From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Appalachian Mtns.

I know most of us have been using the 2003 Stellpflug/Martin scale for weight estimates. Bob Marcellus has come up with a new 2004 scale that was posted on hort.net. Here it is....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.

9/14/2004 9:29:31 AM

Utah

personally i don't like this table, I think it is to far off in the mid-range pumpkins. just my opinion...
When Bob posted it on Mallorn he said it is was specificially taylored for high end fruit.

I'm going to stick with the 2003 Stellpflug/Martin table for estimating my fruit this year.
gordon

9/14/2004 1:18:38 PM

Taber, Alberta

What weight range are high end fruits?

9/14/2004 1:35:36 PM

Puyallup, WA

It's a moot point if you take your pumpkin to the scales!
It is of primary value at estimating the weight if it splits before a weigh-off!

9/14/2004 2:45:53 PM

Rexburg, Idaho

Take these numbers and subtract 100 pounds and that is a more realistic weight for pumpkins from my patch.

9/14/2004 7:16:02 PM

Rhode Island

stan- good point ,spoken like a veteran of the pumpkin battles
last week i was 366 and doing 8 per day
based on bobs chart i was 25 lbs heavier than lens chart, but i do believe its a moot point because this pumpkin looks and thumps like a tree trunk
if it gets to the scale i truely believe it will go way over the chart ( woulda, shoulda, coulda )
good luck to all-------------- bring um home

9/15/2004 7:35:12 AM

I'm with Gordon... GO UTES!

As I posted on another thread, it would be very easy to build
a piece-wise table...

For example, if the OTT is between 0 and 250, you use one
equation. If the OTT is between 250 and 350, you use another,
and still another for 350 and up. It sounds complicated, but
really, you just enter it into a speadsheet like we do know,
and the spreadsheet does all the work (like we do now)...

All we need to do is agree on a standard.

I think the weights up to 350 OTT are probably pretty
mature. Sure, they can change as we continue to select seeds
that weigh heavy... but with this approach someone can
"update" the high OTT fruit's equation each year and not
need to touch the estimates for the mid and lower fruits.

Humbly suggested for your approval......Cliff

9/15/2004 10:59:03 AM

I'm with Gordon... GO UTES!

Adding just a little more... this makes the estimate better
for each "category", as the high OTT fruits do not need
any "factors" built-in to accomodate the mid-range, and vice-
versa.

Some may say, "why go to all that trouble"? I suggest that it
is LESS trouble, because you don't have to deal with 0 to 420
or whatever, you only deal with 350 to 420. And, what else
are we going to do all winter? (Besides beg for seeds...) ;-)

9/15/2004 11:09:39 AM

Utah

it's is not a moot point if you claim that your fruit is light or heavy to the "charts"/"tables".

9/15/2004 1:30:50 PM