answers referred to clustering types of insects and involved removal of
the clusters by burning, by cutting off the infested twigs, or by
scraping off the clusters from the trunks in the early morning or late
evening. Others sprayed with lead arsenate, "sprayed in late summer with
lead arsenate", sprayed with nicotine sulphate for aphis and lice. Other
methods mentioned were early cultivation, shaking the tree with a pole
early and often, and chickens in the grove. Some of these means are
adapted manifestly, to small plantings and others to larger groves. None
mentioned the attracting of birds by plantings of trees or shrubs that
bear berries or small seeds. When trees are tall enough to be beyond
reach of poles or sprays, the birds become more essential as insect
destroyers.
"_What insects damage the nuts?_" Weevil, by long odds. Next come husk
maggots or "shock worms", codling moth larvae, borers, stink bugs on
filberts, butternut curculio. No cure is given for this trouble except
the very valuable one of keeping chickens, or, better still, turkeys
running freely in the plantation. Clean cultivation will, of course,
destroy many larvae that hibernate under trash.
"_What species are most injured by disease?_" None are immune,
apparently, though three reporters in favored regions answer "none" are
injured. Black walnuts suffer from leaf-spot, blight, or canker,
especially in seasons when the trees have been weakened by drought.
Hazels and filberts are next, then Persian walnuts, butternuts, native
chestnuts, Chinese chestnuts, pecans.
Blight in chestnuts, nectria canker and blight in black walnuts, blight
in filberts (Cryptosporella), scab in pecans, and die-back Melanconium
oblongum in butternuts. These are the kinds of diseases most to be
feared among nut trees. Sprays, chiefly with Bordeaux mixture and copper
base solutions, are recommended. If nut orchards were generally as well
sprayed as apple and peach orchards, we should hear less of disease
among nut trees. As it is, nut trees are in general far more resistant
by nature to disease than fruit trees, but it will not do to take
unlimited resistance for granted. As progress is gradually made in the
selection of varieties for better nut production, it is very likely that
there will be a weakening of this resistance to disease. Better cultural
methods, resulting in more robust growth, will build up resistance.
Better sprays and more spraying will act as a barrier not only to
disease but to most insect enemies as well.
"_What disease, if any, affects the nuts?_" Fortunately, very few
diseases are reported. "None," say most of our reporters. A scab is
reported for the first time this year in some sections on pecans.
"Galls" are reported on some hickories. A husk blight appears to affect
Persian walnuts in some places, and nut production is very seriously
affected among black walnuts by defoliation prematurely, either because
of drought or leaf-spot. The cure is undoubtedly the same as for disease
affecting the trees, namely spraying.
"_What proportion of nuts are taken by the squirrels?_" The answers to
this question range all the way from "all if allowed" to "none if
prevented." If the nut trees are located near a forest, the proportion
will be large; if not, much smaller. Most correspondents say that the
proportion is very small, but nearly a third of those who make any
report on this at all, say such losses are rather heavy. In the extreme
north, there seem to be no squirrels to bother. Several report thefts,
particularly of filberts, by chipmunks, while one complains about both
mice and jaybirds as filbert lovers.
The most effective squirrel control is the rifle or shotgun. Rat traps,
using black walnuts as bait, are second choice and said to be effective.
The banding of isolated trees with tin (one says cotton batting) will
prevent squirrels from climbing. A good cat or several of them will be
useful, say several reporters. One judicious correspondent says that, in
general, there are two popular ways of handling the situation; one by
shooting, the other by cussing--most practiced, least effective. One
grower, not to be outdone by the patient Chinaman or Japanese, in
September ties up each chestnut burr in a cloth sack. Take your choice;
but it will be well, if you wish to remain in good standing with the
law, either to do your shooting during the open hunting season or, if at
other times, catch your thief in the act and, wastefully, let him lie
where he falls when shot. So says the law, at least in some states. On
the other hand, there are many who will say, with one reporter: "I do
nothing about it. I like squirrels." [This note by chairman--not W. C.
D.!]
_The Marketing of Nuts!_ The purpose of this section was not to inquire
into methods of marketing but merely to determine, if possible, what
marketing of nuts is now being done. It is little enough. Chestnut
lovers have all but forgotten the taste of good chestnuts. Black walnut
buyers, confectioners, bakers, report that it is next to impossible, at
least for the duration of the war, to get deliveries of nuts, especially
shelled nuts. The market for a good product is best only when the
product is easily and plentifully obtainable.
Forty-one growers reported that they sell nuts commercially. The others
do not because they have no surplus to sell. Only six sell kernels. The
others sell whole nuts.
Owing to a misreading of the question, few reported on profitable
varieties. Those who did, reported Thomas as first, then Stabler and
Ohio. Of pecans, Major first, then Greenriver, Busseron, Indiana,
Niblack. Of chestnuts, Hobson is the only one mentioned, and of filberts
only the Jones hybrid. Most growers reported on species instead of
varieties. Of these, black walnuts stand first, then pecans, chestnuts
and filberts. In the far northwest, filberts stand first. Most growers
have the feeling that the hybrid chestnut, _mollissima x dentata_, is
coming fast and offers one of the best chances for profitable commercial
planting. At present only three reporters who specifically commit
themselves on the subject say they count upon the sale of nuts as an
important item in their income. Fifty-one do not. Fifteen definitely
expect, and sixteen others have hopes, that nuts may some day become, at
least to an extent, good income producers for them. Practically all
express themselves as willing to sell or exchange either nuts or cions
for propagation purposes.
_Discovery of Promising Nut Trees._ Some thirty-odd "wild" trees which
bear nuts of unusual promise have been reported by discoverers in their
answers to this survey. It is more than likely that some of them have
been previously reported. The committee has no means of knowing.
However, it is hoped that, out of the lot, one or two may be good enough
for propagating or for contributions of pollen for cross-pollination.
The names and locations of the owners of these trees have been turned
over to Mr. C. A. Reed, Associate Pomologist, U. S. D. A., Beltsville,
Md., for further investigation. It has been found that such information
should not be prematurely published, since it leads to trouble for the
owners and to possible undue valuations being placed upon the trees in
question.
_RATING OF VARIETIES._ First, it will be best to state how the committee
arrived at a rating. Certain well-known varieties were printed by name,
and blanks were left to be filled, if desired, with names of special
favorites of the reporter. Those listed by name were not all good, but
were widely planted. We wished to know exactly what the planters'
experience had been not only with the better varieties but with other
old stand-bys which were suspected of being below standard.
We asked reporters to mark their sheets with the following scale
symbols: XXXX for best; XXX, very good; XX, good; X, average. O, poor;
OO, failure. In tabulating final summaries, the committee valued the
XXXX symbol at 100%; XXX, 75%; XX, 50%; X, 25%; O, O%; OO, minus 20%.
Twenty percent was arbitrarily deducted from any 100% rating, and 10%
from any lesser rating, in case no other reports on the same tree were
received from other reporters.
Qualities upon which ratings were made were hardiness, average yield
(rating), yield in pounds per tree or acre, age of oldest trees, age at
first crop, percentage filled nuts, husking quality, cracking quality,
size of nuts, weight of kernels, quality of kernel.
Naturally, not all reporters were able to evaluate all of these
qualities, so many spaces were left blank. For instance, hardiness could
be rated for a very young tree, but not yield. In any future survey, we
should advocate including a rating on early maturity of nuts, since this
is a quality essential in trees planted farthest north.
_Black Walnuts._ Six names of well-known varieties were printed upon our
sheets and, of course, most of the reports are centered around these
trees. Twenty-four varieties were voluntarily written in and reported on
by correspondents. No doubt some of these varieties will in time replace
some of the older ones. Reports on them are now too scattered and too
much uncorroborated to enable us to do them justice here. For the
present we shall have to content ourselves with those which have
sufficient evidence.
Of the printed list, Thomas takes first place with rating of 80.1%,
which is a cumulative percentage of all percentages earned on the most
desirable black walnut qualities. The method of obtaining this Thomas
overall percentage is as follows: Add all the Thomas percentages in the
paragraph below. Their average will be found to be 78%. Reports from
Canada and the southern area bring this average up to 80.1%, as stated.
Stambaugh is second with a rating of 72%. Rohwer rates 76%; Ohio, 57%;
Stabler, 49%, and Ten Eycke, 45%. The last three seem to stand in
jeopardy of replacement by other varieties.
Breaking these percentages down according to their qualities, the trees
in the northern U. S. area were rated as follows, using the valuations
noted in the second paragraph at this section entitled _Rating of
Varieties_: In hardiness Thomas rates 80; Stambaugh, 70; Rohwer, 75;
Ohio, 70; Stabler, 60; Ten Eycke, 65. In yield, Thomas rates 61%;
Stambaugh, 39; Ten Eycke, 38; Rohwer, 37; Ohio, 36; Stabler, 13. Yield
per tree or per acre was not well enough reported to warrant reliable
ratings. In percentage of filled nuts, Thomas rated 82%; Stambaugh, 88;
Rohwer, 91; Ohio, 87; Stabler, 67; Ten Eycke, 68. In husking quality,
Thomas, 71%; Stambaugh, 67; Rohwer, 66; Ohio, 7; Stabler, 21; Ten Eycke,
13. In cracking quality, Thomas rated 81%; Stambaugh, 79; Rohwer, 57;
Ohio, 57; Stabler, 61; Ten Eycke, 50. In size of nuts, Thomas rated 92%;
Stambaugh rated 57%; Rohwer, 58; Ohio, 55; Stabler, 39; Ten Eycke, 42%.
In weight of kernels, Thomas rated 79%; Stambaugh, 87; Rohwer, 62; Ohio,
55; Stabler, 50; Ten Eycke, 31. In quality of kernels, Thomas rated 77%;
Stambaugh, 58; Rohwer, 60; Ohio, 68; Stabler, 44; Ten Eyck, 47.
It would have been more accurate, of course, to have again divided these
returns according to the warmer and cooler regions from which they came,
but the report has certain limits which can not be over-stepped. All
these varieties are represented by some trees twenty years old or older.
Thomas was reported to be the youngest to bear. Its average age at first
crop was exactly five years; Stambaugh, 6 years; Rohwer, 5.57 years;
Ohio, 5.17; Stabler, 5.7; and Ten Eyck, 5.17 years.
Other varieties, the names of which were written in, are each sponsored
by one or more correspondents who were attracted by their outstanding
excellence with respect to the following qualities:
=Hardiness:= Creitz, Homeland, Mintle, Elmer Myers, Tasteright,
Pinecrest, Patterson, Horton, Vandersloot, Lamb, Deming Purple, Brown,
Tritton, Cole, Sifford and Korn.
=Yield:= Creitz, Homeland, Mintle, Cozad, Vandersloot, Brown.
=Filled Nuts:= Homeland, Mintle, Cornell, Niederhauser, Cozad,
Vandersloot, Brown, Tritton, Cole, Sifford.
=Husking Quality:= Creitz, Homeland, Mintle, Patterson, Todd, Snyder,
Cozad, Horton, Vandersloot, Lamb, Deming Purple, Brown, Tritton, Cole,
Sifford.
=Cracking Quality:= Eureka, Snyder, Mintle, Patterson, Brown, Tritton.
=Size of Nuts:= Homeland, Todd.
=Weight of Kernels:= Mintle, Todd, Snyder, Cornell, Niederhauser.
=Kernel Quality:= Creitz, Homeland, Mintle, Korn, Snyder, Cornell.
This, of course, cannot be a complete list, but we give it as reported
to us. It will be well to keep an eye on several of them.
Mr. L. K. Hostetter, Lancaster, Pa., sends us the only report which
gives a year-by-year record of nut production from black walnut trees.
He says:
"I am especially interested in persimmons, service-berries, wild cherry,
mulberry and elderberry. Of about 15 varieties of persimmon here I
consider Early Golden and Josephine the best. Of 20 or more varieties of
mulberries I consider Downing and Paradise the best. Paradise is a large
purple mulberry I found near here. It has an exceptionally good flavor.
"Following is a record of my crops of black walnuts, grafted varieties:
1931, 2 bu.; 1932, 3 bu.; 1933, 4 bu.; 1934, 8 bu.; 1935, 12 bu.; 1936,
18 bu.; 1937, 37 bu.; 1938, 54 bu.; 1939, 52 bu.; 1940, 300 bu.; 1941,
20 bu.; 1942, 125 bu.; 1943, 70 bu."
Mr. Hostetter sells his nuts both as kernels and in the shell. He says
that he can now count upon this crop for a substantial contribution to
his annual income.
_Seedling Chestnuts._ None but Chinese and Japanese varieties were
reported on. More of the Chinese seedlings have been planted than of the
Japs. The latter excel in hardiness, yield, size of nuts, but the
Chinese have a better percentage of filled nuts, have better husking
quality and much better quality of kernel, according to growers. Of
course, being seedlings, neither is entirely dependable in any of these
qualities. The best that can be said is that the planter of a Chinese
seedling has a better chance than the planter of a Jap seedling if he is
after nut quality.
_Named Chestnuts._ Outside of the report on hardiness, the returns on
these varieties are too meagre to enable one to arrive at a corroborated
conclusion. In hardiness, the Hobson stands first with a rating of 95%.
Zimmerman and Carr are tied at 60%; Yankee rates 50%. Reliable seems to
be little planted but also seems to rate well in hardiness. Hobson again
stands first in yield, with Carr and Zimmerman second. The ratings are
80% and 60% respectively. Reliable comes next, then Yankee. In early
bearing, Hobson stands first, Carr next. All seem to fill well, also
have good husking quality. Carr is said to bear the largest nut, with
Hobson and Zimmerman next. In quality of kernel, Hobson and Reliable
stand out from the others. Hobson, on the returns, has much the best of
it in general excellence. However, the last word has by no means been
said in connection with hybrid chestnuts. In no field of nut culture is
so much hybridizing being done. We expect to see many contenders for
preeminence in this most promising branch of the industry.
_Pecans._ The returns on pecans are also very incomplete after we go
beyond the young tree age. Perhaps one reason for this is that young
orchards of pecans require a longer time for growth than many other
species before they begin to bear. The reports confirm this view.
Records of crops from present plantings are none too numerous.
In the reports on hardiness among the pecans, Major stands first with a
percentage score of 85; Greenriver 83; Busseron, Indiana and Giles are
tied at 80; Posey 75; Butterick 40.
Records of yields are not numerous enough to be conclusive, but Major,
Busseron and Butterick lead. This is in the absence of reports on
Greenriver, Posey, Niblack, and other important varieties.
_Hybrid Pecans._ The records for hardiness here, as with other pecans,
are marred by lack of good reporting. So far as the record shows,
Pleas--Hican var. (hickory x pecan) is the outstanding variety for
hardiness in regions north of its origin. It scores 85%; Norton and
Rockville, 80% each; Gerardi, 75; Burlington, 60; Bixby, Des Moines and
McCallister, 50% each.
Records of yields are not forthcoming. Such records as we have of filled
nuts show them to be in general, unsatisfactory. In fact, however, no
reliable conclusion can be reached from a study of the pecan reports
unless it should be--a sad one--that the questionnaire or the
questionees fell down here.
_Filberts._ The story brightens. Many are working with filberts. In the
northwest, the growing of filberts is developing into a commercial
enterprise of good proportions. Our records are correspondingly more
complete though they show that there is plenty of room for improvement
in the development of varieties of desirable quality.
In hardiness, Winkler leads in the reports with a score of 71.46%, with
Jones hybrid a very close second at 71.15%. Bixby is next, then
Buchanan. Of the "written-in" varieties, excellent hardiness is reported
for Cosford, Hazelbert, Kentish Cob, Early Globe, Burkhardt's Zeller,
Comet, Gellatly No. 1, Chinese Corylus, Brixnut and Longfellow.
Yields rule best with Rush and Jones hybrid. Winkler, Bixby and Buchanan
follow closely. Failures in this respect are noted for Barcelona,
DuChilly, Italian Red and White Aveline. Cosford has a good report.
Rush and Jones hybrid fill well, as do Cosford, Hazelbert, Buchanan and,
usually, Winkler. Husking qualities are quite good for all varieties
named except Winkler and, in some places, Rush. Cracking qualities are
fairly uniform in all varieties reported.
In size of nuts, Jones hybrid and Winkler have a more uniformly good
record, with Hazelbert, DuChilly, White Aveline, Barcelona, Brixnut and
Longfellow following closely. In kernel quality, Rush, Winkler, Cosford,
DuChilly, Bixby, Buchanan and Longfellow are named as among the best.
_Butternuts._ The record is very scant. Weschcke, Sherwood and Buckley,
according to these reports, are hardy. Weschcke and Craxezy yield well.
Sherwood is the most precocious in early bearing with Weschcke close up.
Sherwood, Craxezy and Weschcke fill well and the latter two crack well.
Buckley leads in size of nuts, with Sherwood close, and all have good
kernel quality. We have no reports on Aiken, Deming or Devon.
_Persian Walnuts._ In most portions of the north, the reports show that
Franquette, Mayette, Pomeroy and Rush are not adapted to our
climate--too tender. Broadview has the best record for hardiness,
followed by one or two of the Crath Carpathian numbers, and with
Breslau, Lancaster and Bedford showing up well.
In yields, Broadview and Payne have the best reports, followed by
Breslau, Lancaster and Bedford. In size of nuts, Breslau, Lancaster and
Franquette are first; Broadview and Payne next. In quality of kernel,
Bedford, Franquette, Lancaster and Payne, in that order, are claimed as
best, with Mayette, Breslau, Crath, Pomeroy and Broadview following.
Since kernel quality is a matter of taste, it seems unlikely that any
rating on it will prove satisfactory to everybody.
_Hickories._ Returns are numerous and well distributed. In hardiness,
Stratford leads with a rating of 84%; Glover rates 83; Fairbanks, 79;
Romig, 75; Weiker, 71; Kentucky, 65. Others, written in, with best
ratings by their growers, are, in the following order; Beaver, Hales,
Barnes, Clark, Caldwell, Taylor, Weschcke, Beemen, Bridgewater.
Schinnerling, Hagen and Abscota are close up.
Best yields are reporting for Stratford and Fairbanks. Close up are
Barnes, Glover and Schinnerling.
Weschcke, Glover, Weiker, Beeman and Bridgewater are most precocious in
early bearing. Best filled nuts are reported, in order of precedence,
for Stratford, Fairbanks, Walters, Beaver, Hagen, Weschcke, Beeman and
Bridgewater.
=Husking quality:= Reports were inadequate. Cracking quality, in order
or rank, Glover, Stratford, Hagen, Beeman, Weschcke, Schinnerling,
Kirtland, Weiker, Bridgewater.
=Size of nuts:= In order of rating, Weiker, Bridgewatar, Fairbanks,
Weschcke, Stratford, Beeman, Schinnerling, Hagen. In weight of kernel:
first, Abscota, then Barnes, Glover, Fairbanks, Kentucky, Kirtland.
=Quality of kernel:= In order of preference, Kirtland, Glover,
Weschcke, Hagen, Stratford, Bridgewater, Weiker, Abscota, Schinnerling,
Kentucky, Beeman, Stratford, Beaver.
Too much dependence should not be placed upon the order of precedence in
the above lists after the first two or three, since, in many instances,
there is not sufficient corroboration from separate sources to warrant
more than a tentative position, especially for some of the varieties
listed at the ends of the classes.
_Heartnuts._ The hardiest, in the order reported, are Walters,
Fodermaier, Gellatly, Faust, Bates. Lancaster, does not bear well and is
not hardy in the northern areas. Best yields reported are from Walters
and Bates. Other reports are inadequate or absent. Most precocious,
Bates and Gellatly.
Best filled heartnuts, with best husking and cracking qualities as well
as best quality of kernels; returns are about equally divided between
Gellatly, Walters and Bates, with Walters and Gellatly somewhat larger
in size.
It is to be regretted that reports are incomplete or absent in
connection with many varieties of nuts. We feel, however, that, in the
main, the above ratings, especially when arrived at from cumulative
evidence, reflect with fair accuracy, the present status of nut tree
conditions in northern United States.
_CANADA._ In all its chief characteristics, the Canadian nut growing
experience follows the pattern of northern United States. The reports
received from Canada numbered about one-tenth those received from the
northern states--upon the whole, a satisfactory cross section.
In summarizing these reports it will be necessary only to call attention
to such practices and experiences in Canada as are at variance with
those already reported from the northern states. For example, in
response to the question, "What species are you planting experimentally
or commercially?" we find, surprisingly, that Persian walnuts displace
black walnuts from first place, at least in these reports, and that
filberts and heartnuts come next. Then come black walnuts, butternuts,
hickories, hazels, Chinese chestnuts, persimmons, Jap walnuts, almonds
and a scattering of other species. Leading native wild trees are, first
hazels, then black walnuts, hickories and butternuts.
Winter climate is widely varied, being temperate along Puget Sound and
close to the southern tier of the Great Lakes, but subject to great
extremes in the prairie provinces. Lower winter temperatures in these
provinces average from zero to 45 deg. below, while the lowest recorded is
reported to have been 62 deg. below. It is evident that Canadians have
widely variable problems, in spite of which three Canadians, exactly the
number reported from the northern states, tell us that the sale of nuts
is an important item in their annual incomes. It looks as though, in
comparison, northern U. S. growers could do better. With an average
frost-free season of less than five months (from May 7 to Oct. 2),
Canadians do this. The normal dates of latest spring frosts average from
April 20 to May 24, and of earliest fall frosts, from Sept. 10 to Oct.
12. Extremes at either end often shorten the season somewhat.
Soil conditions are generally good, with plenty of loam and sandy-loam,
half lime, half acid; but drought is serious in places, necessitating
irrigation. One wonders whether, if more of us were pushed to it, we
might not find irrigation so profitable that we would never again be
without it. Cultural and soil corrective practices are, in general,
similar to those previously reported. Less trouble is experienced from
rodents--mice, rabbits, squirrels--but more from deer. Wrapping the
trunks of young trees is more generally practiced than with us of more
southern latitudes, and disk cultivation is more generally favored.
In reply to the question, "What was your one greatest source of
success?", the answers include, pollination by hand, the use of good
trees, disking, planting hardy seed, and budding Persians on black
walnut stocks. Failures were due mostly to the inevitable causes, cold,
drought, weak growth. Alkaline soil is mentioned in one report as a
chief difficulty. Bud worms, June beetle, leaf hoppers and walnut
caterpillars are also enemies, but Canada seems free from some of the
other pests that have invaded the United States.