[Footnote 17: Some other members have reported similar behavior of frost-bitten and poorly filled black walnuts.—Ed.]

* * * * *

President Davidson: Those of you who know Mr. Frye know that he works as well as he talks, and that's pretty good.

Is Mr. Tatum here? (No response.) In that case I am told that Dr. Rohrbacher will read a paper by Mr. Tatum of Lebanon, Kentucky on "A Look, Backward and Forward, Into Nut Growing in Kentucky." Dr Rohrbacher.



A Look "Backward and Forward" into Nut Growing in Kentucky

W. G. TATUM, Route 4, Lebanon, Kentucky

The lumberman's ax, the chestnut blight, forest fires, and the "new ground" hill farmer, together, have destroyed many thousands of our beautiful Kentucky forest acres. Much of this one time "nature lover's paradise" is now ugly, barren, and eroded, and too poor to give a living to either man or beast. Wanton destruction of God-given treasure and beauty is a sin and a shame. Thanks to the men of vision and foresight of the U.S.D.A., state agricultural colleges, and our own fraternity of nut tree lovers, this slaughter is coming to a halt at last. Our fellow citizens are being awakened to the real value of their woodlands. Much reforestation of these steep barren wastes is already under way.

We, of THE NORTHERN NUT GROWERS ASSOCIATION, INC., can look back to many mistakes we have made in the selection of varieties for our respective climates and soils. Our dates and methods of grafting, budding, and transplanting have not always been right. We have gotten hold of scionwood that we were most sure would not grow when we used it, but we did use it, hoping, and most of it did fail, as we expected.

In our Association, we have a large group of wise experimenters on varieties and methods, well placed all over the U. S. and I have every confidence that, in time, many commercially profitable varieties, and better methods will reward their research. But in the meantime, we should all keep ever on the alert for a new and better idea, or variety.

Here in Central Kentucky, of the many black walnuts I have under test, only Thomas, Victoria, and Eureka have the tendency toward young and heavy bearing. These three do show great promise in my section as young and heavy croppers. And they are all top-bracket nuts, according to tests made by expert testers. There may be newer ones better than these, and we hope there will be yet better ones turn up continually in the future.

There are at least a few Persian walnuts that show promise in my location. Of varieties I have of bearing age, only four are worthy of mention. These are Broadview, Elmore, "Crath-Dunstan No. I" and "Crath-Edmunds No. 3." All of the above have borne well on two year old grafts on large black walnut stocks. Their nuts are in my opinion excellent.

Wright and Walters heartnuts seem well adapted here, and are doing equally well for me on Japanese, butternut, and black rootstocks. These are the only two I have old enough to bear, and they are bearing their first few nuts each this season. I would like to add here, that the wild nut crop in general in my section, is very light, and these nut trees that I mention as bearing this season, are the more to be noticed for their crops in this year of bad nut crops. I am trying "buartnuts" and butternuts, which are growing satisfactorily, but not large enough for a crop.

This is wonderful natural chestnut territory. All of the many Chinese seedlings I have, and the few grafted ones, are growing nicely, and quite a number have burs on them when only about belt high to an average man. I am anxious to get graftwood of superior individuals as they come out, for propagation here in my own planting. I believe this to be a good home for any good chestnut. No blight is showing to date in either my seedlings or grafted ones.

I live on rather deep, fertile upland, and am quite hopeful of good results from many of the Northern pecan varieties that I am trying. The oldest trees I have are only five years old, on small seedling stocks and hardly old enough to yield a crop for at least another five years. Major, Greenriver, Busseron, and Fisher are my oldest, and are making rapid growth. Stuart, of the Southern group, is bearing quite well for my friend, Lewis Edmunds, a few miles southwest of me, and he says it matures its nuts well before frost, but insects cause a goodly part of the crop to fall prematurely.

I have quite a collection of the better known grafted shagbarks on my woodland. These are mostly on wild shagbark stocks. They are all growing well, but I have had no nuts from them as yet. Grainger is the fastest grower of the lot.

To make my nut tree project complete, I have quite a long row of filberts and hazels, set hedge row fashion, which include quite a list of varieties. Those that bear quite regular and heavy crops include four "Jones Hybrids," Winkler hazel, two un-named hazels, and Barcelona filbert.

I have persimmons, too, both American and Chinese named varieties. My Chinese are young and not bearing yet, but doing well. Kansas and Josephine are my choice of the natives.

I am trying Millwood and Shessler honeylocusts for the first time this year. They are beautiful grafts, and I am looking forward to the pleasure and profit of adding them to my hill cow pasture in a year or two.

* * * * *

President Davidson: Thank you, very much, Dr. Rohrbacher. We have 15 minutes before the next order comes on the program. Suppose you take a recess right now.

(A recess was taken.)

(Mr. William J. Wilson from Georgia showed moving pictures of his pecan orchard.)

President Davidson: The next order of business, we will now hear a report of the Committee on Black Walnut Standards and Judging by Dr. L. H. MacDaniels.



Round Table Discussion on Judging Schedule for Black Walnuts

DR. L. H. MacDANIELS, Chairman

Dr. MacDaniels: During the year your committee has worked on the problem of setting up a judging schedule for black walnuts, mainly through correspondence. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to get together for discussion. Had we done so, I'm sure we could have achieved close agreement upon essentials. As it is, there are several phases of the problem upon which we would like the judgment of the association members. As far as this group here is concerned, I am quite sure that we can't profitably go into a discussion of the various details and ramifications of a judging schedule. I do think, however, that we might discuss the problem of whether our point of view in developing such a schedule should be that of the value of a variety for the commercial buyer or for home use. As far as the committee is concerned, Mr. Chase favors the home use angle. Clarence Reed and Mr. Stoke have not expressed themselves definitely one way or the other. Mr. Stoke is here, and I expect that he will say something about it.

I would like to open discussion on this question at this time, unless you want to go back to the consideration of whether it is desirable or possible, to have any such schedule, at all. May we assume that this is desirable?

Mr. Weber: Could we have a double standard, one for the commercial grower and one for the home grower?

Dr. MacDaniels: In my judgment it would be better to try one at a time.

Another schedule can be developed later.

Mr. Weber: Have you any particular preference, Dr. MacDaniels?

Dr. MacDaniels: I personally feel that the new and improved varieties will find their best use as a home proposition rather than in the commercial orchard, because apparently with a modern cracker the common wild nuts can be cracked in pieces that are satisfactory for the commercial trade, and crackability is of little moment.

Have you any comments as to which point of view the committee should take?

Dr. Crane: I would like to inquire as to the purpose for which this numerical score or method of evaluating these nuts is to be used. Is it to be used for show purposes, or is it for determining the value of a variety of nut to grow?

Dr. MacDaniels: The purpose of setting up a schedule is to provide a standard by which we can determine differences between samples in contests, and to give a basis for comparison in determining the value of a variety for growing in various climatic zones and of different varieties grown in the same place. For instance, the variety, Thomas, in one zone would be a very good nut and have a score of, say, 89. In another it might have a score of only 45, and in another a score of 55. The score would be directly related to the adaptability of this variety to a climatic zone or to a system of cultivation or to variation in any other environmental condition.

Mr. Weber: How do the other members of the committee feel about it? What is their preference? It seems to me that if you are unanimous, all we have to do is approve your report and leave out the discussion.

Dr. MacDaniels: We are not unanimous. Mr. Reed, who I regret is not here, rather doubts that any kind of schedule is either possible or desirable. Would you think that is a fair statement, Mr. Stoke?

Mr. Stoke: Yes.

Dr. MacDaniels: Mr. Chase believes that a schedule is both possible and desirable and that we should work along the general ideas advanced in the paper on judging schedules published in the last volume of the report. As I understand Mr. Stoke's position, he would go along with that in general with possibly the addition of the factors of taste and color. Is that right?

Mr. Stoke: Yes, taste and color for domestic use.

Dr. MacDaniels: I have already stated my position. I feel that unless we confine the schedule to characteristics that can be weighed or measured successfully its value and usefulness will be little.

A Member: Dr. MacDaniels, if a man has a $20,000 machine for cracking walnuts and he has a choice between the Thomas walnut and a good wild one, he will pay a little bit more for Thomas walnuts, will he not?

Dr. MacDaniels: The question raised is that if a cracking plant which cracks thousands of pounds can get more kernels out of a hundred pounds of Thomas nuts or any other grafted variety, would the operators pay something more for them? I think undoubtedly they would, but would they pay enough of a differential over the wild nuts to make it worthwhile to the grower? I don't know.

Dr. Crane: If you take pecans which are our best example, 95 per cent of all nuts produced in the United States are marketed as shelled kernels, and there is a very substantial price differential between seedlings and budded pecans, and the crackers will pay the difference based on the yield of kernels. That is their only interest. The thickness of shell, how well it cracks, or any other factor is of no importance. If the kernels are there, they will get them out.

Dr. MacDaniels: That is the crux of this whole matter. Are we interested in developing varieties for cracking in which we care little about the size of the pieces recovered or about the ease of extraction, or do we want nuts for home use that will give a high yield of large pieces? These machines, as I understand it, will crack the walnuts and get the kernels out in small pieces regardless of how they crack in a Hershey cracker.

Mr. Weber: As I understood Mr. Mullins, he favored having a lot of Thomas if he could get them.

Dr. MacDaniels: Would he pay the difference? I don't know. Dr. Crane says he would.

President Davidson: When I talked to him—we passed through there and saw the plant—he said he thinks well enough of the better nuts to come here for the purpose of learning where and how to manage a plantation of his own of Thomas and the other budded varieties for his own cracking plant. In his own cracking plant the yield for the amount of labor expended is so much better on the improved varieties that he wants to make a planting of his own. He will pay more, but just how much more, I don't know.

That brings up another matter. As I have said before, our state authorities should be urged again and again and again to buy good seed nuts for distribution to the public so that we can get these better quality nuts into the woods. Some of them are agreeing to that. Some of them are doing it. But so far not very much has been done.

Dr. MacDaniels: I think that before your committee goes ahead we must get a decision on this point, for the approaches are quite different. If you are developing a schedule for home use, the size of the nuts is of importance. In general, the bigger the nut the easier it is to handle, the easier it is to shuck and crack. The percentage of kernel is relatively less important than it is in the commercial cracking. The size of the particles recovered is more important for home use. If they come out easily and in large pieces, they are much more desirable.

On the other hand, in commercial cracking the percentage of kernel is important. The commercial buyer wants to know how many pounds of kernels can be expected from a hundred pounds of nuts. He is not much interested in the size of the nuts or the size of pieces that are recovered. This is an entirely different approach to the problem. We have got to decide between the two before the committee goes further.

Dr. Crane: There is another angle to the problem. A lot of the black walnuts today are used in the bakery trade and in the ice cream trade. But I visualize a market for black walnut kernels to be eaten out of hand. There are many people in the United States that like the flavor of black walnut kernels to eat in this way. I know I am one of them, and I don't want to eat crumbs. I don't want to eat small pieces. I like to have at least quarters.

I think that if we were to gather from the status of our other native nut industry that there is going to be a premium paid for the larger pieces, then cracking quality would enter into the matter. Our pecans are sold on count of whole kernels per pound or per ounce. Almonds are sold the same way. Walnuts the same way—that is, Persian or English walnuts. The number of kernels or pieces per pound is an important matter, notwithstanding the situation as it exists in the black walnuts today. So I do think that we can't take the present status of the industry as one which will prevail generally and in the future.

Mr. Weber: Would the majority report favor the side of the home consumer rather than the commercial buyer?

Dr. MacDaniels: I think it depends on what Mr. Stoke would think about the majority. We didn't get a chance to get together, because Mr. Stoke was so busy with exhibits.

Mr. Weber: We might end by moving the adoption of the majority report and let it get at that.

Mr. Stoke: I know I brought up that matter of whether we should judge by standards acceptable to the commercial buyer or to the ultimate consumer. The confectioner doesn't care about the size or color at all. When they are put up in candy or in chocolate cookies, color doesn't mean anything. It's a black walnut, and it doesn't have to depend on anything else. So I think those two points of view are pertinent.

I never expressed any preference, and I don't know that I have any. I think it might be just as well to leave that up to this body. But the producer, or those anticipating producing must be considered. Mr. Hirschi can give us the word on marketing kernels.

Mr. Hirschi: I do not market kernels. I just crack the nuts and sell them by the pound cracked.

Dr. MacDaniels: Shell and all?

Mr. Hirschi: Shells and all. I sold about a ton and a half each winter for the last four or five winters. They are Thomas walnuts. I get 35 cents a pound with the horse shoe nail in the package.

Mr. Stoke: That man wants good color, good flavor, kernels easy to pick out, and of good size. That goes with the retail buyer. If the commercial buyer gets 30 per cent kernels from good nuts compared with 15 per cent from run-of-mine nuts, he doubtless will be willing to pay a considerable premium for the better nuts if he can get them. But unless the good nuts are in considerable quantity they go right in with the others and no more will be paid for them. That's my point of view. I don't want to express my particular opinion, because I have no particular opinion. But you might consider both, the commercial nut, and the home nut.

I think we might vote and determine what action, to take tonight as to setting up a standard, or if you want to set up a double standard.

Mr. Weber: Mr. Mullins does get a better price for a larger kernel. He separates them and treats them differently than the general run of small pieces. It's been my observation that the cracking machines do a remarkably good job with the ordinary run of seedling nuts. Kenneth Dick gets the kernels out in rather large pieces, and from what we saw up at Mullins' place he gets the same thing. He sifts out the larger pieces and gets a better price for them. So the preference is for the larger pieces. It's like buying hamburger; you prefer your hamburger ground up out of larger pieces rather than odds and ends that the butcher has around the shop and grinds it up and hands it to you.

Mr. Stoke: But isn't it true that he sells the kernels in two separate classes?

Mr. Weber: But the preference still seems to be, after we see them, for the larger pieces. They have better kernels; otherwise, they would break up in small pieces.

Mr. Korn: I believe that as long as there are very few commercial orchards, we should approach it from the angle of the people who have just a few pet nut trees around their yards, because I don't think the commercial orchards of the improved grafted black walnuts are going to be large enough to color the picture very much for a few years to come. As long as they haven't been too profitable, I think it is going to be some time before we have to worry much about commercial orchards. Therefore, we are interested in getting a superior product in kernel; it has to be large, has to be of good color and good flavor. It seems to me that would be one of the first things to consider. Then, if orchards get more plentiful and profitable, we can take up the other angle.

Mr. Chase: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few remarks on this business of commercial cracking and large pieces that I hear mentioned by my good friend, Mr. Weber. I had hoped to have the two largest shellers in the country present at these meetings, but was unable to get them here. In this area the commercial walnut cracking industry is related directly to the type of machinery necessary to recover the kernels. For example, the two or three cracking plants in Nashville handle an estimated ten million pounds of nuts each year and turn out roughly 1.2 million pounds of kernels. These kernels go directly to confectionary syrup and ice cream plants. Therefore, they are not interested in size of pieces. In fact, if they are too large, the commercial users have to chop them up. So what we are doing here, ladies and gentlemen, is confusing what we want to do in the way of judging nuts, it appears to me. There is little reason to assume that the Thomas, if they could get 10 million pounds of Thomas, would be more valuable to the commercial crackers. But that doesn't necessarily interfere with our judging system that we are trying to design to tell which nut is the best to grow.

I specifically asked these buyers of millions of pounds of nuts: "If I came in with some Thomas nuts would I get some more money for them?" Their reply was, "No, sir. We pay a flat rate per hundred pounds of nuts. We know that some of them are going to be excellent; we know some of them are going to be poor, but we intend to get from 12 to 15 per cent kernel recovery out of them."

In 1940 we brought quantities of improved varieties to the cracking plant in Knoxville and ran them through Mr. Smalley's machine. He was amazed. He didn't believe it; didn't believe his eyes. They came out in large pieces. But under present conditions they'd be chopped up. None of these kernels moving out of Nashville vicinity go to retail trade, except a few that go to confectionary stores in 25-pound boxes and are sold a pound at a time for cooking purposes, not for eating out of the hand.

People like Mr. Korn and Mr. Hirschi, who are interested in selling kernels at a much higher price than the commercial crackers, have to have large pieces, attractive kernels, properly cared for, properly colored, and of mild flavor. Is it this group we are trying to assist by this judging system or the commercial cracker?

The number of acres planted with Thomas sufficient to yield enough nuts to operate one of these machines would be tremendous. There are several examples of where the machine has been purchased to be used on Thomas but hasn't been used. It has been stored away. They prefer to crack the Thomas nuts by hand.

So my point is this: It appears to me that we are interested in the grower of several trees around the farmstead. At least, in this section we are. Everyone here gathers and cracks walnuts. Our idea of acquainting them with the Thomas variety is to make their job easier in cracking and picking them out. It seems to me that's also the problem that we have as a group elsewhere, and I believe that in order for us to make headway on this judging schedule, which I think is necessary and desirable, we must view it from the home viewpoint at this time. That does not shut out the commercial viewpoint for later years. But now we are primarily interested in the home raising of nuts, unless I am in the wrong group. Thank you.

Mr. Weber: Mr. Chairman, I agree heartily with what Mr. Chase has to say, or otherwise we might as well quit now and raise seedling nuts to the best of our ability and sell them to the commercial crackers and let it go at that. But, if we do that, what's the use of searching out better varieties?

Dr. Cross: Mr. Chairman: I believe that if a nut acceptable to the home consumer, one which extracts easily and is attractive and palatable and is productive—if that type of nut is scored and comes to the attention of a sufficient number of growers, then I think the commercial people will utilize it. So I don't believe there is anything to this argument. I believe if you go ahead on the basis of the home consumer and develop a nut that will be desirable for his purpose, and if in addition to these factors that have been discussed it is adaptable and productive, then it is going to be eventually the nut that the commercial man will utilize, because, after all, what we are growing nuts for is the kernel.

Mr. Weber: To bring it to a head, I move that we adopt that part of the report that favors the home consumer as against the commercial consumer, or we will be here all night talking about it.

Dr. Rohrbacher: I second the motion.

Dr. MacDaniels: You have heard the motion, which was seconded. Any remarks?

(Vote taken on the motion, carried unanimously.)

Dr. MacDaniels: That will be the basis on which the committee will work.

There are several other points to be considered. I would suggest the committee be asked to make further tests with the schedule as proposed in order to get additional data to determine if it is a usable schedule and can be used by different people with reasonably similar results, and if it does differentiate the things that we want to have a schedule differentiate in a test.

This last year we had hoped to do this, but there weren't enough samples of nuts available to be worth testing. I spent about $10 personally buying nuts from this source and that, and there wasn't a good sample in the lot, except one, which Sterling Smith gave me.

I think that if we have another season to work the schedule that has been proposed, we at least can demonstrate whether or not it is differentiating between varieties in a manner which is satisfactory.

I believe a motion is in order to bring this matter to a decision and end this discussion. Have you any further comment, Mr. Chase?

Mr. Chase: If it is not out of order, I move that we adopt for further trial, the scoring schedule proposed in the paper by Dr. Atwood and Dr. MacDaniels in the 1947 Report of the Northern Nut Growers Association.

President Davidson: I second the motion.

Mr. Stoke: May I make one remark? Does not that schedule ignore the factors of color and taste?

Dr. MacDaniels: It does, as not being objective characters.

Mr. Stoke: In other words, this motion approves something from the commercial slant rather than from the personal use slant.

Dr. MacDaniels: I wouldn't say that; it simply limits the judging schedule to those characteristics which can be objectively handled and are not a matter of opinion or judgment. That's the point here, I think.

Mr. Chase: Mr. Stoke and I don't quite agree—I don't think we are the only two—on flavor and color. However, in our exchange of correspondence we fully appreciate the advantage of light-colored, mild-flavored kernels. But I don't see any method by which we can place a numerical value on the color and flavor. Can we not describe the color and flavor along with the rating that describes the kernel and still have you on our side?

Mr. Stoke: Personally, I think we are splitting hairs. When we can't agree as to which color class a sample belongs, it must be somewhere near the border-line. Ordinarily the average human being will agree pretty well as to a blonde or a brunette or one that's neutral. And I think in the judging of walnuts, there can be no exact value based on the color. If you consider color and make a scientific test, your test wouldn't be the same as my test. But if it is a dark kernel, you can recognize it, and so can I, if we have any common sense.

Also in the matter of flavor, you and I can tell what we like and what we don't like. And I think there are those two limitations. We can't do this scientifically, because the human factor is here. But after all, it's humans that eat them and produce them for eating! And I rather, in the schedules last year, brought up objections to it. I didn't say I objected, and, of course, I don't now.

Mr. Chase: I'd like to just say this, and I am going to call on my good friend, J. C. McDaniel here, for agreement. A long time ago we prepared, did we not, various judging systems?

Mr. McDaniel: Yes.

Mr. Chase: We found that—you can correct me if this is wrong—by manipulating five points for flavor and five points given for color we could change the position of a variety of a list a great deal, and we also found that the points given for color were not related to inherently bad color but simply the result of poor handling, which also affects flavor. This is my reason for eliminating color and flavor from the schedule: it is not to get away from the mild-flavored, pretty-colored kernels.

President Davidson: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am inclined to agree with Mr. Stoke, for this reason: Even though color and flavor are very frequently the result of poor handling, we all know that we will say that the Stabler has the characteristic that is distinctive of quickly coloring up and quickly becoming rancid as distinguished from the Thomas, which does not. Now, those things are inherent in the two varieties, I think, and I don't think this committee should ignore altogether the matter of color and flavor, although I do think, perhaps, not so much weight might be given to those two qualities as had been given to them in the past. But they certainly decidedly influence the marketability for kernels from the point of view of home consumption. I think there is no question about that. I should be inclined to agree with Mr. Stoke, that those two qualities should not be ignored by the committee.

Dr. MacDaniels: I think the point would be to ignore them in their simply not being objective; you can't weigh or measure them. There is a motion properly seconded before the house. Are there further remarks?

Mr. Weber: Wouldn't there be just a certain amount of trial and error connected with it, and as you go along you will either add to or take off, and then you will get a correct system of judging? You have to start out with one system and if it is wrong, change it.

Dr. MacDaniels: I think it's a matter of doing something rather than nothing, for a schedule is always subject to improvement.

Mr. Stoke: I wish to point out we have made some tests together, and your personal tests and my personal tests ran very close together.

Dr. MacDaniels: That is right.

Mr. Stoke: And one member of the committee is always very conservative and his tests never run as high on any series as the others. I make a test and he makes a test, and his are always lower. Maybe, he doesn't recover as much; perhaps he isn't as expert a cracker. (Vote taken on the motion; carried.)

President Davidson: Let us adjourn until 8:30 tomorrow morning.

* * * * *

A Picture from Our Most "Northern" Member

John Davidson wrote in our 1943 report: "If any man deserves a bright NNGA medal, it is A. L. Young, of Brooks, Alberta." By planting his trees near enough to irrigation ditches in his "desert, cactus country," and protecting them from livestock, Mr. Young is able to get nuts on the hardier trees, but he reported that the nuts, "while of fair size, do not have fleshy kernels ... Butternuts are very sweet with fair size kernels ... Giant hickory from Ontario seems hardy but particular about the kind of soil ... Carpathian walnuts killed back quite a lot, so did most of my hybrid walnuts ... Some Manchurian walnuts ... got a setback with spring frosts ... Heartnuts got a rough deal last winter [1942-43.]" Mr. Young wrote to Dr. J. Russell Smith in 1948: "I have been using pollen of Broadview and Carpathian [Persian walnuts] on my blacks and while there are a lot of hybrid seedlings, none have fruited yet. On Peace River hazel [far Northern] I have been using Barcelona, Du Chilly and Gellatly pollen. Some of these hybrids look good, hardy, and produce good nuts ... A few varieties of oak are promising and fruiting."

At his location, Mr. Young expects winter temperature of -45 deg., and the lowest known [before 1940] was -62 deg.F. Summer temperatures go above 100 deg.F.



Tuesday Morning Session

President Davidson: The only way to get started is to start. We are going to be given a look at the honeylocust situation in the South by Professor Moore of the Department of Horticulture of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute of Auburn. Mr. Moore.

The Present Outlook for Honeylocust in the South

J. C. MOORE, Department of Horticulture, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Alabama

Mr. Moore: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: Before I start this discussion, just in case some of you are not familiar with honeylocust, its habit of growth, the size of the pods and the possibility of its yield, I'd like to take time out just to show a few slides, then I will go ahead with the discussion and give you some data on that honeylocust production. I believe if you would look at these slides before we start the discussion it would give you a good idea what the tree looks like, how it grows, the age at which it starts bearing and something about its general habits; it will help you a lot to understand what I have to say about it.

(Slides shown.)

This is the Millwood honeylocust. The pods will vary in size from about 12 inches to 14 inches in length, from one and a half to one and three-quarters inches in width, and the back part of the pod, something that I can't show on this particular type of picture, is very thick, and this back part of the pod, the thick part of it, is very rich in carbohydrates. We have the Calhoun and Millwood selections that have run as high, the Millwood a little over 36 per cent sugar and the Calhoun a little over 38 per cent sugar. The Millwood is a much higher yielding tree than the Calhoun. I will bring that out in a few minutes' time.

This is a borrowed slide and I don't know the history of these trees, but I judge that the tree is about three years old. We have had good yields on three-year-old trees at Auburn.

Here is a group of trees growing with a ground cover, and again I am not familiar with the ground cover, but just judging from the general appearance it looks like a picture that came from our files. If that is true then I know the story. The tree in the background is a Calhoun tree and the tree in the foreground is a Millwood growing in Lespedeza sericea and I will bring out some points in a few minutes in the general discussion on the value of these two plants growing together as a combination.

I believe this is another tree that grew on my farm, and the year this picture was made this particular tree, eight years of age, bore 250 pounds of those luscious pods.

A close-up again, giving you the general size of the pod, how they are produced in masses, and you get quite a bit of weight in some of those thick-backed pods that you don't get from the thin pods that grow normally on seedling trees. The TVA has done quite a bit of work in selecting and developing the honeylocust, and I believe we give that particular organization credit for the development of both the Millwood and the Calhoun.

I thought it would be very valuable to give you just a glimpse of the habit of growth of those trees before I start with my general discussion so that you would understand something about what I am talking about.

Mr. Weber: Are these thornless?

Mr. Moore: These are thornless honeylocusts. The original parent trees of the Millwood and Calhoun had thorns. By vegetative propagation—they went out and cut scionwood on the limbs above the thorns and propagated the thornless twigs on thornless root stock—we now have a thornless honeylocust.

There has been quite a bit of disturbance in Alabama, especially in the northern part of the state, caused by native honeylocust. We have two or three characteristics that I think ought to be brought out about honeylocust. Some of out trees in the northern part of the state of Alabama have triple thorns. It is known as G. triacanthos and the "tri-" part of that particular word, of course, gives us an idea of three thorns, and I have seen thorns at least 12 inches long that you could catch in your hand and use for a dagger, and it would be very dangerous. Now, some of those trees growing in the northern part of the state are very serious pests in pastures. Cows and horses and hogs are very fond of those lucious pods, and they will go around the trees and pick up every pod that falls, and occasionally a horse or cow will get close enough to the trunk of the tree and get speared with those thorns, and when the thorn pierces the skin there is a little tip on the end that breaks off and is left inside. When the usual infection that it carries get started from the part of the thorn that is left in the flesh, you get pus and, of course, later on the amputation of the leg, if it happens to be in the leg, of the horse. With the thornless type that is completely eliminated.

Then this other thing that I think ought to be brought out, the thornless or near-thornless type as a general rule has a better quality of pods than the ones with the long thorns. Now, it is true that the parent seedling trees of the Calhoun and the Millwood both had a small quantity of thorns when they were growing wild. After they were propagated vegetatively the thorns, of course, were eliminated by taking scion wood from above the thorns. But in general in our state, the thornless trees—and we do have a lot of thornless trees growing wild—have a higher sugar content in the pods than do the trees with thorns.

I just wanted to give you a general idea of what we have done with honeylocust in Alabama. In 1938 the TVA sent down some Millwood and Calhoun for test planting. We put those trees in two different types of planting. We had an integrated planting where we were trying to select at that time some good pasture plants, and, of course, we had something like a hundred different species in the one planting. The trees were planted relatively thick, but the larger trees were planted longer distances apart, and the intermediate trees intermediate distances apart, and then we had shrubs coming in under those. It was supposed to have been a three-story type of planting, black walnut in the upper story, honeylocust as an intermediate and shrubs for the ground. We were using different types of plums for the understory; then on the ground we had Lespedeza sericea. But from that we did get several different plant materials that did look promising, and we put the Calhoun honeylocust and the Millwood honeylocust in with that planting for trial, and they did so well that we expanded the honeylocust into another planting. I am very sorry that this latter planting had to be taken out.

Hillculture research went under in June of 1947, and the Horticulture Department took this work over, and they thought they could not support the honeylocust pasture program in Horticulture, and the plot, of course, was pulled out and planted in peaches.

Anyway, we do have some information I'd like to give you. The Dairy Department of the Alabama Experiment Station carried out quite an extensive feeding test over a two-year period to find out the value of these pods in the dairy ration. They substituted the honeylocust pods ground. Professor Eaton of the Dairy Department assures me that none of the seeds in those pods were cracked. They ground the pods with corn in order to take up some of the excess honey that is in the back of these pods so that they'd grind well, and they ground them in a hammermill, and the burrs were running far enough apart so that he assures me that very few of the seeds, if any, were ever cracked.

That has been somewhat of a discussion, among feed producers especially, recently, as to whether or not it would be profitable to grind those seeds in order to get the protein and fats that the seed has. There isn't a very high percentage of food in the seed itself, but you do get a little more protein and a little more fat if you grind the seed itself.

We have found in storage that weevils get in these seeds, but the weevil doesn't destroy the carbohydrates, and the weevil will only pierce the seed and make a hole in it. Then the intestinal juices of a cow will go in through this hole and they can digest the seed. That is something that comes along with storage.

I'd like to give you just something briefly on what the Dairy Department of Alabama Polytechnic found out about the general value of these pods. They found that honeylocust pods could be substituted in a dairy ration for oats, pound for pound. Now, that means that if you can get a high yield of honeylocust pods and substitute it in a dairy ration for oats that you just about have half of the grain problem solved.

I'd like then to follow that up to give you the average yields. Before I give you these average yields I'd also like to bring out this fact about the Calhoun and the Millwood honeylocust. Those trees are very peculiar in their habits of bearing. One year they will bear a heavy crop. The next year they will bear scarcely anything. They are definitely alternate bearing, and I think that alternate bearing has a physiological background behind it. How We can eliminate that physiological reaction is something else. But the years that the trees are heavily loaded with the fruit the amount of carbohydrates that it draws from the tree is so great that the tree doesn't have enough carbohydrates left to produce fruit the next year. I think it is the carbon-nitrogen ratio from the physiological standpoint, and, of course, if that is the case, then there is a possibility that you could eliminate or correct that carbon-nitrogen ratio by thinning during the blooming period. But when you see these results I think that you will agree that honeylocust has a place, even if they do bear only every other year.

In our planting we have some trees that will bear this year. Next year they won't bear, but their sister trees will bear. So we have pods every year from some of the trees. Over a period of five years, during which these trees were planted (the oldest trees that we have in 1938, and in 1942) the average production of the Millwood was 58.3 pounds per tree. In 1943 there were no pods produced on the Millwood variety. We had a cold spell in the spring that completely eradicated all of the fruit in that year. In 1944 the average yield—and that is taking the average yield of 10 trees of the oldest ones that were put in—the average yield was 146 pounds of pods per tree.

Mr. McDaniel: That's for both varieties?

Mr. Moore: That's just for Millwood. I will give you the Calhoun in a minute.

Then in 1945 the average yield was 39.5 pounds per tree. In 1946 we had an average of 180 pounds per tree. In 1947 we had an average of 12 pounds. Now, note the break there in averages from year to year: 58, none, 146, 39, 180, 12. You get from that that we have almost definitely alternate bearing in those trees.

Now, this other thing is interesting. If you take the five-year average from 1942 through 1946 inclusive, and convert that to 35 trees—this is 10 trees—but when you convert that to an average of 35 trees per acre you get the equivalent of 92 bushels of oats per acre. Now, understand, with this yield of pods we were cutting two and a half tons of hay from the Lespedeza sericea each year. So we were getting our hay crop and our grain crop from the same source.

Now, to give you just briefly what the Calhoun variety did during those years, in 1942 the Calhoun trees—the same age planted under the same conditions on the same soil—averaged 26.4 pounds of pods per tree. In 1943 the Calhoun followed closely with the Millwood; on account of a freeze they didn't produce anything. In 1944 they produced 32.4 pounds of pods per tree. In 1945 they produced 63.8 pounds of pods per tree. In 1946 they produced 22 pounds of pods per tree, and in 1947 they produced 46 pounds of pods per tree.

Now, if you will take the average of those, contrast it with the average for the Millwood, you will find that the Millwood tree over a period of five years produced almost three times as many pods as the Calhoun. The Calhoun variety has a little more carbohydrates, and it always averages a little more sugar per pound than the Millwood, but the additional yield of the Millwood variety makes it very worthwhile.

I have done quite a bit of work on the blooming habits or the fruiting habits of the honeylocust over a number of years, and I find that there is quite a variation there in the individual trees. Some trees are typically males. They never bear anything, but they have staminate catkins. Others are typically females, never bearing anything but the pistillate flowers. Then we have an integration there of perfect trees. I know of one tree in Blount County, Alabama that for nine years never missed a crop. It had perfect flowers, or rather, both pistillate and staminate flowers on the same tree. However, the flowers were borne on separate catkins, the pistillate flowers, catkins, coming out on the same node with the male and producing the pod. So you do have a large variation in the fruiting habits, and we have found those variations on Millwood selections and on Calhoun selections, even though they were vegetatively propagated.

The reason why we can take a bud off a female Millwood and put it onto a root stock and get a male tree I can't figure out, but they seem to act that way in that respect. I have had a Millwood tree that never bore anything but male flowers.[18] That is something for someone else to figure out. I can't explain it.

Just briefly I'd like to give you the observational work that we have done with honeylocust. For mules in a feeding test we fed a team of mules for 30 days nothing but honeylocust and hay, and these mules were in fine shape when they came out at the end of the feeding test. You say that's an awfully short feeding test. It is, but we had very few pods. Then for cows I have gone into it more extensively. I have a cow myself, and I have fed that cow honeylocust pods and that was all the grain she had through the winter months, and got excellent milk production. You get excellent milk flavor from these pods and an increase in milk production.

A very interesting thing happened. I went out in the community to gather pods from the wild trees for a feeding test, and there was a lady who owned a farm pretty close to our project. I went over and talked with her about getting the pods from her trees to feed to my cows for feeding tests, and it was O. K. But when I left she got to thinking the thing over, and she decided that if honeylocust pods were good for my cow they would be good for her cow! So I went back in a few days' time—the pods weren't mature when I went the first time. I went back in a few days and I didn't ask the lady if I could get the pods, I just stopped on the side of the road and we put a darky up in the tree to shake the pods off. And we saw a little darky coming across the field, just a streak. He said, "Missus says come over to the house." I went over there, and she was just a little bit embarrassed, but she said, "Mr. Moore, I have decided if honeylocust was good for the goose it was good for the gander, so I have been feeding honeylocust to my cows." And she went on with that story and said that she had been selling milk to a fraternity over in town, and the boys at the fraternity, after she had fed the cows honeylocust for a week or two, asked her what had happened to her milk, and she told them—she said honestly she was afraid she was going to lose the trade, she thought something bad was wrong with it. She told them, that so far as she knew there wasn't anything. They said, "Have you done anything to it?" "No, we haven't." They said, "Well, it's the best milk we have ever had, and we can tell the difference in the taste." And then she told them what she had done. She wouldn't tell them before.

Now, we have had story after story coming to us to corroborate that. Now, I have never seen with my cow any difference in milk flavor, either good or bad, but my wife can definitely tell, and she is very particular about her butter, because she likes to sell that. I can quit feeding honeylocust a few days, and my wife will say, "How come you quit feeding honeylocust to the cow?" It is that definite.

There are two things I want to mention: The value of a combination of a perennial ground cover with your honeylocust tree, and then I want to mention the fact that honeylocust planted in a pasture will give no benefit whatsoever. You are going to have to grow your honeylocust on the outside, harvest the pods and feed them just like you would corn, or you are going to have to plant your honeylocust on a barren hillside someplace that doesn't grow anything else—and I think honeylocust will grow with a little fertilizer on about the poorest soil you have, the most eroded soil you have, with a little care—then pasture it after your trees are large enough so that the cow won't eat the limbs. There is something about the tree itself that a cow loves. They will chew the bark and chew the limbs right down to the main trunk.

We have tried planting those trees at four years of age, even, in pastures, and we just can't get them to survive. In fact, the cows and the mules in our pasture ate the trees down to the stumps in the wintertime before they ever started putting out leaves in the spring. So it has been a problem. (See Dr. Diller's pasture tree-guard paper in this report.—Ed.)

This value that you can get from growing honeylocust and Lespedeza sericea on the same soil is the same as with honeylocust and alfalfa if you are in the alfalfa belt, or something like that with other perennial legumes. These are the benefits that I think you can get from a combination: In the first place, the soil is completely protected. In the second place, a concentrate and hay can be grown on the same acreage. Third, a good grazing and feeding out program can be maintained. If you plant your honeylocust on a hillside someplace and let the trees get large enough so that the cows won't eat them up, have your ground cover established, by the time that you are ready to pasture it you can put your cattle in. We had this combination, and I think it would have worked out very well if it had not been destroyed. We had our Lespedeza sericea for our summer grazing crop; then we had winter annuals planted in the Lespedeza sericea for our winter grazing, and the honeylocust was the fattening crop or finishing-off crop.

What we had planned to do was turn the cattle in on this last plot about January 1st, let them graze crimson clover, or bur clover, or any other winter ground cover that grows in your section until the Lespedeza sericea came on in the early summer. Then they'd graze the Lespedeza sericea till the honeylocust pods started falling in the fall, and they'd fatten off on the honeylocust, and you'd put them on the market just before the Christmas holidays.

Then fourth, the management cost is very low. Fifth, the weed problems in your pasture are controlled. Sixth, you get maximum production from the soil. You get your grain and your hay from the same piece of land.

Now, that's all that I plan to give on this subject. There may be some questions come up that we can discuss later.

A Member: What is the sugar content?

Mr. Moore: The sugar content of the Calhoun pods is around 38 per cent, in the Millwood about 36 per cent.

A Member: Is it different in the two varieties?

Mr. Moore: Not very much, only about 2 per cent different.

A Member: What spacing do you use in planting?

Mr. Moore: 35 by 35 feet is about the correct spacing.

Mr. Fisher: What is your labor problem? You say this is equal to oats. Can you run a combine over the field and harvest in one operation?

Mr. Moore: This one you don't harvest at all. The cow picks them up off the ground.

A Member: If you had a few hundred trees, would these pods all come on at one time, or you mentioned having somebody shake them off. Can you pick them all up at one time?

Mr. Moore: Yes, you can shake them all off at one time, rake them all up with the rake, take a pitchfork rake, carry them to the barn and throw them in storage in a dry place. You don't have to worry about weevils.

A Member: Store them like hay?

Mr. Moore: Hay or corn. I have some that have been stored for three years, and the weevil gets into the seed, but it doesn't seem to affect it. My cattle like three-year-old pods as well as the new ones—well, they like them better.

Mr. Weber: Do the pods heat up?

Mr. Moore: They won't heat up, if they aren't green.

A Member: What about the protein content?

Mr. Moore: I will give you the analysis for that, the complete analysis of ground honeylocust pods. That might be interesting. Moisture content, 12.47. Ash, 3.14. Crude protein, 8.58. Now, the crude protein has run as high as 14 per cent. I want to bring that out. This was pods collected in the wild, and this was a sample that the State Chemist ran for us on that. Fats 2.12. Fiber, 17.73. Carbohydrates total 55.96.

President Davidson: I am afraid we will have to close this if we are to get on at all. That's the most authoritative information we have ever had, I think, in this Association about honeylocust. I am sure we have been enjoying it and have been benefited by it immensely.

On the possibilities of filbert growing in Virginia, Dr. Overholser will now give you a talk.

[Footnote 18: According to botanical authorities, the honey locust is polygamo-dioecious; that is, it generally has most of its male flowers on one tree and most of the female flowers on another tree, but the trees are not 100 per cent pure in this sex division. In my personal observations of flowers on grafted trees, including Millwood and Calhoun and scores of seedlings, both "male" and "female," I never found any pollen produced in flowers of the "female" trees, but nearly all "male" trees in the Tennessee Valley will have occasional catkins with one or more perfect flowers near their terminal ends (the basal flowers being staminate on the same catkin.) The functionally perfect flowers on such "male" trees have been observed to set from one to many pods in certain years, but such pods are generally small as compared with those borne on "female" trees in the same locality, and I have never observed a heavy pod crop on any "male" tree. Grafted trees of Millwood and Calhoun selections in Tennessee were observed to set pistillate flowers, but no pods (or very few) matured on them unless there was a "male" tree in flower within insect-flight distance from them. (At Auburn, Alabama, there were wild honeylocusts, including "male" trees, within a half-mile of the Hillculture planting of grafted honeylocusts when I saw it in 1943.)

I do not argue that no pollen is ever produced by Millwood or Calhoun flowers some probably is (though its demonstration might require almost microscopic examination, in contrast with the easy finding of pods on "male" trees.) But, in the practical culture of fruiting honeylocusts, and in our present scope of knowledge of their pollination requirements, our plantings should include a handful of seedling (thornless) trees or else some grafted trees of a thornless "male" selection such as the Smith, in a ratio of about 1 Smith to 10, say, of Millwood.

It is unfortunate that the presumed male mutants of the fruiting varieties, reported above by Mr. Moore, were destroyed when the Hillculture plots at Auburn were discontinued. Perhaps similar ones will show up elsewhere, and they will be worth looking for. Meanwhile, the Smith variety (originally propagated through a mixup in scionwood collection), has been demonstrated to be a satisfactory pollinator for Millwood and Calhoun, and it, as grafted, is also a thornless tree. Perhaps any thornless male seedling honeylocust tree, if its flowering period coincides with that of the fruiting variety, might serve equally well.—Note by J. C. McDaniel.]



Possibilities of Filbert Growing in Virginia

E. L. OVERHOLSER, Head, Department of Horticulture, V. P. I., Blacksburg, Virginia

More than four-fifths of the United States filberts are grown in Oregon and nearly all the rest are produced in the State of Washington. Prior to 1933, total filbert production in these two states did not exceed 500 tons, but production has since increased steadily and in 1945 it amounted to 5,320 tons. The value of filbert production in the U. S. in 1945 was about 3 million dollars.[1]

As a wild hazel is native of Virginia and as filberts have been profitably grown, especially in Oregon and Washington the question is often raised as to whether hazelnuts or filberts could not be grown commercially in Virginia. It has been suggested that if varieties now available are not successfull in Virginia, perhaps new varieties may be originated by crossing, including inter-specific crosses.

American Species

AMERICAN HAZEL. As mentioned, one species, Corylus americana Walt., is native to much of Virginia. Its distribution is from the northeastern states and Canada to Saskatchewan and the Dakotas and south to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. Its adaptation is much wider than that of the beaked hazels (C. cornuta Marsh or C. roxtrata Ait. and the far western C. californica) the two other Corylus species native to the United States and Canada. This native americana, species appears at least to have value from the point of view of soil conservation, as food for wild life, and for breeding purposes.

The American hazel is a large thicket-forming shrub, which sprouts very freely after cutting, and the foliage is generally dense. It is found growing on dry, well-drained sites, in both sun and shade. It, however, seldom bears fruit in the shade. The shrub is relatively hardy, withstanding mid-winter temperatures of -40 deg. to -30 deg.F. and is easily transplanted.

The nuts are available in the wild from July through September and occasionally persistent on the plant until December or even February. The nuts average about 250 per pound, with a germination of about 80 percent, producing about 60 usable plants per pound of seed.

Three of the best known varieties of C. americana are the Rush from Pennsylvania, the Littlepage from Indiana, and the Winkler (most hardy) from Iowa. [See footnote following.—Ed.][19]

Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson in his list of plants native to Virginia, as published in his Notes on the State of Virginia, which was written in 1781, and published in 1782, in 1784-1785, and in 1787, lists among other plants the "Hazelnut (Corylus Avellana)", which apparently should have been called Corylus americana Walters.

Breeding Filberts in the East. This brings up the question of filbert breeding in the East. Crane and Wood (1937) have fully reviewed the breeding program with filberts, and the breeding of filberts, for the East may be briefly referred to here. Tho pollen from C. californica and C. americana apparently does not function on the pistillate flowers of European varieties, (Corylus avellana L. and C. maxima). Since however, C. americana is useful as a pistillate parent, it is possible that C. californica may be similarly used.

The workers of the United States Bureau of Plant Industry are primarily testing first-generation hybrids resulting from crosses with the pistillate parents Rush,[20] Littlepage, and Winkler of C. americana and pollen from varieties of C. avellana native of Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia, and of C. maxima, the filbert of southeastern Europe and western Asia. Other pollen parents were C. colurna, (Turkish hazel, native of southeastern Europe and western Asia) and C. heterophylla Fisch., (various leaved hazel from eastern Asia.)

Crane and Wood (1937) suggest that varieties of high merit should be developed for home plantings over much of the region from lower New England and Great Lakes on the north, and to the Potomac and Arkansas Rivers on the south, and that much of Wisconsin, southern Minnesota, South Dakota, and Nebraska might also be included.

Dr. Crane writes, by letter dated July 27, 1948, that he has as a result of breeding work, which was started many years ago, two new varieties that have been placed in the hands of nurserymen for multiplication. These varieties are at the present time carried under the numbers of 1667 and 2336, These are hybrids between the European filbert (Corylus avellana L.) and the native American hazelnut (C. americana.) At the Plant Industry Station at Beltsville, Maryland, these two varieties have been outstanding in their yielding ability, hardiness, and quality of nuts produced. Dr. Crane does not think, however, that these varieties may very materially change the situation as regards commercial filbert growing in the East and in the South.

Because of the conditions prevailing during the last war, nurserymen have not made as much progress, in propagating these new varieties as had been originally hoped. Dr. Crane plans to release these varieties for extensive plantings just as soon as there are sufficient plants in the hands of the nurserymen to warrant their being called to the attention of the general public.

HILLCULTURE PROJECT. The Department of Horticulture of V.P.I, has what is called a Hillculture project, with Professor R. C. Moore in charge. Among the materials planted in connection with these studies are filbert varieties to determine their possible value on hill farms in the mountainous regions of Southwest Virginia as a source of additional food and supplemental income for such families. The Forestry Division of TVA has co-operated in supplying not only propagated plants of filberts, but also of walnuts and seedlings of chestnuts.

Among the filberts now being grown are six German-named varieties from the Hillculture Division of the Soil Conservation Service, Glenn Dale, Maryland, planted as rooted cuttings in 1941. The German varieties, are as follows: (1) Barr's Spanische; (2) Neue Riesennuss; (3) Fruhe von Fruendorff; (4) Schliesserin; (5) Eckige Barelloner; and (6) Vollkugel.

In addition five varieties, including two of the Jones numbered seedlings from crosses between the American hazel and the European filbert, purchased from the J. F. Jones Nursery[21] of Lancaster, Pa., were planted in 1947. These are the following: (1) Jones 185; (2) Bixby (a Jones hybrid), (3) Cosford, (4) Italian Red; (5) Large Globe and (6) Medium Long.

Seedlings of the American hazel have also been planted. Dr. Crane may be able to send the V. P. I. Department of Horticulture a few plants of his seedlings 1667 and 2336 to include among the variety plantings.

Some Limitations of Filbert Growing in Virginia

DISEASES. Possibly the present most serious limitation to commercial production of filberts in Virginia is the Filbert Blight or Black Knot (Cryptosporella anomala. (PK) Sacc.). While this fungus results in little damage to native species (C. americana) it does spread rapidly and with serious results to European varieties in the State. Possibly the seriousness of the disease has been lessened by the eradication of native hazel plants on roadsides, fence rows, and in the wild nearby, which serve as hosts for the disease.

It is present on the American hazel, but does little damage to the plant. The disease, however, as mentioned, is a serious menace to either European varieties or to the present hybrids resulting from C. americana x C. avellana. The control to date is to prune off and burn affected parts. Mr. George Slate has mentioned that Mr. S. H. Graham of Ithaca, New York, has a number of hybrids between C. americana and C. avellana that have been subjected to severe attacks of Filbert Blight and a few of these have to date escaped, although the others have been destroyed by blight.

The bacterial blight present on the Pacific Coast apparently does not occur in the East.

INSECTS. A second limitation is the problem of the attacks of insects. Dodge and Rickett (1948) report that Corylus may be affected by a leaf-damage from the feeding of leaf-hoppers (Phepsins ishida; P. tinctorius), which may involve less than half the leaf or may extend to the entire leaf. The first leaves to be infested are those next to the ground, which are affected early in July. Most of the damage ceases by the first week of August. Control is by spraying with nicotine sulphate and soap on the undersides of the leaves in late June or early July, repeating at the end of a week.

Certain nut weevils (Balaninus spp.) attack the native hazels, but Slate (1930) reports they do not attack the European filbert (C. avellana). Mr. Slate reports that in Geneva where nuts are carefully picked up they do not have much of a problem with weevils.

Dr. Crane reports that the Japanese beetle severely damages the filbert. While the Japanese beetle has not yet become widely established in Virginia, it undoubtedly will eventually become a problem throughout this state. The Japanese beetle can be destroyed by using four pounds of 50% wettable DDT or two pounds of actual DDT per 100 gallons. Such sprays should be applied as the Japanese beetles begin to cause injury, and usually two applications may be sufficient.

Mr. G. F. Gravatt has reported that his filbert plantings, surrounded on three sides by woods, are badly attacked by stink bugs that sting the nuts. DDT as suggested for Japanese beetles may also be used for stink bugs.

Another serious insect pest on hazelnut is the curculio. Clean cultivation has been reported as a supplementary measure for curculio control, as they depend, upon unbroken soil in the fall for their metamorphosis. Some hybrids are reported as being relatively immune to the attacks of curculio (Weschcke, 1946). Benezene hexachloride has shown promise with other plants in curculio control and may have possibilities on the filbert.

LACK OF HARDINESS. A third limitation has been lack of hardiness in the case of European varieties. With the European varieties the staminate or the pistillate flowers or both are likely to be killed by winter temperatures. In fact, occasional unduly low winter temperatures may kill the tree tops or even the tree trunks to the ground. The Winkler variety (C. americana) has been reported as more hardy in New York State than the Barcelona (C. avellana) or the Jones hybrids (C. americana x. C. avellana) (Ross Pier Wright, 1944).

Under western New York conditions, Slate (1930) reported that the blooming period starts about March 20 to 25 at Geneva, and lasts about a month. In central Virginia this may well be several weeks earlier. Slate (1930) also reports that the flowers in bloom will withstand considerable frost, and that even with temperatures of 16 deg.F. during the blooming season, neither female nor male flowers, may be injured. Nevertheless, with filberts coming into bloom in late February to early March, they would be subjected to temperatures that might result in injury especially to the catkins.

Some of the more hardy varieties as reported by Slate (1930) include the following: (a) White Lambert (not of value) (C. maxima); (b) Red Lambert (C. maxima); (c) Cosford; (d) Purple Aveline (C. avellana); and (e) Early Globe (of little value).

Some of the varieties upon which both the staminate and pistillate flowers tend to bloom relatively late are (a) Althaldensleber, (b) Kentish Cob, (c) Red Aveline, (d) Purple Aveline, and (e) Bolwiller. Late blooming, however, does not necessarily insure escaping injury from low spring temperatures. The Cosford, Italian Red, and Medium Long are considered by Slate as good for New York. The Bixby and Buchanan are the result of crossing C. americana x C. avellana, and appear to be of promise for home plantings in the East. Mr. H. F. Stoke is growing the Italian Red and Du Chilly (Kentish Cob) with Daviana for pollination purposes in the Roanoke area.

CROSS-POLLINATION. A fourth limitation is the fact that varieties are nearly entirely if not fully dependent upon cross-pollinization by other inter-fertile varieties that bloom at about the same time in order to insure a set of nuts. This limitation may be overcome by the proper planning of hardy varieties are inter-fertile. Colby (1944) has reported that the Winkler variety is self-fertile.

SUCKERS. A sixth limitation is the tendency of the C. avellana or C. maxima to sprout about the base and the labor and expense of keeping these sprouts pruned out. It is possible that this factor may be overcome by using Turkish hazel (C. colurna L.) as an understock and grafting or budding thereon the varieties that sprout when on their own roots. The Turkish hazel does not sprout as badly as the two other species.

Note by Editor: An Oregon nursery, which formerly propagated European filberts on the Turkish understock, now has abandoned its use. The grafted filbert tops did not seem to survive and bear as consistently as those on their own roots, after a period of several years in orchards.

PLANTING IN VIRGINIA. In a letter dated May 17, 1948, addressed to R. C. Moore, Assistant Horticulturist, V.P.I., H. J. Pettit, Assistant Secretary of the Planters Peanut Company, Suffolk, Virginia, reported that some years ago they planted several thousand trees of filberts, which they obtained from the states of New York and Oregon. From their experience it appears that late spring frosts destroyed the flower parts, which developed early, with the result that the yields were too low to be profitable. Hence, the filberts were removed and the land otherwise utilized. Mr. H. F. Stoke, however, in the Roanoke area has not found lack of hardiness as serious as the problems of diseases and insects of filberts.

An important nursery in Maryland has provided information to the effect that during this past 1947-48 season it sold for planting in Virginia a total of 34 filbert plants in lots of from one to ten. Its 1947-48 catalogue lists varieties of filberts for sale as follows: Barcelona, Daviana, Du Chilly, and American hazel.

Dr. H. L. Crane, Principal Horticulturist of the USDA, writes in a letter dated July 27, 1948, that he knows of no substantial plantings being made anywhere in Virginia. He has observed a few bushes or trees scattered about the homesteads, particularly in the northern or more mountainous part of the state. In most cases the performance of these filberts has not been entirely satisfactory because of leaf scorch during the summer, due apparently to high temperatures or unfavorable moisture conditions or to the winter killing of the catkins, or in some cases winter injury of the shoots. The largest plantings in Virginia that have yet come to the attention of the V.P.I. Department of Horticulture are those of Mr. Stoke in the Roanoke area.

Dr. Crane has observed the planting of a few bushes of the American hazelnut in Virginia. Their performance has been somewhat better than has been that of the European filbert, especially as to hardiness, and these American hazelnuts have borne more satisfactory crops of nuts than have the European filberts. The nuts produced by the native varieties, however, are small in size, thick shelled, and the kernels are small and lack quality. Observations by Dr. Crane, which have been made in the State of Virginia, lead him to believe that with the material that is at present available from nurserymen, there is not much hope of successful commercial filbert culture in the State of Virginia. When, however, seedlings 1667 and 2336 may become available, two varieties that are hardy and productive of fairly high quality nuts may provide material for home plantings or for local markets.

Ornamental Value. The filbert, however, also has possible value for ornamental plantings with its attractive foliage, or as a hedge, as well as for nut production, providing the home owner will control insects and diseases and maintain favorable growing conditions for our best known varieties.

Future Outlook in Virginia. With a further breeding program to combine the hardiness of the American hazel and its tolerance to Filbert Blight with some of the better qualities of the European and other species to obtain self-fertile varieties better adapted to Virginia conditions and with the better insecticides and fungicides now becoming available for insect and disease control, it may be that filbert growing in Virginia has a brighter future outlook than now appears to be true.

[Footnote 19: Tree Nuts, Acreage, Production, Farm Disposition, Value, and Utilization of Sales, 1909-45. USDA Bureau of Agr. Eco. Crop Rept. Brd.: 1-25 Oct. 1947.]

[Footnote 20: Rush, itself, is now considered a natural hybrid of American and European filberts. Many of the European varieties are derived from hybrids between C. avellana, C. maxima, and possibly other Eurasian species.—Ed.]

[Footnote 21: Now located at Erie, Ill.—Ed.]

* * * * *

President Davidson: Thank you, Dr. Overholser. We have a paper from Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott is not here, but we are already behind our program, so I am afraid you are going to have to have that in printed form later on.



Filberts for Food and Looks in Kentucky

N. R. ELLIOTT, Extension Landscape Specialist, Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky

Those of us interested in the landscape phase are always thinking of as many different kinds of plants as possible that may be used to create pleasing effects. Perhaps we might be criticized for overlooking several plants that would not only assist in creating pleasing effects but at the same time produce edible fruits of good quality. In my own experience I have often recommended the use of grape vines on a trellis to create a screen and at the same time produce fruit. Also in border plantings, like the shrub border, the gooseberries and currants make attractive shrubs and in addition supply fruits. In making these suggestions for plantings one needs to depart somewhat from the usual run of plants and in most instances the homeowner has never thought of using plants for effects as well as fruits.

Filberts Good Dual Purpose Plants

Filberts are certainly outstanding dual purpose plants, and I feel that they have not been used nearly as much as they should be. If we think of landscape from the broad point of view, we realize that screen or border plantings make up one of the most important parts of the set-up, especially in rural parts. Practically every farm home has some unattractive view near by that needs to be screened out, either partially or entirely. This view may be caused by a lot where farm animals are kept, an old, unattractive barn, or even a gullied field. Lots where animals are kept and the barn are necessary parts of the farm operations, and the gullied field may result from neglect, but regardless of the cause for the undesirable view it can and should be screened from view from the home.

In making a screen planting, two plans are possible—one, the shrub border, and the other the hedge row, and filberts are excellent to use in either planting. Where space is at a premium, the hedge offers the best form of screen. Filberts planted two and a half feet apart and pruned in such a way as to make them have a shrub appearance will make an ideal hedge and produce lots of nuts of good quality. This hedge can be counted on to be effective up to twelve feet in height.

In the shrub border filberts are allowed to produce many stems and to grow into small trees. This is done by pruning and by using groups of two or three plants in a place, planted some five or six feet apart. Different varieties may be used for different groups, thereby producing a variation of foliage. The filberts will take their places with the well known small trees like the dogwood and the redbud, when used in this way.

Still another use for filberts in landscape work is to use them for small trees as lawn specimen plants. They have a size, shape, and foliage that makes them attractive when used in this way.

Cross Pollination Necessary

Our experience has been that there is need for cross pollination to get maximum yields of fruit; therefore, we suggest that different varieties be used in a planting. Barcelona, DuChilly, and the Jones Hybrids seem to us well suited for this. Of course, there are others, but our experience with varieties is limited.

When it comes to the soil for filberts, we find that a fairly rich soil that has plenty of moisture is the best. Of course, the soil must drain well because the roots of filberts seem to be very susceptible to poorly drained soil conditions. If there is a lot of sand in the soil, give the filberts more moisture and food because they are rapid growers.

So far, we have not had many complaints about filberts suffering from winter injury. This may be due to the fact that so far Kentucky is not using great quantities of these plants, or it may be due to the fact that the varieties used have been reasonably hardy. The little winter injury seen so far has been in the terminal twig growth, and removal of these twigs in the spring has not meant altering the normal shape of the plant.

I do not know whether there is any significance to it but the filberts that have been fed by using well rotted manure applied in the fall and spaded into the top four inches of soil next spring have made the best growth and produced the most fruit.

So far the filberts that we have had experience with have been free from insects and diseases. One never knows how long that condition will last.

Now, when it comes to discussing filberts as a food, all that I want to say is that at Christmas time when you buy mixed nuts you usually get a few of the filberts in the mixture. These nuts are good eating, and when the plants are grown on the home grounds everyone who has them says they are much enjoyed by all members of the family. Our experience has been that filberts yield annually and, if given reasonable care, in good amounts.

In conclusion we would like to say we feel there is not only a place for filberts in landscape work, but there is an absolute need for greater use of these plants especially in rural plantings. At present, the professional landscape artists are not inclined to recommend them as often as they could, simply because they have not been trained to think of dual purpose plants. Greater publicity as to the value of these plants would undoubtedly mean greater use of them.

* * * * *

President Davidson: We also have a paper from Mr. Reed, which is of quite a good deal of importance historically on the work of Mr. Jones. I wish you could have that. Probably you will have to read that, too.



J. F. Jones, Introducer of Many Nut Varieties

CLARENCE A. REED, Collaborator[22]

The name of J. F. Jones was once one of the best known and most highly respected in eastern nut culture. It was from Mountain Grove, Wright County, Mo., that he was first heard from in 1900, when he discovered and introduced the Rockville hican, which he named after the nearest town. It never proved of value, but that fact did not detract from the importance of being first, a habit which remained with him till his death. In 1902 he moved to Monticello, Jefferson County, Florida; five years later he moved to Jeanerette, Iberia Parish, Louisiana; and in 1912, he moved to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where he died in January, 1928.



In 1903, while at Monticello, he successfully graft-propagated the Rush Persian (English) walnut and the Weiker hickory, an intermediate form between shagbark and shellbark. Both were from Lancaster County, and he used scions sent him by J. G. Rush, of West Willow, south of Lancaster. Mr. Rush is credited with introducing the walnut bearing his name, while credit went to Mr. Jones for the Weiker hickory. Some years later, on two occasions, Mr. Jones took a visitor to the Weiker parent tree when the branches were laden with nuts so that they hung down in a manner suggestive of plums. For some reason, never explained, no other tree of the variety, so far as is known, ever bore as much as a quart of nuts, although the trees frequently flowered profusely. The variety was, however, markedly dichogamous. The parent tree, which stood in the yard of Mr. Christ LeFever of Lampeter, about two miles east of the Jones home, was blown over in a heavy gale many years ago.

Mr. Jones graft-propagated a considerable number of Hales shagbark while at Monticello, with scions that came from the original tree near Ridgewood, New Jersey. However, this variety was first propagated by Henry Hales of Ridgewood, in 1879. He also had Kirtland from Yalesville, Connecticut, but like many others since that time, both it and Hales proved to be light bearers. Other hickories may have been propagated by Mr. Jones while at Monticello but these are the only ones of which there is record. The Kirtland was first propagated in 1897.

[Footnote 22: U.S.D.A. Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils and Agricultural Engineering, Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Md.]

First Carload of Grafted Pecan Trees

When he went to Florida, there were few pecan trees of bearing age in either that State or Georgia and none to speak of in the Carolinas. The "fast" trains went no more than 30 or 35 miles an hour, and a minimum of three days was required to see even an occasional planting or a single tree. Within the next few years, nurserymen everywhere propagated their own varieties and listed them in their catalogs. Mr. Jones was discriminating and propagated only varieties that then had the best reputation, such as Schley and Stuart, and some others that have not stood the test of time. In one way, he was distinctively first; he shipped the first carload of pecan trees ever to go to one address. This was in January of 1906, when 10,000 trees were shipped to Professor H. E. Van Deman who was then establishing a 900-acre orchard near Ferriday, La. A picture of the car appeared in the American Nut Journal, published by W. N. Roper, Petersburg, Va., Vol. III, No. 50, March 1906, (Van Deman had been the first Pomologist in the Department of Agriculture, 1886 to 1892).

Mr. Ray Simpson of Vincennes, Ind., went to Mr. Jones to learn how to graft pecan trees. He offered to work without pay if Mr. Jones would teach him the art. He had graduated at Cornell in 1905, and had been inspired by John Craig, Professor of Horticulture there. Craig himself later invested somewhat heavily in pecan orchards both near Monticello and at Albany, Georgia. Mr. Simpson was taken on and proved as good a propagator as the best hand and received the same pay.

While at Monticello Mr. Jones began to feel that the region might not be the best place for pecans. Perhaps he had made a mistake. It was 300 miles to middle western Alabama, where there were the nearest native trees. A disease was appearing among many of the trees planted in the East, which was then poorly understood (rosette). Pecan wood for budding and grafting was scarce and Mr. Jones would trust no one to cut it for him. He went to the trees himself.

One man who then had an abundance of wood and who could be relied upon was B. M. Young of Morgan City, La., and Mr. Jones went to him for wood several times. Once he became confused as to the trees from which he had cut a couple of bundles, so both were thrown in the river and he went back for more. Mr. Young was greatly impressed, so much so that he remembered the incident, as we shall see.

The Move to Louisiana

Back in Florida Ray Simpson wished to buy and Mr. Jones wished to sell, so a deal was soon made. Mr. Jones went to Louisiana where the pecan is native and there were many large trees, probably as many as could be found in any one place in the entire South. Mr. Young knew of a group from St. Paul, Minnesota, who were about to buy and plant a thousand acres near Jeanerette and who were looking for an experienced man to take charge. Mr. Jones was recommended and was soon at work. For another five years, he worked harder than almost any other white man in the State. Great odds were against him. Being from the North, he did not associate exclusively with whites, and presently the southern white people left him severely alone. That was not all; he could not raise as good nursery trees as he had in Florida. The trees grew slowly in the cold, heavy soil of Louisiana, and the fibrous root system failed to materialize. The excellent reputation he and his trees had enjoyed in Monticello began to deteriorate. He worked harder than ever and waited for a break. When it came, he did not hesitate.

Jones Shifts to Pennsylvania

The St. Paul crowd fell into a squabble and divided into two factions, each wishing control. A man went south to see if Mr. Jones would sell his stock. Would he? He knew when to keep his mouth shut and he meekly made a deal. He was probably never more glad over anything in his life. He came north, lock, stock, and barrel. But he was far from being without a place to land. Since his Monticello days, he and Mr. Rush had been good friends. Mr. Rush knew a farm of 20 acres with buildings, which could be had for $8,000. It was four miles south of Lancaster, and at a point where two main highways leading into the city came together. It sloped eastward enough so that it did not get the full force of west winds. It was two miles from Mr. Rush's home, with the town of Willow Street between.

Mr. Jones then began eight or 10 years of lean hard work. He modernized buildings, planted an orchard of nut varieties most of which were purchased from W. C. Reed of Vincennes, Ind., and W. N. Roper of Petersburg, Va. From Roper he bought both seedling and grafted trees. Some of the "seedlings" had been budded and then not cut back to force the buds. The latter were still dormant and when the trees were properly cut back, the buds pushed forth. T. P. Littlepage, of Washington, and Prof. W. N. Hutt, of Raleigh, N. C., had a good laugh at Roper, but as the trees bore no labels, they were no more valuable than seedlings and were treated as such. All three men are now deceased.

Thomas black walnut trees came from E. A. Riehl, Godfrey, Illinois. The variety had originated in eastern Pennsylvania and was first grafted in 1881 by J. W. Thomas and Son, at King of Prussia, Pa. The parent tree had been destroyed some time before by the Pennsylvania Railroad, in extending its lines. The Thomas is today the most widely planted variety, although it has rarely borne well. Mr. Jones selected and grafted the Ohio walnut, but the owner of the seed-parent tree was given credit for its introduction, although she probably knows nothing of the incident, to this day. She was a Miss Clark, McCutcheonville, Ohio, and it was felt that it would help more to give her name as originator if one were ever to locate the tree.

[See Ohio black walnut original tree photos, NNGA Rept., 1946.—Ed.]

The Stabler eastern black walnut, introduced in 1916 by Mr. T. P. Littlepage by means of a paragraph inserted in the Country Gentleman, was also propagated by Mr. Jones, but he early found it disappointing in its habits of bearing. He also found that about 80 percent of the nuts from the parent tree had single kernels, while with young trees 80 percent had double kernels. Most planters have long since discontinued using this variety. However, Mrs. Jane Baum, Douglassville, Pa., reports that her customers like the Stabler best. Others she has are Thomas, Ohio, and Ten Eyck.

Other varieties were tested by Mr. Jones, but he pushed none of them, rightly thinking that 4 leaders were as many as a nursery could afford to carry. He insisted that a new variety would have to prove its superiority before he would insert it in his catalog. Among other varieties was the Peanut from southern Ohio, the nut of which had single lobes; but apparently there was some mistake along the line, as nuts from grafted trees were indifferent and had 2 half kernels. He also had Creitz from Indiana, which Mr. H. F. Stoke, 1436 Watts Avenue, Roanoke, Va., thinks well of at this time. It was a prize winner in the 1926 contest of the NNGA. Neither Creitz nor Peanut was a Jones introduction.