Northern Nut Growers Association Thirty-Fourth Annual Report 1943

by Unknown

TABLE 4

Variation in score of replicate samples of 3 varieties of Black Walnuts
tested by different operators and of same varieties from
different sources

Sample	Treatment	Wt 1 nut grams	% kernel 1st crack	% kernel total	Quarters number	Score
Operator 1
Thomas	—Jones, Pa.	14.6	28.8	30.3	95	96.8
Thomas	—Baum, Pa.	14.3	25.6	27.0	100	89.0
Thomas	—Worton, Md.	16.4	28.2	30.8	94	97.6
Average		16.4	25.8	28.1	91.0	91.2
Operator 2
Thomas	—Weber, Ind.	22.0	22.2	23.8	47	83.0
Thomas	—Jones, Pa.	17.5	26.7	31.4	55	92.1
Thomas	—Baum, Pa.	17.0	24.0	26.5	72	85.5
Thomas	—Worton, Md.	16.7	19.5	26.4	64	75.3
Average		18.3	23.1	27.0	59.5	83.9
Operator 3
Thomas	—Jones, Pa.	18.1	16.2	27.1	52	69.2
Thomas	—Baum, Pa.	16.1	19.1	26.6	68	74.4
Thomas	—Worton, Md.	18.0	17.8	27.2	61	73.3
	Average	17.4	17.7	27.0	60.3	72.3
Operator 1
Ten Eyck	—Weber, Ind.	18.0	20.5	27.5	57	78.5
Ten Eyck	—Jones, Pa.	15.4	21.1	23.2	99	79.1
Ten Eyck	—Baum, Pa.	14.3	26.3	30.2	93	91.3
Ten Eyck	—Worton, Md.	15.0	28.0	31.0	83	94.8
Average		15.7	24.0	28.0	83.0	85.9
Operator 2
Ten Eyck	—Weber, Ind.	19.1	24.4	26.5	38	84.8
Ten Eyck	—Jones, Pa.	16.4	24.6	24.6	64	84.3
Ten Eyck	—Baum, Pa.	15.8	25.7	26.5	54	86.0
Ten Eyck	—Worton, Md.	15.4	25.5	28.7	55	86.2
Average		16.7	25.0	26.6	52.7	85.3
Operator 3
Ten Eyck	—Weber, Ind.	16.8	17.3	24.6	57	69.4
Ten Eyck	—Jones, Pa.	15.2	21.1	23.3	84	77.4
Ten Eyck	—Baum, Pa.	15.0	18.3	19.7	69	68.4
Ten Eyck	—Worton, Md.	15.7	25.2	30.1	76	88.5
Average		15.7	20.5	24.4	71.5	75.9
Operator 1
Ohio	—Weber, Ind.	17.2	28.5	29.7	89	98.0
Ohio	—Jones, Pa.	16.4	28.7	29.9	96	99.2
Ohio	—Baum, Pa.	14.2	31.1	31.1	99	101.9
Ohio	—Worton, Md.	13.7	30.8	30.8	88	99.5
Average		15.4	29.8	30.4	93.0	99.6
Operator 2
Ohio	—Weber, Ind.	19.1	25.1	28.3	59	89.3
Ohio	—Jones, Pa.	17.2	27.3	27.5	64	91.9
Ohio	—Baum, Pa.	15.0	27.4	28.1	63	90.1
Ohio	—Worton, Md.	14.9	26.1	29.1	58	87.4
Average		16.5	26.5	28.2	61.0	89.7
Operator 3
Ohio	—Weber, Ind.	17.7	21.4	27.7	65	80.8
Ohio	—Jones, Pa.	17.2	22.9	28.2	74	84.5
Ohio	—Baum, Pa.	15.0	24.9	29.3	81	87.5
Ohio	—Worton, Md.	14.6	22.4	28.7	66	80.3
Average		16.1	22.9	28.5	71.5	83.3

Table 4 gives the results of tests of similar samples of three varieties from four different sources by three different operators. The tests are not satisfactory because pretreatment was not uniform and there is insufficient data on penalties which are omitted. Some samples of the varieties Ten Eyck and Thomas contained empty nuts and shrivelled kernels which would preclude equal scores. The variety Ohio was uniformly filled from all sources. In the variety Ten Eyck there is a difference of 10.5 per cent in total per cent kernel in samples from the Baum orchard. This was related to 6 empty nuts in the sample cracked by operator 3. In the variety Ohio in which the kernels were plump the greatest variation between duplicate samples in total per cent kernel is 3 or only about 10 per cent of average total per cent kernel.

An examination of these data show the following points of interest: (1) that the duplicate samples showed considerable variation in weight of single nut and total per cent kernel, characters not dependent on personal skill or judgment. Operator 2 did not crack the whole sample of 25 and may have selected the larger nuts, thus securing a greater weight per nut with all varieties. The superior filling of the nuts of Ohio appears to be related to the fact that in the orchards in question this variety was observed to hold its leaves longer than the others which lost their leaves in late summer before harvest by leaf blight. Shrunken kernels are a logical result of early defoliation.

In the per cent of kernel obtained in first crack operator 1 recovered a higher per cent than operator 3 in all of the eleven possible comparisons and higher than operator 2 in 9 out of 12 possible comparisons. This probably is the result of soaking the samples by operator 1 and not by the others or possibly due to greater skill or care in cracking. The number of quarters recovered by operator 1 is greater in all cases than that obtained by either operator 2 or 3. This is also a result of soaking or skill or both. The score of operator 1 was in all tests of duplicate samples higher than that obtained by operator 3 and higher than the scores of operator 2 in 9 out of 12 comparisons.

The scores of the different samples are apparently mainly determined by the per cent recovered at first crack and the number of quarters, at least the only cases where the scores of operator 2 exceed those of operator 1 are where the per cent first crack and the number of quarters are greater for operator 2. This is related to the presence of empty nuts.

The data obtained for the variety Thomas by operator 1 and 2 show for the most part the same relative scoring of samples from different sources. For example with both operators the score of the samples from the Weber orchard was lower than that from the Jones and Baum orchards and the sample from the Jones orchard scored higher than that from the Baum orchard. In the samples from the Worton orchard the relative scores are reversed. The scores o£ operator 3 are quite out of line. With the variety Ten Eyck the differences between scores of samples from different sources are not consistent. Operator 2 obtained scores that were essentially alike for all four samples whereas the scores of operator 1 show differences of more than 10 points. This is related to empty nuts in the sample. With the variety Ohio there is reasonable uniformity in the scores obtained by all operators. This was the only variety with well filled nuts and for that reason alone the score would be less variable.