It is too bad that while practically all_Northern Nut Growers Association, Report Of The Proceedings At The Tenth Annual Meeting. Battle Creek, Michigan, December 9 and 10, 1919

with exactness to a single point and could be even more precisely

determined, that the item quality and flavor of kernel to which 20

points are justly awarded has to be determined in so crude a manner as

it is at present. It is true that formerly all characteristics were

determined in equally crude manner and we should be glad that all others

can be determined with precision but still having one quality not

precisely determined, to a certain extent prevents exact determination

of the others having the value it otherwise would. We can make only

about five graduations in quality which would be differences of five

points except at the top of the scale where it is 2 and an error in one

gradation would make a difference of 5 points generally. When it is seen

how close some of the nuts run, particularly the hickories, where the

differences in total points awarded are generally only 1 point, with

several of the same score, this crudeness of determination of one of the

most important characteristics is the more regrettable.

The results of the 1919 contest on nuts of the various species are as

noted below:

HICKORIES--128 ENTRIES

The results of the tests on the prize winning hickories are shown in the

table on page 151.

What is said of the difficulty of identification as to species is

particularly applicable to the hickory where it is known that many of

the fine nuts that we have are hybrids. While no nut is noted as a

hybrid unless it has been so proven by evidence which it is believed is

beyond question, there is considerable question as to whether a number

of the nuts noted as shagbarks are really pure shagbarks. It will take

more observation and study than it has as yet been possible to give them

to determine this point. It is to be noted, however, that the more study

we put on the hickories notable for the excellence of the nuts they

bear, the more we find that give suggestion of hybrid parentage.

Beside the hickories noted above which received a sufficient number of

points to entitle them to one of the eight prizes awarded the

measurements are given of the Hatch and Halesite bitternuts because

they have the thinnest shell and highest proportion of kernel of any

hickories yet discovered and of the Stanley hickory because it is the

best shellbark of which we yet know.

HICKORIES

KEY:

A: Species

B: Prize awarded

C: Average weight of nut

D: Average weight of kernel

E: Average weight of kernel that dropped out after cracking

F: Average weight of kernel that could be easily picked out with fingers

after cracking

G: Average cracking pressure

H: Proportion of kernel

I: Cracking quality absolute

J: Cracking quality commercial

K: Size (10)

K: Form (5)

M: Color of shell (5)

N: Husking quality (5)

O: Thinness of shell (10)

P: Cracking quality commercial (20)

Q: Cracking quality absolute (5)

R: Color of kernel (5)

S: Proportion of kernel (15)

T: Quality of kernel (20)

U: Total points awarded (100)

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESIGNATION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |

====================================================================

|Blacksburg, Va. | G | 1 | 5.0g|2.5g|0.0g|2.5g| 46kg| 49.6| 0.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Sabillasville. Md. | G | 1 | 7.8g|3.8g|2.3g|3.4g| 99kg| 48.5| 61.2|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Ludlow, Mass. | G | 2 | 6.5g|2.6g|0.0g|2.6g| 83kg| 40.8| 0.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |GxB| 2 | 6.9g|4.0g| .7g|3.6g| 46kg| 57.5| 17.6|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. |GxB| 2 | 7.6g|3.6g|1.8g|3.6g| 64kg| 48.1| 49.5|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Hazel Dell, Ill. | G | 3 | 4.7g|2.2g|1.2g|2.2g| 49kg| 46.1| 55.6|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Fayetteville, O. | G | 4 | 5.0g|2.6g|2.6g|2.6g| 79kg| 51.4|100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Mt. Oreb, O. | G | 4 | 3.7g|1.9g| .6g|1.9g| 43kg| 50.0| 33.3|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|South Bend, Ind. | G | 4 | 5.1g|2.4g|2.3g|2.4g| 42kg| 47.5| 97.2|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Millerstown, Pa. |GxB| 5 | 6.7g|3.4g|0.0g|3.4g| 29kg| 50.3| 0.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Walnut Hill. Ill. | G | 5 | 6.5g|2.7g|2.2g|2.5g| 77kg| 40.5| 81.6|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Mt. Oreb, O. | G | 6 | 4.6g|1.9g|1.2g|1.7g| 33kg| 41.9| 61.8|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Mt. Oreb, O. | G | 6 | 4.8g|1.6g| .8g|1.6g| 68kg| 33.4| 46.9|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Shelton, Conn. | G | 6 | 5.0g|1.9g|1.8g|1.9g|106kg| 38.6| 94.7|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Shelton, Conn. | G | 6 | 4.7g|1.9g| .9g|1.9g| 68kg| 40.0| 50.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. |GxL| C | 8.8g|3.1g|1.5g|3.1g|102kg| 35.3| 48.1|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Minford. O. | G | 6 | 4.2g|1.6g|1.3g|1.6g|140kg| 37.6| 83.6|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Hazel Dell, Ill. | G | 6 | 5.6g|2.3g|1.4g|2.3g| 52kg| 41.0| 61.4|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Wilton. Conn. | G | 7 | 5.5g|2.9g|1.4g|2.9g| 63kg| 52.8| 48.3|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Holston, Va. | G | 7 | 9.7g|3.9g| .2g|3.9g|142kg| 40.6| 5.1|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Creal Spring, Ill. | G | 7 | 5.2g|2.0g|1.5g|2.0g|113kg| 38.5| 75.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Port Byron, N. Y. | G | 7 | 4.9g|1.9g| .2g|1.9g| 95kg| 39.0| 11.4|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Port Byron, N. Y. | G | 7 | 6.0g|2.4g|1.8g|2.0g|121kg| 39.1| 76.3|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Mt. Oreb, O. | G | 8 | 3.6g|1.5g| .5g|1.5g| 45kg| 43.2| 34.4|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Minford, O. | G | 8 | 3.1g|1.3g| .6g|1.3g| 82kg| 41.3| 4.7|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Holly, Mich. | G | 8 | 4.4g|1.7g|1.1g|1.6g|111kg| 39.4| 64.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Windsor, Conn. | G | 8 | 6.8g|2.4g|1.2g|2.2g| 78kg| 35.9| 50.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Central City, Ia. | B | | 4.7g|3.1g| .2g|3.1g| 19kg| 65.0| 6.5|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Baldwin, N. Y. | B | | 2.3g|1.6g| .0g|1.3g| 13kg| 69.0| 0.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|Carthage, Ind. | L | |19.2g|5.9g|1.2g|2.9g|138kg| 30.7| 20.5|

--------------------------------------------------------------------

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESIGNATION | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U |

=======================================================================

|Blacksburg, Va. |100.0| 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 20| 0 | 4 | 9 | 20| 75|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Sabillasville. Md. | 90.5| 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 17| 3 | 4 | 9 | 20| 75|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Ludlow, Mass. |100.0| 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 20| 0 | 4 | 7 | 20| 74|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | 90.4| 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 17| 0 | 3 | 11| 18| 74|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. |100.0| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 20| 2 | 3 | 9 | 15| 74|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Hazel Dell, Ill. |100.0| 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 20| 2 | 3 | 8 | 18| 73|

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Fayetteville, O. |100.0| 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 20| 5 | 2 | 10| 15| 72|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Mt. Oreb, O. |100.0| 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 20| 1 | 2 | 9 | 20| 72|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|South Bend, Ind. |100.0| 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 20| 4 | 3 | 9 | 15| 72|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Millerstown, Pa. |100.0| 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 2 | 9 | 15| 71|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Walnut Hill. Ill. | 92.8| 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 18| 4 | 2 | 7 | 18| 71|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Mt. Oreb, O. | 87.8| 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 16| 3 | 2 | 7 | 20| 70|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Mt. Oreb, O. |100.0| 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 20| 2 | 3 | 5 | 20| 70|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Shelton, Conn. |100.0| 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 20| 4 | 3 | 6 | 20| 70|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Shelton, Conn. |100.0| 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 20| 2 | 2 | 7 | 20| 70|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. |100.0| 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 20| 2 | 3 | 5 | 18| 70|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Minford. O. |100.0| 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 20| 4 | 3 | 6 | 18| 70|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Hazel Dell, Ill. |100.0| 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 20| 3 | 2 | 7 | 15| 70|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Wilton. Conn. |100.0| 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 20| 2 | 1 | 10| 15| 69|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Holston, Va. |100.0| 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 20| 0 | 2 | 7 | 20| 69|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Creal Spring, Ill. |100.0| 4 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 20| 3 | 3 | 6 | 20| 69|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Port Byron, N. Y. |100.0| 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 20| 0 | 3 | 6 | 20| 69|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Port Byron, N. Y. | 82.6| 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 15| 3 | 4 | 6 | 20| 69|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Mt. Oreb, O. |100.0| 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 20| 1 | 1 | 7 | 20| 68|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Minford, O. |100.0| 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 20| 0 | 4 | 7 | 18| 68|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Holly, Mich. | 93.0| 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 18| 3 | 3 | 6 | 18| 68|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Windsor, Conn. | 88.6| 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 17| 2 | 3 | 5 | 20| 68|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Central City, Ia. |100.0| 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 20| 0 | 2 | 13| 0| 58|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Baldwin, N. Y. | 80.1| 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 10| 15| 0 | 2 | 15| 0| 54|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Carthage, Ind. | 49.5| 8 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 7| 1 | 3 | 4 | 15| 54|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The abbreviations used under the species column are G for shagbark

(Carya ovata), L for shellbark (Carya laciniosa), and B for bitternut

(Carya cordiformis). Where two letters appear with an x between it

means that the nut in question is a hybrid between the two species.

Following out the plan adopted last year (when no prizes were offered

for specific species of hickories) when a nut other than a shagbark sent

judged by the hickory standard received sufficient points to put it

among the prize winners, a special class was made for that. Some of the

nuts in the above list are disqualified for receiving prizes as they are

being "propagated." This term has been somewhat difficult of definition

and in default of action of the Association or of some committee

appointed for the purpose I have held it to mean those nuts which are

listed in the catalog of any nurseryman. That is to say, a nut is

eligible for prizes more than one year, and the mere growing a few

grafted or budded trees of a variety and distributing them privately

does not constitute "propagation" in the sense that the word is used in

the nut contests. As soon, however, as any nurseryman considers a

variety of sufficient merit so that he lists it is his catalog or in any

printed supplement to a catalog and states that he can furnish grafted

or budded trees of this variety, from that time on it is debarred from

receiving the prizes offered annually.

Other hickories were received from:

D. S. Bassett, Fisherville, Mass.

E. C. Beam, Mt. Orab, Ohio. (Nuts No. 5, No. 6).

W. F. Cook, Moscow, Ky.

W. E. Cornell, 302 Stewart Ave., Ithaca, N. Y.

F. N. Decker, Syracuse, N. Y. (Nuts No. 1, No. 2).

Joan Deming, Danbury, Conn., Route 2.

F. Earland Gilson, Groton, Mass.

Wm. H. Kuhne, Woodbury, Conn.

Reuben J. Kurtz, Holly, Mich., R. No. 3, Box 32.

Harvey Losee, Upper Red Hook, N. Y.

Mrs. F. A. Patch, West Townsend, Mass, Box 77.

E. Pomeroy, Windsor, Conn. (Nut No. 1).

Ruth A. Reeves, Newark, N. Y.

Snyder Bros., Center Point, Ia. (Nut No. 1, seedling).

Mort Stuarts, Hazel Dell, Ill. (Nuts No. 4, No. 5, No. 6).

Walter K. Wilson, Watertown, Conn., Lock Box 2.

Kate Yawger, Port Bryon, N. Y. (Nut No. 1).

Grant Yeagley, Jamestown, Penn., R. R. No. I.

BLACK WALNUTS--51 ENTRIES

The prize winning black walnuts exhibited and the prizes awarded are

noted in the table of page 154. There is but one species of walnuts of

the black walnut class native in the north eastern United States, the

eastern black walnut, _Juglans nigra_. In this contest specimens of the

Texas black walnut, _Juglans rupestris_, and of the California black

walnut, _Juglans hindsii_ were entered. Tests on these two black walnuts

are noted for the purpose of record although no characteristics of value

were noted. The California black walnut has a smoother shell than the

eastern black walnut. The Texas black walnut has beautiful willowy

foliage and grows very late in the fall and holds its leaves much longer

than the other walnuts and it is of dwarf habit of growth. Tests on the

Werner black walnut are noted because it is the largest black walnut we

have. The black walnuts sent in this year were much poorer on the whole

than those exhibited in some years. Some well known trees bore scarcely

a nut. Some well known propagated black walnuts were tested but only two

of them tested out high enough to get into the prize winning class, the

Thomas and Ten Eyck. From what we know of the variation of nuts

particularly of black walnuts, it is evident that we must test black

walnuts more than one year to get a good idea of their value.

The nut sent in by John S. Bomberges is particularly noticeable on

account of the unusually fine flavor of the kernel and would seem to be

a standard of excellence for black walnut kernels.

Other black walnuts received from:

William A. Agner, Rockport, Ind., R. F. D. No. 1.

George A. Ede, Cobden, Ill.

M. H. Hoover, Lockport, N. Y.

C. S. Ketchum, Middlefield, Ohio. (Nuts No. 1, 3, 5, 11, 12).

A. H. Lang, 1628 Collingwood Ave., Toledo, Ohio, (Nut No. 1).

James E. Ripley, Tippecanoe, O., R. F. D. No. 2. (Nut No. 2).

S. A. Toy, Freeman, W. Va. (Nut No. 1).

G. G. Truman, Perrysville, Ohio. Box 167.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. Peanut

black walnut.

Ira C. Wilson, New Truxton, Mo.

BLACK WALNUTS

KEY:

A: Species

B: Prize awarded

C: Average weight of nut

D: Average weight of kernel

E: Average weight of kernel that dropped out after cracking

F: Average weight of kernel that could be easily picked out with

fingers after cracking

G: Average cracking pressure

H: Proportion of kernel

I: Cracking quality absolute

J: Cracking quality commercial

K: Size (10)

K: Form (5)

M: Color of shell (5)

N: Husking quality (5)

O: Thinness of shell (10)

P: Cracking quality commercial (20)

Q: Cracking quality absolute (5)

R: Color of kernel (5)

S: Proportion of kernel (15)

T: Quality of kernel (20)

U: Total points awarded (100)

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |

========================================================================

|Middlefield, O. | B | 1 |14.1g|3.6g|2.9g|3.6g|185kg| 25.5| 80.5|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lebanon, Pa. | B | 2 |16.4g|3.9g|2.5g|3.4g|208kg| 23.8| 64.1|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Westbury, N. Y. | B | 3 |13.6g|3.1g|1.6g|3.1g|222kg| 22.8| 51.6|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lagrangeville, N.Y. | B | 4 |15.8g|3.3g|2.1g|3.3g|177kg| 20.9| 53.7|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Tippecanoe, O. | B | 4 |26.7g|6.3g|3.7g|6.3g|247kg| 23.6| 58.8|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. | B | |19.7g|4.7g|3.6g|3.9g|247kg| 23.9| 76.6|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Toledo, O. | B | 5 |20.5g|4.6g|2.9g|4.1g|313kg| 22.4| 63.1|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Port Byron, N. Y. | B | 5 |20.3g|4.5g|2.4g|3.8g|291kg| 22.2| 53.4|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|So. Plainfield, N. J. | B | |16.7g|3.5g|1.8g|3.1g|154kg| 21.0| 51.5|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Middlefield, O. | B | 6 |20.1g|4.7g|2.4g|3.5g|297kg| 23.4| 51.2|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Freeman, W. Va. | B | 7 |21.9g|5.5g|1.6g|3.9g|225kg| 20.5| 29.1|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jamaica Pl'n., Mass. | R | | 6.1g|0.9g|0.7g|0.8g|357kg| 14.8| 67.8|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Tolhouse, Calif. | C | |22.3g|5.0g|1.9g|3.1g|407kg| 22.4| 38.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Marion, Ia. R5 | B | |30.4g|6.5g|1.4g|2.5g|353kg| 21.4| 21.5|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U |

===========================================================================

|Middlefield, O. |100.0| 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 20| 4 | 4 | 7 | 18| 71|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lebanon, Pa. | 87.1| 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 16| 3 | 4 | 5 | 23| 69|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Westbury, N. Y. |100.0| 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 20| 2 | 4 | 5 | 20| 68|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lagrangeville, N.Y. |100.0| 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 20| 3 | 4 | 3 | 18| 67|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Tippecanoe, O. |100.0| 8 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 20| 2 | 3 | 5 | 15| 67|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. | 83.0| 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 15| 3 | 3 | 5 | 20| 67|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Toledo, O. | 89.2| 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 17| 3 | 2 | 4 | 20| 64|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Port Byron, N. Y. | 84.5| 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 16| 2 | 4 | 4 | 20| 64|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|So. Plainfield, N. J. | 88.6| 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 17| 2 | 2 | 4 | 15| 62|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Middlefield, O. | 74.5| 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 13| 2 | 3 | 5 | 18| 61|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Freeman, W. Va. | 71.0| 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 12| 1 | 2 | 3 | 20| 60|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jamaica Pl'n., Mass. | 89.0| 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 17| 3 | 1 | 0 | 15| 51|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Tolhouse, Calif. | 62.0| 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 10| 1 | 2 | 4 | 20| 57|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Marion, Ia. R5 | 38.4|10 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4| 1 | 4 | 4 | 20| 51|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The abbreviations used under the species column are: B for Black walnut

(Juglans nigra), C for California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), R for

(Juglans rupestris).

[TN: last column in row 11 corrected to 51 from 49]

BUTTERJAPS--BUTTERNUTS, JAPAN WALNUTS, AND HYBRIDS--33 ENTRIES

The butternut and Japan walnuts and hybrids between them are grouped

together as they were last year although but one hybrid appeared this

year. The need of a name to include these is apparent and the name

butterjaps to include butternuts, Japan walnuts, and hybrids between

them is used this year following out last year's suggestion. It was a

very poor year for these nuts, many well known trees bearing no crop at

all. The one hybrid exhibited which was sent in as a curiosity not for

the purpose of being entered in the contest but it is interesting to

note that it took a prize, although not a high one.

The prize winning nuts and prizes awarded are noted in the table on page

156.

Other butternuts received from:

C. Delp, Morrison, Ohio. (Nut No. 4).

Snyder Bros., Center Point, Ia. (Fairbanks butternut).

G. G. Truman, Perrysville, Ohio. (Nuts No. 2, 3).

Other Japan walnuts received from:

L. H. & P. J. Jr. Berckmans, 1213 Lamar Bldg., Augusta, Ga.

BUTTERNUTS

KEY:

A: Species

B: Prize awarded

C: Average weight of nut

D: Average weight of kernel

E: Average weight of kernel that dropped out after cracking

F: Average weight of kernel that could be easily picked out with

fingers after cracking

G: Average cracking pressure

H: Proportion of kernel

I: Cracking quality absolute

J: Cracking quality commercial

K: Size (10)

K: Form (5)

M: Color of shell (5)

N: Husking quality (5)

O: Thinness of shell (10)

P: Cracking quality commercial (20)

Q: Cracking quality absolute (5)

R: Color of kernel (5)

S: Proportion of kernel (15)

T: Quality of kernel (20)

U: Total points awarded (100)

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |

========================================================================

|Perrysville, O. | B | 1 | 9.6g|1.6g|1.1g|1.6g|280kg| 16.8| 67.8|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Morrison, O. | B | 2 |17.2g|2.7g|2.7g|2.7g|320kg| 15.7|100.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. | B | 2 |19.5g|3.4g|2.6g|3.4g|348kg| 17.4| 76.5|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Morrison, O. | B | 3 |13.3g|2.4g|2.4g|2.4g|326kg| 18.0|100.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Morrison, O. | B | 4 |12.6g|2.1g|2.1g|2.1g|308kg| 16.7|100.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Landon, Miss. |SxB| 5 |12.4g|2.4g|0.7g|1.8g|244kg| 19.4| 28.1|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Woodbury, Conn. | B | 6 | 8.7g|1.7g|1.0g|1.6g|232kg| 19.0| 59.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Morrison, O. | B | 7 |10.7g|2.1g| .0g|1.5g|250kg| 19.6| 0.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. | B | 7 |17.5g|3.1g|1.3g|1.8g|300kg| 17.7| 42.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Balsam, N. C. | B | 8 |13.9g|2.2g|0.6g|1.6g|249kg| 16.0| 27.2|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Perrysville, O. | B | |22.6g|3.3g|0.2g|1.9g|320kg| 14.6| 6.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Perrysville, O. | B | |14.4g|2.3g|0.5g|1.1g|293kg| 15.7| 22.1|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U |

===========================================================================

|Perrysville, O. |100.0| 4| 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 20| 3 | 4 | 3 | 20| 67|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Morrison, O. |100.0| 8| 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 20| 5 | 3 | 3 | 18| 63|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. |100.0| 10| 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 20| 3 | 2 | 3 | 20| 63|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Morrison, O. |100.0| 6| 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 20| 5 | 3 | 4 | 15| 61|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Morrison, O. |100.0| 5| 0 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 20| 5 | 2 | 3 | 18| 60|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Landon, Miss. | 72.7| 6| 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 9| 1 | 4 | 5 | 20| 57|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Woodbury, Conn. | 94.3| 3| 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 18| 2 | 2 | 5 | 15| 55|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Morrison, O. | 71.5| 4| 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 11| 0 | 3 | 5 | 18| 52|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. | 58.0| 9| 0 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 8| 2 | 2 | 4 | 20| 52|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Balsam, N. C. | 73.9| 7| 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 9| 1 | 3 | 3 | 18| 50|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Perrysville, O. | 57.5| 12| 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7| 0 | 3 | 2 | 18| 47|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Perrysville, O. | 47.7| 7| 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0| 1 | 2 | 3 | 15| 37|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The abbreviations used under the species column are: B for butternut

(Juglans cinerea), SxB for Siebold walnut, x butternut hybrid (Juglans

Sieboldiana x cinerea).

JAPAN WALNUTS

KEY:

A: Species

B: Prize awarded

C: Average weight of nut

D: Average weight of kernel

E: Average weight of kernel that dropped out after cracking

F: Average weight of kernel that could be easily picked out with

fingers after cracking

G: Average cracking pressure

H: Proportion of kernel

I: Cracking quality absolute

J: Cracking quality commercial

K: Size (10)

K: Form (5)

M: Color of shell (5)

N: Husking quality (5)

O: Thinness of shell (10)

P: Cracking quality commercial (20)

Q: Cracking quality absolute (5)

R: Color of kernel (5)

S: Proportion of kernel (15)

T: Quality of kernel (20)

U: Total points awarded (100)

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |

========================================================================

|Jackson, S. C. | H | 1 | 7.6g|2.2g|1.8g|2.2g| 79kg| 28.3| 83.8|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jackson, S. C. | H | 2 | 4.8g|1.4g|0.8g|1.4g| 79kg| 29.7| 52.7|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Amherst, O. | H | 3 | 5.1g|1.5g|1.5g|1.5g|178kg| 29.6|100.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jackson, S. C. | H | 4 | 7.2g|1.8g|1.5g|1.8g|172kg| 25.2| 80.2|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Amherst, O. | S | 4 | 8.5g|2.2g|1.8g|2.2g|260kg| 25.9| 81.9|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Landon, Miss. | ? | 4 | 9.8g|2.7g|0.9g|1.9g| 75kg| 27.6| 31.1|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Amherst, O. | S | 5 | 5.7g|1.5g|1.1g|1.5g|215kg| 26.3| 73.3|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Bamberg, S. C. | H | 6 | 9.0g|2.8g|0.5g|2.4g|234kg| 31.1| 17.8|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Newark, N. Y. | S | 7 | 6.8g|1.7g|0.9g|1.1g|138kg| 26.1| 55.8|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Bamberg, S. C. | S | 8 | 8.7g|1.9g|0.0g|1.7g|142kg| 22.5| 0.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jackson, S. C. |HxP| |12.2g|2.8g|1.3g|2.2g|419kg| 22.6| 46.4|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jackson, S. C. |PxS| |13.0g|2.2g|0.0g|0.5g|370kg| 16.9| 0.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U |

===========================================================================

|Jackson, S. C. |100.0| 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 9| 20| 4 | 3 | 11| 18| 78|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jackson, S. C. | 97.2| 0 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 9| 19| 4 | 3 | 12| 18| 76|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Amherst, O. |100.0| 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6| 20| 5 | 4 | 12| 15| 74|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jackson, S. C. |100.0| 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 8| 20| 4 | 3 | 9| 15| 72|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Amherst, O. |100.0| 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3| 20| 4 | 4 | 10| 18| 72|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Landon, Miss. | 72.6| 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 10| 12| 1 | 3 | 11| 20| 72|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Amherst, O. |100.0| 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5| 20| 3 | 4 | 10| 15| 69|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Bamberg, S. C. | 85.6| 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4| 15| 0 | 3 | 13| 18| 68|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Newark, N. Y. | 66.3| 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 7| 10| 2 | 3 | 10| 18| 64|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Bamberg, S. C. | 88.8| 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7| 16| 0 | 1 | 7| 18| 63|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jackson, S. C. | 78.2| 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0| 13| 2 | 2 | 8| 20| 60|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Jackson, S. C. | 22.7| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0| 0| 0 | 1 | 3| 15| 27|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The abbreviations under the species column are: H for heartnut (Juglans

cordifornis), S for Siebold walnut (Juglans Sieboldiana), HxP for

heartnut x Persian walnut hybrid (Juglans cordifornis x regia), PxS for

Persian walnut x Siebold walnut hybrid (Juglans regia x Sieboldiana). In

the case of hybrids the species first named is the pistillate parent.

PECANS--13 VARIETIES

Some very good northern pecans were sent in to the 1918 contest and two

of them are deemed worthy of experimental propagation. One of these Dunn

No. 1, had a particularly delicious flavor and the other the Koontz, was

also a desirable nut. They are not large but are almost exactly the size

of the Moore pecan, a southern variety now attracting a good deal of

attention.

Specimens of three nuts of larger size were received, the Norton,

McCallister and Kline, but not in sufficient quantity to test. The

weights are given for reference. Tests of nine standard southern pecans

are also shown. It will be noticed that the best pecans sent to the 1919

contest compare very favorably with these fine southern pecans, only the

Schley being shown superior. The northern pecans are generally smaller

than the southern, have lighter colored shell and lighter colored

kernel, flavor every bit as good, and shell just as thin. The prize

winning nuts and the prizes awarded are shown in the table on page 158.

The results of tests of southern pecans is inserted with some

hesitation. These pecans are judged by the same score cards as are the

northern pecans which is the one used for hickories. Inasmuch as the

pecans, both northern and southern, are judged by the same standards, it

is hoped that the figures may be of some value. The writer makes no

claim to being an expert on the southern pecan and does not wish these

figures taken as his opinion on the relative merits of southern pecans,

which have been grown in orchard form long enough so that regularity of

bearing, size of crops, resistance to disease, etc., have been

determined to a considerable extent. These are of such importance to the

practical pecan grower as to overbalance to quite an extent the merits

of the nut itself which are the only qualities that can be considered in

a nut contest.

Other pecans received from:

G. M. Brown, Van Buren, Ark.

J. H. Burkett, Clyde, Texas. (Young grafted tree).

Mrs. W. W. Evans, Blackwell, Okla.

Mr. J. B. Shultz, Fulton, Ark.

Snyder Bros., Center Point, Ia. (Pumfrey 1st, 2nd).

PECANS

KEY:

A: Species

B: Prize awarded

C: Average weight of nut

D: Average weight of kernel

E: Average weight of kernel that dropped out after cracking

F: Average weight of kernel that could be easily picked out with fingers

after cracking

G: Average cracking pressure

H: Proportion of kernel

I: Cracking quality absolute

J: Cracking quality commercial

K: Size (10)

K: Form (5)

M: Color of shell (5)

N: Husking quality (5)

O: Thinness of shell (10)

P: Cracking quality commercial (20)

Q: Cracking quality absolute (5)

R: Color of kernel (5)

S: Proportion of kernel (15)

T: Quality of kernel (20)

U: Total points awarded (100)

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |

========================================================================

|Wynne, Ark. | P | 1 | 5.8g|3.2g|0.0g|3.2g| 34kg| 55.1| 0.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Richards, Mo. | P | 2 | 5.6g|3.1g|0.0g|3.1g| 35Kg| 55.4| 0.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Crossville, Ill. | P | 3 | 5.0g|2.4g|1.1g|1.7g| 53kg| 48.0| 45.8|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Crossville, Ill. | P | 4 | 4.4g|2.6g|1.3g|2.6g| 61kg| 59.1| 50.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Wynne, Ark. | P | 5 | 6.3g|3.1g|0.0g|3.1g| 38kg| 49.3| 0.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rich Hill, Mo. | P | 5 | 3.1g|1.5g|1.4g|1.4g| 21kg| 45.3| 93.2|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. | P | 5 | 3.6g|2.0g|0.0g|2.0g| 34kg| 55.5| 0.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Wynne, Ark. | P | 6 | 5.4g|2.7g|0.0g|2.7g| 31kg| 50.0| 0.0|

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Clemson College, S. C. | P | 7 | 5.1g|2.6g|0.4g|2.6g| 64kg| 51.0| 15.4|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Blackwell, Okla. | P | 8 | 5.0g|2.0g|0.0g|2.0g| 35kg| 40.0| 0.0|

| | | | | | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 8.1g| | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |PxL| |17.7g| | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |PxL| |22.0g| | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U |

===========================================================================

|Wynne, Ark. |100.0| 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 4 | 11| 20| 79|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Richards, Mo. |100.0| 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 5 | 11| 17| 78|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Crossville, Ill. | 70.8| 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 12| 2 | 5 | 9| 17| 77|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Crossville, Ill. |100.0| 3 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 20| 2 | 4 | 12| 17| 75|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Wynne, Ark. |100.0| 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 4 | 9| 18| 74|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rich Hill, Mo. | 93.2| 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 18| 4 | 5 | 8| 17| 74|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Center Point, Ia. |100.0| 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 5 | 11| 15| 74|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Wynne, Ark. |100.0| 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 4 | 9| 15| 72|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Clemson College, S. C. |100.0| 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 20| 0 | 4 | 10| 15| 71|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Blackwell, Okla. |100.0| 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 5 | 7| 15| 70|

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Southern Varieties

KEY:

A: Species

B: Prize awarded

C: Average weight of nut

D: Average weight of kernel

E: Average weight of kernel that dropped out after cracking

F: Average weight of kernel that could be easily picked out with fingers

after cracking

G: Average cracking pressure

H: Proportion of kernel

I: Cracking quality absolute

J: Cracking quality commercial

K: Size (10)

K: Form (5)

M: Color of shell (5)

N: Husking quality (5)

O: Thinness of shell (10)

P: Cracking quality commercial (20)

Q: Cracking quality absolute (5)

R: Color of kernel (5)

S: Proportion of kernel (15)

T: Quality of kernel (20)

U: Total points awarded (100)

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |

======================================================================

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 9.5g|5.9g|0.0g|5.9g| 29kg| 62.1| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 8.6g|4.8g|0.0g|4.8g| 28kg| 55.8| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 5.8g|2.9g|0.0g|2.9g| 25kg| 50.0| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 8.3g|5.4g|0.0g|5.4g| 39kg| 54.3| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | |10.1g|4.9g|0.0g|4.9g| 98kg| 48.5| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 7.8g|3.5g|0.0g|3.5g| 20kg| 44.9| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 8.7g|3.9g|0.0g|3.9g| 59kg| 44.8| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 8.8g|4.1g|0.0g|4.1g| 56kg| 46.6| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

|---- | P | | 8.1g|3.9g|0.0g|8.9g| 96kg| 48.2| 0.0 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U |

=========================================================================

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 6 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 3 | 13| 20| 82|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20| 0 | 4 | 11| 18| 78|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 20| 0 | 4 | 9| 18| 78|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 20| 0 | 3 | 11| 19| 77|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 6 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 20| 0 | 4 | 9| 20| 76|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 20| 0 | 3 | 8| 18| 76|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 20| 0 | 3 | 8| 19| 74|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 20| 0 | 3 | 8| 18| 72|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|---- |100.0| 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 20| 0 | 3 | 9| 18| 72|

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The abbreviations used under the species column are: P for pecan (Carya

pecan), PxL for pecan x shellbark hybrid (Carya pecan x laciniosa).

HAZELS--6 ENTRIES

This is the first time I have had opportunity of testing Rush hazel

which was found by Mr. Rush 35 years ago, but which, so far as I know,

has never been propagated in the sense in which the word is used in the

contests where it means listed in the catalog of some nurseryman who is

prepared to furnish grafted or budded or layered plants. The value of

this hazel is now being recognized and doubtless it will not be long

that this will be the case for it is by far the best American hazel now

known. The prize winning nuts and the prizes awarded are shown in the

table on page 160.

Following the list of American hazels are 9 varieties of Mr. Conrad

Vollertsen's, Rochester, N. Y., most of them of German origin. These are

given with their German names. These names are given here for

convenience for readers and only for that, for they violate one of the

rules followed in naming nuts. They will be referred to the nomenclature

committee at its next session. Following Mr. Vollertsen's hazels are

five standard market hazels grown on the Pacific coast which are noted

as matters of record.

It will be noted that the White Aveline hazel has been placed higher

than the Barcelona when judged by the score card used. Inasmuch as

orchards of White Aveline hazels in the Pacific northwest are being

replaced by Barcelona and Duchilly because White Aveline nuts are too

small to be saleable commercially, it was questioned as to whether the

score card was not at fault and whether much more emphasis should not be

put on size and less on quality than is the case with the score card

used. Inasmuch as the same score card has been used for all nuts except

where it seemed entirely unadapted (because when this was done the

figures have a value they otherwise would not in expressing the relative

value of each species) it seems very desirable this common score card be

retained for as many nuts as possible. There are some notable instances

where fruits commercially important do not rank highest in quality, e. g.,

the Elberta peach, Ben Davis apple, and Kiefer pear, therefore it is

thought better not to emphasize size too strongly in the case of hazels.

It is only fair to state, however, that much less work has been put on

judging hazels than on some other nuts and perhaps our ideas will have

to be revised later.

HAZELS

KEY:

A: Species

B: Prize awarded

C: Average weight of nut

D: Average weight of kernel

E: Average weight of kernel that dropped out after cracking

F: Average weight of kernel that could be easily picked out with fingers

after cracking

G: Average cracking pressure

H: Proportion of kernel

I: Cracking quality absolute

J: Cracking quality commercial

K: Size (10)

K: Form (5)

M: Color of shell (5)

N: Husking quality (5)

O: Thinness of shell (10)

P: Cracking quality commercial (20)

Q: Cracking quality absolute (5)

R: Color of kernel (5)

S: Proportion of kernel (15)

T: Quality of kernel (20)

U: Total points awarded (100)

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |

==========================================================================

|Lancaster, Pa. | Am | 1 | 2.1g|1.0g|1.0g|1.0g| 39kg| 45.7| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Bowie, Md | Am | 2 | 2.7g| .8g| .8g| .8g| 59kg| 28.3| 100.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rockport, Ind | Am | 2 | 1.9g| .7g| .7g| .7g| 36kg| 36.5| 100.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Freeport, O. | Am | 3 | 1.8g| .4g| .4g| .4g| 51kg| 22.7| 100.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Blacksburg, Va. | Am | 4 | 1.8g| .6g| .6g| .6g| 49kg| 31.8| 100.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Woodbury, Conn. | Am | 5 | 1.4g| .4g| .4g| .4g| 50kg| 27.9| 100.0|

|---- | | | | | | | | | |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | ? | | 2.2g| .9g| .9g| .9g| 46kg| 41.4| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | P | | 2.8g|1.1g|1.1g|1.1g| 57kg| 40.4| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | M | | 2.3g| .8g| .8g| .8g| 42kg| 35.6| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | M | | 2.5g| .9g| .9g| .9g| 49kg| 37.4| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | M | | 2.2g| .9g| .9g| .9g| 60kg| 40.5| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | P | | 1.7g| .8g| .8g| .8g| 58kg| 20.4| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | Av | | 1.8g| .7g| .7g| .7g| 63kg| 37.7| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | Av | | 1.9g| .8g| .8g| .8g| 70kg| 41.6| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. | P | | 2.1g| .7g| .7g| .7g| 49kg| 32.6| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. | | | 3.1g|1.6g|1.6g|1.6g| 33kg| 51.0| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. | | | 2.1g|1.1g|1.1g|1.1g| 26kg| 49.3| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. | | | 4.8g|2.1g|2.1g|2.1g| 79kg| 42.5| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. | | | 3.5g|1.2g|1.2g|1.2g| 51kg| 33.1| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. | | | 4.8g|1.8g|1.8g|1.8g| 42kg| 41.8| 100.0|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

|NAME

|ADDRESS

|DESCRIPTION | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U |

===========================================================================

|Lancaster, Pa. |100.0| 3| 4 | 3 | 5 | 7| 20| 2 | 4 | 12| 18| 78|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Bowie, Md |100.0| 4| 3 | 2 | 5 | 3| 20| 4 | 4 | 2| 15| 62|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rockport, Ind |100.0| 2| 3 | 1 | 5 | 8| 20| 3 | 1 | 7| 12| 62|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Freeport, O. |100.0| 2| 3 | 2 | 5 | 5| 20| 4 | 5 | 0| 15| 61|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Blacksburg, Va. |100.0| 2| 3 | 0 | 5 | 5| 20| 2 | 2 | 4| 15| 58|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Woodbury, Conn. |100.0| 1| 3 | 3 | 5 | 5| 20| 1 | 3 | 2| 10| 53|

|---- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 3| 5 | 5 | 5 | 6| 20| 3 | 5 | 9| 20| 81|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 4| 5 | 5 | 5 | 4| 20| 3 | 4 | 9| 20| 79|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 3| 5 | 5 | 5 | 7| 20| 4 | 4 | 6| 18| 77|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 3| 5 | 4 | 5 | 5| 20| 4 | 4 | 7| 18| 75|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 3| 5 | 5 | 5 | 3| 20| 3 | 3 | 9| 18| 74|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 1| 5 | 4 | 5 | 4| 20| 1 | 3 | 9| 20| 72|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 2| 5 | 5 | 5 | 3| 20| 4 | 5 | 7| 15| 71|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 2| 5 | 4 | 5 | 1| 20| 2 | 3 | 10| 15| 67|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Rochester, N. Y. |100.0| 3| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5| 20| 1 | 3 | 5| 15| 67|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. |100.0| 5| 5 | 4 | 5 | 8| 20| 4 | 3 | 15| 20| 89|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. |100.0| 3| 5 | 3 | 5 | 10| 20| 5 | 3 | 14| 20| 88|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. |100.0| 10| 5 | 4 | 5 | 0| 20| 4 | 3 | 10| 18| 79|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. |100.0| 6| 5 | 4 | 5 | 5| 20| 2 | 3 | 5| 18| 78|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Lancaster, Pa. |100.0| 8| 5 | 3 | 5 | 7| 20| 2 | 0 | 10| 20| 70|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The abbreviations used under the species column are: Am for American

hazel (Corylus Americana), Av for Corylus Avellana, a European, species,

M for Corylus maxima, a European species, P for Corylus pontica, a

European species. It seems quite probable that many of the European

varieties noted above are hybrids and not pure species. The species

identification of the European varieties are those of Mr. Conrad

Vollertsen.

PERSIAN WALNUTS--5 ENTRIES

The prize winning nuts and the prizes awarded are shown in the table on

page 154.

This is the first time that I have had opportunity to test some of the

propagated Persian walnuts. The results shown are given for what they

are worth. A sufficient number of Persian walnuts have not as yet been

examined to enable us to determine the constants so that they are as

valuable as they will be later, and as they are on the hickories, black

walnuts, and butternuts where hundreds of nuts have been examined.

Consequently, conclusions based on the figures in the table should be

conservatively drawn. The position of the Franquette at the bottom of

the list of the propagated nuts it is believed will be materially

changed with the redetermination of the constants that an examination of

a large number of nuts would require.

OBSERVATIONS

The number of entries in the 1919 contest was about 50% greater than in

1918. No hickories, no black walnuts or butternuts deemed worthy of

experimental propagation appeared as was the case in 1918, but on the

other hand, two pecans, the Dunn No. 1 and Koontz, it is believed, are

well worth while propagating experimentally even though the Dunn nut

comes from a somewhat more southern section than the other northern

pecans now being propagated. The need for additional heartnuts makes it

seem advisable to propagate experimentally the Stranger heartnut, even

though it comes from Jackson, S. C., a section so far south that the

southern pecan grows and bears well. The contest has helped to bring out

the value of the Rush hazel, which has been propagated experimentally

for a long time but which, so far as I know, has never been offered to

the public by nurserymen.

The following standards for hickories have been established: The largest

nut found so far is still the Mott shellbark, which Dr. Morris found a

number of years ago and which weighs 29.6g. The Vest hickory, which

among the seemingly pure shagbarks, had the record of the thinnest

shell up to the 1918 contest, has been surpassed by the Beam No. 1 of

the 1919 contest, which takes but 33kg to crack the shell. The figure is

surpassed by one bitternut hybrid the Beaver 29kg, and by the Hatch

bitternut 19kg, and the Halesite bitternut 13kg. The Vest of the 1914

crop is still the seemingly pure shagbark with the largest percentage of

kernel 57.7%. This is surpassed by the Hatch bitternut 65.0%, and the

Halesite bitternut 69.0%. No hickory has been found to surpass the Vest

in the excellence of flavor of the kernel. One hickory, the Barnes, 1919

contest, showed 100% cracking quality.

The following standards for black walnuts have been established. The

Armknecht No. 2 which held the record last year has been surpassed by

the Werner with a weight of 30.4g. The thinnest shelled one is still the

Alley of the 1918 contest, with a cracking pressure of 110kg, although

the Ten Eyck of the 1918 contest was only slightly higher, 120kg. The

record for the greatest proportion of kernel is still with the Ten Eyck

of the 1918 contest 36.4%. The Ten Eyck black walnut exhibited in 1919

had no such records of thinness of shell or proportion of kernel. The

Stabler is believed to be the best cracker but the Alley of the 1918

contest showed 100%. The Bomberges black walnut of the 1919 contest

showed unusually fine quality of kernel and is believed to hold the

record for quality of kernel so far.

The following standards for butterjaps (i. e., butternuts, Japan walnuts

and their hybrids) have been established. The Wasson butternut which

held the record for size heretofore 18.8g has been surpassed by two nuts

Pumfrey No. 2, 19.5g and Truman No. 4, 22.6g. The same high cracking

quality among the pure butternuts noted last year still continues. The

Ritchie heartnut of the 1918 contest still holds the record for

percentage of kernel, 32.7%. One pure butternut, the Kuhne of the 1919

contest, with 19% kernel has been found. The Aiken butternut 200kg

cracking pressure is the thinnest shelled pure butternut yet found. The

thinnest shelled Japan walnut yet found is the Wilson Seibold walnut of

the 1919 contest, 75kg cracking pressure.

The following standards for pecans have been established (including the

pecan x shellbark hybrids which generally resemble pecans in flavor and

appearance and would be classed with them). Largest, the Klein, 22.0g in

weight. Of the pure northern pecans the Norton, 8.1g in weight is the

largest. Of the pure southern pecans tested the Delmas 10.1g in weight

is the largest. Of the northern pecans the greatest percentage of kernel

yet found is the Clifford "Sweetmeat" of the 1919 contest, 57.6% of

kernel, followed closely by the Koontz, 56.1% and the Dunn, 55.5%. Of

the southern pecans the Schley, 62%, leads.

The thinnest shelled northern pecan yet tested is the Wears of the 1919

contest, 21kg cracking pressure; the thinnest southern pecan is the

Burkett, 27kg followed closely by the Schley 29kg. The finest flavored

among the northern pecans is Dunn No. 1, which has a kernel which is

exceptionally delicious. The finest flavored among the southern pecans

is the Schley.

The following standards for hazels have been established. The largest

American hazel yet found is the Littlepage 2.7g but the Rush, although a

smaller nut has a larger kernel 1.0g against .8g for the Littlepage. The

Rush also has a greater proportion of kernel, 45.7%, than any other

native hazel yet tested or any foreign one excepting the White Aveline

which has 49.3%. The thinnest shelled American hazel is the Rush 39kg

and the thinnest shelled foreign one, the White Aveline 26kg.

Those who have given the matter consideration are thoroughly convinced

of the great possibilities of systematic hybridization of nut trees.

Work of this kind will have to be carried on according to carefully

thought out plans, the details of which are not yet quite clear in all

particulars. The facts brought out by this contest have added to our

knowledge of what may be expected from our work. Take the hickory for

example; we have shellbark hickory nuts nearly three times the size of

the best southern pecans; we have bitternut hickory nuts with a

proportion of kernel greater than that of any pecan and with shell so

thin, that they can be cracked with less pressure than any pecans I have

ever seen; we have in the best shagbarks, flavor of kernel unsurpassed

in any nut. Theoretically, it should be possible to produce nuts in

which these qualities are combined to a large degree. Similar

possibilities exist with the butternut and the Japan walnut where it is

seemingly possible to produce nuts in which the qualities of both will

be combined and get smooth, thin-shelled butternuts or well flavored

Japan walnuts or desirable butterjaps, as I am inclined to call them.

An inspection of the table of hickories show that 4 out of the 28

receiving 68 points or over, are certainly hybrids. There are a number

of others where it seems very probable that they are hybrids. There are

a number of facts to suggest that some of our very thin shelled

hickories, which at first sight seem to be shagbarks, are hybrids of

which the shellbark or mockernut is one parent. Why the offspring of

such thick shelled nuts as the shellbark or the mockernut and the

shagbark should be thin shelled, is more than I can imagine. We have two

occurrences however which are significant. On the list of Japan walnuts

two hybrids of the Persian and Japan walnut, Cording and Siebosian are

noted. I have never tested a Persian walnut where the cracking pressure

runs much over 40kg and it is rather unusual for a Japan walnut to run

much over 200kg, yet Cording is 419kg, a strength of shell greater than

that of any other nut sent into the contest this year and which is only

found among black walnuts and shellbark hickories. Siebosian is not very

much less. If two comparatively thin shelled nuts will produce an

offspring with a shell so much thicker than either parent, it does not

seem more impossible for two thick shelled nuts to produce thin shelled

offsprings.

Northern Nut Growers Association, Report Of The Proceedings At The Tenth Annual Meeting. Battle Creek, Michigan, December 9 and 10, 1919 · 第 6 / 6 章

It is too bad that while practically all characteristics are determined