Northern Nut Growers Association Report of the Proceedings at the Thirty-Seventh Annual Report 1135 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Northern Nut Growers
Association Report of the Proceedings at the Thirty-Seventh
Annual Report

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Northern Nut Growers Association Report of the Proceedings at the
Thirty-Seventh Annual Report

Editor: Northern Nut Growers Association

Release date: June 18, 2008 [eBook #25831]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25831

Credits: Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, E. Grimo and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NORTHERN
NUT GROWERS ASSOCIATION REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT
THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT ***

Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, E. Grimo and the

Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

+
——————————————————————————————
——————+ |DISCLAIMER | | | |The articles published in the Annual
Reports of the Northern Nut Growers| |Association are the findings and
thoughts solely of the authors and are | |not to be construed as an
endorsement by the Northern Nut Growers | |Association, its board of
directors, or its members. No endorsement is | |intended for products
mentioned, nor is criticism meant for products not| |mentioned. The laws
and recommendations for pesticide application may | |have changed since
the articles were written. It is always the pesticide| |applicator's
responsibility, by law, to read and follow all current | |label directions for
the specific pesticide being used. The discussion | |of specific nut tree
cultivars and of specific techniques to grow nut | |trees that might have been
successful in one area and at a particular | |time is not a guarantee that
similar results will occur elsewhere. | +
——————————————————————————————
——————+

Northern Nut Growers Association INCORPORATED

Affiliated with The American Horticultural Society

37th Annual Report

CONVENTION AT WOOSTER, OHIO

SEPTEMBER 3, 4, 5 1946

Table of Contents

Officers and Committees 3
State Vice Presidents 4
List of Members 5
Constitution 21
By-Laws 22
Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Convention 23
Address of Welcome—Dr. J. H. Gourley 23
Response—John E. Cannaday, M.D. 24
Address of Retiring President—Carl Weschcke 24
Report of Secretary—Mildred M. Jones 25
Report of the Treasurer—D. C. Snyder 26
Aims and Aspirations of the Ohio Nut Growers—A. A. Bungart 27
Notes on the Annual Meeting 31
Nut Growing Under Semi-Arid Conditions—A. G. Hirschi 32
Weather Conditions versus Nut Tree Crops—J. F. Wilkinson 37
Nut Tree Notes from Southwestern Ohio—Harry R. Weber 39
Black Walnut Nursery Studies—Stuart B. Chase 40
My Experiments, Gambles and Failures—John Davidson 42
Nut Trees in Wildlife Conservation—Floyd B. Chapman 45
Commercial Aspects of Nut Crops as far North as St. Paul,
Minnesota—Carl Weschcke 48
The 1946 Status of Chinese Chestnut Growing in the Eastern

United States—Clarence A. Reed 51
Bearing Record of the Hemming Chinese Chestnut Orchard—E. Sam
Hemming 58
Walnut Notes—G. H. Corsan 60
Self-fruitfulness in the Winkler Hazel—Dr. A. S. Colby 60
Hickories and Other Nuts in Northwestern Illinois—A. B. Anthony 61
Nut Trees for Ohio Pastures—Dr. Oliver D. Diller 62
How Hardy Are Oriental Chestnuts and Hybrids?—Russell B.
Clapper and G. F. Gravatt 64
Growing Chestnuts for Timber—Jesse D. Diller 66
Improved Methods of Storing Chestnuts—H. L. Crane and J. W. McKay
71
Essential Elements in Tree Nutrition—W. F. Wischusen 73
Nut Tree Propagation as a Hobby for a Chemist—Dr. E. M. Shelton 83
Notes on Propagation and Transplanting in Western
Tennessee—J. C. McDaniel 87
Propagating Nut Trees Under Glass—Stephen Bernath 90
The Economic, Ecological and Horticultural Aspects of
Intercropping Nut Plantings—Dr. F. L. O'Rourke 91
Nut Work at the Mahoning County Experiment Farm, Canfield,
Ohio—L. Walter Sherman 93
The Ohio Black Walnut Contest of 1946 96
1946 Iowa Black Walnut Contest 98
Grafting Methods Adapted to Nut Trees—H. F. Stoke 99
Beginnings in Walnut Grafting—C. C. Lounsberry 103
Forest Background—John Davidson 106
Graft the Persian Walnut High in Michigan—Gilbert Becker 111
Pecan Growing in Western Illinois—R. B. Best 112
Random Notes from Eastern New York—Gilbert L. Smith 114
Yield and Nut Quality of the Common Black Walnut in the

Tennessee Valley—Thomas G. Zarger 118
The 1946 Field Tour—C. A. Reed 124
Report of Resolutions Committee 126
Obituary—Gourley, Bixby 126
Letters to the Secretary; Notes; Extracts 128
List of Exhibits 133
Attendance 134

OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION

President—CLARENCE A. REED, 7309 Piney Branch Rd., N.W.,
Washington,
D. C.

Vice President—DR. L. H. MACDANIELS, Cornell University, Ithaca,
N.
Y.

Treasurer—D. C. SNYDER, Center Point, Iowa

Secretary—MILDRED M. JONES, BOX 356, Lancaster, Penna.

Director—CARL WESCHCKE, 96 S. Wabasha St., St. Paul, Minn.

Director—DR. A. S. COLBY, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.

Dean—DR. W. C. DEMING, Litchfield, Conn.

Parliamentarian—JOHN DAVIDSON, 234 E. Second St., Xenia, O.

EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS

PARLIAMENTARIAN John Davidson

LEGAL ADVISERS Sargent Wellman, Harry Weber

AUDITING E. P. Gerber, G. A. Gray, R. E. Silvis

FINANCE Carl Weschcke, Harry Weber, D. C. Snyder

PRESS AND PUBLICATION L. H. MacDaniels, George L. Slate, G. H.
Corsan

VARIETIES AND CONTESTS—Gilbert Becker, Gilbert L. Smith,
L. Walter Sherman, A. G. Hirschi, Seward Bethow

SURVEY John Davidson

EXHIBITS—H. F. Stoke, Mrs. G. A. Zimmerman, Mrs. Herbert Negus,
I. W. Short, Gilbert L. Smith, H. H. Corsan, G. H. Corsan,
L. Walter Sherman, J. F. Wilkinson, Royal Oakes, Seward Berhow,
George Brand, A. G. Hirschi, R. T. Dunstan, Spencer B. Chase and
Abe Margolin, Carl Weschcke,

PROGRAM—Mildred Jones, George L. Slate, L. H. MacDaniels, O. D.
Diller,
Thomas G. Zarger, R. P. Allaman, Clarence A. Reed

MEMBERSHIP—Mrs. S. H. Graham, A. A. Bungart, Mrs. Herbert
Negus,
George Kratzer, Lewis A. Theiss

NECROLOGY—Mrs. H. F. Stoke, Mrs. John Hershey, Mrs. William
Rohrbacher,
Mrs. John Davidson, Mrs. J. F. Jones

PLACE OF MEETING (Both 1947 and 1948)—George L. Slate, L. H.
MacDaniels,
G. H. Corsan, D. C. Snyder, G. J. Korn

OFFICIAL JOURNAL—American Fruit Grower, 1770 Ontario St.,
Cleveland, Ohio

State Vice Presidents

Alabama LOVIC ORR

Alberta, Canada A. L. YOUNG

Arkansas SEARLES JOHNSON

British Columbia, Can. J. U. GELLATLY

California DR. THOMAS R. HAIG

Canal Zone L. C. LEIGHTON

Colorado W. A. COLT

Connecticut WILLIAM G. CANFIELD

Delaware EDWARD C. LAKE

Georgia G. CLYDE EIDSON

Idaho FRED BAISCH

Illinois JOSEPH GERARDI

Indiana DR. CHARLES H. SKINNER

Iowa E. F. HUEN

Kansas H. S. WISE

Kentucky DR. C. A. MOSS

Louisiana J. HILL FULLILOVE

Maine RADCLIFFE B. PIKE

Maryland WILMER P. HOOPES

Massachusetts DR. R. A. VAN METER

Mexico JULIO GRANDJEAN

Michigan GILBERT BECKER

Minnesota R. E. HODGSON

Mississippi DR. ERNEST A. COOK

Missouri DR. F. M. BARNES, JR.

Nebraska GEORGE BRAND

New Hampshire L. A. DOUGHERTY

New Jersey MRS. A. R. BUCKWALTER

New York CLARENCE LEWIS

North Carolina DR. R. T. DUNSTAN

Ohio G. A. GRAY

Oklahoma A. G. HIRSCHI

Ontario, Can. G. H. CORSAN

Oregon E. RUSS

Pennsylvania H. GLEASON MATTOON

Quebec, Can. GORDON L. SOMERS

Rhode Island PHILLIP ALLEN

South America CELEDONIA V. PEREDA

South Carolina JOHN T. BREGGER

South Dakota HOMER L. BRADLEY

Tennessee THOMAS G. ZARGER

Texas KAUFMAN FLORIDA

Utah GRANVILLE OLESON

Vermont A. W. ALDRICH

Virginia DR. V. A. PERTZOFF

Washington F. D. LINKLETTER

West Virginia MEYER S. SLOTKIN

Wisconsin W. S. BASSETT

Wyoming W. D. GREENE

Northern Nut Growers Association

Membership List as of January 4, 1947

ALABAMA

Orr, Lovic, Penn-Orr-MacDaniel Orchards, R. D. 1, Danville
Richards, Paul N., R. D. 1, Box 308, Birmingham

ARKANSAS

Johnson, Searles, Japton
Upham, Harry, "Quinta Nogalada", Cove
Williams, Jerry F., R. D. 1, Viola

CALIFORNIA

Armstrong Nurseries, 408 N. Euclid Ave., Ontario
Field, Lt. Eugene A., USN, U.S.S. Whitney, c/o Postmaster, San Diego
Haig, Dr. Thomas R., 3344 H St., Sacramento
Kemple, W. H., 222 West Ralston St., Ontario
Parsons, Chas. E., Felix Gillet Nursery, Nevada City
Walter, E. D., 899 Alameda, Berkeley
Welby, Harry S., 500 Buchanan St., Taft

CANADA

Brown, Alger, R. D. 1, Harley, Ontario
Casanave, R. D. 2, Euburne, B. C.
Corsan, George H., "Echo Valley", Islington, Ontario
Crath, Rev. Paul C., R. D. 2, Connington, Ontario
Eddie & Sons, Ltd., Pacific Coast Nurseries, Sardis, B. C.
Elgood, H., 74 Trans Canada Highway West, Chilliwack, B. C.
English, H. A., Box 153, Duncan, B. C.
Filman, O., Aldershot, Ontario
Gellatly, David, Box 17, Westbank, B. C.
Gellatly, J. R., Westbank, B. C.
Giegerich, H. C., Con-Mine, Yellow Knife, NWT
Housser, Levi, Beamsville, Ontario
Maillene, George, Naramata, B. C.
Manten, Jacob, R. D. 1, White Rock, B. C.
* Neilson, Mrs. Ellen, 5 McDonald Ave., Guelph, Ontario
Papple, Elton E., R. D. 3, Gainsville, Ontario
Porter, Gordon, Y.M.C.A., Windsor, Ontario
Somers, Gordon L., 37 London St., Sherbrooke, Quebec
Trayling, E. J., 509 Richards St., Vancouver, B. C.
Wagner, A. S., Delhi, Ontario
Wood, D. F., Hobbs Glass Ltd., 54 Duke St., Toronto, Ontario
Yates, J., 2150 E. 65th Ave., Vancouver, B. C.
Young, A. L., Brooks, Alta.

CANAL ZONE

Leighton, L. C., Box 1452, Cristobal

COLORADO

Colt, W. A., Lyons
Wilder, W. E., 915 West 4th, La Junta

CONNECTICUT

Canfield, William G., 463 West Main St., New Britain
David, Alexander M., 408 S. Main St., West Hartford
Dawley, Arthur E., R. D. 1, Norwich
**Deming, Dr. W. C., Litchfield
Frueh, Alfred J., West Cornwall
Graham, Mrs. Cooper, Darien
* Huntington, A. M., Stanerigg Farms, Bethel
Jennings, Clyde, 30 West Main St., Waterbury
Lehr, Frederick L., 45 Elihu St., Hamden
LeMieux, W. E., 44 Grove St., Rockville
McSweet, Arthur, Clapboard Hill Rd., Guilford
Milde, Karl F., Town Farm Rd., Litchfield
Morencey, Edward, 37 Kensington St., Manchester
* Newmaker, Adolph, R. D.,1, Rockville
Page, Donald T., Box 228, R. 1, Danielson
Pratt, George D., Jr., Bridgewater
Rodgers, Raymond, R. D. 2, Westport
Rourke, Robert U., R. D. 1, Pomfret Center
Scazlia, Jos. A., 372 Matson Hill Rd., South Glastonbury
Senior, Sam P., R. D. 1, Bridgeport
Tower, Sidney, 31 Birchwood Rd., East Hartford
Walsh, James A., c/o Armstrong Rubber Co., West Haven
Warfel, Robert, 1675 Main St., Glastonbury
White, Heath E., Box 630, Westport
White, George E., R. D. 2, Andover

DELAWARE

Lake, Edward C., Sharpless Rd., Hockessin

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Librarian, American Potash Institute, Inc., 1155 16th St.,
N. W. Washington 6
Reed, Clarence A., 7309 Piney Branch Rd., N. W., Washington 12

GEORGIA

Eidson, G. Clyde, 1700 Westwood Ave., S.W., Atlanta
Hunter, H. Reid, 561 Lakeshore Dr., N.E., Atlanta
Neal, Homer A., Neal's Nursery, R. D. 1, Carnesville
Skyland Farms, S. C. Noland & C. H. Crawford, 161 Spring St.,
N. W. Atlanta

IDAHO

Baisch, Fred, 627 E. Main St., Emmett
Dryden, Lynn, Peck
Hazelbaker, Calvin, Lewiston
Kudlac, Joe T., Box 147, Buhl
Rice, E. T., Parma
Swayne, Samuel F., Orofino

ILLINOIS

Adams, James S., R. D. 1, Hinsdale
Allen, Theodore R., Delevan
Anthony, A. B., R. 3, Sterling
Baber, Adin, Kansas
Best, R. B., Eldred
Bolle, Dr. A. C., 324 State St., Jacksonville
Bontz, Mrs. Lillian, 161 W. Massachusetts Ave., Champaign
Bradley, James W., 1300 N. Prospect Ave., Champaign
Breeden, Robert G., Lane Technical High School, 2501 W. Addison
St., Chicago 18
Bronson, Earle A., 800 Simpson St., Evanston
Churchill, Woodford M., 4250 Drexel Blvd., Chicago
Colby, Dr. Arthur S., University of Illinois, Urbana
Colehour, Francis H., 411 Brown Bldg., Rockford
Dietrich, Ernest, R. D. 2, Dundas
Dintelman, L. F., Belleville
Edmunds, Mrs. Palmer D., La Hogue
Frey, Mrs. Frank H., 2315 West 108th Place, Chicago
Frey, Frank H., 2315 West 108th Place, Chicago
Frierdich, Fred, 3907 W. Main St., Belleville
Gerardi, Joseph, Gerardi Nurseries, O'Fallon
Haeseler, L. M., 1959 W. Madison St., Chicago
Helmle, Herman C., 123 N. Walnut St., Springfield
Johnson, Hjalmer W., 5811 Dorchester Ave., Chicago
Jungk, Adolph, 817 Washington Ave., Alton
Kilner, F. R., American Nurseryman, 508 S. Dearborn St., Chicago
Knobloch, Miss Margaret, Arthur
Kreider, Ralph, Jr., Hammond
Livermore, Ogden, 801 Forest Ave., Evanston
Logan, George F., Carpathian Nursery, Dallas City

Maxwell, Leroy C., 1606 W. Washington St., Champaign
Oakes, Royal Bluffs
Powell, Charles A., Hickory St., Jerseyville
Pray, A. Lee, 502 North Main St., LeRoy
Sonnemann, W. F., Experimental Gardens, Vandalia
Valley Landscape Co., Box 488, Elgin
Walantas, John., 7048 S. Union Ave., Chicago
Werner, Edward H., 282 Ridgeland Ave., Elmhurst
Whitford, A. M., Whitford's Nursery, Farina
Youngberg, Harry W., Port Clinton Rd., Prairie View

INDIANA

Behr, J. E., Laconia
Boyer, Clyde C., Nabb
Garber, H. G., Indiana State Farm, Greencastle
Gentry, Herbert M., R. D. 2, Noblesville
Glaser, Peter, R. D. 1, Box 301, Evansville
Hite, Chas. Dean, R. D. 2, Bluffton
Minton, Charles F., R. D. 5, Huntington
Morey, B. F., 453 S. 5th St., Clinton
Olson, Albert L., 1230 Nuttman Ave., Fort Wayne
Pritchett, Emery, 1340 Park Ave., Fort Wayne 6
Prell, Carl F., 803 West Colfax Ave., South Bend
Ramsey, Arthur, Muncie Tree Surgery Co., Muncie
Skinner, Dr. Charles H., Indiana University, Bloomington
Sly, Miss Barbara, R. D. 3, Rockport
Sly, Donald R., R. D. 3, Rockport
Tormohlen, Willard, 321 Cleveland St., Gary
Wallick, Ford, R. D. 4, Peru

Warren, E. L., New Richmond
Wilkinson, J. F., Indiana Nut Nursery, R. 3, Rockport

IOWA

Andrew, Dr. Earl V., Maquoketa
Beeghly, Dale, Pierson
Berhow, Seward, Berhow Nurseries, Huxley
Boice, R. H., R. D. 1, Nashua
Cerveny, Frank L., R. D. 4, Cedar Rapids
Christensen, Everett G., Gilmore City
Cole, Edward P., 419 Chestnut St., Atlantic
Crumley, Joe F., 221 Park Rd., Iowa City
Ferguson, Albert B., Center Point
Ferris, Wayne, Hampton
Gardner, Clark, Gardner Nurseries, Osage
Harrison, L. E., Nashua
Hill, Clarence S., Hilburn Stock Farm, Minburn
Huen, E. F., Eldora
Inter-State Nurseries, Hamburg
Iowa Fruit Growers' Association, State House, Des Moines
Kaser, J. D., Winterset
Kivell, Ivan E., R. D. 3, Greene
Kyhl, Ira M., Box 236, Sabula
Lehmann, F. W., Jr., 3220 John Lynde Rd., Des Moines
Lounsberry, Dr. C. C., 209 Howard Ave., Ames
McLeran, Harold F., Mt. Pleasant
Meints, A. Rock, Diron
Miller, Robert H., Box 604, Spencer
Rohrbacher, Dr. Wm., 811 East College St., Iowa City

Schaub, John M., 911 Locust St., Ottumwa
Schlagenbusch Bros., R. D. 3, Ft. Madison
Snyder, D. C., Snyder Bros., Inc., Nurserymen, Center Point
Steffen, R. F., Box 62, Sioux City
Van Meter, W. L., Adel
Welch, H. S., Mt. Arbor Nurseries, Shenandoah
Wood, Roy A., Castana

KANSAS

Borst, Frank E., 1704 Shawnee St., Leavenworth
Boyd, Elmer, R. D. 1, Box 95, Oskaloosa
Burrichter, George W., c/o Mrs. James Stone, 3011 N. 36th St.,
Kansas City
Funk, M. D., 1501 N. Tyler St., Topeka
Hofman, Rayburn, R. D. 5, Manhattan
Leavenworth Nurseries, R. D. 3, Leavenworth
Schroeder, Emmett H., 800 W. 17th St., Hutchinson
Wise, H. S., 579 W. Douglas Ave., Wichita
Yoder, D. J., R. D. 2, Haven

KENTUCKY

Alves, Robert H., Nehi Bottling Co., Henderson
Baughn, Cullie, R. D. 6, Box 1, Franklin
Cornett, Lester, Box 566, Lynch
Gooch, Perry, R. D. 1, Oakville
Moss, Dr. C. A., Williamsburg
Tatum, W. G., R. D. 4, Lebanon

Watt, R. M., R. D. 1, Lexington
Whittinghill, Lonnie M., Box 10, Love

LOUISIANA

Louisiana State U., A. & M. College, General Library, University
Fullilove, J. Hill, Box 157, Shreveport

MAINE

Pike, Radcliffe B., Lubec

MARYLAND

Crane, Dr. H. L., Plant Industry Station, Beltsville
Eastern Shore Nurseries, Inc., Dover Rd., Easton
Fletcher, C. Hicks, Lulley's Hillside Farm, Bowie
Gravatt, G. F., Plant Industry Station, Beltsville
Harris, Walter B., Andelot Inc., Worton
Hodgson, Wm. C., R. D. 1, White Hall
Hoopes, Wilmer P., Forest Hill
Kemp, Homer S., Bountiful Ridge Nurseries, Princess Anne
Kienle, John A., Land's End Farm, Queenstown
Kingsville Nurseries, H. J. Hohman, Kingsville
Lewis, Dean, Bel Air
Mannakee, N. H., Ashton
McCollum, Blaine, White Hall
McKay, Dr. J. W., Plant Industry Station, Beltsville
Negus, Mrs. Herbert, 4514-32nd St., Mt. Rainier
Porter, John J., 1199 The Terrace, Hagerstown

Purnell, J. Edgar, Spring Hill Rd., Salisbury
Shamer, Dr. Maurice E., 3300 W. North Ave., Baltimore
Thomas, Kenneth D., 10 N. Ellwood Ave., Baltimore 24

MASSACHUSETTS

Atwood, Gordon E., 60 Crescent St., Northampton
Beauchamp, A. A., 603 Boylston St., Boston
Brown, Daniel L., Esq., 60 State St., Boston
Fitts, Walter H., 39 Baker St., Foxboro
Fritze, E., Osterville
Garlock, Mott A., 17 Arlington Rd., Longmeadow
Gauthier, Louis R., Wood Hill Rd., Monson
Graff, George H., 46 Chestnut St., Brookline 46
Hanchett, James L., R. D. 1, East Longmeadow
Kaan, Dr. Helen W., Wellesley College, Wellesley
Kendall, Henry P., Moose Hill Farm, Sharon
Kibrick, I. S., 106 Main St., Brockton
La Beau, Henry A., 1556 Massachusetts Ave., North Adams
Rice, Horace J., 5 Elm St., Springfield
* Russell, Mrs. Newton H., 12 Burnett Ave., South Hadley
Short, I. W., 299 Washington St., Taunton
Stewart, O. W., 75 Milton Ave., Hyde Park
Swartz, H. P., 206 Checopee St. Checopee
Trudeau, Dr. A. E., 14 Railroad St., Holyoke
Van Meter, Dr. R. A., French Hall, M. S. C., Amherst
Wellman, Sargent H., Esq., Windridge, Topsfield
Westcott, Samuel K., 79 Richview Ave., North Adams
Weston Nurseries, Inc., Brown & Winter Sts., Weston
Weymouth, Paul W., 183 Plymouth St., Holbrook

MEXICO

Grandjean, Julio., Ave. Cinco de Mayo, num. 10, Mexico City

MICHIGAN

Andersen, Charles, Andersen Evergreen Nurseries, Scottsville
Avery, R. O., R. D. 2, Brooklyn
Aylesworth, C. F., 920 Pinecrest Dr., Ferndale 20
Barlow, Alfred L., 13079 Flanders Ave., Detroit, 5
Becker, Gilbert, Climax
Blackman, Orrin C., Box 55, Jackson
Bogart, Geo. C., R. D. 2, Three Oaks
Boylan, B. P., Cloverdale
Bradley, L. J., R. D. 1, Springport
Buell, Dr. M. F., Dept. of Health and Recreation, Dearborn
Bumler, Malcolm R., 1097 Lakeview, Detroit
Burgart, Harry, Michigan Nut Nursery, R. D. 2, Union City
Burgess, E. H., Burgess Seed & Plant Co., Galesburg
Cook, E. A., M.D., Director, County Health Dept., Corunna
Corsan, H. H., R. D. 1, Hillsdale
Daubenmeyer, H., 7647 Sylvester, Detroit
Emerson, Ralph, 161 Cortland Ave., Highland Park 3
Gage, Nina M., 6550 Kensington Rd., Wixom
Hackett, John C., 315 Diamond Ave., S.E., Grand Rapids 6
Hagelshaw, W. J., Box 314, Galesburg
Hay, Francis H., Ivanhoe Place, Lawrence
Healey, Scott, R. D. 2, Otsego
**Kellogg, W. K., Battle Creek
King, Harold J., Sodus

Korn, G. J., 140 N. Rose St., Kalamazoo 24
Lee, Michael, Lapeer
Leist, Dewey, 119 Livingston Dr., Flint
Lemke, Edwin W., 2432 Townsend Ave., Detroit 14
Lewis, Clayton A., 1219 Pine St., Port Huron
Mann, Charles W., 221 Cutler St., Allegan
Mason, Harold E., 1580 Montie, Lincoln Park 25
McMillan, Vincent U., 17926 Woodward Ave., Detroit 3
Miller, Louis, 130 O'Keefe, Cassopolis
O'Rourke, Prof. F. L., Hort'l Dept., Michigan State College, E. Lansing
Otto, Arnold G., 4150 Three Mile Drive, Detroit
Reist, Dewey, 119 Livingston Dr., Flint
Scofield, Mrs. Carl, Box 215, Woodland
Scofield, Carl, Box 215, Woodland
Stocking, Frederick N., Harrisville
Stotz, Raleigh R., 1546 Franklin, S.E., Grand Rapids 6
Tate, D. L., 959 Westchester St., Birmingham
Wargess, R. D., 11 Rose St., Battle Creek
Whallon, Archer P., R. D. 1, Stockbridge

MINNESOTA

Andrews, Miss Frances E., 48 Park View Terrace, Minneapolis
Cothran, John C., 512 N. 19th Ave., E. Duluth
Donaldson Co., L. S., 601 Nicollet Ave., Minneapolis 2
Hodgson, R. E., Dept. of Agriculture, S. E. Exp. Sta., Waseca
O'Connor, Pat H., Hopkins
Skrukrud, Baldwin, Sacred Heart
Vaux, Harold C., R. D. 4, Faribault
Weschcke, Carl, 96 S. Wabasha St., St. Paul

MISSOURI

Barnes, Dr. F. M., Jr., 4952 Maryland Ave., St. Louis
Bucksath, Charles E., Dalton
Campbell, A. T., 8117 Meadow Lane, Kansas City 5
Fisher, J. B., R. R. H. 1, Pacific
Giesson, Adolph, Pine Hill Farm, Weingarten
Hay, Leander, Gilliam
Howe, John, R. D. 1, Box 4, Pacific
Johns, Jeannette F., R. D. 1, Festus
Nicholson, John W., Ash Grove
Ochs, C. T., Box 291, Salem
Richterkessing, Ralph, R. D. 1, St. Charles
Schmidt, Victor H., 4821 Virginia, Kansas City
Stark Brothers Nurs. & Orchard Co., Louisiana
Stevenson, Hugh, Elsberry
Thompson, J. D., 600 West 63rd St., Kansas City 2

NEBRASKA

Adams, Frederick J., 5103 Webster St., Omaha 3
Brand, George, R. D. 5, Box 60, Lincoln
Caha, William, Wahoo
Clark, Ivan E., Concord
DeLong, F. S., 1510 Second Corso, Nebraska City
Ferguson, Albert B., Dunbar
Ginn, A. M., Box 6, Bayard
Hess, Harvey W., The Arrowhead Gardens, Box 209, Hebron
Hoyer, L. B., 7554 Maple St., Omaha
Lenz, Clifford Q., 3815 Maple St., Omaha 3

Marshall's Nurseries, Arlington
Weaver, Francis E., Box 312, Sutherland
White, Bertha G., 7615 Leighton Ave., Lincoln 5
White, Warren E., 6920 Binney St., Omaha 4

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dougherty, L. A., University of N. H., Durham
Lahti, Matthew, Locust Lane Farm, Wolfeboro
Latimer, Prof. L. P., Dept. of Horticulture, Durham
Malcolm, Herbert L., The Waumbek Farm, Jefferson
Messier, Frank, R. D. 2, Nashua
Ryan, Miss Agnes, Mill Rd., Durham

NEW JERSEY

Bangs, Ralph E., Allamuchy
Beck, Stanley, 12 South Monroe Ave., Wenonah
Blake, Dr. Harold, Box 93, Saddle River
Bottom, R. J., 41 Robertson Rd., West Orange
Brewer, J. L., 10 Allen Place, Fair Lawn
Buch, Philip O., 106 Rockaway Ave., Rockaway
Buckwalter, Mrs. Alan R., Flemington
Buckwalter, Geoffrey R., Route 1, Box 12, Flemington
Cumberland Nursery, R. D. 1, Millville
Donnelly, John H., Mountain Ice Co., 51 Newark St., Hoboken
Dougherty, Wm. M., Broadacres-on-Bedens, Box 425, Princeton
Franek, Michael, 323 Rutherford Ave., Franklin
Fuhlbruegge, Edward, R. D. Box 234, Scotch Plains
Gardenier, Dr. Harold C., Westwood

Goitein, Louis, 1081 S. Clinton Ave., Trenton
* Jaques, Lee W., 74 Waverly Place, Jersey City
Jewett, Edmund Gale, R. D. 1, Port Murray
Lovett's Nursery, Inc., Little Silver
Mann, Philip, 115 Bloomfield Ave., Newark
McCulloch, J. D., 73 George St., Freehold
Mueller, R., R. D. 1, Box 81, Westwood
Piskorski, Mrs. Adelaide M., 604 Jersey Ave., Jersey City 2
Ritchie, Walter M., 402 St. George St., Rahway
Rocker, Louis P., The Rocker Farm, Andover
Sheffield, O. A., 283 Hamilton Place, Hackensack
Sorg, Henry, Chicago Ave., Egg Harbor City
Sutton, Ross J., Jr., R. D. 2, Lebanon
Szalay, Dr. S., 931 Garrison Ave., Teaneck
Terhune, Gilbert V. P., Apple Acres, Newfoundland
Todd, E. Murray, R. D. 2, Matawan
Tolley, Fred C., Berkeley Ave., Bloomfield
Trainer, Raymond E., Roller Bearing Co., Box 480, Trenton
Van Doren, Durand H., 310 Redmond Rd., South Orange
White, Col. J. H., Jr., Picatinny Arsenal, Dover
Williams, Harold G., Box 344, Ramsey
Yorks, A. S., Lamatonk Nurseries, Neshanic Station

NEW YORK

Barton, Irving Titus, Montour Falls
Beck, Paul E., Beck's Guernsey Dairy, Transit Rd., E. Amherst
Benton, William A., Wassaic
Bernath's Nursery, R. D. 1, Poughkeepsie
Bixby, Henry D., East Drive, Halesite, L. I.

Blauner, Sidney H., 290 West End Ave., New York
Bradbury, Captain H. G., 30 Fifth Ave., New York 11
Brinckeroff, John H., 150-09 Hillside Ave., Jamaica
Brook, Victor, 171 Rockingham St., Rochester
Brooks, William G., Monroe
Cowan, Harold, 643 Southern Bldg., The Bronx, New York 55
Davis, Clair, 140 Broadway, Lynbrook
DeSchauensee, Mrs. A. M., Easterhill Farm, Chester
Dutton, Walter, 264 Terrace Park, Rochester
Ellwanger, Mrs. William D., 510 East Ave., Rochester
Fagley, Richard M., 29 Perry St., New York 14
Feil, Harry, 1270 Hilton-Spencerport Rd., Hilton
Flanigen, Charles F., 16 Greenfield St., Buffalo
Freer, H. J., 20 Midvale Rd., Fairport
Frifance, A. E., 139 Elmdorf Ave., Rochester 11
Fruch, Alfred, 34 Perry St., New York
Garcia, M., 62 Rugby Rd., Brooklyn
Graham, S. H., R. D. 5, Ithaca
Graham, Mrs. S. H., R. D. 5, Ithaca
Graves, Dr. Arthur H., Botanic Garden, Brooklyn
Gressel, Henry, R. D. 2, Mohawk
Gunther, Eric F., 25 E. Waukena Ave., Oceanside, L. I.
Gwinn, Ralph W., 522-5th Ave., New York
Hasbrouck, Walter, Jr., New Platz
Hill, Ben H., 375 Beverly Rd., Douglaston, L. I.
Hubbell, James F., Mayro Bldg., Utica
Iddings, William, 165 Ludlow St., New York
Irish, G. Whitney, Valatie
Kelly, Mortimer B., 17 Battery Place, New York
Knorr, Mrs. Arthur, 15 Central Park, West Apt. 1406, New York

Kraai, Dr. John, Fairport
Larkin, Harry H., 189 Van Rensselaer St., Buffalo 10
Lewis, Clarence K., 1000 Park Ave., New York
Lewis, H. W., c/o Ann Cangero, Roslyn
Little, George, Ripley
Lowerre, James D., 1121 Bedford Ave., Brooklyn 16
* MacDaniels, Dr. L. H., Cornell University, Ithaca
MacEwen, Harold, R. D. 5, Fulton
Maloney Brothers Nursery Co., Inc., Danville
Mevius, William E., E. Church St., Eden
Miller, J. E., R. D. 1, Naples
Mitchell, Rudolph, 125 Riverside Drive, New York 24
Mitchell, Thomas, 16 E. 48th St, New York
* Montgomery, Robert H., 1 E. 44th St., New York
Mossman, Dr. James K., Black Oaks, Ramapo
Newell, P. F., 53 Elm St., Nassau
Oeder, Dr. Lambert R., 551 Fifth Ave., New York
Ohliger, Louis H., R. D. 2, New City
Page, Chas. E., R. D. 2, Oneida
Penning, Tomas, R. D. 3, Box 158, Saugerties
Price, Jacob, Price Theatre Co., 352 West 44th St., New York 18
Price, J., 385 Arbuckle Ave., Cedarhurst, L. I.
Rasmussen, Harry, R. D. 1, 85 Frederick St., E. Syracuse
Rebillard, Frederick, 164 Lark St., Albany 5
Salzer, George, 169 Garford Rd., Rochester
Schlegel, Charles P., 990 South Ave., Rochester
Schlick, Frank, Munnsville
Schmidt, Carl W., 180 Linwood Ave., Buffalo
Schwartz, Mortimer L., 1243 Boynton Ave., Bronx
Sheffield, Lewis F., c/o Mrs. E. C. Jones, Townline Rd., Orangeburg

Slate, Prof. George L., Experiment Station, Geneva
Smith, Gilbert L., State School, Wassaic
Smith, Jay L., Chester
Steiger, Harwood, Red Hook
Stern, Otto, Stern's Nurseries, Geneva
Stern-Montagny, Hubert, Erbonia Farm, Gardiner
Szigo, Alfred, 77-15 A. 37th Ave., Jackson Heights, New York
Timmerman, Karl G., 123 Chapel St., Fayetteville
Waite, Dr. R. H., Willowwaite Moor, Perrysburg
Weis, John F., Jr., R. D. 1, Carter Rd., Fairport
Wichlac, Thaddeus, 3236 Genesee St., Cheektowaga 21
Wilson, Mrs. Ida, Candor
Windisch, Richard P., W. E. Burnet & Co., 11 Wall St., New York
* Wissman, Mrs. F. de R., 9 W. 54th St., New York

NORTH CAROLINA

Dunstan, Dr. R. T., Greensboro College, Greensboro
Finch, Jack R., Bailey
Malcolm, Van R., Celo P. O., Yancey County
Parks, C. H., R. D. 2, Asheville

OHIO

Barden, C. A., 215 Morgan St., Oberlin
Bitler, W. A., 322 McPheron Ave., Lima
Bungart, A. A., Avon
Chapman, Floyd B., 1944 Denune Ave., Columbus 3
Cinadr, Mrs. Katherine, 13514 Coath Ave., Cleveland 20
Clark, R. L., 1184 Melbourne Rd., East Cleveland 12

Clay High School, R. D. 5, Toledo 5
Cole, Mrs. J. R., 163 Woodland Ave., Columbus 3
Cook, H. C., R. D. 1, Box 125, Leetonia
Cranz, Eugene F., Mount Tom Farm, Ira
Crawford, L. E., Sylvarium Gardens, 5499 Columbia Rd., N. Olmsted
Davidson, John, 234 E. 2nd St., Xenia
Davidson, Wm. J., Old Springfield Pike, Xenia
Diller, Dr. Oliver D., Dept. of Forestry, Experiment Sta., Wooster
Dubois, Miss Frances M., 4623 Glenshade Ave., Cincinnati 27
Elliott, Donald W., Rogers
Emch, Frank, Genoa
Evans, Maurice G., 335 S. Main St., Akron 8
Fickes, Mrs. W. R., R. D. 1, Wooster
Foraker, Major C. Merle, 152 Elmwood Ave., Barberton
Foss, H. D., 875 Hamlin St., Akron 2
Franks, M. L., R. D. 1, Montpelier
Frederick, Geo. F., 3925 W. 17th, Cleveland 9
Garden Center of Greater Cleveland, 11190 East Blvd., Cleveland
Gardner, Richard F., 1474 Wagar Ave., Cleveland 7
Gauly, Dr. Edward, 1110 Euclid Ave., Cleveland
Gerber, E. P., Kidron
Gerhardt, Gustave A., 3125 Jefferson Ave., Cincinnati
Gerstenmaier, John A., 13 Pond S. W., Massilon
Goss, C. E., 922 Dover Ave., Akron 2
Gray, G. A., 3317 Jefferson Ave., Cincinnati 20
Hamlin, Howard E., 1945 Waltham Rd., Columbus 8
Haydeck, Carl, 3213 West 73rd St., Cleveland 2
Headapohl, Miss Marjean, R. D. 2, Wapakoneta
Hill, Dr. Albert A., 4187 Pearl Rd., Cleveland
Hoch, Gordon F., 6292 Glade Ave., Cincinnati

Holley, Dr. C. J., 11 Elm St., Bridgeport
Hunt, Kenneth W., Yellow Springs
Irish, Charles F., 418 E. 105th St., Cleveland
Jacobs, Homer L., Davey Tree Expert Co., Kent
Jacobs, Mason, 3003 Jacobs Rd., Youngstown
Jacque, John V., 13722 N. Drive, Cleveland 5
Kappel, Owen, Bolivar
Kintzel, Frank M., 2506 Briarcliffe Ave., Cincinnati 13
Kirby, R. L., Box 131, R. 1, Sharonville
Kratzer, George, Kidron
Krok, Walter P., 925 W. 29th St., Lorain
Laditka, Nicholas G., 5322 Stickney Ave., Cleveland 9
Lashley, Chas. V., 216 S. Main, Wellington
Lehmann, Carl, Union Trust Bldg., Cincinnati
Livezey, Albert J., Barnesville
Madson, Arthur E., 13608-5th Ave., E. Cleveland 12
McBride, William B., 2398 Brandon Rd., Columbus 8
Meikle, William J., 730 Thornhill Dr., Cleveland
Metzger, A. J., 724 Euclid Ave., Toledo 5
Miller, Arthur R., R. D. 4, Wooster
Mutchler, Glenn M., Box 10, Massillon
Neff, Wm., Martel
Nicolay, Chas., 2259 Hess Ave., Cincinnati 11
Oches, Norman M., R. D. 2, Brunswick
Olney High School, R. D. 1, Eggleston Rd., Toledo 5
Osborn, Frank C., 4040 W. 160th St., Cleveland
Pomerene, W. H., Coshocton
Poston, E. M., Jr., 2640 E. Main, Columbus
Rowe, Stanley M., R. D. 1, Box 83, Cincinnati 27
Scarff's Sons, W. N., New Carlisle

Schaufelberger, Hugo S., R. D. 2, Sandusky
Shelton, Dr. E. M., 1468 W. Clifton Blvd., Lakewood 7
Sherman, L. Walter, Mahoning Co., Exp. Farm, Canfield
Shessler, Sylvester M., Genoa
Silvis, Raymond E., 1725 Lindbergh Ave., N. E., Massillon
Soliday, E. C., 834 Madison Ave., Lancaster
Southart, Dr. A. F., 24-1/2 South Main St., Mt. Gilead
Smith, Sterling A., 630 W. South St., Vermilion
Spring Hill Nurseries Co., Tipp City
Stocker, C. P., Lorain Products Corp., 1122 F St., Lorain
Sylvarium Gardens, L. E. Crawford, 5499 Columbia Rd., N. Olmsted
Thomas, W. F., 406 S. Main St., Findlay
Toops, Herbert A., 1430 Cambridge Blvd., Columbus
Urban, George, 4518 Ardendale Rd., South Euclid 21
Van Voorhis, J. F., 215 Hudson Ave., Apt. B-1, Newark
Walker, Carl F., 2851 E. Overlook Rd., Cleveland
Weaver, Arthur W., 318 Oliver St., Toledo 4
* Weber, Harry, R. Esq., 123 E. 6th St., Cincinnati
Weber, Mrs. Martha R., R. D. 1, Morgan Rd., Cleves
Weibel, A. J., 4130 Florida Ave., Cincinnati 23
Whitmer High School, 5530 Whitmer Drive, Toledo 12
Willett, Dr. G. P., Elmore
Wischhusen, J. F., 15031 Shore Acres Dr., N.E., Cleveland 10
Yates, Edward W., 3108 Parkview Ave., Cincinnati 13
Yoder, Emmet, Smithville

OKLAHOMA

Hirschi's Nursery, 414 N. Robinson, Oklahoma City
Hubbard, Orie B., Kingston

Hughes, C. V., 5600 N. W. 16-R No. 2, Box 564, Oklahoma City 8
Jarrett, C. F., 2208 W. 40th, Tulsa
Meek, E. B., R. D. 2, Wynnewood
Pulliam, Gordon, 407 Osage Ave., Bartlesville
Ruhlen, Dr. Chas. A., 114 W. Steele, Cushing
Swan, Oscar E., Jr., 1226 E. 30th St., Tulsa 5

OREGON

Borland, Robert E., 219 Mill St., Silverton
Carlton Nursery Co., Forest Grove
Dohanian, S. M., P. O. Box 246, Eugene
Flanagan, George C., 909 Terminal Sales Bldg., Portland
Miller, John E., R. D. 1, Box 312-A, Oswego
Russ, E., R. D. 1, Halsey
Schuster, C. E., Horticulturist, Cervallis

PENNSYLVANIA

Allaman, R. P., R. D. 1, Harrisburg
Anundson, Lester, 2630 Chestnut St., Erie
Banks, H. C., R. D. 1, Hellertown
Barnhart, Emmert M., R. D. 4, Waynesboro
Beard, H. G., R. D. 1, Sheridan
Blair, Dr. G. D., 702 N. Homewood Ave., Pittsburgh
Bowen, John C., R. D. 1, Macungie
Breneiser, Amos P., 427-N. 5th St., Reading
Brenneman, John S., R. D. 6, Lancaster
Brown, Morrison, Carson Long Military Academy, New Bloomfield
Buckman, C. M., Schwenkville

Catterall, Karl P., 734 Frank St., Pittsburgh 10
Clarke, Wm. S., Jr., Box 167, State College
Creasy, Luther P., Catawissa
DeHaven, Edwin, 404 Wall Ave., Pitcairn
Dewey, Richard, Box 41, Peckville
Dible, Samuel E., R. D. 3, Shelocta
Diefenderfer, C. E., 918 Third St., Fullerton
Driver, Warren M., R. D. 4, Bethlehem
Ebling, Aaron L., R. D. 2, Reading
Etter, Fayette, P. O. Box 57, Lehmasters
Gardner, Ralph D., Box 425, Colonial Park
Gebhardt, F. C., 140 E. 29th St., Erie
Gorton, F. B., 4110 Emmet Dr., Erie
Heasley, George S., R. D. 2, Darlington
Heckler, George Snyder, Hatfield
Heilman, R. H., 2303 Beechwood Blvd., Pittsburgh
Hershey, John W., Nut Tree Nurseries, Downingtown
Hewetson, Prof. F. N., Fruit Research Lab., Arendtsville
Hostetter, C. F., Bird-In-Hand
Hostetter, L. K., R. D. 5, Lancaster
Hughes, Douglas, 1230 East 21st St., Erie
Jackson, Schuyler, New Hope
Johnson, Robert F., R. D. 5, Box 56, Crafton
Jones, Mildred M., 301 N. West End Ave., Lancaster
Jones, Dr. Truman W., Coatesville
Kaufman, M. M., Clarion
Kirk, DeNard B., Forest Grove
Knouse, Chas. W., Colonial Park
Leach, Hon. Will, Court House, Scranton
Long, Carleton C., 138 College Ave., Beaver

Losch, Walter, 133 E. High St., Topton
Mathews, Mrs. Geo., R. D. 2, Cambridge Springs
Mattoon, H. Gleason, 258 South Van Pelt St., Philadelphia 3
McCartney, J. Lupton, Rm. 1, Horticultural Bldg., State College
Mercer, Robert A., 435 E. Phil-Ellera St., Philadelphia 19
Miller, Elwood B., c/o The Hazleton Bleaching & Dyeing Works,
Hazleton
Miller, Robert O., 3rd & Ridge St., Emmaus
Moyer, Philip S., Union Trust Bldg., Harrisburg
Niederriter, Leonard, 1726 State St., Erie
Reidler, Paul G., Ashland
Rial, John, 528 Harrison Ave., Greensburg
* Rick, John, 438 Pennsylvania Sq., Reading
Robinson, P. S., Gettysburg
Rupp, Edward E., Jr., 57 W. Omfret St., Carlisle
Sameth, Sigmund, Grandeval Farm, R. D. 3, Kutztown
Schaible, Percy, Upper Black Eddy
Schmidt, Albert J., 534 Smithfield St., Pittsburgh
Sheibley, J. W., Star Route, Landisburg
Shelly, David B., R. D. 2, Elizabethtown
Smith, Dr. J. Russell, 550 Elm Ave., Swarthmore
Stewart, E. L., Pine Hill Farms Nursery, R. D. 2, Homer City
Stewart, John H., Yule Tree Farm, Akeley
Stoebener, Harry W., 6227 Penn Ave., Pittsburgh
Theiss, Dr. Lewis E., Bucknell University, Lewisburg
Twist, Frank S., Northumberland
Waggoner, Charles W., 432 Harmony Ave., Rochester
Washick, Dr. Frank A., 501 Cottman Ave., Philadelphia 11
Weinrich, Whitney, 134 S. Lansdowne Ave., Lansdowne
Wicks, Dr. A. G., 227 Baywood Ave., Mt. Lebanon

* Wister, John C., Scott Foundation, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore
Wood, Wayne, R. D. 1, Newville
Wright, Ross Pier, 235 West 6th St., Erie
Zimmerman, Mrs. G. A., R. I, Linglestown

RHODE ISLAND

+ Allen, Philip, 178 Dorance St., Providence
R. I. State College, Library Dept., Green Hall, Kingston

SOUTH AMERICA

Pereda, Celedonia V., Arroyo 1142, Buenos Aires, Argentina

SOUTH CAROLINA

Bregger, John. T., Clemson

SOUTH DAKOTA

Bradley, Homer L., LaCreek National Wildlife Refuge, Martin

TENNESSEE

Howell Nurseries, Sweetwater
McDaniel, Dr. J. C, Tenn. Dept. of Agriculture, 403 State Office
Bldg. Nashville 3
Meyer, James R., Agronomy Dept., University of Tenn., Knoxville
Rhodes, G. B., R. D. 2, Covington

Richards, Dr. A., Whiteville
Roark, W. F., Malesus
Zarger, Thomas G., Norris

TEXAS

Florida, Kaufman, Box 154, Rotan
Price, W. S., Jr., Gustine

UTAH

Jeppesen, Chris., Wildwood Hollow Farm Nursery, Provo City
Oleson, Granville, 1210 Laird Ave., Salt Lake City 5
Peterson, Harlan D., 2164 Jefferson Ave., Ogden

VERMONT

Aldrich, A. W., R. D. 3, Springfield
Ellis, Zenas H., Fair Haven. Perpetual Membership "In Memoriam"
Farrington, Robert A., Vermont Forest Service, Montpelier
Foster, Forest K., West Topsham
Ladd, Paul, Hilltop Farm, Jamaica

VIRGINIA

Acker, E. D., Co., Broadway
Brewster, Stanley H., "Cerro Gordo", Gainesville
Burton, George L., 728 College St., Bedford
Case, Lynn B., R. D. 1, Fredericksburg
Dickerson, T. C, 316-56th St., Newport News

Gibbs, H. R., McLean
Johnson, Dr. Walter R., Garrisonville
Morse, Chandler, Valross, R. D. 5, Alexandria
Nix, Robert W., Jr., Lucketts
Pertzoff, Dr. V. A., Carter's Bridge
Peters, John Rogers, P. O. Box 37, McLean
Pinner, H. McR., P. O. Box 155, Suffolk
Powell, Frank, Stuart
Stoke, H. F., 1420 Watts Ave., Roanoke
Stoke, Dr. John H., 408-10 Boxley Bldg., Roanoke
Thompson, H. C., Short & Thompson, Inc., Hopewell
Variety Products Co., 5 Middlebrook Ave., Staunton
Virginia Tree Farm, Woodlawn
Webb, John, Hillsville
Zimmerman, Ruth, Bridgewater

WEST VIRGINIA

Cannaday, Dr. John E., Charleston General Hospital, Charleston 25
Cross, Andrew, Ripley
Frye, Wilbert M., Pleasant Dale
Glenmont Nurseries, Arthur M. Reed, Moundsville, W. Va.
Golden Chestnut Nursery, Arthur A. Gold, Cowen
Gross, Andrew, Ripley
Holcomb, Herbert L., Riverside Nurseries, P.O. Box 5, S. Charleston 3
Hoover, Wendell W., Webster Springs
Margolin, Abe S., University of West Virginia, Morgantown
Slotkin, Meyer S., 629-10th Ave., Huntington

WASHINGTON

Altman, Mrs. H. E., 2338 King St., Bellingham 9
Barth, J. H., Box 1827 R. D. 3, Spokane 6
Bartleson, C. J., Box 25, Chattaron
Biddle, Miss Gertrude W., 923 Gordon Ave., Spokane 12
Carey, Joseph E., 4219 Letona Ave., Seattle
Clark, R. W., 4221 Phinney Ave., Seattle
Denman, George L., 1319 East Nina Ave., Spokane
Ferris, Major Hiram B., P. O. Box 74, Spokane 1
Jessup, J. M., Cook
Kling, William L., R. D. 2, Box 230, Clarkston
Latterell, Ethel, Greenacres
Linkletter, F. D., 8034-35th Ave., N.E., Seattle 5
Lynn Tuttle Nursery, The Heights, Clarkston
Martin, Fred A., Star Route, Chelan
Naderman, G. W., R. D. 1, Box 370, Olymphia
Shane Bros., Vashon

WISCONSIN

Bassett, W. S., 1522 Main St., La Crosse
Brust, John J., 135 W. Wells St., Milwaukee 3
Dopkins, Marvin, R. D. 1, River Falls
Downs, M. L., 1024 N. Leminwah St., Appleton
Johnson, Albert G., R. D. 2, Box 457, Waukesha
Koelsch, Norman, Jackson
Ladwig, C. F., 2221 St. Lawrence, Beloit
Mortensen, M. C., 2117 Stanson Ave., Racine
Zinn, Walter G., P. O. Box 747, Milwaukee

WYOMING

Greene, W. D., Box 348, Greybull

* Life Member
+ Contributing Member
** Honorary Member

CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE I—NAME

This Society shall be known as the Northern Nut Growers Association,
Incorporated.

ARTICLE II—OBJECT

Its object shall be the promotion of interest in nut-bearing plants, their
products and their culture.

ARTICLE III—MEMBERSHIP

Membership in this society shall be open to all persons who desire to
further nut culture, without reference to place of residence or nationality,
subject to the rules and regulations of the committee on membership.

ARTICLE IV—OFFICERS

There shall be a president, a vice-president, a secretary and a treasurer, who
shall be elected by ballot at the annual meeting; and a board of directors
consisting of six persons, of which the president, the two last retiring
presidents, the vice-president, the secretary and the treasurer shall be

members. There shall be a state vice-president from each state, dependency,
or country represented in the membership of the association, who shall be
appointed by the president.

ARTICLE V—ELECTION OF OFFICERS

A committee of five members shall be elected at the annual meeting for the
purpose of nominating officers for the following year.

ARTICLE VI—MEETINGS

The place and time of the annual meeting shall be selected by the
membership in session or, in the event of no selection being made at this
time, the board of directors shall choose the place and time for the holding
of the annual convention. Such other meetings as may seem desirable may
be called by the president and board of directors.

ARTICLE VII—QUORUM

Ten members of the Association shall constitute a quorum but must include
two of the four officers.

ARTICLE VIII—AMENDMENTS

This constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the members
present at any annual meeting, notice of such amendment having been read
at the previous annual meeting, or copy of the proposed amendment having
been mailed by any member to each member thirty days before the date of
the annual meeting.

BY-LAWS

ARTICLE I—COMMITTEES

The Association shall appoint standing committees as follows: On
membership, on finance, on programme, on press and publication, on
exhibits, on varieties and contests, on survey, and an auditing committee.
The committee on membership may make recommendations to the
Association as to the discipline or expulsion of any member.

ARTICLE II—FEES

Annual members shall pay two dollars annually. Contributing members
shall pay ten dollars annually. Life members shall make one payment of
fifty dollars and shall be exempt from further dues and shall be entitled to
the same benefits as annual members. Honorary members shall be exempt
from dues. "Perpetual" membership is eligible to any one who leaves at
least five hundred dollars to the Association and such membership on
payment of said sum to the Association shall entitle the name of the
deceased to be forever enrolled in the list of members as "Perpetual" with
the words "In Memoriam" added thereto. Funds received therefor shall be
invested by the Treasurer in interest bearing securities legal for trust funds
in the District of Columbia. Only the interest shall be expended by the
Association. When such funds are in the treasury the Treasurer shall be

bonded. Provided: that in the event the Association becomes defunct or
dissolves then, in that event, the Treasurer shall turn over any funds held in
his hands for this purpose for such uses, individuals or companies that the
donor may designate at the time he makes the bequest or the donation.

ARTICLE III—MEMBERSHIP

All annual memberships shall begin October 1st. Annual dues received
from new members after April first shall entitle the new member to full
membership until October first of that year and a credit of one-half annual
dues for the following year.

ARTICLE IV—AMENDMENTS

By-Laws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of members present at any
meeting.

ARTICLE V

Members, shall be sent a notification of annual dues at the time they are due
and, if not paid within two months, they shall be sent a second notice,
telling them that they are not in good standing on account of non-payment
of dues and are not entitled to receive the annual report.

At the end of thirty days from the sending of the second notice, a third
notice shall be sent notifying such members that, unless dues are paid
within ten days from the receipt of this notice, their names will be dropped
from the rolls for non-payment of dues.

Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Convention

Report of the Proceedings of the Northern Nut Growers Association at its
thirty-seventh Annual Convention, held at Wooster, Ohio, September 3, 4,
5, 1946, in the auditorium of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station.

The convention was called to order at 10 A.M. with the President, Carl
Weschcke, in the chair.

Address of Welcome

By Dr. J. H. Gourley, of the Wooster Experiment Station

The thing that would strike me particularly about this meeting we are
having is to see people come from so far away; a group that is on fire with
interest in a fruit which has no great economic importance, in a place like
the central west, in comparison with other fruits. Another thing that is
interesting, as contrasted with other fruit groups, would be this; that the
extent to which nuts become of great economic importance in these places
lies very largely with you. It seems to me that without the insistent desire of
a very small minority of people an industry like this would not get very far.

Ohio has not done as much as she should. You may have come to Ohio to
give us a shot in the arm. On behalf of the Director, I want to extend to you
a cordial welcome to the Experiment Station and to Wooster. This Station
has 3600 acres of land and one-third is at Wooster—1200 acres. We have 15
district and county farms, 63,000 acres in state forests and parks.

This station has introduced a number of varieties of wheat. Sixty to
seventy-five per cent of all wheat in Ohio is grown from varieties that

originated at this station.

This station was organized in 1882 at Columbus. The Federal Hatch Act
permitting this type of organization was passed in 1887; thus Ohio was five
years ahead of the Federal Act. In 1892, the station was moved from
Columbus to Wooster. The state act provided that an experiment station
should be located within fifty miles of Columbus, but later it was permitted
to extend the distance to 100 miles. They settled on Wooster, which is 90
miles.

The tendency is to work more and more closely with the State University.
The trend seems to be so they will function as one agricultural institution.

I would like to extend the keys of the Station to you, but the keys may
not unlock the fruit storage.

I trust you will have a most profitable time while you are with us.

Response

By John E. Cannaday, M. D., Charleston, West Virginia

It is a pleasure to meet here under such favorable auspices and to be
received with these hospitable words by Dr. Gourley. In recent years, Ohio
has gone far in nut growing under his leadership and that of his staff.
Pennsylvania also has done a great deal to put nut growing on its feet. My
own state, West Virginia, is also making good headway.

In the early 1900's I got the 'bee', but I lost two or three of my first few
trees. In 1917 I imported some chestnuts from Japan for planting and tried

out various schemes in nut growing. In my opinion, chestnuts are the most
important nuts for human food that grow in the temperate zone. It is
interesting to observe how chestnuts follow true to seed in many respects. I
have been advised that all of the chestnuts grown in China are from selected
seed.

Every foot of steep mountain land in some sections of Italy is said to be
completely covered with chestnut trees. In my state, the weevil is the
scourge of chestnuts; I had hoped that after the chestnut blight destroyed
our native chestnuts, the Chinese and Japanese chestnuts would be free
from that pest. Where it came from I do not know, unless it came from the
chinkapin. West Virginia has chinkapins and these, being blight resistant,
apparently have kept up the supply of weevils. Occasionally, shortly before
the chestnuts begin to ripen, a few decay from some type of rot.

I took a census of my chestnut trees recently and found 80 trees of
bearing age. Some of the largest are 22 to 24 feet in height, with a trunk
diameter of 5 inches or more. None have been pruned but have maintained
their normal branch formation and grow low. The timber tree must be yet to
come. I have read interesting statements to the effect that in parts of China
and Burma, there are chestnut trees of timber shape and size. Chestnut trees
are likely to become of extreme importance in our future economy. The nuts
fill a very significant place in our dietary needs. We should continue to
plant chestnut trees and take care of them. I have also from 350 to 400
younger trees that are coming on, and I want to plant additional chestnut
trees every year. The black walnut and hickory nut are very important, but
the chestnut crop is the corn crop of the nuts.

Address of Retiring President

Carl Weschcke, St. Paul, Minnesota

Our last convention at Hershey, Pa., in September 1941, was a very
outstanding one. Not only was it successful because of good attendance,
excellent addresses and the places of interest we visited, particularly the
home of Mildred Jones, our Secretary, at Lancaster and of the late Dr. G. A.
Zimmerman at Linglestown, but it was important because it marked the
beginning of a long period during which we had to forego our conventions.
The death of Dr. Zimmerman shortly before that meeting dampened our
usually jovial spirits when we were entertained at his home, but his wife did
much to alleviate this.

To me, the last convention we held was by far the most important since
the very first one at New York in November, 1910, because at it I received
the honour of being chosen president for the ensuing year. This was during
the era when presidents were usually re-elected for a second term, but I
assure you that I have not served as president for this long period because I
have been seeking to emulate other presidents, but only because the war
years prevented our holding the annual meetings at which our officers are
elected.

In mentioning any part of the history of our group, we should always
remember that we owe its existence to Dr. Deming, who is now Dean of the
Association.

Now it is not my province to make a long speech about the N. N. G. A.,
because a number of other people will talk to you about it. I believe that the
growth of our society in recent years has fulfilled the fondest dreams of Dr.
Deming, since we have almost doubled our membership since 1941. We
now have approximately over 600 members. People all over the United
States are becoming aware of the value of nuts as food important to men. It

is too bad that nuts have not been available on a competitive price basis
with other foods, and that luxury prices have limited interest in nuts among
the women buyers. A better understanding of the uses and comparative
value of nuts is gradually coming about which will result in a tremendous
demand on the nut-growing industry, which of course, includes the
nurserymen who develop and grow all varieties of nut trees.

It is unfortunate for our newer members that they will never have the
opportunity of knowing those men who were among our earliest and most
valued associates whom death has recently taken from us and that they are
thus deprived of the pleasure and knowledge they might have gained
through personal contact with the wisdom and friendliness these men
displayed. Let us all take advantage of every opportunity we have to meet
with and learn from the senior members of our group who are with us today.
They are the salt of the earth, I assure you.

To those of you who have come long distances from your homes to
attend this annual meeting of the N.N.G.A., to our hosts and to all of my
good friends here, may I express my great pleasure at meeting again with
you after so long a time.

Secretary's Report

Mildred M. Jones, Lancaster, Pennsylvania

In addition to the regular routine duties of answering inquiries about the
Association, sales of reports, giving information about nut trees, where they
may be obtained, and sources of additional reading material and reference

material about nut tree work, a large part of the time I could devote to
Association affairs this year was in preparation for this meeting.

Because of travel restrictions, and the fact that the Canadian National
Exhibition would not be held this fall, and assurance from the Toronto
Convention and Tourist Association, Inc. that the Exhibition would be
resumed in the fall of 1947, and that it would be a newer and greater show,
it seemed advisable to place these facts before the members, and allow them
to vote on their preference for a meeting place this fall. In addition to
responses from the officers, I received 63 votes from members, 37 of which
were for Wooster, Ohio, 24 for Beltsville, Maryland, and 3 for Canada.
Since the letter asking for votes carried the understanding that we were
putting the Canadian meeting off for a year by voting for a place in the U.
S. this year, and were not canceling the Canadian invitation, this would
explain the small vote for Canada.

Our program committee this year was comprised of three members and
myself—Mr. C. A. Reed, whose many years of Association work and wide
acquaintance made him an invaluable source of suggestions; Dr. Oliver
Diller, who took charge of the tremendous task of handling local
arrangements; and Mr. A. A. Bungart, who helped greatly in procuring
speakers. These men helped so splendidly that I should like here to voice
my thanks and appreciation.

Much new data for the revision of the 4-page pamphlet giving
information about the Association, sources of seeds, nut tree nurserymen,
and reference material for reading has been gathered for printing. Since I
accepted the secretaryship in time for the first convention after the war, it
seemed advisable to me to hold this material until it could be turned over to
my successor who will be elected at this meeting, rather than put the
Association to the expense of printing only a small number of circulars.

A good many inquiries were received during the year for sources of
certain varieties of nuts. It would help the secretary, and also the members,
to have a list of those who have nuts for sale.

Treasurer's Report

For Period from October 1, 1945 to September 30, 1946

RECEIPTS:

Annual Membership $871.00
Contributing Membership—
Philip Allen 10.00
Sale of Reports 154.80
Zenas H. Ellis Legacy 950.00
Miscellaneous 4.00
———-
$1,989.80

DISBURSEMENTS:
Subscriptions to Fruit Grower $ 79.40
Supplies 12.52
Secretary's Expense 60.52
Treasurer's Expenses 41.94
Miscellaneous 10.00
———-
204.38
—————
Excess of Receipts over Disbursments $1,785.42

Balance on Hand—October 1, 1945 1,474.46
—————
Total Balance—September 1, 1946 $3,259.88
Deposited in Walker State Bank $3,236.07
Cash on Hand 23.81

$3,259.88

Notes on the Annual Meeting

A telegram was sent to Dr. Deming in reply to one of greeting from him,
and various committees were appointed.

Mr. Corsan suggested that an exhibit of nuts be placed on display in the
Royal York Hotel, Toronto, Canada.

Mr. Hirschi said that for killing trees by poison he uses two pounds white
arsenic, one pound caustic soda and one gallon of water.

A member stated that a few drops of mercury would answer the same
purpose.

Mr. Hirschi stated that he found the Niblack pecan an almost perfect
cracker, bringing a premium price.

Mr. Wilkinson stated that while the Niblack pecan had never been a
prolific bearer, the nut has few equals. Perhaps intensive cultivation would
improve the bearing.

It was voted to leave the date of the next meeting to the executive
committee.

Mr. Spencer Chase, of the TVA, invited the members to meet in
Tennessee at an early date.

The President: "We should consider this a fine invitation for 1948. For
1947 we should honor our commitments and go to Canada."

A free discussion occurred on the suggestion to establish a nut journal
and on the proposal to raise the dues.

The President suggested that the way to get the work of association done
promptly would be to pay for it.

Dr. McKay expressed doubt about the inadvisability of raising the dues.

Mr. Walker thought that if the dues were raised it should be to the extent
of a dollar on account of the inconvenience of sending fractional currency.
The treasurer suggested the advisability of getting out a mimeographed
letter to record progress. Mr. Slate emphasized the importance of producing
a good report to hold the members.

Mr. Hershey also approved the idea of getting out a news letter or
progress report. The President suggested that one thousand members would
settle the whole question. Mr. Jay Smith stated he thought the Association
should advertise in some way, especially in sportsmen's magazines.

A motion on the part of Mr. Stoke to raise the dues by fifty cents per year
was lost.

The nominating committee made the following nominations for officers
for the ensuing year, 1946-47:

Clarence A. Reed, President
Dr. L. H. MacDaniels, Vice-President
Miss Mildred M. Jones, Secretary
D. C. Snyder, Treasurer

The nominating committee also, through its chairman, Mr. Weber,
recommended that appropriate steps be taken at the next annual meeting to
amend the Constitution to consolidate the offices of treasurer and secretary
so that they can be filled by one person, and that the remuneration of the
secretary-treasurer be fixed at fifty cents per member.

Mr. Stoke moved that the report of the nominating committee be
approved, and that the nominees be declared elected. Motion was seconded
and carried.

Mr. D. C. Snyder offered the following resolution:

"Because of the great and enduring service that Dr. William C.
Deming has rendered the Association, I move that he be named
Dean of the Association and be given an honorary life
membership, without payment of dues."

The motion was seconded, and carried with applause.

On being called to the chair, the newly-elected President, Clarence A.
Reed, spoke as follows:

"I take this as a very great honor; it is an equally great
responsibility. All I can say is that I appreciate it deeply, and that I
will give you the best service I have in me."

The Ohio Section of the Northern Nut Growers Association, Inc.,
submitted a copy of its Constitution containing a provision that it affiliate

with the Northern Nut Growers' Association by having its accredited
members become also members of both Associations.

After an open discussion by officers and members of both Associations, a
resolution was adopted by the Northern Nut Growers' Association
expressing appreciation to the Ohio organization for their offer of
affiliation, and accepting such affiliation on the terms stated.

It was also brought out as the sense of the meeting that the Executive
Committee work out any necessary details in connection with this and any
subsequent affiliation on the part of any district or state Association, the
same to be submitted to the next annual meeting of the Northern Nut
Growers' Association for ratification.

It was also recommended that the President appoint a member of each
affiliating Association to the Executive Committee of the Northern Nut
Growers' Association.

This statement is made in lieu of an accurate transcript of the
proceedings, or a verbatim report of the resolution as adopted, neither of
which is available.

Aims and Aspirations of the Ohio Nut Growers

A. A. Bungart, Avon, Ohio

In one of the previous bulletins of the NNGA, there appeared an
eighteen-point program formulated by the Ohio Nut Growers. No doubt you
are wondering what has been done and is being done to make this program
function. We have eliminated one point, the one on the pollen bank. At the

time our program was being prepared we assumed that nut pollen could be
stored for several weeks or months: Since nut pollen does not remain viable
in storage, we shall substitute a point on the use of lime, fertilizers of
various formulas and the use of trace elements in nut culture.

The Ohio Forestry Association on January 18, 1944, passed a resolution
approving our eighteen-point program.

As you are well aware, the war put a damper on many activities, nut and
otherwise. Here in Ohio, the nut crops of 1944 and 1945 were virtually
failures; even the crop of 1946 is decidedly spotty. Yet in spite of the war
and adverse weather conditions, the Ohio growers are looking forward, and
planning for the future. As a group we are directing our efforts to the
attainment of two specific objectives.

In the first place, we have almost $300 collected as prize money for State
nut contests. I take this opportunity to announce a donation of $105 from
Mr. John Davidson, of Xenia, Ohio. With the aid of such a generous
contributor, we are able to offer a first prize of $50; second prize of $25;
third prize of $15; fourth prize of $10; fifth prize of $5; and five one-dollar
prizes for black walnuts.

In three or five years we intend to have another contest; either a
sweepstakes of $110, or a repetition of the amounts offered this year. We
may keep the contest open next year and the year after for those wishing to
enter nuts for the final awards. In this way, too, we include black walnuts
which are not bearing this year.

Our follow-up will work something like this: We intend to keep a record
over the years of the performance of each of the ten prize winners and the
ten honorable mentions of the 1946 contest. To that end we have made a
score card. The first section of this card will contain information useful to

the Department of Forestry and to nut culture in general, but it will not be a
factor in selecting the prize winner unless a virtual tie might result in the
sweepstakes contest. This section will include:

1. Location—owner, County, rural route, village, town, state
route, etc.

2. Location of Tree—isolated, moderately crowded, in dense
woods, farm, pasture, city lot, fence row, general ecology; types of
other trees in neighborhood, air drainage, exposure.

3. Size of Tree—circumference 4-1/2 ft. from the ground, probable
age, height, limb spread; shape, tall, short; symmetry or lack of
it.

4. Type of Soil—bottom land, slope and direction, upland; clay,
loam, alluvial; presence or absence of humus; acidity; sod or
cultivated, mulch or not; depth and kind of subsoil.

5. Moisture Conditions—presence of stream or tile drain,
proximity to to stream, lake, pond, etc.

6. Fertility Conditions—wild natural state, near barnyard,
fertilized or not with manure or commercial fertilizers, application
of lime, etc.

The second section will contain information that will aid in awarding the
final prizes. Superior rating under this head might, in the final judging,
make an "honorable mention" of the 1946 contest the best all around
performer three or five years hence. This section will include:

1. Resistance to disease and insect pests 2 points

2. Bearing habits over the given period; annual, biennial,
occasional 7 points

3. Length of growing season; rate of growth; time of blossoming
(staminate and pistillate flowers), time of leafing out, time of nut
ripening, time of leaf fall 4 points

4. Size of nut clusters, range in number of nuts, per cluster, number
of pounds of immature nuts 2 points

5. Size of crop in proportion to tree 5 points

Total 20 points

Some formula will have to be worked out for the last, i.e., size of crop in
proportion to the size of tree. Perhaps we might say the crop equals (pounds
of nuts) / (r squared x h) in which "r" would represent the radius or half the
limb spread and "h" the height, measured from the top to lowest branches.

For example, if a tree that yielded 100 pounds of nuts had a limb spread
of 20 feet and was twenty feet high, it would have a value of 100 / (10
squared x 20) or 1/20. The fraction, of course, could be eliminated if the
number of nuts were substituted for pounds. It is hardly likely that such a
formula would be used for all the trees, probably only in instances where
scores in other respects were close.

The third section of the score card will record the rating of the judges on
the cracking qualities and other characteristics of the nuts themselves. Any
form accepted and approved by the NNGA will be satisfactory.

We plan to use this system for hickory, butternut and other nut contests.
Without a Mr. Davidson, however, we shall be compelled to reduce our
prizes for the other contests.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. C. A. Reed for
originating this plan. He told us we ought to know more about the trees
from which the prize nuts were taken. Our score card aims at a complete
record.

Our second aim is to secure a full time research worker in nut culture
under the Horticultural Department of Ohio. We have the promise of
Director Secrest that he will include in his biennial budget an appropriation
for such a specialist. We have the encouragement of Dr. Gourley, the head
of the department. But both men will expect us to do our part. Both expect
us to speak for our group and our project when the time comes. We accept
that responsibility.

Our group has already contacted the members of the finance committee
that passes on the budget, and we expect to have our representatives present
when the budget is discussed in committee. At present, to be sure, we
cannot furnish or even promise an endowment in money. Sixty Nut Grower
members can scarcely compete with such powerful groups as the Apple
Growers, the Hybrid Corn Breeders, the Poultrymen and others. We can,
however, furnish an endowment of men. Among our members we have such
men as Mr. Davidson, Mr. Shessler, Mr. Cranz, Mr. Smith and Mr. Weber,
along with many others who have done a great deal with nut trees.

A research worker could draw upon their advice, their experience, their
technique. He would have as his assistants men who were actuated by no
mercenary or selfish motives, and would give of their time and trees to
make this dream a reality. Certainly much of the experimental work such as
the crossing of varieties could well be performed on the trees of individual
members.

The need of such an expert is obvious. The job of getting ahead in nut
culture is too big for any one of us. We all know, frequently to our regret,

that nut growing is a slow and at times a discouraging business. If we are
honest with ourselves we have to admit failures again and again; yet the
work is creative and fascinating. We always plan to eliminate some blunder,
to perfect some method, next year.

Sometimes a man has a green thumb, or a magic touch, or whatever it
takes to make grafts grow, or buds take, or hunches to succeed. Such a man
was Mr. Otto Witte, of North Amherst. As a nonagenarian, he was ever
looking ahead to another year with his beloved trees, but he died in his
nineties. Some of his prize trees have been cut down and probably others
will be. What has happened to the experiments of 60 years? Another such
man was Mr. Ross Fickes, of Wooster, whose skill in grafting nut trees was
at once our envy and our admiration. When his farm is sold, will the new
owner sense the hand of the master and watch carefully over the walnuts
and hickories, or will he cut them down?

I suppose that death brings an end to many a business, but the nut
business is a new one, and a slow one, too. It is regretted that a life time of
patient care and painstaking research is lost to us and to nut culture.

True, a nut specialist will not keep death from the door of nut growers,
nor will he save their groves from destruction, but he can keep a record of
each grower's trees. He can plant his trees and lay out his plantings on state
land where there would be more assurance of permanency. Once a nut
department is established there is good reason to suppose that the work
would go on until certain objectives were attained.

Well, what should our specialist specialize in? May I suggest a few
activities? Such a specialist would be the proper person to keep the score
cards of the prize-winning black walnuts, hickories, butternuts and English
(Persian) walnuts of nut contests held in the state. He would have the time

and space for grafting scions from such trees for further observation and
study.

In the second place, he could plant and study other varieties under
identical conditions and observe their performance. By correlating these
data with the records of individual growers he ought to be able to
recommend certain varieties of nut trees for various sections of the state.

In Ohio, we have chapters of the Izaak Walton League; we have Friends
of the Land; we have sportsmens clubs; we have extensive tracts of
municipal and state land. We have the problem of doing something
constructive with strip mining areas; we have, and will have under contour
farming, little crazy-quilt blocks of land unsuitable for cultivation. All these
agencies and all these needs tie in with the intelligent use of trees,
particularly nut trees, because they serve a fourfold purpose; lumber, food,
erosion control, and a balanced wild life. Here is where the nut specialist
would enter the scene. By collecting data, by pooling the results of the
individual growers, and especially by selection and breeding, he should be
able to recommend the proper varieties of nut trees for specific needs.

It seems to me, however, that the main job of such a worker should be to
produce a streamlined black walnut, a thin-shelled, good-cracking, fast-
growing walnut.

The black walnut is, indeed, a regal tree. It grows all over the State. Here
is a tree of almost infinite variation. What an opportunity for the genetic
scientist! What an opportunity for the nut specialist!

In connection with the improvement of the black walnut as a nut and
timber tree, the specialist might well investigate the English or Persian
walnut. What about the possibilities of Circassian walnut lumber? What is
to prevent the growers and the specialist from planting the English walnut

for timber? Here in Northern Ohio, English walnut trees have been cut for
timber. There are probably several hundred English walnut trees scattered
through the northern counties of Ohio. Some of them are from 10 to 18
inches in diameter. A few are second generation. As these trees seem to be
fairly rapid growers it would seem reasonable that nuts from these hardy
trees would grow into valuable timber, apart from the value of the nuts.

Perhaps all these aspirations and aims seem Utopian. Probably such a
program would keep a dozen workers occupied. In cooperation with the
Forestry Department, however, students might be assigned to study certain
phases of nut culture. A Ph.D. dissertation might well be written on the
variation of the Thomas walnut in Ohio.

In conclusion, the Ohio growers will try to produce better nut trees.
Through prize contests they hope to find what nature has produced.
Through the services of a scientist they hope to find what man can produce.
The two aims dovetail. We are reasonably certain of the prize contests; we
are not yet certain of securing the nut scientist.

Ohio is host to the NNGA this year. May the Ohio growers ask you for
your moral support in this venture? The NNGA is the mother organization.
Through the efforts of the officers, past and present, the association is in a
flourishing condition with prospects of a very bright future. Whatever we
do in Ohio, whatever will be done in other states and countries will be a
monument to the NNGA. The groping years, the hard years, are behind. The
spade work has been done. We want you to feel that the aims and
aspirations of the Ohio growers sprang from your advice, your experiments
and enthusiasm.

I would like to add a final word about the unique advantage we enjoy
here in Ohio. We have the cooperation of a powerful and excellent farm
paper, "The Ohio Farmer." Through its pages our contests get a wide

publicity. Mr. Ray Kelsey has furnished us with 5000 folders announcing
the contest and the purpose behind it. We have the cooperation of the
Experiment Station here at Wooster and its affiliated agencies. Drs. Secrist
and Gourley have been kind, encouraging, helpful. Dr. Oliver Diller, of the
Forestry Department, and Mr. Walter Sherman, of the Mahoning Farm, have
helped and worked with us in a hundred ways. We feel the NNGA ought to
know about this harmonious and whole-hearted team work.

Nut Growing Under Semi-Arid Conditions

A. G. Hirschi, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

The pecan is the major nut crop in Oklahoma. The timber growth along
the rivers and creeks contains enough pecan trees, if they were properly
distributed, to make one continuous pecan grove entirely across the state.

Pecan improvement work is only in its beginning. The Oklahoma Pecan
Grower's Association was organized in 1926. It is devoted to the general
improvement of the pecan, and to the dissemination of information gained
by the members from their experience and observation. Dr. Frank Cross,
head of the Department of Horticulture of our A & M College at Stillwater,
is very active in nut improvement and is giving us much valuable
assistance. Early in the history of our association we began to graft the large
improved varieties on our seedling trees. True, many mistakes were made. I
recall when all our trees producing small and inferior nuts, were cut down
level with the ground, and the sprouts growing from the roots, were budded
or grafted to paper-shells. This meant a long wait for production. We soon
realized it was better to stub back the limbs and graft these, or permit the

sprouts to develop and bud them, plus saving most of the framework of the
trees, which gives us heavy production of grafted pecans in a short time.

Competing growth, that is underbrush and all kinds of trees other than
pecans, rob the grove of moisture, sunlight, and plant food. This growth was
formerly removed by hand grubbing, but now with a large bulldozer it is
pushed right out of the ground into piles where it is burned. Now the ground
is clean, no stumps to grub out, and ready for a cover-crop or clean
cultivation. Nothing remains but pecan trees, some elm, hackberry and oak,
too large for the bulldozer. These are poisoned and burned right where they
stand the following winter. For poisoning a mixture of two pounds of white
arsenic and a pound of caustic soda to a gallon of water, if applied from an
oilcan with a spout in an open circle chopped in the bark so as to girdle the
tree, will usually deaden it in a short while. Within the year nothing is left
but pecan trees. These are watched carefully for production and shelling
quality and, if not desirable, or standing too thick, are removed for greater
spacing for permanent trees.

Today, only the smaller pecan trees are top worked, either to named
varieties or to selected seedlings. Due to changed conditions of market and
labor, the native pecan has come into its own. The pecan sheller buys 90%
of the native pecans. He will pay only a few cents more for the big paper-
shell. The native pecan is as staple as butter and eggs. Every produce man
buys them for the shelling plants. This leaves the big paper-shell to seek a
special market at an advertising cost. Due to the small differential in the
wholesale price of the native and the paper-shell, the larger native trees are
no longer top-grafted but are encouraged in every way for heavy
production.

Thus, when creek and river bottom thickets are opened up to sunshine
and air, nothing left but pecan trees properly spaced, and this on land

usually considered worthless, these trees will quadruple in production and
pay a handsome return on a $200 per acre valuation. This is a real and
altogether possible two-story agriculture to those who are fortunate enough
to own undeveloped pecan timber land. Many of our members have
beautiful groves redeemed from the wild with bounteous crops of nuts
overhead and cattle grazing on enriching cover crops underneath. The pecan
means a lot to the farmers of Oklahoma. The average yearly tonnage is
about 16,000,000 pounds, with a peak production of 30,000,000 pounds.
This amounts to an average of $2,000,000 annually, with a peak of
$5,091,000.

I want to show you what it means to some of our members to develop
their native pecans, either as natives or grafted to improved varieties. The
proceeds from one lone pecan tree in Mr. Skorkosky's cotton patch paid the
taxes on his farm several different years. Thus encouraged, he redeemed a
small thicket, added a few nursery trees of paper-shells, about ten acres in
all, which now often makes a return equal to the rest of the farm. Mr.
Kramer paid $1,000 for 10 acres, with part in seedling pecans. He sold
$1,000 worth of pecans several different times, and the rest of the farm
makes a good return in pasture and hay. He also has 51 acres that often
makes a return of $50 per acre in pecans, besides pasturing 20 Herfords.
Mr. Kramer destroys trees by girdling. Mr. Pfile makes it a business to buy
farms on which there are pecan thickets. One farm has 70 acres, all top-
grafted to improved varieties. Trees were small and no production for five
years, supporting production for the next four years. Tenth year grossed
$8,500; eleventh year, $5,400; twelfth year, $1,800, and this year his
conservative estimate is $10,000. Mr. Camp has 600 acres in pecans, 90%
improved varieties. He planted 50 acres on upland sandy land on terraces,
with pecan trees 40 feet apart and an apple tree between each two pecan
trees. The tenth year he produced 8,000 pounds of paper-shells and 4,000
bushels of apples. More recently he planted 125 acres on upland, but

planted the pecans 60 feet apart on terraces with an apple tree between. In
this orchard he produces 3/4 of a bale of cotton per acre and plants vetch in
the fall between cotton rows. In October he had four crops on this land,
cotton, vetch, apples and pecans. He says apple trees alternated with pecans
on terraces are OK. Cotton, potatoes and sweet potatoes between the
terraces for the first ten years are OK, but vetch as a winter cover crop to
improve the soil must not be neglected. Grover Hayden has the largest
native pecan grove in the world—1,800 acres fenced hog tight. He started
31 years ago as a farm hand. He had rather have 500 acres of pecans than
1,000 acres of alfalfa. Now after 30 years he owns the place at a purchase
price of $90,000, not counting improvements and equipment. His average
production is about 300,000 pounds per year. In 1935, he produced
400,000. He held back his 1941 crop and together with his 1942 crop, he
sold both for $61,000. Think of the faith a man must have in pecans in
Oklahoma to go in debt for $71,000 as Mr. Hayden did! He rode a pony that
was mortgaged for all it was worth from Arkansas to this ranch.

Those of us who do not have native or seedling pecan trees to work with,
must develop orchards from nursery trees. I was raised on a poor farm in
Missouri. I always had a desire to take a poor piece of land and see what I
could do to improve it. Consequently, I planted 225 improved pecan trees of
25 different varieties and all other kinds of nut trees, fruit trees and a variety
of berries on a piece of worn-out upland, pronounced by our county agent
to be the poorest piece of ground in our county, and predicted it would be a
complete failure.

I planted the pecan trees 60 feet apart, and interplanted with other nut and
fruit trees. The trees were planted on the contour with youngberries and
many others planted in rows between the tree rows, making a perfect soil
conservation arrangement. Barnyard fertilizer was used to start the trees.
Every September, vetch and rye were sown as a cover-crop and soil-builder

and disked into the soil the following spring. Clean cultivation is practiced
during the summer to conserve moisture. This procedure has been adhered
to most rigidly without a single crop failure. At 12 years most of the trees
are producing $25 worth of paper-shells. The youngberries and plants sold
have paid the expense of the orchard and a handsome profit besides, until
the trees needed all the room. This project has proved to my satisfaction that
profitable nuts and fruit crops can be grown on upland, if soil conservation
and improvement are practised. The limiting factors of nut and fruit
production are plant food and moisture, and if these are supplied, good
production is assured.

Black Walnuts

The native black walnut of Oklahoma is small and of little value. Most
pecan growers have a few native black walnut trees they graft to the
improved varieties. I have Thomas, Stabler, Ohio, Mintle, Myers, and
others. Thomas has been used most extensively, but does not fill well on
upland. However, in deep sand and low bottoms it fills perfectly. It is an
alternate bearer and is subject to sunscald in our hot dry summers. Ohio and
Stabler have not proven satisfactory. Mintle is a fine nut, splendid cracker,
fills well, but is an alternate bearer. I like Myers very much, a consistent
bearer, has thinnest shell of all, vegetates after frost in spring, has abundant
foliage and twigs, holds leaves until late autumn. Myers is my choice of all
varieties at present. However, as with pecans, what varieties to use is each
grower's individual problem. We will be looking for better varieties 50
years from now. For five years I am offering $25 annually for the best
seedling black walnut. Write to our A & M College, Horticulture
Department, Stillwater, Oklahoma, for rules and regulations of the contest.

How to Make Money with Black Walnuts

I believe I have discovered the best way to market black walnuts. I have
not had much success selling them either husked or unhusked, "too hard to
crack." Then someone remarked, "If you would crack them and put in some
horseshoe nails to pick out the meats, they might sell." There it is: the secret
is discovered. The lowly and almost extinct horseshoe nail will sell cracked
black walnuts. I have the reputation among local hardware dealers of
having more horses than any man in Oklahoma. Black walnuts and
horseshoe nails are reminiscent of the good old days down on the farm. The
big fat meats of improved cracked walnuts peering through the sides of one
or two pound cellophane bags pinned shut with a couple of horseshoe nails
is a temptation few people can resist. Leave a few packages with your
grocer or druggist and try it. I get 25c per pound for the whole walnuts, and
35c for those cracked. I sell several thousand pounds every season, and
since the black walnut does not become rancid we sell them all the year. I
have a down-town shop window to display nuts and fruits. We husk our
walnuts by running them thru an ordinary corn-sheller, or by jacking up the
rear wheel of an automobile, put on a mud chain, with a trough underneath,
place car in gear and scoop walnuts into trough in front of the wheel. This
will husk them rapidly and well. We should promote the growing of more
improved black walnuts. Most catalog nurseries still list seedling walnuts.
We sold 3000 Thomas and Myers black walnut trees to one mail order
nursery, and they could have used more.

English Walnuts

I tried all the California varieties, but these lacked hardiness. The Wiltz
Mayette grew into a big fine tree but the 1940 Armistice Day freeze proved
fatal. Breslau, Broadview, Schafer, and several others with some 25
Carpathian seedlings are just coming into bearing. Some give promise of
adaptation here. I am determined to find a prolific and adapted variety. In

the meantime we must content ourselves to grow this most attractive tree
with its large waxy leaves and beautiful light-colored bark as a useful
novelty.

Heartnuts

Here is a surprise nut and tree to Oklahoma people. Both are unlike
anything ever seen here. When they see this most unusual tree, with its
tropical leaves and taste the delicious nuts they want a tree for their yard.
Visitors stare in amazement at the immense catkins, and the grape-like
clusters of nuts that develop later. This is a heartnut year. In most all
varieties, ten to fifteen nuts to the cluster hang from the terminal of each
twig. The leaves sun-burn easily. In spite of this we had a heavy crop of
well-filled nuts. Of the several varieties I have, Stranger is the most prolific.
Fodemaier, and Walters bloom late enough to escape our late spring freezes,
are larger nuts, and should prove to be the best eventually.

Butternuts

Butternuts grow native in Missouri and Arkansas. Our section is most too
hot and dry for them. However, I have a few grafts of Buckley and
Weschecke bearing nicely, grafted on native black walnuts.

Hickories

The wooded hills and river bottoms contain several kind of hickories. I
have several pecan trees grafted to the Pleas and McCallister hybrids, but
they are light producers in Oklahoma. I have 80 acres of river bottom
hickory nuts in southwest Missouri that bear abundantly.

Oriental Persimmons

Persimmons grow native here. The Early Golden, an American variety, is
very productive and ripens in September long before frost. Of the Orientals
I have Tamopan, Eureka, Fuyu, Data Maru, Tanenashi. Most all bear
heavily, in fact usually overbear. They stand our dry weather better than
does the native persimmon. The very large fruit usually in colors of yellow
and red attract much attention from visitors who think they are oranges. The
persimmon belongs to the ebony family. The fruit contains as high as 40%
sugar and in the Orient is a national dish. We propagate them by grafting
our native stock.

Pawpaw

The Pawpaw is native in Missouri and Arkansas and in the eastern part of
Oklahoma. It is a beautiful tree and very productive. We shade the small
trees here until they get started, after which they do quite well. The fruit is a
favorite with many.

Chestnuts

I think the greatest tragedy that ever befell American horticulture was the
chestnut blight. Not so long ago every hill and mountain-side east of the
Mississippi River, from near the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border
was covered with native chestnut trees producing millions of pounds of
food for man and beast. Today all has been devastated by this terrible blight
and nothing remains save leafless trunks, like tombstones, in memory of a
grand food tree.

In 1889, Tom and Mary Jones left their Kentucky mountain home to
establish a new one in Oklahoma. As with all pioneers they brought seeds

of many species with them, including chestnuts. I now own the farm they
homesteaded. On it today there is an American chestnut tree 4 feet in
diameter with a limb-spread of 50 feet. This grand tree has been an
inspiration to me, surviving our hot dry summers and outliving two
generations of fruit trees by its side. This beautiful tree, now nearly 60 years
of age, was proof-sufficient that chestnuts would grow in Oklahoma. I
began to plant chestnuts. I planted all the Riehl varieties—Progress, Dan
Patch, Van Fleet and others. I also had Boone, an American and Japanese
hybrid, brought about by Endicott, also of Illinois. These have borne well.
Being isolated and outside of the native chestnut range, they have not
blighted.

Since 1906, the Government has imported many thousand seed chestnuts
from China. Later, it distributed little trees among the nut growers in an
effort to re-establish chestnut growing in this country. This Chinese chestnut
is blight-resistant. The best Chinese seedlings have been selected for
propagation and have been named; of these I have Stoke (a hybrid),
Hobson, Carr and several others. They are very prolific and often set burs
the same year set out. Mr. Stoke sent me scions of the newer varieties this
spring—Colby's hybrid, and Stoke seedling's Nos. 1 and 2. I grafted these
on Chinese stocks; they set burs and matured nuts the same year grafted.
The named varieties of Chinese Chestnut are the most precocious bearers of
all the nut trees, are adapted and worthy of planting over a wide area. It
should be the duty of every man who is interested in food trees to lend a
hand to help re-establish chestnut growing in this country, now that we have
blight-resistant varieties.

Almost within the shadow of our State Capitol, on a main highway
leading from our fair city, I have planted 2-1/2 acres of blight-resistant
Chinese chestnut trees, as a living memorial to our only child, Harold, who
gave his life to our country in a Jap prison camp in the Philippines. We shall

devote the rest of our days to this Living Memorial, and leave means for its
continuance, so that passers-by in generations to come may be reminded of
the world's greatest tree tragedy, and to demonstrate that chestnuts which
once grew native over half the nation, and were laid low by a terrible
disease, may again be grown.

In conclusion, let me warn you to improve your soil continually. NO
TREE CAN BE BETTER THAN THE SOIL IN WHICH IT GROWS. No
man is a greater exponent of soil improvement than one of Ohio's most
illustrious sons, Louis Bromfield. In his book, "IN PLEASANT VALLEY,"
he says, "What we need is a new kind of pioneer, not the sort which cut
down the forest, and burned off the prairies, and raped the land, but the kind
which creates new forests and heals and restores the richness of the country
God has given us."

Weather Conditions versus Nut Tree Crops

By J. F. Wilkinson, Indiana

Nut tree crops, like other crops, are dependent on heat, light and moisture
in proper amount at the right time to produce a crop of nuts of normal
quality; soil conditions also to be taken into consideration.

These conditions are probably more essential to a nut crop than most of
us have realized; even the weather of the preceding season of late summer
and fall may affect or determine next seasons nut crop.

The size of the nut depends on the weather in Spring and early Summer,
for when the shell is once formed and hardened little more growth can be

expected under any conditions, while plumpness of kernel depends on
favorable conditions in late Summer and Fall.

After the shell is formed it fills with water which gradually changes to
kernel, beginning at outer part next to shell, and unless there is plenty of
heat, light, and moisture, kernel may not be filled, which will cause kernel
to shrink, and not be plump, neither will it have normal germinating vitality,
flavor, or weight.

In the past there have been seasons when nuts were not up to normal
quality, but I did not realize then just what caused this condition, until a few
years ago, I heard a party remark that a dry season was an indication of a
good nut crop the following year.

Recalling back several seasons this, as a rule, has been true, especially
where there was no unusually early Fall freezes, and Spring weather was
favorable.

The season of 1944 here was one of the driest on record. Up until the
middle of August, nut trees were showing signs of going dormant. Late in
June, sap was getting so low that I did all my budding late in June, a month
earlier than usual.

This early dry weather caused the nuts that year to be very small,
especially on trees growing under less favorable conditions. Trees that were
well cultivated produced nearer normal sized nuts.

About the middle of August rains began, and these nuts were well filled.
The rains of August brought new life into the trees causing them to hold
their foliage unusually late, and not being thoroughly dormant before cold
weather, at which time no doubt many of the fruit buds were killed, with the
result that a very light crop of nuts was set in Spring of 1945.

Spring opened very early with a bright warm March starting growth
before usual time, even some trees set Pistillate bloom by the first of April;
then later in April it began raining, and rains continued most of the Summer
with much cool, cloudy weather with the result that most of the nuts failed
to properly fill, or mature. This was true of hickory nuts, walnuts and
pecans of both the named varieties and native seedlings.

While the 1945 nut crop was very light of both pecans and walnuts, I had
a few trees with fair crops, though none of the nuts had well filled plump
kernels.

Some of the first nuts to ripen seemed to have fairly well filled kernels
after gathering and kernels got dried out, they shriveled and lacked flavor.

Walnuts seemed to suffer even worse than the pecans. I was not able to
find a walnut tree in this section that produced good planting nuts; even
farm crops suffered, especially corn of which much of the crop was not of
normal quality.

The spring of 1946 began very much as in 1945 with a very warm March,
again causing trees to start growth unusually early, and this spring, pistillate
bloom was visible on some pecan trees in the last days of March. This
weather condition remained until about the middle of April when cool rainy
weather set in lasting for a month with frosts and light freezes as late as
May 10th, which took all the nut crop in this section with the exception of a
very few walnuts, and these were of very poor quality.

Another very peculiar thing happened in Spring of 1946. The Posey and
Giles varieties, both of which are usually heavy bloomers of Stamen bloom,
failed to set a single catkin this spring, while trees of other varieties
growing near them set heavy crops of catkin bloom.

The behavior of nut trees in this section in the past two years, both of
which have been unusual seasons, is evidence that nut crops are subject to
weather conditions, not only of the present, but of previous season as well.

Nut Tree Notes from Southwestern Ohio

Harry R. Weber, Cincinnati, Ohio

Influence of Stock on Scion

At my farm home in the northwestern part of Hamilton County, Ohio, at
about 800 feet elevation, on clay soil, the Carpathian walnuts commence
growth too early in spring for their own good and my comfort, well
knowing what lurking Jack Frost can do to them. These Carpathian walnuts
are uninfluenced by their black walnut understocks, the Schafer variety
alone excepted. I also have two Schafer trees that came grafted apparently
on Carpathian understock; but these start as early as the others.

The Schafer exception, to which I refer, is grafted on a native black
walnut stock to which the Broadview variety also had been grafted. (The
Schafer variety is patented. I had permission to use the graft as I did.) With
these two hardy varieties in the same tree, which itself is a late starter in the
spring, I unwittingly laid the foundation for an unanticipated result. This
became apparent after a severe early spring frost in 1945 caused me to
examine all my hardy (Persian) walnut trees to note the effects of that
freeze. The new growth of Broadview on the same tree with the Schafer
was frozen, while the Schafer with the rest of the tree was dormant. The
new growth of the other two Schafer trees; of Breslau top-worked on two
trees; of Broadview on another tree; of an unknown variety on still another

tree; all trees being native black walnut, all were frozen. The same was true
as to Breslau seedlings and also a Kremenetz on Minnesota black walnut.
Of course, all these trees staged come-backs with no bad after effects.

In April, 1945, we had a severe hail storm that clipped clean the second
new growth from these trees. The topworked Schafer was still dormant,
while its companion Broadview in the same tree suffered like the rest. The
spring of 1946 showed the topworked Schafer still dormant, while all the
others were active. The Broadview on the same tree with the Schafer was
almost in full leaf before the Schafer and the rest of the understock showed
signs of growth. A number of persons thought the rest of the tree was dead.

The Keystone Black Walnut

I have a cut leaf black walnut tree, of value as an ornamental, which
originated in Pennsylvania. Although it had catkins for several seasons, not
until the past season did it produce, and then only one lone nut. The husk of
that nut had a smooth exterior similar to that of a Persian walnut; but it
lacked the characteristic black walnut odor. In fact, it had none. If this tree
has any Persian walnut blood in its makeup, that hybrid strain may have
manifested itself in the foliage; in any event, there was an influence of some
kind that caused the change in the usual type of foliage. I was more
interested in planting the nut to see what kind of foliage the seedling will
have rather than in cracking it for examination to determine its value as a
nut.

Throp Walnut

The parent Throp tree stood bordering a road along the Ralph Throp farm
in Indiana, 40 miles from my home. About six years ago, with the

permission of Mr. Throp, and being a very old tree, it was cut down as its
branches interfered with overhanging wires. When I last saw the stump
early in 1942, it had staged a come-back by throwing numerous suckers.
However, the main point in mentioning this tree is to register the fact that it
bears two kinds of nuts, single-lobed, or peanut type, and doubled-lobed,
with the peanut type predominating. A Throp tree of mine showed this
variation, and on my next visit to the Throp farm, in the presence of Mr. G.
A. Gray, one of our members, Mr. Throp definitely confirmed the fact that
the parent tree bore the two kinds of nuts aforesaid and that the peanut type
predominated.

I am prompted to make this statement for the reason that one of our
prominent members, well versed in the performance of our best varieties of
northern nut trees, had not been aware of the dual performance of the Throp
tree, until I called it to his attention.

Black Walnut Nursery Studies

S. B. Chase, Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, Tennessee

Briefly summarized, here are the results of a series of black walnut
nursery studies undertaken in 1940 and 1941 by the Tennessee Valley
Authority. The object was to develop nursery practices which would yield
the large uniform seedlings most desirable as understocks for grafted or
budded trees.

Germination and Stratification

It is known that either fall- or spring-planted walnuts germinate readily if
the nuts are viable and if those planted in the spring are properly stratified
over winter. To find out just what effect spring and fall planting has on
germination and to compare various methods of stratification, three seedlots
were given the following treatments on November 28, 1940:

1. Planted in seedbeds 5. Stratified at 65-75 deg. F
2. Stratified outdoors 6. Stored dry at 45-50 deg. F
3. Stratified at 38-40 deg. F 7. Stored dry at 45-50 deg. F
4. Stratified at 45-50 deg. F subsequently soaked in
water prior to planting

Nuts from the three seedlots were kept separate and planted in random
plots in three seedbeds. Each treatment was therefore represented nine times
with a total of 162 nuts in each treatment.

To determine whether time of outdoor stratification has any effect on
germination and emergence, three other seedlots were treated as follows:

1. Planted November 28, 1940 5. Stratified January 30, 1941 2.
Stratified November 28, 1940 6. Stratified February 20, 1941 3.
Stratified December 19, 1940 7. Stratified March 13, 1941 4.
Stratified January 9, 1941

These three seedlots were also planted in three seedbeds with a total of
135 in each treatment.

With one exception, all nuts in the two tests were planted April 3, 1941.
One of the two lots stored dry was soaked in water for five days, then
planted April 7. Seedbeds were equipped with screen wire cloth at a depth
of 10 inches.

~Results~: In both tests, fall nut planting resulted in the best germination.
Germination was higher for nuts planted in the fall than for nuts stratified
on the same day for spring planting, although the difference was significant
only in the second test. Outdoor stratification produced the best results,
followed in order by indoor stratification at 38-40 deg. F and 45-50 deg. F.
None of the nuts stored dry germinated. Time of stratification proved to be
important. Any delay after November 28 resulted in reduced and retarded
germination and consequently smaller seedlings.

Depth of Planting and Seed Orientation

The effect of planting depth on germination and on seedling size was
investigated by planting black walnuts one, two, three, and four inches
deep. Other nuts were planted in three positions: (1) radicle end up, (2) on
side, and (3) radicle end down.

~Results~: Germination was unaffected by any of these treatments. The
emergence of the seedlings was retarded by deep planting and hence the
final diameter of seedlings was smaller. There was little difference in
seedlings from nuts planted one and two inches deep but they were
noticeably larger than those planted 3 and 4 inches deep. Planting nuts with
the radicle end down invariably produced seedlings with undesirable crooks
in the root-stem region which made them unsuitable for grafting. Planting
nuts radicle end up produced straighter seedlings than planting them on
their side. The latter method was the most economical for nursery practice.

Seed Size

To study the effect of kernel size on size of seedling produced in the
nursery, nuts from nine wild trees and Thomas nuts were planted. Kernel

weights ranged from 1.21 to 5.61 grams; nut weight from 6.5 grams to 24.3
grams.

~Results~: With one exception where germination was poor, nuts with
small kernels produced small seedlings and nuts with large kernels
produced large seedlings. Under nursery conditions the need for uniformly
large seedlings for budding and grafting is apparent. The results of this
study indicated the desirability of using seed nuts with large kernels for
production of understocks.

Seedbed and Budding Studies

Density of stand in seedbeds influences seedling size. As size of seedling
is important in budding and grafting black walnut, information on the most
desirable spacing in seedbeds was needed. In three seedbeds Thomas nuts
were planted in three nut spacings: 4 x 4 inches, 5 x 5 inches, and 6 x 7
inches. In other plots nuts were planted 4 x 4 inches and after emergence
the stand was thinned. All seedlings from the thinning test were set out in
nursery rows the following spring and those large enough were budded in
the summer.

~Results~: Increasing the spacing produced seedlings of larger girth and
shorter height—a desirable characteristic in black walnut budding stocks.
The most desirable spacing appeared to be 6 x 7 inches. Even though the
number of seedlings resulting from this spacing was approximately half the
number produced at 4 x 4 inches spacing, more usable seedlings were
produced at the wider spacing.

Thinning seedlings spaced 4 x 4 inches resulted in larger girth of those
remaining—very similar in size to seedlings spaced 5 x 5 inches. Seedlings
from the thinned and unthinned plots averaged 0.62 cm. and 0.55 cm. in

diameter, respectively. In the nursery row 73 percent of the larger
transplanted seedlings were large enough for budding the following
summer, while only 59 percent of the smaller seedlings attained proper size.
Bud survival was 22 percent on the larger stocks indicating the desirability
of using large stocks.

My Experiments, Gambles and Failures

John Davidson, Xenia, Ohio

In reading the past reports of this Association, I find one thing lacking.
One becomes interested in a report dated, let us say, 10 or 20 years ago,
which contains an account of a project then started. It had great
possibilities. What was the outcome? We do not know. No mention of it has
appeared since. Did it fail? Let us say it did. Why? The answer to this final
query is almost, if not quite, as important as would be an account of the
means employed to make it successful—if it succeeded.

I should like to know, for example, whether anything remains of the
Neilson-Post project in Michigan and what its history has been. I should
like to hear more, also, about the outcome of many of Mr. Gerardi's
intensely interesting and original experiments, such as his method,
described in the 29th Annual Report, of asexual propagation of heartnut
trees on their own roots; or his method of artificially creating beautifully
marked burls on black walnut logs by systematically and repeatedly scoring
the bark. These and many others. Which experiments were successful and
which were not? Mr. Gerardi's original and adventurous mind is the sort that
should be probed for the benefit of those who come after us.

My report today is my own short and tentative contribution to such a
resume.

In the 1938 Report, on page 73, you will find my ambitious and
optimistic "Farm Plan for Nut Tree Planting." In it I tried to outline a plan
which could be used by any practical farmer with but slight sacrifice of
useful land. Its last sentence reads as follows: "Meantime, I shall have kept
practically all my land in profitable use all the time." Well, that depends
upon what is interpreted as "profitable use." Tree growth is surely
profitable.

The plan, in substance, was as follows: First, plant 20 acres in a modified
forest formation to selected seed, mostly black walnut, the trees to stand 8
feet apart in rows 22 feet apart. Use the space between the rows first for
truck gardening and later for an interplanted row of some fast-growing
species for timber. No grazing permitted. Second, plant another 20 acres to
a nut orchard using grafted trees of named varieties spaced 80 feet apart.
Protect from livestock and permit grazing. Finally, plant seed in another 30
acres, spaced 80 feet apart, the seedlings to be eventually topworked to the
wood of promising discoveries from the first plot. Protect and cultivate or
graze.

What has been the outcome of this plan to date? The proposed plan
worked very well in a 20-acre plot where a meadow was planted to an
orchard of grafted trees, mostly pecans and Carpathians, which were
protected by cattle guards, but was not completed in the seedling 20-acre
plantation where the trees stood 8 feet apart in rows 22 feet apart. No
grazing was permitted there, but berries and truck crops were put out. I
couldn't keep it up. The reason: a World War, and lack of help for the
intensive type of farming required for the project. Finally, when I attempted
to interplant the rows with fast-growing trees, weeds choked out most of

them in spite of my own efforts. My own physical and time limitations
defeated me in the interplanting undertaking.

This leads up to an enumeration of my mistakes. First, I did not start
early enough in life. The elements of health and strength have their part in
success. Then, too, let us see what might have been the result if I had started
at the age of 20. Remember, in this first tract of 20 acres I planned a forest
plantation of selected black walnut seedlings, some chosen for nut quality
and some for large, straight timber growth. A tract of 20 acres planted 8 x 8
x 22 feet will hold about 4500 trees. Allow for thinning and other
reductions. If only 1250 trees should reach log size in 50 years, that is, by
today for me, at an average of $50 each, they would come to $62,500—a
very tidy estate.

Just now there are perhaps 2500 well grown trees in the good portion of
the ground in this 20 acres. Pleasantly enough, they do not now seem to
need the interplanting of faster-growing trees in order to develop upright
growth but are pushing each other up as they stand, 8 x 8 x 22 feet apart. In
this planting, then, there is evidence of successful timber growth in the
good ground but of almost complete failure in the poor ground.

Another failure is to be noted in my original plan for cattle guards. These
guards were 12 feet in diameter, and about 6 feet in height. These were
satisfactory for sheep after I had installed pipe for posts, but not for cattle.
Trees grow horizontally as well as vertically. Cattle, reaching for these side
shoots, reached over the guards and pushed in and under. I later reduced the
guards to a 6-foot diameter of stronger woven fence-wire with 6-inch stays,
not 12-inch, and raised the height to not less than 10 feet. The cattle may
now nibble off the side shoots if they wish but the vertical growth is
protected. Above 10 feet the trees can spread out without danger.

Others say, "Permit no grazing at all." This statement, I think, should be
made with certain qualifications. Where bluegrass bottom is used for the
orchard planting of pecans or black walnuts, there is a possible slight
reduction in growth from lack of cultivation, but this loss will be nowhere
nearly proportionate to a farmer's loss of pasturage. And even in my 8 x 8 x
22-foot planting of seedlings, though no grazing was permitted while the
trees were young, now the older trees are large and strong enough in the
good soil to take care of themselves. Some lower branches are rubbed off
but they should be off anyhow. Also, thank heaven, the weeds are at last
kept down by grazing, the grass is utilized and, most important of all, the
hazard of grass fires is entirely wiped out. I know of a neighbor's planting
destroyed in this way and I shall always fear fire. I should not permit
grazing in a general purpose woods lot where young growth is constantly
coming on.

Failure three: I have failed completely to interest my tenant in my
project. Each mowing or clean-up job is just a chore to him. I can't blame
him. Why should I expect anything else? With a World War on hand, and
with his son in the army, and with two farms to care for, the immediate
bread-and-butter jobs come first and my mowing suffers. However, the
wonderful trees somehow continue to grow in spite of weeds and wars,
perhaps a bit more slowly than they otherwise might, but I am in no hurry.

The last war casualty was my original plan to make a further orchard
planting of seedlings in loco, ready to be top-worked to the wood of some
outstanding find among the selected seedlings. It has not been done—
period.

I think I do have one or two rather outstanding nuts among the seedlings,
but this leads up to another casualty which must be faced by all of us—a
temporary one, fortunately, namely, crop failures due to the weather. The

larger trees began to bear at age seven. Then, three years ago we had a
drouth. For the two years since then, we have had summer in March and
winter in May. The catkins were mostly killed and the pistillate bloom was
delayed in growth upon the new wood until most of it came too late for
even such pollination as was so sparingly available. Thus we have had no
generally good nut producing season for three years in our part of Ohio. As
a result, my truly outstanding nut is still in hiding, and I am waiting for a
good season to bring it out.

Another disappointment with me has been the Carpathians. They partially
winter-kill each winter. Their trunks still live and send up shoots. I let them
stand, hoping for an eventual hardening of the wood. I regard them not as
failures but as not yet proven.

For purely experimental purposes I planted apple and peach trees close
up to the walnuts. Whichever won out was to stay. Both are there yet. There
is as yet no sign of the results of toxicity. They stand, literally, arm in arm.

One success I feel may safely be chalked up. In selecting seed for my
original planting, some were chosen for better nuts, as stated, and some
because of the magnificent growth of the parent trees. One such tree gave
me seedlings that are definitely superior in growth to other trees which
stand in equally good soil—in fact, in adjoining rows. This is noteworthy.

As for the seed selected for nut quality, because of the three poor
producing seasons now past, the result is not so apparent. I can only say
that, out of some score or more sources, the nuts produced upon such
seedlings as have fruited tend to resemble the qualities of their parents.
They all show some variations. Each nut tree is a new individual but with a
family inheritance strongly enough marked to make the planting of
seedlings, when done in large quantities, from the best parents, a sort of

gamble in which the percentage is in favor of the gambler—which is, as
you should know, unusual.

One utterly complete failure must be noted. I shall never again plant a
black walnut seed or tree in any but good soil. Even the best inheritance
cannot prevail against hardpan or worn-out soil.

I was unfortunate, when I made my first and largest planting of seed, in
not knowing about the Northern Nut Growers Association. So I advertised
for local nuts, paying double for the seed I accepted. So far as the seed
which was selected because of the timber growth of the parent tree was
concerned, I am well satisfied. But nut quality was only fair; far below the
quality of our named varieties. Then, through the fine missionary work of
Harry Weber, I was introduced to the NNGA. All my replanting since then
has been from seed bought from the member's plantations. Next year I
expect some of them to come into bearing.

Most of you are chiefly interested in grafted or budded trees, and this is
as it should be. Where sure results and the best possible nuts are the aim,
one would be utterly foolish to plant a seedling. Upon the other hand, where
plantings are made in great quantities, as is the case with foresters, state or
federal agencies, colleges and other institutions—and with occasional
individuals like myself who find their greatest interest in this particular
exciting gamble, I think it is fairly well demonstrated that the percentage of
success can be turned in favor of the planter by intelligent selection.

But where can the best seed be found? The answer is as plain as the nose
on your face. The best possible source is in existing plantations of named,
proven varieties. As a farmer, I should not use a cross-roads maverick when
I can use a registered Jersey, Hereford or Angus. As a planter of black
walnuts, or any other nuts, either for timber or wood, I should not pick up
my seed haphazardly from cross-roads trees. Every nut produced by

planters of orchards of the best named varieties should be in active demand
by state and national agencies for their own plantings, and the seedlings
from them should be available for the widest distribution to the public. This
urgent demand for better seed will make existing plantations of proved
varieties more profitable and will fill our forests and farms with far better
trees.

Nut Trees in Wildlife Conservation

By Floyd B. Chapman Ohio Division of Conservation & Natural
Resources

Attesting to our great faith in the value of the nut trees for wildlife
conservation and restoration, the Ohio Division of Conservation and
Natural Resources has distributed free of charge, to cooperating
landowners: 132,000 American hazelnut, 1000 European and American
hazel hybrids, 1000 pecans, 1000 butternut, over one thousand shagbark
hickory, 1500 Asiatic chestnut, 2000 black walnut trees, and more than 50
bushels of black walnut nuts for seed spotting. This program has only been
in operation since 1942, and I think a great deal has been accomplished in
spite of the war and difficulties in growing and shipping of nursery stock.
This record would not be so impressive had we not been able to take
advantage of a vast amount of surplus stock made available when the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service closed out a large nursery in this region.

To show how dependent are certain wildlife species on an adequate
supply of nut mast, I need only mention one group, the squirrels. Much
information concerning the abundance of squirrels in the original forests is
on record. It is also well known that nuts of several kinds were always

plentiful: native chestnuts, walnuts, butternuts, hazelnuts, hickorynuts, and
beechnuts. The supply was so large that an occasional crop failure was
unimportant; much of the production from the preceding year was still
available. Numerous wild animals, including squirrels, deer, rabbits,
raccoons, and others fed on the native chestnut. It was such an important
staple in the diet of many animals that its passing is one of the most
devastating blows to befall the wildlife of this continent. In order to
compensate for the loss of the chestnut, and at the same time restore some
of the food and cover destroyed through pasturing of woodlots, and the
removal of fencerow cover in clean farming, the Division of Conservation
instituted its popular tree and shrub unit planting project four years ago. In
this program, units of 100 or 200 pine trees and shrubs for food and cover
are distributed free of charge to farmers who will plant them as suggested
and protect them from fire, grazing, and cultivation. American hazelnut was
extensively used in this project during the first two years. Since then we
have been unable to obtain seedling plants in the large quantities that are
needed.

The Division also has several other wildlife restoration projects in which
the nut trees are utilized. These are a farm pond project, a small wildlife
refuge program, and a fencerow cover restoration proposition. In the pond
development program, a farmer is assisted in impounding a small body of
water, from which livestock is fenced, if he will agree to permit hunting on
a portion of his farm. The pond margins are seeded to a grass mixture to
prevent soil erosion and silting, and several hundred trees and shrubs
having value as wildlife food and cover are planted in the area. The land
immediately surrounding the pond becomes a wildlife refuge where no
hunting is permitted. Many Asiatic chestnuts have been planted on these
sites, in addition to American hazelnuts, and considerable seed spotting
with black walnuts has been accomplished.

In the small refuge plan, areas are selected, developed for wildlife by
planting and other management measures, and are then closed to hunting
for a period of years. Many hazelnuts, butternuts, some hickorynuts,
walnuts and Asiatic chestnuts have been used in this work. Our own field
men plant the seedlings or assist the landowner in planting them, then give
advice on the culture of the plants.

In the third undertaking, which is research to determine the best methods
of restoring or developing fencerow food and cover strips; nearly a
thousand hazelnut hybrids have been planted. Among these hybrids are:
Barcelona x European Globe, avellana x Italian red, Barcelona x purple
aveline, Barcelona x Cosford, Barcelona x Italian red, Rush x Kentish Cob,
and Barcelona x various other types. The better sorts of hazelnuts have been
used in this project to familiarize the farmers with them so that they will
have an incentive to grow something valuable in fencerows. We have found
that most farmers will not listen to the argument of growing anything in
fencerows purely for the benefit of wildlife. By using a more subtle,
convincing, and practical approach, we are convinced that success will be
attained and that wildlife will be benefitted in the end.

In addition to these projects which are of a statewide nature, the Division
of Conservation owns some 14,000 acres of game lands on which
experimental plantings of nut trees have been made. From plantings of
Chinese chestnuts established in 1941, we are now beginning to realize
definite returns. On the Zaleski State forest game area, one of these trees,
now about 6 feet high, is bearing 21 burs this year. In connection with a
squirrel research problem, one of our field men, Robert Butterfield, is
carrying on some experiments in fertilizing nut and other trees which
should yield some very valuable information. I recently saw a plot of
Castanea mollissima which had been treated with a 33-1/2% nitrogen
fertilizer. Planted on poor, acid, eroded soils in the hill country, these have

barely survived. After treatment, the yellow, stunted foliage changed
miraculously to a striking dark green, the leaves grew larger, and the entire
plants showed every evidence of healthy growth. It has been suggested that
interplanting chestnuts with black locust might have the same beneficial
effect and we intend to try it.

None of us has ceased to hope that some day the blight which has
stricken our native chestnuts can be conquered. We can be assured that
whenever a resistant variety of chestnut does originate in the wild, squirrels
will find it and give it widespread distribution. In Ohio, squirrels are still
proficient in locating the few sprouts that are fruiting, burying the nuts and
forgetting them in the woods each year, with the result that we always have
a few seedling trees coming on. Last spring, I found several bushels of
chestnut burs cached in a sandstone cave in southern Ohio by woodrats.

The States which are most interested in the nut trees from the standpoint
of wildlife are usually those in which squirrels or wild turkeys are important
game species. If those who are growing nut trees commercially would
concentrate their efforts in these states which extend from Pennsylvania to
Missouri and throughout the south, I think they would be helping
themselves and contributing in an important measure to wildlife
conservation and recreation. I think many States, and I know this is true of
Ohio, would like to introduce some of the better named varieties of walnuts,
hazelnuts, filberts, and other nut trees to the landowners of the State
through conservation projects which I have described, but the cost is thus
far too prohibitive for stock which is distributed by us free of charge. I am
personally interested in the fine program of nut tree research which is being
initiated in Ohio and elsewhere. The hill culture experiments are especially
interesting and valuable. However, I believe every grower should give
increasing attention to the possibilities of nut trees in conservation, to the
end that better and more prolific varieties can be made available for this

purpose. States which can use good nut tree stock in their conservation
work should be solicited, their interest aroused in plantings for the dual
purpose of home use and wildlife, and a few select varieties sold or given to
them each year for experimental use. Some growers are already generous in
releasing a few new and promising nut tree varieties for trial growing in
various sections of the country.

Most Conservation departments are financed on an annual basis with
funds from hunting and fishing licenses. This prevents our knowing from
year to year exactly what our requirements are going to be in the line of
planting material. Such stock cannot be contracted for even one year prior
to purchase. We have no Division-owned nursery for propagating game
food and cover plants, and nearly all hardwood stocks are purchased from
commercial nurseries. Most states prefer to purchase nursery stock that is
grown locally, and if nut growers could succeed in lining up their own state
conservation departments, I am sure that they could expand their production
to furnish the stock needed, both at a profit to themselves and at a price we
could afford to pay.

Commercial Aspects of Nut Crops As Far North As St. Paul, Minnesota

By Carl Weschcke, St. Paul, Minnesota

For the benefit of those new members who are not familiar with my nut
tree plantation at River Falls, Wisconsin, I wish to explain its geographical
conditions. Situated in the 45th parallel, longitude 92-1/2 deg., about 860
feet above sea level, this is a very severe climate for growing most species
of nut trees. Fortunately, I did not realize that fact 30 years ago, and I
learned a great deal about the hardiness of many species and varieties and

the difficulties of growing them before I was convinced of it. My optimism
in those years so ruled me that I was influenced by it to try out such tender
species as almonds, English walnuts, filberts, pecans and chestnuts, along
with hardier types such as butternuts, black walnuts, hicans, hickories and
hazels.

To give you a rough idea of the testing I did, I will mention some of my
work among hickories. I was fortunate enough to have a forest of bitternut
trees on my land. It is a well-known fact that, at least temporarily, these
bitternut hickories lend themselves well as grafting stock for many superior
varieties of hickories, hicans and pecans, although the last species seldom is
considered permanently compatible with bitternut. The number of varieties
I tested on bitternut stock is roughly about 75. During the years since I
started such grafting, most of these have been lost by natural elimination,
lack of hardiness or incompatibility. Those varieties which on my place
have proved hardy and compatible with bitternut stock for at least ten years
are: Bridgewater, Cedar Rapids, DeVeaux, Glover, Kirtland, and Weschcke.
Those which have endured well on this stock for from 6 to 15 years are:
Barnes, Davis, Fox, Leonard, Milford, Netking, Platman, and Taylor.
Among hybrids which have stood for 10 years or more, there are: Beaver,
Burlington, Laney, Pleas, and Rockville. Of pecan, there are Hope and
Norton. There are a few other survivors of whose identity I am not certain,
as they have not yet fruited. This does not mean that all of those listed have
borne, but only that the identity of some of the survivors can not be
established without such verification.

Preeminent among the hickories which have produced nuts, stands the
Weschcke variety, which has borne the greatest quantity with the most
regularity. This variety, grafted on bitternut in 1932, produced one nut that
year. Its bearing record has been unbroken from then to 1946, when, on
May 11, the temperature dropped to 26 deg.F and on May 12, a similar, low

temperature was accompanied by four inches of snowfall. Pictures I have
on display verify these statements. The frost at that time destroyed the
whole crop in a nearby 30-acre orchard of apples, pears, plums, and nuts.
Although the first growth of Weschcke was totally destroyed along with the
crop, the second growth contained a fair distribution of pistillate flowers
which probably would have produced nuts, had they been pollinated. The
Weschcke produces no pollen, being one of those curious freaks of nature
which aborts its staminate flowers before they reach maturity.

Other hickory hybrids and shagbarks which have borne satisfactory crops
on my farm, with fair regularity, are the Beaver, Fairbanks, Bridgewater,
Cedar Rapids, Kirtland, Siers and Laney, in the order of their worth. The
remaining varieties that I mentioned have not yet fruited, although I hope
they will do so.

The facts I have given are my reasons for recommending the Weschcke
hickory as a tree suitable for commercial use in the north. I realize, of
course, that farther south, where hardiness is not so essential a quality, other
trees may be just as satisfactory. I might also mention that the size and
cracking qualities of the Weschcke variety are also commendable. The
quality of the kernel, which is practically 50% of the total weight of the nut,
is praised by all who have tasted it.

It is with great regret that I admit that I have no black walnut varieties
which I can recommend for commercial use this far north. However, I
would place Ohio ahead of Thomas, because of its greater hardiness. The
ease of hulling, the size and appearance of Thomas, plus its productivity,
would certainly place it first were it not for the frequent winter-killing it
suffers, to which Ohio, of course, is not completely invulnerable. Other
varieties which have been fairly satisfactory but which are not as well-
known, include Patterson and Rohwer. The fact remains, however, that not

one black walnut I have tested has produced a regular and satisfactory crop,
although they have been more productive than native butternuts. At present,
I would rule out both species as apparently having no commercial value in
the northern climate where my plantation lies, although they may be
satisfactory for home orchards.

Before leaving the hickories, I do want to mention that I feel there is a
good chance for growing pecans in this climate. I have seedling trees, now
more than 20 years old, which are in bearing but do not mature their fruit. It
is possible that some of these may become acclimated to an extent that their
cycle of dormancy will reduce itself, bringing their period of flowering
early enough in the spring to allow sufficient time and heat units for
maturing the nuts.

Early in my experimental work, I tested chestnuts and chinkapins but met
with poor results. Only in the last few years have experiments with them
been successful enough to warrant their being mentioned as commercial
possibilities in the north. At present, I have several Chinese and two
American varieties, as well as one chinkapin, which have proved hardy and
fruitful. Further testing is necessary before I can report anything definite
about them.

I have grafted on native plum stock most of the almonds which have been
considered hardy, including the hard-shelled varieties from Michigan and
the Northland from the Pacific Coast. Some have flowered but none have
set nuts. All proved too tender for our climate. I feel more hopeful for
success with some of the many seedling hybrid plums I am growing. A
number of these have edible kernels and the trees could be considered for
their fruit as well as for the kernels of their seeds.

Among other species of walnut I have tested is the heartnut, which is a
sport of the Japanese walnut. This is a worthy nut and has done well when

grafted on black walnut stock. Only two varieties have proved hardy and
only one of these, Gellatly, has produced good crops for a long time. Were it
not for the insect pests which attack it and, worse still, the sapsucker, this
tree might be considered for semi-commercial use in the north. The
sapsucker is a woodpecker. It chips out bark right down to the wood,
girdling large limbs and killing whole sections of a tree. This results in an
excessive amount of succulent, tender growth which is subsequently winter-
killed. Insects attack the new shoots, laying their eggs in the bud and stem
portions, causing immature growth which stunts the tree and prevents its
bearing. I have also found the heartnut difficult to graft, even on black
walnut, which is a favorable combination.

I began testing Persian walnuts 30 years ago by grafting them on wild
butternut stock. Although many grafts were successful, not one even lived
through a winter. It was not until 1937, when I grafted hundreds of trees
with thousands of grafts of the many varieties of Crath importations from
the Carpathian Mountains, that I succeeded in getting any to survive our
winters. A few eventually bore nuts, but the severity of our winters and the
inroads of new insects during the war years finally proved fatal to them. I
made strenuous attempts to save the varieties by regrafting, but I was
wholly unsuccessful. Right now, I am not at all hopeful that Persian walnuts
of any kind can ever survive very long this far north.

We now come to the last group of species mentioned at the beginning of
this report, namely, filberts and their hybrids. In my opinion, these have
potentialities of commercial value in the north. Even the frosts of May 11th
and 12th this year (1946) did not wipe out the crops which had been set.
With proper pollinization, I am certain that their production will become as
reliable as the corn crop in this part of the country. At the banquet, I shall
give each of you a sample of a new product made from these nuts.

The combination of qualities of the cultivated filbert from Europe and
our wild Wisconsin filbert results in an extremely hardy plant, with
characteristics sometimes like the former, sometimes like the latter. Many
times, the hybrid combines the best of each. I am testing these for field
culture, to be cared for much as corn is. I expect to have three experimental
farms before very long, demonstrating the success of commercial orchards
of these hybrids which I call "hazilberts." "Hazilberts" is a word I coined by
borrowing from the names of its parents. It has been readily accepted by the
lay public and is easily understood to refer to hybrids between hazels and
filberts. Furthermore, I was able to obtain a U. S. trademark on this for
application to these plants.

Hazilberts are all subject to the native hazel blight, ~Cryptosporella
anomala~, a fungus infection. They are also susceptible to another blight
similar to the bacteriosis of the Persian walnut. More serious than these,
though, is the damage caused by a curculio, which cuts down heavily the
production of nuts if measures are not taken to combat them. Breeding has
demonstrated that some hybrids are so resistant to the inroads of this pest
that they may almost be considered immune, especially when they are
interplanted with other hazilberts which do attract curculios and so act as
trap-plants. In this way, the insects are encouraged to concentrate in one
place where they may be poisoned, thus protecting the main-crop plants.
Since pollinators are required for filberts anyhow, the pollinators may be
the trap-plants. This is actually the case in the initial plantings. Clean
cultivation will also do away with many of the curculios, since they depend
on unbroken soil in the fall for their metamorphosis.

The presence of blight makes it unwise to depend on a single-trunked
tree and I find that great productivity can be maintained when the plant is
allowed to grow in stools having from three to five trunks. The management
of such plants is like that of raspberry bushes, except that instead of

thousands of plants per acre to be cared for, with hazilberts there are only
145, 15 x 20 feet apart.

Judging by the number of nuts on small plants, one may reasonably
expect crops to average one-half ton of nuts per acre. The hybrids I have
grown so far have been self-husking. The size of their nuts is good, some
measuring an inch in diameter. For commercial purposes, however, the
large size is not particularly desirable nor necessary.

In conclusion, I want to say that there is a very promising situation
developing for these nuts commercially. Not only are these hazel-filbert
hybrids easily planted, but they are easy to propagate, since they are one of
very few species of nut trees which are easily propagated by layers and root
sprouts. Out of more than 600 hazilberts which I planted in the fall of 1945,
only about a dozen were dead in June of 1946, which gives you a practical
idea of the ease and safety of transplanting them.

The 1946 Status of Chinese Chestnut Growing In the Eastern United
States

By Clarence A. Reed U. S. Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Maryland

Introduction

The Chinese chestnut, Castanea mollissima, now dominates interest
among well-informed chestnut planters of the eastern United States almost
to the exclusion of other species. Since its introduction in 1906, it has had
but one important competitor, the Japanese chestnut, C. crenata. Among the
world's most important producers of tree chestnuts, only these two species

are effectively resistant to blight. However, the Japanese chestnut lacks the
palatability to which Americans are accustomed and for all practical
purposes it has been rejected in this country. Many small plantings still
survive; but this species serves better for shade and ornamentation than for
food production.

Description of the Chinese Chestnut

The nut of this species is usually of good size, roundish in form, not
pointed at the apex, and with the basal scar smaller than the lower end of
the nut. A certain amount of gray down is on the surface. This down may be
confined to a small area about the apex or it may cover much of the upper
end of the nut, and it may be thick, thin, or scant. The nut may have good
cleaning quality, meaning that the kernel and its pellicle are easily
separated. Cleaning quality may be good from the time the nut falls from
the tree or it may become so only after curing for a time. Once it develops it
may remain good as long as the kernel is usable or it may last for a short
while only. In texture and in palatability, the kernel of the Chinese chestnut
is not excelled by any other true chestnut. Individual nuts are sometimes
sweet from the first but the great majority become so only after being cured
for a week or 10 days. Very few nuts of the pure species fail to be sweet
when fully cured.

In the open the Chinese chestnut tree attains much the same size and
general proportions as does the apple but it may become somewhat larger,
more upright and considerably taller. Young seedlings vary greatly in form
and are often ungainly and unsymmetrical; but others are all that could be
desired with respect to symmetry. Early lack of symmetry tends to become
less objectionable as the tree grows older and is seldom conspicuous after
the first decade or so.

In fruitfulness, many of the seedling trees of bearing age are definitely
disappointing. Also in many cases the nuts are small. To judge the species
by the past fruiting performance of a majority of its representatives in this
country would leave little justification for commercial hope. However, there
are a good many individual trees about the country whose performance
record is excellent and a large number of these are under careful
observation as potential varieties.

The species has gained rapidly in popularity since the middle 'thirties
when enough good-performing trees began bearing for a fair appraisal of
the species to be possible. It was also at about that time that trees for
planting began to be available from the nurseries. Before then trees could
only be had in limited numbers from the Department of Agriculture. Today,
they are listed in nursery catalogues of one or more firms in each of a half
dozen or more states. The total number of trees yet planted is comparatively
small and both nurserymen and planters up to this time have proceeded
cautiously because of the newness of the industry and its uncertainties.

Environmental Requirements

The Chinese chestnut requires much the same conditions of climate soil,
and soil moisture as does the peach, but there are indications that it will
succeed somewhat farther both north and south. As with the peach air
drainage must be good and frost pockets must be avoided, for while at the
latitude of the District of Columbia, the flowering period is from late May
until toward the end of June, growth begins early and may be badly
damaged in April. This is especially true during such seasons as those of
1945 and 1946 in the middle Atlantic States when summer temperatures
prevailed during a great part of March, and new shoot growth up to two
inches had developed when sub-freezing temperatures killed all new growth
and so injured the buds that at Beltsville, Maryland, and general vicinity

there were no crops in either year. In some cases young trees were killed
out-right as were occasional older trees that had become devitalized in some
way.

Young trees are so sensitive to lack of soil moisture that sometimes
whole plantings are killed by drought. Spring growth is rapid as long as the
soil is moist but root development is shallow during the first few years and,
unless watered, trees are likely to fare badly in case of prolonged drought.
Another serious type of injury, especially to newly planted trees, is sunscald
on the exposed sides of the trunks. Probably the best means of prevention is
to head the trees low enough to provide for shading by the tops.

It is said[1] that at the altitude of 2200 feet in West Virginia, snow and ice
frequently cause much injury to young trees. It is a notable characteristic of
the species for young trees to retain their leaves during much of the winter.
Unless these are removed soon after turning brown, they are apt to become
heavily weighted with wet snow and to cause severe breakage. Hail and
spring freezes also cause much damage in that locality. The last, however, is
not peculiar to high altitude alone as frost injury is frequent at much lower
elevations. It was generally in evidence in central Maryland during the
springs of 1945 and 1946 as has already been mentioned. This type of
injury is easily overlooked, but the cambium will be found dark if a cut is
made through the outer bark. Recovery usually takes place rapidly if the
injured trees are left undisturbed, but healing will be slow if they are dug up
for transplanting or the tops are severely cut back in preparation of the stock
for grafting.

[Footnote 1: Verbal statement by Mr. Authur Gold, of Cowen, W. Va.,
made during April, 1946.]

Bearing Ages

Young trees may bear a few nuts three or four years after being
transplanted, but it usually takes from 10 to 12 years for tops to become
large enough to produce profitable crops. While there are occasional trees
that become profitable at these ages, there are many that do not. The only
significant record of yields yet made public is one reported by Hemming.[2]
His statement shows that 18 seedling trees planted in 1930 bore an average
of 29.5 pound (green weight) during six of the eight years from 1937 to
1944, inclusive, when crops were large enough to be separately recorded for
each tree. The range in total production per tree for the six years was from
106 to 277 pounds. At an arbitrary price of 25 cents a pound, the average
gross return per tree would have been $7.39 for each of the six crops. The
1944 crop was a practical failure. That of 1946, amounted to about 1000
pounds, or an average of about 55 pounds per tree.

[Footnote 2: E. Sam Hemming, Easton, Md., "Chinese Chestnuts in
Maryland," Ann. Rep't., Nor. Nut Growers Association, Incorporated, vol.
35, pp. 32-34. 1944.]

The Seedling Tree

The original planting stock of the Chinese chestnut as grown in the
United States consisted wholly of seed nuts imported direct from the Orient.
It was therefore, inevitable that a period of seedling development should
follow. The great majority of the earliest trees grown proved unfit for use as
potential varieties, although with some exceptions, they produced nuts that
were sweet and palatable. Since the middle 'thirties, superior strains have
been introduced, cultural and environmental requirements have become
better understood, and the outlook for commercial orchards is much
improved.

To a great extent the seedling has served as well as would a grafted tree
for the pioneer experimental work that had to be done. It has been far better
than no tree at all and even now it has its advantages. With it there is no
expense for grafting, no problems of congeniality between stock and scion
and those of cross pollination are held at a minimum. Moreover, it must not
be forgotten that it is only from seedling trees that superior varieties are
possible. In 1946, the year in which this paper is being written, very few
grafted trees are available from any source.

The Grafted Tree

The first varietal selections were made in 1930. Quite unavoidably they
were chosen solely by what could be judged from the nuts with no
knowledge of the bearing habits of the parent trees. These were first grafted
in 1932 and first catalogued in 1935. Already by 1946, some had been
supplanted by others of greater promise. Few grafted trees have been
brought into bearing and with minor exceptions, it has not been possible to
obtain bearing records. It is, however, mainly with the grafted tree that the
future of the industry is expected to be built up.

Individual Varieties—Abundance

This variety was first catalogued in 1941 by Carroll D. Bush, then a
nurseryman at Eagle Creek, Oregon. Of the very few trees of this variety
sold by him, one went to Mr. Fayette Etter, Lemasters, Penna., with whom
it early became a favorite among 7 or 8 he had under test. During 1945, he
sent a quantity of Abundance chestnuts to Dr. J. Russell Smith, Swarthmore,
Penna., who in turn forwarded 12 specimens to the Plant Industry Station.
These arrived October 11 and were immediately placed in a refrigerator. On
October 22, they averaged 50 to the pound and ranged from 38 to 76. The

appearance was very attractive as the color was a rich brown and there was
very little down over the surface. The cleaning quality was also very good
and the flavor excellent.

The Abundance has attracted considerable attention and, while it does not
appear to be listed in any nursery catalogue, a number of leading growers
are using it in top working seedling trees and it may soon be available
through regular nursery channels.

Carr

The Carr chestnut originated as one of two seedlings sent by the
Department of Agriculture in 1915 to the late R. D. Carr, Magnolia, N. C.
Sixty-two nuts from Mr. Carr were received by the Department in 1930.
These were not especially attractive as the surface was thickly coated with
gray down. The lot averaged 58 per pound and the nuts were considered
large. Cleaning quality was very good and the flavor was sweet and
pleasing. The variety was immediately named in honor of Mr. Carr although
propagation did not begin until 1932. It is believed to have been the first
variety of the species ever grafted in this country. The work was performed
by H. F. Stoke, Roanoke, Va. Later the Carr became available for several
years from a number of nurseries. It was a strong grower but often failed to
make good unions with its stock and is not now in general favor.

Hobson

This also originated as one of two seedling trees sent to a private grower
by the Department. He was Mr. James Hobson, Jasper, Ga., in whose honor
it was named in 1930. It was later taken up by commercial nurserymen and
widely distributed for several years. It has much in its favor as it is easy to

graft, precocious, prolific, annual in bearing, and the nuts are very sweet.
Also, the cleaning quality is very good, but the nuts are too small to meet
market requirements of this country to best advantage. Furthermore, being
small, they are expensive and time consuming of labor at time of harvest.
The average per pound for a lot of 110 nuts received in 1930 was 78. Others
received during later years were even smaller. The variety rapidly lost favor
with most nurserymen and its propagation was largely if not entirely
discontinued. However, for home use, it is much to good to be abandoned at
this time.

Reliable

Reliable was an introduction of H. F. Stoke, Roanoke, Va., by whom it
was propagated for a short time only, beginning in 1938. It is not known to
have been catalogued by any other nurseryman. Ten fresh nuts in 1939
averaged at the rate of 79 to the pound. Six days later, after further curing
had taken place, the number became 101 to the pound. Aside from having a
good bearing record, there appears to be little reason for continuing this
variety.

Stoke

This variety appears to be the result of a natural Chinese-Japanese cross.
The original tree was grown by H. F. Stoke, Roanoke, Va., whose attention
was attracted to it because of its habit of maturing early. He reports that in
southwestern Virginia, burs often begin opening during the third week of
August. In appearance, the nuts greatly resemble pure Japanese. The parent
tree bears well but the nuts are lacking in good quality. Insofar as known
propagation has been discontinued.

Yankee (Syn. Connecticut Yankee)

The Yankee originated as a chance seedling on property of E. E. Hunt,
Riverside, Conn. It was first propagated by Dr. J. Russell Smith,
Swarthmore, Penna., in northern Virginia by whom it was first catalogued
in 1935. The writer has seen no specimens but according to Dr. Smith, the
size and other features are very good. The parent tree is said to bear well
and to be hardy where it is located, which is not far from Long Island
Sound in the extreme southwestern corner of Connecticut.

Zimmerman

This originated as a 1930 selection made by the late Dr. G. A.
Zimmerman, Linglestown, Penna. Very few sound nuts of Zimmerman have
ever been produced, for soon after the first crop the identity of the tree
became lost and eventually it was destroyed together with others in an
overgrown nursery row where it stood. In one known case where there are
grafted trees of bearing age, the nuts are regularly destroyed by weevils.
Such nuts as have been seen by the writer have been of a dull brown color
and have had surface down only about the apex.

The Zimmerman was first catalogued in 1938-39 by Dr. Smith. It is
probable that as many trees of this variety have been sold and planted as of
any one variety but performance records are difficult to obtain.

Potential Varieties

Other varietal selection are being made, mainly by the Bureau of Plant
Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering from trees at its various field
stations. Some of these are already under test as grafted stock in various
parts of the country. The most promising will be released to commercial

nurserymen as soon as their superiority over existing varieties is
established.

Pollination

There is much evidence that chestnut pollen is largely carried by insects
although this has not been fully established. The Chinese chestnut is largely,
although apparently not wholly, self sterile; more than a single seedling or
grafted variety should be included in any planting. Several seedlings or
several varieties would be better. In seedling plantings, all trees that
produce inferior nuts should be removed in order to avoid danger of
undesirable pollen influence, either on nut characters, or on the genetic
makeup of the embryos if the nuts are to be used as seed.

Harvesting and Curing

Chestnuts should be harvested daily as soon as some begin to ripen and
drop to the ground. They should be placed at once on shelves or in curing
containers with wooden or metal bottoms through which the larvae of any
weevils with which the nuts may be infested cannot penetrate and reach the
ground. In areas of infestation, these grubs soon begin to bore their way out
of the nuts and leave conspicuous holes in the shells. All infested nuts
should be promptly burned.

In order to cure chestnuts to best advantage, they should be spread thinly
on floors, or on shelves, or in shallow containers as just described, and held
in a well-ventilated room. They should be stirred frequently and held for
from 5 to 10 days depending both upon the condition of the nuts and the
atmospheric conditions at the time of harvest: During the period of curing,
the nuts will shrink rapidly in weight and the color will change materially.

Both luster and brightness will largely disappear and, although still
attractive, the nuts will quickly become dull brown. Three weeks is about as
long as Chinese chestnuts usually remain edible without special treatment.

Chestnuts should be marketed as promptly as possible both to minimize
deterioration and to take advantage of good prices which are usually highest
early in the season.

Storing

Chestnuts in sound condition when stored may be kept fit for eating or
planting for several months by any one of several methods. When available,
cold storage with temperatures somewhat above freezing is the simplest and
generally the most satisfactory method. Stratifying method. Stratifying in a
wire-mesh container buried deeply in moist but well-drained sand is very
satisfactory and successful. Another method is to hold the nuts in a tightly
closed tin container either in a refrigerator or in cold storage at 32 deg. F.
Burying under a porch or in the shade of a house or even in a bin of grain,
preferably wheat or rye, is also a good method. Regardless, however, of
temperature or other conditions, germination is likely to begin in early
March and nuts intended for planting should be hastened into the ground as
promptly as possible after that time.

Insect Pests

The two chestnut weevils are the principal insects attacking the nuts.
These are exceedingly well-known in certain large areas where the chestnut
is grown and in these areas both are often extremely abundant. Unless
checked in some way they often render whole crops unfit for use. One of
most effective means of control is to plant trees only in well populated

poultry yards; however, in large developments, this is impracticable and
other methods must be employed. In preliminary work carried on by the
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine at Beltsville, DDT has given
very encouraging results in the control of the weevil. The weevils have
sometimes been called curculios, under which name they were well
discussed by Brooks and Cotton.[3] The Japanese Beetle is also a serious
pest as chestnut leaves are among its favorite foods. Control methods have
been given by Hadley.[4] Another insect pest which feeds on the leaves is
the June bug or May beetle. It works mainly at night and feeds on the
newest leaves. It is seldom seen and usually disappears about the time when
the operator becomes aware of its presence.

[Footnote 3: Fred B. Brooks and Richard T. Cotton, "Chestnut
Curculios."
U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 180. 1929.]

[Footnote 4: C. H. Hadley, "The Japanese Beetle and its Control." U. S.
Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bul. 1856. 1940.]

Diseases

Blight is the disease attacking the chestnut tree with which the public is
most familiar. The Chinese chestnut is strongly resistant although not
immune as few old trees entirely escape attack in areas where blight is
prevalent. In most cases healthy vigorous trees of this species overcome the
disease within a few years after being attacked. The ones that die are
usually those that have been devitalized in some way. The nuts are subject
to attack by any of several diseases either before or after the harvest. A
preliminary report on these has been made by Gravatt and Fowler.[5]

[Footnote 5: G. F. Gravatt and Marvin Fowler. Nor. Nut Growers Ass'n.
Proc. 31: 110-113. 1940.]

Present Extent of Planting

With few exceptions the known plantings consist of small numbers of
trees about residences. Occasionally there are one or two hundred trees in
orchard arrangement. Production is not large and in most cases all sound
nuts are either consumed locally or used by nurserymen and others for
planting. The quantity that has reached the wholesale market is known to be
small although a beginning in that field has been made.

Future Outlook

Extensive expansion has not appeared possible in the near future until the
1946 crop was harvested. This was unexpectedly large and a number of tons
are known either to have been planted immediately or set aside for planting
in the spring of 1947. It is conceivable that annual production of nuts
available for seed purposes will increase rapidly. In this case, the extent of
planting within the next few years will be entirely a matter of guesswork.

Extensive planting in the early future cannot be considered economically
safe for in addition to the usual number of problems that must be solved in
establishing any new horticultural enterprise, chestnut growers must expect
keen competition with imports from both Europe and Asia. At the outbreak
of World War II, an average of more than 16 million pounds of chestnuts
were yearly being imported into this country.[6] These imports will
doubtless again appear with the return of normal international relations.

[Footnote 6: Computed from Table 541, p. 413, Agricultural Statistics
1938. U. S. Dept. Agr. 19]

Furthermore almost an exact half-century ago, the chestnut outlook was
regarded as being so bright that it could hardly go wrong. During the
middle and late 'nineties extensive chestnut developments were established
in certain eastern districts mainly by use of Paragon and other varieties of
European parentage. Thousands of small plantings were developed about
home grounds and occasionally there were large orchards. The greatest
developments were conducted by top working suckers that sprung up from
stumps of native chestnut trees on cutover mountain land. Hundreds of
acres were handled in this manner. Without exception, all ended in financial
disaster.

Summary

The nut of the Chinese chestnut is an excellent product. It is unexcelled
in sweetness and general palatability by any other known chestnut. The tree
bears well and is about equally as hardy as the peach. It appears to require
much the same conditions of cultural environment as does that fruit. It is
practically the only species of chestnut now being planted by informed
growers in the eastern part of the United States.

It is thus far grown in this country almost entirely as seedling trees.
Variation is about what was to be expected, with the majority of bearing
trees proving to be poor producers and, in most cases, with nuts too small to
sell well.

Varietal selections of much promise are being made; the first appeared in
1930 and were first catalogued in 1935. Some of the earliest have already
been dropped as their defects came to be known, and others of greater
apparent promise have originated. The process of selection is constantly
going on and further introductions should shortly appear.

By taking certain simple steps chestnuts in sound condition may be kept
in usable condition for many weeks.

The Chinese chestnut is subject to attack by certain serious natural
enemies. These include both insects and diseases and the tree as well as the
nuts are affected. However, all that are now known appear controllable.

Past planting has been largely limited to small numbers of trees mainly
about residence grounds. The total number of trees available for planting
has never been large, due chiefly to the scarcity of seed nuts needed for
nursery use. Production, however, rose sharply with the harvest of the 1946
crop which was unexpectedly large. Annual production may continue to
increase since the number of trees of bearing age is likely to become
appreciably greater each year. Nursery planting is likely to be
proportionately greater. The extent of future planting will doubtless be
correspondingly influenced.

Present enthusiasm over the Chinese chestnut is very great and it is
possible extensive planting may soon take place. It is believed, however,
that this would be unwise from an economic point of view. There are many
uncertainties in connection with the industry in its present state of
development, and, not improbably there will be keen competition in the
market with imported chestnuts from both Europe and Asia as soon as
international relations become normal.

Bearing Record of the Hemming Chinese Chestnut Orchard

By E. Sam Hemming, Easton, Maryland

Our Chinese chestnut trees have aroused such interest that we are sure
the readers of the Proceedings will wish to hear of the large crop harvested
in 1946. A year ago an unseasonal spring brought a frost that killed back the
six inches of soft new growth. As a result, the 1945 crop amounted to less
than 250 pounds. This year the 18 trees produced 1138 pounds, 938 by
actual weighing and 200 estimated. This is an average of 63 pounds per
tree, with the largest crop of 124 pounds on No. 19, and the smallest on No.
14 of 22 pounds.

These trees are now 18 years old and were unfortunately planted too
close. But using a spacing of 30 feet x 30 feet, they would have borne 3000
pounds per acre and if planted 40 feet x 40 feet would have borne 1600
pounds per acre. Figure this crop at 25c a pound and you would get a really
high return. This year the price was much better than that, but we planted
the crop.

The tree record was as follows: Number 1—38; Number 2—25; Number
3—30; Number 4—52; Number 5—44; Number 6—30; Number 7—42;
Number 8—40; Number 9—45; Number 10—58; Number 11—56; Number
12—48; Number 13—58; Number 14—22; Number 15—50; Number 16—
80; Number 18—86; Number 19—124; Total of 938 + 200 (estimated) =
1138.

It is also worthy of note, that No. 19 is spaced 30 feet from No. 18 and
No. 16 is the same distance from No. 18, while all the other trees are spaced
16 feet apart. An acre of trees like No's. 16, 18 and 19, spaced 30 feet apart,
would average 96 pounds per tree or 4200 pounds per acre, a really
tremendous crop.

We had one disappointment this year, in that our method of controlling
the weevil was not completely effective. To our chagrin we found that,
while we were diligently picking the nuts up each day, some of the larvae

were escaping through the cotton bags to reinfest the ground. Next year, we
will use metal containers and we are sure that will stop them. We will
fumigate if necessary. We do not particularly fear the weevil as we are sure
that spraying, and fumigation will clean them up; after that proper
harvesting should control them. We have heard that the U. S. D. A. has
found the use of DDT to be effective. In another county a raiser of hybrid
corn seed dusted his corn with DDT by plane, to kill the Japanese beetle, for
$3.00 per acre. Surely that method would be adaptable to chestnut orchards
to control the weevil.

At the present time we are using our entire crop for seed purposes and
this year we sowed 40 to 50 thousand nuts. We carefully grade the seed, not
only discarding any infested nuts, but all moldy, split or undersized nuts, so
that we get trees grown only from the choicest. By doing this we feel that
although the trees are seedling raised, they come from parent trees that are
bearing well, and from which all extraneous pollen is excluded so that the
customer has a good chance of getting a tree that will bear well.

The seed is sown in the fall, because it keeps better that way and
germinates better too, although we have some trouble from a mole-mice
combination. The seeds are sown in shallow trenches 6 inches apart and 2
inches deep and back—filled either with sawdust or light soil. On top is
mounded a further 4 to 6 inches of soil which is removed in the spring. This
reduces damage from freezing and thawing.

We do not doubt for a moment that the Chinese chestnut is here to stay as
an important food crop for the United States.

Walnut Notes

G. H. Corsan, Islington, Ontario

I find the Ohio, Ten Eyck, Stabler, Allen and Wiard black walnuts
inferior and unsuitable. The Stabler has only a small crop every five years.
Very excellent varieties, I find, come from Thomas seedlings.

The black walnut makes an excellent stock for the Persian walnut in low
and slightly damp ground. I bud the Persian on the black during August.

The Japanese heartnut and the butternut x heartnut hybrid can be grafted
on black walnut. The Persian walnut when grafted on the black decidedly
outgrows the latter. The reverse is the case when Japanese heartnut,
Japanese butternut, or hybrids of either are grafted on the black.

So far I have not found one good butternut worthy of naming, but there is
one Japanese butternut that grows in clusters of 17 or even more that has a
very thin shell; it is the Helmick. I have, however, very many named as well
as unnamed black walnut seedlings that are very excellent nuts.

This has been a very cold summer and I cannot state yet as to the
maturing of the larger black walnuts, as they require a long season to
mature properly. Pecan and hican trees grow well at Echo Valley and the
small twigs harden up so that there is never any winter killing but the nuts
do not fill well; in consequence I am using the trees as stocks for grafting
with good shagbarks. The Weiker hickory ripens nicely with me and I
consider it one of the best varieties in every way.

Self-fruitfulness in the Winkler Hazel

By Dr. A. S. Colby University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

To insure fruitfulness in nut plants it is generally recommended that more
than one variety of each kind be planted in reasonably close proximity to
help in bringing about cross-pollination. Then, with other conditions being
favorable, the grower would be more certain of good yields of well-filled
nuts.

With specific reference to the filbert, the literature contains references to
the effect that provision for cross-pollination is essential. However, one
exception is listed. In the report of the proceedings of the 26th (1935)
annual meeting of the Northern Nut Growers' Association, D. C. Snyder of
Iowa says on page 47, "The catkins of Winkler always come through the
winter bright and the variety can be depended upon to bear without other
varieties near for cross-pollination."

The writer has been interested in this subject for several years. The
question arises; how near were Mr. Snyder's Winklers to other varieties and
in what direction with reference to the prevailing winds? It is not known
just how far filbert pollen may be carried and still function. A planting of
Winkler filberts consisting of about 30 bushes was set on the University
Farm at Urbana in 1940. Crops have been borne annually since that time.
The planting was isolated from other filberts to the southwest by about one-
fourth of a mile.

In an effort to determine whether the variety was self-fruitful, plants were
dug in the early winter of 1943 after the rest period was over and reset in
the greenhouse. The plants leaved out in January, 1944, and both male and
female flowers appeared soon after. The pollen was applied to the pistils
both by shaking the branches and by means of a camels hair brush. Nearly
all the blossoms set and the nuts carried through to maturity. The
experiment was repeated in 1944-45 with the same results.

It is therefore concluded that the Winkler filbert is self-fruitful and may
safely be planted alone where climatic conditions are favorable for filbert
production.

Hickories and Other Nuts in Northwestern Illinois

By A. B. Anthony, Sterling, Illinois

I have something like 25 grafted hickories of my No. 1 (Anthony)
variety. The largest tree now has a trunk of 5-1/2 inches in diameter; has 20
nuts on it this year; and while it has had but few nuts each year, has missed
bearing but one season in the past seven years. Other No. 1 trees run from
3-1/2 inches, in diameter down to about 1 inch. One 3-1/2 inch tree is
offering its second bearing with five nuts this season. All these trees were
grafted in cutover woodland tracts and moved here except the largest one
which was moved in 1930 and grafted in 1933, 30 inches high and never
trimmed for a higher head. Heavy annual catkin bloomer, few pistillates so
far.

Of my No. 2 variety, one tree transplanted in 1927 now has something
like 25 nuts on it. The No. 3 hickories, five of them, have never borne either
pistillate or staminate blooms. No. 4 is a hican from the parent tree of which
I have had but three good nuts. The weevil moth works so well in dense
woods that rarely are the nuts good there. The nuts are attractive and should
not discolor like the lighter hickories, should their opening husks get rained
upon when maturing.

Men of the future must decide on the merits of these trees. Of the two
Hagen trees grafted in 1931, one now has its first nuts, eight in number. I

have been told that some one will cut these trees down some day. One of
our county or state officials said a short time back that "if hog troubles keep
coming on as of late, in 50 years we will not be able to raise hogs." With
corn being the main hog food and the corn borer coming, this may come to
be quite true, and then perhaps more men will get new vision as to where
their meat is coming from.

The past three years have offered almost no hickories at all. Hickories do
not like shade, but they have to grow where the squirrels have planted them.
Carrying a nut 100 yards to bury it would doubtless be about a squirrel's
limit. I have noticed in timber of sizeable growth a north slope showed no
young hickories, while a south slope showed a scattering few. Oak trees in
this section predominate when it comes to groves of one species.
Cottonwood trees come up here and there, probably because their seed is
wind-carried. Willow sticks get carried down stream and get lodged, and
grow. I have known a few young oaks to come up on my place all of a mile
and a half of such woods. How come? It is probably the combination of the
blue jay and squirrel, this time. No trouble for the blue jay to travel some
distance and put his acorn in a bark crevice of cottonwood or willow tree.
Along comes a wandering squirrel, finds the acorn, and if not hungry
enough puts in the ground where it has a chance to grow. I have seen blue
jays start off with chestnuts and the nearest trees they could reach were
willows one-fourth mile or further away.

For some reason there seems to be a tendency for the hickories to bear in
seasons when the black walnut does not and the walnut to bear when the
hickory fails. Last year, except for filling, walnuts did reasonably well and
this year, at least with my Rohwer variety, the yield is still better except that
the nuts are unusually small, doubtless because all of July and up to the 9th
of August it was very dry.

Throughout my years there have always been walnut trees on the place,
first started by a pioneer land owner, then squirrels took it up, so I have a
choice of stocks I did not have in hickories.

Two of my Rohwer trees have trunks 12 inches in diameter; one is 11
inches and the other 14 inches in diameter. For years these trees, grafted in
1931, have been very profuse with catkins, but with few nuts. I have heard
other complaints of it not bearing.

My complaint with all walnuts grown in Northwest Illinois is that so
many kernels turn out black and immature. I am inclined to blame it, in
part, to the walnut shuck, which takes in so much moisture. The hickory
shuck is much dryer and never has so many immature kernels. Late summer
is generally the dryer part of our growing season, which can well be the
cause. In the year 1940, we had an excess of moisture in that it rained day
after day all through August, and that is the only season I can say we had
good walnuts with practically all good, light-colored kernels.

I have a few Thomas walnuts planted on the edges of the lowest flat
ground I possess, hoping that they may there get more moisture and
produce completely matured nuts.

We had on August 9th about one inch of rain and since that 2-1/2 inches
more. So far, throughout this month, I have been carrying about 15 gallons
of water daily to two Rohwer trees and hope for some better filled walnuts,
though they are unusually small. I am writing this August 24th.

Nut Trees for Ohio Pastures

By Dr. Oliver D. Diller, Wooster, Ohio

Today I would like to discuss for a few minutes the possibilities of nut
trees for shade and nut production in permanent pastures on Ohio farms.

One of the most important developments in Ohio agriculture during the
past decade has been improvement of pasture land through fertilization,
new varieties, and combinations of grasses and clovers, and better methods
of management. As one drives over the State it is evident that many farmers
practice "clean" agriculture which means clean fence rows and treeless
fields. Shade on a hot summer day is an important item to contented cows,
so today I am going to plead the case for a cow out on pasture on a
sweltering day. I believe that nut trees, particularly black walnuts, can be of
real service in the fence rows and the interior of hundreds of permanent
pastures in Ohio.

In 1939, L. R. Neel,[7] of the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station,
published an interesting article on the effect of shade on pasture. The results
indicated distinct improvement in the carrying capacity of the pastures
which had black locust and black walnuts spaced regularly throughout the
fields. Improvement was evident both in the amount of Kentucky bluegrass
and the pounds of beef produced. So far as I know, no evaluation has ever
been made of the direct effect of shade on the contentment and consequent
increase in efficiency of cattle for either beef or milk production. I believe
this is an important factor and is frequently used as an excuse for woodland
grazing.

[Footnote 7: Neel, L. R., 1939. The effect of shade on pasture. Tenn.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 65.]

Another study similar to the one in Tennessee was conducted by R. M.
Smith in southeastern Ohio during the period 1939 to 1941.[8] Dr. Smith
made an intensive study of the effects of black locust and black walnuts
upon ground covers and he found that in poor pastures black walnut trees

improved both the species composition and chemical content of the plants
growing under the trees. He rated walnut high as an ideal pasture tree
because of its period of leaf activity; its light crown canopy; its small,
fragile leaves which decompose rapidly, and are high in mineral matter and
nitrogen; its deep tap root which competes very little with the surface
rooted grasses for moisture and nutrients; its hardiness; and finally its high
commercial value.

[Footnote 8: Smith, R. M., 1942. Some effects of black locust and black
walnut on southeastern Ohio pastures. Soil Science, Vol. 53, No. 5.]

It seems apparent, therefore, that the introduction of improved black
walnut trees into permanent pastures would be practical from the agronomic
angle to say nothing about the beneficial effect of shade to livestock and
possible income from occasional crops of high quality nuts.

One stumbling block to the adoption of this idea is the protection of the
trees during the period of their establishment. The conventional cattle guard
with three or four long posts supporting a wire fence is expensive in both
labor and materials.

During the spring of 1946 in connection with my forestry instruction at
Ohio State University, I had as one class project the planting of 50 black
walnut seedlings of selected parentage in the cattle and poultry ranges on
the University farm. Thirty of these trees were planted along a fence row at
32 foot intervals and were protected by a single electric wire connected to a
battery charger.

The set-up is illustrated in figure 1 which shows the charger at one end of
the line and the wire supported by the line posts and a short single post
opposite each tree. The one year old seedlings were planted 4 feet from the
fence at alternate posts and the wire zig-zagged along the line to create the

guards around the trees. Within a few days after planting and completion of
the electric guards the trees were mulched to control weeds and conserve
soil moisture.

While this experiment has been in effect for only one growing season, the
results, to date, indicate that this method is effective in providing protection
from livestock. Growth and survival of the trees has been very satisfactory
thus far.

The advantages of this method appear to be the rather low cost of labor
and materials and ease of installation.

Within the next decade, we should be able to determine how the nuts
from these seedling trees compare with the parent tree and there should be
adequate shade for all classes of livestock on either side of the fence.

How Hardy Are Oriental Chestnuts and Hybrids?

By Russell B. Clapper and G. F. Gravatt Plant Industry Station,
Beltsville, Maryland

One of the questions most frequently asked in regard to the Oriental
chestnuts is, will they thrive in a given locality? Broadly speaking, with
respect to temperature requirements these chestnuts have been found about
equally hardy with the peach. Some strains of the Chinese chestnut appear
to be superior to the Japanese chestnut in hardiness.

The Chinese chestnut is more widely planted in this country than the
Japanese chestnut and more information has been collected on the hardiness
of the former species than of the latter. The Chinese chestnut is growing

satisfactorily in certain plantings as far south as Orlando, Fla. and the other
Gulf States, northward to the southern tip of Maine, and westward as far as
Iowa. But many areas within this large zone are unsuitable for growing
Chinese chestnuts because of more severe climatic conditions.

Specific data have been obtained relating to several types of winter injury
of Oriental chestnuts and hybrids. This information is limited to the
performance of mostly young trees and to a comparatively small number of
locations.

The fall freeze that occurred in mid-November, 1940, was studied in
detail by Bowen S. Crandall,[9] formerly of this Division. Widespread
damage occurred to Oriental chestnuts in the central parts of South
Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Temperatures before the freeze had been
mild, and heavy rains in early November had broken a drought. On the
nights of November 15 and 16, temperatures of 12 deg. and 14 deg. F. were
reported by various farmers, and a drop to 20 deg. F. was general on the
night of the 16th. The damage to chestnuts by this freeze was increased
because of the mild temperatures and heavy rains that preceded the freeze.
The chestnut trees were not able to attain complete dormancy. Those trees,
however, that were growing on uplands or on sites that were well air-
drained suffered much less damage. Apparently equal damage was inflicted
to Chinese and Japanese chestnuts.

[Footnote 9: Crandall, Bowen S. Freezing injury to Asiatic chestnut trees
in the South in November, 1940. Plant Disease Reporter 27:392-394.
October 1, 1943.]

On one farm near Columbus, Ga., four plantings were located at different
elevations. The planting at the lowest elevation, maintained as a well
cultivated orchard, suffered almost 100 per cent loss from this fall freeze.
The trees at the highest elevation, in a forest planting, were practically

uninjured. The damage from this freeze varied from killing of buds and
shoots to killing of complete trees. Many owners of chestnut plantings did
not notice the damage until the following spring. Fortunately fall freezes of
this magnitude occur only infrequently.

In the winter of 1944, this Division lost 23 per cent of its hybrids at
Glenn Dale, Md., from freezing following abnormally high temperatures.
The hybrids had been fertilized in October of the preceding year, but the
effect on the extent of freezing damage is not known. The months of
November, 1943, through March, 1944, were characterized by extremely
variable temperatures. For example, in November a minimum of 15 deg. F.
occurred on the 17th, a maximum of 72 deg. on the 19th; in December a
maximum of 66 deg. on the 3rd, a minimum of 2 deg. on the 16th; in
January a minimum of 8 deg. on the 17th, a maximum of 74 deg. on the
27th; in February a minimum of 11 deg. on the 2nd, a maximum of 72 deg.
on the 25th; in March a minimum of 8 deg. on the 10th, a maximum of 81
deg. on the 16th.

The extremes of temperatures in any one of these months may have been
sufficient to cause damage to chestnut, although the extent of damage is
influenced by the physiological conditions within the tree. The usual type of
injury to the hybrids was a killing of the cambial cells extending from the
base of the trunk up to varying heights. The cambial region was grayish-
black and the inner bark was sappy and greenish-brown. More trees were
injured and killed on the lower portions of the plot than on the higher
portions.

This catastrophe afforded opportunity to study resistance of the hybrids
to freezing. In the lower part of the plot there were several 3-year-old
American chestnut seedlings that were not damaged. Sixteen per cent of
first generation hybrids of Chinese and American chestnut were killed.

Chinese by American backcrossed with Chinese were killed to the extent of
36 per cent. Chinese by Japanese chestnut of the second generation were
killed to the extent of 35 per cent.

Despite this extensive killing of hybrids by extreme variations of winter
temperatures, older Chinese and Japanese chestnuts on slightly higher
ground in the same plot suffered no visible injury. These old trees have
rough bark, which may serve as an effective insulator against extremes of
temperature. In 1944, there was no damaging late spring frost, and these old
trees produced the largest nut crop in their history.

Winter temperatures of -25 deg. F. or lower are usually injurious to
Oriental chestnuts. A few reports of chestnuts surviving temperatures of -25
deg. F. have been recorded, but usually Oriental chestnuts do not thrive in
those northern States or regions where such temperatures occur.

Many of our cooperators report that late spring frosts frequently cause
failure of chestnut crops. Damaging frosts in late spring occur more
frequently and over greater areas than early fall frosts or extreme winter
temperature variations. A late spring frost in 1945 reduced the chestnut crop
at Glenn Dale, Md., from 50 bushels expected to 3 bushels actual. A freeze
of 24 deg.F. on the nights of April 4 and 5 was sufficient to inflict this
damage after two weeks of abnormally warm weather. Many of the trees
were visibly injured, with wilted or dried unfolding buds. Other trees on
higher ground were not visibly affected, yet they produced no crops.

Again it was noted that the American chestnut, followed by American
chestnut hybrids, sustained none to little damage. The American chestnut,
besides its inherent resistance to freezing, leafs late in the spring. Most of
the crop of nuts obtained in 1945 was produced by the American chestnut
hybrids.

Late spring frosts in 1945 were very extensive, reaching throughout the
eastern and northeastern States, and there were practically no chestnut
crops. There were also numerous reports of late spring frost injury to
chestnut in the Central States.

In order to reduce freezing injury to Oriental chestnuts, it is essential that
they be grown on sites that have excellent cold air drainage. As an
approximate rule, these chestnuts should be planted on sites similar to those
that are best for peaches. The orchard planting is not the only type that is
subject to winter injury; forest plantings, ornamental plantings, and
plantings for wildlife are also subject to winter injury especially if they are
not on the most favorable sites.

Growing Chestnuts for Timber

By Jesse D. Diller Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Maryland

Before the turn of the century, and even before chestnut blight had swept
through our eastern forests, destroying one of our most valuable
commercial timber trees, European and Asiatic chestnuts had been
introduced. They made variable growth in the Gulf States, along the eastern
seaboard from Florida to southern Maine, the southern half of
Pennsylvania, southwestern Michigan, southeastern Iowa, down the
Mississippi River Valley and on the Pacific Coast. These trees were grown
for horticultural purposes, and for the most part, represented large-fruited
varieties of Japanese chestnuts. They were not regarded as having forest-
tree possibilities for in the open situations in which they were usually
planted to insure early fruiting, the trees developed low-spreading crowns,
resembling orchard trees. However, after the blight became fully established

and it became apparent that our American chestnut was doomed, and that
these scattered Asiatic chestnut trees had a natural resistance to this disease,
a new interest developed in the Asiatic chestnuts as a possible substitute for
the American chestnut.

The interest in and need for resistant, forest-type chestnuts became so
great that the U. S. Department of Agriculture imported from the Orient
seed of strains that might be suitable for the production of timber, poles and
posts, with tannin and nuts as valuable by-products—qualities inherent in
our native chestnut. The Division of Forest Pathology, Bureau of Plant
Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering has been carrying on the
project of testing Asiatic chestnuts as timber trees. Professor R. Kent
Beattie of this Division was in China, Korea, and Japan from 1927 to 1930,
and collected over 250 bushels of seed for shipment to this Division. The
seeds represented four species: Castanea mollissima—the Chinese chestnut;
C. henryi—the Henry chinkapin; C. seguinii—the Seguin chestnut; and C.
crenata—the Japanese chestnut.

Direct Seeding Studies

At the very beginning of these investigations in growing Asiatic
chestnuts as timber trees, it was believed that greater success in
establishment could be obtained by planting seedlings, rather than by direct
seeding. In direct seeding trials during the early thirties the planted nuts
were promptly devoured by rodents. Sixteen years of field experience has
proven the soundness of this belief. The imported nuts were planted in the
Division's nursery at Glenn Dale, Md., and the resulting seedlings
distributed as 1- and 2-year-old trees to cooperators throughout the eastern
United States.

In order to thoroughly test the possibilities of direct seeding as an
economical method of establishment, this Division during seven years
(1939 to 1942, and 1944 to 1946) planted over 7,000 nuts by direct seeding
in 200 locations in 18 eastern States. It was suspected that the greatest
hazard to direct seeding in or near forests would be rodents. Accordingly, in
the spring of 1939 and 1940, 400 nuts and 600 nuts, respectively, were
coated with a strychnine-alkaloid rodent repellent, and a comparable
number of seeds, for both years, were left untreated to serve as checks. The
checks were held in sphagnum moss at Beltsville, Md., and the nuts to be
treated were packed in sphagnum moss and expressed to Denver for
treatment by the Division of Wildlife Research, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior. Only 5.9 and 2.5 per cent of the treated
seeds developed into seedlings, whereas 22.6 and 13.5 per cent of the
untreated seeds produced seedlings. Not only did more of the treated seeds
fail to germinate than of the untreated seeds, but the seedlings from the
treated nuts were less vigorous. Because of the results obtained, the rodent-
repellent study was discontinued at the end of the second year.

In 1941 and 1942, over 4,000 untreated chestnut seeds, representing 22
strains, were planted in 12 locations in eight eastern States. The seed source
was entirely from American-grown, Asiatic chestnut trees growing in 28
locations in 16 eastern States. They represented Chinese, Japanese, hybrids,
and also a limited quantity of American chestnut seed. Seed of the
American species was included primarily to determine whether or not it
differs from the Asiatic species with reference to establishment by direct
seeding. The results for the two years confirmed our earlier beliefs: Only
2.2 per cent in 1941, and 4.0 per cent in 1942, developed into seedlings, of
which only a remnant have survived. No species or strain differences were
apparent.

"Tin Can" Method

In 1944, the tin-can method was employed in planting 400 nuts in four
eastern States. By this method 15.5 per cent of the planted nuts developed
into seedlings, representing a fourfold increase over results obtained for the
three previous years. One end of a No. 2 can is removed, and a cross is cut
in the other end with a heavy-bladed knife. The open end of the can is then
forced into the ground, over the planted nut, so that the top lies flush with
the ground level. The four corners at the center of the cut top then are
turned slightly upward, to allow a small opening through which the
hypocotyl of the developing seedling can emerge. The can completely
disintegrates by rusting within two or three years, and does not interfere
with the seedling's development.

An examination made of the various burrows about the tin cans, and also
of the teeth marks on fragments of chestnut seedcoats lying about, indicated
that not only squirrels, but other rodents, such as chipmunks, field mice,
moles, and even woodchucks were probably involved in the direct seeding
failures.

In 1945 and 1946, the tin-can method was tested widely on farms, to
determine its possibilities in securing establishment of blight-resistant
chestnuts without a great outlay of cash to farmers. In 1945, five seeds were
distributed to each of 90 cooperators residing in the Piedmont and southern
Appalachian regions, and in the lower Mississippi and Ohio River valleys;
and in 1946, to 38 cooperators residing in the Middle Atlantic States.
Preliminary results indicate that 40.0 and 37.2 per cent of the nuts planted
by the farmers developed into seedlings. It should be pointed out that these
results are not strictly comparable with those of previous years, because
most of the farmers preferred to plant the chestnuts in their gardens, and

under these conditions the nuts were not exposed to the severe competition
and the extreme rodent hazards that occur in the forests.

Further proof of the superiority of planting seedling stock over direct
seeding as a method of establishment is indicated in the results of an
experiment initiated in 1939. One hundred and fifty 1-year-old seedlings
and 150 nuts, all of the same Chinese strain, were planted on cleared forest
lands in the Coastal Plains, the Piedmont, and the southern Appalachian
regions, and in the Middle West. At the end of the eighth year, at each
location, establishment and development of those originating from the 1-
year-old transplants were better than those originating from seed, and their
average survival was six times greater.

Distribution of Planting Stock

During the period 1930 to 1946, the Division of Forest Pathology
distributed thousands of Asiatic chestnut seedlings to Federal, State, and
private agencies for experimental forest plantings in 32 eastern States. The
ten States receiving the most planting stock, in the order named were: North
Carolina, Tennessee, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia,
Ohio, Georgia, South Carolina, and Maryland. The purpose of this seedling
distribution was to obtain information concerning the little-known
characteristics of the Asiatic chestnuts—their soil and climatic
requirements, and their range adaptability.

Selection of Planting Sites

At first the selection of the planting sites was left entirely to the judgment
of the cooperators, and most of them assumed that the Asiatic chestnuts
have site requirements similar to those of the native American chestnut.

Because the American chestnut often occurs on dry ridges and upper slopes,
especially where soil is thin and rock outcrops are frequent, the cooperators
proceeded to plant the Asiatic chestnuts on similar "tough" sites. They
believed that the planting of forest-tree species is justified only on defrosted
areas that have reverted to grassland, or worn-out, unproductive agricultural
land, or on wastelands—sites that we now know are better suited to the
growing of conifers rather than hardwoods. As a result of this unfortunate
choice of site selection, together with the several severe drought periods
recurring in the early thirties, the cooperators lost most of their trees during
the first and second years after planting.

Inspections of some of these planted areas after a lapse of from 10 to 15
years indicated that the sites still support only a scant herbaceous cover,
with broomsedge and povertygrass predominating, and with no evidence of
native woody species encroaching on the areas. The few surviving Asiatic
chestnut seedlings were sickly looking, multi-stemmed, misshapen trees,
heavily infected with twig blight and chestnut blight, and severely damaged
by winter injury. But despite these heavy losses, a few plantations
succeeded at least in part, and from these limited areas, together with an
appraisal of the situations where some of the earlier planted chestnuts grew
well, valuable information as to the site requirements of the Asiatic chestnut
species was obtained.

Site Requirements

These field studies clearly showed that the site requirements of the
Asiatic chestnuts, particularly with reference to soil moisture, are more
nearly like these of yellow poplar, northern red oak, and white ash, than like
the American chestnut or the native chinkapin species. On fertile, fresh soils
that support the more mesophytic native species, Asiatic chestnuts remained
relatively disease-free, developed straight boles, made satisfactory growth,

and were able to maintain themselves in the stands in competition with the
other rapid-growing associated hardwood species.

The indicator plants that suggest good sites for Asiatic chestnuts are: (a)
Tree species—yellowpoplar, northern red oak, white ash, sugar maple, and
yellow birch; (b) shrub species—spicebush; (c) herbaceous species—
maiden hair fern, bloodroot, jack-in-the-pulpit, squirrelcorn and/or
Dutchman's breeches. Plants that indicate sites too dry for forest-tree
growth of Asiatic chestnuts are: (a) Tree species—the "hard" pines, black
oak and scrub oak; (b) shrub species—dwarf sumac, and low blueberry; and
(c) herbaceous species—broomsedge, wild strawberry, and povertygrass.
Plants that indicate sites too wet are: (a) Tree species—black ash, red
maple, and willows; (b) shrub species—alder; (c) herbaceous species—
sedges and skunkcabbage.

Climatic Test Plots

On the basis of the experience gained from the earlier, extensive
distribution of Asiatic chestnut planting stock, the Division of Forest
Pathology, during the years of 1936, 1938, and 1939, established 21 Asiatic
chestnut climatic test plots on cleared forest lands in eight eastern States on
the most favorable sites obtainable. These plots, with their isolation borders,
aggregating slightly less than 32 acres, and accommodating nearly 22,000
trees spaced 8 by 8 feet, occur from northern Massachusetts, along the
Alleghenies southward to the southern Appalachians in southwestern North
Carolina, and from the Atlantic seaboard, in southeastern South Carolina
through the Middle West to southeastern Iowa. More than 20 strains are
being tested at each place, including Chinese, Japanese, Seguin, and Henry
species, as well as hybrids, and progeny of some of the oldest introduced
chestnuts. Most of the plots are fenced against livestock and deer.

Although the results from these plots are as yet entirely preliminary,
during the 8- to 11-year period of testing, valuable information has already
been obtained: (1) The range of the Asiatic chestnuts tested does not
coincide entirely with the range of the American chestnut or the native
chinkapins. All Asiatic chestnut species that have been tested have failed at
Orange, Massachusetts, where the American chestnut grew in abundance. In
southeastern South Carolina, where the several species of native chinkapin
thrive, some of them attaining a height of 20 feet, the Asiatic species have
largely failed. On the other hand in northern Indiana and southeastern Iowa,
entirely outside the botanical range of the American chestnut, a few Chinese
strains have done remarkably well. (2) The Chinese chestnuts have a much
wider range adaptability to site than the Japanese chestnuts; the latter are
more restricted to mild climate and appear to require somewhat better site
conditions. Of ten Chinese strains tested, only four can thus far be
recommended for future planting in the Middle West. One Chinese strain
that has thus far proven far superior to the others, in all the climatic plots,
was introduced by the Department of Agriculture as seed from Nanking,
China in 1924. (3) Poorly aerated soil is an important limiting factor in all
regions where the chestnuts were tested.

Establishment by Underplanting and Girdling

On the basis of the field experience gained from the wide distribution of
Asiatic chestnut planting stock and the information thus far obtained from
the climatic test plots, a new method of establishing Asiatic chestnut under
forest conditions was initiated in the spring of 1946, and is now being tried
on a limited scale. It consists of underplanting, with chestnut seedlings, a
fully stocked stand of hardwoods ranging from 4 to 8 inches in diameter
breast height in which the predominant species are yellow poplar, northern
red oak, white ash, and sugar maples. All overstory growth 5 feet and over
in height is then girdled. As the girdled overstory trees die, they gradually
yield the site to the planted chestnuts in transition that does not greatly
disturb the ecological conditions, particularly of the forest floor. Rapid
disintegration of the mantle of leafmold is prevented by the partial shading,
which the dead or dying overstory, girdled trees cast. At the same time, the
partial shading hinders the encroachment of the sprout hardwoods and the
other plant invaders (which would normally become established if the
planted area had been clear cut) until the chestnuts have become fully
established. Not only does this system provide the best site conditions
conducive to the development of forest-tree form in the Asiatic chestnuts, in
limited areas, but also under establishment conditions that require a
minimum amount of maintenance.

Summary

In general, Asiatic chestnuts, when grown for timber purposes, are best
adapted to northern slopes, above frost pockets on cool protected sites, on
deep, fertile soils having a covering of leaf litter and humus in the top soil, a
soil that is permeable to both roots and water, and that has a good water-

holding capacity. The plant association, above mentioned as indicating ideal
sites for Asiatic chestnuts for best timber development, occur in rich soils of
slight hollows in moist hilly woods and on the mountains in cove sites.

Improved Methods of Storing Chestnuts

By H. L. Crane and J. W. McKay Plant Industry Station, Beltsville,
Maryland

Trees of the Chinese chestnut, Castanea mollissima, are quite resistant to
the chestnut bark or blight disease. The heavy bearing of the trees together
with the good quality of the nuts produced has stimulated planting of trees
to replace those of the American species largely killed by that disease.
Although a few horticultural varieties of Chinese chestnuts have been
introduced and propagated, the great majority of the bearing trees are
seedlings. In seedling plantings seldom do two trees produce nuts of the
same size, color, and shape. All of these nuts when properly harvested,
treated, and stored are sweet and edible and nourishing as food either raw,
boiled, roasted, or combined with other foods in poultry dressing, salads, or
pancakes. Then too, there is a big demand for Chinese chestnuts as seed for
the purpose of growing seedling trees to be planted in orchards or to be
used as rootstocks in propagating horticultural varieties. In either case, it is
often desirable to store the nuts for several months before using them.

Chestnuts are not like the oily nuts, such as pecans, walnuts, almonds,
filberts, or peanuts, that must be dried to a moisture content of 5 to 8 per
cent to store well. Chestnuts are starchy nuts, containing about 50%
moisture when first harvested, and on drying they become very hard. In
experiments conducted at the U. S. Horticultural Field Station, Meridian,

Miss., it was found that the loss in weight of chestnuts ranged from 16.2 to
30.5% when stored for 4 months in open containers at 32 deg.F., and 80%
relative humidity. In an experiment in which chestnuts were stored 4-1/2
months at 32 deg.F., they lost 18.8% in weight when stored in burlap sacks,
3.7% when stored in waxed paper cartons with tight-fitting lids, and 2.0%
when stored in friction-top cans. Furthermore, chestnuts on drying lose their
viability and become worthless. Chestnuts lose moisture rapidly and
become subject to spoilage due to molds and other fungi and therefore must
be considered as highly perishable and handled accordingly.

There is a great difference in the keeping quality of the nuts produced by
different trees in that some are very susceptible to infection by molds and
bacteria and spoil quickly while others keep quite well. At Meridian, Miss.,
nuts from 5 different seedling trees ranged from 2 to 34% mold infection at
harvest. Studies made by John R. Large at U. S. Pecan Field Station,
Albany, Ga., showed that much of the infection of the nuts by molds
occurred after they had fallen from the burs and while the nuts were in
contact with the soil. It is, therefore, essential that the nuts be harvested
promptly after they are mature.

As a general practice the nuts should be gathered every other day during
the ripening season. Burs that have split open and exposed the brown nuts
should be knocked from the trees, and all of the nuts on the ground should
be gathered up cleanly. It would be difficult to emphasize too strongly the
importance of harvesting the nuts promptly as soon as they are mature.
Prompt and careful attention must then be given to the conditions under
which they are stored if they are to remain for long in an edible and viable
condition.

After the nuts have been gathered[10] they should be held in a layer not
exceeding 1 or 2 inches deep for 3 or 4 days. It is important that they be

kept in a well-ventilated building and that the sun does not strike the nuts
during curing. After the preliminary curing, the nuts should be placed in
friction-top metal cans (slip-top cans) and the lids should not be tight for the
first month of storage. The nuts contain enough moisture after the short
curing process that the lids will "sweat", or surplus moisture will
accumulate on the under side. This will disappear slowly by evaporation
during the first month or 6 weeks of storage and the lids may then be
pushed firmly into place, making the can nearly airtight. The containers of
nuts should be held in cold storage at temperatures of 32 deg. to 36 deg.F.
While some nuts have kept quite well at temperatures as high as 45 deg.F.,
the tests indicate that the nearer the storage temperature is to 32 deg.F., the
less is the mold development. Placing the cans in an ordinary home
refrigerator should prove fairly satisfactory with nuts that have good
keeping quality.

[Footnote 10: If the nuts are infected with weevils, they should
immediately be treated after harvesting with the hot water or methyl
bromide treatment as recommended by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine.]

It is essential that the nuts be placed in storage immediately after they
have had the preliminary curing. Any delay may increase the possibility of
mold development.

In the winter of 1945-46, nuts from 6 seedling Chinese chestnut trees
were stored separately in five-gallon friction-top cans at the Plant Industry
Station, Beltsville, Md., at 32 deg.F. for approximately 6 months. The
results are given in Table 1. It will be noted that there was some variation in
the percentage of spoiled nuts in the different lots, but the loss was small
when compared with results obtained by other methods. All of the sound
nuts in these lots were planted in a rodent-proof coldframe immediately

after they were removed from storage, and from 90 to 95% germination of
the seed was obtained throughout.

It is almost impossible to keep some varieties satisfactorily with even the
best of care. Because of the great difference in keeping quality of the nuts
of different varieties and from different seedling trees, each chestnut grower
should study the keeping performance of the nuts from the different trees in
his own orchard. He should save for permanent trees those producing nuts
that keep well.

The method of storing chestnuts that perhaps has been more widely used
than any other is to pack the nuts in slightly moist sphagnum moss or fresh
hardwood sawdust in boxes and place them in cold storage at 32 deg.F. to
34 deg.F. A little less volume of packing material than of nuts is customarily
used. The correct amount of moisture may be attained by adding 4 fluid
ounces of water to 1 pound of dry sphagnum moss. There is great danger of
getting too much moisture, which will tend to cause spoilage. If the cold
storage compartment is one that has a tendency to dry the stored material, it
may be necessary at some time during the year to open up the boxes and
add a little moisture to the sphagnum, but in most storage houses this is not
necessary.

Based upon results obtained during the last 2 or 3 years, it seems
probable that the method of storing chestnuts in friction-top cans will prove
to be more efficient than other methods now in use. Tests are under way to
determine the most desirable moisture content of nuts at the time of storage.
If this can be determined the present period of preliminary curing will
become a matter of reducing the moisture content of the nuts to a known
amount before they are stored. It is likely that other refinements of the
method will be made in the near future, but the procedure here described

has given results that merit further trial by those concerned with chestnut
storage problems.

TABLE I—Record of Keeping Quality of Nuts from 6 Seedling
Chinese Chestnut Trees Stored In Friction-Top Cans At 32 deg.F.
for Approximately 6 Months At Beltsville, Winter—1945-46[11]

===================================================
===================
Total Weight Weight of Weight of
Tree Number of Nuts Sound Nuts Spoiled Nuts Percent Spoiled
4-24-46—Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
—————————————————————————————
——————
7861 23.69 23.08 .61 2.57
7881 25.20 24.63 .57 2.26
7930 26.85 26.48 .37 1.37
7932 24.29 23.80 .49 2.02
7938 29.00 27.48 1.52 5.24
8174 15.82 14.80 1.02 6.45
====================================================
==================
ALL LOTS 144.85 140.27 4.58 3.16

[Footnote 11: Weighed and examined 4/24/46.]

Essential Elements in Tree Nutrition

(Paper presented before the Northern Nut Growers Association
Convention,

September 3-5, 1946, Wooster, Ohio.)

By J. F. Wischhusen Manganese Research & Development Foundation,
Cleveland 10, Ohio

Mankind has harbored an age-old grudge against insects and fungi, so
that under the heading of crop protection from these pests there has
developed a large insecticide and fungicide industry.

Relatively little attention has been paid to the effects of a nutritional
character that can be obtained from simultaneous applications of essential
elements. Insects will probably always constitute a problem of destruction,
either of them or by them. But fungi, bacteriae, viruses, can be made to
combat, control and balance each other; depending on the conditions under
which their propagation is either facilitated or inhibited.

There is evidence that so-called essential nutrients, also variously
referred to as "minor", "trace", "rare", or "micro" elements play a direct as
well as indirect role of considerable importance in this matter, and that trees
can be fertilized, sprayed, injected or treated with them in other ways to
insure their growth, health, crop bearing ability, longevity, disease—frost—
and drought—resistance. There still exists a paucity of scientific
explanations on these subjects, but there is already a good deal of scattered
information, which it is my purpose to draw to your attention. People do not
care about scientific facts if they can obtain results without them, and then
scientific concepts too may undergo changes. The manner in which trees
obtain their nutrients from soil, air and water, however, will forever remain
unchanged, whether we understand it or not, and it behooves every grower
to observe effects from causes, and to reflect upon them, and report his
observations to his association for the benefit of all.

Physical Soil Characteristics

That the primary requisites for tree growing are the physical
characteristics of all soils favorable for that purpose requires no discussion.
The successful nut tree planting starts with the soil, whether it be on the
scale of an orchard, grove, or just a few trees around the farm or garden.

The better soils for general crop production are on limestone, basalt,
dolemite, dolerite, diorite and gabbro formations, whereas sandstones,
aplites, granites, pierre shale, cretacious rocks and volcanic formations
weather into inferior soils. Gneiss can be sometimes good, sometimes
unfavorable for building of fertile soil.

It is well to bear in mind that geology and botany are our two
fundamental sciences, and that all our other sciences are in reality
departments of these. Chemistry can be either a branch of botany if it deals
with organic chemistry, or else a branch of geology, if it deals with
inorganic chemistry, and it would appear that the modern scientific grower
of nut trees or any other crops is wittingly or unwittingly concerned with
both. Biology and zoology both are branches of botany.

The Essential Elements

In the past, economics have governed any crop production, whether of
trees, grains, fruits or vegetables; not nutrition and health. The future in all
likelihood will demand improved crops from the standpoint of nutritional
purposes as foods. It is gradually being realized that the production of better
crops can be brought about by greater application of essential nutrients to
soils or as nutritional sprays direct to trees, and that such practices also
reflect true economics. The same principle should govern wood production.

According to our today's knowledge, there are at least nineteen elements
invariably essential to life, viz:

Primary: Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus.

Secondary: Calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, iron, sulphur,
chlorine.

Micro: Manganese, copper, boron, silicon, aluminum, fluorine, iodine.

Then there are another eighteen elements at least variably necessary to
life, viz:

(1) Variable Secondary Elements: Zinc, titanium, vanadium and bromine.

(2) Variable Micro-Elements: Lithium, rubidium, caesium, silver,
beryllium, strontium, cadmium, germanium, tin, lead, arsenic, chromium,
cobalt and nickel.

Elements in Soils Essential for Plant Growth

It is furthermore safe to state at the present time that fertile soils should
contain at least the following twenty elements: Nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron,
sodium, chlorine, aluminum, silicon, manganese, copper, zinc, boron,
iodine, and fluorine.

Until quite recently many scientists believed that only the first ten
elements were necessary for growth and maturing of crops; that only the
first three should be considered as fertilizer ingredients, and that the others
were supplied by soil, air and water, or were present as natural fillers in
manures and fertilizer raw materials.

The modern agronomist, however, takes all these twenty essential
elements into consideration, and many so-called "complete" fertilizers
contain at least sixteen to eighteen, if not all of the elements mentioned
above. Cobalt, essential to animal nutrition, can also most economically be
supplied through the soil, even though crops grow without it.

As long as we have sufficient experimental research data that at least
nineteen elements are invariably essential to all life, it stands to reason, that
they at least must also be present in one way or another for the normal, or
better the optimum growth of nut trees, and a crop of more nutritious nuts.
Therefore, every time one of them is considered, all the others must also be
borne in mind. It will neither prove difficult nor costly to experiment with
them. It is a matter of finding the proper balance of everything essential for
optimum nut tree growing.

Indeed, to ascertain the true balance of all elements that are invariably
essential to life, and their relationship to the elements which are variably
essential, would quite naturally appear to constitute the quintessence of
research still to be performed. We cannot control such essential factors as
climate, weather, sunshine, but man can control the supply and adjustment
of nutrients to trees, and it rests entirely with him to do so.

There is one advantage a nut crop has over some other crops; it does not
have to be harvested before fully mature. Nut crops obtain the benefit from
elements that may be slowly assimilated during the season.

The following experimental and historical evidence and opinions have
come to my attention, and I record them for what interest they may have.
Past experience is often discarded as too old, but many a time an
experimenter was ahead of his time, and his work remained unrecognized,
so that now some old references can be revived and presented as novelties.

What the past ignored may indeed be due to the ignorance of those who did
the ignoring.

1) The Chestnut Blight

The chestnut blight, for instance, of a generation ago, may be re-
examined in the light of the proceedings before a chestnut blight
conference, held at Harrisburg, Penna., February 20-21, 1912. A chestnut
extract manufacturer, a Mr. W. M. Benson[3], stated at the time that in his
experience the best extracts were made from trees high in lime. "A blighted
tree," he stated, "is simply a tree in the process of starving to death for lack
of lime." Maps showed that the blight was worst where there was least lime,
and that the chestnut trees died last in Tennessee, where soils are high in
lime. Analysis showed that chestnuts contained 40% lime, an unheard of
amount. That this high test may reflect a faulty condition is pointed out
later.

All I can add to this is that there is an English Walnut Tree, Alpine
variety, on the farm of Mr. Deknatel, on Route 202, Chalfont, Penna., which
is remarkable for its virility and crops of large nuts. This tree grows in a
place protected by house and barn near a well, in limestone soil. It resisted
the severe winters of 1935 and 1936, when many other English Walnuts in
the vicinity died. My opinion is that any tree in that location would be an
outstanding tree; and vice versa, had that particular tree been planted in
another location, it would have done no better than any trees there located.
Nuts from that tree might well be tested and compared with nuts from other
trees.

2) The Banana Blight

The banana blight in Central America threatened for a while to be as
destructive as the chestnut blight in this country. It was due admittedly to an
attack by soil fungi, but no fungicide to foliage or to the soil served its
purpose. However, the proper restoration of bacterial life in soils to keep the
soil fungi in check proved effective. This was a matter not of the presence
or absence of any one inorganic nutrient, but of restoring to soils the
balance of fertility, an abundance of organic matter as food for bacteriae.
Dr. George D. Scarseth, West Lafayette, Ind.[4], is one of those largely
responsible for correcting this epidemic. His experience may prove useful
to nut growers, so that they may not live in constant fear of another blight
epidemic such as the one that exterminated our chestnuts only a generation
ago.

3) Tree Nutrition, Microbial

From England comes interesting information about "Tree Nutrition"[5].
Evidence shows that the healthy growth of trees such as pines and spruces
is intimately bound up with an association between their roots and fungi
present in woodland soil. Poverty in mineral nutrients is no longer regarded
as a necessarily critical factor in the failure of growth of trees of this kind,
since the associated fungi have at their disposal sources of supply
inaccessible to the roots of higher plants.

Experiments carried out during the past ten years at Wareham in England
fully confirm the opinion expressed long ago by Professor Elias Melin,
Upsala, Sweden, that the growth of trees and other plants on poor soils of
the raw humus type is greatly influenced by the root-fungus association. By
fostering the appropriate combination it has been possible to carry out
successful afforestation of heathland so poor that ordinary cultural methods
prove inadequate for the least exacting tree species. Satisfying the mineral
requirements of the trees by direct application of fertilizers is not in itself

sufficient treatment to ensure continued healthy growth; biological factors
also play an essential role in promoting soil fertility. The experiments have
shown that failure of the trees to establish a satisfactory biological
equilibrium with the necessary fungi is due in this case, not to the absence
of these fungi in the soil, but to their inactivation by toxic products of
biological origin. The factors inhibiting the activity of the fungi can be
removed by the application of comparatively small amounts of organic
composts which produce dramatic and lasting effects on the growth of roots
and shoots.

The special composts used are prepared from organic materials such as
straw, hop waste and sawdust. The mechanism by which they stimulate
growth is still obscure. All of them contain small amounts of directly
available plant foods such as phosphates and potash, but careful
investigation both in laboratory pot cultures and in the field, has shown that
these can account for only a relatively temporary effect on growth. It is
suggested that the composts act mainly by modifying the course of humus
decomposition, thus bringing about drastic changes in the biological
activities of the organic substrate of the soil.

This demonstration of the profound influence of biological factors on the
nutrition of trees challenges the attention of foresters and has important
practical applications. By making use of suitable composts, it will be
possible to carry out the successful afforestation of land formerly regarded
as wholly unproductive.

For further information see "Problems of Tree Nutrition"[5].

From the two foregoing examples it is seen that in the case of banana
blight, fungi had to be suppressed by bacteriae, but that for pine trees on
poor English soils fungi had to be activated for proper tree nutrition.

4) Inorganic Tree Nutrients

Other information also from England concerns the use of so-called
"minerals" which I prefer to call "essential inorganic nutrients," and name
by the element or the compound in which the element is contained.
"Minerals", strictly speaking, refers to compounds formed by nature as
rocks, ores, brines, salt deposits, etc.

Professor Wallace, Director of Britain's Long Ashton Research
Station[6], has laid the foundation for diagnosing mineral deficiencies by
leaf symptoms. These are reliable indicators of what nutrients to furnish
plants when they are distinct and easily recognized. But for subacute
deficiencies, plant analysis and injections are resorted to. Injections of
manganese sulphate as pellets into holes drilled in trunks of cherry trees
caused orchards that had been barren, to bear heavy crops a few months
later.

Manganese, boron, zinc, copper, iron, magnesium also lend themselves
quite readily for applications as nutritional sprays, when applied as suitable
compounds such as the sulphates. Both spray applications and tree
injections have great diagnostic values, because a response to them, if
needed is relatively quick. When trees are deficient their foliage will show
marked improvement from a spray application within a few days, so that a
test can be made on a few trees before an entire orchard is treated. Trunk
injections should of course be made during the dormant season for results to
show the following summer.

5) Nutritional Sprays

Florida and California lead in the application of nutritional sprays on
citrus and other fruit[7]. Vegetables, too, respond remarkably thereto[8]. I

see no reason why nut trees likewise should not benefit from them,
especially when other spray materials are used. Copper sulphate, zinc
sulphate, manganese sulphate, magnesium sulphate, iron sulphate, cobalt
sulphate and borax are all compatible with each other and with most other
spray materials. Combination sprays seem to perform better, anyway, than
single sprays, and the only objection would seem to be that some element is
applied that is not deficient. It can be taken for granted, however, that
nothing is wasted, even though the benefits may be invisible. Soils benefit
in the long run from sprays. One element, even though not noticeably
needed, may make another available or it may antidote toxicity of some
element present to excess. Indirect results in all likelihood are always
obtained.

In Florida, recommendations for spray applications to citrus are made
annually[9]. They can be obtained from the Florida Citrus Commission,
Lakeland, Fla. A typical formulae is as follows:

3-5 lbs. zinc sulphate |
3-5 lbs. manganese sulphate | per 100 gallons of water or
2-5 lbs. copper sulphate with | other spray material
equal amounts of lime. |

1 gallon of lime sulphur or 1-1/2 lbs. of lime is used for every 3
lbs. of sulphate of manganese or zinc.

Cherries, apples, plums are quite responsive to such applications, and I
have seen the defoliation of prune trees in New York State corrected with a
mixture containing:

Manganese 10% | All as metallic, in the form of hydrated oxides,

Copper 10% | and applied at the rate of 4 lbs, for the combination
Zinc 5% | material per 100 gallons.
Boron 1% | The addition of 2 lbs. lime is optional.

In California a manganese deficiency has been observed on English
Walnuts[10], and 5-15 lbs. commercial manganese sulphate was used per
100 gallons of water during late May, through June, to correct this.

Sprays should be applied at ten day intervals until the deficiency
symptoms no longer persist.

Plausible reasons for the somewhat quicker action of sprays than
fertilizers may be furnished by two prominent authorities:

McCollum[11], one of our foremost nutritionists, first noted the
discovery that the leaf of the plant is a complete food, and that none of the
storage organs of plants, seeds, tubers, roots, fruits enjoy that distinction. In
the leaf, biological processes are most active. It is the site of synthesis of
proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The leaf is rich in actively functioning
cells which contain everything necessary for the metabolic processes, and
they supply all the nutrients which an animal requires. ("All flesh is grass").

Hoagland[12], another authority, writes on this subject thus:

"It is now certain that soils are not invariably capable of
supplying enough boron, zinc, copper and manganese to maintain
healthy growth of plants. This knowledge has come mainly during
the past ten years. Within this period thousands of cases from
many parts of the world have been reported of crop failure, of
plant disease, resulting from deficiencies of micro nutrient
elements…. The statements do not imply that most soils are
deficient in any of these elements, but the areas involved are large

and important enough to warrant the view that the recognition of
micro nutrient deficiencies constitutes a development in applied
plant nutrition of major significance.

"When I refer to deficiencies of boron, copper, manganese, or
zinc, it is not a question of absolute deficiency in total quantity of
the element present in the soil, but rather a physiological
deficiency arising from the insufficient availability of the element
in the plant; in other words, not enough of the element can be
absorbed and distributed in the plant for its physiological needs at
each successive phase of growth."

Nutritional sprays under such circumstances may prove the remedy, and
we have experimental evidence to support this. Nut trees as is shown by the
above mentioned experiment, may respond to spray applications equally as
well as citrus, other fruit and vegetables, and effects, too may possess
special diagnostic values, showing the need of trees, and therefore also the
need of soils on which they are grown.

Investigators are constantly confronted with determining whether foliage
shows symptoms of disease or starvation, and whether this is due to a
deficiency or an excess of any particular nutrient; whether fungicides
inhibit the generation of fungi from the spore state, or whether the plant is
fortified from sprays or dusts to become disease resistant, or repellent.

Fungicides are valueless where plant disease is caused by bacteriae
which invade the water conducting tubes, (roughly corresponding to the
blood vessels of mammals), of plants, tree trunks, etc. and prevent the flow
of water and nutrient solutions from roots to leaves. Deprived of water and
nourishment, the plants or trees will wilt and die. Where, however, soils
furnish these plants with protective inorganic nutrients, such as manganese,

copper, iron, zinc, borax, etc. these bacterial diseases are prevented. Similar
actions may take place in leaves.

Deficiency Symptoms. Kodachrome Slides.

Many acute deficiency symptoms have been identified by authorities and
photographed, and I am able to show Kodachrome slides of the following:

Manganese starvation on Swiss chard, spinach (five illustrations),
courtesy of Dr. Robert E. Young, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Apricot, sweet cherry, lemon, onions, peanut, soybean (two
illustrations), tobacco (4 illustrations), sugarbeets, walnuts, wheat,
all by different authors.

Manganese deficiencies in Indiana on soyabeans, hemp, corn,
by courtesy of George H. Enfield, Purdue University.

Manganese on beets (mangels), (4 illustrations), and Romaine
lettuce, Nassau County, Long Island. Courtesy of Dr. H. C.
Thompson, Cornell University.

Many more are published in "Hunger Signs of Crops," an illustrated
reference book popular with scientific farmers and growers[13].

Other deficiencies that have been observed on nut trees are the so-called
"little leaf" or "rosette" of pecans and black walnuts[14], which is due to a
lack of zinc. Strangely enough, healthy orchards in this case contained a
preponderance of fungi, whereas in affected orchards the soil microflora
was predominantly bacterial[15].

We now have definite experimental evidence that lime, manganese and
zinc are required in appreciable quantities for the growth, health and
bearing quality of nut trees. It is well to make sure of these elements in the
soils devoted to nut tree planting, but it cannot be emphasized too often that
all essential elements and factors should be taken care of; anyone of them
may be the limiting factor in crop failure; the one that is absent is always
the most important.

In regard to inorganic nutrients, more attention has probably been
devoted to citrus trees than to any other tree species, largely because the
soils of Florida and California require additions thereof. It would be unfair
to say that such main fruit crops as apples, cherries, peaches, plums have
been neglected; we merely possess more information on the nutrients of
citrus trees than on other tree crops, as far as the micro essential nutrients
are concerned. Most orchards and groves are fertilized only with nitrogen,
phosphorus and potash, and limed when necessary. Nitrogen can stimulate
size of fruit at the expense of quality.

A paper by P. W. Rohrbaugh[16], Plant Physiologist of the California
Fruit Growers Exchange, Ontario, California, deals with eleven mineral
nutrient deficiencies and their causes, viz: calcium, magnesium, potash,
phosphorus, sulphur, nitrogen, iron, boron, zinc, manganese, copper, and
this might well be used as a guide for nut trees.

6) Miscellaneous

A few oddities may also be mentioned for anyone inclined to experiment:

From Holland it is reported that an avenue of large handsome shade trees
close to a century old, all died in one year, except where a junk dealer had
stacked a pile of old metals. The trees had exhausted the inorganic nutrients

within reach of their roots in the soil, but the junkpile had replenished them
sufficiently, so that those within reach of it kept alive to this day, twenty
years later.

A rock mulch is reported to have improved the growth of lime and lemon
trees considerably[17], and it would seem that similar experiments should
be made on young nut trees, just before bearing age in a comparative test
with a check planting. Stones can be selected for the nutrients they contain,
and a geologist can easily point out those containing the greatest number of
elements. No one could go wrong in placing a few rocks of limestone or
dolomite near the base of a tree, and let rain and sunshine, heat and frost
attend to the fertilizing in a slow but perpetual manner.

Maple sugar contains manganese[18], showing this as a distinct quality
over cane sugar. Manganese and other essential nutrients are known to
facilitate the production of proteins[19], and the question of better quality
nut production may well be examined from the viewpoint of the indirect
effect from activities of soil microbiology by manganese, copper, cobalt and
zinc. Some of these elements have also been classed as inorganic plant
hormones[20]. "Chlorosis," the yellowing of leaves, may not only be a
deficiency symptom of manganese, but also one of iron, copper and
magnesium. Lack of manganese can cause a decrease in photosynthesis[21],
so much so that in manganese deficient leaves the CO2 assimilation may be
reduced to half of normal. Herein, too, may lie the cause of low yields,
smaller roots and lowered resistance of those roots to invading detrimental
organism.

Contemporary work on soil microbiology may show that manganese and
other essential nutrients are perhaps most important in their functions for
the preservation and balancing of microbial life and actions in soils. There
is where tree nutrition must begin; whatever is neglected in soils can at best

only temporarily be adjusted afterwards. After all, deficiency symptoms on
foliage show lack of soil fertility, and while we should welcome them for
their diagnostic value, our corrective measures to be most economical must
be taken on soils.

Transmission of Inorganic Nutrients from Soils to Plants to Animals

Soil analysis and plant tissue tests both have their value, but also their
limitations. Many laboratories and experiment stations are equipped to
make rapid soil tests, and some engage in leaf analysis. It is important that
they be correctly interpreted. For instance, at the Citrus Experiment Station,
Riverside, California[22], bark and leaves were collected from healthy and
diseased Persian Walnuts. They were analyzed for calcium, magnesium,
inorganic phosphate, manganese and iron. A higher percentage of ash was
found in the diseased than in the healthy bark, and calcium, magnesium,
manganese and inorganic phosphates were also generally higher.

It would be a fallacy I think to conclude therefrom that these elements
were not necessary, or were present to excess. They were probably present
because they had failed to function properly, due to changes in weather,
excessive rains or droughts, and could not eliminate themselves.

We must consider the results from the functions of the essential elements,
and discard the popular belief that inorganic nutrients in soils are
transmitted from soils to plants, and therein contained for the express
purpose of satisfying the need of animals and humans[23].

The plant has only one purpose to perform which is to grow and to
reproduce itself, and such is the case with all other forms of life.

Plants contain very often inorganic elements in a form in which they
cannot be utilized. It is therefore quite easy to mistake their presence either
as a toxicity symptom or as a high requirement, when as a matter of fact
these elements are present due to conditions unfavorable to metabolism, and
they remained in bark and leaves as end products, in an inert form. Rather
than being transmitted from soils to plant, their functions may consist of the
formation of enzymes, proteins, hormones, chlorophyll, antibodies,
vitamins, in carbon assimilation. When they have served such purposes they
are not likely to be present in plants in anything like the amounts or forms
as present in soils. They may come into question as catalysts or bio-
catalysts, as sources of energy for microorganism, from which their
optimum effects have been secured when they are not transmitted at all,
causing changes, but remaining themselves unchanged. They are essential
in the sense that the elements composing soils, sea, atmosphere are
constantly energized, changed and used over and over again to create plant,
animal and human life. In this cycle nothing is lost, only changed from old
to new generations.

Summary

Soil factors for tree growth are physical, chemical and biological. To
control the organisms of soils and plants is probably the most difficult
problem in microbiology. It is not wise to alternate neglect with feverish
attention when blights or other pests become epidemic or threatening. They
may be of a nutritional, preventable rather than curable nature. Pathology
and tree nutrition may as well become a constant part of your activities.

References to the Literature

1. BEESON, K. C. The Mineral Composition of Crops U.S.D.A. Bulletin
No. 369. March, 1941

2. FEARON, W. R. A Classification of the Biological Elements Sci. Proc.
Royal Dublin Soc. Vol. 20 No. 35. February, 1933

3. WISCHHUSEN, J. F. Minerals in Agricultural and in Animal
Husbandry Manganese Research & Development Foundation Cleveland 10,
Ohio

4. RODALE, J. I. The Organic Forest—Editorial Organic Gardening,
Emmaus, Pa. April, 1945, pp. 4-9

5. SCARSETH, GEORGE D. Growing Bananas on Acid
SoilsAgriculture in the Americas, Vol. IV. October, 1944, No. 10

6. RAYNER, M. C. and NEILSON-JONES, W. Problems of Tree
Nutrition Faber and Faber, Lt. London

7. ROACH, W. A. Soil Fertility and Trace Elements Soil Conservation,
Washington. October, 1945 Condensed in Farmer's Digest, Ambler, Pa.
January, 1946

8. CAMP, A. F. The Minor Elements in Citrus Fertilization Commercial
Fertilizer, Atlanta, Ga. January, 1945

9. CHAPMAN, H. D.; BROWN, S. M.; and RAYNER, D. S. Nutrient
Deficiencies in Citrus California Citrograph, May, 1945

10. McLEAN, F. T. Feeding Plants Manganese through the Stomata
Science 66 (1927). Exp. Sta. Rec No. 58

11. SPRAY AND DUST SCHEDULES, Published Annually Florida
Citrus Commission, Lakeland, Fla.

12. BRAUCHER, O. L. and SOUTHWICK, B. W. Correction of
Manganese Deficiency Symptoms of Walnut Trees Proc. Horticultural
Science 39. 133—6. 1941

13. McCOLLUM, E. V. ORENT-KEILES The Newer Knowledge of
Nutrition. Fifth Edition The MacMillan Company, pp. 661-2

14. HOAGLAND, D. R. Inorganic Nutrition of Plants Chronic Botanica,
1944, pp. 32-3

15. HUNGER SIGNS OF CROPS—A Symposium National Fertilizer
Assn. Washington, D. C. 1941 Judd & Detwiler, Baltimore, Md.

16. BLACKMON, G. H. Variety and Stock Tests of Pecan and Walnut
Trees Florida Agr. Exp. Sta. Annual Report 1936, 75 (1937)

17. BLACKMON, G. H. Pecan Variety Response to Different Soil Types,
Localities: Zinc Treatments Florida Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rep. 1935, 74-5,
(1936)

18. ARK, P. A. Little Leaf or Rosette of Fruit Trees VII. Soil Microflora
and Little Leaf or Rosette Disease Proc. Amer. Soc. of Horticultural Sci. 34,
218-21. 1937

19. ROHRBAUGH, P. W. Mineral Nutrient Deficiencies in California
Citrus Trees and their Causes California Citrograph, April-May, 1946

20. WHITE, CLARENCE Decorative Rock Mulches Organic Gardening,
November, 1945—Emmaus, Pa.

21. RIOU, PAUL and DELORME, JOACHIM Manganese in Maple and
Cane Sugars Comptes Rendues 200 1132-3 (1935) C.A. 294617

22. DELORME, JOACHIM Manganese in Maple and Cane Sugars
Contrib. Lab. del'Ecole Hautes Etudes Comm. Montreal No. 7, page 32
1937

23. BAUDISCH, OSKAR Biological Functions of Minor Elements Soil
Sci. Vol. 60 No. 2 August, 1945

24. ELLIS, CARLETON; SWANEY, MILLER. W. Soilless Growth of
Plants Reinhold Publishing Co. 1938

24. WILLIS, L. G. and PILAND, J. R. Minor Elements and Major Soil
Problems Jour. Amer. Soc. Agronomy. 30—385—874 (1938)

26. HAAS, A. R. C. Walnut Yellow in Relation to Ash Composition,
Manganese, Iron and Ash Constituents Bot. Gazette 94 (1933) E.S.R. 69,
511

27. WISCHHUSEN, J. F. Recommendations for Feeding Manganese
Manganese Research & Development Foundation, Cleveland 10, Ohio

Nut Tree Propagation As a Hobby for a Chemist

By Dr. E. M. Shelton, Cleveland, Ohio

Not so long ago we saw a movie by the title of "Cluny Brown." The
heroine was possessed with a passion for repairing plumbing, but was
continually inhibited by well-meaning relatives who told her that she "didn't

know her place." A scene early in the story shows Cluny on the floor under
a stopped-up kitchen sink explaining her problem to a sympathetic
professor who states a philosophy something like this. "To be happy, one
should not have to be bound by what is appropriate. If it is customary to
throw nuts to the squirrels and you prefer to throw squirrels to the nuts, it
should be all right to throw squirrels to the nuts."

It is obviously not always advisable to be so unconventional, but it seems
to me that in matters pertaining to one's hobby it should be permissable to
throw "squirrels to the nuts."

A hobby, like a shadow, is necessarily a very personal thing. Without the
person with which it is associated it could not exist. Therefore, I feel that it
is appropriate to present throughout this paper a liberal use of the pronoun
in the first person.

Years ago, as a boy on an Ohio farm, I tried repeatedly, without success,
to graft on small hickory trees along the river bank scions from one
especially good tree that stood out in a cultivated field. Time that followed
was too crowded for further attempts at nut tree propagation until about
fifteen years ago, when, living in Connecticut, I bought a grafted walnut, a
Thomas, and set out to produce more like it. Before we left Connecticut, I
had been able to present grafted walnut trees to many of my neighbors who
had persisted, hitherto, in calling hickory-nuts "walnuts." They would listen
with some show of interest while I expounded on my enthusiasm for black
walnuts, but sooner or later would inevitably ask, "Do you mean the
shagbark kind?"

Last summer we drove back to Connecticut for a brief visit, and, on
calling at the home of one of these friends, we found that the first nut borne
on their Thomas tree had been carefully saved. Forthwith there was a
solemn nut-cracking ceremony, and all present tasted the meat and

pronounced it good. We hope that that tree and many others will thrive for
years to come to add to the bonds of friendship with these neighbors we
have known.

Lately I have arranged my work so that we may once again live in Ohio
not too far from my boyhood home. Last year I tried once again to graft
along the hillside scions from that prized hickory, and this time six out of
seven grafts have grown.

My field of work has been that of a chemist, engaged in industrial
problems related to animal and plant products. Hence, my hobby and my
day's work are productive of mutually helpful ideas. The literature which I
review frequently contains suggestions applicable to the various phases of
tree propagation. Though a few references are quoted in the bibliography at
the end of this paper, these are for illustration only and comprise a very
small number of those which have appeared.

My experiments in nut tree propagation have been reported from time to
time in the yearbooks of the N.N.G.A. and I intend in the remainder of this
paper only to outline problems under a number of general headings in
which I am particularly interested, and give some indication of procedures
which seem worth while investigating.

An important phase of nut growing to which I have given little attention
is the search for new varieties. I find my interest in this aspect growing as I
associate with the group of nut growers in Ohio, who through prize contests
and active personal work are trying to discover superior nut trees in nature,
yet I do not find in this the opportunity I seek for experimentation unless it
may be in the matter of hybridization.

Rootstock Propagation

Rootstocks for walnuts and hickories are very easily grown from seed.
Chestnuts are grown with variable success, and it would seem that
particular care in drainage of the seed bed, and possibly the use of one of
the seed fungicides, should improve chestnut germination.

The present trend in the propagation of fruit trees is toward selection of
particularly suitable rootstocks. Do some nut tree seedlings accept grafts
more readily than others? We do not know. Numerous writers have
discussed the idea of varying degrees of compatibility of rootstocks with
scions and Jones[1] has brought together considerable evidence to relate
incompatibility among plants with something parallel to allergy in animals.
Initial growth of the scion leads to a flow of foreign bodies into the stock.
The theory is advanced that the stock develops antitoxins to these foreign
bodies which succeed in killing the scion a few weeks later.

If a particular strain of nut tree stock is some day found to be of
particular value for grafting, or for propagation of a disease resistant type,
as in the chestnut, the propagation of such stock vegetatively would be
essential. A present illustration is the series of Malling apple rootstocks
which are grown from cuttings.

I have tried many times to grow chestnuts from cuttings with no success.
A few experiments now in progress are limited to Malling IX apple stocks
which I assume are not especially difficult to root. I am trying several
modifications of a principle of making the cuttings at some time after
girdling the stem. The hope is that in this way there will be accumulated at
the base of the cutting more than the usual reserve of nutritive elements
together with whatever plant wound hormones and plant growth substances
the twig is capable of synthesizing.

Scion Storage

In earlier papers I described the use of sodium sulfate crystals (Glauber's
salt) for controlling the humidity in scion storage. This season I have
adapted the practice to the shipping of fresh walnut bud sticks. A sack of
Glauber's salt in the bottom of the mailing tube keeps the cuttings moist,
and if, in addition, the container is kept in a refrigerator when not actually
in transit, the buds have been kept in condition for use up to twenty-five
days.

A low temperature is essential in storage of any scions. Variations in this
factor may have been the cause of some of the objections which have been
raised to the practice of coating scions with wax when they go into storage.
If wax is to be applied over a scion, it can be done more uniformly and in a
thinner coating by immersion of the scion in melted wax. The scion so
coated seems to be in better condition than an uncoated scion when it comes
out of storage provided the storage temperature has been low. However, if
the wood has not been kept dormant by low temperature, gases are evolved
which form blisters under the wax and injure the scion. It is quite probable
that a wax coating then aggravates this damage.

Grafting and Budding

Until this year I had not tried budding, and have gotten into it first of all
to learn whether an ordinary laboratory cork borer is not a usable substitute
for a patch bud cutter. It seems to do very well. The patches are small, but
as an aid in tieing them in I prepared short strips of painter's masking tape
with a thin coat of a plastic grafting wax on one side. In the center of each
piece of tape is a hole just large enough for the bud to show through. The
tape is pressed on over the bud patch, after which the usual binding with
rubber strips is applied.

The whole technic of budding is fascinating and I plan to experiment as
extensively next season as time and stock permit.

Wax and Tape

In 1937, Shear[2] published a report on a number of wound dressings for
trees in which he observed that lanolin exerts a marked action in stimulating
cambial growth. This led me to try various wax combinations in which
lanolin was incorporated, and a mixture of equal parts of lanolin and
beeswax has become the base for most of my experimental grafting wax
mixtures. I have commented already on the importance of incorporating an
opaque ingredient to exclude light. Experiments in progress this season
have had to do with introduction of green vs. red dye and with the
incorporation of a wax soluble pyrridyl mercuric stearate[3] as a fungicide.

I have recommended painter's masking tape for tying in scions in all
cases in which moderate tension is sufficient. A winding of such a tape of
course excludes the grafting wax from contact with the line of cambial
contact, so any favorable action which any ingredient in the wax might have
must be largely interfered with. If a tape is prepared with a thin coating of
plastic grafting wax on one side to serve as the adhesive, it should be
possible to bring the wax into contact with the cut cambial surface without,
however, introducing such a mass of wax as would make its way between
stock and scion and interfere with contact.

Nutrition

My own field of work has recently changed to nutrition, infant feeding,
and I shall undoubtedly come to have more of an understanding of plant
nutrition as well as of babies as I study longer on this subject.

Our recollections of the "good old days" are often mistaken, but I think
there is no doubt that the nut trees bore more and better nuts when I was a
boy than we can find now. Can it be a matter of nutritional failure?

The first consideration in plant nutrition seems to be the water supply,
and perhaps in many localities the water table has fallen sufficiently to
threaten our trees with malnutrition.

The supply of the common mineral elements may or may not be
adequate. These elements should not be difficult to supply. The matter of
the trace elements and their significance catches our fancy at present and
many of us will undoubtedly begin to explore the effect of this or that
panacea for restoring a favorite old tree to a second youth.

Medication

It is only a step from the consideration of nutrition of a plant or animal to
that of medication. Remedial agents are readily introduced into plants,
either through the roots, or by spray on the foliage, or by direct injection
into the trees. Going a little further, such methods become means of killing
trees.

A few years ago, I became interested in killing trees in a way which
would prevent sprouting and also protect the wood to some extent from
insect attack and decay organisms. More recently my interest has turned
toward the use of hygroscopic chemicals injected in the living tree for the
purpose, not only of killing the tree, but of preventing the wood from
cracking radially or drying. A number of government publications[4-10]
have contributed information along this line.

To inject enough chemical to accomplish this purpose it seems necessary
to introduce the chemical solution through a cut the depth of the sap wood
and extending entirely around the tree. A collar of water-proof paper
cemented to the tree provides a means of supplying the chemical solution to
the cut. All this is described in the literature cited. The only contribution I
have made is the use of urea in the solutions.

Many salts are more soluble in a water solution of urea than in water
alone, and many such mixtures are very hygroscopic. Moreover, it seems
that in the presence of urea higher concentrations of salt may be introduced
into the sap stream of trees, though I do not as yet have experimental data to
confirm this statement quantitatively.

An example of a solution injected into a small ash tree is as follows:

90 grams urea

120 grams copper sulfate crystals

300 cubic centimeters water

I hope in another year to cure a number of varieties of woods on the
stump and later to compare their qualities in the shop with lumber cured in
the usual way.

By-Products

Any object as juicy and colorful as a black walnut hull may well become
a subject for search in recovery of by-products. The thermally active carbon
made from the shells has actuated laboratory thermostats for me for several
years.

But more real and immediate by-products have been the personal
associations which have arisen from this hobby. Physicians, engineers,
teachers, farmers, persons from every calling are among those whom I have
met through a common interest in nut tree propagation. I can recommend
this hobby to anyone mature enough to take an interest in the future, and to
chemists in particular.

Bibliography

1. W. NEILSON JONES Plant Chimaeras and Graft Hybrids Methuen
and Company, London

2. SHEAR-LANOLIN As a Wound Dressing for Trees Proc. Am. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 34, 286-8 (1937)

3. HORNER, KOPPA and HERBST—Mercurial Fungicide Wax
Problems Ind. Eng. Chem, 37 1069-73 (1945)

4. U. S. BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY AND PLANT QUARANTINE
—E-409—June 1937. A method for preventing insect injury to material
used for posts, poles, and rustic construction.

5. E-434—May 1938, An efficient method for introducing liquid
chemicals into living trees.

6. E-467—February 1939, Chemicals and methods used in treatments of
trees by injections, with annotated bibliography.

7. Conn. Agr. Expt. Sta.—Cir. No. 123—July, 1938 The use of water
soluble preservatives in preventing decay in fence posts and similar
materials.

8. U. S. D. A.—Cir. No. 605—June, 1941 The internal application of
chemicals to kill elm trees and prevent bark-beetle attack.

9. FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY—November, 1938 A primer
on the chemical seasoning of Douglas fir.

10. REPRINT FROM JOURNAL OF FORESTRY—Vol. 35—March,
1937 (Procured from Forest Products Laboratory) Seasoning transverse tree
sections without checking.

Notes on Propagation and Transplanting in Western Tennessee

By Joseph C. McDaniel, State Horticulturist

Tennessee Department of Agriculture

Nashville 3, Tennessee

These observations are presented as a preliminary report of the results
obtained by three enterprising amateurs of nut growing in the western
counties of Tennessee, whose work points the way toward overcoming
some of the weaknesses previously encountered in nut culture in the
northern part of the cotton belt states. These growers are the "three R's" of
our Association in west Tennessee: Dr. Aubrey Richards of Whiteville, Mr.
George Rhodes of Covington, and Mr. W. F. Roark of Malesus. I am giving
this brief account of some of their experiences, with the hope that it will
stimulate others to try their methods under various conditions, and to report
their results at later N.N.G.A. meetings. We do not expect these methods to
work equally well in all parts of the United States and Canada represented
here today, but they are giving promising results in the mid-South territory,

and perhaps will have value in a wider area. As Mr. Davidson has so ably
done at this meeting in the case of his Ohio plantings, we expect to give you
a follow-up report on this work in west Tennessee at the Toronto meeting or
later.

"Twin-T" Budding in Chestnut Propagation

Of the nut trees grown in this area, the chestnut has been the most
difficult to propagate by budding. Nurseries in the upper South have
propagated their pecan and walnut trees mostly by patch-budding or the
similar ring-budding method, with very good success. When applied to
chestnuts, patch-buds have seldom grown. The common T-bud, likewise,
has been a general failure on chestnuts in America, though reported
successful in Japan. Chip-buds have not been much-better.

Several years ago, Dr. Max B. Hardy told me that the inlay bark-graft had
been used successfully with Chinese chestnuts at the U.S.D.A, laboratory in
Albany, Ga., following Dr. B. G. Sitton's use of this method with pecans in
Louisiana. (It is described in a bulletin from Michigan State College, East
Lansing, Mich.) I tried it in a small way, and had some success using it on
chestnuts in July and August. This spring I suggested it to Mr. Roark and
Dr. Richards, both of whom tried it out, using Castanea mollissima stocks
and various scion varieties.

Mr. Roark used the inlay bark-graft in the spring, topworking a C.
mollissima seedling with scions of the Colossal, a hybrid variety from
California. About 50 per cent of these have grown this year. Dr. Richards
tried it during July, on C. mollissima seedlings from a different source.
None of the Colossal would grow on his trees, but he was partially
successful with scions of the C. mollissima varieties, Hobson, Carr and
Zimmerman. He then devised a variation in the method which was highly

successful with C. mollissima varieties. This I shall call the Richards
"Twin-T" bud.

In "Twin-T" budding, a vertical slit is made in the bark of the stock. Then
horizontal cuts are made through the bark at both top and bottom of the
vertical cut. The bud piece is cut from the well matured part of a current
season's twig, leaving a rather thick slice of wood beneath the bud. (It may
be as thick as half the diameter of the twig.) The bud is inserted in the stock
as in ordinary T-budding, then wrapped with a large sized rubber budding
strip. (Westinghouse electrician's tape and Curity adhesive tape have also
been used. Some other brands poisoned the buds.) The "take" of Chinese
chestnut buds by this method has run from 60 to 90 per cent on Dr.
Richards' trees of various sizes this year. In a short nursery row, buds were
placed under first or second year bark, while larger trees were topworked by
placing the buds mostly under the bark of second year limbs.

The Colossal failed again on Dr. Richards' trees when budded by the
"Twin-T" method, but Carr and other Chinese varieties were budded
successfully. The graft-compatibility problem in chestnuts is one of
considerable complexity. Thus Carr, which has presented incompatibility
with certain stocks of C. mollissima at other places, grew on these trees,
and Colossal, compatible on another C. mollissima tree, failed on trees
which are apparently compatible with Carr. The Chinese chestnut species
varies in its graft-compatibilities possibly as much as in other
characteristics (growth, productivity, size and quality of nuts, etc.) so that
nut nurserymen should begin to select their seed for chestnut understocks
with a view toward getting strains with a greater degree of compatibility to
the leading scion varieties.

Mr. Roark has been able to propagate the Colossal upon its own roots by
layering a small tree in his orchard. Two limbs pegged into the ground in

the spring of 1945 had produced roots a year later, and were then detached
from the parent tree. This is a slow but sure method of propagating nut tree
varieties that are not congenial with the stocks available for grafting or
budding. He has also layered sweet cherries and prune trees by this method
which is described in U.S.D.A. Farmers Bulletin 1501 with reference to
filberts.

A Heartnut Variety Compatible with Black Walnut Stocks

Seedling black walnuts are common on farms of west Tennessee. Dr.
Richards and Mr. Rhodes have been most active in showing that these can
be topworked readily to improved black walnut varieties under the
conditions prevailing there. Mr. Rhodes has also fruited such older Persian
walnut varieties as Lancaster, Mayette, and Franquette on black walnut
stocks, but finds them generally unproductive in his climate. Newer
varieties, including some selections of the Carpathian strains are now being
tried and should be of fruiting age soon. Mr. Rhodes has also found, at
Covington, a heartnut that is vigorous and productive under west Tennessee
conditions. He finds that it buds readily on the native black walnut. Some
budded trees of it are over a dozen years old. They have medium sized nuts,
smooth shelled (with fairly thick shells for a heartnut) and kernels of good
flavor, coming out whole when the nuts are cracked carefully. I am giving
this variety the name Rhodes, and suggesting it for use in west Tennessee
because of its adaptability and the fact that it can be budded upon black
walnut. Others have reported Japanese walnut (including heartnut) varieties
incompatible with black walnut at other locations. Dr. Richards has
propagated some other heartnut varieties on black walnut, but finds them
more variable than the Rhodes, in obtaining a good union.

Paper Wrap Gives Summer-Long Protection to Transplanted Trees

Too commonly, transplanted nut trees suffer from sunscald injury on their
southwest sides during the first summer in the orchard. This injury is
particularly common on pecans, which suffer a severe shock from
transplanting and are slow in re-establishing vigorous growth. In west
Tennessee, as one grower puts it, "A pecan is doing well if it holds one
green leaf its first year." Pecans have been known to remain dormant in
their tops until the second spring after planting, and then start growth.
During this initial period of establishment in the orchard, it is beneficial to
give some kind of shade to the tree trunk, to keep the bark from "cooking"
and dying on part of the most exposed side. Waxing of the trunks before
planting helps reduce drying out of the tops before the roots are partially
regenerated and top growth begins, but waxing alone, under our conditions,
is not sufficient to prevent the frequent occurrence of a dead area starting on
the southwest side of the trunk during the summer following tree setting.

Dr. Richards has found that a heavy wallpaper of a cheap grade, cut in
strips and wrapped spirally to cover the tree trunk from the ground up, lasts
through the season and eliminates nearly all of the sunscald injury on
pecans which he has moved from his farm nursery row to the orchard. With
trees that are shipped long distances, and allowed to dry out too much
before resetting, the results are not so uniform. We are still in favor of the
use of wax coatings on trees that must be shipped, but would recommend
that they be given additional protection by some means, to shade the trunks
throughout the first growing season. This paper wrap of Dr. Richards seems
as efficient as any method, and is the most economical I have observed. It
should be beneficial on most species of nut trees under summer conditions
in the mid-south region.

Propagating Nut Trees Under Glass

By Stephen Bernath, Poughkeepsie, New York

About ten years ago I decided to try a few nut grafts in my small
propagating house. The results were so satisfactory that since that time I
have grafted from a few hundred to several thousand each year.

I found by experiment that I could not graft nut trees exactly as I did
ornamental trees and shrubs, due to their extra sap content. Nut trees bleed
excessively and I had to overcome this or my losses were heavy. I use no
wax on grafts. My method is as follows: I take a strong light string and wax
it with beeswax and parafin mixed fifty-fifty. I use a modified side graft,
tying with this waxed string.

Late in December or early in January, I pot the understock, using black
walnut seedlings for four varieties (Persian walnut, butternut, black walnut
and heartnut). I make sure the understock has had its rest period by not
digging and storing them until they have been really hit by frost and left for
a period, to be sure the wood has matured for the season. The mature
understock is then stored in moist sand in a cool cellar.

In late-December, as I have stated, I place the understock in benches
using 3-1/2 to 4 inch pots, wetting them thoroughly after imbedding them in
peat moss. Keep the moss damp and at a temperature of 55 degrees at night.
After two or three weeks examine the roots by knocking several loose from
the pots. If root action has started, the roots will show white thread-like
fibers and are ready for grafting. This is important, because if grafting is
done too soon the loss is heavy. If delayed too long the top starts growing.
So I caution, do grafting when the understock is ready.

Place newly made grafts on their side, imbedded in moss, and refrain
from watering until the union has formed. Open grafting case after third day

and daily thereafter, until union is complete. Each day wipe glass off with
cloth to prevent moisture from dripping on grafts. Increase bottom heat
after grafts are laid in benches from 68 to 75 degrees. In about three to four
weeks, if union has formed, place grafts in up right position, then watering
is resumed and heat is reduced to around 60 degrees at night. When graft
shows two inches or more growth, cut understock off close above the union,
and then give house plenty of ventilation to avoid soft growth.

I find nut trees very tender subjects and delay planting these under-glass
grown grafts out in nursery rows until every vestige of frost has passed.
Also be sure to sever the waxed string as this is tougher than the green
graft.

If this method sounds like a great deal of work and trouble generally,
remember the reward will be heavy rooted, easy to transplant, healthy,
named varieties of nut trees. Who can say that, at the present, there is an
abundance of such trees in this country.

The Economic, Ecological and Horticultural Aspects of Intercropping
Nut
Plantings

By F. L. O'Rourke Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan

Mature nut trees are usually large trees, and large trees demand space.
Young nut trees, therefore, must be planted relatively far apart from each
other and for the first few years, at least, there is an abundance of unused
land between the trees, which may be used for intercropping. The choice of

just what crop or plants to use is often perplexing and should be considered
for several aspects.

The economic factors are of prime importance. The cost of growing the
crop, the specialized farm machinery and equipment needed, the availability
of labor, the distribution of the seasonal labor demand, the time of the
critical cultural practices or of harvesting, the potential market, and the
expected price of the saleable product must all be considered.

The staple farm crops of the region are often preferable to specialty
crops, particularly from the labor standpoint. Corn, wheat, oats, potatoes,
and legumes can all be grown with a minimum of labor and the use of
power machinery. There is less risk involved with farm crops than with
specialities, both in securing an adequate crop and in the price received for
the product. Fruit, vegetables and ornamentals often have very critical
requirements. They must be sprayed, harvested, and shipped at exactly the
right time or all the proceeds will be lost. Staple crops are not so demanding
in either culture or harvesting.

The labor distribution throughout the season or even throughout the year
must be considered and well planned in advance. No two crops should
require exact and demanding attention at the same time. They should be
chosen and planted so that a regular, even distribution of labor can be
maintained with as little of a rush period as possible and yet with a
minimum of idle time.

The general agricultural pattern of the region must be considered. In a
sparsely settled grain and livestock region it would be quite inadvisable to
grow strawberries or other crops which require a maximum of hand labor
during a very brief period. Berries, however, may be perfectly well suited to
sections where either transient workers or city children can be secured with
little effort.

The crop should suit from the ecological viewpoint. It must not compete
with the young, growing trees for mineral food and water, particularly
during spring and early summer when the trees make most of their annual
growth. On the other hand, if planted too close to the trees, some intercrops
may be shaded too severely to produce a normal yield.

Success in intercropping is usually found between plants which are quite
dissimilar in form and habit. Black walnuts and pasture grasses furnish a
typical example. The long taproots of the walnuts penetrate deeply into the
soil, while the grass roots are shallow and fibrous and feed in the soil
surface layer. The aerial portions of these plants are likewise quite different,
the walnuts tower high in the air, while the grasses form their crowns on the
very surface of the ground. The light shade cast by the walnuts does not
interfere with the photosynthetic activity of the grasses, but it is sufficient to
discourage growth of broad-leaved weeds which have a higher light
requirement than that of grass. This light shade also tends to provide a
greater supply of available moisture for the grass, in that it reduces
temperature and, consequently, water loss from the grass and soil by
keeping down both transpiration and evaporation.

Experiments in both Tennessee and Ohio have shown that the quantity of
grass produced from beneath walnut trees is greater than on equal areas in
the open and that the quality, as represented by a larger protein content, is
also higher. For this reason, one may well consider livestock as the income-
producing portion of a walnut-pasture planting. Over one fourth of the
agricultural land of the United States is devoted to pasture and much of the
land is suitable for interplanting to walnuts, butternuts, and other pasture
trees, as honey locusts and black locusts, all of which are known to improve
the pasture grasses to some extent. The potential income which may be
derived from such plantings over this vast acreage is enormous and is the
more striking in that these pasture trees occupy a plane that is now idle and

unproductive, that is, the area lying above the grass tops. The nuts produced
on this "upper story" will represent almost all "clear profit" in that very
little care need be given these walnut trees after they have been properly
planted. Livestock guards will need to be placed about the trees at planting
time and kept there until the trees have grown to the point where they may
no longer be harmed by straddling and browsing.

Pastures are excellent sites from another angle. The closely grazed sod
furnishes an ideal place to rake the nuts together at harvest time. Anyone
who has hunted for nuts in a dense ground cover will appreciate this factor.

While the walnut responds best to the deep, fertile soil of the river
bottoms and flood plains, it will grow well on the lower portions of slopes if
water is available and the site is not too exposed to the force of drying
winds. Contour strips should be prepared by plowing several furrows
downhill, each a little less in depth than the preceding, and the walnuts
planted thereon. The walnut is a spreading tree and plenty of space should
be allowed. Perhaps it may be wise to plant the walnuts at extended
intervals and fill up the contour row with black locusts, for post wood, and
honey locusts to produce succulent pods for cattle feed. In any event, it is
better to allow too much, rather than too little space, as walnuts are long-
lived trees and will thrive best where there is least competition. In Iowa,
black walnuts are responding well to "basin culture" in sites which were
prepared by "scalping" the sod from the upper portion of a slope and
depositing it on a lower portion in order to catch and retain more water.

Nut trees are like all other trees in that they react favorably to good
horticultural practice. Fertilizer, particularly nitrogen, is usually always
helpful. The addition of lime when the soil is acid and of organic matter
when humus becomes depleted will aid in better soil aeration and an
increased moisture supply. This, in turn, will be reflected in more vigorous

tree growth and greater nut production. Occasional spraying may be
necessary to control the Datana caterpillar in the summer.

Chinese chestnuts seem to be admirably adapted for interplanting with
mulberries, cherries, pears, and the like in poultry runs and hog lots where
the pigs and chickens will control the weevils by gleaning the prematurely
dropped and overlooked chestnuts which contain the grubs of the weevil.
The fruit portion of the integrated planting will maintain a high
carbohydrate ration during the season for the use of the livestock. Here,
again, plenty of space should be allowed between trees to allow each its full
measure of water, food, air and sunlight.

Careful and thorough research is needed to determine the full
requirements of nut trees and to work out the interplanting relationships. In
view of the vast potentialities for their use, investigational programs may
soon be under way and much more definite information be made available
to the farmer and landowner.

References

AIKMAN, J. M.—A Basin Method of Nut Tree Culture. Proc. Iowa.
Acad.
Sci. 50:241-246. 1943

NEEL, L. R.—The Effect of Shade on Pasture. Tenn. Exp. Sta. Cir. 65,
1939

SMITH, R. M.—Some Effects of Black Locusts and Black Walnuts on
Southeastern Ohio Pastures Soil Sci. 53:385-398, 1942

Nut Work At the Mahoning County Experiment Farm, Canfield, Ohio

By L. Walter Sherman, Superintendent

My interest in nuts dates back to the turn of the century when, as a boy in
high school, I delighted in gathering wild nuts for my own use. I knew of
several black walnut trees bearing very fine nuts and also one excellent
hickory. These were near my home in northern Ohio.

After my school days were over, I married and went to Oklahoma, where
I found the most miserable wild nuts imaginable. However, I stayed but a
short time and returned to my native state where the wild nuts were
reasonably good. In 1935, I made a trip to California and visited the Persian
walnut orchards at harvest time. As if that were not enough to convince me
that it would be worth my while to do what I could in behalf of the nut
industry, the Agricultural press of the time published several intriguing
accounts of Persian walnuts growing in and near Toronto, Ontario which
had been brought there by Rev. Paul C. Crath from the Carpathian
Mountains of Poland.

My constant talk about hardy strains of Persian walnut prompted friends
to tell me of several plantings already growing in northern Ohio with more
or less success. I promptly obtained scions and undertook to graft a number
of these, but I had the usual ill-success of a beginner. I failed in attempts to
top work trees and had no better results with bench grafting although I
began early in the season and continued my efforts till the time arrived for
planting the trees. I stored the grafted material in a cool apple storage house
from the time they were grafted until they were planted. Then somehow I
learned that walnut wounds would not callous over except at relatively high
temperatures. Accordingly, I placed my next bench-grafted trees in a warm
greenhouse, where growth started at once. This marked my first successful

grafting of black walnut. Later, Mr. W. R. Fickes of Wooster, explained to
me his technique of "boxing off" or "bleeding." By following his
instructions, I was able successfully to top work some of the seedlings I had
grown for the purpose. My next steps were to procure some of the nuts from
Rev. Crath which he had brought from Poland and to make a personal
importation of seed from an experiment station in Russia. With these two
lots I started out to raise Persian walnut seedlings.

The first grafted trees set out at the Farm were obtained from Homer C.
Jacobs of Kent, Ohio, in 1937. That year we began planting a three-acre
tract. The trees were grown with scions cut from prize winning seedlings
brought out as a result of the Ohio nut contest held in 1934. The trees were
set 25 feet each way in order to conserve room. This distance allowed for
but 69 trees to the acre and available space was quickly occupied. By 1944,
it became necessary to add two more acres. The new land was from an
abandoned berry ground. It was plowed, limed heavily and fertilized. The
alternate rows were used for peach trees as fillers. The main rows were
mostly filled with new varieties of Persian walnut from northern Ohio
which had been grafted on black walnut stocks. Some of the room was used
for growing black walnut seedlings for use in grafting with scions of prize
winners in the next Ohio contest, plans for which were already under way.

In 1944, four plantings of Persian walnut trees located some distance
from each other in northern Ohio, all had good crops and all produced
superior nuts. A half bushel of the nuts were planted at the Farm during the
following spring. All lots grew remarkably well. The resulting seedlings,
together with grafted trees, which by then were growing in the Farm
nursery, made it necessary to further add to the orchard room. The increase
this time was eight acres, of which five were planted to trees during the
spring of 1946. In all plantings, the distance between trees has remained the
same as at first, not that 25 feet is enough for bearing trees but because it is

expected to do a large amount of thinning out as bearing begins and many
trees prove their inferiority.

The problem of propagating desirable varieties has been our greatest
difficulty. The kinds we wanted were not to be had from nursery sources as
they were entirely new. Commercial nurserymen would not even undertake
the task of grafting. We were forced to rely upon our own ingenuity. Not
only did we have to master the art of grafting but we had to drive hundreds
of miles in order to obtain scions of the various kinds. We still know too
little about grafting. We often raise the question as to how it happens that
surgeons can do almost anything they wish in the way of cutting and
splicing parts of the human body, yet with nut trees, 75 per cent of success
is rarely attained.

Last spring I began a rather elaborate comparison of paraffin with
beeswax—lanolin for use in grafting. Dr. Shelton had demonstrated that the
latter was a good dressing for wounds and I assumed that in grafting, it
would promote callousing. My experiment was partially frustrated by the
loss of my melting pot which burned at about the time the work was half
done. The grafting had to be finished without wax of any kind. Out of 60
grafts so set, only five grew. The five survivors had been merely "boxed
off" or "bled," none grew which had been treated with hot wax of any kind.

Research with nuts has but barely begun at the Farm. We feel, however,
much encouraged and that the worst is over. We have a total of 725 trees in
the planting, many of which have already borne a few nuts. Production
should increase rapidly and we will soon have considerable quantities of
nuts and other material with which to work. We have the following genera,
species, varieties, and hybrid forms: Butternut—Craxezy and Vincamp;
Chestnut—Carr, Hobson, Yankee (Syn., Connecticut Yankee), and
Zimmerman; Hickory, including hybrids—Bixby, Bogne, Boor Nos. 1 and

2, Bowen, Cranz Nos. 1 and 2, Fairbanks, Frank, Haskell, Leach, Lozsdon,
McConkey, Nething, Reynolds, Ridiker, Russell, Stratford, Weschcke, and
Wright; Pecan—Busseron, Greenriver, and Posey; Black Walnut—Barnhart,
Brown, Cowle, Fulton (Syn. Miller of Ohio), Hare, Havice, Horton, Jansen,
Krause, Lisbon, Mintle, Mohican, Murphey, Ohio, Rohwer, Snyder,
Sparrow, Stabler, Stambaugh, Thomas, Tritten, Twin Lakes, and Wanda;
Persian Walnut—Alliance, Baxter, Blosser, Broadview, Diller, Elmore,
Gligor Nos. 1 and 2, Graber, Hall, Lieber, Lopeman, Oehn, and Schafer;
Heartnut—Bellevue, Canoka, Fish, and Keck. In addition there are 55 black
walnut seedlings of Brown and Lisbon varieties; 65 seedling black walnuts
of unknown parentage; 280 Persian walnut seedlings of known percentage;
37 heartnut seedlings; 30 Chinese chestnut seedlings; and 22 seedling
filberts.

The Ohio Black Walnut Contest of 1946

The contest was sponsored by the Ohio chapter of the N.N.G.A., Inc.,
and was publicised through the cooperation of the Ohio Forestry
Association and the Ohio Farmer magazine. There were 692 separate black
walnut entries, showing the great interest aroused.

The nuts that won first place were grown by Mr. Duke Hughes, of Coal
Run, Noble County, O. He states the tree is about 50 years old and
stands in well-limed permanent pasture near the crest of a ridge, in
Muskingum silt loam.

The system of judging was that set up by the TVA at Norris, Tenn. The
judges were Oliver D. Diller, Secretary of the Ohio Forestry Association; L.
Walter Sherman, Superintendent of the Mahoning County Experiment

Farm; and C. W. Ellenwood, Associate Horticulturist at the Wooster
Experiment Station. They were assisted by William H. Cummings, Spencer
B. Chase and Thomas G. Zarger, all of T.V.A., and several members of the
Ohio chapter of NNGA. The prize winners are listed in order of awards.

[Illustration: Mr. Duke Hughes, Coal Run, Washington County, Ohio, and
the tree producing the first prize—Duke black walnut.]

Name Weight, First Final Percent
Applied Grams Pick, Pick, of
Grams Grams Kernel

1. Duke Hughes, Coal Run, Duke 27.2 6.8 6.9 25.3
Washington County, Ohio

2. J. C. Burson, Rt. 5, Athens, Burson 21.5 4.9 6.2 28.8
Athens County, Ohio

3. Mrs. C. E. Campbell, Lowellsville, Kuhn 19.0 5.5 5.8 30.5
Mahoning County Ohio

4. Ed. Smith, Rt. 3, Athens, Athens 23.5 4.9 6.5 27.6
Athens County, Ohio

5. Mrs. O. Shaffer, Lucasville, Oliver 22.6 5.3 5.8 25.5
Scioto County, Ohio

6. Wm. J. Davidson, Xenia, Davidson 13.5 4.6 4.8 35.5
Green County, Ohio

7. A. C. Orth, Rt. 5, Dayton, Orth
Montgomery County, Ohio

8. H. C. Williamson, Southside, Williamson
Mason County, West Virginia

9. Herbert Penn, Otway, Penn
Scioto County, Ohio

10. Mrs. A. L. Jackson, Little Jackson
Hocking, Washington County, Ohio

[Illustration: The Judges At Work]

1946 Iowa Black Walnut Contest

By C. C. Lounsberry, Secretary I.N.G.A.

The 1946 black walnut contest sponsored by the Iowa Nut Growers'
Association was held at the Hoyt Sherman Place, Des Moines, Iowa, on
November 14 and 15, 1946. The judges were Prof. H. E. Nichols, Dr. H. H.
Plagge, and Dr. J. M. Aikman.

Following the policy set in the 1942 contest, the Iowa State Horticultural
Society put up cash and ribbons with special reference to standard and
previously shown varieties, while the Iowa Nut Growers' Association was
interested in new varieties. The following are the premiums awarded:

Standard Varieties:

Prize Name Variety

1 Schlagenbusch Bros., Ft. Madison Thomas
2 Russell Krouse, Toddville Krouse
3 Schlagenbusch Bros., Ft. Madison Stambaugh
4 E. F. Huen, Eldora Thomas
5 Seward Berhow, Huxley Ohio
6 Seward Berhow, Huxley Myers
7 R. S. Herrick, Prole Thomas
8 Schlagenbusch Bros., Ft. Madison Hepler
9 E. F. Huen, Eldora Ohio
10 E. F. Huen, Eldora Rohwer

New Varieties:

Prize Name Variety

1 Schlagenbusch Bros., Ft. Madison Schlagenbusch
2 F. J. Wagner, Danville Wagner
3 Tom Bandfield, Shell Rock Shepard
4 Roy A. Wood, Castana Wood
5 Mrs. Minnie Waldo, Grand Junction Waldo
6 E. F. Huen, Eldora Huen
7 Ira M. Kyhl, Sabula Tinker
8 Schlagenbusch Bros., Ft. Madison Kramer
9 Sam Moncrief, Center Junction Acme
10 C. E. Brockway, Grundy Center Birchwood

There were only 22 entries in standard varieties and 22 entries in new
varieties so we did not make much of a showing as compared with the 1946
Ohio contest. However, very good walnuts came in. They were all sampled
with a mechanical cracker. An interesting development to me was the fact
that machine cracking left the center of several of the best varieties of

walnuts looking much like the core of an apple, instead of being broken in
two as in hand cracking.

Grafting Methods Adapted to Nut Trees

By H. F. Stoke, Virginia

(The notes I contributed to the 1945 Report under the title "Experiences
With Nut Grafting" were so fragmentary as to be of little value. In an effort
to correct the error I am offering the following supplementary notes in the
hope that amateurs like myself may find them of some practical use.)

My best success with the propagation of nut trees has been with the
following methods. For budding, I use the plate bud exclusively. For
grafting on stocks up to one inch I use either the splice graft or the modified
cleft graft. For larger stocks I use either the simple bark graft or the slot
bark graft. Each will be discussed in order.

In making the plate bud, it is cut from the scion or bud stick the same as
for the familiar T bud. Usually a bit of wood is cut away with the bud,
which should not be removed. A bud, or a bit of bark, should similarly be
cut from the stock at the desired point, and discarded. The area of exposed
cambium on the stock should correspond as closely as possible with the
cambium area exposed on the bud. The bud is then laid on the exposed
cambium of the stock, and bound in place, preferably with rubber budding
strips. The point of the bud should be left exposed.

[Illustration: SIMPLE BARK GRAFT Useful with thin-barked species.]

Choice of time when conditions are right is quite as necessary for success
as the proper procedure. There are two separate periods when the plate bud
may be used on walnut with the greatest success. The first period, in
Virginia, is the latter half of May, when the black walnut stock is in almost
full leaf. If done earlier the bud is likely to be drowned by the excessive
bleeding of this species. Dormant buds cut the previous winter are used.

The follow-up care is vitally important. The stock should be cut off
above the bud within five to seven days after budding. If successful, the bud
will start into growth within another week or ten days, and may be a foot
long within 30 days.

[Illustration: 1. Slot bark graft; useful in top-working.

2. Splice graft; unexcelled when scion and stock are of equal diameter.

3. Modified cleft graft; for all general purposes.

4. Plate bud; for small and medium stocks.]

The tying material should be cut and removed within a few days after the
bud starts, to prevent strangulation of the tender shoot. Be sure to keep
native growth of the stock trimmed off until midsummer to force growth of
the bud.

The second period for successful plate budding of the walnut centers
around August first, varying somewhat with the weather conditions. Buds
of the current season's growth are used. The time must be late enough for
these buds to be well matured, and early enough so that the stock is still
growing and the bark slipping. If the buds are immature, or the bark tight,
the operation will be a failure.

The buds remain dormant during the following winter, and are forced
into growth by cutting off the stock above the bud early in the spring. The
tying material, if durable, should be removed about 30 days after budding.

If conditions are right and the work is properly done, a high percentage
of "takes" may be expected. In summer I preferably place the bud on the
shady side of the stock, or shade it with a little skirt of white paper tied just
above the bud.

Chestnuts can be budded by the same method, but the spring budding
should be done earlier, while the stocks are in bud, and the summer budding
should be done two or three weeks later than with the walnut.

I have not tried the plate bud on hickory or pecan, but it is the only
budding method I use on walnut and chestnut, and I have tried them all.

When it comes to grafting, the simple splice graft, as illustrated, is very
successful, but it should only be used when scion and stock are of the same
size. It works splendidly on chestnut, filbert and hickory, and can also be
used on walnut; however, I prefer the modified cleft graft for the latter,
because of the bleeding problem.

In making the splice graft, the diagonal cut should be about four times as
long as the diameter of the scion, to prevent slippage in tying.

For the modified cleft graft I cut the stock off at the selected point at an
angle of from 45 to 60 degrees. This greatly facilitates the healing of the
entire wound.

The cleft is made not by splitting, but by making a cut with a sharp knife,
beginning at the apex of the stock and cutting diagonally downward and
inward toward the center of the stock.

Before making the cut, the scion should be selected, and the wedge cut,
with one face slightly longer than the other. This enables one to properly
judge the depth and angle of the cleft, thus securing a fit on all four cambial
lines. The longer face goes toward the main body of the stock, and is left
slightly above the top of the stock. The apex of the stock is squared off
slightly before the cleft is cut, and the knife is set very slightly on the wood
at the starting point, rather than between the bark and the wood. Care at this
point guarantees very rapid healing, with no dead tissues or "heel" on the
stock, sometimes called "dieback."

Remember to watch all ties in grafting to prevent strangulation of the
tender new growth. This, with removal of sprouts or suckers from the stock
below the graft are two very important features of after-care, and neglect
can nullify the most expert work in the grafting operation.

In grafting the black walnut I prefer to use the side graft because of the
bleeding problem. This is precisely the same as the modified cleft graft
except that the cleft is made about three-fourths of an inch below the apex
of the stock. By making the graft a little below the top of the stock one can
tie and wax it, without waxing the top of the stock, which is permitted to
bleed at will. This freedom to bleed relieves the pressure of the sap at the
graft, where healing takes place without flooding.

For stocks under an inch in diameter, I use the splice and modified cleft
grafts exclusively. For larger stocks, such as are encountered in top
working, other methods are preferred.

One can cut the main stock off just above a small limb, and graft one or
more of the limbs. Again, one may cut the large stock off a year in advance,
and bud or graft one or more of the suckers that are thrown out.

If neither of the above methods are applicable, one can use either the
simple bark graft, or the slot bark graft.

In making the simple bark graft, I cut the stock off at a 45 degree angle as
for the modified cleft graft. The scion is prepared by making one long
wedge face, and on the other side make two short faces so that the point is
triangular.

To insert the scion make a cut through the bark downward from the apex
of the stock. Insert the scion between the bark and the stock, with the long
face next to the wood, and force gently down until just a little of the face of
the wedge shows above the top of the scion. It is well, in case the stock is
large, to place three or four scions around the stock, removing all but the
strongest after a year of two.

This graft is satisfactory for thin-barked species, but for the hickory, the
slot bark graft is preferable.

For this graft, the scion should be trimmed as a wedge, with one face
about twice as long as the other. Two parallel cuts are made through the
bark at the top of the stock a distance apart equal to the width of the scion
wedge. This strip of bark, or "tongue" is loosened at the top, and the wedge
is forced between it and the wood, with the long face next to the stock, as in
the simple bark graft.

Secure tying and waxing should be practiced in all grafting. Small nails
or tacks driven into the top of the stock will help in anchoring the tying
material to the sloping surface.

Inexperienced propagators should get it clearly in mind that union takes
place only in the new growth. This new growth builds up from the cambium

layer, which is the outside layer of wood cells that lies just beneath and in
contact with the bark.

This is why it is so vitally necessary that the lines between the bark and
cambium be placed in parallel contact as closely as possible, in the splice
and cleft grafts. Never mind if the outside of the bark of scion and do not
match perfectly, due to differences in the thickness of the bark. It is the
inside line of the bark that must match.

Actual union takes place along this cambial line. The old wood of the
wedge and cleft cannot, and never does, unite.

A word about scions. I seldom use a scion with more than two buds. The
best scion wood is of the previous season's growth, if it is of good diameter
and well ripened. Thin, slender twigs give poor results. On old, slow-
growing, bearing trees it is sometimes not possible to get good scion wood
one year old. In this case it is best to take some of the older wood in cutting
the scion. When used, the wedge should be cut from the two-year wood,
just below the one-year wood, with the top of the scion carrying two or
three buds on the new wood. The tip of the scion should be waxed, if cut.

Scions should be cut when perfectly dormant and kept in cold storage
until used. If kept too warm and wet the buds may swell, making the scions
worthless.

It is quite possible to cut the scions about three weeks before the buds
begin to swell and get good results by grafting immediately. The chief
danger from this practice is that late frosts may nip the buds after starting,
which is fatal to the new scion.

Waxing all cut surfaces, including the tip of the scion, should be
practiced except as explained when the side graft is used for walnuts. Some

advocate waxing the entire scion, also. If this is done I think it better to
leave the buds unwaxed.

Have your knife very sharp. A broad blade is desirable in a grafting knife,
as it helps in making smooth, flat surfaces in wedges and clefts. For
budding, use a knife with a narrow blade, but also very sharp. Develop skill
in making the scion wedge, and in cutting the cleft just the right depth and
width for the scion selected. Experiment on worthless material until you get
the knack. If you are a good, natural-born whittler you will find it a greater
asset than a college degree.

Beginnings in Walnut Grafting

By C. C. Lounsberry, Iowa

Anyone who has studied propagation manuals from ancient to modern
times cannot help but see how methods are carried down from older books
to modern ones. However, in walnut grafting one suspects there were trade
secrets not permitted publication. How different this was from friendly and
helpful cultural and propagation directions given by Mr. J. F. Jones, Dr. W.
C. Deming, Dr. Robert T. Morris, and others of the Northern Nut Growers'
Association.

Beginning with Ancient Times

Greeks: Theophrastus mentions hazel nuts but nothing about walnuts.

Romans: Pliny, Cato, etc. have little to say about walnuts. Pliny refers to
planting seeds of walnuts but no other method of propagation. However, he

states oaks and walnuts are poisonous to soil, and walnuts are only used in a
few cases for human remedies.

English: Loudon, Evelyn, Knight, etc. Loudon sticks to propagation of
walnuts by seed. Knight[8] followed the French practice of grafting walnuts
by approach up to the time of his discoveries in 1832, which were similar to
Dr. Morris's "immediate" grafting.

French: The French used grafting by approach (inarching) early in the
19th century. Mortillet[11], 1863, states only one-third to one-half of walnut
grafts are successful. These were probably Persian walnuts. We are not sure
what other methods the French used. Mr. C. E. Parsons of the Felix Gillet
Co. in 1940, sent us a picture showing Felix Gillet in his greenhouse at
Barren Hill Nursery, Nevada City, California. This picture he states was
taken in 1900-1902. It shows one year grafted walnut trees, and bench
grafted walnut trees covered by tumblers six inches high, grafted by the
"Treyve" process.

Beginnings in the United States

The first grafting of black walnuts thus comes down to the beginning of
the 20th century.

William P. Corsa[3] with the USDA gave much information from replies
to a questionnaire sent out in 1890, on nut culture and grafting, including
bench grafting, in 1896. Mr. G. W. Oliver[13] in 1901, describes a method
followed by Corsa in bench grafting walnuts and hickories. He used an
incubator. Mr. Jackson Dawson[15] previously, working with hickories, had
success in the greenhouse.

Andrew S. Fuller[4] in his Nut Culturist, published in 1896, advises that
the South had not yet perfected pecan grafting. This seems to have been a
challenge to Mr. J. F. Jones[1 & 7], for we find he moved from Missouri to
Monticello, Fla., about 1899, and specialized in pecan grafting. He
developed the slanting cut he later advocated in walnut grafting. However,
again showing "there is nothing new under the sun" the author's uncle,
Owen Albright, is credited by Corsa[3] with suggesting it in 1894, and it is
also suggested by Mortillet[11] in 1863.

Grafting Wax

The necessity to protect graft unions by excluding air and moisture from
cut plant tissue led to the use of balls of mud in ancient times. Later, various
kinds of waxes were used.

In 1879, Prof. J. L. Budd[2], head of the Horticultural Department at
Iowa State College, using resin and linseed oil, side grafted 150 varieties of
Russian apples received from the interior of Russia in the winter of 1878. A
boy swabbed hot wax on the grafts, using a lantern heater not too different
from those used nowadays.

Mr. F. O. Harrington and Mr. S. W. Snyder, Iowa nurserymen were
teaching grafting to members of the Iowa Horticultural Society in 1900,
1901 and 1902, at their annual meetings. Mr. J. B. McLaughlin[9], College
Springs, Iowa, speaks of successfully grafting walnuts in 1900 in a
discussion of the horticultural society led by Van Houton, Edwards, etc.

In 1909, Mr. E. A. Riehl[14] gave a talk before the Iowa State
Horticultural Society in which he advocated covering the whole walnut
scion, buds and all, with liquid wax. His first Thomas grafted tree is in a
ravine back at his barn at Godfrey, Illinois. It was planted about 1902[12].

In 1910, the Northern Nut Growers' Association was organized by Prof.
John Craig of Cornell University, Dr. Robert T. Morris, Dr. W. C.
Deming, Mr. T. P. Littlepage and others. Craig had previously been at
Iowa State College where he and Budd had shown much interest in nut
trees.

In 1912, Mr. J. F. Jones [1][7], came up from the South where he had
been successful in pecan grafting and started a black walnut nursery at
Lancaster, Penna. He had been in Florida up to 1907. While in Florida he
became acquainted with Mr. John G. Rush, of Willow Run, Penna., and did
some walnut grafting for him. It was Mr. Rush who advised him to go to
Lancaster and start a nursery for northern black walnuts. Jones patented his
patch budder in 1912, and using the hot wax method developed by Mr. E.
A. Riehl was very successful in walnut grafting.

In 1914, Dr. W. C. Deming and President T. P. Littlepage of the N.N.G.A.
and Messrs. C. A. Reed and C. P. Close of the USDA had a conference in
Washington which resulted in the publication of the American Nut
Journal.

Paraffin In Grafting

Dr. Robert T. Morris[10], writing in the American Nut Journal in 1929,
advocates the use of paraffin to cover walnut grafts instead of wax. Both he
and Dr. J. Russell Smith[15] credit Mr. J. Ford Wilkinson with first using
paraffin instead of wax on walnut grafts. Mr. Wilkinson wrote that he got
the idea from seeing a careless workman splash paraffin on the buds as well
as on the union in fruit tree grafting at the McCoy Nursery about 1914. The
author bought apple and plum grafts about 1922 from the Gurney Nursery
which were all covered with paraffin. It was at conventions of the Northern

Nut Growers' Association that new methods like this were passed along to
members.

Bench Grafting

In 1932, on account of the difficulties in outdoor grafting of the walnut,
the author became interested in bench grafting of walnuts in the greenhouse
as a means of supplementing outdoor grafting. However, like many other
so-called new methods, it was discovered when we looked up the literature
in 1937 that William P. Corsa[3] had used methods that were similar about
1896. He cut off the seedling above the crown instead of below the crown
as we did. The completed graft was packed in layers of sphagnum and
placed in an incubator instead of using a greenhouse.

Notwithstanding all that has been done in black walnut grafting, the
straight grained and brittle wood, the heavy sap flow, the almost instant
oxidation of cut tissues, the liability to frost injury in the North in short
seasons lowering vitality of scions, all combine to make walnut grafting
with best methods available, a seasonal gamble.

Literature Cited

1. AMERICAN NUT JOURNAL
Life of J. F. Jones. Am. Nut Jour. 28:35, 1928

2. BUDD, J. L.
Hot Waxing of Apple Grafts. Trans. Iowa Hort. Soc. 14:421. 1879

3. CORSA, WILLIAM P.
USDA, Div. of Pom., Nut Culture of the United States. pp. 13-16,
58. 1896

4. FULLER, ANDREW S.
Nut Culturist. 1896

5. HERSHEY, JOHN W.
Life of J. F. Jones. The Nut Grower. 4:22, 1928

6. INSTITUT FUR OBSTBAU, BERLIN
Die Walnusz verediung. (Vegetative Propagation of Walnuts.)
Merkbl. Inst. Obstb. Berlin 5, pp. 15, 1936

7. JONES, J. F.
Propagation of Nut Trees. About 1927

8. KNIGHT, THOMAS ANDREW New methods of Grafting
Walnuts. Trans. Hort. Soc. of London. 2nd series. Vol. I, 1831-1835.
pp 214-216

9. McLAUGHLIN, J. B.
Grafting Black Walnuts. Trans. Iowa Hort. Soc. 35:534, 1900

10. MORRIS, DR. ROBERT T.
Paraffin Coating Solves Difficult Grafting. Am. Nut Jour. 30:70,85. 1929

11. MORTILLET, PAUL D.
Le Noyer sa Culture ses Varieties. (Propagation of the Walnut.) Rev.
Hort. 136:499. 1863

12. NNGA CONVENTION, St. Louis
Trip to Riehl Nut Orchard. Am. Nut Journ. 23:59, 1925

13. OLIVER, G. W.
Grafting Walnuts and Hickories. Amer. Gard. 22:307-308. 1901

14. RIEHL, E. A.
Nut Growing for Pleasure and Profit. Trans. Iowa State Hort. Soc.
44:84, 1909

15. SMITH, J. RUSSELL
Tree Crops. 1929

16. STANDARD CYC. OF HORT.
Hickory Propagation, p. 1489, 1925

17. WITT, A. W. and HOWARD SPENCE
Vegetative Propagation of Walnuts. Ann. Rep. East Malling Res. Sta.
1926-7,
Supl. A 10, 1928, pp. 60-64

Forest Background

By John Davidson, Xenia, Ohio

(Read at the Ohio Nut Growers Annual Meeting, Ohio Agricultural
Experiment Station, August 16, 1946.)

Where did the Persian, or so-called "English" walnut come from? Why is
it a good commercial nut? The Pecan? How far can it be carried north
beyond its natural, or original, environment? The Pawpaw? Why is it not a
good commercial fruit? Why don't most people like it? What is the matter
with the mulberry in America? In China and Japan it has a score of uses and
great popularity.

These questions need an answer, and the answer almost invariably is that
the poorer varieties and species have had but little attention and
development by human beings while the better ones, Persian walnuts,
grapes, melons, apples, dates, figs—all have had much attention and
painstaking selection—in some cases for centuries. Upon the other hand, to
cite a contrasting case the black walnut has no such history. It is the baby
among nuts—a pure American baby—waiting for some nursemaid—for
many nursemaids—to tend and develop it as a prince among trees should be
developed.

Let us look back into the story behind a few—a very few—of our better
known fruits and nuts and see, if we can, how they happened.

In America once lived a man nicknamed "Johnny Appleseed." His
neighbors called him a "crackpate." He had a mania for planting tree seeds
wherever he went. As a rule they were haphazardly selected seeds, but
usually appleseeds.

What started him upon this crazy journey through the wilderness?
Whatever it was, it would be worth while to isolate the germ and with it
inoculate our present-day soil wasters.

But he was not the first one of his kind. Hundreds of pre-historic planters
had gone before him. For years, now, explorers have been searching out and
sending back to America certain valuable discoveries. Tremendously
interesting, all of them. As one reads, it becomes increasingly evident that a
considerable amount of scientific plant and animal breeding, selection,
perhaps even grafting and artificial cross fertilization, budding and slip
propagating may have been practiced by pre-historic, intelligent, forgotten
men long before our modern times.

We usually find, today, that the best plants and animals have had their
start in some center of old civilization. China, Manchuria, Japan, Indo-
China, India, Persia, Asia Minor, Central America, Oceania—these places,
the nurseries of all existing races of men are today the bonanza spots for
these explorers. Such a coincidence could hardly have been due to chance.
It must surely occur to the mind of anyone who cares to put two and two
together that, in each of these centers, other ancient gatherers and planters
had been busy in their day, just as our own explorers and experiment station
scientists are carrying on today—our modern, scientific Johnny Appleseeds.

It is hardly possible, here, to follow to the ends of the earth all of the
trails of the tribe of Johnny Appleseed. One little section will do well
enough for purposes of illustration. Let us consider Iran, or, as our fathers
knew it, Persia. Here is a field that, possibly because of previous
plunderings, is not now the most fruitful of our sources of plant and animal
discovery, yet it is an eye-opener, and will do very well as a type of similar
test-plots throughout the world.

Here is a short list of only a few of the plants which have been developed
for centuries, and were reported in the last century as growing in Persia—
many, no doubt, descended from stocks which once grew in the famous
hanging gardens of Babylon: apples, pears, filberts muskmelons,
watermelons, grapes, peaches, plums, nectarines. And of flowers, these:
marigold, chrysanthemum, hollyhock, narcissus, tulip, tuberose, aster,
wallflower, dalia, white lily, hyacinth, violet, larkspur, pink and finally, the
famous rose of Persia, from whence comes the attar of roses for which
Persia is still famous. It would seem that someone must have possessed a
knowledge of plant propagation in Persia centuries ago.

Several of these products have had their influence upon the history and
poetry of the world. It will be remembered by most high school students

that when the Caesars and big shots of Rome and Greece wished to create a
big splash in the social ponds of their day, they sent, at enormous expense,
for melons and dates from Persia. Melons, in particular, seemed to be the
high spot in those Lucullan feasts, and, in this connection it is well to
remember that Lucullus, himself, as commanding general of a Roman
legion, had long lived in Persia and had, no doubt, acquired a taste for
Persian delicacies. His princely estates near Rome, no doubt, grew rare
plants from Asia Minor and were very likely tended by the skilled Aryan,
early Accadian or Semitic gardeners of Persia. These slaves were probably
descended from and were heir to the trade secrets of some of the very
builders of that seventh wonder of the world, the hanging gardens of
Babylon. Except for those forgotten workers from Persia, one may well
wonder whether, today, our Rocky Ford, Ohio Sugar, or Hearts-of-Gold
muskmelon delicacies would exist at all.

An interesting side-light may be found in the history of the peach.
Originally this fruit was in all probability a poisonous variety of almond.
What wizard, or succession of wizards, was it who created a peach from a
pest—an asset from a liability? Persian, probably. Whoever did it, it
constitutes one of the outstanding miracles of plant breeding, whether
natural or artificial. The poison was sealed within the seed (where it
remains to this day) and the nectar of the gods was bred into the pulp
around it.

Consider also the Persian walnut, now, for some strange reason,
popularly called "English" walnut. This delicacy, too, was unlikely to have
happened merely by chance. It was, no doubt, bred by a race of men trained
in observation and experiment such as the Persians preeminently were.
Having first been nomads, domesticators and breeders of animals; they
eventually became husbandmen, breeders of trees and plants, and they
undoubtedly found that the principles which were so usefully employed in

producing animal variations could also be used in producing and fixing
plant varieties. The pollen or germ of an outstanding good male individual,
when brought into contact with the pistil or ovum of an outstanding female
individual of the same species will produce a scion that is more likely than
any other to have good qualities. Here was the secret of most of the
progress which has been made in both animal and plant breeding, a secret
of immense value—so valuable, in fact, that it was guarded for generation
after generation by a close-mouthed priesthood.

Just as, in the middle ages, the monasteries of Europe and Asia kept alive
the tiny flame of Greek and Roman culture throughout the foggy ignorance
of the Dark Ages, so did the priests of Baal, of Ashtoreth, of Marduk and of
Ormuzd pass on the torch of their day to their successors who were Greeks
and Romans. The Eleusinian mysteries, which at a later time were
associated with a considerable amount of sensual, closely guarded ritual,
were, in the Greek period, celebrated in the temple of Ceres in Eleusis. The
origin of these sacred mysteries is lost in the shadow of profound antiquity.
We know, only, that they were in the safekeeping of many generations of
priests who jealously guarded them from thieving and ignorant conquerors.
These mysteries were probably, at bottom, a body of scientific truths. They
undoubtedly had to do with a store of information, painfully gleaned for
generations, about those facts of reproduction, selection and beneficient
fertility which are so close to the Holy of Holies of creation itself. Probably
these precious mysteries could be simmered down to a few fundamentals
and such as are now generally practiced by all plant and animal breeders.
And they are not fully understood today, any more than they were fully
understood three thousand years ago.

By the practice of these simple arts, hedged in with taboos and religious
inhibitions, Persia, Assyria, and all Mesopotamia became the garden spot of
the world where things seemed to grow as they grew no place else. Here, in

fact, was said to have been located the only genuine and original Garden of
Eden, pointed out to this day by the faithful as the veritable spot where the
father and mother of the race lived in a laborless, exhaustless Paradise.

Mention has been made of the probability that the Persians, who
originally were nomadic and therefore were chiefly interested in the
domestication of animals—which means, really, selective breeding—used
this knowledge in plant breeding when they finally settled down. The big
leap from nomadic to settled life must have caused the old timers of that
day plenty of headaches. It was a new deal to top all New Deals. Was it,
perhaps, some Johnny Appleseed who engineered the New Deal of that
day?

Let us guess at the method he used. As the nomad tribe passed from place
to place with its goats, its sheep, its camels, Johnny with his sons and
grandsons would take to prettying up the camp sites a bit. He particularly
like the dates from one palm that grew upon an oasis far down the desert.
He carried the seeds from this tree and planted them at various stopping
places. He did the same thing with some especially sweet nuts from a
walnut tree which he had found, let us say, in the Caucasus Mountains. He
set out many bright-blossomed desert weeds in order to attract the wild
honey bees. Bees! Wherever there were bees, he had found flowers that
reproduced themselves, trees that bore fruit. Some of these bees he found to
be good workers and others he found lazy, quarrelsome and inefficient. He
killed out the quarrelsome colonies and built hiding places for the better
ones. In short, he did so much to make the camping places cozy,
comfortable and in every way desirable that finally it became more and
more difficult for the tribe to tear itself away on moving day. By reason of
the small irrigation arrangements which Johnny had found desirable for his
plantings and his bees, grass became more abundant and the flocks did not
need to be moved so often. In time, the whole tribe wakened to the fact that

a revolution had taken place. They did not need to move at all, ever! There
was plenty of grumbling from the die-hards, but here the tribe stuck. It
refused to budge.

In time, a certain phrase, current throughout that part of the world, was
used to describe this pleasant country: "A land flowing with milk and
honey!"

Unfortunately, it was a land, also, which could not fail, in the flower of
its wealth and luxury, to attract the attention of those savage northerners
who lived beyond this favored land. They came, they saw, and eventually
they conquered. When Rome had definitely destroyed the flower of Asia
Minor's civilization, the Roman proconsuls and merchants "rescued" and
carried back to Italy many of the rarest of Mesopotamia's possessions.
Among these, perhaps, were those indispensable wonder-workers among
the flowers, the better bees of Persia. And this may be the reason why, these
many centuries later, our bee experts still recommend that, if we wish to
increase the strength and productivity of a backward hive of bees, we buy
and introduce into the hive an Italian queen. Her ancient and still prepotent
virility can almost invariable be relied upon to transfuse the colony with
new and fruitful vigor. An "Italian" queen, is it? We wonder, as we think of
that venerable land of Eden which once flowed with milk and honey,
whether this so-called Italian queen might not more correctly be named
Persian.

You see, in this story we are traveling backwards into history like Ally
Oop in his time machine. But beyond Persia one can go only in
imagination. For the Persians, too, were a conquering nation and, no doubt,
gathered their booty of gold and sheep and camels, of flowers and bees,
from all the then known world which was subject to them. So perhaps
Persia, too, has no more right to label her treasures Persian than has Italy

with her presumably mislabeled Italian bees, nor England with her
undoubtedly mislabeled English walnuts. However, the work of Johnny
Appleseed has always belonged, not to his tribe nor to his locality, but to
the world. These same Persian walnuts take rank among the better clues by
which migrations of the Aryans may be traced over the face of the earth.
For instance, not only do they take root easily in the mild, friendly climate
of California, but much hardier strains are found to have climbed the
Carpathians and the steppes of Russia almost to the very doors of Moscow.
Scions of these hardier strains have very recently been made to grow and
yield their nuts in America as far north as Toronto and are being set out in
numbers in the northern part of the United States. How well they will
prosper in this new, more variable and chilly climate remains to be seen, but
the start is made. No doubt it will be by Johnny's old method of patient and
repeated selection, first for hardiness then for quality, that the planned result
will be accomplished.

The contributions of Persia and the plantings of its forgotten scientists
have here merely been touched on. Nothing, for instance, has been said
about her great groves of mulberry trees, which led to silk-worms, which
led to silk, which led to the production of jewel-bright vegetable dyes,
which led to the development of a decorative art in fabrics that is rivaled by
China, alone, in all the world. And of course, Aryan Persia is only one of
the many treasure centers of ancient civilization. In scores of racial
settlements elsewhere our lives today are being changed and enriched in
innumerable ways by the hands of those old miracle-workers whose names
were writ in water and whose works are immortal. The accomplishments of
China are of such magnitude that even now we are only beginning to
discover our debt to her. India, Indo-China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Japan—
all have similar backgrounds. Even in the United States, young as it is, the
migrations of pre-historic races have left their trails in the gardens and
forests around us. Pecans from the South, for example, have been carried

North and are gradually developing hardy strains that survived in Indiana
and Illinois groves.

Enough has been said to blaze the way to the end at which I have been
driving. It may begin to look as though modern plant explorers have now
followed the plant-spoor of human migrations to their final limits. It may
look, too, as though the ends of these converging trails will find civilization
at last firmly established. Or will they?

The future race, let us admit, may eventually be able, by means of an
almost unthinkable development of food, clothing, building and medical
supplies of a synthetic or semi-synthetic nature, to dispense with some of
the agriculture we know. This is the prediction of some scientists. Let it
stand. What then is to be done with the land upon which our food crops had
formerly been raised? Manifestly, it must again be covered with hurricane-
control, flood-control, and erosion-control vegetation, chiefly trees,
perhaps. Trees for safety's sake, trees for beauty's sake, for recreation's sake,
trees for food's—yes, food's sake, for flavor and health, trees and vegetation
as sources for the very synthetic that are supposed to supplant them; and
last but not least, trees and vegetation for the protection and perpetuation of
animal life, of bird life, and insect life. All these are inseparably bound up
with human life.

Come what may at the hands of a short-sighted human race, no matter
what surface changes may come about in human eating habits, housing
styles, farming or factory practice, still the winds will sweep the earth in
hurricanes where there is nothing to impede them; the waters and ice of the
heavens will still tear apart and level the hills, will gash the valleys and will
carry off the earth and dump it into the sea. Following this, the sun will
burn the unprotected earth into a cinder. Nothing can change these facts.
From the beginning of life upon the earth, trees and vegetation have been

the chief means by which a balance has been maintained between the
antagonistically destructive and creative natures of the elements.

Do we realize fully, I wonder, how important is the work of this group
and the parent NNGA? The interest of its members is chiefly in "wild" trees
that produce food crops—mainly, but not exclusively, nut crops. And they
are interested not merely in planting and testing names and known varieties,
but in finding and testing the best individuals among the wild trees, planting
selected seed, enjoying the exciting gamble which is always sealed up in the
magic, unknown potentialities of a hybrid.

As, centuries ago, the Persian walnut was rescued from the forest and
developed into the splendid nut we know today, so the American black
walnut can be rescued; its nut can be improved and developed by selection
and cross-breeding. It is a grand mahogany-like timber tree which is
becoming far too scarce. Each war takes its toll for gun stocks. Its nuts are
the only nuts within my knowledge, not even excepting our lost American
chestnuts, that retain their full distinctive flavor through cooking. Nothing
can replace its flavor in candy or cake making. The tree is indigenous to
America and, in contrast to the Persian, has only decades, rather than
centuries of selective breeding behind it. No one can tell what even one
short century of intelligent selection may make of this great tree.

We Americans, in fact, have barely started on the Appleseed trail, a trail
which tends toward the development of a permanent perennial, rather than
annual, type of agriculture, with trees, shrubs, vines and perennial grasses
its chief interest. For, no matter what chemistry has in store for us in the
way of plastics for construction and of synthetics for foods and drugs, the
good earth is still our sole source of supply. The chestnut, the mulberry,
persimmon, pawpaw, pecan, hickory, wild cherry, the grape, the elderberry
in fact the whole tribe of fruits and nuts with flavors found nowhere else on

earth—all are growing along this ancient trail. They offer an infinite variety
of opportunity for exploration and discovery. To work with them gives one
a sense of sharing in the work of creation.

Graft the Persian Walnut High in Michigan

By Gilbert Becker, Climax, Michigan

The rule to plant the Persian walnut where peaches and sweet cherries do
well is a good one; but not infallible and certainly can't be too closely relied
upon here in southwestern Michigan. Since 1933, I have placed several
hundred grafts of the Persian walnut upon black stocks. Many of these are
top worked trees, but there were 68 grafted seedlings in nursery rows,
grafted in 1936. These were planted out two years later. Some are now
about ten feet tall with a well branched head. Of this lot I have only
harvested one ripe nut and that was four years ago. Two of these same trees
were planted near some buildings and shrubbery at a neighbor's home, and
they are now bearing well.

Before going further I must say that Persian walnut trees and peach trees
are quite different. First, the Persian walnut cannot stand having its female
flowers frosted when they are out or nearly so. Second, the peach can stand
frost at, or shortly after, full bloom, and they will set a bumper crop of
peaches. We have had two years of late spring frosts at the time nut trees
were in bloom, and we have had bumper crops of peaches each year. Apples
were badly hit, so many have failed to bear. Lilac blossoms failed to come
out and be showy because of these severe frosts. However, I know of a
peach tree heavily loaded right now growing between two Persian walnuts
that haven't had a single nut either year, though they have borne nuts

previously. Thus, peaches will bear in frosty springs when Persian walnuts
are damaged. Further, good-air drainage, such as a high hill, with a deep
valley below will save the Persian nut crop in a frosty spring. I have a small
Persian walnut grafted in such a location, and it is the heaviest loaded nut
tree I have. It has so many large nuts on its limbs that its lower limbs are
actually resting upon the ground. This was grafted upon an established
black seedling four years ago.

What I have so far told would lead one to think that there is no nut crop
on my Persian grafts this year. This is not so, for I have one of the largest
crops in the 13 years I have had grafted Persian walnuts. These are on top-
worked trees high above the ground! Most of the top-worked trees are over
12 feet at the graft, or higher, and it is best to have them this high, because
almost all lower limbs are simply minus nuts, due to our unfavorable
spring. As for proof, I noticed that the lower limbs had blackened leaves,
while the entire tops were undamaged a few days after the frosty weather.
The lower branches leaved out the second time in late May. It seems as if
the Persian walnut produces two nuts to every one that a grafted black
walnut will on a top of equal size. We are troubled with walnut curculio as
well as considerably by squirrels, and by a leaf disorder that often blackens
the leaves and causes them to fall in early September, followed by
premature dropping of the nuts. Even then, there should be a good crop this
year.

Now, comes the question, should we graft the Persian walnut high, here
in Michigan? It certainly saves time, because a middle-aged walnut tree
produces, in terms of pecks and bushels, in eight to 15 years. Being well
established it saves patience and disappointment. And I know it is far more
profitable.

This writing of my experience is not intended to hurt the established nut
tree nurseryman in any way. Any of you who may live in Michigan are
certainly devoted to your hobby and have doubtless learned the skills and
pleasures of top-working a good sized seedling black walnut. You will
surely find it profitable. First, purchase the grafted Persian tree from your
nurseryman, and later, from this, work your established seedling blacks at
your convenience. Graft them at least 12 feet up and see if what I say isn't
quite true.

Pecan Growing in Western Illinois

By R. B. Best, Eldred, Illinois

We need a consistent philosophy in this troubled world of ours. Working
with nature and especially with nut trees helps us to develop this philosophy
and to realize that there are no panaceas for our present day problems
except as we work them out ourselves. After all our wishful thinking with
panaceas and doctrines, we come back to the same conclusion. Those
people with the best foundations built on reason and truth are those who are
nearest the soil and growing things. Those who work with trees and other
living things in nature possess the philosophy which acts as a breastwork
against the forces which would destroy our society.

We started our propagation of nut trees in 1930 under the guiding hand of
Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Sawyer and Professor Ray Marsh of the University of
Illinois, and later have had help from Dr. Colby of the University. We have
at present about 2500 grafted pecan trees, a few varieties of hickories, black
walnuts, chestnuts, filberts, persimmons, butternuts, heartnuts, pawpaws,
etc. When people ask me what we expect from our trees, I tell them that the

trees have already paid me in satisfaction if not in filling my purse. I do
expect our nut tree project to give us a good financial return. The pecan is
our leader in Western Illinois as a popular nut. Much of our Illinois river
bottom land, if deserted by man, would immediately pass back to nature
and exist as pecan groves. I have been working with pecan trees since 1930
and today find myself with more questions than answers. We are growing at
present about 37 varieties of pecans. We are reaching certain notions which
we hope are right. The hybrids are fine and make wonderful trees but I
doubt if they are the answer to our problem. With these remarks I dispose of
further discussion of the Burlington, Rockville, McCallister and Gerardi
varieties.

The Major and Greenriver are excellent performers but are a little late
maturing for us. The Posey nut is slightly earlier and makes an excellent
quality but is not to be compared with Major and Greenriver for bearing.
Our Butterick trees are excellent growers but bear few nuts. This variety is
the poorest bearer that we have. Our earliest pecans of the better known
varieties are Indiana and Busseron, of the newer varieties, Stephens and
Gildig No. 2.

The Giles pecan which Mr. Wilkinson discovered in Kansas is our
outstanding nut for yield, size and early bearing but it should also be earlier
maturing. Although the Giles has been late when grafted on some of our
native trees, it has been early on others. In 1945, which will always be
known by the Illinois weather man as the year without a summer, we found
a great difference in our Major, Greenriver, and Giles nuts from tree to tree
as to size and maturity. This question of compatibility between stock and
scion is of the utmost importance and it impedes investigational work,
complicating comparisons we are trying to make. Some of our new varieties
which we are trying out might be checked immediately if we knew the
effect of the under stocks of our trees.

Our farms are about 50 miles north of St. Louis, Mo. Our first problem
with pecans is maturity. The old named varieties are a little late for us. I
personally feel that we should get grafts from no farther north than New
Haven, Ill., or Rockport, Ind. I am interested in Mr. Gerardi's varieties at
O'Fallon, Ill., because they should be early. Dr. Colby has brought to light
three new ones from Cass County, Ill. which should make excellent
maturity in central Illinois.

We are blessed in our community with large numbers of native pecan
seedlings. The behavior of different nuts on different stocks is not the same.
Before any nut should be condemned we feel it should have an opportunity
to perform on different stocks over a period of years. For this reason we
always try to graft a number of trees to each variety.

Most things taken from nature are subject to improvement and can be
better adapted to the use of man. I would like to see some new varieties of
pecans developed for our northern zone. I would like to see large plantings
of nuts from all our leading varieties of pecans. From these seedling studies,
great good would come and possibly a good variety. I would like to see
Major, Greenriver, Giles, Posey, Busseron, Indiana, the Gildigs crossed
with some early prolific nuts. I would like to see every nut that had any
good quality crossed with every other good nut in a mass planting so that
genetics could operate and have these trees planted where they might be
permitted to reach maturity and the "get" of each union studied. We might
get an early heavy bearer which would revolutionize the pecan industry. I
would like to see some of our good Southern varieties like Stuart crossed
with early northern varieties. This search for new nuts should be
accelerated.

Let us rededicate ourselves to the problem of getting the "super-nut." Let
us explore these new fields of nut germ plasm which lie all about us, pull

these old nuts apart genetically and recombine their good with the good of
other nuts into new varieties. If we should fail 10,000 times and succeed
once, success would be cheap.

Random Notes from Eastern New York

By Gilbert L. Smith, Wassaic, New York

During the past few years I have found it increasingly difficult to keep up
my nut tree work. However, three years hence, I expect to retire from my
job as Farm Manager at Wassaic State School and then to devote much of
my time to nut work. Mr. Benton now has even less time than I do for the
nut work. Our work of previous years is now beginning to show results,
especially our variety tests which should become more significant each year
as more varieties come into bearing and repeat crops bear out or disprove
our earlier opinions. Following are some of our findings on such varieties as
have borne enough for us to form an opinion.

Black Walnuts

THOMAS, no doubt, is still entitled to first place. We made a poor start
with Thomas as our first graft was placed on a stock growing at the edge of
low swampy ground and the nuts of this graft have never matured properly,
while those from two younger grafts, on higher ground, have matured their
nuts well. This shows that black walnuts should not be planted in low wet
ground, that is, land that is actually swampy; low ground which is well-
drained is all right.

We have found Thomas to be a fast growing and very good type tree. The
nut is large, thin-shelled and cracks excellently, giving light-colored fine
appearing kernels, largely in whole quarters. We do not consider the flavor
of Thomas to be one of the best. I have tested this many times by cracking
nuts of Benton, Snyder, Sparrow and Thomas, and then, without revealing
which is which, have had various people try them and pick out the ones
they like best; Benton and Sparrow in all cases were liked best, Snyder
second and Thomas always least in favor. Thomas is a consistent bearer
here.

SPARROW is a little known variety which has a good many good points
in its favor. In my opinion, it surpasses Thomas in everything except size of
nut and cracking quality. In cracking quality I consider them to be about
equal. Sparrow originated near Lomax, Ill. Wood of it was sent to us by C.
A. Reed in the Spring of 1938. It has never been entered in any contest so is
little known. The tree may not be quite as fast growing as Thomas, but it
retains its foliage in the fall until cut by hard frost, long after its nuts have
ripened, while Thomas will be nearly bare of leaves for some time before
frost or its nuts are ripe. Sparrow ripens its nuts a full two weeks ahead of
Thomas.

The nuts of Sparrow are medium in size, being about 27 to the pound
while Thomas will run about 19 or 20 to the pound. The nuts of Sparrow
look small while on the tree because it has a thin husk. Yet it husks easily,
coming out of the husk cleaner than any other black walnut I know of. Also
I have never seen a husk maggot in this variety while some varieties with
thick husks were badly infested. As the nut ripens, the husk turns yellow.
The nut yields practically 30% kernel (29.94%) with 96% unbroken
quarters. Color of kernel is bright and the flavor is excellent. Sparrow has
borne consistently.

SNYDER is a fairly well-known variety, having won first prize in the
New York and New England contest of 1934. The tree is a little slower in
growing than most varieties, yet it bears young and consistently Like
Sparrow, it retains its foliage well until cut by frost. The nut is large, being
about 21 per pound, with a very thick husk, on which account it should be
husked as soon as gathered, as the husk will turn dark and stain the kernel.
It ripens at the same time as Sparrow, last of September here. The nut
cracks well, yielding about 25% kernel of good quality, about 95% in
unbroken quarters. The color of the kernel tends to be a little dark.

Certainly Snyder should prove to be a valuable variety for short season
locations and possibly as a pollinizer for Sparrow. Also the retention of
foliage in fall, until cut by frost, make this and Sparrow of considerable
ornamental value. Early dropping of the foliage in the fall is a serious fault
of some varieties as an ornamental.

BENTON originated with us, the original tree growing in Mr. Benton's
dooryard. It won second prize in the New York and New England contest of
1934. The nut is rather small, running about 34 to the pound. However, it
yields about 29% kernel of excellent quality, light in color and about 86%
quarters. It ripens about a week later than Snyder and Sparrow. It is a
consistent bearer, a fairly fast growing tree, but only fair as to retention of
foliage in the fall.

STAMBAUGH is a well known variety, but we are a little too far north
for it, 41 deg.45' N. Lat. It matures well here only in our most favorable
seasons. It appears to be an excellent nut, large, good cracking quality and
good flavor. It appears to be a little capricious as to bearing, two years ago
our one graft was heavily loaded, but there was no crop last year and a light
one only this year. In spite of the lateness in maturing the nut, the tree sheds
its foliage early.

Hickories

WILCOX is the outstanding variety of hickory of those which have borne
in our test orchard, so far. This originated near Geneva, Ohio. It. won
second prize in the Ohio contest of 1934. It appears to be a consistent,
alternate bearer. The nut is only medium in size for a shagbark, about 90 to
the pound. It cracks almost perfectly, yielding about 38% kernel, mostly in
whole halves. Color of kernel bright and of very good flavor.

MINNIE has also appeared very good. It is a trifle larger than Wilcox,
being 85 to the pound. It cracks excellently and is of good quality. But so
far it has not yielded as well as has Wilcox.

DAVIS has shown up quite well. Our oldest graft is on a bitternut stock;
it has borne well but the nuts have not cracked as well as those from the
original tree or the ones grown at Cornell. In size the nut is between Minnie
and Wilcox, kernel bright, plump and of good quality.

FOX has been rather disappointing as produced on grafts so far. Not that
it is a poor nut, in fact it is a good nut, but because it has fallen so far short
of what was expected of it. Fox is the mystery variety of the hickories. How
it could unanimously win first prize in the Northern Nut Growers
Association contest of 1934, with a sample of nuts so excellent in every
way and then for the grafts to bear only fair nuts, is a mystery. Some have
advanced the idea of bud variation in the parent tree. To prove or disprove
this, I made a trip to the original tree in the spring of 1943 and gathered
grafting wood from various parts of the tree. This wood was grafted on
various stocks in our test orchard, so that we now have living grafts from 13
different parts of the original tree. If there is a bud variation, we should
certainly have some of the good ones and are anxiously waiting the time
when these grafts begin to bear. To lend a little credence to the bud
variation theory, I found that at some time in the past the Fox tree had been

broken off in a storm and had since formed a new top, largely from a single
leader. Mr. Fox stated that he had naturally taken wood from the lower
portions of the tree as it was much easier to do so. (The late Dr. Zimmerman
made a similar study of this tree and its nuts from different branches. He
was firmly convinced that there were differences.—Ed.)

Heartnuts

We have really tested only two varieties so far, these are the Fodermaier
and Wright. Both are very good, but we now consider Wright to be by far
the better of the two. It is somewhat hardier than Fodermaier, nuts ripen
earlier, and bears better with us. Fodermaier is also more severely affected
by the butternut curculio than is the Wright, some years nearly all of the
Fodermaier nuts have been destroyed by the curculio.

GELLATLY has borne only one year with us, so we cannot form much of
an opinion on it. It appears to be a very good nut.

Crath Carpathian Persian Walnuts

Several of our seedling Crath trees have nuts this year. In all cases, there
are only a few nuts on each as our trees are still quite small. I had to hand-
pollinate the blossoms this spring; this resulted in a rather small percentage
of sets; then the curculio took a rather severe toll, so we will have only a
few of each variety.

In 1944 one of our seedlings bore 12 nuts. These were so good that we
have named the variety "Littlepage" in honor of the late Thomas Littlepage,
and are having it patented. We have published a little booklet on this
variety, and upon request, we will be glad to mail a copy to anyone
interested.

This is about all we have to offer at this time in regard to our variety
tests.

We have a problem which I wish to bring before the members of the
Association. It is that of controlling the butternut curculio. This insect is
very bad on butternut, heartnut and Persian walnuts, with us it does not
attack black walnuts or hickories. I fear that it is going to prove hard to
control, as the larva is of the boring type, being found inside the green nuts,
inside the new growth of the terminals and in the fleshy part of the leaf
stems. In these places it cannot be reached by poisons. It appears that we
will have to work entirely on the adult beetles. These eat very little and
seem to make puncture-like holes, eating little outside tissue but mostly
deeper tissues, thus poison will probably have to be applied heavily in order
for it to get enough to kill it. D.D.T. is not effective against the apple and
plum curculio so probably will not be so against the butternut curculio. It
might be effective to apply a heavy coating of D.D.T. bearing dust under the
trees so that as the larva drop to the ground to pupate, they will be killed
while the adult beetle may be immune to D.D.T., it is not likely that the
pupa could survive in heavily impregnated soil.

The adult beetles are present from the time the first leaves appear until
late summer. A spray of 4 to 5 pounds of arsenate of lead and 12 to 15
pounds of hydrated lime to 100 gallons of water, applied once a week
throughout the early part of the season might prove effective but it will
certainly prove expensive.

Planting of the affected varieties at some distance from woodlands and
wild butternut trees is helpful in avoiding this insect, but as the trees grow
older the pests may build up a population of their own. Some sections of the
county may not be affected; I hope so.

Maybe we can get some of our entomologists to work on this insect. Let's
put a little pressure on our State Experiment Stations and the U. S.
Department of Agriculture. Maybe Mr. Reed can help us.

Another subject I wish to mention is that of hardiness in nut trees. In
reading the NNGA reports and in some of the letters I have received, I have
found that many people confuse killing of the young leaves in the spring by
late frosts, with winter hardiness. In my opinion there is no connection at
all. I have seen many trees that were not hurt at all by -34 deg.F. in mid-
winter yet had all of their leaves killed by a late frost in the spring. In fact
all species and varieties of hickory and walnut will have their leaves killed
by a hard frost if the leaves have opened out of the buds; this includes our
native wild trees as well as the grafted varieties.

The only hardiness against late spring frosts is the characteristic of
leafing out late, thus escaping most of such frosts. Of the different species,
the black walnuts seem to be best protected in this way, with the hickories
next and the heartnuts and Persian walnuts least protected. Of course there
is a considerable varietal variation within each species.

Then the protection we can provide, is to plant nut trees on side hills or
other high ground where there is good air drainage, thus avoiding the frost
pockets. Of course many want to plant nut trees and have no place except in
low frosty sites. To these I say that they can expect to lose an occasional nut
crop by these late spring frosts, but that only in exceptional cases will the
trees suffer permanent injury. In years when the crops are lost the trees will
still be good ornamentals and shade trees. My door yard is quite a frost
pocket, yet I have lost only one crop of heartnuts out of four or five crops,
no permanent injury to the tree.

Yield and Nut Quality of the Common Black Walnut In the Tennessee
Valley[12]

By Thomas G. Zarger, Tennessee Valley Authority

Black walnut occurs on open, non-crop land in the Tennessee Valley
region. Trees grow around the farmstead, along fence rows, and in pastures
on most farms. In recent years harvesting of walnuts for market from these
trees has increased significantly. Looking forward to a fuller utilization of
the wild black walnut crop, knowledge on the bearing habits of these open-
grown black walnut trees was required. To supply this information a study
of tree growth, nut yield, and nut quality was undertaken in 1940. Results
on nut yield available from this study after six years are summarized in this
report.

[Footnote 12: Contribution from TVA Forestry Relations Department,
Forestry Investigations Division on a project conducted in the Forest
Products Section.]

This study was initiated with the selection of representative open-grown
walnut trees throughout the Tennessee Valley. In 1940, 96 sample trees were
selected and 36 trees were added to the study in 1942. These 132 trees are
located in 42 counties and afford a good representation of age, size, and
growth quality of open-grown black walnut. Each sample tree has been
visited annually. Entire crops were collected, carefully weighed and
sampled: tree diameters and other measurements were taken for the tree
growth phase of the study. When convenient, nuts were hulled in the field
with a corn sheller, but more often they were brought to Norris and run
through a hulling machine. After hulling, the nuts were dried until cured,
then a sample for each tree was tested for percentage of filled nuts, nut
weight, and cracking quality.

Yield

Results on nut yield and nut quality for the 132 sample trees have been
condensed to the presentation in Table 1. For the six-year period the
average tree in this study had a diameter of 13.3 inches and yielded 33
pounds of hulled, dry nuts a year. The yield of common black walnut trees
in the Tennessee Valley is characterized by extreme variation. Tree size, of
course, influences nut yield. One-half of the yields from a 6-inch diameter
tree ranged from no crop to 4 pounds of hulled, dry nuts; whereas half the
yields from a 22-inch tree ranged from 40 to 100 pounds. A yield of less
than one-half pound of hulled, dry walnuts was considered "no crop". Some
individual trees had unusually high or low yields. The outstanding bearer
was tree 117. It had the highest average yield for the six-year period, and
the heaviest crop of hulled, dry nuts for any single year. During the six
years this tree yielded 953 pounds of dry, hulled nuts and 194 pounds of
kernels—truly outstanding production for a common black walnut tree.
Another notable bearer, tree 100, yielded 916 pounds of nuts and 189
pounds of kernels. However, this tree was almost 11 inches larger in
diameter than tree 117. The exceptional bearers in each diameter class also
had the highest single nut crops. The other extreme is characterized by low
yields. Crops were lacking or insignificant for trees 60, 63, 211, and 221.
Tree 37, with a 19.7-inch diameter, bore only one crop of 31 pounds during
the entire six-year period. This tree has no value for nut production but
would yield a good sawlog.

Variation of yield by seasons and locality was examined by grouping the
132 sample trees into six localities of 22 trees each. Greater variation in
averages by crop years existed than averages by tree location groups.
However, some variation was found between the eastern and western
portions of the Tennessee Valley.

Indications on bearing habits were obtained for a six-year period on 96
trees, Nos. 1 through 140 (Table 1). Crop records for each of these trees
were examined for relatively high and low yield by seasons. Convincing
evidence on the alternation of bearing has accumulated during this six-year
period with 46 percent of the trees having lighter crops every other year. Of
these, 28 trees bore lighter crops in the odd years and 16 trees bore lighter
crops in the even years. Tree 117, previously mentioned as outstanding in
regard to yield, produced lighter crops in 1940, 1942, and 1944. This tree is
located in west Tennessee.

Walnut trees bearing lighter crops in 1941, 1943, and 1945 are more
abundant in the eastern than in the western portion of the Tennessee Valley.
This occurrence undoubtedly accounts for much of the variation found
between the eastern and western portions.

Four other yield patterns were recognized in 30 per cent of the trees.
These indicate the existence of uniform annual crops and three-year cyclic
bearing of black walnut. The bearing habits of the remaining 24 per cent of
the trees is considered merely irregular, since definite patterns cannot be
recognized until bearing records cover a longer period of years.

Nut Quality

The cracking quality of the nuts from the trees in this study was tested on
a random sample of nuts from each crop that was collected and brought
back to Norris. The nuts of each sample were weighed and the average nut
weight computed. The nuts were then cracked in a hand-cracking machine,
and kernels that could be extracted with the fingers were removed and
weighed.[13] From this weight was computed the first-crack marketable
kernel percentage. The nuts that still contained kernels were recracked and
the remaining kernel removed. All kernels, including crumbs, were then

weighed in order to compute the total kernel weight and kernel percentage.
Finally, all of the quarters extracted were counted, and the average number
of quarters was computed. Kernels recovered at first crack and the average
number of quarters extracted indicate the relative ease of extraction of
kernels.

Cracking quality of walnuts for individual sample trees averaged by crop
years are presented in Table 1. Nuts of all crops collected from four trees,
57, 58, 60, and 139, were shriveled or abnormal, and afforded no test of nut
quality during the six-year period. Thus, nut quality data, based on 440 nut
crop samples, are complete for 128 of the 132 sample trees. From this
study, the average common black walnut in the Tennessee Valley has a nut
weight of 17 grams, a kernel weight of 3.3 grams, a total kernel content of
20 per cent, a marketable kernel recovery at first crack of 17 per cent, and a
quarter recovery of unbroken quarters averaging 1.8.

[Footnote 13: The kernels were extracted over a 6-mesh wire screen. In
commercial cracking, kernel pieces passing through this type of screen are
not marketable as kernels.]

Table I—Yield of Nuts and Kernels, and Cracking Quality of Nuts from
132 Sample Trees of Common Black Walnut in the Tennessee Valley

___________________________________________________________
______________

Tree
_____________________

Diameter
at 4-1/2
______________________________________________________

Sample ft.
number av. yr. 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Av. yr.
___________________________________________________________
______________

inches pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
pounds pounds 1 20.4 27 16 2 95 5 3 25 2 14.9 43
43 26 45 42 23 38 3 9.3 22 12 8 22 6 29 17 5 11.2
54 0 61 0 33 7 26 6 13.6 28 1 72 0 16 1 20 8 13.2
50 28 23 41 76 45 44

9 13.2 36 50 40 28 33 7 32 10 22.9 29 25 0 0 6 15 12 11 6.1
2 4 12 2 4 1 4 12 17.4 110 18 128 40 100 49 74 13 14.5 98 5 83
50 46 128 68 14 12.2 1 0 12 3 2 98 19

15 11.6 38 46 44 106 0 63 50 16 15.7 130 0 106 25 135 33 72
17 12.0 1 66 4 100 2 61 39 18 7.8 20 0 40 21 33 4 20 25 8.6 13 0
82 0 0 0 16 26 20.7 0 36 46 90 0 67 46

27 8.4 0 1 26 2 0 22 8 28 8.0 0 11 1 19 0 12 7 29 9.2 0 17 22 21
2 19 14 30 15.2 150 25 200 0 102 15 82 31 18.0 33 194 14 259 0
135 106 34 16.4 0 108 0 25 0 129 44

37 19.7 0 0 31 0 0 0 5 38 9.1 2 0 14 0 47 0 10 39 17.7 151 0 80
0 56 0 48 40 16.5 88 0 50 5 37 6 31 41 9.5 60 0 74 0 67 0 34 42
14.5 123 0 170 0 119 0 69

___________________________________________________________
___________________

Av. Filled nuts Complete crack
Kernel _________________ ________________________

yield First-
bearing In terms crack Crops
yrs. of total Average marketable Kernel tested
number only weight weight kernel weight Kernel Quarters basis
_____________________________________________________________
_________________

pounds percent grams percent grams percent number
number 1 2.2 6 17 21 3.7 22 2.9 2 2 4.9 50 14 17 2.6 19 1.3
5 3 2.2 63 16 18 3.3 21 2.0 7 5 7.9 67 16 23 4.5 27 1.1 3 6
4.9 92 14 22 3.2 23 2.8 4 8 5.6 59 24 17 5.0 21 3.0 7

9 6.1 56 16 20 3.6 23 1.3 5 10 1.6 36 13 15 2.6 19 0.6 2 11 0.8 99
14 16 2.7 19 1.4 7 12 16.3 95 18 17 4.2 23 1.5 7 13 17.9 92 19 25 5.2
28 2.9 7 14 4.9 91 19 18 4.3 22 2.4 3

15 11.8 96 17 19 3.4 20 2.1 6 16 20.0 94 24 19 6.0 25 2.3 6 17 8.4 97
13 17 2.7 20 2.5 7 18 5.3 85 15 24 4.0 26 2.5 4 25 9.6 93 18 16 3.8 21
2.5 4 26 5.5 42 16 14 3.1 18 0.6 4

27 2.7 95 17 19 3.7 21 1.2 3 28 1.7 99 9 14 1.6 18 1.6 4 29 3.4 100 11
15 2.2 21 1.2 4 30 19.9 77 19 17 4.3 23 2.3 3 31 25.1 90 20 15 4.5 23 1.3
4 34 16.8 73 20 17 4.0 20 2.5 2

37 6.2 100 16 16 2.8 18 3.4 2 38 4.5 63 18 14 2.8 15 2.3 2 39 15.0 87
19 14 3.5 18 2.2 3 40 4.9 82 20 13 3.1 15 2.3 3 41 9.1 73 16 17 3.0 19
2.5 3 42 28.4 86 19 21 4.5 24 3.3 3 46 13.8 14 18 15 36 12 12 18 47 9.8
15 0 39 0 20 2 13 48 13.6 25 34 50 52 17 96 46 49 6.6 14 9 16 4 19 0 10
50 9.5 29 0 13 25 0 57 20 51 11.2 11 13 11 0 24 0 10

52 13.3 25 8 0 84 0 14 22 56 13.4 15 8 0 12 4 6 8 57 16.7 162 5 103
17 74 4 59 58 12.0 42 2 30 6 20 2 17 59 9.4 2 8 4 8 2 8 5 60 9.6 1 1 3 0 2

01

61 10.6 2 2 20 1 10 0 6 62 12.4 27 6 23 7 13 0 13 63 12.1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 11.8 18 2 37 0 21 0 13 65 17.8 130 53 101 9 107 0 67 66 9.6 31 0 25
1 13 5 12 67 9.4 89 0 7 7 10 11 21 69 13.7 70 2 104 4 30 2 35 70 16.1 72
2 11 95 0 68 41 71 15.2 7 1 43 1 0 1 9 76 8.1 7 0 6 0 9 0 4 77 11.2 40 0
21 6 4 23 16

78 11.4 34 0 40 0 31 2 18 79 16.4 28 0 24 0 11 22 14 80 11.4 132 44
110 8 189 42 88 86 24.9 191 0 282 0 64 110 108 87 14.0 45 0 107 0 31 9
32 89 8.4 1 8 2 39 0 44 16

90 13.2 11 6 72 8 13 7 20 91 12.4 68 5 200 3 54 22 59 92 17.6 18 74
138 76 2 126 72 93 10.9 30 0 48 3 26 0 18 94 7.2 0 36 0 21 0 53 18

46 1.7 51 17 16 2.8 17 2.8 4 47 3.8 97 11 17 2.2 20 1.0 3 48 8.2 83 13
16 2.6 20 1.3 4 49 2.0 80 18 16 3.7 20 2.0 3 50 3.7 72 17 19 3.6 21 3.4 3
51 1.9 49 18 19 4.2 23 1.6 3 52 6.0 80 18 16 3.2 18 1.3 2 56 0.6 13 22 20
4.8 22 3.0 1 57 4 0 58 9 0 59 0.4 20 27 19 5.6 21 3.0 2 60 0.0 0 22 15 3.4
15 3.9 1

61 0.2 48 14 9 2.0 14 1.5 2 62 0.4 15 25 19 4.6 19 3.8 2 63 0.5 94 13
21 3.2 24 3.1 2 64 3.1 70 21 20 5.1 24 3.2 3 65 7.9 58 23 15 3.7 16 3.4 3
66 1.6 34 24 18 4.6 19 3.7 3

67 2.2 31 20 18 3.7 18 3.6 3 69 8.6 92 21 21 5.4 25 1.9 3 70 9.2 87 18
16 3.4 20 1.5 3 71 2.0 88 14 16 2.6 19 1.9 3 76 1.4 94 13 16 2.6 20 2.2 4
77 2.6 89 21 16 3.5 17 3.6 3

78 4.2 80 20 14 3.6 18 3.0 3 79 5.0 97 21 20 5.0 24 2.8 3 80 19.3 94
18 22 4.3 23 3.2 3 86 32.0 96 13 19 2.8 20 1.8 4 87 11.3 100 11 19 2.7
22 0.5 3 89 3.2 91 13 18 2.6 21 1.1 6

90 3.4 87 18 19 3.5 20 2.6 3 91 13.4 96 16 22 3.8 23 2.4 7 92 15.5 93
16 20 3.4 21 2.2 7 93 5.1 97 12 14 2.4 18 1.7 3 94 3.6 52 19 24 4.7 24
2.1 3

Table I——Yield of Nuts and Kernels, and Cracking Quality of Nuts
from 132 Sample Trees of Common Black Walnut in the Tennessee Valley
(continued)

___________________________________________________________
______________

Tree _____________________

Diameter at 4-1/2
______________________________________________________ Sample
ft. number av. yr. 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Av. yr.
_____________________________________________________________
____________

inches pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
96 16.5 23 31 93 51 29 103 55
97 9.8 2 8 9 7 4 6 6
98 21.3 44 20 66 35 26 4 32
100 27.8 159 272 65 334 6 80 153
101 21.2 0 294 120 206 30 239 148
102 13.1 38 2 44 4 12 3 17

103 7.5 20 15 25 30 9 119 36 104 12.3 40 17 52 17 16 0 24 106 11.4 50
16 66 29 46 66 46 107 13.2 29 0 5 8 0 1 7 108 9.0 34 11 12 25 12 7 17
109 12.6 11 12 30 69 0 14 23

110 14.9 65 104 29 61 54 32 58 111 11.3 8 55 5 65 0 54 31 116 11.8 0
16 6 7 4 9 7 117 17.0 10 285 13 142 116 387 159 118 13.3 3 78 6 170 4
263 87 119 14.6 0 34 148 0 40 145 61

121 17.6 67 9 41 15 0 64 33 129 13.3 13 70 8 157 0 149 66 130 15.3 47
1 50 10 0 24 22 131 16.2 78 1 33 89 0 69 45 132 14.2 6 8 22 10 0 17 10
134 13.3 9 20 11 17 24 3 14

135 14.1 12 55 0 15 0 94 29 136 15.1 7 1 18 14 0 2 7 137 9.4 27 0 38
13 5 28 18 138 14.5 36 18 28 35 69 8 32 139 10.2 14 9 19 64 51 0 26 140
11.1 0 18 62 53 28 34 32

___________________________________________________________
___________________

Av. Filled nuts Complete crack
Kernel _________________ ________________________
yield First-
bearing In terms crack Crops
yrs. of total Average marketable Kernel tested
number only weight weight kernel weight Kernel Quarters basis
_____________________________________________________________
_________________

pounds percent grams percent grams percent number number

96 9.6 100 12 15 2.1 17 0.7 3
97 0.6 51 11 13 1.7 15 2.0 3
98 2.7 44 18 10 2.4 13 0.4 7
100 31.4 97 22 17 4.6 21 2.8 7
101 31.7 94 25 15 4.8 19 1.5 3
102 3.4 49 18 19 3.6 20 2.5 3

103 5.9 94 19 16 3.7 20 0.9 3 104 4.4 84 15 15 2.5 17 0.8 3 106 6.2 81
18 15 3.1 17 1.4 3 107 2.1 78 13 14 2.1 16 0.7 4 108 3.4 99 16 17 3.4 15
0.9 3 109 5.0 98 14 14 2.6 18 0.6 3

110 9.1 77 23 14 4.8 20 1.1 3 111 7.7 100 15 17 3.0 21 0.6 3 116 1.4
100 15 16 2.7 18 0.7 3 117 32.2 86 29 15 5.7 20 1.5 7 118 15.2 96 19 12
3.3 18 0.2 3 119 12.2 72 20 18 4.0 20 1.6 3

121 7.1 92 16 17 3.0 19 0.7 3 129 14.2 98 16 15 3.0 18 0.8 3 130 4.4 97
13 14 2.2 16 1.3 4 131 10.2 95 19 17 3.8 20 1.7 3 132 2.7 98 17 16 3.5 21
1.0 3 134 1.7 75 16 14 2.6 16 0.7 3

135 3.4 58 20 15 3.3 16 1.5 3
136 1.8 41 10 13 1.7 17 0.1 3
137 2.7 66 15 17 3.0 20 0.7 3
138 2.7 49 16 15 2.6 19 0.6 4
139 8
140 7.6 92 13 19 2.9 22 0.8 3
199 13.3 15 4 2 2 6
200 10.4 18 17 1 1 9
201 13.1 30 28 23 117 50
202 15.1 2 4 14 0 5
203 13.7 13 30 8 21 18
205 22.6 56 34 33 77 50

206 9.3 46 26 39 4 29 207 5.8 1 0 9 1 3 208 10.4 2 8 4 19 8 210 6.6 35
0 15 0 12 211 12.6 2 4 3 1 2 214 13.1 32 11 19 24 22

215 6.9 3 5 6 0 4 216 10.8 0 6 2 5 3 217 19.1 111 12 62 25 48 218 7.1
18 0 1 0 5 219 12.0 5 13 26 14 14 220 10.7 13 0 8 6 7

221 6.4 0 0 0 3 1 222 15.3 29 6 6 7 12 223 19.2 22 3 6 0 8 224 13.9 53
11 16 29 27 225 16.8 16 57 27 48 37 226 15.6 119 26 101 13 65

227 6.6 9 12 0 33 14 228 7.3 4 9 0 2 4 231 18.4 74 41 0 184 75 232
21.1 47 0 0 180 57 236 22.3 8 204 0 120 83 237 20.3 121 29 86 95 83

240 6.6 5 7 3 13 7 241 13.0 50 24 44 2 30 242 6.4 11 8 10 1 8 243 22.0
82 0 13 11 26 246 21.1 93 220 52 216 145 247 19.1 2 57 17 1 21

199 1.8 49 19 22 4.8 25 3.0 4 200 1.7 24 17 16 3.3 19 2.0 3 201 10.9
100 17 19 3.8 22 2.2 3 202 0.4 46 21 14 4.1 20 1.0 3 203 4.3 97 18 23 4.4
25 3.1 3 205 6.4 19 11 22 2.6 23 4.0 1

206 4.2 98 19 12 2.7 15 2.2 3 207 0.7 21 17 15 2.8 16 2.0 2 208 1.1 66
16 22 3.8 24 2.4 3 210 4.8 98 17 14 3.2 19 0.7 3 211 0.3 83 11 11 1.6 15
0.2 3 214 3.0 87 18 16 3.1 17 2.7 3

215 0.9 100 13 18 2.7 20 0.7 3 216 0.7 97 11 13 1.7 16 0.6 4 217 12.1
93 18 21 4.4 25 0.8 3 218 1.7 100 18 17 3.0 17 2.6 2 219 2.5 94 11 17 2.0
18 0.8 3 220 0.8 61 20 13 3.2 16 1.9 3

221 0.4 53 16 20 3.4 21 3.2 2 222 1.3 72 16 16 3.0 18 1.9 3 223 0.8 55
12 19 2.6 20 0.5 3 224 4.9 93 17 16 3.5 20 1.1 3 225 7.8 94 15 18 3.4 22
1.0 3 226 9.8 96 12 12 1.9 16 0.2 3

227 4.2 99 16 19 3.6 23 0.7 3 228 1.1 99 15 21 3.3 22 2.3 3 231 7.3 52
10 17 2.3 19 1.1 3 232 26.6 98 19 17 4.5 24 2.0 3 236 10.5 26 15 17 3.0
19 0.5 2 237 16.1 100 18 14 3.5 19 1.5 3

240 1.2 100 14 15 2.5 17 0.9 3 241 4.6 96 14 15 2.3 16 1.2 3 242 1.4 98
13 17 2.5 20 0.7 3 243 4.9 98 14 12 2.0 14 1.3 3 246 29.6 98 14 16 2.9 21
0.7 3 247 1.2 23 15 12 1.7 15 0.2 3

Results of cracking tests show that, in general, cracking quality of nut
samples from the trees in this study is poor. When cracked, the kernels
crumble badly, making extraction difficult and quarter recovery low.
Variation in cracking quality can be seen by studying the values in Table 1.
Nuts from trees 28 and 136 were extremely small, averaging 9 and 10
grams, respectively. Nuts from trees 61 and 98 had generally poor
characteristics. Trees bearing walnuts of better-than-average quality are
trees 5 and 18 with high total kernel per cent, and trees 8, 16, and 59 with
high nut weight and an unusually high kernel weight. Other trees, of interest
as exceptional bearers, include tree 101 with large nut weight, and tree 117
with both exceptional nut and kernel weight. The outstanding tree in the
study from the standpoint of cracking quality of the nuts is tree 13, which
has exhibited those characteristics of thinness of shell and high kernel
content sought for in improved varieties. This black walnut selection is
being propagated at the Norris Nursery under the appropriate name of
Norris.[14]

[Footnote 14: Kline, L. V. A method of evaluating the nuts of black
walnut varieties. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 41:136-144. 1942.]

Results from this study on the common black walnut have application in
the evaluation of the relative yield and nut quality of improved selections
suitable for use in the Tennessee Valley. This summary should also prove of
value to other workers dealing with black walnut in other regions. It
provides a basis for comparison, brings out the possibilities for making
selections, and emphasizes the importance of nut production from improved
varieties.

The 1946 Field Tour

By C. A. Reed

Attending the indoor sessions of the meeting for two days in Wooster,
visiting the Station orchards and plantings near town and contacting
personally some of the big men of the Staff together with the wives of
some, called for intensive attention on the part of everybody. It was time
exceedingly well spent and created a feeling in everybody that they would
like soon to return for another convention of the same kind. But the good
things that had been planned were not over when the delegates left on the
morning of the third day in the general direction of their homes. No matter
in what direction they went, hardly a route could be found which did not
lead near or through the home town of some nut man.

A few took opportunity to visit the planting near Wooster of the late W.
R. Fickes. A letter is before my eyes as these lines are being written which
was directed to Dr. W. C. Deming by Mr. Fickes on January 9, 1924, in
which he asked for information regarding certain kinds of nut trees which
he did not have. He mentioned having Beaver, Fairbanks, and Siers hickory
hybrids and asked about Weiker. He wanted to know about Barcelona and
White Aveline filberts. He said he had procured seven varieties of filbert of
European origin which were then being featured by Conrad Vollertsen of
Rochester, N. Y. He was concerned over the chestnut weevil as he had about
125 trees of the Reihl varieties from Illinois and already weevils were
troublesome.

Those who had the privilege of keeping in touch with Mr. Fickes during
his later years know that he assembled together a good many varieties of
other kinds of nuts. His was an excellent collection of black walnut
varieties. Persons who knew him well still mourn his passing. He was the
type of man who made others feel better to be in his presence.

It was 24 years ago last February that the American Nut Journal, then
edited and published by R. T. Olcott of Rochester, N. Y., told of "x x the 57-
acre farm of O. F. Witte near Amherst (in northern Ohio), on which Mr.
Witte, who was then 72 years old, had been growing nuts for 52 years." The
dispatch went on to say that the "x x farm was devoted exclusively" to nut
trees. What a pity such men can't live on indefinitely! However, the spirits
of Fickes and Witte live on. No one need go far in Ohio to see the evidence.

Going east from Wooster on the morning of the third day, a group of 50
or more persons stopped first at Kidron where they were shown the nut
plantings of Mr. E. P. Gerber and his family of that small hamlet. A half
mile north of town, Mr. Gerber led the party through his largest planting of
nut trees mostly of bearing age. Of black walnuts he showed such varieties
as Deming (purple foliage, especially in early spring), Lamb (the original
tree had a figured grain), Ohio, Stabler, Ten Eyck, and Thomas. Of pecan,
there were five varieties, Busseron, Butterick, Greenriver, Indiana and
Posey. In the group of heartnuts, there were two named varieties, Bates and
Faust, and one of which Mr. Gerber appeared not to have the name. He
simply called it a "sport." There were filberts of various kinds, Barcelona,
DuChilly and Jones Hybrids, being the ones bearing variety designations.
Also there were Persian (English) walnut trees, principally Broadview and
Crath. Mr. Gerber had more Chinese chestnut seedlings than trees of any
other one kind. There was but one butternut and that appeared to have been
unnamed. Altogether 40 black walnut trees, 20 pecan, 30 filbert, 20 Persian
walnut, one butternut, and 140 Chinese chestnut trees were seen.

Upon finishing with the first block of trees, the party was taken into town
where a large business house of Gerber and Sons was passed and a short
visit paid to a second planting in the rear of various Gerber buildings,
including the residence of Mr. Gerber. Here were some two or three dozen
fine appearing trees of various species and hybrid forms.

Lastly at Kidron, the party, was piloted a half mile west to a small park
which Mr. Gerber had developed as a public picnic ground and a source of
water for the village. It was well planted with nut trees and it was here that
the Gerber family had provided tables and various food delicacies,
including fresh milk, peaches and ice cream for everybody. A great part of
the work of preparation had been taken care of by Mrs. Gerber and her two
youngest children.

The next stop on the tour was at the Mahoning County Experiment Farm,
a half-mile south of Canfield, some 70 odd miles east and north of Wooster.
Here transportation was provided and the entire group was taken in charge
by L. Walter Sherman, Superintendent. The first impression one gained here
was that of good buildings, excellent land, able management, and a lot of
things under way. All is comparatively new. From a mimeographed list of
species, varieties, hybrids, and strains which was prepared in June for
another occasion, one gathered that there were perhaps more seedling nut
trees here than grafted kinds. Mr. Sherman has reported fully elsewhere in
these Proceedings regarding the nut work that is under way at this Station.

Report of the Resolutions Committee

The Northern Nut Growers Association in its annual meeting assembled
at Wooster, Ohio, September 3rd to 5th, 1946, adopted the following
resolutions:

That our sincere thanks be extended to Dr. Edmund Secrest,
Director of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station and other
members of his staff for the courtesies extended, and for the

facilities provided in the use of the auditorium and exhibit room of
the Station.

That we extend thanks to the speakers who unitedly made a
successful meeting.

That we appreciate the fine work of our Secretary, Miss Mildred M.
Jones, in formulating the program and that we are mindful of the
valuable assistance rendered by Dr. Oliver Diller, Mr. Clarence A.
Reed, and Mr. A. A. Bungart.

That we acknowledge appreciation to the estate of the late Zenas H.
Ellis for providing in his will a gift of one thousand dollars to a
special fund of the Association and that we thank Mr. Sargent H.
Wellman for his legal efforts therewith.

That the members of the Northern Nut Growers Association fully
appreciate and extend sincere thanks to our officers for their hard
work and enthusiastic efforts in maintaining the Association during
the past five years when war conditions precluded annual meetings.

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE
C. F. Walker, Chairman
J. L. Smith
Albert B. Ferguson

Obituaries

DR. J. H. GOURLEY

Members of this Association who attended the Wooster meeting in 1946
will not soon forget the cheery, witty and resourceful toastmaster who
presided at their annual banquet, Dr. Joseph Gourley. Soon after this
meeting, on October 19th, to be exact, Dr. Gourley was stricken with
coronary thrombosis, and the field of horticulture lost a nationally known
leader.

Dr. Gourley's passing came at a time of high tide in his work. "Less than
an hour before he was stricken," said an associate, "he was engaged in
planning a project that he knew would continue long after his active career
must end. This is the spirit of the true research man."

He was a graduate of Ohio State University, had served as head of the
Department of Horticulture in the University of New Hampshire and later in
a like position with the University of West Virginia. In 1921, he was
appointed chief of the Department of Horticulture at the Ohio Experiment
Station and, from 1929, he concurrently held the position of Chairman of
the Department of Horticulture at Ohio State University. He served both of
these offices until the day of his death. He was the author of many bulletins
and technical articles as well as of some better known text books which
have had wide use in American Universities. He had acted as president of
The American Society for Horticultural Science, President of The American
Promological Society, and as president and member of numerous similar
organizations to which he gave continued and enthusiastic service.

It is as a good teacher, companion and warm friend, however, that Dr.
Gourley will best be remembered by those who knew him well. His life and
fire have sparked many another teacher, research worker and common man
to greater effort and better achievement. A close associate closed a press
notice of Dr. Gourley's passing with these words:

"His consideration for his associates, both those equal and below in rank,
marked his every contact through his long years of service. He was indeed,
a truly great Chief.

His family and close associates in the two departments he headed for so
many years will miss him most of all, but life for them and for countless
others who called him friend has been made richer, fuller and deeper
because he passed this way.

Teacher, scientist, Christian gentleman, friend and chief, we salute you."

*****

MRS. I. E. BIXBY

Mrs. Ida Elise Bixby, wife of the late Willard G. Bixby, died at her home
at Baldwin, New York, April 29, 1945.

Mrs. Bixby was a life member of the Northern Nut Growers Association,
of which her late husband was a past president. Following Mr. Bixby's
death in August, 1933, Mrs. Bixby interested the United States Department
of Agriculture in taking over much of their large experimental planting of
nut trees. Many specimens were moved to experiment stations under
Government control, while other institutions as well as individuals
benefitted by their collection.

Mrs. Bixby is survived by three children: Willard F., of Cleveland,
Ohio; and Katherine Elise and Ida Tielke, of Baldwin.

Letters to the Secretary; Notes; Extracts

EXCERPT FROM LETTER TO SECRETARY FROM G. S. JONES

July 4, 1946. From G. S. Jones, R 1, Box 140, Phenix City, Lee County,
Alabama.

My trees (Chinese chestnuts) appear to be healthy and grow vigorously.
(They were given me by the Bureau of Plant Industry in 1934.) They began
bearing in 5 or 6 years and have now been bearing quite large crops for 3 or
4 years. There are 22 trees in the orchard, and the approximate yields have
been: 1943—550 pounds; 1944—450 pounds, and 1945—950 pounds. The
enormous increase in 1945 was due partly, I am quite sure, to mineralized
fertilizer (Es Min. El.) which I began using in 1944.

As my trees are seedlings they vary considerably in productivity and in
size of nuts. Most of the nuts are of good size and quality when first
gathered. This is where the trouble begins. The keeping quality is very poor,
sometimes half of them spoil during the first month after being harvested.
Since this is the case, you can see that germination may be very poor, unless
they are handled in a special way. Refrigeration helps for a short while only.
During the last two years, I have had good results in germination by
stratifying the nuts under the trees, just as soon as they fall. In this way, the
nuts are not allowed to become too dry as they are not exposed to the hot
sun but are kept in the shade. Our falls are usually dry and our soil is sandy
so there is little danger of the nuts becoming too wet during the winter. The
danger of spoilage does not seem to be so great by the time winter rains set
in. By this plan, I have had from 60 to 90 per cent germination during the
last two years. I dig the nuts just as soon as they begin to sprout in late
winter and line them out in nursery rows where they are to grow during the
first year. Sometimes the sprouts become from 4 to 6 inches in length
before I get to do the moving, but they transplant easily. I believe the

micorrhiza from the soil of the old trees helps the young ones to grow
better.

December 11, 1946—My chestnut trees this fall produced slightly over
1,722 pounds. The nuts seemed to keep better than usual which I attribute to
the cool rainy weather which we had during the ripening period. Hot, dry
weather causes the nuts to begin spoiling quickly. My records show August
7th as the beginning of the ripening period and October 3rd as the ending.
So one can see that this is often a hot and dry period in our section.

*****

EXCERPT FROM LETTER TO SECRETARY FROM MRS. W. D. POUNDEN

Dairy Department—Ohio Agric. Expt. Sta. Wooster, Ohio
October 14, 1946

I am glad to give you the method I used in canning pecan kernels.

Spread the shelled pecans in a shallow pan and place in a warm oven just
long enough to heat the kernels through. Have clean jars—preferably pints
so that the heat will penetrate more easily in processing—which have been
warmed in the oven to be sure they are thoroughly dry inside before adding
the pecans. Fill the jars with the pecans (do not add any liquid), place the lid
on the jar (I prefer the Kerr self-sealing type), and process the nut-filled jars
in a 250 deg. oven for 30 minutes.

I have kept pecan meats for over a year using this method and they are as
crisp and good as when they came out of the shell.

HYBRIDS

At an informal meeting at Dr. Diller's cabin the evening before the
Convention, Mr. Slate was asked to say something about hybrids.

Mr. G. L. Slate: Hybrids between black and Persian walnuts were made
at Geneva about 1916 by Professor W. H. Alderman, now of the Minnesota
Experiment Station. After these trees had fruited all but five were removed
to permit the remaining trees to attain full size. The trees have produced
very few nuts and have been absolutely no good. Various persons have
attempted to raise second-generation seedlings from these trees, but from
my observation no one has succeeded.

From what I know of these hybrids and what Reed has published about
those with which he is familiar I am convinced it a waste of time and effort
to attempt to produce hybrids between black and Persian walnuts with the
hope of getting desirable nuts. The trees themselves are very rapid growing,
handsome and well worth while as shade trees. But the walnut breeder will
have more to show for his efforts if he confines his labor for the time being
to improving the black and Persian walnuts by crossing among themselves
the many clones within each species.

However, the unsatisfactory hybrids between black and Persian walnuts,
of between butternuts and Persian walnuts should not blind us to the fact
that there are many species-hybrids of great pomological value. The hybrids

between the Rush variety of Corylus americana and various varieties of C.
avellana produced by the late J. F. Jones are very much worth while. Some
of our finest red raspberry varieties are hybrids of the European and
American species.

The purple raspberry resulted from crossing the red and black
raspberries. All our cultivated strawberries are descended from crosses
between the native Virginia strawberry and the Chilean strawberry. The
valuable new plums from the Minnesota Experiment Station resulted from
crossing the native American plum, Prunus americana with the Japanese
plum, P. salicina. Many of our best grapes, the Boysenberry, the Kieffer
pear, and various citrus varieties are species hybrids.

We must not generalize too much as to the merit or lack of merit of
species-hybrids. Some are very good and of great economic importance.
Many others of which we never hear are without merit, often being
discarded, leaving only a few lines in a notebook to record their
characteristics.

*****

Mr. Stoke: Would you consider chestnut hybrids worth while?

Mr. Slate: If you can get everything you need from the Chinese chestnut
I see no reason for hybrids with any other.

Mr. Stoke: Dr. Arthur S. Colby has made a number of hybrids between
Fuller and Chinese. I consider his hybrid No. 2 as promising; the nut is
large, beautiful and of good quality. So far I have found no weevils in this
hybrid. The bur is very thick and fleshy, with close-set spines. Possibly the
curculio is not able to penetrate the thick husk in laying its eggs. Colby No.
2 is the most rapid grower of all my chestnuts.

PECANS WITH COMPANION
EVERGREENS[15]

Twenty years of experimenting with pecan trees at the Iowa Park station
have revealed that pecans in the Wichita irrigated valley of Texas do very
poorly in buffalo grass or Bermuda sod, much better when given clean
cultivation, but best of all when planted with or near evergreens,
particularly conifers.

[Footnote 15: Forty-Eighth Annual Report, Texas Agricultural
Experiment
Station. P. 42. 1945.]

In 1926 some pecan trees were set along the west line of the farmstead.
Most of these died soon after setting and the few that survived did not grow
satisfactorily. Later, a general farmstead improvement program called for
Arizona cypress along this line. In 1933, when these pecan trees were seven
years old, they had made little growth and were in such poor condition that
it was decided to ignore them and set the cypress on equal spacings. Some
of the cypress trees were placed very near pecan trees while others were
farther away. None of the pecans were removed, however.

As the cypress trees grew, the pecan trees near them began to take on
new life, while the isolated pecan trees continued in their unthrifty state. As
the years passed the pecans with companion cypress trees continued to

increase in health and vigor until there was no doubt about the favorable
influence of this companionship. At the time the cypress trees were set close
to the older pecans, other pecan trees were being set in various locations on
the farmstead; some in open sod and others with or near evergreens of
various types. The behavior of these trees also confirms the value of
companion evergreens for pecans in the Wichita irrigated valley.

At the age of seven years the pecan trees were about the same size and in
equally poor condition. The treatment as far as cultivation and irrigation is
concerned has been the same. Hence, the great contrast in size of the pecan
trees is attributed to the favorable influence of the companion conifers.

[NOTE BY EDITOR—Heavy shade can reduce soil temperature, on
summer afternoons, more than 20 deg.F six inches underground. This may
largely explain the benefits of companion trees.]

*****

SAWDUST MAKES GOOD FRUIT TREE MULCH

Many kinds of material ranging from paper to glass wool have been used
as mulches for fruit trees, discloses J. H. Gourley, of the Department of
Horticulture at The Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. Straw, hay, and
orchard mowings have been most commonly used.

In some areas, sawdust and shavings are available in quantity and have
been used to some extent for mulches which raises the questions of whether
they make the soil acid.

The Experiment Station has used both hardwood and pine sawdust and
also shavings for a number of years in contrast with wheat straw, alfalfa,
timothy, and others. No difference in appearance or behavior of the trees

can be noted. Sawdust packs and gives poorer aeration than straw and it
requires a large amount to mulch a tree. This mass also absorbs a large
amount of rainfall before passing through to the soil but no injurious effects
have been noted.

The chief question has been about soil acidity and it may be stated that
after 12 years of treatment the soil is little or no more acid than it is under
bluegrass sod. The soil under the latter has a pH of 5.22, the hardwood
sawdust 5.07, the softwood sawdust 5.07, hardwood shavings 5.20, and
wheat straw 5.35. Contrary to the common conception, no objection to
sawdust from the standpoint of soil acidity is justified from Station
experience.

*****

TWO FAMOUS TREES

(Taken from "Bruce Every Month," December, 1938, page 17. Published
by E. L. Bruce Company, Memphis, Tennessee.) Living monuments to a
great governor of Texas are two nut bearing trees, a pecan and an old
fashioned walnut. The last wish of Governor James S. Hogg was that "no
monument of stone or marble" be placed at his grave, but instead there
should be planted—"at my head a pecan tree and at my feet an old
fashioned walnut; and when these trees shall bear, let the pecans and
walnuts be given out among the plains people of Texas so that they may
plant them and make Texas a land of trees." His wish has been fulfilled in
its entirety, many trees from these two parent ones adorning the lawns of
schools and court houses throughout the State of Texas.

*****

OHIO TREES SERIES

No. 1.—Black walnut (Juglans nigra):—Black walnut is one of the most
valuable of the forest trees native to the United States. It is regarded as the
country's premier tree for high grade cabinet wood; it produces valuable nut
crops; and under certain conditions is highly effective as an ornamental
shade and pasture tree.

~Lumber~—As lumber, black walnut is used principally for furniture,
radio cabinets, caskets, interior finish, sewing machines, and gun stocks. It
is used either in the form of solid wood cut from lumber or in the form of
plywood made by gluing sheets of plain or figured veneer to both sides of a
core. Black walnut veneer is made by the slicing method and to a limited
extent by the rotary-cut method.

~Nuts~—In recent years the black walnut has gained an important
position in the kernel industry. There has never been a market surplus of
black walnut kernels. The demand, mostly from confectioners and ice
cream manufacturers, has steadily increased while the supply has been
limited largely by the labor of cracking and extracting the kernels. The
process of cracking the nuts and separating the kernels from the shells has
been mechanized by a farmer in Adams County, Ohio, to the extent that he
uses over 4,000 bushels of walnuts per year. He sends the kernels to
markets in New York, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and Chicago. The
facts all emphasize the economic importance of the black walnut in a
market that is still far from saturated.

~Ornamental Value~—There are few trees whose utility is as great as the
black walnut, that can rival it in beauty as a lawn tree. Its long graceful
leaves provide a light dappled shade and grass will grow luxuriantly up to
the very base of the tree. In its pleasing form and majestic size the black
walnut can be a great addition to any landscape. Any tree yielding such fine

timber and nuts, yet possessing beauty and utility for yard and pasture, can
be nothing but a sound investment.

~Soil Requirements~—Black walnut grows best in valleys and bottom
lands where there is a rich, moist soil but well drained. It does not generally
grow on the higher elevations nor on wet bottom lands. It usually occurs as
a scattered tree in hardwood stands and along roadsides, fence rows, and
fence corners.

~Distribution and Growth~—The botanical range of this tree covers most
of the eastern half of the United States. It is among the more rapid growing
hardwoods. On good sites trees 10 years old will be about 20 feet high and
in 40 years will reach 60 feet in height and 12 inches in diameter at breast
height. According to Forest Survey figures, the estimated merchantable
stand of walnut in Ohio in 1941 was 112,275,000 board feet while the cut
during the same year was slightly over 3 million board feet.

~Pests~—The most serious pest is the walnut datana whose larvae eat the
leaves. Other leaf-eating insects include the fall web worm and the hickory-
horned devil. Several leaf spot diseases have attacked the leaves, also
causing early defoliation. Leaf eating insects and leaf spot disease can be
controlled by the application of one spray in June. This is composed of
three pounds of arsenate of lead, ten pounds of powered Bordeaux mixture,
and a good sticker in one hundred gallons of water.

~Selected Varieties~—Walnut trees vary greatly in the type of nut they
produce. The most popular strains have been selected for propagation. The
varieties which have been propagated by nurserymen are the Thomas, Ohio,
Stabler, Ten Eyck, and Elmer Myers. Since the cost of grafted nut trees is
rather high, many people are interested in planting the nuts of the better
varieties for large scale planting. Seedling trees may be raised easily by
anyone, whereas much skill and practice are required to produce grafted

and budded trees. The degree to which the desirable characteristics of
selected varieties are transmitted through seed is now being studied by the
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station.

A list of commercial nut nurseries may be obtained by writing to Miss
Mildred Jones, Secretary, Northern Nut Growers Association, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.

~References~—A few of the most outstanding publications on black
walnut are listed below.

1. Black walnut for timber and nuts. Farmers' Bulletin No. 1392, U. S.
Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

2. Nut Growing in New York. Bulletin 573, College of Agriculture,
Ithaca, New York.

3. Top-working and Bench Grafting of Walnut Trees. Special Circular 69,
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio.

4. Growing walnut for profit. The American Walnut Manufacturers
Association, 616 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago 5, Illinois.

Exhibits

Gilbert Becker, Climax, Michigan.

Crath strains of J. regia, hickory, black walnut kernels.

Hebden H. Corsan, Hillsdale, Michigan.

Cases of nuts, folders on nut planting for success.

H. F. Stoke, Roanoke, Virginia.

Chinese chestnuts, hybrid chestnuts, tree hazel hybrid, Jones hybrid
filberts, hazelberts, black walnuts, E. Golden persimmons, J. regia,
hickories, nut ornaments.

Edwin W. Lemke, Washington, Michigan.

Heartnuts, black walnuts, filberts, tree hazels, black walnut wood, a
vacuum nut cracker.

Jay L. Smith, Chester, New York. Books, black walnuts, hickories,
chestnuts, hacksaws, grafts.

E. J. Korn, Kalamazoo, Michigan.

J. nigra, hickories, filberts.

S. H. Burton, Indiana.

Petrified nuts, wild hazels.

Harry R. Weber, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Breslau Persian walnuts, filberts.

E. P. Gerber, Kidron, Ohio.

Photos, hickories, chestnuts, hicans, black walnuts.

U. S. D. A., Beltsville, Maryland.

Green hickory nuts of several varieties.

A. G. Hirschi, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Heartnuts, J. regia, persimmons, chestnuts.

U. S. D. A., Beltsville, Maryland.

35 large pictures of famous nut and other trees fully described; many
other smaller photos of famous trees remarkable for clearness.

John Davidson, Xenia, Ohio.

Cross-sections of seedling black walnut. A very remarkable exhibit of
thin-shelled black walnuts.

Dr. A. S. Colby, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

A very desirable Crath (seedling I believe) Persian walnut.

Fayette Etter, Lemasters, Pennsylvania.

Large number of filbert varieties.

Attendance

Dr. and Mrs. Truman A. Jones, Farkesburg, Penna.
Geoffrey A. Gray, Cincinnati, O.
John W. Hershey, Downingtown, Penna.
Mr. and Mrs. C. A. Reed and Miss Betty Reed, Washington, D. C.
Mrs. G. A. Zimmerman, Linglestown, R. I, Penna.
S. B. Chase, Norris, Tenn.
Thomas G. Zarger, Norris, Tenn.
W. A. Cummings, Norris, Tenn.
Mr. and Mrs. John Davidson, Xenia, O.
H. C. Cook, Leetonia, O.
Mr. and Mrs. H. F. Stoke, Roanoke, Va.
Mr. and Mrs. Raymond E. Silvis, Massillon, O.
Victor Brook, Rochester, N. Y.
D. Ed. Seas, Orrville, O.
L. H. MacDaniels, Ithaca, N. Y.
C. F. Walker, Cleveland, O.
Mr. and Mrs. J. F. Wischhusen, Cleveland, O.
Mr. and Mrs. S. H. Graham, Ithaca, N. Y.
Dr. R. H. Waite, Perrysburg, N. Y.
Kenneth W. Hunt, Yellow Springs, O.
J. F. Wilkinson, Rockport, Ind.
William S. Clarke, Jr., State College, Penna.
Ira M. Kyhl, Sabula, Io.
Edwin W. Lemke, Detroit, Mich.
William C. Hodgson, White Hall, Md.
J. H. Gourley, Wooster, O.
H. R. Gibbs, McLean, Va.
Mr. and Mrs. S. Bernath, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.

Mr. and Mrs. Carl Weschcke, St. Paul, Minn.
Joseph M. Masters, Wooster, O.
George L. Slate, Geneva, N. Y.
George H. Corsan, Toronto, Ont.
Mrs. Katherine Cinadr, 13514 Coath Ave., Cleveland 20, O.
O. D. Diller, Wooster, O.
Emmet Yoder, Smithville, O.
F. L. O'Rourke, E. Lansing, Mich.
R. E. McAlpin, E. Lansing, Mich.
G. J. Korn, Kalamazoo, Mich.
L. W. Sherman, Canfield, O.
H. H. Corsan, Hillsdale, Mich.
J. L. Smith, and daughter, Chester, N. Y.
A. J. Metzger, Toledo, O.
A. W. Weaver, Toledo, O.
S. Shessler, Genoa, O.
A. A. Bungart, Avon, O.
Sterling A. Smith, Vermilion, O.
C. P. Stocker, Lorain, O.
Dr. and Mrs. John E. Cannaday, Charleston, W. Va.
Andres Cross
Mr. and Mrs. R. B. Best, Eldred, Ill.
G. M. Brand, Lincoln, Nebr.
Wm. M. Rohrbacher, Iowa City, Io.
D. C. Snyder, Center Point, Io.
Wm. N. Neff, Martel, O.
E. P. Gerber, Kidron, O.
Geo. Kratzer, Dalton, O.
A. G. Hirschi, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Mr. and Mrs. Harry R. Weber, Cincinnati, O.

Mr. Ford Wallick, Peru, Ind.
Carl Prell, S. Bend, Ind.
Albert B. Ferguson, Center Point, Io.
E. F. Huen, Eldora, Io.
John B. Longnecker, Orrville, O.
Percy Schaible, Upper Black Eddy, Penna.
Ruth Schaible, Upper Black Eddy, Penna.
Mr. and Mrs. Blaine McCollum, White Hall, Md.
Mrs. H. Negus, Mt. Ranier, Md.
Dr. Elbert M. Shelton, Lakewood, O.
H. M. Oesterling, Harrisburg, Penna.
Frank M. Kintzel, Cincinnati, O.
Dr. J. W. McKay, Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Md.
Dr. A. S. Colby, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
E. C. Soliday, Lancaster, O.
L. E. Gauly, Cleveland, O.
Mrs. Reuben Bixler, Apple Creek, O.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NORTHERN NUT
GROWERS ASSOCIATION REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE
THIRTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are