From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Deer Park, WI

Adj. "established beyond doubt"

What criteria qualify a seed as "proven"? What benchmark or threshold have YOU established to award a seed this, the holiest of titles?

Will this always be subjective term or is it possible to construe a standardized definition for consistency amongst us?

Thoughts please....

3/23/2011 9:34:43 AM

Glosta

I think a seed needs to have a % of it's progeny above a benchmark weight, but deciding the "proven" weight and % is the issue. also there has to be a minimum number of progeny too.

Just my opinion.

3/23/2011 11:15:52 AM

Mill Bay, British Columbia

Hey Joze...in giant pumpkin terms I thought "proven" just meant that it had grown something over 1000 lbs.

Just like here in fishing terms, a "keeper" when catching spring salmon is anything over 24 inches.

3/23/2011 11:19:55 AM

canal winchester ohio

When looking for proven seeds I automatically knock off any progeny grown from the grower of the seed. I always feel your own seeds do better in your own patch so the grower of the seeds progeny should be thrown out.
I also look for newer growers who had their best weight with that seed.

3/23/2011 11:21:40 AM

Wi

Definition of proven:

Anything that Quinn grows

3/23/2011 11:56:30 AM

Colorado

If anybody hits 1400 plus with a new seed then it gets a proven label.If quinn grows it its likely to look good.Proven isnt very scientific or statistically sound.We never know how many were grown.Never hear about the duds etc.

3/23/2011 12:57:55 PM

Deer Park, WI

Interesting diversity of opinions thus far. To extend the conversation and encourage lively debate, I offer these considerations:

Paul: by your rules, would you consider the 1325 Hopkins (progeny: 1675 Hopkins) proven?

Chris & cojoe: by your definition, how do you resolve the circular reference scenario that transpires when Quinn grows a previously untried seed (1161 is probably the best example). Further, if Quinn chooses to grow 1468 and/or 1810 this year, does that qualify the seeds as proven??? (tounge in cheek here, folks)

Both 1400lbs and 1000lbs have been cited as benchmarks to be considered proven. Why those numbers?

3/23/2011 1:15:47 PM

Pocatello ([email protected])

I think there are as many definitions as there are growers. ;-) Good topic.

3/23/2011 1:30:56 PM

[email protected]

I personally don't use a number bench mark, what I choose to go by is how many personal bests the seed produces and in what areas of the country their produced. That's for weight.
If I'm interested in shape, color etc, then a seed can be proven by consistency like the 670 Daigle

3/23/2011 1:44:30 PM

Pocatello ([email protected])

Some of this comes back to the flawed theories that we've talked about in the past. That is, if we see one big one (whatever number you choose) come from the seed stock, then we assume that other seeds are likely to meet or perhaps beat that number. You can kinda, sorta, maybe think that way, but... remember the long thread where we discussed how every seed in a pumpkin is different? Rolling the dice, silver bullets and the like?

So, what this means to me is that ONE big pumpkin from a seed stock means very little. Several big pumpkins from a seed stock quickly start to take on more meaning, but we need to know how many growers are growing it to really come to any meaningful conclusions about it. As has been alluded to, if we get Quinn or any of another dozen top growers to grow practically any seed, they're going to produce a big one with it.

Last year I grew a certain seed which MANY growers covet. This seed would sell now for $500+. It produced a 300 pounder for me. Now, I'm the polar opposite of Quinn, ha ha. Frankly, I'm a bad grower, and my results can also be tossed.

There are so many variables... we don't know if someone grew one of the best seeds of a stock. We don't take careful consideration of WHO grew the seed, and we, as a whole, don't really know the conditions of that particular year, soil, etc.

I think we do ourselves a disservice if we look only at weight. Sure, in the end the weight counts. But we should be looking at factors that contribute to that weight. Plant vigor, leaf quality, freedom from defects, etc. These are factors that are less dependent on the ability of the grower.

3/23/2011 1:45:02 PM

canal winchester ohio

Joze I would have to look at other growers with the 1325. It may be a flawed way I look at it but it's how I look at it & you wanted to know what different people used as a factor. And that's why the 1421 Stelts is at the very top of my list. It produced this year many growers personal bests.

3/23/2011 2:18:56 PM

Massachusetts

to me proven means, a seed that produces pumpkins over 1k. and also must have been planted by several growers, and if it produced pumpkins over its original weight. but it is all up to you, this is what i look for.. scott

3/23/2011 2:50:17 PM

Macomb County

My take is AG growing is the casino gambling of growing. Why Las Vegas seems like the ideal place for a Western seminar. AG growers are the high rollers and fit the image perfectly.
    To be proven, a seed has to be grown by enough top growers. However, world record holders don’t repeat, so how proven can any seed actually be?
    All it seems we can do is try to increase our odds, just like casino gamblers do. By picking-up an 1810 Stevens and a 1725 Sweet and rolling them like a pair of dice into our patch. And the odds are we’ll crap out.
    It was just a short time ago that AG gamblers were trying to increase their odds with a 1385 Jutras. The 1385 was the seed to die for. Christy won the jack pot. However, just that quickly, it’s the 1421 Selts and 1161 Rondonis.
    An example that comes to mind is the 1250 Kline. It was a seed to die for too. But it didn’t pay off for those who gambled on it. However, look at the 890 Welton (1250 Kline x self). She was dealt the only Black Jack. But does that mean there aren’t more in the 1250 Kline deck?
    If you notice, it’s the same way with big seed. Is there another world record in the 1689 Jutras deck? How many top growers are gambling on them to find-out? I don’t hear many begging for a 1725 Harp anymore either.
    That’s just my two cents. AG growing is the world’s biggest crap shoot. If someone wants to grow proven seed, they need to grow Howdens and Prizewinners.
How many are gambling on an 1810 Stevens this year? If history is any indication how many will win? But it's the only way we can try to increase our odds of winning.

3/23/2011 4:43:01 PM

N.e. Ct.

Maybe the deffinition of the term "proven" needs to come from some other crops. If there is to be a bench mark standard I would think it would be used in general agriculture, and not be pumpkin specitic.
Frankly I find it hard to fathom that there is not alraedy a clear meaning.

3/23/2011 5:13:39 PM

Bristol R.I. USA

People have different critiria or description of what they say is proven. If I had to say whats proven or unproven it would be. How many fruits have been grown from this seed and whats the percentage that have been heavy and have grown pumpkins over 1000 lbs. Not only that but advice from seaoned veterans have changed my mind on certain seeds.

3/23/2011 9:53:01 PM

Pei Springvale

the first year they are planted they are a test seed
the second year they are planted they are a proven seed.

3/24/2011 7:19:38 AM

Midwest

It seems the 'proven' label is either about a 'proven' grower or about a 'proven' seed. A possible procedure for 'proving' seeds is to assemble a group to test the seed. The group I think is best are 'proven' growers who are considered HHs. With their experience, HHs have the ability to judge the seed on several characteristics. It would be great for this hobby to elect a group of HHs, send them each a test seed, grow it (in their research patches of course), compare and publish the results in a newsletter.

3/26/2011 5:43:44 PM