it since childhood. Dr. J. Russell Smith's book on "Tree Crops" is one
of the best I have ever read along the lines of growing trees to produce
food for man and beast as well as producing many other useful products,
and much of the work of your Association seems to be along the same
line. I am sure we can live easier and better on this earth when we
learn to use the trees in their proper place. Man often acts in a
shortsighted way by depending largely on annual crops for the main
source of food for himself and his animals and neglects the long lived
trees which may not have to be planted but once in a lifetime and which,
if given a little intelligent management, will improve instead of
deplete his land and at the same time make a far more beautiful
landscape.
I only have a few trees (maybe 200 or 250) in my nursery which I usually
dispose of at the farm or use to set on my place. I have not attempted
to grow many seedlings as I don't wish to get into this phase of work.
It would take too much time from other work which I like to do. This
fall I have sold over 600 pounds of nuts to various nurseries for
planting so I would prefer that they grow and sell trees from my
orchard. I gather planting nuts from the trees which show the best
qualities, consistently, and sell the nuts from the other trees for
eating purposes. The trees from which I sell eating nuts have some bad
qualities such as some of the nuts being retained in burs, irregular or
poor production, and nuts that seem to be too dry at ripening so I would
not offer these for sale although the pollen from these trees does mix
with the others causing some of the nuts to carry these bad features, a
thing which will hardly be avoided in open-pollinated seedlings.
Your letter made me more proud of my orchard than ever when you made the
statement that my last year's production of 1,722 pounds for 22 trees so
young as mine may have set a record for production. [See 1946 NNGA
Report, p. 128--Ed.] I had little idea how my trees compared with other
orchards, for Mr. Gravatt had not told me anything about this. In fact I
have never seen him nor did I take the trouble to write and ask this
question. I knew my trees were producing much better than an orchard of
the Soil Conservation Service at Auburn but I attributed that to the
better type of soil (for chestnuts) in which my trees are set, and
better air drainage. I had also heard about an orchard near Blue Springs
above Columbus, Ga., which was not doing so well because the soil was
maybe too heavy or damp. I can say one thing and that is that my Chinese
chestnuts have surely surpassed my fondest hopes and dreams, for that
small area has certainly made me lots of money and has given me much joy
in tending it and watching it grow.
You asked me to give some information about my 1947 crop. This has not
been quite as large as last year as I have harvested only a little over
1,554 pounds (I say a little over for it is hard to get all the nuts) of
weighed nuts. This includes some that were beginning to spoil. I include
these since it is sometimes due to my failure to gather promptly and I
think can be fairly included in production records. I might state here
in fairness to last year's report of a yield of 1,722 pounds of nuts
that I recorded 1,557 as being sold which leaves a difference of 165
pounds, which were either discarded as spoiling or were unaccounted for.
This gives me a loss of approximately 10% for last year.
Although my total production was lower than last year I had one tree (ML
No. 2) which produced 150 pounds of weighed nuts and a few pounds more
(maybe 2 or 3) which were not included. This tree has been a consistent
heavy bearer for several years but I had not checked its yield
separately before. Since it is so early it was easy to keep the nuts
separate (as I was keeping these to sell for seed nuts). In about 2
weeks time it had produced about 130 pounds so I made a special effort
to check the remainder since I was astonished at so large a yield. When
most of the nuts had fallen I had the above figure, to my surprise.
The tree in size is not my largest but about average being 12-1/2" in
diameter 3' above the ground with a limb spread of 30' and a height of
24'. It has a very symmetrical shape with enough rigidity in the limbs
to hold them off the ground so the tree does not appear very large.
I just had to laugh when I got a letter yesterday from Mr. Ralph D.
Gardner, whom I had written previously about the yield of this tree and
sent 2 pounds of nuts from it, asking me if the tree produced two crops
in one year. He said Mr. James Hobson had told him that he gets two
crops from his tree each year. Mr. Gardner had a good reason to ask this
question since knowing about the Hobson chestnut, but I reckon he might
have thought about what I would have thought under similar
circumstances, i.e., surely a tree so young (13-1/2 years from setting)
couldn't produce that many nuts at one time, so must have two ripening
periods to contain the fruit. I will have to say that all these were
produced in one crop. Most of these ripened in just a little over two
weeks. I might say that I do have one tree (ML No. 1) which has on a few
occasions bloomed the second time and had burs which remained green
until near frost but these did not amount to anything and I consider it
undesirable. I have never seen No. 2 tree produce late blooms and burs.
I might tell a few things as to how I handle my nuts. As is well said by
Mr. Reed in his 1946 article about chestnuts they should be gathered
daily (although I sometimes don't carry this out). After weighing I dump
the nuts in a tub of water. The nuts which are beginning to spoil will
practically all float and the sound nuts will sink. This is where the
largest percentage of my culls is eliminated. Some good nuts will float
but very few if the nuts are gathered daily. I then put 20 to 25 pounds
of nuts in a coarse mesh burlap bag. I use chicken scratch feed bags
mostly as these are a nice size, and ties a string near the top of the
bag. Then I place these on a lath frame which is about 12" above the
ground under a large pecan tree which furnishes shade about 3/4 of the
day. I arrange the nuts in the bag so it will be flat, which does not
allow more than 2 or 3 nuts to be on top of each other.
On days of moderate temperature I wet these bags thoroughly with water
once a day but on very hot or windy days I often wet them twice. This
keeps the nuts moist most of the time and lowers the temperature
considerably from the evaporation. In this way I can keep the nuts days
and days and even weeks with very little change except a slight drying.
If any spoiled nuts were missed by the water these too will show up in
about 10 days with specks of white mold and can be eliminated. The other
nuts seem to be as good as the day they were gathered. I only use this
to keep them temperarily (as it is some trouble to wet them) and mostly
for the eating nuts until I can take them to market or put them on cold
storage (30 deg. to 35 deg.F.) If I attempt to hold seed nuts about a week or
more I pack in damp sphagnum in crates and keep these under the shade
tree with excellent results. This year I used green sphagnum with all
its water and the nuts seemed to keep well in it. Some nuts have been in
damp sphagnum for over 5 weeks now and are in excellent shape except for
a few that spoiled at first (which I am quite sure were bad to begin
with). If too much water is used some nuts will begin sprouting but it
is surprising how much they can stand and show no tendency to sour.
I am of the opinion that the chestnuts in my section get ripe
prematurely and that at a time when we often have our hottest and dryest
weather. These nuts seem to need a period to continue their ripening
under cool moist conditions which the wet sack treatment gives (or the
damp sphagnum.) Even if this is not the case I have had splendid results
with it whereas before I began using this method with lots of water I
often became so discouraged that I thought I would have to abandon
trying to put my chestnuts on the market. Now if I can get them gathered
promptly I have little trouble holding them until I am ready to dispose
of them.
I failed to tell you that the bad feature about my ML No. 2 tree which
produced the 150 pounds of nuts is its early ripening period (the latter
part of August and first part of September) which causes some of the
nuts to be spoiled almost when they fall. A few hours of too hot sun
seems to start the spoiling process. The tree has no other objectionable
features except the nuts are only small to medium in size but nearly
every one falls freely from the burs. [Nuts about 70 to the pound.--Ed.]
Some Results with Filbert Breeding at Geneva, N.Y.[6]
GEORGE L. SLATE New York (Geneva) Agricultural Experiment Station
This paper reports the results of attempts to improve filberts by
hybridization at the Experiment Station at Geneva, N. Y. The filbert
project was started at Geneva in the spring of 1925 when a collection of
varieties from American sources was established. In later years
additional varieties from European and other sources were added until
about 120 were under test. As soon as the varieties had fruited for
several years it became evident that many of them were inferior and not
adapted to New York conditions. A few exhibited considerable merit and
the range of characteristics in the different varieties indicated that
it might be worth while to start a filbert breeding project with the
object of combining the desirable characteristics of the better sorts.
[Footnote 6: Journal Paper No. 719, New York State Agricultural
Experiment Station, Geneva, N. Y.]
It was decided first to cross Rush, a selected form of _Corylus
americana_, with the best varieties of _Corylus Avellana_, Rush
contributing the hardiness of the native hazel, possible resistance to
filbert blight, and the hybrid vigor that sometimes results from the
crossing of two species. The European filberts were expected to furnish
large-sized nuts as well as dessert and cracking quality.
The first crosses were made in 1930 when two trees of the Rush variety
growing on Dr. MacDaniels' place in Ithaca were pollinated with pollen
of several varieties of _Corylus Avellana_ that was brought from Geneva.
Additional crosses were made at Ithaca in 1931 and 1933. In 1932 the
pollinations were made at Geneva, using a Barcelona tree covered with a
tightly woven cloth. No pollinations have been made since 1933.
In the spring of 1932, 535 seedlings were received from Willard G.
Bixby, of Baldwin, Long Island, N. Y., which had resulted from crosses
made by C. A. Reed of the United States Department of Agriculture, at
Baldwin. Including these U.S.D.A. seedlings and those resulting from the
breeding work at Geneva, 1,999 seedlings have fruited.
The nuts from these crosses were stratified in sand in a cold frame, dug
up, and planted in the greenhouse in early March. After one
transplanting they were moved to the nursery to grow for two years, when
they were moved to the seedling orchard. The nuts from one year's
crosses were planted directly in the nursery but germination was low due
to drought.
The seedlings were spaced 10 x 5 feet in the orchard. This spacing was
satisfactory if the trees came into bearing the fourth year, but if
unfavorable weather eliminated the first or second crops the trees
became too crowded to permit satisfactory fruiting. Usually, however,
the trees fruited sufficiently to make it possible to evaluate them and
remove the inferior trees so that the better seedlings would have enough
room to remain for several additional crops.
During the first few years the orchard was clean cultivated until cover
crops were sown in August. In later years the orchards were not
cultivated but nitrogen fertilization was substituted. Satisfactory
growth was maintained, but the grass and weeds made harvesting more
difficult. No pruning was done except at planting time as the seedlings
were all evaluated before pruning was needed. Suckers were removed
around the young trees, but as they became older this was not done and
some of the plants now have several stems.
Evaluating the Seedlings
The nuts were harvested in the fall after they had dropped, or, with the
later maturing seedlings and those which tended to cling to the tree,
they were harvested by picking or shaking them from the tree. As soon as
practicable the nuts were husked and the crop of each tree weighed and
recorded. Samples of nuts of every seedling fruiting were placed on
paper plates, each population being by itself, and eight or ten nuts of
each sample were cracked and left on the plate. The seedlings were then
divided into three classes, those that were obviously good, those that
were poor, and an intermediate class that received further attention.
The poor seedlings were marked for discard and if so marked for two or
three years they were pulled out.
The good seedlings were then examined more carefully and sorted into
three groups, as follows:
1. Those that were outstanding in both nut and tree characters.
2. Those that were good enough to propagate for a second test, but not
equal to the best.
3. Seedlings good enough to keep for further observation. These were
usually good in one or more characteristics but deficient or doubtful in
one important feature. If upon further testing these third group plants
proved to be outstandingly productive or hardy they were given a higher
rating.
In examining the nuts, emphasis was placed on size and color of the nut,
the large, bright brown nuts being considered more desirable than the
smaller, duller colored, pubescent nuts. The amount of space between the
shell and the kernel was important. If the kernel fitted tightly it was
easily broken or chipped in cracking the nut. Thickness of shell was of
minor importance as only a few were thick enough to make cracking
difficult.
The kernel characters were of most importance since the kernel is the
reason for producing the nut. The kernel must be plump, smooth, light
brown in color, and free of the superfluous pellicle, or fibrous
material that is characteristic of the Barcelona kernels. Generally,
seedlings with Rush as one parent had very little of this superfluous
fibrous material and the best of them were much superior to Barcelona in
appearance and dessert quality. Flavor received less consideration since
most of the seedlings were reasonably good in that respect.
Given a good kernel, and there were many of them, it became necessary to
rely upon other characteristics to eliminate the less desirable of these
seedlings. It was here that the records of yields and catkin hardiness
were valuable. After several years it became evident that certain
seedlings were consistently high yielding while others were low
yielding. Hardiness of catkin also varied greatly and rather
consistently from year to year. Weather conditions influenced catkin
killing greatly. Catkin hardiness is important since the pollen is
necessary for nut production and must be present in abundance as its
movement in the orchard is subject to the vagaries of the wind, and only
a small percentage of that in the air ever comes in contact with the
stigmas of the other varieties.
It is the purpose of this paper to indicate the value, insofar as it may
be estimated from the available data, of the different varietal crosses
in obtaining desirable filbert hybrids. Table 1 contains a list of
crosses made, the number of seedlings raised, and the percentage of
these which were of sufficient merit to be retained for further study.
The percentage of seedlings propagated indicates even more definitely
which crosses are of the greatest value in producing superior seedlings
as only the outstanding seedlings were propagated for a second test.
Selections included in Table 1 are there by virtue of their all-around
merit.
Crosses between Rush and Littlepage and Rush and Winkler produced
nothing of value. The populations were small, but other equally small
populations from other crosses produced seedlings of value. The
inter-crossing of selections of _Corylus americana_ does not appear to
be a promising line of attack in filbert breeding where hybrids with _C.
Avellana_ will thrive.
Rush and Barcelona were each used as seed parents in crosses with the
same eight varieties. In the crosses involving Rush 1,232 seedlings were
produced and of these 39, or 3.2%, were good enough to propagate. Of the
306 seedlings raised from the same varieties combined with Barcelona
only 4, or 1.3% were worth propagating. None of these Barcelona
seedlings are among the best. Under the conditions of the experiment it
would seem that Rush is much superior to Barcelona as a parent in
crosses with varieties of _Corylus Avellana_.
The cross between Kentish Cob and Cosford failed to produce any
seedlings of outstanding merit.
In considering the productiveness and hardiness of the catkins of the
seedlings resulting from the different crosses the data have been
assembled in Tables 2 to 5, each table containing the summarized records
for different plantings. These plantings were started at different times
and the records are not directly comparable as they are for different
years and varying lengths of time. In Table 1 the total number of
seedlings is given, but in Table 2 to 5 only the data for the selections
are used. Records for the selections are available for several years,
whereas the inferior seedlings were discarded and limited data only are
available. Furthermore, the filbert breeder is interested primarily in
the worthwhile material that may be taken from populations of known
parentage.
Assuming that we have a fairly good nut productiveness is the most
important characteristic in a filbert. If the plant is productive it
must of necessity be reasonably vigorous and hardy. For that reason much
emphasis has been placed on productiveness in the final evaluation of
the selections.
The selections in Table 2 are from the U.S.D.A. Bixby plants which were
the first to fruit at Geneva. Considerable variation in productiveness
is evident in the different populations. Rush x Kentish Cob and Rush x
White Aveline selections were only about half as productive on the
average as Rush x Barcelona, Bollwiller, Red Lambert, and Daviana. Rush
x Italian Red also failed to produce high-yielding selections. In a
later planting in the same orchard, as shown in Table 3, the Rush x
Kentish Cob selections performed no better, the Rush x Red Lambert
selections outyielding them by a substantial margin. The Barcelona x
Italian Red selections were very low yielding.
In orchard 22, as shown in Table 4, where Rush and Barcelona are crossed
with the same varieties, the resulting selections from the Rush crosses
are about one third more productive if mean yields are considered, or
one-half more productive if only highest yielding selections are
considered than with the Barcelona crosses. Cosford has been outstanding
in transmitting productiveness in crosses with Rush, Italian Red, and
Nottingham. Rush x Kentish Cob selections in this orchard as in the
other planting, were only about one half as productive on the average.
In the crosses with Barcelona the combination with Medium Long, Red
Lambert, and Italian Red were considerably more productive than crosses
with Purple Aveline, Halle, Daviana, and Bollwiller.
The Kentish Cob x Cosford cross was less productive than most of the
other combinations made. Kentish Cob definitely appears to transmit
unproductiveness when crossed with Rush, Barcelona, and Cosford.
In orchard 8 as shown in Table 5, the trees soon became very crowded as
the discards were not removed and the yield records were less reliable
than in the other plantings.
Winterkilling of catkins were recorded on the selections for several
years. In early April the percentage of winter-killed catkins was
recorded by estimate. Tables 2 to 5 contain the mean of these estimates
and a considerable variation in catkin hardiness in the different
populations is evident. Red Lambert, which had the hardiest catkins of
any variety of _C. Avellana_ tried at Geneva, produced a higher
proportion of catkin-hardy seedlings than any other variety. Cosford was
fairly good in this respect and in orchard 16 Bollwiller, Italian Red,
and Barcelona when crossed with Rush produced selections with moderately
hardy catkins.
Winter injury of catkins was nearly always very high in crosses between
varieties of _Corylus Avellana_.
Of the 1,970 seedlings included in Table 1, 340 or 17%, were retained
for further observation and of these, 52, or 2.6%, were considered good
enough to propagate for a more extensive test. Of these 52 a few thus
far have been outstanding when compared with the others. Possibly the
best and most productive selection is No. 1265, Rush x Purple Aveline,
that is the heaviest yielding of all and the nuts are also among the
best, being of medium size, plump, and free from fiber. This seedling is
far superior to any others from the same cross. Nos. 1408 and 1467, both
selected from a Rush x Cosford population, are close seconds to No.
1265. In the Rush x Cosford population are several others nearly as
good, the general level of merit in this combination being fairly high.
Farther down the list, but still among the best, are No. 110 Rush x
Kentish Cob, and No. 157, Rush x Barcelona. Filbert breeders working
under similar conditions would probably find it worthwhile to make these
crosses and also to produce more seedlings from Rush x Red Lambert than
were raised at Geneva.
No crosses have been made at Geneva in recent years, but all of the nuts
from the selections, sometimes several hundred pounds a year, have been
planted by the Soil Conservation Service and the resulting seedlings
planted in various parts of the country. Undoubtedly, if these could be
examined when in fruit, some worthwhile selections could be made. Those
in New York State will probably be worked over during the next few
years.
TABLE 1. Results from filbert crosses.
Number of Num- Percent- Number Percent-
Seedlings ber Re- age Re- Prop- age Prop-
Cross Fruited tained tained agated agated
Rush x Kentish Cob (Du Chilly 430 63 14 11 2
Rush x Cosford 447 52 12 11 2
Rush x Bollwiller 165 18 11 6 3
Rush x Italian Red 118 17 16 2 1
Rush x Red Lambert 36 10 28 6 16
Rush x Daviana 13 2 15 2 15
Rush x Purple Aveline 12 3 25 1 8
Rush x White Lambert 11 0 0 0 0
Rush x Barcelona 119 20 16 3 2
Rush x White Aveline 54 10 18 3 5
Rush x Imperial deTrebizond 24 5 21 1 4
Rush x Nottingham 23 7 30 2 8
Rush x Brixnut 8 2 25 0 0
Rush x Littlepage 12 0 0 0 0
Rush x Winkler 6 0 0 0 0
Barcelona x Kentish Cob (Du-
Chilly) 42 21 50 3 7
Barcelona x Cosford 57 27 48 1 2
Barcelona x Bollwiller 11 2 18 0 0
Barcelona x Italian Red 66 9 13 0 0
Barcelona x Red Lambert 41 12 29 0 0
Barcelona x Daviana 21 5 24 0 0
Barcelona x Purple Aveline 25 8 32 0 0
Barcelona x White Lambert 43 1 2 0 0
Barcelona x Medium Long 45 16 35 0 0
Barcelona x Early Globe 78 0 0 0 0
Barcelona x Halle 12 6 50 0 0
Barcelona x Red Aveline 9 1 11 0 0
Kentish Cob (Du Chilly) x
Cosford 35 22 63 0 0
Total 1970 340 17 52 2.6
TABLE 2. Yields and winterkilling of filbert catkins, Orchard 16, 1935
1937, 1938 and 1939. Yields are 4 year total. Catkin injury is
5 year mean
No. of Mean Highest Mean Lowest
Selec- Yield Yield Percent- Percent-
tions per Se- per Se- age Cat- age of
lection lection kins Catkins
in in Winter- Winter-
Cross Ounces Ounces killed killed
per Se-
lection
Rush x Bollwiller 18 81 143 21 4
Bush x Kentish Cob (Du Chilly) 12 38 117 36 3
Rush x White Aveline 9 44 73 42 0
Rush x Barcelona 6 94 147 26 8
Rush x Imperial de Trebizond 5 81 100 28 10
Rush x Italian Red 3 79 80 15 3
Rush x Red Lambert 3 88 116 7 3
Rush x Daviana 2 82 110 33 26
Rush x Purple Maxima 1 37 37 17 17
TABLE 3. Yields and winter injury of filbert catkins, Orchard 16, 1937-41
inclusive.
Mean Highest Mean Lowest
Yield Yield Percent- Percent-
per Se- per Se- age Cat- age of
No. of lection lection kins Catkins
Selec- in in Winter- Winter-
Cross tions Ounces Ounces killed killed
per Se-
lection
Rush x Kentish Cob (Du Chilly) 26 38 102 68 5
Rush x Barcelona 14 52 89 90 38
Rush x Red Lambert 5 67 117 12 5
Barcelona x Italian Red 3 18 20 83 73
TABLE 4. Filbert selections. Orchard 22. Yields 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942,
1944, 1945 and 1946. Catkin injury records 1939-42, inclusive.