From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Germany

Please, only comments from growers who have made their own experience with back to back planted AGs. ThanXalot.

A while ago there was a thread dealing with back to back planted AGs (4 feet apart from each other), and some growers appear to have made good experience with this method, have grown some really big ones on such plants. Now I´m wondering if one of the plants grew a giant at the expense of the other plant, or if both plants appeared to have taken advantage of the back to back planting. If the latter was true, and each of the plants would benefit from the neighboring root system, this would offer an opportunity also for small patches which wouldn´t allow for growing two full-length AG plants back to back. One could set a second AG plant (a sacrificial plant) 4 ft at the back of the main plant and let the sacrificial plant develop its root system and only a couple of vines (which might run parallel to the secondaries of the main plant).

"Back to back" growers, your experience and opinions are welcome :-)

5/6/2012 7:00:32 AM

South Bloomfield, Ohio

My experience is that back-to-back growing is certainly more convenient. However, at the Las Vegas seminar in February, most of the experts there concurred that growing side-by-side was the way to go for the very reason you cited: competition for nutrients.

5/6/2012 7:59:08 AM

Rhode Island

last year ron grew a 1789 on one b to b plant and i grew a 1408 on the other . plants were 4 ft apart.did not notice any problems besides, those roots are everywhere once the plant gets established.
we also use a lot of sprays and drenches so a lack of nutrients planting b to b is not a concern. .

5/6/2012 8:30:16 AM

St. Thomas Ontario

1486 squash was grown 'back to back' (3' apart) with a pumpkin producing 1000 lb UOW fruit...didn't seem to hurt them any;) I try to give the base as much access to prepared garden space as possible, if that means 'b to b planting' in a given years rotation, that's what happens:)

5/6/2012 9:22:56 AM

Bristol R.I. USA

Next year I'll be doing the back to back planting since I have a small patch.

5/6/2012 11:51:55 AM

Joliet, IL

I don't have the option and have 2 plants actually side by side in reverse growing directions in a center spot with one going one way and the other growing the other way. Then the first secondaries coming off are trained parellel to each other with the mains angled back to an imaginary center line between the 2 plants. This means roots are intertwining on both stump areas and the first and second rows of secondaries. Yes it may mean some sacrificial nutrients being used up by both in those areas, but with supplimental drench and foliar all season like Pap said, you can help combat that. Also you will lose some more moisture in both these areas as they compete, but too much moisture in the areas lead to stump problems with the amount of moisture taken in. Maybe its good back to back to prevent build up water pressure and stop mr. Foamy from showing? Never had foaming stumps on my back to back (or in my case side by side) plants. Only the one in the other area of patch by itself have I had foaming stumps. Maybe coincidence, maybe a little of both. I grew the 1493 and 1209 side by side 2 years ago and the 1156 and 1097 side by side last year.

5/6/2012 2:02:14 PM

Pocatello ([email protected])

What was said at the Vegas seminar, in my opinion... was one person's opinion. Directly afterward several people were saying, "Good presentation, but I'm puzzled by the anti-back-to-back rhetoric." Anyway, I think it's far from a consensus.

I've grown back to back and not back to back, and never noticed a difference. But I don't have any four-digit datapoints to give.

5/7/2012 9:52:04 AM

Puyallup, WA

I've been growing "back to back" for over 10 years. The distance between them started out about 4', but this year
I'm about 5'-6' apart. DW is right about the root mass spreading. Just make sure that the plants do not have to compete for water or nutrients.

5/8/2012 2:02:53 AM

Colorado

I believe the 1810 stevens was grown back to back.

5/8/2012 6:28:31 PM

Germany

Oh yes, in Chris Stevens´ diary 2010 it really looks like the 1161 had another plant in its back. The other examples are also very convincing. As I want to rotate the plant spots around my patch (don´t want to use exactly the same spot year by year) I will have to develop some planting patterns which also include back-to-back arrangements. Thanks to your input I´m now looking forward to the years with back-to-back couples on the patch. Thanks alot.

5/10/2012 5:23:23 PM