds, if it isn't accurate?

If the chart is only accurate at 400 pounds or more, why doesn't the chart start out at 268.5"?

Did they not do research with the smaller sized pumpkins to come up with the smaller measurements?

If they did research with 80 pound pumpkins equaling 151", why could a pumpkin not be heavier or lighter than the norm pumpkins used in the research?

If small pumpkins are all very solid, couldn't a pumpkin be more solid or less solid than the average?

8/25/2004 10:37:49 PM

Appalachian Mtns.

Good questions....experience with culls and small fruit however will "tell" you that they just don't follow the norm for the larger fruit, for which these tables were developed for.
Trust me that it's highly unlikely Marcellus and Stellpflug wasted their time on small (<200#) pumpkins, surely not 80# ones. Statistical numbers can always be extrapolated up, or down.

8/25/2004 11:36:46 PM

Eugene, OR

I know next to nothing when it comes to pumpkins but I do know a little when it comes to numbers. Kyle's absolutely right. Multiple regression analysis is pretty darn accurate if there are enough samples(pumpkins) on which to base the equation. However, the equation obtained from the analysis is only valid for the range of the data used to come up with the equation.

In other words, if the current equation was only based on pumpkins over 500 pounds, then technically the equation should only be accurate for pumpkins over 500. Using the equation on pumpkins outside this range lowers its accuracy.

I wonder what range was actually used for this years equation. 500-1458??

8/26/2004 12:00:49 AM

Eveleth MN

Since I'm experianced in growing small Ag's this year I did notice the charts to be pretty accurate on smaller fruit. I had one that taped out at 84# that was 92# and another that taped out at 96# that was 98#. Both of those fruit were about 35-40 days old. I'm just wondering it he actually "taped" them out correctly, I don't think I could have even hit 120# with my 92# pumpking if I filled the cavity with water.

8/28/2004 11:33:59 AM

San Diego

I'm a 4 year grower, I taped it out right:) Jimmy

8/28/2004 6:46:40 PM