Chapter IV: Part 4

On the other hand a good variety may fail to bear in a locality where it is not suited. Very frequently the real lack is in soil fertility. Of course the success of the pecan trees down South around pig pens is an old joke to you gentlemen, but there is truth in that. For good nuts there is often need for a little extra manure or fertilizer, or perhaps both. Sometimes there are rich pockets in the earth where those trees would like to grow, or rich bottom lands which will produce without manure. I think one of the best ways is to fertilize with manure, if possible. Pollination troubles in connection with the non-filling and dropping of the nuts should be thought of.

Then there is another angle to be considered, and perhaps I can express it most definitely to you by citing the example of the June drop of peaches. Whenever a tree, like the peach tree or the pecan or the black walnut, sets its fruit in the spring, you will find that there are cross-pollinated and self-pollinated fruits. These will begin to drop their nuts or their fruit at definite stages. Furthermore we will find the abortive seeds are not one size. This means that there were definite stages of the pollination and of the fertilization. I should like to work that up and find what the stages are.

The last big step in the dropping of the peach tree is the shedding of the fruit just as the pits are hardening. When they are hard the fruit does not fall. So this June-drop question ties in with the complications of pollination and nutrition. We know from experiments on the sterility of the pear tree, if highly fed and cultivated, such as those I worked on in the city of Rochester, that those highly fed trees will have some self-fertilized pears. In all of the pears we got no pears resulted when pollinized with the pollen of the same variety, except on those well fed trees. We learned this in the East, and have since found the same type of self-fertilized pear occurring naturally in California and other places in the West. In nut production that whole question of setting and filling is tied up in a complicated way with pollination and nutrition.

Aside from nutrition the other thing to be considered is that of disease. The common black walnut around Washington is generally poor from fungus leaf diseases. Those of us familiar with it around here know that they do not fruit well. This is not a good place for the common black walnut. The wild ones are nearly all poor. I was raised in the Mississippi Valley, where there were large nuts and fine ones, and we gathered those which fell from the specially good trees. They do not grow so well here, except the Stabler and a few others.

Leaving that subject, there is another I wish to take up. That is, the great number of complaints about winter-killing of the English walnut. Wherever we have been able to trace that down, as we frequently have, we find that the English walnut suffers more from winter-killing right around Washington, D. C., and in Pennsylvania, than up in Rochester; and we also have complaints of winter-killing as far south as Georgia. A common cause is the variation of moisture. After a dry spring and early summer soaking rains come in August and September, and the trees, brought suddenly into growth at the close of the season, when they should be drying out, the walnut tree in particular, show winter-killing. So I think one of the main troubles with the English walnut in the Eastern United States is the winter-killing. Even in Georgia we may have this trouble with the pecan, young trees two and three years old, and I have photographed them.

As to false stimulation, in the woods, where these trees grow native and under the conditions to which they are necessarily adapted, they are mulched and crowded when young by their competitors. In cultivation we do not get the crowding and the mulching that makes steady growth and proper ripening. So you should, by some process, growing corn, cover crops, or other trees, keep your delicate nut trees a little crowded and, if possible, mulched while young; and then later, cut out the undesirable things and let the trees have room.

I am not fully prepared to speak about the nut work of the Bureau of Plant Industry, because that should be handled by the chief of the bureau. I have charge only of the diseases of fruits and nuts. We have had $8,200 allotted to the project and will have $2,000 more this year, making $10,200. Originally that was $3,000 for nut diseases all over the United States. We started to work mainly on the southern pecan diseases, and partly on the bacteriosis of the walnuts of the United States. But the Southern Pecan Growers' Association got some additional money for the bureau, $5,000 of which was given to the fruit disease investigations, and was tied up with the other $3,000. But the wording of the bill said, "All for pecan diseases." So we transferred more to the project and made it $8,200 for the nut diseases. That means we have done very little work for the nut diseases except on Southern pecans, and I have been warned that one must not stress southern pecans with the Northern Nut Growers' Association.

We have had, however, one man, and will have two men, on the southern pecan diseases in Georgia, on pecan scab and pecan leaf diseases, who are winning out beautifully, and have nearly solved many of the problems, including the pecan scab. One of the difficulties is the occasional late summer rainy spell, bringing diseases and bad conditions. But in general we have solved the problem pretty well.

Then we have the more permanently dangerous disease, pecan rosette, which has taken about half of the pecans in some sections of the South, especially in south Georgia and in Florida. That disease is being experimented upon in the most extensive way of any of our projects. There is only one word to say about pecan rosette, and that is--humus--the disease is cured by the application of humus.

MR. REED: How far north is the walnut rosette disease?

DR. WAITE: As far as Falls Church, Va., but not much in the North.

MR. REED: The question was asked yesterday as to whether it could not be overcome in this latitude.

DR. WAITE: That nobody knows. The soils east and south of Washington are all acid, and the conditions are wrong for rosette. The soils have no tendency to chlorosis. They are, in fact, antichlorotic. Theoretically you could get the rosette conditions in the Piedmont region, but you are almost certain not to find them over this way.

Now in the organization of the Bureau of Plant Industry there are at least two main offices where nut problems would be studied; in the Division of Horticultural and Pomological Investigations and in my office, where the diseases are studied. Remember, also, that the insect pests are studied in the Bureau of Entomology; they have experimented quite extensively with pecan insect pests, and have the organization to handle such pests. Of course there is a Bureau of Markets and the Office of Soil Fertility in the Bureau of Plant Industry, which handle the pecan, incidental to the other studies.

MR. BIXBY: I would like to ask Dr. Waite a question. The association has spent a good deal of time in developing exact methods of measuring quantitatively the various characteristics of nuts which are considered valuable, and that study has given us methods of comparing notes from year to year, comparing the same nut, and I have noticed that it is quite frequent that the kind of nut that is good one year, will not be so good the next year. To take an example, the Clark hickory, which took the prize one year, the next year fell so far down that it would not take any prize. But after a good deal of trouble I found that by careful examination I could pick out from the nuts a few which tested up as they did before. It occurred to me that a condition of that kind would be more likely to be due to difference in the soil than in the fertility of the pollen. Dr. Waite has had more or less experience in noting the effect of the pollen, and I would like to ask if he thought this the cause of the difference in the nuts.

DR. WAITE: I think it might be the cause for a little difference, but we could account for the difference by entirely different things. By environment and other conditions. Take the apples grown in this vicinity; I have observed that certain seasons fit certain varieties. This year it was favorable for Ben Davis, and yet we have had a poor crop of most varieties; the conditions were bad for the Winesap to set, but yet the fruit is good. Every year and every day is different; and plants are subjected to these complications, and the yield, or the result in fruit, is a response to environment. They are so very susceptible to these things. I came here this morning after picking some cross pollenated pears on the Arlington Farm. We have a lot of crosses there where we study the hybrid seedlings. Some will be almost too poor, in certain years, to deserve further attention, and good another season. In other words, these nuts probably do not vary any more from year to year than many of our fruits and vegetables do, and the main factor is probably response to environment, namely, temperature, air humidity, soil moisture and sunshine.

THE PRESIDENT: I might mention that we have had a filbert orchard at Rochester for eleven years, and there has not been the slightest indication of blight there yet.

MR. REED: I would like to ask Senator Penny how the Roadside Bill is taken in Michigan.

SENATOR PENNY: According to the Michigan law, the people along the roadside consider that their property is subject to the right of transportation on the highway; just as a stream is owned by individuals in Michigan, subject to the right of individuals to use it. This bill says, "Give the right to plant trees on the highway," and I think the planting is done with the consent of the owner. The agricultural college has a landscape gardener connected with the landscape department; he will have charge of planting along the roadside, and I think it will be done in a scientific manner; but I believe it is necessary to get the consent of the owners first.

MR. BIXBY: Last evening Mr. Franklin Weims, of Washington, was with me on the state highway of Maryland, coming south from Baltimore. The highway is being constructed at the rate of about eight miles a year, and funds have been provided. Mr. Weims feels that something should be done to see that the new highway is properly planted with trees, preferably nut-bearing trees. I was thinking that the association might, by some resolution, bring that matter to the attention of proper authorities. I would like suggestions.

MR. CLOSE: It might not be out of order to adopt a resolution and address it to the Governor of the state, Governor Richie; and also to the State Forester, Dr. Besly, suggesting that perhaps some of the trees and seedlings might be presented to the state, some of the trees that Professor Linton spoke of this morning. Trees of that sort might carry some weight.

THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we adopt a resolution and name Professor Close to take up this matter with the proper state authorities, speaking particularly of our ability to furnish seedlings from the Mt. Vernon trees.

MR. CLOSE: If it is the wish of the association, I would be glad to do that. (Motion made, seconded and adopted).

LETTER FROM F. H. WIELANDY, ST. LOUIS

Gentlemen:

First of all I congratulate you most heartily on being members of an organization which means so much to the public, as consumption of nuts is largely increasing and I much fear that the present day production is not in line with the demand.

Although only a nut culturist by proxy I have manifested a deep interest in this for many years, which is exemplified by the fact that on my different hunting trips, in which I have indulged for over thirty-five years, in the past twenty-five years I have also made it a point in the fall of the year, to have with me a large pocket full of such nuts as I thought would more easily come up and benefit some one in the future. I usually carried with me black walnuts, hickory nuts, pecans and acorns, and in my rambles through the woods and along the highways, I would plant these where I thought there would be less chance of their being molested if they developed.

In going over the same ground quail shooting, last fall, ground that I had covered more or less for a good many years, I began to see the fruit of my efforts, and felt repaid many fold for what I had accomplished.

Unfortunately we are a nation of destruction, rather than of construction, so far as our timber is concerned, and this is more noticeable in fruit and nut trees than in other varieties; although, being interested chiefly in these I possibly am biased.

When we stop to consider that a country such as Norway began to replant and reclaim their forests before Columbus discovered America, it strikes me that it should be a lesson for everyone in this country. Consider too, if you please, that before the war Germany paid her entire road taxes from nothing but the production of nut trees along the public roads. We also know, although a very small country in area, that it produced enough timber each year to satisfy the need for building and commercial purposes in the form of packing cases, casks, etc. And here we are, a country forty times larger than Germany, and forced to depend on countries such as Canada and Norway for wood pulp out of which we manufacture a great many grades of paper.

Some twenty years ago I had a political friend introduce a bill during a meeting of the state legislature, which made it mandatory for the road overseer to plant nut trees along the right of way all over the state; but like many meritorious bills, it was pigeon-holed until the next meeting of the legislature. It seemed an impossibility to resurrect this and an exceptionally fine forestry bill.

Unfortunately I promised to preside at a meeting of conservationists and it is for that reason that I am unable to meet and be with your honorable body, for I would like so much to be permitted in a humble capacity to assist in carrying on the work which you gentlemen are doing, as it is going to mean so much to future generations. I am sure that each of you feels as I do in this matter and that is that "He who serves others, best serves himself."

When the matter comes up for consideration I would like very much to have your next convention here in the Middle West, either in St. Louis or Alton, Ill., which is only a few miles north of St. Louis and in the vicinity of a splendid nut-producing section, particularly the pecan.

THE CHESTNUT

_C. A. Reed, U. S. Department of Agriculture_

No discussion of the nut industry in the North at this time would be complete without a brief review of the chestnut situation. The destruction wrought by blight in wiping out practically all of the native chestnut trees within its path, with almost equally fatal results to the European species has for the time being all but eliminated the chestnut from the consideration of planters in the eastern part of the country.

The chestnut bark disease has cost the country untold millions of dollars, and no wonder the public pauses for a second thought before investing in eastern-grown chestnut trees. Nevertheless, it is not to be supposed that chestnut growing has disappeared from this country for all time. No plague has ever been known to wipe a race completely out of existence, and it is unthinkable that the blight will do so with the genus _Castanea_.

The native range of the American sweet chestnut centers largely in the Appalachian region from Portland, Maine, south to Atlanta, Georgia. The species becomes more sparsely represented as the distance increases in any direction from this central area, practically disappearing on the west; in the region of the Mississippi above Memphis. Its northern boundary might roughly be described as extending from lower Illinois through northern Indiana, southwestern Michigan, southern Ontario, central New York and middle New England. As was to have been expected, the blight has wrought its greatest destruction in places of densest representation of the chestnut species. It is in the outlying districts of scant frequency that the danger of infection from chestnut trees from the forest is least to planted trees, and likewise, there it is that combative measures should be most successful. Obviously, the farther from the center of the native range trees can be planted, the less is the likelihood of infection.

Well outside the native range of the chestnut species, there are a number of districts in the United States within which it should be possible to build up a new chestnut-orchard industry. In proof of this, there are many profitable trees and small orchards in the mid-west and on the Pacific Coast, particularly in western Michigan, northern Indiana, southwestern Illinois, in the eastern foot-hill region of northern California and in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Probably the most outstanding instance of successful chestnut orcharding now existing in the entire country is a planting of Mr. E. A. Riehl, of Godfrey, Illinois, situated on the bluff of the Mississippi River eight miles west of Alton. Here Mr. Riehl has produced half a dozen or more hybrid varieties which are paying very satisfactory dividends on fertile hillside land which is mainly too steep for cultivation. A number of these varieties have been taken to northern California where they are proving highly successful.

In the Willamette Valley of Oregon, two species are represented with about equal frequency. These are the native chestnut from the eastern states and that from Japan. Neither has performed in such a way as to be particularly encouraging. The former has not been productive and the latter has produced nuts of quality so inferior as to prejudice the planters against the entire genus. It is a difficult matter, therefore, to induce prospective planters in that section to consider any species of chestnut.

In the East, it is well known that the native species does not come into bearing until 12 or 15 years of age at best, and that to induce pollination and a set of nuts, it is necessary to inter-plant a number of varieties together. Had groups of varieties of American or European origin been planted on the Coast, instead of single trees of the former or varieties from Asia, it is not improbable that the present attitude toward the chestnut in the Pacific Northwest would have been quite different.

The work of the late Dr. Van Fleet, in hybridizing various chestnut species and in testing out Chinese and Japanese species with a view to determining their value as nut producers and their resistance to the bark disease, is familiar to most members of the Northern Nut Growers' Association. Since the death of Dr. Van Fleet, the work has been taken over by other hands in the Bureau of Plant Industry; but apparently, all of the hybrids now growing in the vicinity of Washington, D. C., are destined to succumb to blight. At present, practically every tree of the Chinese chestnut _Castanea molissima_, planted by Dr. Van Fleet at Bell Station, Maryland, where his work was mainly centered, likewise shows large blight cankers. But despite the gravity of the infections, it does not appear wholly improbable that many of these trees can be preserved. However, the wisdom of continuing propagation of the Japanese species is very doubtful, as the quality of nuts is usually of low order. Chestnut trees from China are generally light producers; but out of the total of several hundred at Bell, several this year have borne good crops. The flavor of the nuts is sometimes sweet, but oftener, otherwise; yet the average is superior to that of the Japanese chestnuts produced in the same orchard. Fortunately, it happens that the nuts from some of the trees of Chinese species which have been most prolific during the past season, have proved to be of high quality, comparing favorably in this respect with the native sweet chestnut. In size, the Chinese chestnuts average much above those of the American species, and while perhaps a shade smaller than those from Europe, they are of a size and quality which should readily appeal to market demands.

An early planting of Chinese chestnut trees at Lancaster, Pa., put out by Mr. J. F. Jones, Vice-President of the Northern Nut Growers' Association, proved so susceptible to blight that all were subsequently destroyed. On the other hand, not infrequent reports are reaching the Federal Department of Agriculture of instances in which the species is shown to be highly resistant, even when grown within blight-affected districts. Secretary Deming is one of those from whom reports of this kind have been received. His planting, consisting of 12 trees put out in 1915 near Georgetown, Conn., has recently borne some nuts. Other cases, some reporting one way and others the other, might be cited; but let it suffice to say that the chestnut industry, although temporarily set back seriously, is not necessarily doomed.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE

_C. A. Reed, Chairman_

While no new names of varieties appear to need consideration at this time, it may be well for the Association to refresh its memory regarding a few of the outstanding rules of the standard code of nomenclature by which the Society is guided in the recognition of names. In common with practically all other leading horticultural organizations of the country, including the National Pecan Growers' Association of the South, the Northern Nut Growers' Association follows the code of nomenclature of the American Pomological Society. Some of the provisions of this code are substantially as follows:

1. A name shall consist, preferably, of but one word, although
under specified circumstances, two words may be permitted.

2. In selecting a name, "The paramount right of the originator,
discoverer or introducer of a new variety within the limitations
of this code, is recognized and established."

3. A name shall be recognized as fixed and shall have the right
of priority over any others subsequently applied, after having
appeared in print in such a way as to be definitely tied
to a variety, or established.

These references call attention to the fact that the code does not define the meaning of the term "variety," and as it does not appear that a clear cut definition has appeared elsewhere in recent literature, in modern application, it may be well to state how it is being interpreted by this committee.

In horticultural practice a plant is not regarded as acquiring varietal status until it becomes distinctive among seedlings, because of superiority of product, unusual history, or other similar reason. Few tree varieties are recognized as such until after having been propagated by at least one asexual method, such as budding, grafting, layering or dividing.

The Committee calls special attention to a recent report on nomenclature, appearing in a bound volume of 546 pages, under the title "Standardized Plant Names." This report was prepared and published by the American Joint Committee on Nomenclature, which was duly appointed by the leading horticultural societies of the country. It represents the latest authority on matters of horticultural nomenclature, and is indorsed by the leading horticultural authorities of the present time. Of immediate interest to this Association is the fact that _Hicoria_ replaces _Carya_ as being the proper generic name of the hickory group.

NOTES FROM AN EXPERIMENTAL NUT ORCHARD

_Willard G. Bixby, Baldwin, N. Y._

For several years the association has been advocating the planting of experimental nut orchards, and ever since I heard of this suggestion I have been desirous of having one and being able to contribute information to our knowledge of nut growing. Therefore since 1917 I have been assembling at Baldwin material which I hoped would aid in this. At the Rochester meeting some of the results were noted, and this year, I trust, something presented will prove of interest.

CHESTNUTS--Last year I expressed the belief that by carefully watching chestnut trees and cutting out the blight as soon as it appeared it should be possible to grow and fruit almost any variety in the blight area. This I have done with every variety that I have, but that is about all, apparently, that it is possible to do, for nearly all of my trees have been badly attacked by the blight at the crown; that is at the junction of the root and trunk, and to cut out the blight means to cut down the tree. The most resistant variety noticed so far is the Boone, which has some Japanese chestnut parentage, but probably the Boone trees will not last over a year longer.

Apparently it is going to be necessary to get some resistant stock and do the grafting high enough to prevent fatal attack of the blight at the crown. Mr. P. W. Wang sent some Chinese chestnuts in the fall of 1921, and I have now several hundred seedlings of what I suppose are Castanea mollissima, of which I plan to grow a number to rather large size, set them out where the next planting of chestnut trees is to stand, and graft the branches to fine varieties. It will take at least two or three years, however, before this can be done.

HAZELS--For some four years I have been assembling, for hybridizing purposes, selected American hazels from various sections of the United States as well as the various European cultivated varieties that gave promise of being hardy. This year both blossomed rather freely, but the only variety of which I had enough pollen to work with was the Italian Red. The staminate flowers were picked from some six or eight American hazels which were blooming well and the pistillate flowers were pollinated with Italian Red pollen, in the hope that some hybrid nuts would result. Although the pollination was repeated twice I was much disappointed to find only an occasional nut as a result.

It is to be said in this connection, however, that there were practically no nuts on these American hazels which had not been pollinated with strange pollen; so the lack of nuts could not be laid to the artificial treatment given the flowers of those plants where it had been planned to make hybrids. Apparently it was due to climatic conditions that nuts were almost lacking on all hazels here this year; but I do not recall any severe cold spells when the hazels were in flower. Still, on one or two branches which I had tagged, as being particularly full of pistillate flowers, there were noticed an almost equal number of dead pistillate flowers a little later. It is seemingly going to be well to carefully study the development of the hazel flowers into nuts. They grow differently from the walnuts and the hickories. The hazel flowers apparently, after being fertilized, develop into stems on which the existence of nuts escapes the attention, at least of the casual observer, until about August, while the nuts on the walnuts and the hickories even though small at first, are plainly visible from the time they are formed by fertilized flowers until they are matured.

HICKORIES--The bearing age of the transplanted hickory so far has been almost an unknown quantity, and what we did know has been such that the association has hesitated to say much about planting hickories, its recommendations on the hickory being confined to that of topworking existing hickories. These are known to begin bearing soon after topworking, records of bearing in two or three years not being unusual.

On transplanted hickories, however, about all the information of which I know is as follows: The late Mr. J. W. Kerr, of Denton, Md., many years ago bought a number of shagbark hickories from a nursery, set them out and noted that the time that elapsed before they bore was about 25 years. Mr. Rush's Weiker tree, which bore in 11 years after being set out, cut down this time materially.

A Kentucky hickory on my place set out in the fall of 1917, flowered this year, but I had no pollen with which to fertilize the blossoms, and the nutlets dropped off. A young shagbark seedling set in its present location in the fall of 1919 and grafted to Barnes this spring, also set a nut, but this dropped off like those on the Kentucky and apparently for the same reason. It would certainly seem as if under favorable conditions, the transplanted hickory is not going to be anywhere near as slow as feared in coming into bearing.

WALNUTS--A Royal and a Paradox walnut each supposed to be grafted trees with scions from Burbank's original trees, bloomed this year, and the Royal has a number of nuts on it. The Paradox has been here a very much shorter time, not over two or three years; so perhaps it is too soon to be expecting nuts. The Paradox is said to be a very shy bearer, setting nuts only occasionally, and then but few; still, one of my Paradox trees which is not over three feet high, blossomed full. It would seem as if it might pay to study this tree and see if the sterility or fancied sterility of this tree could not be overcome by seeing that proper pollen is at hand at the right time. A Cording walnut, a hybrid between the English walnut and the Japan walnut not quite 3 feet high, is bearing a nut this year.

Grafting--Perhaps the most interesting thing to be related is the result of attempts to determine the species of hickories best suited as stock for the fine varieties of hickories that we have. In preparation for this and through the kindness of Mr. Henry Hicks of Westbury, L. I., over 100 each of hickory trees of several species were obtained and set out in the fall of 1919. They were in fine condition for grafting this spring. There are some fifteen species of hickories native in the United States. The fine varieties of hickories that we have which are generally supposed to be largely shagbarks may prove to be much better adapted for grafting on some stocks than on others. A knowledge of this will prove to be of great value in top working. The grafting was done by Dr. Deming, on May 29, 30,31 and June 1 of this year, 31 grafts being set on shagbark stock, 52 on mockernut, 53 on pignut, 47 on pecan and 91 on bitternut, a total of 274. There were also 343 walnut grafts set on walnuts of four species. The results of this work are summarized in the tables following:

HICKORIES, SCIONS FROM YOUNG TREES

Stocks, Number of Grafts and Per Cent of Catches

Bitternut Mockernut[1] Pecan Pignut Shagbark Total
Variety No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Barnes, scions
Dr. Deming's trees 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 6 100.0 18 100.0
Gobble, scions
Dr. Deming's trees 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 0.0 5 80.0
Griffin, scions
Dr. Deming's trees 1 100.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 5 60.0
Hales, scions
W. G. Bixby's trees 5 100.0 5 60.0 5 80.0 4 25.0 19 68.4
Kirtland, scions
Dr. Deming's trees 3 66.7 3 33.3 3 66.7 3 66.7 12 58.3
Laney, scions
Dr. Deming's trees 6 66.7 6 66.7
Long Beach, scions
Parent Tree 3 33.3 3 66.7 4 50.0 4 25.0 3 100.0 17 53.0
Siers, scions
Dr. Deming's trees 5 100.0 5 100.0
Stanley, scions
Dr. Deming's trees 3 66.7 3 66.7 3 66.7 9 66.7
Taylor, scions
Dr. Deming's trees 4 75.0 5 60.0 5 80.0 3 100.0 17 86.5

Total 34 80.8 24 60.8 22 68.1 22 72.9 11 75.0 113 74.0

[Footnote 1: The mockernuts were larger than any other hickories grafted excepting some bitternuts referred to in the next footnote. They were grafted mostly on branches.]

HICKORIES, SCIONS FROM OLD TREES

Stocks, Number of Grafts and Per Cent of Catches

Bitternut Mockernut[2] Pecan Pignut Shagbark Total
Variety No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Brooks, scions from parent tree,
poor condition 5 40.0 5 0.0 5 20.0 5 40.0 20 20.0
Clark, scions from parent tree,
poor condition 5 40.0 5 0.0 5 20.0 5 40.0 5 20.0 25 20.0
[3]Fairbanks, scions from
parent tree (?), dry but
otherwise good 27 57.8 27 57.8
Kentucky, from parent tree,
poor condition 5 20.0 3 33.3 5 80.0 5 80.0 5 80.0 23 60.8
Manahan, scions from parent
tree, poor condition 5 20.0 5 0.0 5 20.0 6 33.3 5 20.0 26 24.6
Vest, scions from parent tree,
poor condition 5 20.0 5 0.0 5 40.0 5 60.0 5 20.0 25 20.8
Weiker, scions from parent
tree 5 20.0 5 0.0 5 60.0 15 26.8
-- ---- -- --- -- ---- -- ---- -- ---- --- ----
Total 57 45.0 28 5.5 25 36.0 31 45.6 20 35.0 161 32.9

[Footnote 2: The mockernuts were larger than any other hickories grafted excepting some bitternuts referred to in the next footnote. They were grafted mostly on branches.]

[Footnote 3: Of these scions 5 were set in branches on two trees 1-1/4 or so in diameter and showed 100% catches; balance were set in the top on small trees 1/2 diameter or less, and showed 54.5% catches.]

BLACK WALNUTS, JAPAN WALNUTS, PERSIAN WALNUTS BUTTERNUTS

Stocks, Number of Grafts and Per Cent of Catches

Black Walnut Butternut Japan Walnut Persian Walnut
Variety No. % No. % No. % No. %

Adams Black Walnut, scions
parent tree 13 15.4
Alley Black Walnut, scions
parent tree 9 0.0
O'Connor Hybrid Walnut, Persian
Walnut and Black Walnut (?)
scions parent tree 9 22.2
--- ----
31 12.9

Ohio Black Walnut, scions W. G.
Bixby's trees 17 64.7
McCoy Black Walnut, scions W. G.
Bixby's trees 9 77.0
Stabler Black Walnut, scions some
W. G. Bixby's trees, and some Dr.
Deming's trees 85 51.2
[4]Ten Eyck Black Walnut, scions
W. G. Bixby's trees 32 97.0
Thomas Black Walnut, scions W.
G. Bixby's trees 23 100.0
Wasson Black Walnut, scions W.
G. Bixby's trees 8 75.0
--- ----
174 69.5

Persian Walnuts 4 varieties, scions
about 2-3 from parent trees, all
of which were quite vigorous
growers 46 0.0
Aiken Butternut, scions W. G.
Bixby's trees 39 38.5
Lancaster Heartnut, scions W. G.
Bixby's trees 53 3.8

[Footnote 4: One scion was overlooked in tying and waxing, otherwise apparently we would have had 100% catches.]

* * * * *

In the above two groups of hickories the one where scions were cut from young, rapidly growing trees, contrasts unmistakably with those where scions were cut from old bearing trees. The same is shown in the table of black walnut grafts, where the Alley, Adams, and O'Connor scions were cut from old bearing trees, and the others from young, rapidly growing trees.

The poor success with the heartnuts is quite in line with previous attempts at propagating this species by grafting. Results shown here with the butternut are deemed reasonably satisfactory, in view of the well known difficulty of grafting this species. It should be noted here that, in the case of every graft that took and grew, it was the small buds that were successful, not the large ones. The total lack of success with the Persian walnut is inexplicable to the writer, but he knows of no previous attempts to graft Persian walnut on Persian walnut root.

Black walnuts show a very high percentage of catches, in the case of the Thomas and Ten Eyck varieties 100%, but in the case of the Stabler this is reduced to 51.2%. I would say in this connection that neither of my two Stabler trees are vigorous growers, and so the trees grafted with scions from these are really cases where we have not been using scions from vigorous growing trees, and we know that this does not give a high percentage of catches.

The proper species to be used as a stock for the various varieties of hickories has not been shown conclusively for the number of grafts of each kind set was too few to be conclusive, and these experiments should be repeated. In the case of most of these varieties where results are poor, it was particularly noted when the grafts were set that the scions were in poor condition, a number of scions being thrown away because the cambium layer was dead. It is to be hoped that a species will be found to which will be well adapted the Vest hickory, which the writer regards, everything considered, as the best hickory that we have. Seemingly the pecan is the stock that gets the greatest number of catches; but the difficulty the writer has had in making Vest hickories on pecan root live, leads him to question as to whether another stock might not prove better. Another thing disappointing so far is in the seeming poorness of the mockernut as a stock. Over quite a large section of the United States the mockernut is the prevailing hickory, and in that section the mockernut will be most generally available for top working; moreover it will grow well in sandy soils where the shagbark is not found. In Petersburg, Va., the writer has seen it seemingly outgrow the black walnut.

The adaptability of the Barnes hickory on all stocks is notable, for it is the only one of the 10 fine hickories tested in the 1919 contest, of which this is true. If these grafts continue to flourish, and especially if future experiments check the results this year, the Barnes will have a peculiar value for top working. It is one of our best hickories, and, apparently is our surest variety for top working.

MR. CLOSE: I would suggest that we extend our thanks to the Smithsonian Institute for the use of this room for the meeting.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you vote for that? (Motion voted upon favorably). I believe then, that brings to a close the Fourteenth Annual Convention, to meet in New York for the Fifteenth Convention in 1924, on September 3,4 and 5.

This meeting is now adjourned.

Time--2:30 p. m.

* * * * *

Notes of this convention by Mrs. B. W. Gahn, U. S. Dept. of Agr., Washington, D. C.

APPENDIX

Among those present were the following:

Senator Penney--Saginaw, Michigan.
B. K. Ogden--3306 19th St., N. W., Washington, D. C.
W. G. Slappey--12 Boyd Avenue, Takoma Park, D. C.
S. von Ammon--Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.
A. M. Greene--Ridge Road, N. W., Washington, D. C.
Alfred Heine--Bowie, Md.
H. Harold Hume--Glen St. Mary, Fla.
R. H. Hartshorn,--Washington, D. C.
Wm. S. Linton--Saginaw, Mich.
W. E. Safford--Botanist, Bureau of Plant Industry, Washington, D. C.
Dr. M. B. Waite--Federal Insecticide and Fungicide Board, Bureau of
Plant Industry, Washington, D. C.
Dr. Oswald Schreiner--Bureau of Plant Industry, Washington, D. C.
Karl Wallace Greene--Washington, D. C
C. A. Reed--Bureau of Plant Industry, Washington, D. C.
Mrs. C. A. Reed--Washington, D. C.
C. P. Close--Bureau of Plant Industry, Washington, D. C.
Mrs. C. P. Close--Washington, D. C.
W. R. Mattoon--Forest Service, Washington, D. C.
Thomas P. Littlepage--Washington, D. C.
John M. Littlepage--Washington, D. C.
Eunice M. Obenschain--Hotel Monmouth, Washington, D. C.
J. M. Richardson--Stormville, N. Y.
Robert T. Morris--114 E. 54th St., N. Y.
Dr. Llewellyn Jordan--100 Baltimore Ave., Takoma Park, Md.
Alfred V. Wall--2305 W. Lanvale St., Baltimore, Md.
Jacob E. Brown---Elmer, N. J.
Albert R. Williams--Washington, D. C.
Mrs. B. W. Gahn--Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
James S. McGlennon--Rochester, N. Y.
Ralph T. Olcott--Rochester, N. Y.
Zenas H. Ellis--Fair Haven, Vt.
G. A. Zimmerman, M. D.--Piketown, Pa.
G. F. Gravatt--Forest Pathology, Bureau of Plant Industry,
Washington, D. C.
Willard B. Bixby--Baldwin, N. Y.
John W. Hershey--Banks, Pa.
P. H. O'Connor--Bowie, Md.
John E. Carmoday--Charlottesville, Va.
Mrs. John Carmoday--Charlottesville, Va.
Mrs. W. N. Hutt--"The Progressive Farmer," Southern Pines, N. C.
Ammon P. Fritz--55 E. Franklin St., Ephrata, Pa.
W. A. Orton--Bureau of Plant Industry, Washington, D. C.
J. C. Corbett--Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
W. G. Pollaret--The Star, Washington, D. C.
Prof. Lumsden--Federal Horticultural Board, Washington, D. C.

EXHIBITS LISTED

Crops of 1923

Exhibit of Robt. T. Morris
1. Hybrid chinkapin (burrs and nuts).
2. Graft of pear tree (paraffin method).

Exhibit of C. A. Reed
"Rush" American Hazel.

Exhibit of C. P. Close
1. Seedling filbert.
2. "Van Fleet" hybrid chinkapin.
3. "Glady" walnut.

Exhibit of J. F. Jones
Persian Walnuts.
1. Wiltz Mayette.
2. Meylan.
3. Lancaster.
4. Lancaster (Same).
5. Eureka.
6. Hall.
Pecans.
1. Posey.
2. Busseron.
3. Niblack.
Hazels.
1. Rush (Three exhibits).
Cobnut.
1. (No name).
Filberts.
1. Fichtendersche.
2. Daviana.
3. Blumenberger.
4. Italian red.
5. Lambert nut.
6. Friehe Longe.
7. Gunzelebenner.
8. White Aveline.
9. Grosse Ronde.
10. Barcellona.
11. Spanik Gr.
12. Prolific.
13. Noce Lunghe.
14. Du Chilly.
15. Grant de Halle.
16. Buttners.
Exhibit of W. G. Bixby
1. Lancaster Heartnuts.
2. Royal Walnuts.
3. Hall Persian Walnuts.
4. Rush Persian Walnuts.
Exhibit of T. P. Littlepage (Grown on his farm).
1. Chinkapins.
2. "O'Connor" walnuts.
3. Mixture of varieties of European filberts.
4. Cluster of pecans (Indiana).
5. Littlepage hazels (which Mr. Littlepage called "American").
6. Spanish chestnut.