which I shall refer during this talk. But first I will give a little
foreword regarding the trees. The trees enumerated in the tables shown
were nearly all given me by Mr. Henry Hicks of Isaac Hicks & Son,
Westbury, Long Island, and were taken to Baldwin and set out in the
fall, practically the entire roots being saved and later the trees
severely cut back. They were transplanted without loss except in the
case of the shagbark, and those lost were all undersized trees. All of
the hickories were of one age, but those lost were ones which had not
made normal growth and had they been discarded in the beginning there
would have been no loss whatever in the transplanting of 300 or 400
trees. Later, in the spring of 1924, I found some loose bark pignut
(Carya ovalis) seedlings on a farm not far away from my place, and these
were also transplanted; but they were too small to graft this year.
These experiments in grafting, made during 1923 and 1924, have shown us
some new things. With some of the walnuts we had 100 per cent success.
With the hickories there was not 100 per cent success, but that was due
to the fact that we were putting scions on stocks that were not
congenial in many instances. You will notice the results as shown on the
tables.
1923 GRAFTING
G--Grafts Set C--Successful Catches
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shagbark Mockernut Pignut Pecan Bitternut Total
G C G C G C G C G C G C %
Barnes 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 18 100.0%
Brooks 5 0 4 2 5 1 5 2 19 5 21.0%
Clark 5 1 5 0 5 2 5 1 5 2 25 6 24.0%
Fairbanks 27 17 27 17 59.3%
Gobble 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 80.0%
Griffin 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 3 60.0%
Hales 5 3 4 1 5 4 5 5 19 13 52.5%
Kentucky 5 4 3 1 5 4 5 4 5 1 23 14 61.0%
Kirtland 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 12 7 58.4%
Laney 6 4 6 4 66.7%
Long Beach 4 3 3 2 4 1 4 2 3 1 18 9 50.0%
Manahan 5 1 5 1 6 2 5 1 5 1 26 6 24.2%
Siers 5 5 5 5 100.0%
Stanley 3 3 3 2 3 3 9 8 89.0%
Taylor 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 15 12 80.0%
Vest 5 1 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 1 25 5 20.0%
Weiker 5 1 5 2 5 1 15 4 26.8%
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- ---
32 17 51 20 52 26 46 24 91 53 272 140
53.1% 29.2% 50.0% 47.0% 59.3% 51.5%
An inspection of the 1923 grafts made August 21, 1924 showed the
following number growing: on shagbark 14, on mockernut 6, on pignut 26,
on pecan 24, and on bitternut 16, the only place where there was any
material difference being in the case of the mockernut where nearly
three-quarters of the number of grafts growing last summer failed to
grow this spring, in fact all varieties failed to grow excepting three,
the Barnes, Gobble and Long Beach, all three of which I suspect from
other evidence, have mockernut parentage. In the ease of those on pignut
and pecan stocks there was no loss from 1923 and in some instances at
least of those on shagbark and bitternut stocks the loss was due to
outside causes, such as being broken off.
1924 GRAFTING
G--Grafts Set C--Successful Catches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shagbark Mockernut Pignut Pecan Bitternut Total
G C G C G C G C G C G C %
Barnes 8 7 10 4 18 11 61.0%
Beaver 5 1 5 1 20.0%
Brooks 11 8 10 5 21 13 61.9%
Clark 6 0 8 0 5 0 5 1 24 1 4.6%
Fairbanks 5 3 5 3 60.0%
Greenbay 5 0 5 0 0.0%
Hales 5 1 5 1 20.0%
Kentucky 5 2 4 2 9 4 44.5%
Kirtland 5 5 4 3 9 8 88.8%
Laney 5 3 5 2 10 5 50.0%
Manahan 6 2 6 2 33.3%
Mosnat No. 5. 7 1 7 1 14.7%
Mosnat No. 6. 10 6 10 6 60.0%
Siers 5 4 5 4 80.0%
Stanley 12 1 12 1 8.3%
Vest 10 3 15 5 16 5 10 3 12 3 63 19 34.2%
Weiker 5 3 5 3 60.0%
-- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- --
16 3 122 52 54 21 15 4 12 3 219 83
18.7% 42.6% 38.9% 26.7% 25.0% 37.9%
In 1923, it was very evident that the Barnes was the only variety
showing 100 per cent success on every stock. That was not repeated in
1924, but it still showed a high percentage of success.
From the comparatively modest percentage of catches, 51.5% on the
average in 1923 and 37.9% in 1924, one might hastily conclude that the
grafting was not skillfully done or that the grafts did not have proper
attention afterward, but as noted above the grafting was done by Dr.
Deming, whom I regard as one of the most skillful men that we have, and
as the work on walnuts done at the same time showed 100% success with a
number of varieties, I think any question as to the skill with which the
work was done and the care the grafted trees had afterwards can be
dismissed.
It is to be regretted that the number of scions at hand was not
sufficient to repeat exactly the experiments of 1923 as well as to
follow out the points suggested by the 1923 work, but as there was not
enough for both, the latter was done.
The 100% success of catches of the Barnes in 1923 was not repeated in
1924; but the high per cent of catches on the mockernut, (7 out of 8 in
1924), is gratifying in view of the few varieties that we have that have
shown adaptability to that stock. As the Barnes is one of our good
varieties and there is such a wide section of the country where the
mockernut is the prevailing hickory, it is believed this behavior of the
Barnes will prove a valuable addition to our knowledge in top-working
the hickory.
No variety as strikingly adapted for use on the pignut has appeared, but
there are a number that have shown fair adaptability.
The varieties most desirable for top-working various species of
hickories as suggested by this work supplemented by other observations
of the writer, would be as follows:
Shagbark--Most varieties.
Mockernut--Barnes.
Pignut--Brooks, Kentucky, Taylor, Kirtland.
Bitternut--Beaver, Fairbanks, Laney, Siers.
It is useful to know that the Barnes is the only one especially
successful on the Mockernut. By the spring of 1924, all grafts on
mockernut had died except the Barnes, the Gobble and the Long Beach, and
each of these is thought to have mockernut parentage.
In the cases of the pignut and the pecan stocks, all of the grafts
successful in 1923 were still living in 1924. With the shagbark and
bitternut most lived. As to pecans there is not much to be said; pecan
varieties would usually be used for the topworking here.
The results of a few grafts set in 1924 on _Carya ovalis_ and on
shellbark seedlings which were 100% failures, are not noted, as the
shellbarks were, in the judgment of the writer, too small for the
purpose, and the _Carya ovalis_ had been set out in the spring of 1924
but a few weeks before the grafting was done. In other words the latter
had not become sufficiently established to make good stocks, and the
former were not large enough. In each case there was not sufficient
vitality available to expect success.
This brings out one point which has impressed me strongly; that is the
need of having vigorous stocks if they are to be grafted or transplanted
successfully. I feel that this point cannot be too strongly emphasized.
If a stock either from youthfulness or inherent lack of vigor is not
rapid growing it is almost useless to try to graft it or transplant it
until it does show the needed vigor.
As to stocks to grow in the nursery with the idea of grafting them
later, the two commonly used, the bitternut for the bitternut hybrids
and the pecan for others, there is little further to be recommended at
this time, although for some varieties, notably the Vest, a stock better
adapted to it than any we now have is earnestly to be desired.
* * * * *
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions on these three papers on hickory
grafting?
MR. REED: There are two points in regard to propagation which I believe
should be mentioned; one is that these various methods that have been
discussed make it possible to propagate successfully during a great
portion of the year. By beginning early in spring with the dormant
graft, and continuing throughout the summer, these methods can be made
to follow one another so that if one fails still another can be used.
These methods greatly prolong the season, and when it is not convenient
to propagate at one period by the method proper to use at that time
another can be employed at a different season.
The other point is that we are constantly learning more in regard to the
influence of stock upon scions. For example, hickories on pecans seem
satisfactory while the reverse is at least doubtful. Mr. Jones finds
that _sieboldiana_ is not a good stock for _regia_. We all find nigra
apparently satisfactory as a stock for any species of _Juglans_. These
conspicuous differences of influence of various species upon scions
suggest the possibility of less, but perhaps quite as important,
difference of varieties. It is one of the newer phases of study and
experimentation which should be considered by all and reported upon to
this association.
THE SECRETARY: At my place the Vest, used in top-working large shagbark
hickories, has been very successful. I do not know any that have been
more successful or that grow more rapidly than it does on the shagbark
hickory.
DR. MORRIS: The Marquardt is successful at my place.
MR. O'CONNOR: I do not know why we have not had success with paraffine
in a single instance. In grafting fruit trees I had excellent results. I
thought that if this could be done on fruit trees why not on nut trees?
But I am going to try with the hickory again. I am going to be more
careful in selecting good, strong stock for that purpose, and I think in
that way we should have better success.
DR. MORRIS: Did you not perhaps cover the buds of your hickory grafts
too thickly with melted grafting wax? Might not that account for your
failure? Hickory buds will burst their way through almost any thickness
of grafting wax, but when the paraffines are used without pine gum
admixture the paraffine over the buds is particularly apt to crack and
to allow the graft to dry out.
MR. O'CONNOR: I did not cover the hickory grafts with melted grafting
wax at all; I simply put them in like apple grafts with ordinary
grafting wax.
DR. MORRIS: Practically all hickory grafts will fail under such
circumstances, but practically all hickory grafts will catch if they are
covered with melted grafting wax of the right sort, provided that the
scions and stock are also of the right sort.
THE SECRETARY: May we now have the President's address?
THE PRESIDENT: Before I begin I wish to call to your attention this
pamphlet regarding the fifth Mid-West Horticultural Exposition, to be
held in the Hippodrome, Waterloo, Iowa, November 11 to 16, 1924. It will
be under the auspices of the Iowa State Horticultural Society,
co-operating with its afflicted societies and the Greater Waterloo
Association. The exposition will cover the Mid-West territory, from
Pittsburgh to Denver. I wish especially to mention the printed list of
premiums on page 27. Mr. S. W. Snyder, Center Point, is superintendent
of this department. Cash premiums in Department b-Nuts, amount to $289.
In addition there will be a grand sweepstakes, a trophy cup, donated by
a member of the Northern Nut Growers' Association, for the exhibitor
winning the greatest number of points. Anyone interested could write to
the secretary, Mr. R. S. Herrick, State House, Des Moines, for a printed
premium list. If any members of our Association have pet nuts of a
variety which they would like pushed to the front now is the chance.
Snyder Brothers are offering special premiums for new nuts unnamed and
unpropagated.
The object of this association, as defined in its constitution, is "the
promotion of interest in nut-bearing plants, their products and their
culture," and as its name implies, in the northern part of this country.
Without going into detail it seems to me that we have achieved the
object of our association, at least to the extent of making practical
use of our accumulated knowledge. Public interest has been aroused,
which may become stale. Articles have appeared in magazines and
newspapers from time to time on subjects relating to nut culture. We are
also on a continual lookout for new varieties, and those of our members
skilled in the art are constantly improving and working out new methods
of grafting and budding, particularly as evidenced by Dr. Morris' work
entitled "Nut Growing." We know approximately how soon a grafted nut
tree, especially the black walnut, will begin to bear. At Mr. Jones'
Nursery, Lancaster, Pa., an Ohio black walnut tree in the nursery row
bore a cluster of seven nuts 17 months after the graft was placed. Mr.
J. W. Wilkinson, of Rockport, Ind., has demonstrated that grafted
northern pecan trees bear early and abundantly for their size.
We have given advice conservatively in reply to all inquiries relative
to nut-bearing plants, perhaps too much so. Much honor and credit is due
to certain members of our association for their untiring work and
efforts in its behalf. It is not necessary to mention names as I am sure
most of you present know to whom I refer. Our annual reports testify to
their splendid work.
From this time forward I believe we should adopt the policy of boldly
advocating the planting of orchards of nut trees. The intending planter
will decide for himself what variety he will plant, and as a guide he
should judge from the wild varieties growing in his vicinity. By so
doing he cannot go very far astray in what will be to him a new venture.
Of course certain varieties will be restricted to certain limited areas.
This applies particularly to the introduced varieties, as distinguished
from the native nut-bearing trees.
The black walnut has a wider range than any of the other nut trees.
Travel wheresoever you will about the country and you will observe wild
black walnut trees growing almost on every farm. The planting of the
Persian, or English walnut, as it is more generally known, has had more
of a popular appeal, perhaps from the fact that we are accustomed to
seeing clean, smooth nuts of uniform size of that variety in almost
every grocery store, the kernels of which may be extracted without great
effort. The black walnut, on the other hand, has been tolerated as a
sort of poor relation, and has been given no particular attention,
because we have been used to seeing it around. It has not been made to
do its share of contributing towards its keep. Our earliest
recollections of it bring to mind bruised fingers as a result of our
endeavors to crack the nuts and the tedious work of manipulating a
darning needle to extract the kernels, which we usually picked to pieces
in the process. We now know that we simply did not have the right kind
of black walnuts. We should put our accumulated knowledge to practical
use to urge on every occasion the planting of nut orchards, especially
of approved varieties of the black walnut. This I understand is what the
United States Department of Agriculture is advocating, and we should
co-operate all we can with the department in that recommendation.
It will, no doubt, be urged that sufficient grafted black walnut trees
are not available for orchard planting on a large scale. This, no doubt,
is true, but on many farms there are wild black walnut trees of a size
suitable for grafting or top-working. Grafting wood may be obtained in
larger quantities than the grafted trees. Those of our members skilled
in the art have not been selfish in imparting their knowledge to others
and are always ready and willing to instruct others in the art. Most
owners of these trees would only be too glad to substitute profitable
tops for their trees in lieu of their unprofitable ones.
I believe that at all our meetings we should have practical
demonstrations in budding and grafting, as this will tend to arouse the
interest of the uninitiated and will spur the initiated to greater
perfection.
During the past year there has been a discussion relative to the calling
of the black walnut by some other name. Personally I believe we should
not attempt the change. The public will not understand and it will take
them a long time to become educated to the change. Valuable time will be
consumed in picking out a new name. Let us take the name as we find it.
Properly handled, after the husks are removed, the walnuts will not be
as black as they are painted, and besides, we do not eat the shell
anyhow. The quality of the kernel will make its appeal. The trouble with
all of us has been that too much attention has been given to the looks,
rather than the quality, of our food stuffs. Quality has been sacrificed
for looks. Various illustrations of this come to mind with all of us.
I believe success will attend the planting of black walnut orchards.
This will encourage others to follow with orchards of other nut-bearing
trees. Orchards of all kinds of fruit trees are being planted each year
and the planters are content to wait until the trees are large enough
in order to reap the benefits thereof. But somehow the impression
prevails in the minds of many people that a nut tree should show results
and yield profits soon after it is planted. In recommending to a lady of
means that she should plant, as shade trees, northern pecans she
promptly wanted to know how many bushels of nuts she would get off of
the trees the next year.
Perhaps we place too much importance on selecting just the right spot
and soil in which to plant a nut tree and thus cause the intending
planter to be too timid in making a start. Those who know anything about
trees know pretty well where it is not advisable to plant trees,
especially those with a long tap-root. They can judge fairly well from
the wild trees of the same variety growing round about.
As evidence of what a nut tree will do, those of you who have visited
Devil's Den in Gettysburg Battle Field, have perhaps noticed a butternut
tree, now quite old, growing out of the top of the cleft in a huge rock,
having sent its roots down to the adjoining soil for nourishment. This
tree has borne nuts even in its adverse situation.
For the benefit of those interested in the northern pecan, I wish to
record the fact that a seedling pecan tree is growing in Clermont
County, Ohio, on upland, not far from the eastern boundary line of
Hamilton County, about five miles north of the Ohio River. The nut from
which the tree grew was brought from Rockport, Indiana, and planted
about forty-one years ago. The tree is quite large and bears nuts
comparable with the wild seedling nuts that may be obtained from the
Rockport district. If a seedling does this, you may readily see what a
grafted tree will do.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now ask Prof. Collins for his address.
THE SEARCH FOR BLIGHT-RESISTING CHESTNUT SPROUTS[A]
_Prof. J. Franklin Collins, Rhode Island_
The chestnut blight has now been with us for more than twenty years and
has destroyed practically all the chestnut trees of the northeastern
part of the country. It has spread in all directions from its original
center in the immediate vicinity of New York City until it has reached
the limits of the native chestnut growth in the northeast and north, and
is steadily approaching its limits in the west and south. The disease, a
native of China and apparently imported into this country on some
Japanese or other oriental chestnut, found a more susceptible host in
our native chestnut and so became a virulent parasite on this new host.
It was not until 1904 that general attention was attracted to the
disease. By that time it had obtained a strong foothold on the chestnuts
of southeastern New York (particularly the western end of Long Island),
in southwestern Connecticut, and in northern New Jersey.
All of you are more or less familiar with the efforts made in
Pennsylvania, New York, and elsewhere in the northeast, in co-operation
with the federal government, to control the disease. These efforts are
now an old story to most of you and there is no need of repeating it at
this time.
Early in the fight against the blight the attention of many of us was
directed to locating possible immune or resistant species, varieties, or
individuals. The search for resistant native individuals and the
accompanying experiments in crossing and grafting various species and
varieties has been kept up ever since. Foreign explorers have constantly
been on the lookout, with more or less success, for chestnuts in other
countries that might be resistant to the blight. It has long been known
that most forms of the Japanese chestnut (_C. crenata_) were in general
highly resistant to the blight. Later it was found that the more
recently introduced Chinese chestnut (_C. mollissima_) was also quite
resistant, although both the Japanese and the Chinese were far from
being immune. Quite recently Mr. Rock, explorer for the U. S. Department
of Agriculture, has brought a new chestnut from southern China for
experimental purposes. Notwithstanding newspaper reports to the contrary
the possibilities of this chestnut in this country apparently are
unknown at the present time. Nobody seems to know if it will stand our
climate, resist the blight, produce worthwhile timber or fruit; nor is
its name known, according to late advices that have reached me.
Some years ago the late Dr. Van Fleet made numerous crosses between the
Japanese and the American chestnuts, the Chinquapin, and other species
and varieties. Personally, I have not been in very close touch with Dr.
Van Fleet's experiments. Doubtless some of you know more about them than
I do. Regarding these I will only say at this time that the work begun
by Dr. Van Fleet is being continued by the Federal Bureau of Plant
Industry, with Mr. G. F. Gravatt in direct charge of the work so far as
the Office of Investigations in Forest Pathology is concerned. Mr.
Gravatt is also testing out the value of scions taken from seemingly
resistant native trees when grafted on resistant stocks.
Some years after the blight had destroyed most of the chestnut trees in
the northeastern states we kept getting reports from various localities
to the effect that the blight was apparently dying out. Many of these
reports came from sources that made us doubt their value, but others
came from more reliable sources. We have had opportunity to investigate
a number of these reports and have usually found that the statement that
the blight was dying out was, in a sense, strictly true, the reason
being that the chestnut trees were entirely dead, except for sprouts.
This fact naturally prevented the disease from showing us as much as in
former years.
Some twelve years ago I noticed in Pennsylvania a sprout of an American
chestnut about an inch in diameter which had a typical hypertrophy of
the disease, apparently completely girdling the sprout at its base; also
a girdling lesion farther up on the stem. The hypertrophy was such a
pronounced one and in other respects such a typical example of the
disease that I photographed it. A few years later I was surprised to
observe that this sprout had increased to more than three times its
former diameter and that the two diseased areas just mentioned
apparently had disappeared--at least they were no longer in evidence
except as rough-barked areas. To make a long story short this sprout is
still alive and has increased in size and height each year. Although now
(1924) it is considerably branched and makes a small bushy tree it is
badly diseased in numerous places and is only partially alive, but the
dead portions have not resulted from some half dozen of the original
disease lesions (apparently girdles), but from later infections. The
very fact that a sprout should have lived for more than twelve years in
the center of one of the most badly diseased areas known to the writer
seems at least to suggest the possibility that future chestnut sprouts
may yet grow in spite of the disease and persist--at least in a
shrubbery form if not as a tree.
The sprout to which I have just called attention is not an isolated
case, but merely one of the most pronounced that I know about. In a
careful survey in July (1924) of the region immediately surrounding the
sprout just mentioned two or three other notable, but less pronounced,
cases of a similar sort were discovered. In two cases fine looking
branched sprouts some twenty feet high with healthy-looking foliage were
noted. Both were diseased but the disease seemed not to be very
conspicuous or virulent. In a recent survey of woodland in Rhode Island
(July, 1924) much healthy foliage was observed and several large sprouts
were found on which the disease (although present) seemed to be doing
little damage when compared with its former virulence in the same
general region.
I call attention to these cases primarily to acquaint you with the
results of our latest observations on what seems to me to be cases of
gradually developing resistance in some of the remaining sprouts. In all
my intensive work on the blight between 1907 and 1913 I cannot now
recall a single instance where a chestnut sprout in a disease-ridden
area ever reached a diameter of an inch or thereabouts before its
existence was cut short by the blight; and yet today--a dozen years
later--we are finding quite a number of living sprouts over two inches
in diameter, and a few that are three, four, and even up to seven inches
in diameter. Last Friday, August 29, I heard of a small chestnut tree in
New Jersey that bore a few burs last year and which has a dozen or more
this year. If the nuts mature we hope to get some of them to propagate.
Last Sunday, August 31, I saw a three inch sprout in Connecticut that
had had a few burs on it. I would be glad to learn of any cases of this
sort that may come to your attention.