From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Mount Prospect,illinois

I understand the concept of "the more leaves before the fruit, the better". But i dont completely understand the lack of need for leaves after the fruit. I long while back, i thought i read something about both sides being beneficial. Almost like a flow of energy and nutrients foward and backward. Am i way off on this? Maybe i shouldnt think. otherwise, why not just deadhead the main vine right after the pumpkin. Just curious.

7/31/2009 1:30:10 PM

Cincinnati, OH

I would like the definitive answer on that as well, my plant will ultimately end up shedding some light to that if I get to the end, but knowing now would be beneficial.

7/31/2009 3:59:27 PM

Midway, UT

Pap can confirm this but as I understand it he lost a plant from the stump up to the pumpkin. The pumpkin still put on 400 lbs because of the vines after the pumpkin. That tells me the leaves after the pumpkin can feed the pumpkin.

That being said, there has been some discussion by growers in Colorado about the value of vines after the pumpkin because of our enviroment. Depending on the weather, it is sometimes tough for us to get a substantial amount of plant after the pumpkin so for us there has been some questioning as to it's total value. After the fruit we don't see a ton of vines or as good of root systems as growers in other areas of the country.

Some growers will tell you that stem stress issues aren't worth the extra leaves. Others will tell you that plant after the fruit is invaluable. I know of at least two heavy hitters that feel the later is important.

7/31/2009 5:19:51 PM

Pocatello ([email protected])

I can rarely get a main vine to go more than 15 to 17 feet. I don't think I've ever had one get to 20 feet. It just runs out of energy in my soil and climate, and stops growing.

It would be nice to really understand this. To be able to place the fruit at the end of the vine and have no stem stress issues to deal with, that would be great.

7/31/2009 6:17:34 PM

Cincinnati, OH

I set my pumpkin out at about ten feet this year. After struggling borers, I had to terminate all but one vine before the pumpkin. It did indeed slow the pumpkin's growth to a crawl. New growth, however, started at the secondary root system and is keeping the pumpkin alive, at least in my oppinion. Beyond the pumpkin, vine growth is faster than ever, and I plan to pollinate late pumpkins which are coming at a faster rate than early in the season. More than 20 have been pinched off in the last week and the main vine has reached 36 feet with no signs of slowing down. I love to see this plant's abilities and that is the most valueble thing I am learning this first year.

7/31/2009 7:03:01 PM

Mount Prospect,illinois

I do notice that once a pumpkin is set, the vines really slow down big time. I still think that any bit of plant (leaves and roots) after the pumpkin HAVE to be good. No evidence or research on this. Just a gut.

7/31/2009 9:19:54 PM

Cincinnati, OH

From my rookie experience...I would have to assume that plant growth before AND after are equally important. I like the "back and forth" theory....fits right in with my experience. The benefit is obviously in diiferent ways, but I feel you have to have an equal amount to benefit the most. One does not exclude you...but both will "include" you in the best possible results. Just a rookie point of view.

7/31/2009 11:12:11 PM

Dillsburg, PA

Three years ago I lost 16ft of the main in front of the pumpkin. An SVB got in close to where the pumpkin was set and rotted out the vine. I had nothing in front and about 75 sqft of leaves behind. I think my pumpkin was around 400lbs at that time. I buried the vine after the pumpkin and it continued to grow to over 700lbs est.

8/1/2009 7:41:07 AM

Pataskala,OH

It would be great to keep the ving growing past the pumpkin but the vine pretty much stops growing once the pumpkin starts growing really fas.t

8/1/2009 11:52:28 AM