which all old-timers will regret, and I want to move that this
association record in its proceedings the fullest appreciation of his
great and faithful service in helping to carry the organization through
so many years. I do not know what we would have done without his service
and it is with great regret that we see him step aside.
(Motion seconded and unanimously carried).
DR. DEMING: I wish to express my gratitude to the members for their
kindness, but I also wish to say that although I have stepped aside, I
have not entirely passed away. I am still with you and I shall always
give the association the best of my efforts in whatever way they may be
needed; its interests shall always be dear to me.
DR. MORRIS: It seems to me that we have an object lesson here. Excepting
for Dr. Deming's efforts I doubt whether this organization could have
held together and worked harmoniously during its years of existence. He
has been the key-note of the work with which others have helped, and we
have been successful because of concerted work on the part of a number
of men who are looking forward to the great future of this new
agriculture, this new source of agriculture for the entire world,
wherein we are going to be able to depend upon the sub-soil for our
sustenance. It is through untiring work and self sacrifice that those
who are so interested in this work have been able to work as a mass
unit. I do not know of anything more that I could say.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure that we all regret to see Dr. Deming step
aside, but we will still have him with us and I am very sure that he
will do all possible for the good of the association always.
DR. DEMING: I stated a few moments ago that although I had stepped aside
I had not passed away; but since then I have changed my mind. I believe
that I have entirely passed away.
DR. SMITH: I move a resolution of great appreciation for Dr. Morris's
and Mrs. Morris's hospitality to us, and for enabling us to enjoy the
beautiful day we have had here.
(Motion seconded and unanimously passed).
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Morris, you now have notice of the official action of
the association in their desire to thank you.
DR. MORRIS: I thank you, but I must say that I have had very little to
do with it; I may have made the suggestion, but the women always do all
of the work and in this case my wife and daughters have done it all.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not yet decided on the place for our next
convention. I would like to have your ideas.
DR. MORRIS: I had three ideas as to that; one is to go to Mr. Riehl's
place next year. Prof. Colby said that if we should, he would assume the
responsibility of the committee on arrangements. We are first to ask Mr.
Riehl whether it would be in accordance with his ideas and wishes.
The second idea is this. We saw yesterday only a small part of Mr.
Bixby's exhibit, one of the finest collections in the world. We should
have to spend more than a day there to see it satisfactorily. In
connection with a visit to the Hick's nurseries, and others in the
vicinity, it would take more than a day.
The third idea is to go again to Lancaster to see Mr. Jones' nursery and
other things in that vicinity. It seems to me that we must make a choice
between these three.
MR. JONES: I would be very glad to have you come to Lancaster.
DR. MORRIS: The objection to that is that Mr. Riehl is now 86 years of
age. In view of that our first choice ought to be Mr. Riehl's place.
DR. SMITH: I move that, if it prove acceptable to Mr. Riehl, we meet in
western Illinois.
MR. JONES: Why not add, "If that is not satisfactory, to go to
Lancaster?"
DR. MORRIS: We should go back to Long Island next year and complete what
we did not see this year, if we do not go to Mr. Riehl's.
THE SECRETARY: The Secretary has received from the St. Louis Chamber of
Commerce an invitation worded with rather more cordiality than usual to
hold our next convention in St. Louis. They offer to provide a meeting
place, speakers, publicity, to do all except give the cash prizes and
entertainment. I do not know exactly how far St. Louis is from Alton,
but I understand it is one hour's ride by rail.
MR. REED: We could also see the Botanical Garden and the collection of
large trees.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the sentiment is in favor of the western meeting.
We can easily get to Mr. Riehl's place from St. Louis.
MR. REED: It is 22 miles from St. Louis to Alton, and there you can
change and go to Mr. Riehl's. I think it best to go to St. Louis for the
convention and to take a day at Mr. Riehl's place.
THE SECRETARY: As to the date we would not be able to decide upon that
without first consulting Mr. Riehl and learning the time convenient for
him. However, we should express our opinion as to the best time,
approximately.
MR. REED: I believe it would be to the advantage of the organization to
go there at a time when the nuts are on the trees. We have seen the
species and varieties in bearing, but we have not seen a paying orchard
ready for harvest. I believe we should have the meeting about September
10, or a little later.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will move that the convention next year be held
at St. Louis on September 10, or a little later as may be decided by the
Executive Committee after consultation with Mr. Riehl.
(Motion put, voted and carried).
DR. MORRIS: Another important matter is in regard to publicity. For this
meeting I have sent notes to about 15 different publications, expecting
that they would give us notices. Not a single one of them gave us
notices. This morning one of the reporters called me and said he was
sorry he could not be here as he had an important meeting to attend. He
wanted to know what the Northern Nut Growers' Association was like, if
it was something like the Tree Planting Association. The fact is that
people do not understand, as yet, the meaning of this association or its
purpose. They do not realize that California sends 25,000 tons of
walnuts to market, worth millions of dollars, and 10,000 tons of almonds
this year. They don't realize that down in Georgia, in the poor, puny
pinewoods where men had a hard time to make a living at one time, they
are now riding around in limousines because they are growing nuts. They
do not realize the enormous social and economic importance and
consequence of work of the nut growers of today in the part that they
play in the agriculture of the world for tomorrow. The newspapers would
rather send some representative to see a prince fall down with his
horse. But I know from mutual acquaintances that the Prince would rather
be with us here today at this meeting than to be listening to a thousand
and one nonentities and taking part in conversations with no future
meaning. I believe that if I had thought about inviting him in time I
should have had him out here. I have had experience with members of
royalty before and I know what serious-minded people they are.
The next subject discussed was that of dropping members who are not in
general good standing. After the discussion the decision stood that no
action could be taken unless specific charges against the member were
presented and proven true.
Another matter discussed was that of compensation to Mrs. Gahn for doing
secretarial work for the association. It was voted by those present that
she should be compensated, but the amount of compensation should be left
to the decision of the Executive Committee.
The President adjourned the session sine die, at 4 p. m.
Because of lack of time, several papers were not read. These are
included herewith:
NUTS
_By Hon. Royal S. Copeland, U. S. Senator from N. Y._
Whenever there is a peculiar individual in the community, he is apt to
be called a "nut." As ordinarily used this is a term of derision, but
the more one studies the value of the nut the more he is impressed with
the idea that this isn't a good word to apply to an abnormal individual,
unless he happens to be abnormally good. The nut is one of the best of
the products of nature. It is one of the oldest of foods, and among
certain animals it is almost the only food depended upon for health and
growth.
If Mr. Bryan is mistaken about the origin of man, and if his antagonists
are right, the natural ancestors of the human race were all nut eaters.
At least the gorillas and chimpanzees are fond of the nut. When we go
back to the early history of the Greeks and the early inhabitants of
Great Britain, we find that they depended largely upon the acorn for
food.
When measured by the caloric method it is surprising how much richer in
nourishment the nut is than almost every other food substance. Nuts
average about ten times as many calories per pound as the richest
vegetables.
It makes you hungry to hear the names of the nuts. In this country we
have the walnut, butternut, hazel nut and the hickory nut, the chestnut
and the beechnut. These are native to our land. Then there are
cultivated orchards of Persian walnuts, pecans, almonds and peanuts.
Christmas and Thanksgiving would be a failure without nuts; they are a
part of the hospitable fare and no stocking is well filled at Christmas
time unless a handful of nuts is added to the surprises.
Isn't it amazing what popular ideas there are in existence about the
digestibility of foods. Many of these are fallacious. For instance, it
is common belief that nuts are difficult to digest. This is not well
founded. Of course nuts like all foods which are used as a part of the
dessert are considered merely as an addition to the meal, and not a part
of the meal structure. You finish your meal, having eaten everything you
need and having filled your stomach, then you are given a dish of ice
cream and, perhaps, after that the nuts are passed. They taste so good
that you are tempted to take one more about ten times. You fail to chew
the nut thoroughly and you crowd it into an already overfilled stomach.
Because it happens to be the first thing to come up in case of disaster
you jump at the illogical conclusion that your indigestion is due to the
nuts. I need not tell you how unscientific is your conviction.
Several varieties of nuts are used for the making of nut butter, and
this food is a very excellent substitute for meat.
Certainly nuts have material advantage over a good many foods. They keep
indefinitely. They never putrefy. They are not infested with harmful
bacteria. You can never get tape-worm or any other parasitic trouble,
which occasionally follows the eating of infected food.
I am glad there are societies organized to propagate the nut. A
prominent concern of New York City is very active in promulgating the
value of the nut, and is encouraging the planting of nut trees.
Somebody has estimated that there are three million miles of country
roads, and that if nut trees were planted alongside these roads there
would be enough protein food for the entire population.
Nuts are rich in protein, lime, iron and vitamins.
Many dishes may be made from the nut which have the appearance and
flavoring of meat, without the objectionable effects of flesh diet.
Last year we imported twenty-five million pounds of almonds, forty
million pounds of Brazil nuts, eighteen million pounds of filberts, and
forty-four million pounds of walnuts,--about twenty million dollars
worth of these nuts were brought into the country.
This shows that there is some appreciation certainly of an article of
food which deserves to be even more commonly used than it is at present.
HARDINESS IN NUT TREES
_By C. A. Reed, U. S. Department of Agriculture_
Nut trees of most species commonly thrive at both latitudes and
altitudes much greater than the limits of regular or even frequent crop
production. This fact is seldom fully appreciated by prospective
planters, particularly in the North, who, not unnaturally, assume that
the presence of a group of vigorous appearing trees, or even of a single
tree, particularly in a fruitful year, is sufficient evidence of local
hardiness to justify commercial planting. However, practically all of
our native species of nut-bearing trees are indigenous well beyond the
range of regular crop production. This is made possible by occasional
seasons favorable to seed production which enable such species to
reproduce themselves. A crop once in a quarter century would be
sufficient for this purpose.
Taking the pecan as an illustration of how a species may be affected by
latitude, it has been found that, as the limits of hardiness are
approached, the ill effects on the species in approximate order are:
(1) reduction in size of nut, especially with oblong varieties
in length,
(2) increased proportion of faulty kernels,
(3) increased irregularity of crop,
(4) practical crop failure, and lastly the
(5) partial, then complete, destruction of the tree.
On the other hand, the fact that a tree is subject to occasional winter
injury, or that it bears irregularly, or not at all in a particular
site, is not necessarily to be taken that the same tree in a different
site or under slightly changed environment would not perform
satisfactorily, even in the same locality. A change in exposure or of
cultural treatment, or of rootstock, or of variety, or a modified
association of varieties, might and frequently does bring about entirely
different results. Sometimes a southern exposure causes trees to respond
to mild weather, in winter or early spring, and to be caught by
subsequent, violent drops in temperature. Some of the best known and
best performing Persian walnut trees in the East are on a northwestern
exposure, yet the species is commonly not hardy in the temperate
portions of this country.
To a certain extent the ability of orchard trees to withstand frost
injury is subject to control. The danger is greatest with trees which
have grown late or those which have become devitalized for some reason
or with those which are in poorly drained soils. The kind of root stock
which has been used, is known to have had an influence in some cases.
Doubtless this will be better understood as different stocks are used by
the leaders in pecan breeding. Varieties also are known to differ
greatly in their degree of hardiness. However, failure upon the part of
otherwise normal trees to bear paying crops with regularity is not
necessarily due to low temperatures. Other factors, such as
self-sterility, may be wholly responsible for at least the lightness of
crops.
So far as the orchardist is concerned, a tree is not hardy unless it is
capable of bearing crops the average of which are profitable. On the
other hand, occasional winter injury does not prove that a species
cannot be grown successfully in the same locality. Neither the peach nor
the apple industries of the North nor those of the citrus in the South
and California nor, in fact, any of the other horticultural commodities
of this country are wholly unaffected by frost damage. Our forest trees
may be more subject to winter killing than we suspect. A certain amount
of winter-injury is to be expected in any part of the country no matter
what the species of plant may be.
The frequency with which winter or spring injury is definitely known to
occur gives color to a rising theory that freezing temperatures may play
a vastly greater part in the development of the nut industry over the
entire country than is commonly supposed. Much of the evidence of damage
from this cause is of such nature as to be easily overlooked or
attributed to other causes. Trees and plants of many kinds have become
so accustomed to injury by freezing that they are able to recover
without the injury always being apparent. A few illustrations of this
which have come to the writer's attention might be cited.
In December 1919, a sudden drop in temperature of from 32 deg.F to 24 deg.F
occurred at McMinnville, Oregon, with fatal result to cultivated trees
and shrubs of many kinds. The damage was greatest in flat bottoms,
especially those where neither land nor air drainage was good. Under
such conditions, numerous apple orchards were killed outright. Prunes
and Persian walnuts were so badly injured to the snow-line that
subsequently great numbers of trees were cut down. Both staminate and
pistillate buds of filberts above the snow were practically all
destroyed. Later on, the entire tops of many of the older-bearing
filbert trees succumbed. An instance of particular interest, in so far
as this discussion is concerned, was afforded by the behavior of a
shagbark hickory tree in McMinnville, some 20 or 30 years old, which had
been grown from a Missouri seed. In February, when examination was made
of the condition of this tree, it was found that all visible buds had
been killed, yet the bark on the branches between the buds was in
apparently perfect condition. The question as to what the tree would do,
therefore, became one of great interest. The following September, when
revisited, this tree was found to have such a wealth of luxuriant
foliage that the observer felt that the accuracy of his February records
was challenged. However, closer inspection showed that growth had
entirely taken place from adventitious buds, and that the dead buds and
spurs were still in evidence. There were no nuts on the tree but
otherwise the casual observer would not have suspected that the tree had
been affected in any way. In all likelihood, the owner of the tree would
deny that it had been injured.
Another case of somewhat similar kind occurred early during the present
year in a pecan orchard in South Georgia. The trees had been set in
1917, and in 1919, a portion selected by the Bureau of Plant Industry
for conducting a series of fertilizer and cover-crop experiments. The
summer of 1923 was extremely dry. This was followed by warm rains in the
late fall and early winter. On January 6, during a period of high wind,
the mercury dropped to within a few degrees of zero, official reports
recording temperatures of from 6 to 8 degrees above zero at various
nearby stations.
On March 31, Dr. J. J. Skinner, of the Office of Soil Fertility
Investigations, in attending to the spring fertilizer applications,
discovered that a high proportion of the trees had been badly winter
injured, as indicated by the usual characteristic evidence. These
included a considerable exudence of sour and frothy sap from the trunks
of the trees, particularly those having smooth bark. This invariably
occurred on the west side. Shot-hole borers, which not infrequently
follow such injury, were already at work.
This situation was at once called to the attention of the owner of the
orchard who lived some 50 miles away. He replied that although he made
frequent visits to the orchard, the matter had not attracted his
attention, nor had it been reported to him. On April 17, he inspected
the orchard and the day following, reported to the Bureau by special
delivery that as a result of a rather hasty inspection, he was convinced
that from 16 to 20 per cent of the trees in the experimental tract were
injured, but that in the rest of this orchard the injury was
insignificant, probably not exceeding 4 per cent. His not unnatural
deduction was that the high fertilization of the soil in the
experimental tract had caused tender growth which, under the extreme
conditions of the previous months, had been unable to survive.
On April 24, a careful record of the condition of all trees in this
tract and of a representative number of those in adjacent parts of the
orchard, was made by Mr. J. L. Pelham of the Bureau of Plant Industry
and the writer, in company with the owner of the orchard and his
superintendent. It was found that in the experimental tract, 50 per cent
of the trees had been visibly injured, thus exceeding the owner's
maximum estimate by about 30 per cent. Of the total number of trees, 20
per cent were regarded as being slightly injured, and 30 per cent
severely so. Of the fertilized trees within the experimental tract, 55
per cent showed injury to some degree as compared with 58 per cent of
the trees unfertilized, also within the tract.
Inspection of the trees outside of the experimental tract showed that
52.6 per cent were affected, 40.8 per cent being slightly, and 11.8 per
cent severely injured. A second inspection made June 9 showed that
while a few of the most severely injured trees had succumbed, the
apparent condition of the majority was greatly improved. In the
experimental tract 6 per cent were dead, 13.50 per cent in doubtful
condition, and 80.25 per cent were apparently in good condition. Of the
trees in outside tracts, the percentage dead, doubtful and apparently
sound were 2.80, 9.008 and 87.42, respectively.
The lesson of present importance from this narrative is that afforded by
the illustration not only of the ease with which the matter all but
escaped the attention of a careful grower but of the difficulty of even
impressing upon him the full gravity of the situation. In spite of a
prejudice which he conceded was in his mind, when he first inspected the
trees on April 17, he underestimated the number affected by from
one-third to one-half.
This grower was not alone in his failure to detect evidence of winter
injury as was subsequently proven by the negative replies to a general
inquiry to growers in many sections sent out in May, together with
numerous reports of severe injury received during June and early July.
The fact is that winter injury was more or less general in the pecan
orchards of much of the South. Had it been possible to observe further,
it is highly probable that a direct relation would have been found
between this damage and the lightness in the set of the crop of nuts in
1924 over the general pecan district.
Other instances of damages to nut trees which have largely escaped
notice might be cited, but these will perhaps be sufficient to call
similar cases to the minds of other observers. Of particular interest in
the northern part of the country are specific instances of the behavior
of individual species and their varieties with reference to ability to
withstand local climatic conditions. To cite a few: Mr. E. A. Riehl, of
Godfrey, Ill., 8 miles from Alton, reports that during his 60 years of
residence on a high bluff overlooking the Mississippi, the pecan trees
in the river bottoms of the immediate neighborhood have fruited with
exceeding irregularity. A correspondent from Evansville, who cleared 200
acres of forest land along the Ohio of all growth other than pecan,
reports that the yields have been disappointing. F. W. McReynolds of
Washington, D. C. has 50 or more grafted trees now 8 or 10 years old, 10
miles north of the District, which, although in otherwise thrifty
condition, have not fruited.
T. P. Littlepage of Washington, D. C., has some 30 acres of pecan trees,
also grafted, on his farm near Bowie, Md., which have borne some nuts
during the last three years, but the product has been undersized,
poorly-filled and distinctly inferior. Mr. Littlepage reports that
during the past spring, these trees suffered appreciable injury in the
freezing back of the fruit spurs and that the nuts which formed were
from a second set of spurs. His trees bore in the neighborhood of a
bushel of nuts which looked more promising than usual until the middle
of October when freezing temperature occurring between the 14th and the
24th, completely destroyed the crop. At Bell Station, near Glenndale,
Md., about three miles nearer Washington than Bowie, at Marietta, a
colonial plantation, there is a clump of pecan trees dating back to the
days of Thomas Jefferson. These are apparently hardy except in the
matter of yields. Dr. M. B. Waite, of the Bureau of Plant Industry, who
has long known these trees, states that they bore heavily in one year,
about 1912, but that since that time, they have borne very little.
On the other hand, Mr. Albert Stabler of Washington, has 6 or 8 trees of
varieties similar to those in the plantings of Messrs. Littlepage and
McReynolds and of about the same age, on a farm not far from that of the
latter, one variety of which, Major, in 1923 bore some very fair quality
nuts. Although small, they were typical for that variety both in respect
to size and high quality. The crop of 1924 was practically a failure,
the set being very light. In the test orchard of Mr. J. F. Jones of
Lancaster, Pa., young trees of several of the better known varieties are
making a good start in the way of beginning to yield and in showing no
appreciable signs of winter injury. Most of these trees bore light crops
last year, (1923) but are practically barren this year.