The black walnuts sent into the 1926 contest were the best that had been seen up to that time, yet those received in the 1929 contest are so far ahead of those as to make us wonder if we shall again find a contest where the black walnuts received equal those received in 1929.
Most remarkable was the case of Mrs. E. W. Freel of Pleasantville, Iowa, who sent in black walnuts from four different trees, each one of which took a prize, No. 1 the first, No. 2 the second, No. 3 the eighth, and No. 4 the tenth, the first time in the history of the nut contests that anything approaching this record has occurred. This is also the first contest where a nut of any other black walnut species than Juglans nigra has come anywhere near the prize winners.
The score card used in the 1929 contest was the same as that used in the 1926 contest but with the constants recalculated as required because of nuts received in the meantime which made this necessary.
The prizes awarded are noted below:
There are some 32 other black walnuts worthy of honorable mention which were awarded from 55 points to 63 and which it is believedare worthy of experimental propagation. One of these is from A. E. Grobe, Chico, Cal., species, hindsii, total award 61 points, which is the only California black walnut of value sent in to the contests up to this time.
Nut notable for size were received from:
Mrs. R. F. Frye, Carthage, N. C., R. No. 1, Box 22, Wt, 38.0g, nigra, score 57.
C. T. Baker, Grandview, Ind., Wt. 31.8g, nigra, score 57.
A. P. Stockman, Lecompte, La., Wt. 36.7g, nigra, score 56.
Nuts notable for cracking quality were received from:
Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., CQC 100%, CQA 67.3%, total 38 points, nigra, 81 points total.
Mrs. J. A. Stillman, Mackeys, N. C., CQC 100%, CQA 65.3%, total 38 points, nigra, 81 points total.
J. U. Gellatly, Gellatly, B. C., Cold Stream No. 14, CQC 100%, CQA 40.0%, total 33 points, nigra, 55 points total.
Annie W. Wetzel, New Berlin, Pa., CQC 100%, CQA 37.8%, total 32 points, nigra, 72 points total.
A. F. Weltner, Point Marion, Pa., R. F. No. 1, CQC 100%, CQA 38.0%, total 32 points, nigra, 67 points total.
Mrs. A. Sim, Rodney, Ont., CQC 100%, CQA 39.3%, total 32 points, nigra, 55 points total.
Nut notable for high percentage of kernel:
Ferdinand Huber, Cochrane, Wis., 32.8% 12 points, species nigra, total award 49 points.
Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., Nut. No. 1, 31.6% 11 points, species nigra, total award 81 points.
Attractive color of kernel:
While a number were awarded four points out of a possible 5, none of the black walnuts sent in were especially notable in this respect.
This is the first lot of hickories that has come in for a contest conducted by the Association in a number of years. The last contest, that of 1926, was for black walnuts only. It is true that at the meeting of the judges who passed on the black walnuts entered in the 1926 contest there were a number of fine hickories shown which had been received in the contest conducted by the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, but so far as the writer is aware we have to go back to 1919 to reach the last contest at which prizes were awarded for hickories.
The 1926 contest marked a notable change in the method of awarding prizes. As noted at some length under black walnuts, that score card was made simpler, by the judges who passed on the nuts received in the 1926 contest, by awarding points previously given for characteristics that seemed of less importance to others, so the hickory score card was carefully gone over to see if a similar change could not be made to advantage.
As it is believed that hickory nuts will be sold in the shell, as are pecans, it was not possible to do this to the same extent as with black walnuts. However, the characteristic "form," which is difficult if not almost impossible to estimate with any kind of precision, it was thought for the present at least might be disregarded. Husking quality is important but it was impossible to properly award points for this characteristic in a nut contest, because the nuts are husked before being sent in. The points allowed for excellence in these qualities were added to others, which gave 10 points to Cracking Quality Absolute instead of 5, and 25 points to Quality and Flavor of Kernel instead of 20.
It has been generally considered that a nut which is awarded 55 points, even though it took no prize, was worthy of experimental propagation. There were 40 hickories in the 1929 contest which were awarded 55 points or more. Of those actually awarded prizes for a combination of good qualities, twenty-one in number, thirteen were thought to be shagbarks, or it might be more exact to state that we had not sufficient evidence to think them to be otherwise, although some are suspected not to be pure Carya ovata, four were thought to beCarya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa), two were thought to be Carya ovalis, and two Carya laciniosa. In this contest the shagbarks showed up poorly, 68 being the highest score awarded, when from the number of entries one would have expected the highest to have been awarded 71 points or over. On the other hand this is the first contest where a prize has been awarded to a shellbark, Carya laciniosa. Among hickories awarded 54 points or over were five shellbarks, two of them large ones, one weighing 24.3g, 20 per lb. and one weighing 27.6g, 17 per lb.
The importance of this will be realized when we consider that, in the 1929 contest, out of 21 prize winning nuts four prizes were awarded to nuts believed to be Carya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa) and there were two or three others that may prove to be. While natural hickory hybrids are not particularly rare yet they are far from common. At one time, while on the levees north of Burlington, Iowa, the number of pecan x shellbark hybrids seen impressed the writer, yet a careful count showed these hybrids to be only about 1 hybrid in 100 pure pecans. Considerable experience in making or attempting to make hickory hybrids leads the writer to believe that the proportion of hickory hybrids will be much less than this. If, however, we assume it to be 1 in 100 and the fact that among this years meritorious nuts hybrids are 4 out of 21 or 1 out of 5, we would calculate that the chances of getting meritorious nuts out of hybrids is about 20 times as great as out of pure species. We really have not sufficient data at present to attempt to make such calculations yet the glimpse they give us of the promise of wonderful results from the systematic production of hybrid varieties between selected parents is most alluring.
The number of prizes awarded to Carya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa) shows a line of work of particular promise. We have plenty of good shagbarks, Carya ovata, and now that he have really good shellbarks, Carya laciniosa, of large size, fair cracking quality and good flavor which we never had before, we have selected material for the production of shagbark x shellbark hybrids, a class which has produced the Weiker hickory, four of the 1929 contest prize hickories and some other hickories of merit which have come to the attention of the writer during the past two or three years. As we have a number of good northern pecans we have also selected material for the production of pecan x shellbark hybrids, a class which has produced the McAllister pecan. If the 1929 contest does nothing more than to bring to light these fine shellbarks it is worth all it cost.
The contest also has shown some mockernuts of large size and better quality than ordinary but still not good enough to be in a class with the shellbarks noted above. The number of years that we have been testing hickories without getting good shellbarks leads us to hope that we will eventually get good mockernuts.
The prize winning hickories are noted below:
There are nearly as many others which came within two or three points of being prize winners and which it is believed should be propagated experimentally. These will be noted on the complete report. There are also the following which are notable for unusual excellence in one characteristic and which it is believed should be propagated experimentally and are here given honorable mention.
The last contest where prizes were offered for butternuts was that of 1919 and no nuts of value were entered. The 1929 contest has a number of unusually good ones.
The score card for butternuts was revised for this contest on the basis of the one adopted for the black walnut in the 1926 contest and the constants recalculated.
The prizes awarded are noted below:
At first it might be thought that but one species of nuts would be sent in as butternuts, and this was true up to 15 or 20 years ago. The chance hybrids of the Japan walnut and the butternut, named Juglans Bixbyi by Prof. C. S. Sargent of the Arnold Arboretum, resemble the butternut so much that as time grows on it is increasingly probable that these will be sent in as butternuts. One came in to the 1919 contest and it is thought that the Creitz of this contest may possibly be such.
The chestnuts received were relatively few in number but most of them were from sections where the blight had been present many years. Those that were from sections where this condition did not prevail were not allowed to enter. There were a few American chestnuts, some very good ones, from sections where the blight had not destroyed the native chestnut but these were not entered. As it happened all entered were of Japanese or Chinese species, which was somewhat of a disappointment to those who hope that a blight resistant American chestnut will yet be found. It certainly looks so far as if varieties of chestnuts for the blight area, of horticultural value, would be Japanese, Castanea crenata, or Chinese, Castanea mollissima.
The chestnuts were judged early and scions sent for in order to get a start on the second part of the chestnut problem, that of testing the resistance of these seemingly resistant varieties to the chestnut blight. The scions received were disappointing in quality and disappointing in the extent to which they were gotten started this year. The writer set scions on Chinese (mollissima) stock, Mr. Hershey set them on American (dentata) stock and the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture set them on Japanese (crenata) stock, but owing to the poor scions only part of them are growing. The writer got eight varieties out of twelve to start but it is questionable how they will do, for mollissima stock is thought to be good only for mollissima varieties and the varieties were all crenata, and so, while a start has been made on the problem of getting blight resistant chestnuts of horticultural value it is only a start and much work remains to be done.
The prizes awarded were as follows:
Never before, so far as the writer is aware, has there been a score card proposed for beechnuts, but the need of one is apparent and the following is suggested till a better one is found. It is not doubted that one will appear, for our present score cards for hickories, walnuts, etc., are the result of changes made as nuts received in the contests have shown such to be advisable, and work on the beechnut is 10 years or so behind that on other nuts.
Size is the most important characteristic in the beechnut, for all are thin shelled and practically all are well flavored. If we had a beechnut the size of a chestnut we should have a most valuable addition to our nuts. The points awarded for size have therefore been on the basis that eventually we would get a beechnut the size of a chestnut, although we are very far from that now. Forty points are allowed for size and it is figured that eventually we will get a beechnut 4 grams in weight which is the weight of a medium size chestnut. The constants used in figuring the number to be awarded for other characteristics require little comment for they are figured on the basis of existing nuts as constants have hitherto been calculated. The suggested score card is as follows:
The details and methods used in judging beechnuts this year, also the calculations of the constants and the details of the awards, will be typed for the report.
The prizes awarded were as follows:
It is not believed that nuts of Fagus sylvatica (European beech) will test out better, generally, than nuts of Fagus grandiflora (American beech) but the beechnuts were not tested till late, and the European beechnuts had been kept in a refrigerator, while the American beechnuts had not, which very likely may have been the cause for better retaining both the flavor and pellicle-removing quality, which made these nuts receive more points for these characteristics and so be awarded more points than the first four.
The meager results in getting beechnuts large enough to be of horticultural value in this contest, as well as in previous contests, and the failures of considerable effort on the part of the writer independently to locate large beechnuts, have caused him to put much thought on the matter and to have come to the conclusion that the search should be conducted in Europe as well as here, for the following reasons:
The beech in Europe is much more esteemed as a valuable tree than here, largely because of its value for fuel.
It has for many years, if not for centuries, been a tree that has been largely planted in those forests, state and private, which have been managed on the basis of sustained production, and it is not doubted that the men in charge are more familiar with the beech trees in the forests under their jurisdiction than is the case in America.
The European beech has shown the most amazing variation in color, size and shape of leaves, color of bark, and habits of growth,which have been perpetuated by grafting as ornamental varieties, and it seems likely that there are equal variations in the nuts which only remain to be discovered.
In short, while there may be no more large fruited beeches in Europe than here, it is believed that the chances of finding them are better.
James A. Neilson, East Lansing, Michigan.C. F. Walker, Cleveland Heights, Ohio.Mr. and Mrs. John W. Hershey, Downingtown, Pennsylvania.Mr. and Mrs. Harry R. Weber, Cincinnati, Ohio.Dr. and Mrs. G. A. Zimmerman, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.Mr. and Mrs. M. A. Yant, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.Mr. and Mrs. Newton H. Russell, Hadley Center, Massachusetts.Mr. and Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Iowa.Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Crissman, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Bingham, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.Mr. and Mrs. F. O. Harrington, Williamsburg, Iowa.Frank H. Frey, Chicago, Illinois.R. S. Herrick, Des Moines, Iowa.Arthur Huston, Cropsey, Illinois.Dr. W. C. Deming, Hartford, Connecticut.J. K. Hershey, Ronk, Pennsylvania.Hugh E. Williams, Ladora, Iowa.C. W. Bricker, Ladora, Iowa.Millard Harrington, Williamsburg, Iowa.Dr. J. Russell Smith, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania.Daniel Boyce, Winterset, Iowa.T. J. Maney, Ames, Iowa.J. F. Wilkinson, Rockport, Indiana.Snyder Brothers, Center Point, Iowa.Dr. R. J. Meyers, Moline, Illinois.Rev. L. D. Stubbs, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.Vance McCray, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.Ray Anderson, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.A. B. Anthony, Sterling, Illinois.George F. Stoltenberg, Moline, Illinois.John H. Witte, Murlington, Iowa.W. L. Van Meter, Adel, Iowa.Miss Elva Becker, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.N. F. Drake, Fayetteville, Arkansas.Prof. A. S. Colby, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.