walnut varieties on the basis of cash return per hour of labor spent in
cracking with a hand operated cracker. A formula is proposed in which
the variables of price and other factors may be substituted. The
approach is on a commercial basis and the method is not intended for use
in evaluating small samples. The paper represents many tests and
establishes or affirms by statistically treated data several points of
general interest in walnut testing, namely, (1) that a 25 nut sample is
large enough to show varietal or other differences of a gram in total
weight or 1 per cent of kernel weight, (2) that unless extreme accuracy
is desired, moisture content may be ignored in making tests of 25 nut
samples if the nuts have been hulled and air dried for about two months
and (3) that the mean weight per nut and per cent kernel of nuts from
the same tree may vary appreciably from year to year, for example a
variation of 4.9 grams per nut and 3.3 per cent in kernel weight is
reported for Snyder. Such variation is recognized and emphasizes the
necessity of testing a variety in any locality for a number of years if
correct valuation is to be made.
In Kline's paper earnings per hour for fifteen black walnut selections
are given showing a maximum of $0.279 for the variety Norris, $0.245 for
Ohio down to $0.12 for an unnamed seedling.
Lounsberry(5) published kernel cavity measurements for 64 clonal
selections and related these to kernel weight per nut. Measurements of
the thickness of the partition separating the halves of the kernel are
also given. He does not relate these characters to scoring or cracking
quality.
The purpose of the scoring system under discussion in this paper is to
provide a realistic method of judging the relative merit of different
clones of black walnuts that can be used mostly by members of the
Northern Nut Growers Association or others having some skill in cracking
technique. At the present time the Association has little reliable
information either as to the performance of different varieties under
different conditions in any one locality, from year to year on the same
tree, or the suitability of any one variety growing in far different
parts of the United States. It is important that such information be
available and a workable basis of evaluation would be of the greatest
value in obtaining it. Much of our information at the present time is
from the many tests made by N. F. Drake(6, 7, 8) which are of great
value in rating varieties. His schedule is an improvement over any
previously proposed but fails to provide standard sampling and cracking
procedure and includes the items of flavor and color which are in no way
objective characters. The use of a point score based on the concept of a
"perfect nut" is cumbersome and considered undesirable by the committee.
It is recognized that the value of a variety depends also upon the
bearing habit of the tree, the nature of the husk, disease resistance
and other characters.
It has been five years since the present schedule was proposed and
enough tests have been made to give a basis for judgment as to the
merits and weaknesses of the schedule. As stated in the original
committee report it is generally agreed that the best measure of the
value of a nut of any clone is the amount of usable or marketable
kernels that can be obtained from a given weight of shucked nuts with
the least labor. The characteristics of the nuts that contribute to this
value are recognized as follows:
1. The size of the individual nut.
2. The per cent of kernel of total sample weight recovered
without recracking and without the use of a pick.
3. The total per cent of kernel of total weight of sample.
4. The number of quarters.
5. The plumpness of the kernels.
6. The number of empty nuts or nuts with shrivelled kernels in the sample.
Flavor and color may be important but are so dependent upon personal
preference and on the treatment of the samples before testing that they
cannot be rated numerically.
In considering the value of any schedule the following questions are
pertinent:
1. Is it possible for one operator testing one lot of nuts to
obtain the same score with replicate random samples?
2. Is it possible for different operators to obtain approximately
the same score on replicate samples?
3. Does the score give an accurate evaluation of the variation of a
variety from year to year in one locality or in the same year in
different localities? The latter is very important in determining
the regions to which the variety is best adapted and the
performance of the variety in any one locality.
4. What are the causes of variation in the scores obtained? Which
of these reflect the inherent worth of the sample and which are
related to technique, personal equation and methods of handling the
sample?
5. What changes may be made in the schedule to weight the various
factors to give a more realistic score of what changes in procedure
will make the schedule more realistic?
Table 1 gives data on replicate samples tested by the same operator. In
the samples of Spear, numbers 1-6 the variation is as follows: weight of
single nut 1.3 grams, per cent kernel first crack 2.9, total per cent
kernel 2.6, number of quarters 3, penalties 4.5 points, score 9.2
points. In scores figured without penalty the variation is 5.4 points.
Sample No. 7 was cracked November 4 before the nuts were dry and hence
is not comparable with others.
Analysis of these differences indicates that the variation in nut weight
is closely related to the number of shrunken and empty nuts in the
sample. This is a difficult factor to evaluate in a practical way. At
the time of the 1939 report it was suggested that the score should be
figured on the basis of filled nuts. This cannot be arranged easily in
testing because if the operator cracks the nuts before weighing there is
almost sure to be loss of fragments of shell. Trying to correct the
original weight in any way is necessarily inaccurate. Deciding whether
or not the kernel of a nut is sufficiently shrivelled to deserve a
penalty is a matter of judgment which is a personal matter.
The variation in per cent kernel first crack and total per cent kernel
probably represents fairly the difference in the samples. The total per
cent is a wholly objective value and varies practically as much as the
per cent first crack. Uniformity in the number of quarters is striking.
This large number is undoubtedly related to the fact that many of the
kernels were shrunken enough to be penalized and others were perhaps
shrunken enough so that they did not tightly fill the shell cavity. In
general it may be said that the more tightly the kernels fill the shell
the more difficult it is to extract large pieces. Thus having the
kernels a little shrunken but not enough to seriously reduce their
weight favors a higher score. Of course, in some varieties the kernels
may he plump and still not fill the shell tight enough to make cracking
difficult. This is a desirable condition.
Variability in penalties is more important (i. e. 4.5 points) than any
other factor in influencing the final score. Without the penalties the
scores of samples 1 to 6 would be 87.5, 84.0, 83.6, 83.7, 82.1 and 82.8
respectively which is fairly uniform. Statistically the presence of
empty or shrivelled nuts in a lot from which samples are taken increases
the number required to make a satisfactory sample by greatly increasing
the individual variation of the single nut.
TABLE 1
Variation in the score of tests of duplicate samples made by the same
operators. Twenty-five nut samples. Nuts grown at Ithaca, N.Y.
1942. Black Walnuts.
KEY:
A: Wt. 1 nut grams
B: % kernel 1st crack
C: % kernel total
D: Quarters number
E: Penalty
F: Score
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variety Treatment A B C D E F Remarks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spear No. 1 S 18 hours 14.6 24.9 28.0 91 -3.5 84.0 1 empty, 5 shr.
D 15 hours
Spear No. 2 D 15 hours 15.7 24.0 26.8 94 -6.1 77.9 3 empty, 6 shr.
Spear No. 3 D 15 hours 15.9 22.9 25.4 92 -3.5 80.1 1 empty, 5 shr.
Spear No. 4 Dry 15.0 23.3 25.4 94 -5.0 78.7 1 empty, 8 shr.
Spear No. 5 Dry 15.4 22.0 26.8 93 -4.5 77.6 1 empty, 7 shr.,
20 bnd. qtrs.
Spear No. 6 Dry 14.7 22.7 26.6 94 -8.0 74.8 4 empty, 8 shr.,
16 bnd. qtrs.
Spear No. 7 Nov. 4 16.7 27.9 28.8 98 96.7 only partly
dried, 16 halves
Snyder No. 1 Dry 16.8 23.1 26.0 87 -4.0 80.7 8 shr., 9 bnd.
qtrs.
Snyder No. 2 Dry 16.0 24.0 26.3 74 -3.5 81.0 1 empty, 5 shr.,
13 bnd. qtrs.
Snyder No. 3 Soaked 15.8 24.1 25.8 86 -4.0 77.5 1 empty, 6 shr.,
8 bnd. qtrs.
Snyder No. 4 Soaked 16.2 23.1 25.6 78 -7.5 75.5 3 empty, 9 shr.,
8 bnd. qtrs.
Snyder No. 5 Dry 18.2 19.9 26.4 90 -3.5 76.7 7 shr., bnd.
Snyder No. 6 Nov. 4 21.2 27.6 29.8 95 100.8 qtrs.
Eldridge Dry 20.8 19.3 23.1 98 80.7 13 halves, not
Geneva, N.Y. well dried out
" Dry 20.6 20.0 22.6 92 81.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the variety Snyder a difference of 2.4 grams in weight per nut in
samples 1 to 5 suggests poor sampling technique as this is an objective
value. A difference of 4.2 per cent in first crack suggests carelessness
on the part of the operator in cracking or difference in soaking as this
is quite out of line with the variation of .8 per cent in per cent
weight of total kernel. The difference of 16 quarters is considerable
but represents only 1.6 score points. As with the Spear the variation in
penalty of 4 points is greater than other factors except per cent first
crack (i.e. 4.2% points). The difference in score of 5.5 points is
obviously greater than desirable, but probably indicates the relative
value of the samples. Without penalties the difference is 4.5 points.
Sample 7 of Spear and number 6 of Snyder were cracked November 4th when
only partly cured and show the importance of curing in obtaining an
accurate rating for a sample. The score of each variety was increased
materially in all characteristics and no shrivelling was apparent. As a
practical means of recovering the kernels in large pieces, cracking
before the nuts are dried out is a decided advantage provided the
kernels are cured before they are stored.
The duplicate samples of Eldridge check very closely and show no
significant differences.
In Table 2 are given the results of ten tests on carefully replicated
random samples of Snyder black walnuts. In making these samples the nuts
were spread in a single layer on the floor and lots of 25 cut off the
edges of this layer without selection of any kind. Even with such
selection there is a variation of 1.2 grams in the average weight of
single nuts from different samples. Per cent kernel first crack shows a
minimum of 21.8 and a maximum of 26.9 in the ten samples. This
difference is related mostly to the presence of 3 empty nuts in the low
scoring sample as compared with none in the high scoring sample. The
high score is also in part due to soaking. This variability is about the
same as with total per cent kernel indicating that cracking technique
was uniform. Comparing samples 1 and 2 in more detail it is found that
the difference of 11.6 points in the score is caused by the presence of
empty nuts in the sample. The average weight of kernels per single nut
in sample 1 is 4.9 grams. The difference in the weights of the kernels
of the two samples is 15 grams or about the weight of the kernels of 3
nuts. These empties also reduce the score by reducing the number of
quarters recovered. Where empty nuts are involved, it is doubtful if
random sampling will reduce variation unless the size of the sample is
greatly increased, a practice which is not a practical solution in that
a 25 nut sample is about as large as can be handled with any facility.
It would seem that this difference in scores was a fair indication of
the merit of the two samples. The scores of the other samples show a
fair degree of uniformity. The high score of sample 4 is probably
related to the soaking treatment though the scores of sample 3 also
soaked is lower than that of sample 6 which was not soaked. It seems
that when these conditions and with this variety stored in a fairly high
humidity, soaking had little effect except to increase the number of
halves recovered.
TABLE 2
Cracking tests by single operator with 10 random replicate samples of
Snyder black walnuts. 1942 crop. 25 nut samples.
KEY:
A: Wt. 1 nut grams
B: % kernel 1st crack
C: % kernel total
D: Quarters number
E: Penalty
F: Score
Sample Treatment A B C D E F Remarks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Dry as received 18.1 21.8 23.1 85 -9.0 72.7 3 empty, 12 shr.
2 Dry as received 18.5 24.0 25.8 99 -5.0 84.3 10 shr.
3 Soaked 9 hrs.,
dried 14 hrs. 18.6 25.7 28.0 94 -6.0 87.4 1 empty, 10 shr.,
8 bnd. qtrs.,
16 hvs.
4 Soaked as above 18.3 26.9 28.4 99 -4.5 91.7 9 shr., 5 bnd.
qtrs., 19 hvs.
5 Held in cellar 4 days 18.0 24.4 25.7 90 -6.5 82.1 1 empty, 11 shr.,
(high humidity) 8 bnd. qtrs.
6 Held in cellar 7 days 19.0 25.6 27.2 99 -5.0 88.7 10 shr., 7 bnd.
qtrs., 3 hvs.
7 Held in cellar 7 days 18.4 23.9 26.1 96 -6.5 82.3 1 empty, 11 shr.,
9 bnd. qtrs.
8 Held in cellar 4 days 19.2 24.8 26.6 98 -5.5 86.4 11 shr., 4 bnd.
qtrs.
9 Held in cellar 4 days 18.4 23.7 26.7 92 -7.5 81.6 2 black counted
as empty, 11
shr., 12 bnd.
qtrs.
10 Held in cellar 4 days 18.6 23.5 25.9 94 -5.5 83.4 1 empty, 9 shr.,
10 bnd. qtrs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lot of 24 random replicate 25 nut samples of Ohio black walnut
from the original tree was made by scooping the nuts out of a bag with a
quart berry box which held about 25 nuts. Care was used not to select
the samples in any way. The lightest sample 3 weighed 385 grams, the
heaviest 22 weighed 434 grams or a difference of 2 grams per nut. The
score of these two samples was 85.0 and 85.4 respectively apparently
because there were no empty nuts in either sample.
The results of tests on 18 of these replicate samples of Ohio are given
in Table 3. The nuts were apparently a uniform lot. The kernels while of
good quality were in most cases not quite plump and did not fill the
cavities of the shell tightly. This doubtless accounts for the large
number of quarters recovered. The kernels on the whole were plumper than
with the variety Snyder reported in Table 2 and there were fewer empty
nuts. Of the samples that were not soaked the variation of 4.3 per cent
in the per cent first crack is of the same order as variation of 3.6 per
cent for total per cent kernel and indicates uniform cracking technique.
The data in Table 3 gives evidence of the effect of treatments before
cracking. The first nine samples marked with an asterisk were held for
several weeks in a damp cellar and have an average test score of 86.6.
The last seven samples were held in a dry but unheated room for a week
before cracking and show an average test score of 83.7. The average
score for the two soaked samples was 93.9. Soaking also increased the
number of halves and quarters recovered in the same way as shown with
variety Snyder in Table 2. None of these samples was excessively dry. In
this table the lowest score (sample 19) is directly related to the
presence of 3 empty nuts in the sample. The low score of sample 21 is
mostly related to low per cent first crack which is caused by large
number of bound quarters and the high penalty related to empty nuts and
shrivelled kernels. These scores seem to indicate the value of the
samples but bring out the difficulty of obtaining equal scores from such
replicate samples. The other scores in the table are probably as close
to each other as can be expected with samples of this sort.
In this and the preceding tables the number of bound quarters is given
as an indication of cracking technique. With the Hershey cracker the
nuts of many varieties will split into four quarters without releasing
the kernels. The number of such bound quarters is increased if the
operator does not put sufficient pressure on the anvils to crush the
shoulders of the nut and free the kernel. On the other hand if too much
pressure is used and the anvils brought too close together the kernels
will be crushed and the score affected adversely. With some varieties,
for example, the Adams as shown in samples 1 and 2 in table 5, the nuts
are so pointed at each end that the standard anvils do not strike the
shoulders of the nut and many bound quarters result. With such varieties
cracking with a hammer would probably give a better score. Anvils with
deeper cavities in the ends would be an advantage for such nuts.
TABLE 3
Tests by the same operator of duplicate samples of Ohio black walnuts,
treated in various ways before cracking. 25 nut samples. 1942 crop.
KEY:
A: Wt. 1 nut grams
B: % kernel 1st crack
C: % kernel total
D: Quarters number
E: Penalty
F: Score
Sample Treatment A B C D E F Remarks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 *Dry 16.9 25.8 27.1 98 -0.5 91.3 1 shr., 5 bnd.
qtrs., 7 halves
10 *Dry 16.8 23.8 25.2 95 -3.0 83.5 1 empty, 4 shr., 7
bnd. qtrs.
12 *Dry 16.2 24.5 26.5 97 -2.0 86.1 4 shr., 8 bnd.
qtrs., 13 halves
24 *Dry 16.2 24.8 25.7 86 -3.0 84.2 2 empty, 2 shr., 4
bnd. qtrs., 8
halves
17 *Dry 17.3 24.8 27.3 97 -0.5 89.7 1 shr., 9 bnd.
qtrs., 12 halves
21 *Dry 15.9 22.0 25.5 96 -4.0 78.2 1 empty, 6 shr., 14
bnd. qtrs., 17
halves
8 *Dry 16.6 25.2 26.9 99 -1.5 88.8 3 shr., 6 bnd.
qtrs., 10 halves
15 *Dry 16.6 25.5 26.7 99 -1.5 89.8 3 shr., 5 bnd.
qtrs., 12 halves
23 *Dry 16.4 25.2 26.2 96 -3.0 87.0 6 shr., 4 bnd.
qtrs., 10 halves
11 Soaked 16.9 27.0 28.2 100 -1.5 93.5 Soaked 1 hr., moist
18, dried 12 hrs.,
3 shr., 5 bnd.
qtrs., 25 halves
16 Soaked 16.8 27.1 28.2 100 -0.8 94.3 Soaked as above, 1
shr., 5 bnd.
qtrs., 16 halves
4 Dry 16.2 23.6 26.4 98 -3.5 82.9 7 shr., 10 bnd.
qtrs., 15 halves
5 Dry 17.1 23.6 25.0 93 -3.0 83.1 1 empty, 6 shr., 5
bnd. qtrs., 10
halves
18 Dry 17.0 25.3 26.6 97 -2.0 88.6 4 shr., 6 bnd.
qtrs., 8 halves
19 Dry 16.3 21.5 23.7 85 -4.5 75.1 3 empty, 3 shr., 9
bnd. qtrs., 8
halves
3 Dry 15.4 24.7 27.0 97 -3.0 85.0 6 shr., 8 bnd.
qtrs., 5 halves
7 Dry 16.0 25.7 25.7 94 -3.5 86.1 7 shr., 6 halves,
end reversed in
cracking
22 Dry 17.4 24.1 25.8 94 -2.5 85.4 5 shr., 8 bnd.
qtrs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 4
Variation in score of replicate samples of 3 varieties of Black Walnuts
tested by different operators and of same varieties from different
sources
Wt. 1 % kernel %
nut 1st kernel Quarters
Variety Source grams crack total number Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator 1
Thomas--Weber, Ind. 20.4 20.8 24.2 75 81.6
Thomas--Jones, Pa. 14.6 28.8 30.3 95 96.8
Thomas--Baum, Pa. 14.3 25.6 27.0 100 89.0
Thomas--Worton, Md. 16.4 28.2 30.8 94 97.6
Average 16.4 25.8 28.1 91.0 91.2
Operator 2
Thomas--Weber, Ind. 22.0 22.2 23.8 47 83.0
Thomas--Jones, Pa. 17.5 26.7 31.4 55 92.1
Thomas--Baum, Pa. 17.0 24.0 26.5 72 85.5
Thomas--Worton, Md. 16.7 19.5 26.4 64 75.3
Average 18.3 23.1 27.0 59.5 83.9
Operator 3
Thomas--Jones, Pa. 18.1 16.2 27.1 52 69.2
Thomas--Baum, Pa. 16.1 19.1 26.6 68 74.4
Thomas--Worton, Md. 18.0 17.8 27.2 61 73.3
Average 17.4 17.7 27.0 60.3 72.3
Operator 1
Ten Eyck--Weber, Ind. 18.0 20.5 27.5 57 78.5
Ten Eyck--Jones, Pa. 15.4 21.1 23.2 99 79.1
Ten Eyck--Baum, Pa. 14.3 26.3 30.2 93 91.3
Ten Eyck--Worton, Md. 15.0 28.0 31.0 83 94.8
Average 15.7 24.0 28.0 83.0 85.9
Operator 2
Ten Eyck--Weber, Ind. 19.1 24.4 26.5 38 84.8
Ten Eyck--Jones, Pa. 16.4 24.6 24.6 64 84.3
Ten Eyck--Baum, Pa. 15.8 25.7 26.5 54 86.0
Ten Eyck--Worton, Md. 15.4 25.5 28.7 55 86.2
Average 16.7 25.0 26.6 52.7 85.3
Operator 3
Ten Eyck--Weber, Ind. 16.8 17.3 24.6 57 69.4
Ten Eyck--Jones, Pa. 15.2 21.1 23.3 84 77.4
Ten Eyck--Baum, Pa. 15.0 18.3 19.7 69 68.4
Ten Eyck--Worton, Md. 15.7 25.2 30.1 76 88.5
Average 15.7 20.5 24.4 71.5 75.9
Operator 1
Ohio--Weber, Ind. 17.2 28.5 29.7 89 98.0
Ohio--Jones, Pa. 16.4 28.7 29.9 96 99.2
Ohio--Baum, Pa. 14.2 31.1 31.1 99 101.9
Ohio--Worton, Md. 13.7 30.8 30.8 88 99.5
Average 15.4 29.8 30.4 93.0 99.6
Operator 2
Ohio--Weber, Ind. 19.1 25.1 28.3 59 89.3
Ohio--Jones, Pa. 17.2 27.3 27.5 64 91.9
Ohio--Baum, Pa. 15.0 27.4 28.1 63 90.1
Ohio--Worton, Md. 14.9 26.1 29.1 58 87.4
Average 16.5 26.5 28.2 61.0 89.7
Operator 3
Ohio--Weber, Ind. 17.7 21.4 27.7 65 80.8
Ohio--Jones, Pa. 17.2 22.9 28.2 74 84.5
Ohio--Baum, Pa. 15.0 24.9 29.3 81 87.5
Ohio--Worton, Md. 14.6 22.4 28.7 66 80.3
Average 16.1 22.9 28.5 71.5 83.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 gives the results of tests of similar samples of three varieties
from four different sources by three different operators. The tests are
not satisfactory because pretreatment was not uniform and there is
insufficient data on penalties which are omitted. Some samples of the
varieties Ten Eyck and Thomas contained empty nuts and shrivelled
kernels which would preclude equal scores. The variety Ohio was
uniformly filled from all sources. In the variety Ten Eyck there is a
difference of 10.5 per cent in total per cent kernel in samples from the
Baum orchard. This was related to 6 empty nuts in the sample cracked by
operator 3. In the variety Ohio in which the kernels were plump the
greatest variation between duplicate samples in total per cent kernel is
3 or only about 10 per cent of average total per cent kernel.
An examination of these data show the following points of interest: (1)
that the duplicate samples showed considerable variation in weight of
single nut and total per cent kernel, characters not dependent on
personal skill or judgment. Operator 2 did not crack the whole sample of
25 and may have selected the larger nuts, thus securing a greater weight
per nut with all varieties. The superior filling of the nuts of Ohio
appears to be related to the fact that in the orchards in question this
variety was observed to hold its leaves longer than the others which
lost their leaves in late summer before harvest by leaf blight. Shrunken
kernels are a logical result of early defoliation.
In the per cent of kernel obtained in first crack operator 1 recovered a
higher per cent than operator 3 in all of the eleven possible
comparisons and higher than operator 2 in 9 out of 12 possible
comparisons. This probably is the result of soaking the samples by
operator 1 and not by the others or possibly due to greater skill or
care in cracking. The number of quarters recovered by operator 1 is
greater in all cases than that obtained by either operator 2 or 3. This
is also a result of soaking or skill or both. The score of operator 1
was in all tests of duplicate samples higher than that obtained by
operator 3 and higher than the scores of operator 2 in 9 out of 12
comparisons.
The scores of the different samples are apparently mainly determined by
the per cent recovered at first crack and the number of quarters, at
least the only cases where the scores of operator 2 exceed those of
operator 1 are where the per cent first crack and the number of quarters
are greater for operator 2. This is related to the presence of empty
nuts.
The data obtained for the variety Thomas by operator 1 and 2 show for
the most part the same relative scoring of samples from different
sources. For example with both operators the score of the samples from
the Weber orchard was lower than that from the Jones and Baum orchards
and the sample from the Jones orchard scored higher than that from the
Baum orchard. In the samples from the Worton orchard the relative scores
are reversed. The scores oL operator 3 are quite out of line. With the
variety Ten Eyck the differences between scores of samples from
different sources are not consistent. Operator 2 obtained scores that
were essentially alike for all four samples whereas the scores of
operator 1 show differences of more than 10 points. This is related to
empty nuts in the sample. With the variety Ohio there is reasonable
uniformity in the scores obtained by all operators. This was the only
variety with well filled nuts and for that reason alone the score would
be less variable.
TABLE 5
Tests by different operators on duplicate samples of black walnuts, soaked
and unsoaked. 25 nut samples. 1942 crop.
KEY:
A: Treatment
B: Wt. 1 nut grams
C: % kernel 1st crack
D: % kernel total
E: Quarters number
F: Penalty
G: Score
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample A B C D E F G Remarks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator 1
Ohio No. 1 Dry 16.8 26.1 27.6 97 -4. 88.5 5 bnd. qtrs., 18 shr.,
8 halves
Ohio No. 2 Soaked 16.7 27.3 27.8 99 -1.5 93.5 2 bnd. qtrs., 1 shr.,
1 empty
Operator 2