The 1926 contest marked a notable change in the method of awarding prizes. As noted at some length under black walnuts, that score card was made simpler, by the judges who passed on the nuts received in the 1926 contest, by awarding points previously given for characteristics that seemed of less importance to others, so the hickory score card was carefully gone over to see if a similar change could not be made to advantage.
As it is believed that hickory nuts will be sold in the shell, as are pecans, it was not possible to do this to the same extent as with black walnuts. However, the characteristic "form," which is difficult if not almost impossible to estimate with any kind of precision, it was thought for the present at least might be disregarded. Husking quality is important but it was impossible to properly award points for this characteristic in a nut contest, because the nuts are husked before being sent in. The points allowed for excellence in these qualities were added to others, which gave 10 points to Cracking Quality Absolute instead of 5, and 25 points to Quality and Flavor of Kernel instead of 20.
It has been generally considered that a nut which is awarded 55 points, even though it took no prize, was worthy of experimental propagation. There were 40 hickories in the 1929 contest which were awarded 55 points or more. Of those actually awarded prizes for a combination of good qualities, twenty-one in number, thirteen were thought to be shagbarks, or it might be more exact to state that we had not sufficient evidence to think them to be otherwise, although some are suspected not to be pure Carya ovata, four were thought to be Carya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa), two were thought to be Carya ovalis, and two Carya laciniosa. In this contest the shagbarks showed up poorly, 68 being the highest score awarded, when from the number of entries one would have expected the highest to have been awarded 71 points or over. On the other hand this is the first contest where a prize has been awarded to a shellbark, Carya laciniosa. Among hickories awarded 54 points or over were five shellbarks, two of them large ones, one weighing 24.3g, 20 per lb. and one weighing 27.6g, 17 per lb.
The importance of this will be realized when we consider that, in the 1929 contest, out of 21 prize winning nuts four prizes were awarded to nuts believed to be Carya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa) and there were two or three others that may prove to be. While natural hickory hybrids are not particularly rare yet they are far from common. At one time, while on the levees north of Burlington, Iowa, the number of pecan x shellbark hybrids seen impressed the writer, yet a careful count showed these hybrids to be only about 1 hybrid in 100 pure pecans. Considerable experience in making or attempting to make hickory hybrids leads the writer to believe that the proportion of hickory hybrids will be much less than this. If, however, we assume it to be 1 in 100 and the fact that among this years meritorious nuts hybrids are 4 out of 21 or 1 out of 5, we would calculate that the chances of getting meritorious nuts out of hybrids is about 20 times as great as out of pure species. We really have not sufficient data at present to attempt to make such calculations yet the glimpse they give us of the promise of wonderful results from the systematic production of hybrid varieties between selected parents is most alluring.
The number of prizes awarded to Carya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa) shows a line of work of particular promise. We have plenty of good shagbarks, Carya ovata, and now that he have really good shellbarks, Carya laciniosa, of large size, fair cracking quality and good flavor which we never had before, we have selected material for the production of shagbark x shellbark hybrids, a class which has produced the Weiker hickory, four of the 1929 contest prize hickories and some other hickories of merit which have come to the attention of the writer during the past two or three years. As we have a number of good northern pecans we have also selected material for the production of pecan x shellbark hybrids, a class which has produced the McAllister pecan. If the 1929 contest does nothing more than to bring to light these fine shellbarks it is worth all it cost.
The contest also has shown some mockernuts of large size and better quality than ordinary but still not good enough to be in a class with the shellbarks noted above. The number of years that we have been testing hickories without getting good shellbarks leads us to hope that we will eventually get good mockernuts.
The prize winning hickories are noted below:
| Name and Address | Species | Points | Prize | Amount | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mrs. C. Lake, New Haven, Ind. | ovata | 68 | 1 | $25.00 | |
| Ferdinand Huber, Cochrane, Wis. | ovata | 67 | 2 | 15.00 | |
| John D. Bontrager, Middlebury, Ind. | ovata | 65 | 3 | 10.00 | |
| John Roddy, Napoleon, Ohio | Dunbarii ? | 64 | 4 | 5.00 | |
| Steve Green, Battle Creek, Mich. | ovalis ? | 63 | 5 | 5.00 | |
| [A]Mrs. Hamill Goheen, Pennsylvania Furnace, Pa. | Dunbarii ? | 62 | 6 | 3.00 | |
| Menno Zurcher Nut No. 1, Apple Creek, Ohio | ovata | 62 | 6 | 3.00 | |
| Edgar Fluhr, Kiel, Wis. | ovata | 61 | 7 | 3.00 | |
| [A]Elmer T. Sande, Story City, Ia. | Dunbarii ? | 61 | 7 | 3.00 | |
| N. E. Comings, Amherst, Mass. | ovata | 60 | 8 | 3.00 | |
| Edward Renggenberg, Madison, Wis. | ovata | 60 | 8 | 3.00 | |
| C. D. Wright, Nut No. 1, Sumner, Mo. | laciniosa | 60 | 8 | 3.00 | |
| Mrs. John Brooks, Ottumwa, Ia. | ovata | 59 | 9 | 3.00 | |
| Arlie W. Froman, Bacon, Ind. | ovata | 59 | 9 | 3.00 | |
| [A]Mrs. C. E. Hagen, GuttenBerg, Clay Co., Ia. | Dunbarii ? | 59 | 9 | 3.00 | |
| L. S. Huff, White Pigeon, Mich. | ovalis ? | 59 | 9 | 3.00 | |
| J. K. Seaver, Harvard, Ill. | ovata | 59 | 9 | 3.00 | |
| Joseph Sobelewski, Norwich, Conn. | ovata | 59 | 9 | 3.00 | |
| Caleb Sprunger, Berne, Ind. | laciniosa | 59 | 9 | 3.00 | |
| Grace Peschke, Ripon, Wis. | ovata | 58 | 10 | 3.00 | |
| John Muriel Thomas, Henryville, Ind. | ovata | 58 | 10 | 3.00 | |
| [A] Means that these varieties were known to the Association before the 1929 contest. | |||||
There are nearly as many others which came within two or three points of being prize winners and which it is believed should be propagated experimentally. These will be noted on the complete report. There are also the following which are notable for unusual excellence in one characteristic and which it is believed should be propagated experimentally and are here given honorable mention.
| George S. Homan, Easton, Mo., laciniosa large, Wt. 24.3g, 56 H. M. | 3.00 |
| Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., Shellbark, No. 1, laciniosa large, Wt. 27.6g, 54 H. M. | 3.00 |
| W. P. Ritchey, Marietta, Tex., alba large, Wt. 25.7g, 44 H. M. | 3.00 |
| J. Droska, Pierce City, Mo., alba large, Wt. 23.7g, 39 H. M. | 3.00 |
| —— | |
| $120.00 |