Chapter L: H. MacDANIELS and S. S. ATWOOD, Cornell University

All its members would agree that the Northern Nut Growers Association should have an officially accepted schedule for judging black walnuts and the other kinds of nuts with which it is concerned. Some yardstick is needed to serve as a basis for the comparison of varieties which the members of the Association will use. Persons familiar with nut varieties are freqeuntly asked to answer questions about the best varieties to plant. Of course there is no simple answer to such a question as many factors besides the nuts themselves determine the value of a variety. The quality and value of the nuts are, however, the most important initial consideration in selecting a variety on its merit and there should be some objective test adopted to aid in evaluating nut samples.

During the many years that the Northern Nut Growers Association has been operating more than a hundred and fifty varieties of black walnuts have been named. Yet at the present time we are not certain which are the better varieties except in a very general way. There is no widely accepted judging schedule being used as is evident in the tables published by Seward Berhow in his paper in the 1945 Proceedings (2). In these tables scores are given but these come from several sources and are not comparable and hence are of little value in making comparisons.

There have been many schedules for judging black walnuts presented in the past. One of the first was proposed by the late Willard G. Bixby (3, 4). This was complicated and never came into general use although the testing done by Mr. Bixby was a valuable contribution to our knowledge of varieties. The late N. F. Drake tested many varieties through the years according to a schedule of his own devising (5, 6). Professor Drake's schedule was related to his concept of a perfect walnut and the various values were related to this on a percentage basis. This schedule never had wider acceptance, chiefly because it was too complicated and required too much figuring.

Mr. C. A. Reed has probably tested more varieties of nuts and is more familiar with varieties than any other person but he does not have a definite scoring schedule. Kline and Chase (7) summarized results of the testing work that had been done and Kline (8) compared varieties according to a system which he devised in which they were rated in terms of return per hour of labor spent in cracking and extracting the kernels. Mr. C. C. Lounsberry has proposed a method of scoring which was related to kernel cavity measurement (9).

In 1935, a Committee on Varieties and Standards endeavored to formulate a working schedule that would be adopted as official. This committee set up a score that represented the best thinking of the group at that time (1). Twenty-five nut samples were used. The score was the sum of the weight of an individual nut in grams plus twice the per cent kernel of the weight of the nuts recovered in the first crack plus the total percentage of kernel plus 1/10 of a point for each quarter kernel recovered. Penalties were proposed for shrunken kernels and empty nuts. Through the years a large number of samples have been tested according to this scoring schedule (11). In 1943, MacDaniels and Wilde (12) summarized the previous work done, added many tests and evaluated the scoring system. This was not considered to be altogether satisfactory. In the first place, it was somewhat cumbersome and had never been adopted by the Association nor had it been used much by others. The figuring of percentages and penalties made a score too involved for wide aceptance. A very serious difficulty was the problem of shrunken kernels and empty nuts. Obviously, with a score related to the weight of the sample before cracking, the inclusion of a number of empty nuts made it impossible to make any accurate correction in the percentages that were used in the score. Penalties did not solve the problem. Also the initial weight of the sample varied with the amount of husk clinging to the shells. From this work it was evident that an acceptable score would have to be formulated on some other basis.

The next approach was to analyze data of this type statistically in an attempt to devise a better scoring system (1). The results from such a study proved valuable in answering such questions as 1) the size of sample necessary to obtain significant differences between samples; 2) the significance of small differences in measurements or in scores and 3) the amount of variation that is normal and without significance in comparing varieties.

The following qualifications were considered essential to a workable schedule:

1) The schedule must be easy to use.

2) The schedule must concern itself with objective qualities or characters which can be weighed or measured. It cannot be concerned with flavor and other characters upon which there may be disagreement and which depend upon personal preference.

3) Characters must be avoided which vary with the treatment of the samples themselves such as color of kernels.

4) It must give a score that will separate samples on small differences.

Considering the problem from these angles and scrutinizing the older schedules, a number of ideas came out. First of all, why include the shells? If shells are discarded a number of problems would be solved, such as the cleaning of the nuts and adjustments for shrivelled and empty nuts. Also, why reduce any of the weights or measures to percentages which only add to the complexity of the score? The actual amount of kernels recovered reflects both the size of nuts and the yield of kernels. Plumpness of the kernels is reflected in the total weight of kernels and does not need to be considered separately.

The important elements in a score were considered to be:

1) The crackability of the nuts of the variety. This is measured by the weight of kernels obtained in the first crack.

2) The yield of the variety. This is measured in the total weight of kernels.

3) The marketability of the product. This can be measured by the number of pieces in the sample. In general, the smaller the number and the larger the size of the pieces the better the marketability.

With this general background in mind, many samples were tested and the results published in the 1945 report[1]. In order to secure the data needed the kernels of the individual nuts in the samples were weighed separately.

NOTE: All samples were cracked with the (John W.) Hershey nut cracker.

Some of the conclusions drawn from these tests were as follows:

1) Using kernel weights only gives a rapid and accurate test of differences between varieties.

2) Ten nuts are adequate for a single sample.

3) The location of the tree with reference to climate and soil is probably the most important single factor influencing kernel yield. No evidence was obtained, however, to indicate that the varieties ranked significantly different at different locations.

4) If reasonable care is used in cracking the differences due to different operators tend to be non-significant.

The statistical proof that a ten-nut sample is adequate and that differences between operators are not significant are two findings that are important in setting up a schedule.

During the past year further testing has been done, in which scores were computed from ten-nut samples.[A] The samples had preliminary cool, dry storage to assure comparable moisture content. Enough nuts were cracked in each sample to secure ten that were well filled. Empty nuts were recorded. The following data were kept for each sample:

1) The weight of the kernels recovered in first crack in grams.

2) The total weight of the kernels in grams.

3) The number of quarters and number of halves recovered.

Scores were computed as 1) the weight of the first crack in grams plus 2) half of the total weight of the kernels recovered in grams plus 3) the number of quarters divided by four and, 4) the number of halves divided by two. In this score, it was considered that the crackability of the sample was measured by the weight of the first crack; the yield, by the total weight of kernels secured from the sample; the marketability by the number of quarters and halves. From the use of this schedule scores were secured ranging from 83.9 for the variety Thomas grown in Maryland to 37.4 for the variety Huen, which is a small nut giving relatively small kernel yield.

Analyses of the data to determine the percentage of the score that was derived from each component showed that crackability as measured by the weight of the kernels recovered in first crack gave an average of 54% of the score with a range of 49 to 58 for the different samples; yield, as measured by total weight of kernels divided by two, 31% with range of 27 to 34%; marketability measured by number of quarters divided by four 14% with range of 10 to 22% and number of halves divided by two 1%. The percentage of the score derived from the number of halves was so small as to be negligible. It seemed better, therefore, to base the score on only three elements, namely, the weight of the first crack, the total yield of kernels and the number of quarters recovered from the sample.

On this basis the problem becomes that of deciding the weights that should be given to these three components. The score as set up emphasizes the crackability of the variety much more than its marketability. This seems logical because the value of a variety is in large part dependent upon the ease of recovery of the kernels on first cracking. Several different combinations of the weighting of these three components were considered and it was decided that the most logical was to weight the elements as follows: 1) The weight of first crack in grams. 2) The total weight of the kernels divided by two and 3) the number of quarters recovered divided by 2. If there are halves, each half would count as two quarters.

Table I. Average scores from 18 black walnut samples cracked by three
operators and computed by two scoring systems.

Scoring Systems[3]
--------------------
Variety Source Year I II
points points
Thomas Maryland '46 83.9 93.1
Snyder Ithaca, N. Y. (A) '46 81.8 89.2
Ohio Maryland '46 79.5 88.9
Thomas Ithaca, N. Y. (A) '46 76.4 85.5
Norris Tennessee '45 76.1 83.9
Stambaugh Ithaca, N. Y. (A) '46 75.9 81.0
Stambaugh Ithaca, N. Y. (A) '46 74.0 83.2
Thomas Tennessee '45 71.5 79.6
Thomas Ithaca, N. Y. (B) '46 65.7 74.6
Cornell Ithaca, N. Y. (C) '46 59.3 67.6
Stabler Maryland '45 56.9 64.5
Cresco Ithaca, N. Y. (A) '46 55.8 65.2
Seedling No. 1 Geneva, N. Y. '46 52.7 62.2
Seedling No. 3 Geneva, N. Y. '46 50.6 59.0
Brown Ohio '45 49.7 59.4
Stabler Tennessee '45 47.5 51.4
Seedling No. 2 Geneva, N. Y. '46 44.4 52.2
Huen Iowa '46 37.4 44.9
Least significant difference (5%) 6.3 6.6

[Footnote 3: Score I=Weight (grams) 1st crack + Total weight (grams) +
--------------------
2

Number quarters + Number halves
--------------- -------------
4 2

Score II=Weight (grams) 1st crack +

Total weight (grams) +
--------------------
2

Number quarters
---------------
2 ]

Calculating the percentage of each component in the total score on this basis gives crackability 48%, yield 27%, marketability 25%. This schedule gives relatively more weight to marketability as against the other two components. The average scores of 18 samples cracked by three operators and calculated on both the above described schedules are given in table I.

The table shows that the rank of the different samples was not changed materially by using only the three components, except in a few cases in which there were an appreciable number of halves. The Stabler has many one-lobed nuts which increase the number of halves recovered. It is to be noted that with both schedules the least significant difference at the 5% level is about 6 score points.

Table II gives the score calculated by schedule II for five samples, each cracked by six operators. The difference between operators is not significant but the difference between varieties is highly significant.

Table II. Scores from five samples of black walnuts each cracked by six operators according to scoring schedule II.

Operators
----------------------------------
Variety Location Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average

Snyder Ithaca, N. Y. '46 89.2 87.3 78.9 94.4 87.5 91.5 86.5
Thomas Ithaca, N. Y. (A) '46 83.5 79.2 83.1 78.0 84.2 83.8 83.6
Thomas Ithaca, N. Y. (B) '46 73.1 67.4 73.4 74.1 69.6 83.8 73.6
Cresco Ithaca, N. Y. '46 66.0 69.2 63.1 67.2 68.5 60.2 65.7
Brown Ohio '45 62.5 51.0 65.4 60.4 48.1 64.8 58.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 74.9 70.8 72.8 72.8 71.6 78.8 73.6
Least significant difference (5%) for variety averages 6.2

A third scoring system, involving 1) weight of kernels in grams for the first crack, plus 2) total weight of kernels, 3) all divided by the number of marketable pieces (as counted following sifting on a 1/4" round hole screen) was tried, and the resulting ranking of the varieties was very similar to that obtained with systems I and II. The results from this system appeared to be the most precise, but it was not considered as generally acceptable as system II, since the latter would be easier to record and calculate.

It is the opinion of the authors that Schedule II gives a score that estimates very well the relative merit of the samples tested as to crackability, yield and marketability. It is simple to use and the only equipment required is a scale accurate to 1/10 gram. Calculations are reduced to a minimum and the characters used are not dependent on judgment of the individual making the test. It should be pointed out, however, that differences in score of less than six points are not significant on the basis of testing done to date. As more tests are made this value may be reduced. The schedule should serve as a measure to establish differences between varieties, particularly when a considerable number of tests are made. It can also be relied upon to measure differences due to the location of trees of the same variety, variation of the same variety from year to year in the same and in different locations and differences of a similar nature. In ranking varieties which have scores within the limits of variability, it will be necessary to use judgment as to small differences of appearance. No scoring schedule can be expected to entirely eliminate the judgment of experts. Also it must be realized that characters other than the nuts, such as bearing habit, hardiness, yield of trees, disease resistance and the like must be considered in finally establishing the value of a variety.

References Cited

1. Atwood. S. S. and L. H. MacDaniels. Tests of black walnut varieties
for differences in kernel yields. N.N.G.A Rept. 36: 44-50, 1945.

2. Berhow, Seward. Black walnut variety tabulations. N.N.G.A Rept. 36:
38-43, 1945.

3. Bixby, W. G. Judging nuts. N.N.G.A. Rept. 10: 122-133, 1919.

4. ----. The 1929 contests and the method of testing used. N.N.G.A. Rept.
22: 42-63, 1931.

5. Drake, N. F. Judging black walnuts. N.N.G.A. Rept. 22: 130-137, 1931.

6. ----. Black walnut varieties. N.N.G.A. Rept. 26: 66-71, 1935.

7. Kline, L. V., and S. B. Chase. Compilation of data on nut weight and
kernel percentage of black walnut selections. Am. Soc. Hort.
Sci. Proc. 38: 166-174, 1941.

8. Kline, L. V. A method of evaluating the nuts of black walnut
varieties. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 41: 136-144, 1942.

9. Lounsberry, C. C. Measurements of walnuts of United States.
N.N.G.A. Rept. 31: 162-127, 1940

10. MacDaniels, L. H. Report of committee on varieties and judging
standards. N.N.G.A. Rept. 28: 20-23, 1937.

11. ----. Is it possible to devise a satisfactory judging schedule for
black walnuts? N.N.G.A. Rept. 30: 24-27, 1939.

12. ----, and J. E. Wilde. Further tests with black walnut varieties.
N.N.G.A. Rept. 34: 64-82, 1943.

Test Plantings of Thomas Black Walnut in the Tennessee Valley

SPENCER B. CHASE, Tennessee Valley Authority

Native black walnut occurs abundantly throughout most of the Tennessee Valley. Practically every farmer has at least one "favorite tree" and each fall he collects nuts from that tree and stores them for cracking during the winter. In some sections of the Valley walnut cracking in the home is of considerable importance. Each year, some million and a quarter pounds of kernels are cracked out at the five modern cracking plants located in or adjacent to the Valley. Utilization of the crop is becoming more and more complete.

In early studies of native nut trees, TVA recognized the possibilities of black walnut, especially the improved varieties. Here was a tree that produced not only valuable nut crops but also cabinet wood without equal; in addition, it was a desirable pasture shade tree. Black walnut has long been a favorite among farmers, but few of them had ever heard of =improved= black walnuts. Along with TVA, the state agricultural extension services saw the advantages of the improved varieties and were eager to test them under Valley conditions. And so it was that a cooperative testing project was developed. TVA produced the trees and the seven Valley state extension services distributed them to farmers for test planting.

The Test

The Thomas walnut was used in these test plantings for several reasons. In the first place, it produces large, rather thin-shelled nuts with good cracking qualities. Few varieties are more easily cracked with a hammer or a hand-operated cracking machine. In addition, fast growth is characteristic of the variety and it should produce merchantable sawlogs earlier than the common walnut. Despite its northern origin, 5-year-old plantings at Norris, Tennessee, seemed well adapted to Valley conditions. No other variety at the time offered as many advantages.

Test planting was begun in Tennessee in 1939 and then it was extended to the other Valley states as more trees were propagated. For the most part, planting sites were selected by extension foresters and county agents. If the tests were successful they would automatically become demonstrations, so special attention was given those areas where walnut cracking in the home was an important enterprise. Many of the test plantings were located in communities that had been organized for the study and application of improved farming methods. In general, farmers planted the trees in low, fertile spots not suitable for other uses, along fences, or in pastures if they could be protected from livestock.

Through 1946, 9,614 trees were planted in 3,286 test plantings. They were scattered all over the Valley, in 92 of its 125 counties. The number of trees per planting varied with the availability of good walnut sites. Generally, there were 2 to 4 trees in each planting.

The Results

Getting survival and performance data on these widely scattered experimental plantings presented quite a problem. Examination of a few plantings showed that trees given reasonable care had survived and were beginning to bear nuts. So in 1946, the farmers who had planted the trees were polled by mail for an overall evaluation of the plantings. Questionnaires asking for information on survival, growth, and bearing were sent by the state extension foresters to 3,274 farmers. The return of questionnaires was excellent. Forty-two percent came back and three-fourths of them were filled out completely.

=Survival and Mortality Causes.= Eighty-one percent of the 1,373 plantings reported on were still active in 1946; that is, they still had at least one living tree. Survival reports received on 3,831 trees planted showed that 2,439 or 64 percent of the trees were living in 1946. Survival was best in the portion of the Valley north and east of Chattanooga; 84 percent in Virginia, 71 percent in North Carolina, and 66 percent in eastern Tennessee. South and west of Chattanooga survival percent was lower: 62 in Georgia, 61 in western Tennessee, 54 in Kentucky, 45 in Alabama, and 26 in Mississippi (Table 1).

Causes of mortality, as reported, were classified in five categories; losses prior to establishment, livestock and destruction, drought, insects and disease, and unknown (Table 1). Cause of mortality was listed as unknown for 42 percent of all trees reported dead. Field experience leads us to believe that most of the trees in this category probably succumbed to improper planting or complete neglect following planting. Many persons do not follow planting instructions; they often substitute their own methods with disastrous results.

Among the reported known causes, drought killed most of the trees--29 percent. We know black walnut is very susceptible to dry weather after transplanting. Weather records for the area show that the early growing season of 1941 was exceptionally dry; 1942 was also drier that average; in 1943 and 1944 near drought and drought conditions prevailed throughout most of the Tennessee Valley. Weather is usually blamed when a tree dies without apparent cause, but in this case the reported mortality due to drought appears reasonable.

Livestock, mowing, fire, and intentional removal were reported to have caused 13 percent of total mortality. Cows are curious animals and newly set trees seem to arouse all the curiosity in their make-up. Horses and cows apparently do not relish the foliage of walnut trees but they do bite at it, and in so doing usually break down the branches to such an extent that the tree dies. Some trees were accidentally destroyed simply because they had been forgotten. The next highest mortality cause reported was pre-establishment loss; this was blamed for 9 percent of the deaths. Losses resulting from delayed planting were placed in this category, also those where the report was "trees failed to leaf out." Insects and diseases were reported as causing 7 percent of the mortality.

=Growth and Bearing.= Those who plant improved black walnut trees naturally want to know how soon they will begin bearing. This survey shows that bearing begins much earlier than most people thought. Trees in 32 percent of the plantings established between 1939 and 1944 were bearing by 1946. Of these 342, 113 began bearing 2 to 4 years after planting; 120 bore their first crop after 5 years; 109 began bearing after 6 to 8 years (Table 2). According to the reports, the earlier plantings were slower to come into bearing than the later plantings. This probably is not a true picture. We suspect that after six or eight years the actual date of first bearing had been forgotten in many cases.

Growth was reported in terms of total height for each tree. These heights were then converted to annual growth rates for trees 3 to 8 years old and placed in arbitrary classes are follows: low (less than 1 foot) medium (1 to 2 feet), and high (over 2 feet). Test plantings in North Carolina had the highest growth rate; those in Mississippi, the lowest. In other states, growth rates fell between these two and were quite similar for the most part (Table 3). Average for all trees was 1.6 feet per year. Trees averaging less than one foot of height growth per year were slow to come into bearing. Only 14 percent of the trees in the low growth rate class were bearing. On the other hand, 71 percent of the trees with a high growth rate had come into bearing. Growth of black walnut, following recovery from transplanting shock, depends on site conditions and tree care. Trees set in fertile soil with an adequate moisture supply and kept free of livestock and other damage make rapid growth. Trees set in poor, thin or droughty soil do not make much growth if they survive at all. Black walnut is very sensitive to any wounds and, if subject to mechanical or livestock damage, growth is retarded.

Cases of exceptional growth and bearing were reported. One in eastern Tennessee is worthy of brief description. There were two trees in this planting set approximately 40 feet apart. One was on the edge of a garden; the other, in a chicken run. In seven years the first tree grew to a height of 32 feet--an average growth of 4.5 feet a year. It began bearing in 1943 and produced a crop of nuts each year up to the time of the survey. The 1946 crop, reported as a light one, yielded 3.5 pounds of kernels. The other tree, shown in Figure 1, was 18 feet tall, having averaged 2.5 feet a year. It also began bearing annual crops in 1943, and in 1946 it had a very heavy crop for its size, yielding 2.5 pounds of kernels. Here are two Thomas trees of the same age planted practically side by side; one is almost twice the size of the other, but they both began bearing annual crops three years after planting.

=Field Survey in Sample Area.= To check on the adequacy of the questionnaire survey, 108 test plantings in eastern Tennessee were visited and inspected. Forty of these had been reported on by mail; 68 had not. In general, the trees had been planted on the best sites available. Some were set out in farm orchards (Figure 2); a large number were planted in yards as combination nut and shade trees (Figure 3).

Field examination of the 40 plantings which had returned questionnaires revealed conditions very similar to those reported (Table 4). Survival was found to be 75 percent compared with a reported 77 percent. Average tree height was reported as 9 feet; actual height averaged 11 feet. There was some hesitancy in reporting tree deaths caused by livestock; 4 percent was reported while 23 percent was found. Such mortality was usually listed as unknown on questionnaires.

Information collected by field examination of 68 plantings which had not returned questionnaires and the 40 plantings which had returned questionnaires is shown in Table 4. Trees were found to be 2 feet taller in the 68 plantings but these trees averaged one year older than trees in the 40 plantings. Trees in the 68 plantings averaged 13 feet in height compared with 11 feet. Average age at first bearing was very similar. And here is a revealing discovery; livestock, mowing, and fire were responsible for 47 percent of the tree mortality in the 68-planting group, compared with 23 percent in the 40 plantings. This is perhaps one reason why the persons involved in these 68 plantings did not return questionnaires; it also explains most of the poorer survival. A large number of trees were planted in pastures and elsewhere without adequate protection from livestock. Even when cattle guards were used they were generally too small or weak for tree protection. Severe livestock damage resulting in poor growth and eventual death of trees was encountered frequently. We are inclined to believe that livestock accounted for a much higher percent of tree mortality than that reported in this survey.

The high percent return of questionnaires in this survey, followed by a field check in a sample area, provides a good picture of Valley-wide plantings. Since survival was found to be lower in plantings which did not return questionnaires, an actual overall survival of 64 percent may be slightly high. Other spot checks in the field will give more information on this point.

Discussion

Interest in improved black walnut is mounting in the Valley. As the test plantings came into bearing farmers were quick to see the superiority of these nuts over the wild ones to which they had been accustomed. Word spread from farm to farm, and as a result there has been an increasingly large number of inquiries about sources of improved varieties and cultural treatments. The interest was reflected in the questionnaire survey. Nineteen percent of the questionnaires returned contained unsolicited comments of one kind or another. A large percentage of them showed evidence of interest such as: "the nuts are large and easy to crack," "where can I get more grafted trees?" Only 7 percent implied disinterest: "the trees are slow growing," "the nuts are faulty."

This test-planting project will be completed in 1948. The plantings have already yielded much valuable information on the Thomas variety; they will yield much more as the trees become older. Further studies are planned on nut yield, nut quality, and tree growth in relation to the varying conditions existing in the Tennessee Valley.

Summary

Farmers in the seven Tennessee Valley states established 3,286 test plantings of Thomas black walnut in cooperation with state extension services and TVA during the period 1939-1946. A questionnaire survey in 1946 showed 81 per cent of the plantings still active and 64 percent of the trees living. Tree growth averaged 1.6 feet per year. Age at first bearing varied from 2 to 8 years, with 5 years most frequently reported.

Table 1.--Number of Questionnaires Sent and Returned, Reported Tree
Survival and Cause of Tree Mortality by State.

Questionnaires Trees Reported
State Sent Returned Planted Living
no. pct. no. pct.
Alabama 161 44 274 45
Georgia 50 28 26 62
Kentucky 174 49 241 54
Mississippi 19 58 72 26
North Carolina 586 40 733 71
Tennessee, East 1,386 40 1,516 66
Tennessee, West 720 44 809 61
Virginia 180 48 160 84
All 3,276 42 3,831 64

Reported cause of tree mortality

Pre-estab Livestock, Insects, Total Planted
-lishment destruction Drought diseases Unknown Trees Lost
pct. pct. pct. pct. pct. no.

Ala. 11 7 51 2 29 150
Ga. 30 10 0 20 40 10
Ky. 2 2 46 4 46 112
Miss. 19 4 49 0 28 53
N. C. 15 16 12 13 44 223
Tenn. (E.) 7 18 20 7 48 515
Tenn. (W.) 8 9 38 7 38 318
Va. 32 12 12 4 40 25
All 9 13 29 7 42 1,406

Table 2. Number of Bearing Thomas Plantings Established 1939-44,
by Age of First Bearing and Growth Class.

Plantings Age in years at first bearing Growth rate
Year Number 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Low Medium High

1939 27 1 6 10 6 4 1 19 7
1940 112 2 14 39 41 16 9 58 45
1941 89 1 4 17 35 32 1 58 30
1942 71 1 12 18 40 1 34 36
1943 38 1 13 24 1 21 16
1944 5 5 2 3
All 342 3 36 74 120 83 22 4 13 192 137

Table 3. Tree Survival, Growth, and Percent Bearing
by State and Year of Planting

Plantings Trees, Growth, Bearing
State reported survival annual trees
number number feet percent

Alabama 71 124 1.6 65
Georgia 14 16 1.5 18
Kentucky 85 129 1.5 71
Mississippi 11 19 1.0 29
North Carolina 235 518 1.9 25
Tennessee, East 553 1,007 1.5 32
Tennessee, West 318 491 1.6 32
Virginia 86 135 1.6 0

Year of planting

1939, 1940 255 627 1.6 64
1941, 1942 499 693 1.6 44
1943, 1944 326 558 1.6 18
1945, 1946 293 561 1.5 0
All 1,373 2,439 1.6 32

Table 4. Data Obtained from Returned Questionnaires and Actual Field
Examination of 40 Plantings and Field Data Only on 68 Plantings.

Data on 40 Plantings Data on
68 Plantings
Questionnaire Field Field
Tree Survival, percent 77 75 51
Average Height, feet 9 11 13
Cause of Tree Mortality, percent
Pre-establishment 33 42 11
Livestock and Other Destruction 4 23 47
Drought 13 0 0
Insects and Diseases 8 4 2
Unknown 42 31 40

West Tennessee Variety, Breeding and Propagation Tests, 1947

AUBREY RICHARDS, M.D., Whiteville, Tennessee

I surely wish I could have made the trip to the Northern Nut Growers Association meeting, but I simply had "too many hens setting" at that time. I've been waiting for you [the Secretary] to show up down here for the big news--at least it is to me--if it holds up. If you have ever tried to propagate heartnuts on Japanese walnut you know what it means.

Here it is: Rhodes, Wright and Fodermaier heartnuts patch-budded on 10 Japanese understocks (all I had) took 100%. The same 3 varieties as a control on black walnut gave a take of only 80%.

These trees give me a chance to check on the performance of black versus Japanese stocks for these varieties. From last year's propagation, Rhodes on black is beating Rhodes on Japanese and Bates (which was not used this year) seems fully as good on black walnut stocks.

An isolated tree of Bates did not set a nut. Its pollen all shed before the pistils were receptive. An isolated tree of Rhodes bore a full crop.

Incidentally, a weak chlorine bleach (Clorox) after these heartnuts are hulled does for them what peroxide does for the ladies and makes them look very inviting.

Stambaugh again led in topworked black walnuts, bearing its second consecutive full crop on a 3-year graft. It seems to be immune to whatever it is that causes the other nuts to turn black, shrivel and drop off from the time they set until near maturity. Thomas was second. Snyder, Sparrow and Myers had no crop. I budded 25 more trees of Stambaugh this year.

The Carpathian Persian walnut that we pollinated this spring with Wright heartnuts [no other walnuts were shedding at the time] matured a nice, large, rather pointed, heavy nut. It also matured another nut higher on the tree than we could reach with the catkins, but I'm sure it's a blank. It is still more pointed than the well-filled nut. The good nut is stored for planting.

Rush hazel that set fruit last year with the help of a bouquet of native [West Tennessee] catkins set only 5 nuts this year "on its own." These I have also stored to plant.

I didn't have enough stocks to utilize all the pollen-sterile Japanese chestnut buds you sent me [in early September]. I put in most of them, even in some cases several to the stock to see what percentage of takes we would get with the twin T. [See 1946 Report of N. N. G. A., pp. 87-88, for a description of the Twin T budding method.--Ed.]

Here are the percentage takes for chestnut propagation this year. Of course I don't know how many of these buds will later drop off.

1. Pollen-sterile Japanese on Japanese stock. Late summer buds 100%

2. Austin Japanese on Japanese Stock. Late summer buds 86%

3. Hobson Chinese on Chinese. Late summer buds 75%

4. Zimmerman Chinese on Chinese. Late summer buds 50%

5. Colossal hybrid on Japanese stock. Spring grafts 60%

I had a nice crop of Chinese chestnuts on my young Hobson and Zimmerman trees. The 1947 nuts were exceptionally large. One 3-year seedling bore 1 bur with 3 nuts fully as large. Connecticut Yankee bore for the first time, 3 nuts to a bur, but very small, scarcely 1/2" in diameter. (You will notice I budded none of this variety!) (Perhaps mislabeled seedling.--Ed.)

I have about 100 nuts from isolated trees that were hand pollinated, as follows: Austin x Hobson, Austin x Zimmerman, Hobson x Austin and Hobson x Zimmerman.

I have altogether 3 quarts of select nuts stored in the refrigerator. So far they are keeping nicely. (I dusted them with Fermate, hope it doesn't affect germination.)

Notes on Some Kansas and Kentucky Pecans in Central Texas

A letter to the Secretary from O. S. Gray, nurseryman at Arlington, Texas, October 28, 1947, has some interesting notes on two standard northern pecans, three new varieties from Kansas, and the Moore variety, one of the earliest maturing among southern pecans:

We are propagating Major and Greenriver from Kentucky; Coy, Tissue Paper and Johnson from southeastern Kansas; and Brake from eastern North Carolina.

Several years ago we used quite a few pecan trees of the Moore variety in planting around Tulsa. We though it would be a dandy because of its early maturity in the fall. I find that early fall maturity is only one important factor. The other is the date of starting growth in the spring. Moore seems to start out a little early in the spring and that disadvantage seems to limit it in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area. I also believe this might be a factor in using this variety in northern locations. [Moore originated in north Florida from Texas seed--Ed.]

I have been considerably impressed with the Johnson variety. It matures two or three weeks ahead of Moore in the fall. The only data that I have was made in 1944 when Moore buds began to put out on March 25, Stuart and Success--April 5, Johnson--April 5, Coy and Major--April 8, Greenriver and Tissue Paper--April 10.

The Johnson matures on our place several weeks ahead of Major and Greenriver although I don't have the exact date on maturity.

Experiences of a Nut Tree Nurseryman

J. F. WILKINSON, Rockport, Indiana

In pioneering a nursery as we did in the early days of propagation of Northern nut trees, especially the pecan, it was necessary to first locate parent trees in this section that were worthy of propagation, in order that the nursery stock produced from them would be hardy in this and more northern territory.

Along the Ohio and Wabash rivers and their tributaries many thousands of large seedling pecan trees grew naturally, and to locate some of the most worthy ones for propagation took the combined efforts of all of us in this section who were interested, as well as the aid of the tree owners and nut gatherers.

In the year 1910 three nut nurseries were established here in Southern Indiana, two of which have long since been discontinued. Before that time a very few propagated pecan trees had been produced in an experimental way by some fruit tree nurserymen.

Little did I realize at that time the trials and headaches that lay in the path I was to travel in this venture, such as locating the parent trees, securing the graft and budwood from them, learning to keep this wood from time of cutting until used, methods of propagation, trying to educate the prospective tree buyer as to the value of these trees, and to believe that pecan trees could be transplanted, and that they would bear if the taproot had been cut, and many other things.

Production of nut trees in nurseries in this northern territory is so different, and more difficult than in the Gulf Coast country, where I spent a part of two seasons hoping to get information that would be of value here. What I learned there was of little or no value here, so it was up to us to solve our own problems in this section by experience, as there was very little in print at that time on Northern nut tree propagation.

One of our first problems was to learn to keep cions from time of cutting until time of use, not knowing when that time was. We tried all times from March until May, having little success at any time. At first we kept the scions in a cold storage plant in Evansville, and at a temperature of around 32 degrees, and in wet moss. Later we found it much better to keep scions at home in a cellar at a higher temperature, and in only slightly dampened sphagnum moss.

In the beginning our efforts were mostly in grafting, then after a year or two of failure, probably largely due to the way we kept our scions, we had some results at the McCoy Nursery, with scions kept at home. The McCoy Nursery was about four miles from my place, and located in a sandy soil with a near quicksand sub-soil. At that location they were later reasonably successful in grafting, using the modified cleft graft.

My nursery is in clay soil with a hard stratum of soil three or four feet below the surface, and because of this I have been unable to graft pecans in the nursery, though I have tried every known method, and under all conditions. I could successfully graft at the McCoy Nursery, then use the same scion wood and the same method at home, but have a complete failure; therefore, I turned to budding entirely on pecans in the nursery.

It is somewhat different with walnut--I can get fair results with walnut grafting at times, though I do very little of this, as more than 95% of my walnut trees are produced by budding.

I do a lot of topworking on native seedling nut trees for others. Mr. Sly, who is with me, and I make one or more of these trips each spring. For this work I use only the slip-bark method, shaping the scion a little differently from any other I have ever seen used. This has given splendid results everywhere I have used it, which has been over the territory from Ohio to Oklahoma.

A certain amount of allowance is made in this work as to safe drainage of the stock, depending on weather and soil conditions, which vary as, to season and location.

I do practically all of my nursery propagating by budding, and one of the most essential things is to have favorable sap conditions in budwood as well as in stocks.

On walnut I use only the current season's growth of wood for budwood, and it must be reasonably well matured. Very often sap in the stock may show signs of leaving before budwood is matured enough for use, and only the riper buds near the base of the bud stick can be used, in which case the rest of the buds on the bud stick are lost. Sometimes sap in the stocks can be held a few days longer by cutting a ring around the stock above the place where the bud is to be placed, which checks the flow of sap to the upper part of the stock. Sap in the stock must be in a favorable condition to hope for good results.

In budding pecan it is different. Either the current or the past season's growth may be used with about equal results, though the current season's buds must be well matured. Very often in a dry season when there is evidence of sap leaving the pecan stocks earlier than usual and the current season's buds are not well matured, I use the past season's growth until the new growth is mature.

A nut tree nurseryman has experiences that are both pleasant and unpleasant in selling trees as well as producing them. This is probably well known to all of you who have produced and sold nut trees. It is astonishing how many questions (some of which are amusing) the public can ask, and very often those that ask the most questions, leading one to believe they are a good prospect for a large order, may order only one or two trees, or none at all. Then there are those who have never bought a nut tree before, and when they see their first one are dissatisfied because it does not have a root system like a fruit tree; and there are a few who will try to get replacements whether they are entitled to them or not, and usually they are not; for, regardless of the instructions given for the planting and after-care, they will neglect them, then complain if they have a loss, and certain experiences have led me to believe they claim loss before having it.

Many seem to think that a nurseryman should guarantee his trees to live when planted by the purchaser. To do this would be assuming the responsibility of the handling, planting and after-care of the planter, which would make it necessary for the nurseryman to put a price on his trees that would take care of a lot of replacements to the more careless ones who would have losses, and be very unfair to those who take good care of their trees, and have little or no loss, as they would be standing part of the loss of the careless ones.

The most a nurseryman can do is to produce the best trees possible, dig them carefully, pack them in first class condition and ship them immediately.

Discussion after Mr. Wilkinson's paper.

Dr. Crane: "Minor elements are important in plant nutrition The problem of deficiencies is going to become very important. We do not keep the livestock we did and we are not returning to the land the manure and other fertilizers that contain the elements the trees need. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash, also magnesium are needed. We are taking more from the soil than we are putting back."

Corsan: "In Cuba there are hundreds of sharks. These make fine manure, wonderful for nut trees."

Prof. Slate: "How many sharks would you need for an acre of land?"

Morphology and Structure of the Walnut