Northern Nut Growers Association, Report of the Proceedings at the Seventh Annual Meeting
Author: Various
Previous Part     1  2  3
Home - Random Browse

THE PRESIDENT: Prof. Close, I have read part of the testimony.—I was not present at the meeting—and when one considers the number of things that were said at that meeting that are not so, and the amount of other evidence that has come up since, I think the defenders of the public will have the material to make a much stronger presentation than they did then, and, what is more, I think some of them will be there. Of course, when a man has a possibility of getting a quarter of a million dollars out of a lot of junk, he can spend money to hire people to say things, and when "the dear public" is paying nobody to go, as was the case last time, nobody goes. If that hearing comes again, I think some from this Association will be present.

PROF. CLOSE: That is just the point I want to bring up. You have got to be there with the information.

MR. LITTLEPAGE: I just want to say a word, rather endorsing what Professor Close has had to say. The Department of Agriculture, the quarantine board, or anybody else, can't go out of their limitations and get testimony. If we think there ought to be a quarantine, then, whenever there is a public invitation sent out, such as was sent out before, we ought to have the nerve to go down there before the Department officials and tell them the truth. It is very easy for us to stand up here and write papers and articles criticising the quarantine board and the Department of Agriculture. If we have anything to say about these things we ought to go down there and say it. If other people come there and present facts as a matter of record, the Board can't entirely go outside of those facts and decide a case right out of the clear sky. If this organization wants to be effective, it ought to appoint a committee to present those things before that Board.

Resolution adopted.

THE SECRETARY: I have had in mind some time the idea involved in this resolution, which I have hastily drawn up.

"Since the principles underlying the successful and economical propagation of nut trees are not yet thoroughly understood or generally known, and much effort is being wasted and much disappointment incurred in unsuccessful or partially successful efforts in propagation.

"Resolved, that it is the sense of this meeting that systematic and controlled experiments be made, under the direction of the Department of Agriculture, for the purpose of determining the principles underlying the successful propagation of nut trees in all sections of the country."

DR. ULMAN: Second that motion. (Carried.)

MR. C. A. REED: I would like to present an invitation to meet at Battle Creek.

MR. ROPER: Petersburg invites us to meet at Petersburg.

THE PRESIDENT: Those matters are settled by the Executive Committee.

MR. T. P. LITTLEPAGE: Would it not be well, Mr. President, to determine upon a meeting place now, and let it be known, so that everybody can prepare for it? Being a member of the Executive Committee, I would prefer myself that the Association take the responsibility for deciding the meeting place. If these meeting places are selected in advance, it makes it possible for a good many people to plan their vacation trips to fit in. In order to get the matter before the Association, I move that the Society determine right now the next meeting place. (Seconded.)

MR. OLCOTT: I think Mr. Littlepage's motion is of more than ordinary importance. The Association, heretofore, has left that matter, very properly, perhaps, to the Executive Committee. The result is that little or no attention is given to the place of meeting until thirty or ninety days before the date of that meeting. It would be very much better if we knew several months ahead about the meeting, and I think we would have a larger attendance and more enthusiasm. The American Association of Nurserymen names the date at the time of their meeting for the following meeting, and most other organizations do the same, and the results are quite perceptible.

(Motion carried.)

THE SECRETARY: We have an invitation from the Evansville Chamber of Commerce, one from the San Francisco Convention League, to meet at San Francisco, one from Sears, Roebuck & Company, to meet in Chicago, and enjoy a luncheon at their expense and a trip through their plant; one from Dr. Morris to meet at his place, or to meet at Stamford and spend as much time as possible on his place. We could meet in New York City and visit Dr. Morris' place very comfortably. We have an invitation from Petersburg, Va.; one to meet with Dr. Kellogg, at Battle Creek, Mich., and one from Mr. Rush to meet at Lancaster, Pa. We have had under consideration a proposition to meet somewhere in the South, possibly with the Southern Nut Growers. Those are all the invitations that I know of.

MR. C. A. REED: May I make a remark right here? It seems to me that before we decide on the place of meeting we ought to take into consideration what we are going to any of these places to accomplish, and the time of year that we want to go there. Now, if we go to Lancaster, or to almost any of these other places, we ought to have a summer meeting when we can go out and see the trees, but if we go up to Battle Creek we could just as well go there in the winter time. The purpose of going there, as I understand it, would be to lay emphasis on the subject of nuts for food. Whether we want to take our time now for a meeting, to emphasize that, or whether we want to see nut trees growing and discuss cultural problems, is a question to be decided.

THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of a definite method of procedure on this question, which we never before handled in this way, the chair is entirely willing to receive instructions, but I suggest that we have a rising vote for one place after another, and that the place receiving the greatest number of votes gets the convention.

MR. M. P. REED: We have seen trees in nurseries for several years, and I think that now we ought to select some place where we can get other and broader ideas on nuts. I think Battle Creek would be the best place.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other favorite son or neighbor wish to make a speech in favor of his own or nearby city?

MR. HENRY STABLER: It appeals to me very strongly to see Dr. Morris' experimental grounds at Stamford, Connecticut. As I understand it, he has the greatest collection of nut-bearing trees in the United States, and looking over this would help us in a fine way.

MR. JAMES H. KYNER: Mr. President, I am not a member of this Association, but for a number of years I have been trying to grow nuts. I am very much interested in the subject, and I would like to know if I have any rights on this floor.

MR. LITTLEPAGE: It costs you two dollars to vote.

MR. KYNER: All right, I will just give two dollars.

MR. LITTLEPAGE: I move that the gentleman be accepted as a full member now and have full authority to make speeches. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: The gentleman will proceed to the making of his speech.

MR. KYNER: I have no speech. I simply want to vote "aye" for Stamford and New York.

(Vote taken.)

THE SECRETARY: The result is as follows: For Evansville, 2; Stamford, 10; Battle Creek, 3; Petersburg, 3; Lancaster, 1; for Chicago, San Francisco and the National Nut Growers, 0.

THE PRESIDENT: We are now ready, I believe, to proceed with the technical part of the programme. The chair would like to call for information as to the relative behavior of the Northern pecans, top-worked or transplanted. Is there, for example, any evidence anywhere as to the fruiting of any Northern pecan except on the parent tree?

MR. MCCOY: Mr. Wilkinson, in Indiana, has some top-worked bearing trees.

THE PRESIDENT: Unfortunately, they are right at home. What varieties has he?

MR. MCCOY: The Major.

THE PRESIDENT: And how old was it before he top-worked it?

MR. MCCOY: Three years, I think.


A MEMBER: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: The Major bore the fourth year, three years old. I believe that is the first record we have of that sort. Has any other borne?

MR. MCCOY: A good many of my young trees bloom in the nursery, but I don't think they succeeded in setting any nuts.

MR. M. P. REED: We have had some two-year trees in nursery, grafted. Most all of them bloomed when two years old—the staminate but not the pestillate blossoms.

THE PRESIDENT: I had a staminate blossom the third season on Butterick in northern Virginia.

MR. HENRY STABLER: Is there any difference between trees budded from young trees in the nursery row which are not in bearing, which have a growth very much resembling water-sprouts, and those budded from bearing trees?

PROF. HUTT: Mr. President, I can't give any experimental data on that line, but the common practice of nurserymen in taking their bud-wood from the nursery stock has been in use for years and years, as with peaches. Very seldom do the nurserymen go to the original trees and get their buds, but it is cut from nursery stock, because it is in a fine condition to work. I think that trees propagated from young, vigorous wood, cut in the nursery, are all right. I am not so sure as to how long it is before they come into bearing.

MR. HENRY STABLER: I don't mean to say it is an undesirable practice to bud from the nursery row, but is there any difference in the time of coming into bearing?

THE PRESIDENT: I spent a very considerable amount of time and money in that belief, but at State College, they made an elaborate test, and they have found no difference between the tree from a water-sprout and one from the bearing tree.

MR. JONES: It is not practicable to propagate very largely from young trees, either fruit trees or nut trees, but there is a good deal in maturity of the wood. The plan we follow is to have mature plots and graft from these old trees. That gives the best wood for nursery propagation.

THE PRESIDENT: Keeping the same tree?

MR. JONES: Yes, right along. That costs a little more money than to propagate from the nursery, but we think it is better. We get better results.

THE PRESIDENT: How have the different varieties of the northern pecan shown up with regard to speed of growth? At the present time we are practically ignorant as to which of seven or eight named and propagated varieties to count on. Apparently, the Busseron has the record for early bearing, with the Major as second. What about the record of the trees for making wood, not in the nursery row, but after it has been transplanted and put in the field? Is there any distinct leadership of one Northern pecan over another in making wood?

MR. LITTLEPAGE: If the members who go out to my place this afternoon will observe closely they will have a chance to see something of the tree growth for the first three years. They will have a chance to observe the Indiana, the Busseron, the Kentucky, the Green River, the Major and the Posey, with three year's growth. They will see a row of Green Rivers, some trees nine feet high, and others that haven't grown two feet. That is the individual tree variation, however. They will see certain characteristics running clear through.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Littlepage, it is a job to go and get exact results from another man's experimental ground. Which is the winner for speed, Mr. McCoy?

MR. MCCOY: Well, I know more about how they grow in the nursery than I do when transplanted. I haven't transplanted as many trees as Mr. Littlepage, but, of course, the tree will act very similarly in the nursery to what it does after you transplant it. We have learned at a glance to tell the difference in the varieties. We don't have to go to the books or to the stakes to tell each particular variety, as each variety has its distinguishing characteristics. For instance, the Kentucky and the Butterick and the Busseron are all inclined to grow up. I don't know why that should be true, but they all have the lumber characteristics. The Kentucky grows in the river bottoms surrounded by lumber trees. Now, the Posey doesn't grow very tall, but it grows a wonderful stocky, sturdy tree, and has leaf stems as long as my arm in the nursery. Of course, each particular wood has its color characteristics. But one thing I observed was that in the other nurseries they don't color up as they do in mine. For instance, at Mr. Jones', it will puzzle me sometimes to tell which variety it is by looking at the wood. Of course, after he would say "This is Butterick" or "Busseron," I could see, probably, the characteristics, but there is a little difference in the color of the wood.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you found any difference between these three trees as to attainment of height?

MR. MCCOY: Well, I suspect that the Butterick is the fastest grower of them.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the slowest?

MR. MCCOY: The Indiana, I guess.

A MEMBER: How does the Major behave?

MR. MCCOY: The Major is a very slender, tall tree. The Green River is inclined to be spreading.

THE PRESIDENT: That testimony as to the Indiana being a slow grower—does anybody verify it?

MR: LITTLEPAGE: Same thing in Maryland, Mr. President—slowest grower I have.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that sufficiently marked to make it best for us to hold up its propagation until it has shown some reason for being grown?

MR. LITTLEPAGE: I don't know. The Busseron and the Indiana, which is supposed to be a seedling of the Busseron—the Busseron outgrows the Indiana in Maryland five times. But the Indiana is a thin-husked nut. The Busseron, on the other hand, is a thick-husked nut, a fine place for the nut worm if he ever gets bad. There are a lot of such things that you have to think of.

MR. MCCOY: I visited most of these parent trees this year. They are all centered around Evansville. There is no crop on the Busseron. The Indiana will, perhaps, have a peck. In the month of May, in Kentucky, and Indiana, and Illinois, we had rains continually. I have often heard the expression from the Southern nurserymen that "the pecan is caught with the frost." Now, that is clear out of place with us. We all smile at the idea that an Illinois, Indiana or Kentucky pecan would be caught with the frost, which never affects them. But the rains always affect them. If the month of May is a beautiful, dry, clear month, you can gamble on the pecan crop. Now, this year we won't have much of a crop. The Warwick will have a gallon or two, and the Kentucky crop is a failure. The Green River and Major we didn't get to, but I suspect that very few of our own trees will have a crop this year.

MR. M. P. REED: Mr. McCoy, I was up there last week, and the Busseron has probably four times as many nuts as the Indiana. It has a light crop, while the Indiana has a very light crop. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCOY: When were you there, Mr. Reed?

MR. M. P. REED: Last Sunday.

MR. JONES: You can't judge a pecan by the growth of the tree. You take a pecan that makes a thick head and lots of limbs, and it is very likely to be a heavy bearer. On the other hand, a nurseryman likes a variety that makes a tree, you know.

THE PRESIDENT: On your criterion of a bunched top, which of these eight varieties we are now propagating is the most promising?

MR. JONES: The Butterick appeals to me.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the Posey in the same class?

MR. JONES: The Indiana makes a thick head.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other do that?

MR. JONES: The Green River is inclined to on the mature block, but not the first year in the nursery.

MR. LITTLEPAGE: Mr. President, in view of the fact that this meeting is reported, and that what we say will go into the official records to be read by lots of people who can't come and examine us, it might be understood that there would be some question about the bearing of these Northern pecan trees. As a matter of fact, I am surprised that any of them bore any nuts this year when I think how hard Mr. McCoy and Mr. Reed and myself have cut them for bud-wood. As a matter of fact, our opinion is that these Northern pecan trees are all excellent bearers, as the bearing reputation goes with pecan trees. I have watched them pretty carefully, and the best evidence of what I think of them is that I am setting them in my orchard. For fear that the minutes may leave the impression with some casual reader later that these trees bear a quart, and two gallons, I just want to say that if these gentlemen put into the record the amount of nuts that they know the Green River, the Butterick, the Posey and Major have borne—for instance, six weeks ago I bought sixty pounds of Posey nuts from a certain tree. The man who counted them counted 120 pounds on the tree, and if the boys around were as active as when I was a boy, I bet he didn't get more than half of them.

THE PRESIDENT: This is the time of year when the squirrels get nuts, and I expect they got after the trees, too.

MISS LOUISE LITTLEPAGE: Why does the rain affect the nuts, and why in that certain one month?

MR. MCCOY: In our latitude the pecan blooms somewhere near the twentieth of May, from that probably up to the twenty-fifth, and the pollen is scattered by the winds, and, if it rains at that particular time, the female bloom perishes, and we have no pecans. I think the pecan depends entirely upon the winds.

THE PRESIDENT: We have been hoping all the time that we would have a chance to hear from Prof. Hutt on the relation of the hickory stock to the pecan top. A good many persons have experimented with it, and papers are giving, from time to time, glowing accounts of the pecan tree on hickory roots. We would like to hear from Prof. Hutt.

PROF. HUTT: We haven't much data matured on that at present, Mr. President. It takes so long to get data on those subjects. We have a lot of trees budded on the stocks of water hickory and on the pecan, and we are testing them out. My theory was that the Hicoria aquatica, growing in wet, sour lands, would enlarge the range of probable production of pecans on such lands, and on lands on which the pecan, on its own roots, could not normally be grown, but our data are not matured yet. I think they have been three years in the nursery and two years set in the orchard. It will probably be four or five years before we get any exact data on that subject.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, Mr. C. A. Reed has investigated some of the later top-worked hickories.

MR. C. A. REED: That is an old question—pecan on hickory. It has been tried all over the South and the Southwest, and you will see some this afternoon at Mr. Littlepage's place. As a usual thing, the enthusiasm over pecan on hickory has run high while the experiment was new. The propagator has found that it was not a difficult thing to make the scions live, and, so long as the hickory stock is larger than the pecan scion, so that the feeding capacity is equal to, or even greater than, the consuming capacity of the scion, the outlook has been very satisfactory and encouraging, and while that stage has been going on a great deal has been written. A little later you hear less about it, and less and less, until, finally, you hear almost nothing. But I will say this, that there are sections in the Southwest where there is considerable enthusiasm over it just now. Just recently an article was published by Judge Frank Gwynn which was quite encouraging, and from his point of view it is. He is on high, hilly land, where he has no pecan trees, and he has been able to get nuts considerably sooner by top-working these dryland hickories—the mocker nut, or "bull nut," as it is known down there—and so far he is getting very satisfactory crops. But it is the consensus of opinion over the entire South, so far as I have observed it, that where there are pecan trees suitable for top-working, they answer much better, and the final outcome is very much more satisfactory with pecan on pecan than with pecan on hickory. Now, with pecan on Hicoria aquatica, which Prof. Hutt spoke of, I can cite you one instance which is very interesting south of Morgan City, Louisiana. Mr. Frank Beadle, I believe, was the name, top-worked a number of trees that were standing in water, and he also top-worked some that he had transplanted from the wet bottom to higher land. Those that were transplanted lived and bore nuts for quite a number of years. The last I knew they were bearing quite satisfactory crops, but those that were allowed to remain in the standing water died very shortly after the pecan top began to develop. The entire tree died.

THE PRESIDENT: That is, the pecan top killed the native right in its own habitat.

MR. C A. REED: That's right.

DR. STABLER: How about the acidity of the soil on that higher land? Was that tested?

MR. C. A. REED: Well, there would be so very little difference in the level of the soil that I imagine the acidity would be about the same. When I said "high land" I meant land that wasn't over-flowed.

DR. STABLER: Oh, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Reed, you made the qualified statement awhile ago that where a man had a choice between hickory and pecan stock for top-working, he should take the pecan. Now, in the North there are magnificent stands of native hickory—the Appalachians are full of it from end to end. Would you advise him not to bother with that?

MR. C. A. REED: There is another question that enters there. I don't believe that you can grow good pecans on hickory stocks on uplands where there is not moisture enough in the soil to grow good pecans on pecan stocks. It takes moisture to make pecans, and if there isn't enough in the upland soil to grow pecan trees on pecan roots I don't believe there is any evidence to indicate that you can get them on hickory roots.

MR. LITTLEPAGE: Mr. President, the hickory only grows about six or eight weeks every summer, and the pecan grows all summer. I think that answers the question.

PROF. HUTT: A case came up last year in the National Nut Growers' Association that was quite interesting. Mr. Smithwick, of Americus, Georgia, brought to the meeting and exhibited a number of varieties of pecan grown on hickory—fourteen varieties, standard varieties, grafted on a hickory tree, and they were remarkable for their small size. They were remarkably small—smaller than ordinary, woods-grown seedling pecans. There were Schleys and Delmas, and various other varieties that you could recognize by the form of the nuts, but exceedingly small. I believe Mr. Reed's point is the crux of the whole situation, that if you have a good supply of moisture they will make nuts of a pretty fair size, but unless the moisture supply is very large you get diminutive nuts. These were matured in the South. The hickory is such a slow grower in comparison with the pecan—that is, the common varieties—that it can't keep up with the pecan top.

MR. C. A. REED: Some of the nuts from that tree were on exhibition where you were this morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Then you have, practically, a dwarfing, with the dwarfing manifesting itself in the fruit rather than in the wood.

MR. C. A. REED: It did in that one instance, but, on the other hand, we have seen pecans grown on top-worked hickories that you could hardly tell from typical specimens of pecans grown on pecan stocks.

THE PRESIDENT: Isn't the bitternut several times as rapid in growth as the shagbark, or some others? That is, probably, one of the best stocks for the hickories if one wishes to experiment.

MR. C. A. REED: AS Colonel Van Duzee said last night, "there are a lot of things we don't know." This is one of them. I might quote a number of men who are right here in this audience to convince you that we don't any of us know much about nut culture today. I will quote Dr. Morris and Mr. Littlepage. We were talking about hickory nut varieties in Dr. Morris' office one night about the first of this year, when Mr. Littlepage made the remark that "the man who didn't change his mind every three years on nut culture didn't keep up with the game," and Dr. Morris replied that he had changed his mind so much in the last five years he had no respect for any man who believed what he said. Now, when you can't believe Dr. Morris, Colonel Van Duzee, or Dr. Smith, what are you going to do with the rest of us?

COL. VAN DUZEE: Mr. Reed, I didn't say what you said I did. I said: "There are so many things you already know that are not true." (Laughter.)

MR. C. A. REED: Well, now, I will quote another man, Dr. Curtis, one of the best known pecan men in the South. It was Dr. Curtis that I went to for my initial experience in pecans. The first I ever saw were in his orchard in Florida, and I asked him quite a good many questions, and he would tell me a story and go away. And I called him up one day, went into his orchard in harvest time when he was gathering the nuts in the hulls and taking them to the packing house. And I said "What is that for?" And he said "Don't you see those shuck worms all through the hulls here? I am throwing them out there to let the chickens get them." "Well," said I, "can you say you are getting rid of the shuck worms by doing that?" And he replied, "I can see, one year with another, that they are gradually getting less." A year later I went down there before he did. He was in Maine at the time, but his orchard trees were just alive with shuck worms, every variety almost eaten up with them. I said to him, when he came back, "I thought you were going to get rid of those shuck worms by feeding them to the chickens?" "Well, there it goes," he said, "you get a nice theory all worked out and some one comes along and asks you a simple little question that knocks it all in the head." And that is almost the unanimous experience. What you know you have got to qualify if you talk at all. I am getting to be such a pessimist I am not much good in the government any more. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: The one hope a college professor of my acquaintance has is when a student comes around and says he believes he doesn't know much. He regards that as the beginning of knowledge, and I think that Mr. Reed's confessions, and incriminations of the rest of us, show one thing, perhaps, better than anything else, and that is the great necessity of organizations of this sort in which many men who are trying many things in many ways come together and give the results of their observations. No doubt, this whole question of agriculture in general, and nuts in particular, is so complex, it is so run through and through with so many different controlling factors, and, with them, so many new things are constantly coming along, that we are all going to be handing down to our children and grandchildren a great and, perhaps, increasing host of problems to be investigated, and new realms in which knowledge can be piled up for the benefit of those who wish to use it.

COL. VAN DUZEE: Mr. President, may I talk half a minute? I can't help but feel that, perhaps, there may be some good brother or sister who may have been over-impressed with the difficulties, who might have been discouraged, who might have left this meeting, perhaps, and failed to see what this meeting is for—to stimulate the planting of nut trees. Notwithstanding the emphasis that has been put on all these things, notwithstanding the difficulties and disappointments that we are all laboring under at the present time, I feel that we have a wonderful industry ahead of us. I can't see any reason in the world why we should not go on within our means, wisely planting nut trees. It doesn't make any difference if you are seventy-five or eighty years old, plant nut trees, because they will be a constant pleasure to you, and, ultimately, a benefit to some one else.

MR. LITTLEPAGE: Mr. President—

THE PRESIDENT: This is Mr. Littlepage, ladies and gentlemen. (Laughter.)

MR. LITTLEPAGE: That is a very important suggestion that you just made. If you were to ask the average groceryman in Washington City whether he wanted his son to go into the grocery business he would say no. If you asked a lawyer if you should make a lawyer out of your son, if the lawyer looks back over the drudgery and years of toil that it takes to make a lawyer, he would undoubtedly hesitate to recommend it, and if you asked a doctor or a college professor a similar question, they, no doubt, would steer you clear away from a university. And so, Mr. President, if you stand back on the difficulties in these things, there would be not only no grocerymen, but no lawyers, no doctors, no dentists, and, perhaps, nobody working for the government. (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I want to take the liberty of using thirty seconds in this period of exhortation and confession to come in on the same strain. After all, what is life for? How many of us want the thing that is dead easy, and how many of us want the job with nothing to do? We all, in a certain lazy mood, say we want something easy and want to rest, but if there is anything on earth that a man shuns above all else it is that little room with absolutely nothing to do, namely, a cell. When they want to break a man they don't put him at hard labor on the stone pile; they put him in a little room with nothing to do. The youngster who plays doesn't want a dead easy game. He builds a house, and, when he has done with it, bang, he doesn't want the house he wanted to build. And I must confess that if it were perfectly plain sailing and you could plant out all these nut trees and have them grow like fury, it would not be much fun. It is a fact that men like to achieve and experiment; men like effort. Suppose everybody in this country retired and could put up his feet and do nothing, there wouldn't be a name in the paper the next morning. Mr. Hughes, President Wilson, Mr. Taft, Mr. Brandies, and all of the great men who are doing things in this world would all be gone fanning themselves quietly. This world is run by men who don't have to work; they work for fun. So I wish to submit that the tree—if a man happens to be built to love plants that grow—that the tree is one of the great avenues of fun.

MR. WEBER: Mr. President, along the same line of thought, I wish to express my views with what Colonel Van Duzee has had to say. If we were to attend a convention of surgeons and hear different diseases and ailments of the body discussed, we would probably all be disposed to think that we were standing on the tip-end of the diving board into eternity beyond. But people keep on living just the same, notwithstanding the knocking of the doctors, and the diseases to which we are subject, and trees will keep on growing just the same, notwithstanding their diseases and various other troubles, and so I think no one should be discouraged.

THE SECRETARY: I just want to add my little encouragement. In spite of all the failure that I have had, and they have been many, in spite of the reports of failures of others and the pessimism of others, I have the same abiding faith in the future of nut growing, and just the same enthusiasm for it that I had in the beginning, if not greater. (Applause.)

MR. KYNER: Mr. President, I came here to get information on a matter that I am very much interested in. At seventy years of age I have become interested in nut growing—in nut culture. (Applause.) I am not planting particularly for myself, not that I expect to get any harvest from these trees, but I do want to see them bear fruit—bear nuts. I want to plant the right kind of trees. I have joined this Association; I intend to retain a membership in it as long as the Association lives. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: My dear sir, that will cost you twenty dollars for a life membership. (Laughter.)

MR. KYNER: And I want to get all the information that the Association has. Now, if I can get it in fifteen or twenty minutes, why, let me have it. (Laughter.) I bought Persian walnuts at a nursery, cultivated them, and watched them, walked around them and looked at them, and along came a winter and killed them. I bought them from a Rochester nursery. Now, they didn't grow them there. They must have grown them somewhere else. If they had been grown in a Rochester nursery they would have withstood the severity of a Maryland winter. Now, there is something wrong there. This Association should take this matter up with that nursery. They should not be allowed to take people's money and give them chaff for it. I am saying this for the benefit of some of our members here who are growing nut trees for sale.

THE PRESIDENT: May I give you a bit of information here? We have a list of accredited nurserymen. This Association has a list of nurserymen in whose trees we think we can place more confidence than in some others.

MR. KYNER: I would like to get that. But now I have set out a whole lot of these Persian walnuts, and pecans, filberts, Japanese walnuts, etc., and I guess every one of them is a seedling, and I don't know what I have, and I don't know how many varieties of Japanese walnuts there are. I supposed a Japanese walnut was a Japanese walnut, and that that was all there was to it. But I get some trees from one nursery, and some from another, and they grow up and aren't alike at all. Now, I haven't so very awfully long to be in the business of setting out nut growing trees, and I want to get the right kind, and I want this Association's assistance in that matter, and while you are assisting me you are assisting people all over the country. Men and women everywhere are interested in nut growing. They want nut trees, but how are they going to know that they are getting what they want? I believe it is up to this Association to help them get the right kind of stuff. I came in here purposely to get your help.

THE PRESIDENT: You go on the excursion this afternoon and you will find plenty of men there that will take pleasure in explaining some of these things to you. Our plan is to go at one o'clock from the corner of Fourteenth and H streets to the grounds of Mr. Littlepage, who has practically all the good varieties of northern pecans growing there, and on the trip will be men who can answer most every question you want to know. I think that brings us to the point of adjournment.

COL. VAN DUZEE: Mr. President, I move we adjourn.

A MEMBER: Second the motion.

THE PRESIDENT: The meeting stands adjourned.


Letter From W. C. Reed, Vice-President of the Association.


It is with the deepest feelings of regret that I am compelled to be absent from what I trust may be one of the most profitable meetings of the Association. It is impossible for me to be present, owing to the fact that I have been summoned on a case in court in Wisconsin.

Having been honored as your Vice-President, I felt it my duty to attend and do what I could to help make this our best meeting, but fate ruled otherwise. Though absent in person, I assure you my thoughts and best wishes will be with you while wandering about the Nation's Capital, viewing its magnificent parks and basking under the shade of its stately Persian walnuts.

The interest in nut culture is widespread. We have had inquiries from many foreign countries, one of the last from near Bombay, British India.

I have arranged with the Indiana Apple Show, which is to be held at West Baden, Indiana, November 14th to 20th, for ample space for a nut exhibit. Anyone having nuts for exhibition should send them to me at Vincennes prior to these dates, or write for information, and I will try and arrange for premiums.


The present summer has been of extremes, very cold and wet early, followed by extreme heat and drouth. Foliage of all kinds not as good as usual. Nut trees, however, have made a very good growth, not as heavy as last year on younger trees.

Winter, 1915-16, while not extremely cold, was very hard on many kinds of trees, owing to the fact that the previous summer and fall were very wet. Most fruit trees went into winter full of sap, with buds in weakened condition. Pecan buds came through in good shape with a very fair stand in nursery, and one-year trees were not injured a particle. Pecan bloom was very fair, crop, generally seems to be light, in fact such is the case with all kinds of nut trees, generally, and most fruit trees. Pecan trees set in orchard 2 and 3 years ago are making a good growth.


Stand of buds in nursery poor; stand of grafts this spring very good where we used good, strong scions of well matured wood, 60 to 75 per cent, and in some cases Mayette was better than that. Where Eastern scions were used from old trees, stand of grafts very poor. All one-year English walnut trees in nursery came through in good shape. Eastern varieties began to vegetate or burst into growth April 15; Mayette and Franquette, May 1; Parisienne, May 5, and one tree from Grenoble, France, grown from scion sent from Department of Agriculture, May 25. These French varieties, I feel, are very promising, owing to the fact that they will escape late frosts. English walnut trees in orchard set 3 years ago, fourth summers growth, doing splendidly, 2 to 4 feet of growth, foliage perfect, varieties, Hall, Rush, Nebo and Burlington. Top-worked trees, 3-year tops doing nicely of Hall, Rush, Mayette and two or three other Eastern varieties. Grafting in nursery done from May 15 to 25, was best after stocks were in full leaf.


We have usually had best success grafting May 5 to 12, but this year, being a late spring, we did not commence general grafting of pecans until the 12th, and it seems to have been too late. Stand very poor, a few grafts set early in May with old wood, about 40 per cent. stand. We find old wood gives much better stand on pecans, and new wood on English walnuts.


Grafted quite a number of Stabler Black Walnuts, which were almost a failure. Thomas done better, but still poor. However, larger scions gave best results and have made splendid growth, many 5 to 6 feet, very strong. Buds of Thomas set last fall failed to start well. It seems we have something to learn in the propagation of the Black Walnut, as it has proved more difficult than the English.


Two years ago we received some buds of the Ridenhauer Almond from Department of Agriculture. Some of these buds were set on a bearing peach tree; these have borne a good crop this summer, and were gathered August 20, some of which are on the exhibition tables. These seem to bear very young, of good quality, a very strong grower and very hardy; do not consider them of any commercial value, but for family use are very good.


During the past year I have received photographs and description of the pecan trees 12 miles south of Lincoln, Nebraska, and of two trees on the grounds of E. Y. Grupe, of Lincoln. These trees are 20 years old, some having been bearing regular crops for the past 10 years. This season's crop is a failure owing to continuous cold rain at blooming time. The nuts on one of these trees are of fair size and quality.

With kindest regards to the many friends in the Association, and trusting that I may have the pleasure of greeting all at our next annual meeting, I am,

Respectfully yours,




Of all really valuable foodstuffs nuts are the least used and the least appreciated. In fact, nuts can hardly be said to constitute a part of the national bill of fare for the reason that when eaten at all they are taken as luxuries or deserts and not as staple foods. But the nut possesses special properties which entitle it to first consideration as a foodstuff, and the writer has no doubt that some time in the future nuts will become a leading constituent of the national bill of fare, and in so doing, will displace certain foodstuffs which today are held in high esteem, but which in the broader light of the next century will be regarded as objectionable and inferior foods and will give place to the products of the various varieties of nut trees which will then be estimated at their true worth, the very choicest of all substances capable of sustaining human life. Botanically, a nut is a fruit, but nuts differ so widely both in composition and appearance from the foods commonly called fruits that they are properly placed in a class by themselves.

In nutritive value the nut far exceeds all other food substances; for example, the average number of food units per pound furnished by half a dozen of the more common varieties of nuts is 3231 calories, while the average of the same number of varieties of cereals is 1654 calories, half the value of nuts. The average food value of the best vegetables is 300 calories per pound and of the best fresh fruits grown in this country is 278 calories. The average food value of the six principal flesh foods is 810 calories per pound, or one-fourth that of nuts.

The superior nutritive value of nuts is clearly shown by the accompanying tables based upon the analyses of Atwater and other authorities.



Composition and Fuel Value of the Edible Portion. Food Edible Carbohy- Value Refuse. Portion. Water. Protein. Fats. drates. Ash. per lb. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Cal.

Almonds 64.8 35.2 4.8 21.0 54.9 17.3 2.0 3,030 Brazil nuts 49.6 50.4 5.3 17.0 66.8 7.0 3.9 3,328 Filberts 52.1 47.9 3.7 15.6 65.3 13.0 2.4 3,432 Hickory nuts 62.2 37.8 3.7 15.4 67.4 11.4 2.1 3,495 Pecan nuts 53.2 46.8 3.0 11.0 71.2 13.3 1.5 3,633 English walnuts. 58.0 42.0 2.8 16.7 64.4 14.8 1.3 3,305 Chestnuts, fresh. 16.0 84.0 45.0 6.2 5.4 42.1 1.3 1,125 Chestnuts, dried. 24.0 76.0 5.9 10.7 7.0 74.2 2.2 1,875 Acorns 35.6 64.4 4.1 8.1 37.4 48.0 2.4 2,718 Beechnuts 40.8 59.2 4.0 21.9 57.4 13.2 3.5 3,263 Butternuts 86.4 13.6 4.5 27.9 61.2 3.4 3.0 3,371 Walnuts 74.1 25.9 2.5 27.6 56.3 11.7 1.9 3,105 Cocoanuts 48.8 51.2 14.1 5.7 50.6 27.9 1.7 2,986 Cocoanuts, shredded, ... 100.0 3.5 6.3 57.3 31.6 1.3 3,125 Pistachios, kernels ... 100.0 4.2 22.6 54.5 15.6 3.1 3,010 Pine nuts or pinons 40.6 59.4 3.4 14.6 61.9 17.3 2.8 3,364 Peanuts, raw 24.5 75.5 9.2 25.8 38.6 24.4 2.0 2,560 Peanuts, roasted 32.6 67.4 1.6 30.5 49.2 16.2 2.5 3,177 Litchi nuts 41.6 58.4 17.9 2.9 .2 77.5 1.5 1,453



Calories Water. Protein. Fat. per lb. Beef ribs 43.8 13.9 21.2 1,135 Porterhourse steak 52.4 19.1 16.1 975 Veal cutlet 68.3 20.1 7.5 695 Mutton 51.2 15.1 14.7 890 Mutton chops 42. 13.5 28.3 1,415 Lamb 52.9 15.9 13.6 860 Pork chops 41.8 13.4 24.2 1,245 Ham, smoked 34.8 14.2 33.4 1,635 Bacon, smoked 17.4 9.1 62.2 2,715 Sausage, Frankfort 57.2 19.6 18.9 1,155 Beef soup 92.9 4.4 0.4 120 Chicken (fowl) 47.1 13.7 12.3 765 Goose 38.5 13.4 29.8 1,475 Turkey 42.4 16.1 18.4 1,060 Duck 51.7 14.3 33.4 1,805 Squab 58. 18.6 22.1 1,480 Guinea hen 69.1 23.1 6.5 870 Quail 65.9 25. 6.8 935



Carbohy- Food Protein. Fat. drates. Ash. Value Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. per lb. Flour, meal, etc.: Entire wheat flour 13.8 1.9 71.9 1.0 1,650 Graham flour 13.3 2.2 71.4 1.8 1,645 Wheat Flour, patent roller process —high grade and medium 11.4 1.0 75.1 .5 1,635 Macaroni, vermicelli, etc. 13.4 .9 74.1 1.3 1,645 Wheat breakfast food 12.1 1.8 75.2 1.3 1,680 Buckwheat flour 6.4 1.2 77.9 .9 1,605 Rye flour 6.8 0.9 78.7 .7 1,620 Corn meal 9.2 1.9 75.4 1.0 1,635 Oat breakfast food 16.7 7.3 66.2 2.1 1,800 Rice 8.0 .3 79.0 .4 1,620 Tapioca .4 .1 88.0 .1 1,650 Starch .. .. 90.0 .. 1,675



Carbohy- Water. Protein. Fat. drates. Calories Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. per lb. Beans, dried 12.6 22.5 1.8 59.6 1,520 Beans, lima ... ... .. ... .... Beans, string 83.0 2.1 .3 6.9 170 Beets 70.0 1.3 .1 7.7 160 Cabbage 77.7 1.4 .2 4.8 115 Celery 75.6 .9 .1 2.6 65 Corn, green (sweet), edible portion 75.4 3.1 1.1 19.7 440 Cucumbers 81.1 .7 .2 2.6 65 Lettuce 80.5 1.0 .2 2.5 65 Mushrooms 88.1 3.5 .4 6.8 185 Onions 78.9 1.4 .3 8.9 190 Parsnips 66.4 1.3 .4 10.8 230 Peas 74.6 7.0 0.5 16.9 440 Potatoes 62.6 1.8 .1 14.7 295 Rhubarb 56.6 .4 .4 2.2 60 Sweet potatoes 55.2 1.4 .6 21.9 440 Spinach 92.3 2.1 .3 3.2 95 Squash 44.2 .7 .2 4.5 100 Tomatoes 94.3 .9 .4 3.9 100




Kind of Fruit. Nitrogen- Carbo- Fuel Ether free hy- Crude value Water. Protein. extract extract. drates. fiber. Ash. per lb. Fresh Fruits. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Cal.

Apples 84.6 0.4 0.5 13.0 ... 1.2 0.3 290 Apricots 85.0 1.1 ... ... 13.4 ... .5 270 Avocado 81.1 1.0 10.2 ... 6.8 ... .9 512 Bananas 75.3 1.3 .6 21.0 ... 1.0 .8 460 Blackberries 86.3 1.8 1.0 8.4 ... 2.5 .5 270 Cactus fruit 79.2 1.4 1.3 11.7 ... 3.7 2.7 375 Cherries 80.9 1.0 .8 16.5 ... .2 .6 365 Cranberries 88.9 .4 .6 8.4 ... 1.5 .2 215 Currants 85.0 1.5 ... ... 12.8 ... .7 265 Figs 79.1 1.5 ... ... 18.8 ... .6 380 Gooseberries 85.6 1.0 ... ... 13.1 ... .3 255 Grapes 77.4 1.3 1.6 14.9 ... 4.3 .5 450 Guava 82.9 1.3 .7 8.0 ... 6.6 .5 315 Huckleberries 81.9 .6 .6 ... 16.6 ... .3 345 Lemons 89.3 1.0 .7 7.4 ... 1.1 .5 205 Mango 87.4 .6 .4 9.9 ... 1.2 .5 220 Muskmelons 89.5 .6 ... 7.2 ... 2.1 .6 185 Nectarines 82.9 .6 ... ... 15.9 ... .6 305 Olives 67.0 2.5 17.1 5.7 ... 3.3 4.4 407 Oranges 86.9 .8 .2 ... 11.6 ... .5 240 Peaches 89.4 .7 .1 5.8 ... 3.6 .4 190 Pears 80.9 1.0 .5 15.7 ... 1.5 .4 163 Persimmons (Japanese) 80.2 1.4 .6 15.1 ... 2.1 .6 174 Pineapples 89.3 .4 .3 9.3 ... .4 .3 200 Plums 78.4 1.0 ... ... 20.1 ... .5 395 Pomegranates 76.8 1.5 1.6 16.8 ... 2.7 .6 461 Prunes 79.6 .9 ... ... 18.9 ... .6 370 Raspberries (red) 85.8 1.0 ... 9.7 ... 2.9 .6 255 Rhubarb stalks 94.4 .6 .7 2.5 ... 1.1 .7 105 Strawberries 90.4 1.0 .6 6.0 ... 1.4 .6 180 Watermelons 92.4 .4 .2 ... 6.7 ... .3 140

With the exception of smoked bacon, there is no flesh food which even approaches the nut in nutritive value, and bacon owes its high value to the fact that it consists almost exclusively of fat.

That the nut is appreciated as a dainty is attested by the frequency with which it appears as a desert and the extensive use of various nuts as confections. That nuts do not hold a more prominent place in the national bill of fare is due chiefly to two causes; first, the popular idea that nuts are highly indigestible, and second, their comparatively high price.

The notion that nuts are difficult of digestion has really no foundation in fact. The idea is probably the natural outgrowth of the custom of eating nuts at the close of a meal when an abundance, more likely a superabundance, of highly nutritious foods has already been eaten and the equally injurious custom of eating nuts between meals. Neglect of thorough mastication must also be mentioned as a possible cause of indigestion following the use of nuts. Nuts are generally eaten dry and have a firm hard flesh which requires thorough use of the organs of mastication to prepare them for the action of the several digestive juices. Experiments made in Germany showed that nuts are not digested at all but pass through the alimentary canal like foreign bodies unless reduced to a smooth paste in the mouth. Particles of nuts the size of small seeds wholly escaped digestion.

Having been for more than fifty years actively interested in promoting the use of nuts as a staple food, I have given considerable thought and study to their dietetic value and have made many experiments. About twenty-five years ago it occurred to me that one of the above objections to the extensive dietetic use of nuts might be overcome by mechanical preparation of the nut before serving so as to reduce it to a smooth paste and thus insure the preparation for digestion which the average eater is prone to neglect. The result was a product which I called peanut butter. I was much surprised at the readiness with which the product sprang into public favor. Several years ago I was informed by a wholesale grocer of Chicago that the firm's sales of peanut butter amounted on an average to a carload a week. I think it is safe to estimate that not less than one thousand carloads of this product are annually consumed in this country. The increased demand for peanuts for making peanut butter led to the development of "corners" in the peanut market and more than doubled the price and must have had an equally marked influence upon the annual production.

I am citing my experience with the peanut not for the purpose of recommending this product, for I am obliged to confess that I was soon compelled to abandon the use of peanut butter prepared from roasted nuts, for the reason that the process of roasting renders the nut indigestible to such a degree that it was not adapted to the use of invalids, but simply as an illustration of the readiness with which the public accepts a new dietetic idea when it happens to strike the popular fancy. Ways must be found to render the use of nuts practical by adapting them to our culinary and dietetic customs and to overcome the popular objections to their use by a widespread and efficient campaign of education.

Attention has already been called to the superior nutritive value of the nut. It has other excellencies well worthy of consideration; for example, the protein of nuts is of the very choicest character. Recent investigations by Rubner, Osborne, Mendel, and others have shown that every plant produces its own special varieties of proteins. There is indeed a wide difference even between the proteins of various cereals and the proteins of many vegetables differ so widely in character from those of the human body that it is doubtful whether to any extent they can be utilized for human nutrition. Fortunately the potato is in this regard an exception and furnishes a very excellent type of protein. This objection does not apply to nuts. The proteins of nuts are in fact so very closely allied to those of the animal body that food chemists of a generation ago referred to the protein of nuts as vegetable casein because of its exceedingly close resemblance to the protein of milk.

The fats of nuts, their leading food principle, are the most digestible of all forms of fat. Having a high melting point, they are far more digestible than animal fats of any sort. The indigestibility of beef and mutton fat has long been recognized. The fat of nuts much more closely resembles human fat than do fats of the sort mentioned. The importance of this will be appreciated when attention is called to the fact that fats entering the body do not undergo the transformation changes which take place in other foodstuffs; for example, protein in the process of digestion is broken into its ultimate molecular units. Starch is transformed into sugar, which serves as fuel to the body, but fats are so slightly modified in the process of digestion and absorption that after reaching the blood and the tissues they are reconstructed into the original form in which they are eaten; that is, beef fat is deposited in the tissues as beef fat without undergoing any chemical change whatever; mutton fat is deposited as mutton fat; lard as pig fat, etc. When the body makes its own fat from starch and sugar, the natural source of this tissue element, the product formed is sui generis and must be better adapted to the body uses than the animal fat which was sui generis to a pig, a sheep, or a goat. It is certainly a pleasant thought that one who rounds out his figure with the luscious fatness of nuts may felicitate himself upon the fact that his tissues are participating in the sweetness of the nut rather than the relics of the sty and the shambles. It is true that nuts are poor in carbohydrates; that is, they contain no starch and little sugar, but this deficiency can be easily supplied by fruits, as will be readily seen by reference to Table V.

Of the three great food principles required for human nutrition, protein, fats, and carbohydrates, the nut supplies two—protein and fats in rich abundance, and of very finest quality. The amount of protein found in fruits with very few exceptions is so small as to be insignificant; fats are practically wholly absent from fruits, while sugar and dextrine are abundant. Fruits are thus the natural complement of nuts.

The amount of protein contained in nuts is, with two or three exceptions, small as compared with meats, and even some of the cereals; but the studies of nutrition which have been made within the last score of years by Chittenden and numerous other investigators have clearly established the fact that protein which is chiefly represented in the ordinary bill of fare by lean meat, is needed only in very small amount. If the amount of protein eaten equals ten per cent of the total ration the body will receive an abundant supply of material for repairing its nitrogenous tissues, the only function for which protein is essential. Some nuts, as the pine nut and the peanut, are rich in protein. A pound of pine nuts contains as much protein as a pound and a half of lean meat, besides furnishing the equivalent to two-thirds of a pound of butter. The almond is also rich in protein.

But nuts have another special excellence which is worthy of consideration. Recent researches have shown the paramount importance of vitamines—certain subtle elements which are needed to activate or set in operation various processes within the body which are essential to complete nutrition. The vitamines of rice and other cereals are removed with the bran; hence an exclusive diet of polished rice gives rise to beriberi. Meat contains vitamines in very small amounts, for vitamines are produced only by plants. The vitamines found in flesh foods represent only the small residue of the supplies which the animal gathered from the grass, corn and other vegetable products which constitute its food.

Twenty years ago, when the diet of sailors consisted chiefly of salt pork, scurvy was a dread scourge which often disabled whole ship crews and sent many a poor seaman into "Davy Jones' locker." The cooking of animal foods destroys the vitamines which they contain. Infants suffer from scurvy when fed on sterilized or pasteurized milk. There is good reason for believing that pellagra is due to a deficiency of vitamines, which are conspicuously absent from a dietary consisting of "sow belly," molasses, tea, coffee, lard, cornmeal, fine flour and polished rice.

Nuts are rich in vitamines. In fact, the nut consists of the choicest aggregation of all the materials essential for the building of sound human tissues, done up in a hermetically sealed package ready to be delivered by the gracious hand of Nature to those who are fortunate enough to appreciate the value of this choicest of all earth's bounties.

As already noted, nuts consist almost wholly of the two principles, fat and protein. The same is true of meats. Nuts contain more fat and less protein and in this particular as well as others which have been mentioned are better prepared to serve as nutrients to the body than are meats. Besides, nuts have the advantage of being clean, free from the products of disease and putrefaction. Meats of all sorts, as found in the market, with the exception of canned meats, abound with putrefactive bacteria to an astonishing degree. This is true of dried, smoked and salted meats as well as of the fresh meats and game which are displayed upon the walls of the meat shop. An examination of various meats made some time ago by A. W. Nelson, bacteriologist of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, showed the presence of putrefactive bacteria in almost unbelievable numbers, as will be seen by an inspection of the following table:


No. Putrefactive Specimen. Bacteria per ounce.

1. Large sausage 12,600,000,000 2. Small sausage 19,890,000,000 3. Round steak 16,800,000,000 4. Roast beef 16,800,000,000 5. Smoked ham 1,293,600,000 6. Hamburger steak 3,870,000,000 7. Pork 3,781,200,000 8. Porterhouse steak 900,000,000 9. Sirloin steak 11,340,000,000 10. Tenderloin (well done) 756,000,000 11. Tenderloin (rare) 5,040,000,000

Repeated subsequent examinations have given similar results. These results also agree with observations made by various other German and American bacteriologists. Decomposition of animal flesh begins immediately after the animal dies. Within twenty-four hours after killing, even though the carcass is kept in an ice box or refrigerater, the whole mass is permeated with putrefactive bacteria. Refrigeration even to a point close to freezing delays but does not prevent the growth of putrefactive organisms although at lower temperatures the usual volatile products which give notice of the presence of putrefaction by an odor of decay are not produced. Persons whose stomachs manufacture a liberal amount of hydrochloric acid, an essential constituent of healthy gastric juice, are able to disinfect even highly putrescent meat, so that they apparently do not suffer any immediate injury when such meat enters the stomach. In a stomach which produces little or no hydrochloric acid, the process of putrefaction continues all the way through the alimentary canal, giving rise to the same poisonous substances which are present in the putrefying carcass of a dead rat or any other dead animal, and produces intestinal or alimentary toxemia with the multitude of mischiefs which grow out of this condition, among which may be mentioned all sorts of skin troubles, high blood-pressure, apoplexy, premature senility, Bright's disease, heart failure, gallstones—a list which might be increased by the addition of scores of other common, chronic maladies.

When one recalls the statement made before the congressional committee by the chief of the United States meat inspection service that if all animals, any part of which was diseased, were rejected by inspectors, not more than one in a hundred would pass muster; and when one also reflects upon the wide prevalence of tuberculosis in animals,—at least ten per cent of all the cows in the country are known to be tuberculous,—and the growing prevalence of tapeworm and trichinae, diseases which are exclusively derived from the eating of flesh, and then contemplates the purity and perfection of the choice little food packets which we call nuts, it is easy to be persuaded that a substitution of nuts for flesh foods, even on a very large scale, would be not only a perfectly safe procedure, but one which would be followed by the most desirable results.

The use of nuts as a staple article of food is not an experiment. All the higher apes, man's nearest relatives in the animal world, thrive on nuts. Many savage tribes live almost entirely on nuts. The Indians of the foothills of California gather every fall large quantities of nuts which they store for winter use. The early settlers of California reported also that many tribes of Indians in that part of the United States lived almost wholly upon acorns. Before the great oak forests of this country were cut down for lumber, millions of hogs were fattened on mast, and the price of pork depended more upon the acorn crop than on the corn crop. The peasantry of southern France and northern Italy during half the year make two meals a day on chestnuts.

The objection commonly urged, that nuts are too expensive to enter largely into the ordinary bill of fare, at first sight appears to be valid, but upon examination this objection almost, if not wholly, disappears. For example, a pound of pine nuts which is more than the equivalent in nutritive value to two and a half pounds of the best beefsteak and two-thirds of a pound of butter, can be bought wholesale for twenty-five cents. The cost of the equivalent food value in meat and butter would be at least sixty to seventy cents, or more than double the cost of the nuts. A pound of almonds can be bought at wholesale for forty cents, and has food value equal to that of meat which would cost a dollar or more. A pound of peanuts can be bought at wholesale for seven or eight cents, and furnishes nutritive value equivalent to more than a pound of beefsteak and a half a pound of butter, which would cost forty-five to fifty cents, or seven times as much. No objection can be offered to the fact that we are comparing wholesale with retail prices, for the reason that nuts do not readily spoil as do meat and butter, but will keep in perfect condition for months. Further it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the price of nuts may sometime in the future be considerably reduced when the cultivation of nuts becomes more general, and especially when the United States Forestry Department becomes convinced that it would be a sensible thing to cover with nut trees some of the large areas which have in the last fifty years been laid waste by deforestation. The planting of nut trees along all the public highways of the country would in less than twenty years result in a crop, the food value of which would be greater than that at present produced by the entire livestock industry of the country.

The high price of meat of which so much complaint has been made in recent years is not likely to recede. The high price is not due to manipulations of the market, but to natural causes, the chief of which is the limitation of pasturage and is the consequence of a decrease in the number of livestock. As the country becomes more and more densely settled, the difficulty of supplying the demand for meat will increase, and in time the necessity for utilizing every foot of ground in the most efficient manner, will necessarily bring about a change in the dietetic habits of the people. Not a single example can be found in the world of a densely populated country dependent upon its own resources in which flesh foods constitute any considerable part of the national bill of fare. Since Germany has been nearly shut off from the outside world by the present war, the government has found it necessary to restrict the consumption of meat to one-half pound per week for each adult. All other European countries are equally dependent on outside sources for their meat supply.

The time will certainly come when nuts and nut trees will become a most important food resource. If a reform in this direction could be effected within the next ten years, the result would be a disappearance to a large extent of the complaint of the high cost of living. Mr. Hill said the basis for complaint was not the high cost of living, but the cost of high living. I should prefer to say that the real cause for complaint was wrong living rather than high living, or necessarily high cost. With right living the cost will be automatically reduced. For example, suppose a person were content to choose the peanut as his source for protein and fat, the elimination of the butcher's bill for meat and the grocer's bill for butter would at once cut out two-thirds of the expense incurred for food.

When a student in college more than forty years ago, I was already making dietetic experiments and lived three months on a diet such as I have suggested, at an average expense of exactly six cents a day. This was the total amount expended for raw foodstuffs. I paid my landlady five times as much for preparing and serving the food, and had reason for believing that some portion of my supplies was utilized by others than myself. As evidence of the fact that the experiment was not dangerous, I may add that I have pursued the same meatless dietary during my entire lifetime since, as I had done for ten years before, and I am still alive and hard at work. Man is naturally a frugivorous animal. According to Cuvier, the great French naturalist, the natural diet of human beings, like that of those other primates, the orangoutang, the chimpanzee, and the gorilla, consists of fruits, nuts, tender shoots and cereals. A sturdy Scotch highlander informed me that his diet consisted of brose, bannocks, and potatoes, and that he rarely ever tasted meat. When asked what he fed his dogs, he replied, "The same as I eat myself, sir." The high-bred foxhounds of the southern states are fed on cornmeal, oatmeal and bread, and rarely taste flesh of any sort. Dogs thus fed are hardier, healthier, have more endurance, better wind, keener scent, greater intelligence, and are more easily trained than meat-fed dogs. A diet which is safe for carnivorous animals, must certainly be safe for human beings, who belong to a class of animals all representatives of which, with the exception of man are flesh abstainers.

Some years ago I experimented with various sorts of carnivorous animals for the purpose of ascertaining whether nuts could be made a complete substitute for meat. Among the various animals utilized for the experiment was a young wolf from the northwest that had never eaten anything but fresh raw meat. After giving the animal one day to get accustomed to its new surroundings and to acquire a good appetite, I gave him a breakfast of nuts properly prepared and was delighted to find that he took to the new ration without the slightest hesitation and remained in excellent health during the several months of the experiment. I succeeded perfectly in substituting nuts for meat with all the animals experimented upon, including a fish hawk, with the single exception of an old bald-headed eagle, which refused to be converted.

I have a suspicion that the so-called carnivorous animals were all at some remote time nut eaters; the so-called carnivorous teeth would be as useful in tearing off the husks of cocoanuts and similar fruits, as for tearing and eating flesh.

An economic argument for the general adoption of nuts as a suitable article of food is the enormous increase in food resources which such a change would bring about. Some years ago, an experienced stock-raiser informed the writer that it takes two acres of land and two years to produce a steer weighing 600 pounds when dressed. Fresh meat is three-fourths water; hence the food material actually represented by such an animal would be considerably less than one hundred and fifty pounds, allowing for the weight of the bones. The food value, estimated as dried meat, would be about sixteen hundred calories per pound, or the same as an equal quantity of wheat meal. That is, an acre of land would produce in the form of beef, the food equivalent of seventy-five pounds of wheat in two years, whereas, a single acre of grain would produce on an average, even when poorly cultivated, in two crops not less than thirty-two bushels of more than 1900 pounds of wheat, or more than twenty-five times as much food as the same land would produce in the same length of time in the form of beef. Humboldt showed that the banana would furnish sustenance for twenty-five times as many people as could be nourished by the wheat produced by the same area of land; and according to Hutchinson, the chestnut tree is capable of producing on a given area a still larger amount of nutrient material than the banana. In other words, an acre of ground covered with chestnut trees in full bearing will furnish food for more than six hundred times as many people as could be supported by the same area devoted to meat production.

As a source of protein and fats the nut is vastly superior to the ox and the pig. The nut is sweeter, cleaner, safer, healthier and cheaper than any possible source of animal products.

This choicest product of Nature's laboratory is just beginning to be appreciated. When the Nut Growers' Association celebrates its one hundredth anniversary, it is safe to predict that the descendants of the present generation of nut growers who have followed the example of their forebears, will be living in opulence and will be regarded as the saviors of their country, while the great abattoirs and meat packing establishments will have ceased to exist, and the merry click of the nut cracker will be heard throughout the land.


(Prepared by W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief of the Office of Farm Management U. S. Dept. of Agr., to be read at the 7th Annual Meeting of the N. N. G. A.)

It is probable that the prominence given the walnut growing industry in Oregon and the Northwest is greater than the finished product will justify at present, yet it is growing all the time in spite of the methods in use. I say in spite of the methods rather than because of the methods in use, for the reason that hundreds of thousands of trees have been set out in the last ten or twelve years, a majority of which have failed to meet the expectations of the would-be growers. These expectations, however, have been based largely on the statements of boom literature of those who have trees and lands for sale. We have much land in Western Oregon that is suited to the growing of walnuts, and some trees and orchards that are doing well, but there are more individual trees that are giving their owners profits than there are orchards.

The industry will continue to grow, I will repeat again, in spite of the cultural methods we use, but we must certainly change our methods or our trees, or both. The excellence of the Oregon walnut is beyond question. The gold and silver medals that we have captured, as well as the testimony of dealers who are bidding for our product for their fancy trade, is evidence of its excellent quality. But there are many things that enter in the making of the perfect nut. Even after the tree has cast down its golden shower of the finest product, the gathering, washing and drying makes for the sweetness of the nut. When I see men who make a success in other lines of horticulture and farming pulling out walnut trees because they have planted a cheap lot or are too impatient for the harvest, and others bringing sackfulls of the finest nuts to market, discolored and dirty from having lain on the wet ground for days and weeks, I sometimes think that it is a long, long way to Tipperary.

But my heart's right there, and our association is doing heroic work, although but two years old; we get our committees together two or three times a year, compare notes and crack the whip for another run. Then when we get together in annual convention there is something doing. We cut out the frills and get at once to business. No welcomes by the mayor and response by Colonel Long Bow with a brass band, but rather like the women at the fish market: "Have yees any nice fish, Mrs. Maloney?" "Indade, I have, Mrs. Flanigan." "They stink." "You lie." And that is the way our fight usually starts, only not so vigorously, of course.

We have one committee that is all important and is doing fine work. The committee on seedling varieties is making a survey of the western states to find a variety or varieties best suited to the soil and climate of the different localities. This committee includes the best men available for that work; H. M. Williamson, secretary of our state board of horticulture, chairman; C. I. Lewis, chief of division of horticulture, Corvallis; Leon D. Batchelor, experiment station, Riverside, California; A. A. Quarnberg, grower and experimenter, Vancouver, Washington; E. W. Mathews, extensive planter, Portland, and Charles L. McNary, planter, Salem. Mr. McNary told me yesterday that he had made a survey of thirty-five very fine trees, on blank cards similar to the one enclosed. We expect to have the record of at least 200 trees by the time of our convention. Only those that approach the standard wanted are listed.

To give the product of the walnut crop of the state would only be a wild guess. The system and machinery that we have for finding out how much we raise is only in embryo. The estimates reach all the way from 100,000 to 500,000 pounds. There is a good crop this year and the output for the market is growing rapidly. We need education more than we do growers. But we are learning.

I want to give you some facts of things that I find. Yesterday at the orchard of Alex Lafollette, State Senator from Marion county, and peach king of the Willamette Valley, I found seven-year-old walnut trees planted in rows among his peach trees, walnut trees planted sixteen feet apart! He said that his trees were full of little walnuts in the spring, but they all dropped off, and he did not think they would do well there. He said there were no catkins on the little trees, which accounts for the failure of his crop. This he did not know. And he did not know that the trees would produce the catkins in a year or so and remedy the failures. In the famous Dundee orchards I picked up handfuls of little fibrous roots, photo of which I sent you, that had been torn up by the plow and harrow when cultivating the walnut trees. Bales of these roots could be gathered up from the ground under the trees. The owner said that it did the trees good to treat them that way. Another black walnut tree that I visited in a cultivated field of good deep, rich soil, I found walnut roots protruding from the plowed ground as far away as 108 feet from the tree. The tree was thirty or forty years old.

It would add greatly to the walnut industry of the future if the Forest Service would plant black walnuts in the hills and mountains between here and the coast. You know in that burnt timber section and various localities in the coast mountains there are many places where eight or ten nut trees to the acre would soon give a good account of themselves. If properly planted, in five or ten years they could be topgrafted to a good English variety and add greatly to the value of the public domain as well as the food products of the nation. We have no native walnuts, but almost every variety under the sun will grow here.



No....... Made............. 191........ by......................... Owner.............................................................. P. O.................... State.............. Route................. Exact location..................................................... NUT—Origin........................................................ Variety..................................... planted............... TREE—Origin................................ age now............... Transplanted 19................ Dia. trunk......................... Height................................. spread..................... DATES—of budding out.............................................. catkin blooms......................... nut blooms.................. leaves fall........................... nuts fall................... in 1-lb. kernel wt............... oz. shell wt................. oz. NUTS—Per tree........... lbs. In cluster............ in lb....... round,.. oval,.. pointed,.. smooth,.... not well sealed............ KERNEL—light, dark, not easily removed from shell. Tannin—little excessive. Tree vigor............ Blight................ per cent.............


L. H. Ott, 1746 T St., Washington J. C. Smith, House of Rep. P. O. Fred. L. Fishback, 609 Union Trust Bldg., Washington Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Chamberlin, 44 R St., N. E. Dr. Taylor, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Dr. True, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Miss F. Cadel, Shepard St., Chevy Chase, Md. F. S. Holmes, Ag. Ex. Sta., College Park, Md. Dr. Hassall, Bowie, Md. M. P. Reed, Vincennes, Ind. Carl Poll, Danville Harry R. Weber, Cincinnati J. Russell Smith, Round Hill E. B. Crockett, Monroe, Va. R. T. Morris, N. Y. City W. C. Deming, Conn. Mrs. W. C. Deming Jacob L. Rife, Camp Hill, Pa., R. D. 1 Paul White, Bowie, Md. John H. Fisher, Jr. Mrs. John H. Fisher, Jr., Bradshaw, Md. Miss Ellen M. Littlepage Miss Louise Littlepage John Littlepage C. A. Van Duzee W. N. Hutt W. N. Roper R. T. Olcott T. P. Littlepage Dr. Van Fleet, Glendale, Md. A. C. Shepherd, Washington Chas. S. Hayden, Baltimore C. A. Reed, Washington Mrs. Reed W. Bathon, Star reporter Henry Stabler, Washington H. M. Simpson, Vincennes C. S. Ridgway, Lumberton Mrs. Ridgway C. P. Close M. B. Waite R. L. McCoy Dr. Ira Ulman Rev. E. N. Kirby, Ballston, Va. S. M. McMurran, Washington Dr. Augustus Stabler, 45 R St., N. E., Washington C. M. Stearns, 1833 Dumont St., Washington E. C. Pomeroy A. D. Robinson, Washington James Tindaw, Waterbury, Md. Miss Katherine Stuart, Alexandria, Va. Henry T. Finley, Rockville, Md. Mrs. Finley Mrs. F. L. Mulford, Washington, D. C. B. Eyre, Washington Mrs. Eyre J. G. Rush J. F. Jones Dr. Kellermann Dr. Haven Metcalf Miss Martha Rush Miss Sarah Garvin, Lancaster H. A. Stewart, Jeannerette, La. Mr. Bryan, Bowie Miss Edna McNaughton, Middleville, Mich. Mr. C. E. Emig, Washington, D. C. A. C. Brown, Lanham, Md.

Vincennes Nurseries

W. C. REED, Proprietor



Budded and Grafted Pecans, Hardy Northern Varieties English (Persian) Walnut Grafted on Black Walnut Best Northern and French Varieties Grafted Thomas Black Walnut Grafted Persimmons, best sorts Hardy Almonds Filberts and Hazelnuts Also General Line Nursery Stock


* * * * *




If interested in the propagation of nut trees or top-working seedling trees, ask for a copy of my booklet on propagation and list of tools...

J. F. JONES, The Nut Tree Specialist


Northern Nut Trees

Why Plant Nut Trees?




Do you want to know about all of the above? If so, write for our beautiful illustrated catalogue for 1917.

Maryland Nut Nurseries



P. S. We forgot to say that we not only have the answers to the above but we also have the trees. M. N. N.



Choice Fruit and Ornamental Trees, Cherry Trees on Mazzard Roots, Hardy Evergreens, Flowering Shrubs, Hedge Plants, etc. Originators of the



* * * * *




SUBSCRIPTION—$1.25 per year; ADVERTISING-16 Cents per Agate three years, $3.00; Canada line; $2.10 per inch. and foreign, 50c. extra.



Previous Part     1  2  3
Home - Random Browse