The nuts sent in to the 1919 contest have been finished at last but the date is only a few days ahead of the date last year when the 1918 contest was finished, which is to me a matter of a good deal of chagrin as it was last year. No attempt was made to examine the nuts received till after the first of the year as the experience of last year showed this to be a waste of time. Several things seemed, this year, to conspire to prevent getting started on the examination. The number of nuts received was large and the time taken for examination quite considerable for no attempt as yet has been made to have but one person work on it. But the thing that has caused the greater part of the delay was the wide variation between the results in the tests of those nuts which were sent into both the 1918 and 1919 contests, and my unwillingness to have these results appear in print until the reasons for these discrepancies could be stated with certainty.
Had the methods used been those in use for some time and whose correctness had been proven, these differences would have caused little concern, but inasmuch as the methods for measuring most of the nut characteristics were used for the first time in 1918, and their had been devised by me, I could not help feeling that there was a possibility of the discrepancies being due to imperfections in methods for, at first, it would seem likely that nuts borne by a given tree one year would be like those borne the next year. I considered therefore that it was for me to prove beyond question that the methods used were sound and that the differences noted were real. The amount of time needed to do this at a period when my time was well occupied with other things has been more than I wish it had been. While many efforts were made to see if there were imperfections in the methods used for measuring the various characteristics, no such imperfections were found, and, for a considerable period, all efforts made to explain the differences in tests made on nuts borne by the same trees in different years were unproductive of results. Finally the matter was settled to my satisfaction as is noted in the next paragraph.
The Clark hickory received 79 points last year when it took the first prize. It tested out 11 points less this year when first tested which put it entirely out of the prize winning class. Repetition of this year's tests gave results agreeing fairly well with the first ones made but still not all comparable to those of last year. This was decidedly disconcerting when one of the principal results expected of the adoption of methods of measuring nut characteristics was the possibility of testing a given nut now and several months hence and obtaining the same verdict. After much work designed to see if the methods of measuring nut characteristics were faulty and nothing wrong had been found with them, a visit was made to the tree. Mr. Clark said that it bore a good crop every other year and but few nuts in the intervening years, and that the nuts were much better the years when a good crop was borne than they were in the other years. This was interesting information but I could not help realizing the difficulty of carrying in one's mind, from one year to the next, the merits of hickory nuts, and felt that, unless the matter could be proven, I had not as yet done very much to solve the problem at hand. Mr. Clark, however, gave me practically all the nuts of the 1919 crop which he had and I returned feeling that this trip had not done much to solve the problem as to why the tests on the 1918 nuts and 1919 nuts should be so different. Very careful examination was made of the few Clark hickory nuts remaining in my possession of the 1918 crop and they were compared with those of the 1919 crop. Slight differences in shape were noted and finally one nut was found seemingly just like the nuts that won the prize in 1918. When this nut was tested it gave substantially the same results as those tested in 1918. Another like it was afterward found where the result was repeated. This proved definitely that the trouble was not with the methods, and that, in off years, with the Clark hickory at least, some few nuts were borne that would test out as well as those borne in good years. The results of the tests on these good nuts borne in 1919 were substituted for those on the inferior nuts previously tested for in contests it is always the intention of those sending in nuts to send in the best.
It will be noted that the number of points finally awarded the Clark hickory for example this year is less than awarded last year. This difference is due to the method of scoring. In a matter as new as methods for measuring nut characteristics, the constants which have to be determined by experience must change somewhat at first. The method used this year in testing nuts sent in to the contest was to judge them on the basis used in 1918, redetermine the constants that required it, and work out the results again. An example will help to make this clear.
Take the matter of proportion of kernel, the highest award for which was 15 points in 1918 and also in 1919. Up to the time the 1918 contest was decided the hickory with the largest proportion of kernel was the Beam, Nut No. 3, of the 1918 contest with over 50% of kernel and the lowest was the Brown mockernut of the 1918 contest with 18% of kernel. On the basis of the difference between the highest and lowest the number of points to be awarded each was worked out. On this basis the Clark hickory was awarded, in 1918, 10 points for a proportion of kernel of 40.8%. In the case of the 1919 contest nuts with larger proportion of kernel were found, the Hatch bitternut with 65%, and the Halesite bitternuts with 69% kernel. A mockernut from Sliding Hill, Jackson, S. C. with only 14% kernel was also found and the figures for awarding points for proportion of kernel were recalculated as follows:
| Points | Points | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 69% and over | 15 | 65.3% to 68.9% inclusive | 14 |
| 61.7% to 65.2% inclusive | 13 | 58.0% to 61.6% inclusive | 12 |
| 54.3% to 57.9% inclusive | 11 | 50.7% to 54.2% inclusive | 10 |
| 47.0% to 50.6% inclusive | 9 | 43.3% to 46.9% inclusive | 8 |
| 39.7% to 43.2% inclusive | 7 | 36.0% to 39.6% inclusive | 6 |
| 32.3% to 35.9% inclusive | 5 | 28.7% to 32.2% inclusive | 4 |
| 25.0% to 28.6% inclusive | 3 | 21.3% to 24.9% inclusive | 2 |
| 17.7% to 21.2% inclusive | 1 | 14.0% to 17.6% inclusive | 0 |
On this basis the Clark hickory was awarded but 7 points for the same proportion of kernel in 1919 instead of 10 as in 1918. This accounts for 3 out of the 5 points difference between the 79 points awarded in 1918 and the 74% in 1919. The other two points can be similarly explained. There are bound to be similar changes in the tables for awarding points from year to year, but they will be less and less as time goes on. For example, the Wasson butternut of the 1915 contest which weighed 18.8g was the largest butternut received until 1919 when two larger came in, one weighing 19.5g and the other weighing 22.6g. The Mott shellbark hickory which weighs 29.6g which was discovered by Dr. Morris before the founding of the Association is still the largest hickory of which we know. On the other hand the black walnut record for size was exceeded in 1918 and also in 1919.
The nuts received were gone over carefully and all characteristics measured where this was possible, then the other characteristics were passed on by me. Then the best nuts were brought to the attention of Dr. Morris and Dr. Deming and the three of us passed on those characteristics where methods of measurement had not been worked out.
The results of this contest are noted in considerable detail as it is believed that they may have value as matters of record. While an attempt has been made to give the species of each nut tested as such information is useful, it must be understood that the notations of species are tentative and subject to change should further knowledge require it. It is, frequently, difficult to positively identify a nut as to species without having leaves, buds, bark and husk for examination and in most instances the judges did not have these. No nut is noted as a hybrid unless it has been proven so by evidence which it is believed is beyond question, yet there are a number of nuts noted as pure species which later may be proved to be hybrids. This is particularly so in the case of the hickories.
In explanation of the tables it should be noted that weights of nuts and kernels are expressed in grams, while cracking pressures are expressed in kilograms. The methods used for measuring the various characteristics are noted in detail in the article "Judging Nuts" on pages 122 to 132 inclusive.