From

Location

Message

Date Posted

milford, CT,

Over the last 4 years I have followed tried and true growing techiques and soil ammendment recomendations so that my soil is in great shape. I seem to be stuck at 1246,1248, 1250 lbs.. I'm looking for a major change for 2013..I think it may be my sq footage/ or a missing fertilizer technique. I only alot 400 sq ft per plant..I believe I am getting all I can out of this ..If I cut down to 2 plants I can grow 2 plants 600 sq ft..What are the thoughts here ...does the 400 sq ft limit possible size..if so would 600 sq ft increaseweight if all other thing remain status quo..By the way..all these fruit were 1000 lbs by the last week of August..I also never peak over 32 lbs a day..never!!! Any thoughts welcome...Mark

10/4/2012 11:14:42 PM

Torrance, Ca.

Wow Mark,,,,, great questions!

10/4/2012 11:20:51 PM

Eugene,OR

If you don't change something and you've been getting the same results for several years, most likeley you will get the same results again next year. At least you are asking the question. That is the first step in fixing what needs to be fixed. Unfortunately only you know what you are doing...so you need to be the one that answers the question of what to change.

10/4/2012 11:51:42 PM

Germany

A while ago I had done an analysis of some frequently grown seeds...i.e., the 1385 Jutras, the 1161 Rodonis, the 985 Werner and the 998 Pukos, have looked up their progeny on pumpkinlink and tried to find out about the square footage on aggc. Then I did an Excel of pumpkin weight vs square footage. It looks like there should be a slight increase of pumpkin weight when you go to larger square footage, like going from an average of 1100 lbs to 1300 lbs when you extend your patch from 400 sqft to 1000 sqft (in the case of the 1385) or from 1100 lbs to 1350 lbs in case of the 1161 progeny. Somewhere around 500 sqft some growers already reached some really hight weights of their pumpkins.

For a PDF of the results (if you´d like to see the graphs) just send me an email.

10/5/2012 4:13:35 AM

Germany

In addition to changing the square footage, a different vine pattern could probably also be the key (my opinion). Just imagine the distance from the vine tips to the pumpkin and include the theory (and practical experience) that back-feeding works. Then it should be good to have the pumpkin close to the stump (e.g., like in case of the 1725 Harp, 1725 Sweet or 1810 Stevens)...for maximum direct juice flow from the main roots through a short pipeline into the pumpkin, and to have similar distances from the pumpkin to all vine tips, i.e., to save space with shorter sets of secondaries at the beginning but longer sets of secondaries round the site of the pumpkin. The latter would also allow for late season growth, i.e., to have younger leaves in August/September.

10/5/2012 4:19:36 AM

Germany

...like the pumpkin situated in the centre of a star, and then the vines bent tto fit the rectangular shape of your patch.

10/5/2012 4:21:08 AM

Johnston, R.I.

Mark, switch over to Orange and grow Jack O Lanterns like me. You may get ridiculed but it is low stress... Plus they look great on the porch.. Norm

10/5/2012 4:36:00 AM

Germany

Looking at the results of Chad Revier, I must conclude that 500-550 sqft should already produce very big ones, and Dale Marshall with his 1723 has shown the same, but in the latter case the number of long and sunny days was probably the key to let the limited number of leaves work with high efficiency.

10/5/2012 5:14:57 AM

Germany

To conclude, going from 400 to 600 sqft per plant should indeed make a difference, both in pumpkin size and in the risks arising from plant troubles (ribbon viners) and fruit troubles (blossom end or stem end splits). With only two plants per season I would probably start 3 or 4 seeds for each site, plant two seedlings on each site and let them do for a couple of weeks and then let the winners survive the season. This should at least help reduce troubles which show up with early signs (like ribbon viners).

10/5/2012 5:19:10 AM

Rhode Island

always believed that the food factory ( your plant )was a key ingredient to success. --- in both size and your soils nutrient availability and uptake.
this along with disease prevention is key to any season.

10/5/2012 5:29:45 AM

Menomonie, WI ([email protected])

I agree with what Pap says...it has more to do with the plant..Soil .. What is slowing down the plant? What is it not getting that you can provide it?
For me I have a garage blocking my morning sun...option of moving the garage was shot down.

10/5/2012 7:21:28 AM

Muddy Waters

I'm growing on about 500 sg feet per plant,soils jacked calcium 3800 etc.How are you watering??

10/5/2012 7:41:14 AM

Bethlehem CT

Mark, try the bigger plant what have you got to lose. I feel that you will hook into a crazy fast grower at some point even if you stay at 400 square feet. It is just a matter of time. Your consistency has been amazing over the past 5 years. I bet you would go over 1400 easy with a 1725 Harp. The fast growers can be heartbreakers though LOL.

10/5/2012 8:06:56 AM

Wi

Soil.

10/5/2012 9:16:14 AM

Ashby, MA

I made changes to my soil from last year and saw a big difference. Unfortunately, had some bad luck and lost both kins.

10/5/2012 10:27:10 AM

milford, CT,

Great answers everyone...I have made changes every year to "tweak" soil and foliar programs..Plants have been very healthy...this was the year it hit me that maybe I am missing the big picture...there may be a minimum sq ft to grow at the next level...I'll be trying 600 sq ft..then see iff that was the missing variable.

10/5/2012 3:44:29 PM

Buffalo, New York

soil and plant health

10/5/2012 4:07:25 PM

Eugene,OR

I agree with Chris. The biggest gains can be made by getting your soil "right."

10/5/2012 9:03:57 PM

milford, CT,

I've watered overhead and through drip tape..besides the disease prevention and lower water usage, weights were equivalent..1246 was done overhead,1248 was drip, 1176 was overhead, 1250 was drip..

10/5/2012 10:13:07 PM

Lymington UK

For me I would look at both and like Russ said, just questioning your growing techniques is the most important thing to increasing your Pb. Although you can’t but be amazed with JDs “Lucy lu” (1287lbs) in 320sqft I think 600sqft feels like a more appropriate size of plant for a beast.
Ian

10/6/2012 5:08:52 AM

Michigan,up North

Iam going with a bigger plant next year,grew the 1238 on 14x30.cut the vine after the pumpkin ,not next year.shooting for a 40x40 plant.goin to let the 3rd growth on the firt seconddairys grow back wards .boom 1800+

10/6/2012 4:11:46 PM

Germany

40x40...1600 sqft??? That should give at least a 2000-pounder!

10/6/2012 4:40:54 PM

Torrance, Ca.

I loved " Lucy Lu "

10/6/2012 4:42:06 PM

Michigan,up North

yeah , i dont want it 40 foot long ,do want my secoundairys 40 foot ,pumpkin at 14ft so 25x40 .thats better ,

10/6/2012 5:14:23 PM

Wisconsin

Why would making a bigger growing area help with the BES or Stem splits? I am new to this but thought the splits were primarily caused by the kins growing too fast for their skin/Dill Rings/Bad Genetics? Dill rings and bad genetics are kind of the same thing so the only thing left in your control is the pkin growing too fast for its skin? I would think a bigger plant would only make this more likely----Bigger Pkin yes---more likely to split yes because in order to get a bigger kin it either has to grow faster or longer. I am new so please tell me if I am out to lunch on this.

10/6/2012 9:12:10 PM

Muddy Waters

I agree a bigger plant to much energy.you might blow it up.I agree soil is key I beleive a 560 foot plant can grow a 2000 pd kin.I was growing at 46 pds a day with a 560 plant.I'm sure I wasnt at 100% efficiency.Next year I will grow the rock boulder genectics & see If I'm right.1)SOIL most important factor. then 2) seed then 3)footage.

10/7/2012 5:16:33 AM

Utah

great discussion - best wish to you Mark !

10/7/2012 11:57:04 AM

Utah

wishes*

10/7/2012 11:57:19 AM

Michigan,up North

I have christy harps pdf downloaded,she grew her 1725WR whith the first 2 side viens angled backwards with tertiaries ,she had 18.5 of viens behind the fruit.she doas 900 sqfoot a plant.iam doin what she did ,ive been cuting the vien after the fruit for 2 years now,ithink havein more viens before the fruit is the way to go ,i dont know how ron doas it .i dont think havin a main vien after the fruit doas anything.

10/7/2012 12:00:28 PM

Michigan,up North

yeah great discussion,wonder if the heavy hiters want to give up there secerts.lol

10/7/2012 7:06:01 PM

Michigan,up North

If your geting spilts your soil needs calcium,you dont have enough.

10/7/2012 7:31:45 PM

Wisconsin

It's that simple.......splits mean low on calcium?

10/7/2012 7:33:20 PM

Michigan,up North

yeah i agree with chris its your soil,goin to see if its plant size next year,

10/7/2012 7:43:06 PM

Wisconsin

I am still hoping some of the experts can comment on the calcium VS splits part of this conversation. Having enough Calcium should eliminate BES and Stem Splits?

10/10/2012 4:00:04 PM