From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Stouffville

How is pumpkin flesh made? Well I think that first nutrients and water are absorbed into the plant through the roots, then sugars are made in the leaves with the water and CO2 and this sugar mixture flows to the pumpkin where it somehow gets converted into flesh. What is the composition of the flesh? and how would it be formed from sugar water? The pumpkin plant is a chemical factory, converting minerals, water and CO2 into what we go nuts for. Let's try to figure out the steps. People with biology knowledge should post cause i don't have much and i'm just speculating here. I suppose that this thread will fill up with smart alec responses as well...my posts tend to receive them for some reason but i'm serious

Mike

11/20/2003 5:01:06 PM

Montoursville, PA

For openers you have a very good concept. Some of the best heads are trying to figure out the Paul Harvey thing....the rest of the story. If just one individual really knew the extra fine details that person would be a thousand pound grower. Just think a little. If the last ten percent in improved weight could be laid to a solid cause and effect we could all be at fifteen hundred together next year.
....Your sugar factor is one of the major players. The calcium in the complex thing called flesh may be a major player. Now I'll shut up and listen with you. Damn good and intellegent question.

11/20/2003 6:25:41 PM

Wroclaw, Poland (51 N, 17 E)

I think taht pumpkin flesh is built from minerals, sugar, etc. or parts of them mixed together. Same as human body - you eat meat wich contains protein, and your organizm builds this in your body

11/20/2003 6:43:19 PM

Stouffville

i looked up the nutritional information on squash... it has protein, carbs of course, fat!!where the hell is this made, vitamins and minerals such as niacin, calcium, potassium, manganese, vitamin A and C.

I'm just wondering what the roles of vitamins and minerals may be. I'm trying to lead back to this rate limiting step thing. Often I've had plants in my patch have similar plant growth yet when it comes to fruit growth, some are much better than others....and infact this past year, my best fruit growth occured on the slowest growing plant and some of the worst fruit growth was on the quickest growing plant. What can plants that grow fruit quickly do better than the slower growing ones? Obviously this is not easy to answer...I guess I'm just trying to start a general discussion, based on speculation?!?! experiences?!?

11/20/2003 6:55:22 PM

Liverpool , England

Mike,
I look at it like this. First you have to grow the vine. Only certain chemicals are needed for this part. If you have enough of those chemicals/minerals in the soil then the plant will grow well...if you don't then plant growth will be stunted or at best very slow.Now the second part. You have to grow the fruit. Again certain minerals are needed for fruit growth, some different than what was needed for the vine growth.Now if you have these minerals at the correct levels then fruit growth will be good. But if the vine is small due to lack of minerals for the vine growth then fruit growth will be held back due to the lack of vine/roots. It still may give a good fruit growth on the small plant, because you have the minerals for it....but just think, if you had a big vine to start with then that fruit growth may have been much more pronounced. Only one way to find out man.

Alun

11/20/2003 7:46:00 PM

Montoursville, PA

These questions can go many directions. I like the total soil healthy soil healthy plant philosophy. One of the best to address the soil as a ballanced part of the plant life support is Garrett,s book: Dear Dirt Doctor. Texas University Press or Amazon.com is the source. I language most can understand he brings the total together showing how soils and their content interact with the living healthy plant. It is a good read. Consider it a darn good basic writing.

11/20/2003 7:52:31 PM

Liverpool , England

Just to change the subject a little. When roots take up moisture they ionize it.This is why fruit a rots away when you try to feed through a piece of string dipped in sugars etc. The water in the suagr(or whatever) mix is not ionized and gets drawn into the plant taking bacteria etc with it. The plant cannot ionize this mix as it is by-passing the root system and all the doom and gloom from then on.
Anyway the point is that you can buy ionizers that fit over a hosepipe, and as the water runs through the pipe it is ionized. Surely this must help the plant in the uptake of moisture. A salesman was trying to sell me one last year... .. cost, about £65..($100). Do you think it has possibilities?

Alun

11/20/2003 7:57:08 PM

Stouffville

when i'm talking about plant vs fruit growth i'm comparing plants in the same year that are being grown in the same patch (30'x60') so that they essentially experience the same conditions...then major growth differences can only be linked to genetics somehow, and of course i'm talking about healthy plants. I'm trying to look at what genetically desirable plants do better than less desirable ones... most people on this board would love to plant a 723 bobier...I'm wondering what step in flesh development it can accomplish quicker than lesser seeds. Any ideas? of course this is speculation at this point but you have to start somewhere. This is only out of curiosity on my part and not because i'm trying to gain a competitive edge or something...if I grow next year if will most likely be just my own seed anyway.

11/20/2003 9:49:11 PM

Greencastle, PA

a fruit is just a storage space for extra carbohydrates, perhaps a fertilizer or something of that nature that can be quickly and easily turned into carbohydrates the size of the fruit would increase because of the greater amount of carbohydrates.
tom

11/21/2003 12:23:07 PM

Stouffville

so do you think plants that have produced enough carbs for 2000lbs of fruit ie the plant that grew Mombert's 1064 and 1097 could have put this into one fruit and why or why not? My feeling is that it couldn't but I don't know why.

11/21/2003 3:43:36 PM

In the shade - PDX, OR

Jammer - The plant was probably grown as a wish bone or double main - each with it's supporting cast of secondaries. With all that leaf canopy & sugars produced through photosynthesis... the plant had more than enough carbs to push the 2K of fruit (1K per side).

The 64 thousand dollar question is exactly how to harness 2000 pounds of production sugar into ONE fruit.


Plant efficiency and pruning strategies come to mind here

11/21/2003 5:44:08 PM

Stouffville

why couldn't the second main vine structure feed back into the other main vine structure. Or just grow one huge main vine structure? So you think that the limitation is in flow? like we need bigger vines or what?

11/21/2003 5:51:55 PM

Stouffville

remember the second 'main' is actually a secondary trained as a main, thus it should be able to feed the true main

11/21/2003 5:52:44 PM

Greencastle, PA

That's just an idea, it has been proved that a large pumpkin can be produced on a relatively small plant, but maybe the size of the plant isn't a large factor on the amount of sugars produced, the size of the root system, amount of water and nutrients absorbed by the roots, and amount of solar energy collected by the leaves would be larger factors in my opinion than plant size, the 1061 Pukos for example was grown in about 500 square feet.
tom

11/21/2003 9:27:25 PM

Stouffville

but what about when you have plants under basically identical conditions which don't grow identically? what's happening in that case...kinda interesting i think

11/21/2003 9:45:00 PM