Northern Nut Growers Association, Report of the Proceedings at the Seventh Annual Meeting / Washington, D. C. September 8 and 9, 1916.

by Unknown

TABLE IV.

COMPOSITION OF VEGETABLES (EDIBLE PORTION).

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

TABLE V.

COMPOSITION OF FRUITS, YEARBOOK OF DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, 1915.

(C. J. LANGWORTHY).

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:

TABLE VI.

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.

EXTRACTS FROM A LETTER FROM COLONEL J. C. COOPER, OF McMINNVILLE,
OREGON, PRESIDENT OF THE WESTERN WALNUT ASSOCIATION.

(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.

WESTERN WALNUT ASSOCIATION.

SEEDLING WALNUT TREE RECORD.

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………….