This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Vine Size

Thanks,
I am happy with that, I guess the other figure I have seen quoted is 2,500
sq ft which seems excessive. The other problem is looking after a large
vine.
I didn't mean to infer that the gardner was talking about AGs only pumpkins
and getting larger numbers rather than larger fruit.
Stewart

----------
> From: Pumkinguy@aol.com
> To: sdeans@pcug.org.au
> Cc: pumpkins@athenet.net
> Subject: Re: Vine Size 
> Date: Monday, 23 June 1997 12:33
> 
> Stewart,
>    Most , but not all, world class pumpkins are set on the main vine. The
> gentleman with the gardening show is correct when he says that pinching
> growth will stimulate side vines, branching and flowering. When you pinch
> growing tips you are altering the hormonal balance in the plant which
creates
> the branching. This may be O.K. for flowers or ornamentals but would not
be
> wise on a giant pumpkin. I can't imagine terminating a nice 2 inch main
vine
> before it has flowered, to set one on a skinny side vine. If you are
having
> trouble setting fruit, by all means, try to set fruit on side vines or
> anywhere you can.....virtually all top growers, if given a choice, would
set
> fruit on a main vine. I have seen Atlantic Giants branch so severely that
> they lost their main vine and just had a mess of skinny branched vines. I
> believe this garden show man is trying to apply a proven technique for
> African Violets to the Atlantic Giant.....some horticultural techniques
do
> not apply to everything. Keep your main vine and try to set fruit on it
and
> terminate main and side vines when the plant is big enough. Most everyone
> feels that 500 to 1,000 square feet is a good sized plant. 500 might be
the
> minimum. Bernard Lavery is a good grower, but if he said that a 128
square
> foot plant is all you need, I think he is way off the mark. If you set a
> fruit 10 or 15 feet out, you would have to terminate the main vine right
> after the fruit and have 4 foot side vines....there is no way that is big
> enough. Leaves are the source of food for the plant and it doesn't make
sense
> to limit them , that severely. If you grew a 600 pounder on a plant that
> small, maybe it could have been 750 pounds with more leaves. To each his
own.
>                                              pumkinguy@aol.com
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index