entered in 1926 contest by Frank H. Hare, Rushville, Schuyler County,
Ill., and is mentioned on page 51, 1931 report.
THE HEPIER:
See Dr. Zimmerman's report, page 22, 1932. Is growing on the Riehl and
Kellogg farms.
THE HERMAN (Rush):
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE HILTON:
See Mr. Reed's paper in this report.
THE HINE:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report.
THE HOBBS:
Was entered in 1926 contest by C. T. S. Hobbs, Fort Blackmore, Va., R.
1. See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE HOMELAND:
Parent tree owned by Clinton Thomas, Troutville, Va. See Mr. Stokes'
paper with tests, pages 108 and 109, 1932 report.
THE HOPWOOD:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE HOWELL:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report. Is growing in the Kellogg plantings
at Battle Creek, Mich.
THE HUBER:
See Mr. Reed's paper in this report.
THE IMPIT:
Given eleventh place in 1929 contest. Submitted by J. U. Gellatly, West
Bank, B. C.
THE JUMBO:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE KETTLER (Wisconsin No. 1):
Parent tree owned by Fred Kettler, Platteville, Wis. Has taken first
prize in state fair contests. Dr. Zimmerman and Mr. Frey have young
trees which have not yet borne nuts. See Mr. Kettler's letter in this
report.
THE KINDER:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE KNAPBE:
Submitted in 1926 contest by J. J. Knapbe, New Weston, Ohio. See Mr.
Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE KURTZ:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE LAMB (curly wood):
See Mr. Reed's paper in this report and Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926
report. Grafts from this tree are growing in several eastern orchards,
including the Kellogg plantings at Battle Creek, Mich. It is not as yet
definitely known if the propagated trees will reproduce the curly
texture of the wood of the parent tree.
THE LEE:
See Dr. Zimmerman's report, page 22, 1932, and Mr. Reed's paper, page
151, 1932 report; also tests recorded in Mr. Stokes' paper, page 109,
1932 report.
THE LEWIS:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report. Is growing in the Kellogg
plantings at Battle Creek, Mich.
THE LUCAS:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE LUTZ:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE MARION:
Awarded second prize in 1929 contest to Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville,
Iowa.
THE MARK:
Entered in 1929 contest by C. E. Mark, Washington Court House, Ohio. See
Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE MATTINGLY:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE McCOY:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE McMILLEN:
See Dr. Zimmerman's report, page 22, 1932. Is growing in the Riehl and
Kellogg plantings.
THE METCALF:
Awarded eighth prize in the 1929 contest to Mrs. E. W. Freel,
Pleasantville, Iowa. In fair seasons has borne heavy crops each year. Is
supposed to be the mother tree of the Freel and Marion.
THE MILLER:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report. Is growing in the Kellogg plantings.
THE MINTLE:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report. Is growing in the Riehl and Kellogg
plantings.
THE MONTEREY:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report and Dr. Zimmerman's report, page 22,
1932 report. Is growing in the Riehl plantings at Godfrey, Ill. W. R.
Fickes, Wooster, Ohio, reports it is not promising there.
THE MORRIS:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report.
THE MYERS:
Entered in 1926 contest by Elmer R. Myers, Bellefontaine, Ohio, R. 2.
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE NICHOLS:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE OGDEN:
Entered in 1926 contest by Mrs. Joe Ogden, Bedford, Ky. See Mr. Reed's
paper in 1931 report. Is growing at Riehl farm.
THE OHIO:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report. Has been generally planted in all nut tree orchards. E. C. Rice,
Absher, Ky., has few young trees doing fine and bore a few nuts in 1934;
largest in hull he had ever seen. J. H. Gage, Hamilton, Ontario, planted
one Ohio walnut in 1924, moved it in 1925. It started to bear in 1928
and has borne every year since except one. Tree now 25 feet in height,
trunk six inches in diameter, is growing in light, sandy soil near west
end of north shore of Lake Ontario. W. R. Fickes, Wooster, Ohio, reports
the Ohio as not promising there.
THE PARADOX (hybrid):
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report. See Dr. Zimmerman's report, page
20, 1932 report. Is supposed to be a rapid grower but has not proved
satisfactory in the east.
THE PATTERSON:
Submitted in 1926 contest by Mrs. William Patterson, Wever, Iowa.
THE PATUXENT:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report. Is growing in the Riehl and Kellogg
orchards.
THE PEANUT:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE PEARL:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE PINECREST:
See Dr. Zimmerman's report, page 22, 1932, and Mr. Reed's paper, page
151, 1932 report; also Mr. Stokes' paper and tests, page 110, 1932
report.
THE POWERS:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE ROHWER:
Took second prize in 1926 contest. See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
J. H. Gage, Hamilton, Ontario, has young grafts of this walnut growing
but not old enough to bear. W. R. Fickes, Wooster, Ohio, reports that
the Rohwer there is probably next to the Thomas in quality.
THE ROYAL (hybrid):
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report. Is reported to be a rapid grower
but has not proved satisfactory in the east.
THE RUDDICK:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE SCHIMMOLLER:
Entered in 1926 contest by Will T. Schimmoller, Fort Jennings, Ohio. See
Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE STABLER:
Parent tree in Howard County, Maryland. Has been generally planted in
nut orchards but has not proved satisfactory. It is a fine cracker. E.
C. Rice, Absher, Ky., reports it does fine there, better than Ohio. W.
R. Fickes, Wooster, Ohio, reports it is not promising there. J. H. Gage,
Hamilton, Ontario, has one tree four years of age, which bore a few nuts
in 1934. Stood last winter's weather (-30 degrees F.) with no damage
whatever.
THE STAMBAUGH:
Took first prize in 1926 contest. See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
It is being generally tested in nut orchards. J. H. Gage, Hamilton,
Ontario, has some young trees growing which are not old enough to bear.
W. R. Fickes, Wooster, Ohio, reports the Stambaugh there is heavily
veined, is oily, soon shrivels and is not very good quality.
THE STANLEY:
See Dr. Zimmerman's report, page 22, 1932, and Mr. Stokes' paper with
tests, pages 108 and 110, 1932 report.
THE STEVENS:
See Dr. Zimmerman's report, page 22, 1932, and Mr. Reed's paper, page
151, and Mr. Stokes' paper with tests, pages 109 and 110, in 1932
report.
THE STILLMAN:
Awarded third prize in 1929 contest to Mrs. J. A. Stillman, Mackeys,
North Carolina.
THE STOUT:
Entered in 1926 contest by W. F. Stout, Hammersville, Ohio.
THE TASTERITE:
See Mr. Reed's paper in this report and his paper in 1931 report. W. R.
Fickes, Wooster, Ohio, reports the Tasterite is not promising there.
THE TEN EYCK:
One of the standards in past years. See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report
and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE THOMAS:
Considered the leading walnut in past years and still preferred to all
others by many growers. See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr.
Reed's paper in 1931 report. The Thomas walnut seems to produce the same
quality nuts from Oklahoma to New York. E. C. Rice, Absher, Ky., has
young trees doing fine but not old enough to bear. J. H. Gage, Hamilton,
Ontario, has two Thomas trees planted in 1924 and moved in 1925 which
started to bear in 1928 and have borne every year since except one.
Trunks of trees are 6 to 7 inches in diameter, trees are 25 feet high
and growing in light sandy soil near west end of north shore of Lake
Ontario. Temperature last winter reached -30 F. but no damage to the
Thomas trees. W. R. Fickes, Wooster, Ohio, reports at the present time
he considers the Thomas the best all-round walnut, good in quality,
self-pollinating and a heavy early bearer.
THE THORP:
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE TILLEY:
Submitted in 1926 contest by B. J. Tilley, Murfreesboro, N. C. Is
growing in the Riehl orchard.
THE VANDERSLOOT:
Submitted in 1926 contest by C. E. Vandersloot, Muddy Creek Forks, Pa.
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE WASSON:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE WETZEL:
Awarded fourth prize in 1929 contest to Annie W. Wetzel, New Berlin, Pa.
See Mr. Reed's paper in 1931 report.
THE WHEELING:
A new excellent walnut located by Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Iowa,
in 1932.
THE WEIDENHAMMER:
See Dr. Zimmerman's report, page 22, 1932.
THE WIARD:
See Mr. Reed's paper in this report.
THE WOODALL:
See Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report and Mr. Reed's paper in 1931
report.
THE WORTHINGTON:
An excellent walnut located by Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Iowa.
See Mr. Reed's paper, page 151, 1932 report.
Mr. H. R. Weber, Cincinnati, Ohio, calls attention to the fact that he
has a parent black walnut tree on his place, the nuts of which took
second prize in the 1932 Michigan nut contest. He will later give more
information concerning it.
PERSIAN WALNUTS
The following Persian walnuts are listed in Mr. Bixby's paper in the
1926 report:
Alpine
Anderson
Boston
Eureka
Franquette
Hall
Holden
Lancaster
Mayette
Meylan
Rush
Prof. Neilson's paper in this report covers the following:
Beck
Broadview
Crath
Franquette
Larson
Mayette
McDermid
Pomeroy
Seeando
In addition the Jones Nursery has growing the following:
Nebo
Potomac
Sinclair
Mr. John W. Hershey reports the Alpine and Lancaster are the same and
that the Franquette, Hall, Nebo and Rush should be listed as obsolete
for northern planting, and that the use of the Eureka in the north is
questionable. W. R. Fickes, Wooster, Ohio, reports that the Franquette,
Lancaster, Mayette, Pomeroy and Rush winter kill at his place.
BUTTERNUTS
The following butternuts are listed in Mr. Reed's paper in the 1931
report, pages 98 and 99:
Aiken
Bliss
Buckley
Creitz
Deming
Devon
Helmick
Hergert
Hostetter
Irvine
Lingle
Mandeville
Saugatuck
Sherman
Sherwood
Simonson
Thill
Utterbock
The Alverson, Deming, Irvine, Love, Luther and Sherman are covered in
Mr. Reed's paper in this report.
HEART NUTS
Mr. Bixby's paper in 1926 report covers the following Heart nuts:
Bates, Faust, Lancaster, Ritchie and Stranger. Mr. John W. Hershey
reports the Lancaster should be classed as obsolete as it is practically
a hopeless tree, and that the Stranger is a rather common-place nut and
should be classed as such.
Mr. Hershey reports a new Heart nut, the Hershey, a seedling grown on
his grounds at Downington, Pa. It is growing in a severe frost pocket
but has never winter-killed or frost-killed. The nut is excellent.
Bearing has been light due to crowding, which has been remedied by
cutting down the trees around it.
CHESTNUTS
Most of the named Chestnuts are listed in Mr. Bixby's paper in the 1926
report and are growing on the Riehl farm at Godfrey, Ill. Experiments
are still being carried on with hope of producing a blight resistant
chestnut. Anyone desiring to plant chestnut trees should consult their
local nurseryman or farm advisor.
HAZELS AND FILBERTS
The filberts have not proved entirely hardy for northern territory, but
the native hazels and hybrids appear to be entirely satisfactory. The
lists are too long to publish. Full and reliable information is
contained in Prof. Slate's paper in this report.
Nut Culture in the North
_By_ J. F. WILKINSON
_Rockport, Indiana_
There being other papers on the subject of nut culture I will confine
this to Indiana and surrounding territory where nut trees of several
kinds are native, and flourished before the coming of the white man.
Walnut and hickory trees are to be found growing on most kinds of soil,
chestnut and hazels mostly on hill land, the pecan as a rule in the
lowlands along the streams where vast groves of them are yet producing
splendid crops of nuts.
One mile from my nursery, around Enterprise (which was the boyhood home
of our worthy member Mr. T. P. Littlepage), are hundreds of these trees,
including one of the largest in Indiana. This tree measures 16 feet in
circumference at waist height and is estimated to be 125 feet high. It
has produced more than 500 pounds of nuts in a season and other trees
near here have produced as much as 600 pounds. One of these has a spread
of over 100 feet. It is not unusual for a large size tree to produce
from 300 to 400 pounds of a good season.
One of the largest groves near here is known as the Major grove near the
mouth of Green River, containing about 300 acres, most of the trees on
which are pecan trees. Some are of immense size and probably as large as
can be found north of the cotton belt. A few trees in this grove are
estimated to be more than 150 feet tall.
Along the Wabash River is probably the largest native northern pecan
grove consisting of several hundred acres in which it is estimated there
are more than 20,000 bearing-size pecan trees. At gathering time in the
fall this is a very busy place. It is a source of revenue to many
besides the owners.
I was at this grove two weeks ago and was told there that each year
school begins the first of August so they can dismiss during October and
November to allow the school children to gather pecans during those two
months. School teachers in that territory are required to sign a
contract to that effect. This grove lies between Shawneetown and New
Haven, which are eighteen miles apart.
The town of New Haven has a population of about 400. I was told last
fall by one of the three pecan buyers there that, in one day a few years
ago, the three of them paid more than $15,000 for pecans for one day's
delivery. This of course did not represent the total day's sales for
this territory as many of them were sold at Shawneetown. So one can
easily see why the people there are anxious for their children to help
in this harvest, it being the chief source of fall income to many poor
people, who are given one-half of all the pecans they gather. Often on
or after a windy day the amount gathered by each one makes a splendid
day's wages. Many make a practice of coming a distance each fall for
this harvest. One party from St. Louis told me last fall that was his
twenty-sixth year at that grove.
This grove is surrounded by smaller ones and many single trees growing
on cultivated land. None of the native nut trees in this section have
ever had any care whatever, except the ones growing in cultivated
fields, and those only farm crop cultivation. Many of the native
seedlings seldom bear and some others are shy or irregular bearers. But
it is noticeable how much better as a rule those produce that have farm
crop cultivation or stand in favorable locations.
This is plainly evident in many instances where trees in the last few
years have been cleared around and cultivated, or where an individual
tree is standing alone without cultivation, but has plenty of space,
food and moisture. An excellent example of this is the Littlepage tree
in Enterprise that is probably 35 years old, has never been cultivated
but stands in a well used stock lot and has been an annual bearer since
a small tree.
On the other hand, near here are a number of trees around which the land
had been cultivated in farm crops until about ten years ago, and these
trees produced well, but since that time the land has been abandoned and
has grown up in a thicket and the production of these trees has been
greatly reduced.
About twenty years ago propagation of the better varieties of northern
nut trees was begun in southern Indiana. At that time I believe that
most of us overlooked the needs of nut trees as we had been used to
their taking care of themselves. Our attention to them was mostly at nut
harvest time. We failed to take into consideration the conditions under
which the best bearing trees were growing and too strongly condemned
those not bearing so well, when it was often due to conditions instead
of to the trees themselves.
The walnut and hickory will succeed and bear with less moisture than the
pecan, though they will do better with plenty of moisture if on well
drained land and having good cultivation. We failed to take in
consideration that the best bearing pecan trees were growing on low land
that was usually overflowed one or more times each season, leaving
plenty of moisture and a deposit of plant food. Many articles have been
written by nut tree enthusiasts in which the planting of nut trees on
unproductive or waste land has been advised. In this the writers were
sincere in their statements. This advice has been taken by many, causing
more or less disappointment to the planter and no encouragement to his
neighbor. No successful fruit grower would plant an orchard of peach or
apple trees on poor or waste land, forget about them for a few years and
expect to go back and harvest a crop of fruit, and neither need the nut
grower expect to.
Since many trees of the named varieties have been in bearing for a
number of years it gives a broad field for studying them, and their
habits are very similar to the native trees, I do not know of a single
tree that is not a testimonial to the care and attention it has been
given.
In my first nursery planting trees were left growing to supply bud and
graftwood for future use. These were left entirely too close together to
remain until large trees, but I have never yet had nerve enough to
remove all that should be taken out, with the result that they are now
crowding and robbing each other of food and moisture retarding both
growth and bearing. These are now from 15 to 19 years old and not
producing as many nuts as they did several years ago, or as many as
trees several years younger that have more space. My observations
convince me that plenty of space, food and moisture are most essential
for best results.
The past four years has been a splendid time to study this as our
weather conditions have been unusual in that we have in this section had
both wet and dry seasons. I am firmly convinced that weather conditions
have a great deal to do with the nut crop not only with the quantity of
nuts but quality as well. Moisture conditions in spring and early summer
determine the size of the nut, and later in the season the quality of
the kernel. Plenty of moisture in spring and early summer will make a
large size nut. After the shell once forms the growth of nut is done.
Then the plumpness of the kernel depends on the amount of moisture after
the shell is formed. Lack of moisture the entire season spells a small,
poorly filled nut. Trees growing in a crowded position, or on hard, dry
ground, seldom ever have all the moisture they need to produce a good
crop of well filled nuts. This has been plainly demonstrated with my own
and my neighbors' trees in the past few years.
The weather of the previous season also may have much to do with the
crop the following season, especially with trees growing under adverse
conditions. These conditions can often be largely overcome by the owner,
with fertilizers and cultivation.
In planting a tree be sure to give it plenty of space. If the soil is
lacking in plant food feed the tree, remembering it can draw food only
from a given space. No one would expect to grow the same farm crop on a
plot of ground for many years without fertilizer. Prepare to conserve
moisture for the hot, dry season either by cultivation or mulching. One
of the thriftiest best bearing nut tree plantings I know of is on very
sharp, hilly clay ground in Rockport, but the owner fertilizes these
trees annually and gives splendid cultivation.
A non-bearing nut tree is no better than any other kind of a tree, so it
is not a question of how many nut trees you have, but how many good
bearing nut trees you have. To get the best results provide your trees
with space, food and moisture.
Varieties of Nut Trees for the Northernmost Zone
_By_ C. A. REED, _Bureau of Plant Industry United States
Department of Agriculture_
The northernmost zone of the eastern part of the United States, within
which conditions appear at all encouraging for the planting of the
hardiest varieties of nut trees now available, may be outlined as
covering the milder portions of Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and South Dakota.
Beyond the Canadian border this zone should perhaps include the fruit
belt of Ontario known as the "Niagara Peninsula," which skirts Lake
Ontario from the City of Hamilton to the Niagara river. No doubt it
should also include considerable Canadian territory immediately adjacent
to Lakes Erie and St. Clair, and north to the lower end of Lake Huron.
In each American state within this general zone there are numerous
localities to which several species of edible nuts are indigenous,
others where the butternut alone is found, and still others to which
none of the common kinds appear to be adapted. Climate and soil are both
limiting factors within this general section. No nut trees are likely to
prove hardy to the extent of bearing heavily where winter temperatures
are extremely trying or where soils are not of high grade. A fundamental
principle involving plant ecology, which with reference to planted nut
trees is too often lost sight of, is that, regardless of species, plants
are unlikely to be altogether hardy in any locality where minimum
temperatures of winter are appreciably lower, or growing periods much
shorter, than at the place where the variety in question originated. For
example, it is often assumed that a pecan tree native to southern Texas,
the lowest point of the range of this species in the United States,
should do well in southeastern Iowa, the northernmost point within the
range. Likewise, it is also sometimes assumed that a black walnut
variety originating in Arkansas, Texas or Tennessee should be hardy in
the black walnut belts of New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, or wherever the species is indigenous or has been
successfully transplanted.
There are definite degrees of hardiness which must not be overlooked. A
species or variety may be hardy enough to grow thriftily for many years,
and to make a splendid tree, hundreds of miles north of the latitude at
which it will mature occasional crops; or it may be able to produce
crops that are frequent in occurrence yet indifferent as to character;
or there may be occasional crops of first-class nuts; but good crops of
good nuts are exceedingly rare when the minimum temperatures of winter
or the length of the growing period are appreciably more adverse than in
the locality where the variety originated.
A few illustrations may help to make these points clearer. On the
Experimental Farm of the U. S. Department of Agriculture at Arlington,
Va., directly opposite Washington, on the Potomac, there are five pecan
trees of the Schley variety which originated on the Gulf coast of
Mississippi. These trees have grown splendidly since being planted more
than 20 years ago. They blossomed and set nuts more or less regularly
after they were about eight or ten years of age, but it was only in the
eighteenth year that a season was late enough in fall for a single nut
to mature. Another case is afforded by a pecan seedling, probably from
Texas, called to the writer's attention by Dr. W. C. Deming, Hartford,
Conn., which stands near the outskirts of that city. This is a large,
beautiful tree. It rarely sets crops of nuts, and when it does the nuts
fail to become more than half or two-thirds normal size by the time of
autumn frosts. The kernels are then quite undeveloped and the nuts
therefore worthless each year.