From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Deer Park, WI

Growers- when it comes to seed selection, i've long been an advocate that maximum genetic potential comes from seeds that have the largest ancestral weights. This is a fundamental aspect of any breeding process...desirable offspring characteristics must come from desirable parentage. As such, i've created a simple, crude calculation that ranks seeds based on their "3-way cross weight average" which is an average of 3 data inputs: host parent weight, female parent weight, and male parent weight.

I've taken data from the top 20 official pumpkins (source:BP.com GPC data page) and calculated their 3-way cross weight average. Conveniently, the data set also includes "% to chart" values for each seed. The analysis is posted as a .jpg file on the SCGA website:

http://www.stcroixgrowers.org/2015_cross_weight.JPG

Josiah Brandt's 2185lb whopper produces the seed with the highest cross weight average at 2201lbs. This is a 99lb margin over the next contender. A nice bonus is that this pumpkin was 19%. That has no known bearing on its offspring, but im sure we'd all like to believe it means something.

In summary, if your goal is maximum genetic potential based on rudimentary quantitative analytics vs pure speculation and wishful thinking, the cross-weight average summary for 2015 may serve as a useful tool.

Lastly, my plug for the SCGA, the #1 and #3 seeds in the CWA list are part of the "Best of Harvestfest 2015" seed collection, also available on the SCGA website in the seeds section.

Happy Seed Selecting!!

1/10/2016 1:22:26 PM

Torrance, Ca.

And Steve Daletas name there 3 times.


He's got that % heavy thing down.

1/10/2016 1:28:42 PM

Torrance, Ca.

And cool chart Joe.

1/10/2016 1:29:02 PM

Germany

This should be a great approach as long as the weights come from genetics only. Otherwise you would compare cherries with apples. In my opinion, a seed from a 1200-pounder could still be much better (genetically), but one needs to know the background story. Also, how would the very big ones, obtained by additional plant hormone applications, enter this list if the plants had to produce the fruit with their own genetically driven hormone doses (but the same excellent growing conditions)?

1/10/2016 2:35:02 PM

Deer Park, WI

Pumpking: I agree with you that a 1200lber could have greater genetic potential, however your point illustrates the limitations given to us- we dont have the "back story". we'll never be able to quantify or manage all the environmental factors that contribute to patch success. but we can choose which genetics to deploy. In the absence of any other quantitative means to assess potential, whether it be genetic or environment, the CWA is a starting point. Limited? yes. but does there exist another means to improve potential? This is no different than fantasy sports. If you want to win, you pick the players with the greatest potential to earn points. Despite that fact that anything can happen on Sundays (currently watching Russel Wilson fall apart against the nemesis vikes is a great illustration).

Lastly, regarding hormones, two comments- #1 while i greatly respect and admire the work Tanner and Matt are doing to explore the potential of PGRs on pumpkin productivity, there's still very little conclusive comparative evidence that these interventions are having a direct impact on outcome. Much more data on controlled comparisons is needed and I hope that's the direct we're headed. So I urge caution before growers draw direct correlations between hormone use and successes until more info piles up. #2 Regardless of hormonal impact on growth, that is an environmental intervention just like greenhouses, fertilizers, and the amount of time spent in the patch. Hormones dont change the blueprint. and their use/influence has no bearing on my interpretation of the fact that a seed with a CWA of 2000+ is potentially genetically superior to one with 1000.

1/10/2016 3:15:19 PM

Enumclaw, Washington

what you say is true.
Sunday was ugly, however, Wilson will be playing again next Sunday

1/11/2016 1:11:55 AM

Colorado

Hey joe,very true on the hormone topic.Somebody has to run a study with a control to get data. I think growing cutting/ clones side by side would be the way to go-seeds are too variable- but im too lazy to do it

1/11/2016 2:40:46 PM

Connecticut

I will agree that the data presented is “rudimentary quantitative analytics” for several reasons. One being the seemingly random selection of only the top 20 pumpkins to calculate the 3-way cross average when there could be a pumpkin outside of this range that has a higher rank. (Ex. 1750 Holland (F: 2323Meier x 2032 Mathison) = avg of 2035 which would rank 5th on the ranking system.)

The calculations are easy but select against many seeds by the nature of the math. If you grow a large pumpkin from a seed that came from a large pumpkin and self it, this will heavily favor doing well with this averaging system.

Also, this system makes seeds that have a low weight parent nonexistent. It may seem a little like a self promotion, but the 220.3 DeBacco seed would never be able to compete with the heavy weights and would therefore not appear on a ranking system of this kind. However, when you look at two seeds that growers did use to produce pumpkins on this list (the 1338 Martin and 1744.5 Fulk), you will find this “little pumpkin” in the genetic history. If you were using this system to plan what seeds to plant, both of these seeds would have not made the final selection in the spring.

While we all want a nice easy way to select the new hot seeds, there is still no replacement for independent research and talking with growers. There is a great time investment for selection and seeking out pictures of pumpkins and talking with growers where applicable. While there are no guarantees with seeds, I feel this is a more reliable pattern that has worked out well for me in the past and is the system I will continue to employ for my future selections.

1/11/2016 4:39:38 PM

Connecticut

Lastly, regarding hormones, the goal of my product is to increase the overall weight of the pumpkin. The data and grower’s comments I have collected show some very positive results. While the actual effectiveness may be debated, I know I will be using Anthesis again (along with many other growers), and I am doing my best to have it available to anyone that wants to use it, so there can be an even playing field.

1/11/2016 4:39:43 PM

East Jordan, MI

Joe have you applied this formula against known outcome?

Using your formula:
The 2096s genetic potential is 2250.66
So far it has only grown 2185, 1866.2, and a 1840

The 2323.7s genetic potential is 2220.23
So far it has only grown 1887.2, 1865.1, 1750, 1745, 1724, 1710, 1655, 1538.5, 1514.5, 1509 (by some of the top growers I may add)

The 2032s genetic potential is 1865
Yet it grew the 2058, 1997, 1964, 1928, and a 1865

The 2009's genetic potential is 1714.33
Yet it grew the 2328, 2323.7, 2230, 2032, 1985, 1975, 1916, 1873, 1870, 1840.9, 1806, 1794.5, 1791.3, 1768, 1754, 1749, 1740, 1726.2, and a 1725

The 1625.5s genetic potential is 1538.5
Yet it grew the 1965, and a 1692.8

The 1676.5s genetic potential is 1517.33
Yet it grew the 2059, 1848, 1766.5, 1719.5, 1718, 1700.5, 1695, 1678.8, 1662, 1661.5, 1612.5, 1579, and a 1524.5

The 1725s genetic potential is 1498.33
Yet it grew a 2009, 1789est, 1775, 1876.5, 1670, 1657.6, 1647, 1645.5, 1630, 1622, 1610, 1589, a 1502

The 1495s genetic potential is 1186.66
Yet it grew the 1813, 1807.5, 1799.5, 1791, 1770.5, 1689.5, 1684.5, 1625.5, 1574, 1552, 1545, 1498, 1493, 1492, 1490, 1481, 1465.5, 1447, 1427... 16 in the 1300s, 8 in the 1200s, and an 1162

This list could go on and on....

1/11/2016 7:43:02 PM

NE Arkansas

What you list also doesn't adjust for is climate... if someone in the deep south grows a 1500 lb kin then maybe it a cooler climate it has waaayyy more potential than a 1800 lber from Michigan... js

1/11/2016 10:27:12 PM

Midway, UT

Its like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get inside, but a little data never hurt.

1/12/2016 8:12:56 PM

Deer Park, WI

I have not applied this formula to known outcomes. Which, i suppose discredits its utility. I'll eat that humble pie. At the same time, I feel that the exercise of quantifying outcomes is an effort in futility because so many environmental variables make it impossible to draw any direct correlations. The only way to draw definitive conclusions from the utility of the equation would be growing a number of seeds under identical environmental conditions and comparing outcomes. Such a controlled environment will likely never exist, so we are left with "rudimentary" tools to facilitate a decision process.

For the record, Im not trying to promote this as a definitive tool for seed selection. Matt reiterated the most salient point, this is rudimentary quantitative analytics. Its a quick and dirty, back of the envelope calc that simply shows which seeds come from the biggest parents. I will maintain, however, that in the absence of other definitive tools, I would prefer a seed with a higher CWA than those with lower outcomes.

From the examples above, I personally would not call cross weight average as "genetic potential". CWA is a comparative indicator, not a direct prediction of absolute potential.

Matt's criticism of the tool's limitation is warranted. Regarding random selection of this year's top 20, the effort wasnt random at all. Its simply a starting point to illustrate the concept using the most likely top candidates. There's no question that seeds from this year outside of top 20 and years past may have a higher CWA than what appears in 2015 top 20.

1/13/2016 12:02:44 PM

Deer Park, WI

Matt's 220 seed indeed illustrates a limitation of the methodology. Again, I'll concede that this is far from a end-all be-all for seed selection. His point on this matter also reinforces a critical concept regarding information availability. 220 Debacco, if I recall, a greenhouse-grown fruit taken from cuttings of world-class producers, is clearly an exception in a sea of low CWA genetic possibilities. While many of us reading these boards are performing copious amounts of due diligence on our seed selections, what about those who do not or may not be able to dig deeper?

I appreciate the constructive criticisms. keeps us all on our toes and prevents the overly-optimistic interpretation of the tools at our disposal to improve our games.

1/13/2016 12:02:51 PM