From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Honesdale, Pennsylvania

With the season coming to an end due to the blossom end split on our 961 Daletas the only thing left is a proper name. Because of its condition I wasn't able to get it weighed in time. It put on an estimated 150 pounds after I sealed the split. Its final OTT was 356; (150x105x101). With a couple of charts out there what should I call her? One chart has it at an estimated weight of 923 but there are older charts out there and maybe a newer one.

Thanks for your input. Ned Sandercock



Thanks for your input. Ned Sandercock

9/14/2004 5:46:57 AM

[email protected]

I would go with the 2003 Stelpflug Martin Scale, which puts your fruitat 923 as you say.

Hence, your fruit should be named the Sandercock 923EST.

9/14/2004 6:45:47 AM

Atlanta, Georgia

I agree with you totally Rock, BUT I can't believe Ned called HER an IT so many times in his email...
What was her real name Ned?...such as Big Bubba, etc...
I guess you did call her a her one time though so you're still cool with me.
Congrats on the awesome pumpkin! I grew a bit heavier this year if I weigh all three of my pumpkins together.

My only actual question is what was the pollinator Ned?

Best regards from Germany!
Michel

9/14/2004 7:58:53 AM

Appalachian Mtns.

Ned,
Bob Marcellus has a new 2004 Weight Estimate chart out. There's a semi-copy of it (it starts at 300 OTT)that's been posted on the pumpkin board at hort.net. According to it, your pumpkin estimates at 951.

9/14/2004 9:23:08 AM

Appalachian Mtns.

Actually, here's a copy for everyone...Kyle

"A numbrt of you requesred a chart of eight estimayes. Here it is based
on
the 2004 Equationp Weight is ).0000703 times OTT to the power of 2.795."

Regards,
Bob Marcellus

OTT In. Weight ! OTT In. Weight
300.0 589.5 359.0 973.7
301.0 595.0 360.0 981.3
302.0 600.6 361.0 989.0
303.0 606.2 362.0 996.7
304.0 611.8 363.0 1004.4
305.0 617.4 364.0 1012.1
306.0 623.1 365.0 1019.9
307.0 628.8 366.0 1027.7
308.0 634.5 367.0 1035.6
309.0 640.3 368.0 1043.5
310.0 646.1 369.0 1051.5
311.0 652.0 370.0 1059.4
312.0 657.8 371.0 1067.5
313.0 663.7 372.0 1075.5
314.0 669.7 373.0 1083.6
315.0 675.7 374.0 1091.8
316.0 681.7 375.0 1099.9
317.0 687.7 376.0 1108.2
318.0 693.8 377.0 1116.4
319.0 699.9 378.0 1124.7
320.0 706.1 379.0 1133.1
321.0 712.3 380.0 1141.4
322.0 718.5 381.0 1149.8
323.0 724.7 382.0 1158.3
324.0 731.0 383.0 1166.8
325.0 737.3 384.0 1175.3
326.0 743.7 385.0 1183.9
327.0 750.1 386.0 1192.5
328.0 756.5 387.0 1201.2
329.0 763.0 388.0 1209.9
330.0 769.5 389.0 1218.6
331.0 776.0 390.0 1227.4
332.0 782.6 391.0 1236.2
333.0 789.2 392.0 1245.1
334.0 795.8 393.0 1254.0
335.0 802.5 394.0 1262.9
336.0 809.2 395.0 1271.9
337.0 816.0 396.0 1280.9
338.0 822.8 397.0 1290.0
339.0 829.6 398.0 1299.1
340.0 836.4 399.0 1308.2
341.0 843.3 400.0 1317.4
342.0 850.3 401.0 1326.6
343.0 857.2 402.0 1335.9
344.0 864.2 403.0 1345.2
345.0 871.3 404.0 1354.5
346.0 878.4 405.0 1363.9
347.0 885.5 406.0 1373.4
348.0 892.6 407.0 1382.8
349.0 899.8 408.0 1392.4
350.0 907.0 409.0 1401.9
351.0 914.3 410.0 1411.5
352.0 921.6 411.0 1421.2
353.0 928.9 412.0 1430.8
354.0 936.3 413.0 1440.6
355.0 943.7 414.0 1450.3
356.0 951.2 415.0 1460.2
357.0 958.7 416.0 1470.0
358.0 966.2 417.0 1479.9

9/14/2004 9:27:16 AM

In the shade - PDX, OR

The pollinator was the 805 Pukos.

9/14/2004 12:48:14 PM

Honesdale, Pennsylvania

The Sandercock 923 Est. it will be. The kids never really named the 961. It was pollinated with the 805 Pukos. Best of luck to everyone out there. Keep them hanging on!

9/14/2004 1:00:51 PM

I'm with Gordon... GO UTES!

Question on the 2004 chart: I thought I read, somewhere, way
back, eons ago, that this newer chart was "more accurate for
higher weights". This implies the question, "is it any less
accurate for the lower weights?

If it is, I would have no problem using a piece-wise
equation. (I'm an engineer, but this is really not all that
complicated...) For example, from OTT 0 to 250, there is one
equation, from 250 to 350, another, and from 350 up... etc.
Like I say, this is easy to do and can be done in a
spreadsheet.

Regards, Cliff

9/14/2004 3:19:18 PM

[email protected]

Maybe this speaks to the need to chuck all the charts.

How's about Sandercock 356OTT '04.

No more hokey estimated weight & the EST goes south for the OTT which requires no explaination for serious growers anyway.

In other words, if a fruit never sees a scale, then the weight estimate is poop anyway.

9/14/2004 3:35:25 PM

I'm with Gordon... GO UTES!

In the case of a fruit that was never weighed, that would be
OK with me... but when I'm just dealing with fruits growing
in my patch I'd like to use the estimate.

9/14/2004 3:44:18 PM

I'm with Gordon... GO UTES!

That probably made no sense... but consider the case where
fruits are weighed, and the claim is made... "10% over the
OTT estimate". That's fine if we're all using the same
estimate....

9/14/2004 3:46:20 PM

White Bear Lake, Minnesota

If it was a large crack, I'd just call her "libery bell" hehehe I think the name of "Sandercock 923EST. OTT" would be fine though, because sometimes ya just can't make it to the scale in time.

9/14/2004 4:43:05 PM

Wichita, KS

Cliff,

I I pumched this equation into an excell spreadsheet and started the OTT variable at 1". I have been measuring and weighing my culls (dozens of them) and comparing them to the charts. I am finding my culls to be about 45-50% over the charts. Most of my culls end up weighing around 30-50#. I take them down to the post office and weigh them there, cause my bathroom scales sucks.

For example, I have a beautiful green squash right now that tapes out at 111" OTT. The charts say that it's 35.69832837#. I know for certain that its closer to 80#, though.

I agree, it would be nice to have a chart for smaller fruit, but I would consider it a luxury more than anything.

9/14/2004 5:11:02 PM

Wichita, KS

punched, not "pumched."

9/14/2004 5:11:28 PM

Hilpoltstein, Bavaria, Germany

Pumpkins of that size have no cavity in them and so they weigh much more than what the chart says. The percentage you get in such cases is useless....

9/14/2004 5:19:19 PM

Vancouver, White Rock, Canada

We really need a standard chart / equation that everybody uses.

9/14/2004 5:33:29 PM