Rod Croskery (he of the only site currently on my blogroll) wrote to me recently posing a question that I suspect many would like to ask:
[About the tree in Westport] planted in 1937 by Dr. Ford Goodfellow, the parent tree has very little trunk but an enormous canopy. [The owner] assures me that it has borne heavily every year for the last twenty. If the nuts are well-filled, the parent might meet your criteria for a good orchard tree.
This is a bit of a challenge, because it is growing in a site distinct from the farm. I responded to Rod that currently I was only interested in selecting from the population that I had on the farm. Many rural Ontario communities have populations of black walnut trees, many of which (I am separately informed) would be descendents of the original parent stock brought up by United Empire Loyalists a couple of hundred years ago. This ignores the other common knowledge that First Nations’ peoples also spread the black walnut eastwards from southern Ontario.
These populations I have observed to be regularly productive, so here is my suspicion: that the environment in many of these communities reduces the risk of early spring frost damage to the trees’ flowering, mainly, I believe, through low-level mixing of exhaust gases from heating systems. Most of these trees are within or just moderately above the mean roof line of the community, where such effects could be expected.
How could we test this? If you have a potential seed tree in such a community that you are interested in, I suggest you hang a max-min thermometer on the trunk at breast height (1.35m) on the north side, inside some sort of shield to protect it from the elements, and compare the readings with Environment Canada’s values at the nearest observation site on those nights when spring frosts occur. Do the readings match or not? Remember to reset the thermometer daily.
Because my fields are frost prone, I believe my good seed trees must be relatively later flowering than the rest of the on-farm population. Alternatively, my non-seed bearers are too early for my site, something I must quantify this coming spring. More on this later.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
2008 harvest report
Well, over 2 tonnes of fruit were harvested over about five weeks from about 10th October. This includes on- (75%) and off-farm (25%) sources. On-farm, harvesting of ‘3’ trees was independent of ‘1’ and ‘2’ trees (see earlier post on range scores). All nuts from fruiting trees were counted, though 1 and 2 trees were counted at time of pick up (three different sweeps of the fields), and the fruit pooled by field during each sweep. Fruit from each 3 tree was kept separate in plastic lugs in the field, and totals counted when there were no further nuts to fall.
All pooled fruit was processed first – weighed, hulled, then washed and dried. Fruit from 3 trees was weighed, hulled, washed, then sampled and dried. Three-nut samples of 3 fruit were retained for drying, then subsequent cracking and separating. This analysis will be reported under the 2008 Nut Report.
Within the global number reported above, there was much hidden. The two main experimental populations (Fields 1 & 3) are reported below (you can click on the image to open it in a larger format).
All pooled fruit was processed first – weighed, hulled, then washed and dried. Fruit from 3 trees was weighed, hulled, washed, then sampled and dried. Three-nut samples of 3 fruit were retained for drying, then subsequent cracking and separating. This analysis will be reported under the 2008 Nut Report.
Within the global number reported above, there was much hidden. The two main experimental populations (Fields 1 & 3) are reported below (you can click on the image to open it in a larger format).
Firstly, the nut range scoring system was successful in separating trees by eventual yield (at harvest). In each of the two fields, there are in excess of 500 trees. In each field, more than half of the population did not fruit. The number of trees fruiting (total n) was 187 (F1) and 254 (F3). The average number of nuts per tree was 20 (R1), 94 (R2) and 299 (R3). The biggest contrast between fields was for R3, where F1 gave 448 nuts per tree and F3 gave 151 nuts per tree. Correction of these totals by cross-sectional area (CSA) at DBH (diameter at breast height; multiplied by 100 in the above graph to be able to use the same vertical axis) almost completely reduced this variability to 5.09 nuts per sq cm of CSA (F1) compared to 5.53 (F3). I have termed this value Nut Yield (NY), which you can see was, on average, >1 for R1 and between 2-3 for R2 (remember the 100 factor in the graph above). Groups of bars for same range score number are from fields 1 and 3, reading from the left.
So what? (you might say). Well, it confirmed that it is not just tree size (measured here as DBH) which accounts for NY. There are other factors which make some trees more productive than others. It also suggests that you could forget about harvesting R1 trees and still collect just about the same total weight of fruit, or, put another way, R1 trees contribute very little, individually, to the total harvest, though they make some of this up by sheer numbers. As we are embarked on an inter-generational venture, as long as NY is the main contributor to total kernel yield (KY) per tree, it is only from R3 trees from which we should wish to select. We would want to analyze this characteristic only within the population of R3 trees. It also offers the means (i.e. a sufficient number of very uniform nuts) to set a cracking machine to crack optimally for a given set of nut characteristics, which is some of the rationale underlying US selection of black walnut ‘cultivars’ based on kernel percentage (K%; sometimes measured in efficiency terms as ‘crack out’), though high K% is the other aspect.
In my top-yielding F1 tree, nut number was >1700, with a NY of 7.88. However the top NY (16.15) was from the top F3 tree which gave only 343 nuts. Correction for size is thus immensely important to understanding productivity within a relatively uniform environment, and were both trees to show the same K%, the first would be of greater economic importance to me at this point in time. The former had a 2007 K% of 26% in a nut weight of 15g, which suggests a total KY of 6.4kg from this tree this year. Not insignificant.
Why do I think so many trees are not producing? Probably because they are too early for my site. I shall test this next spring, comparing a random sample with the ‘3’ trees.
Finally, you probably think I’m crazy to do so much counting. Learn to do it, for it will tell you a lot. Use range scoring first, though, so you only count nuts from the ‘3’ trees.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Those NAFTA nuts
I was quite surprised by some data I came across recently. I had been carrying a figure of $20 million in my head as the value of
(http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/Hort_Circular/2002/02-08/U.S.Canada Hort.FEA.htm) the value was almost $110 million, or 10% of the global value of US nut tree exports.
So, I conclude that there really must be a niche here, and suggest that Barack Obama go easy on the idea of renegotiating NAFTA unless his purpose is to allow even more US nuts across the border.
Speaking of which, the last time I went south, the Homeland Security officer (associate? customer service agent?) in my traffic lane said, when I responded “nut producer” to his question ”profession?”, “We’ve got enough of those in our Universities…”
Scientific American Earth 3.0 Special Issue: Solutions for Sustainable Progress
Letter to the Editors (Published here in case they do not publish it there)
I do not expect a Scientific American Special Issue on Sustainability to contain an article of such doubtful value as that in Earth 3.0 by Mark Fischetti on Dickson Despommier’s vision of Verticality in the food system. As an agronomist, let me tell you what is wrong and inaccurate about this article. We’ll begin with the text box on Pros and Cons. 1. Fossil fuel for plowing fields and trucking food to market is not needed. Wrong. Are you really suggesting that people may eat only the food produced in their own building? And that a building can produce enough for 365 days of the year? Who will till that soil and with what? 2. Fertilizer and pesticides are eliminated. Wrong. Even hydroponic production requires nutrient inputs, and how many people have had aphids on their houseplants, and had to give them a shot of insecticide? Nature abhors a sterile environment, and pests will come in the revolving door with the residents. Who would want to breathe those pesticides on a daily basis? 3. Crops grow 24 hours a day, year-round, for greater yields. Two fallacies: crops generally ‘dislike’ a 24-hour day (many require a dark period, for physiological reasons) and yields generally follow the dictum energy in, energy out, i.e. requiring high intensity illumination to achieve the necessary photosynthesis. Are you sure you want this on your personal utility bill? 4. Consumers receive fresher food. Do you want to trade a sufficient diet for an apparent gain in some subjective measure of freshness? Other fallacies: ‘Pigs and poultry could be reared there, too’. Heard about the urban types who move out of town and try to rid the rural environment of all those nasty smells? And this sounds like a public health disaster waiting to happen.
I could go on in like vein, but it seems to me that Mr Despommier is a bit of an ostrich, with his head in the sand of ignorance when it comes to judging what doesn’t work in agriculture and what would work in an urban environment. Urban people have become used to a very rich, diverse and sizeable diet. Rural people work hard to supply it. He would like to see urbanites revert to a potato or two, a spinach leaf and a skyscraper factory chicken, now and again. He should be the first to go on this diet.
Sustainability is about the wise and renewable use of resources. It can be done within the current agricultural landscape without all the costs that Mr Despommier would like to see added. There are many possible strategies, in some of which trees must play a part. If you doubt what I say, please see my own blog, where you will also find this letter.
I do not expect a Scientific American Special Issue on Sustainability to contain an article of such doubtful value as that in Earth 3.0 by Mark Fischetti on Dickson Despommier’s vision of Verticality in the food system. As an agronomist, let me tell you what is wrong and inaccurate about this article. We’ll begin with the text box on Pros and Cons. 1. Fossil fuel for plowing fields and trucking food to market is not needed. Wrong. Are you really suggesting that people may eat only the food produced in their own building? And that a building can produce enough for 365 days of the year? Who will till that soil and with what? 2. Fertilizer and pesticides are eliminated. Wrong. Even hydroponic production requires nutrient inputs, and how many people have had aphids on their houseplants, and had to give them a shot of insecticide? Nature abhors a sterile environment, and pests will come in the revolving door with the residents. Who would want to breathe those pesticides on a daily basis? 3. Crops grow 24 hours a day, year-round, for greater yields. Two fallacies: crops generally ‘dislike’ a 24-hour day (many require a dark period, for physiological reasons) and yields generally follow the dictum energy in, energy out, i.e. requiring high intensity illumination to achieve the necessary photosynthesis. Are you sure you want this on your personal utility bill? 4. Consumers receive fresher food. Do you want to trade a sufficient diet for an apparent gain in some subjective measure of freshness? Other fallacies: ‘Pigs and poultry could be reared there, too’. Heard about the urban types who move out of town and try to rid the rural environment of all those nasty smells? And this sounds like a public health disaster waiting to happen.
I could go on in like vein, but it seems to me that Mr Despommier is a bit of an ostrich, with his head in the sand of ignorance when it comes to judging what doesn’t work in agriculture and what would work in an urban environment. Urban people have become used to a very rich, diverse and sizeable diet. Rural people work hard to supply it. He would like to see urbanites revert to a potato or two, a spinach leaf and a skyscraper factory chicken, now and again. He should be the first to go on this diet.
Sustainability is about the wise and renewable use of resources. It can be done within the current agricultural landscape without all the costs that Mr Despommier would like to see added. There are many possible strategies, in some of which trees must play a part. If you doubt what I say, please see my own blog, where you will also find this letter.
Whoa there with the chainsaw, Fred
It comes as no small surprise to me that 50% of the visitors to this site are, like wasps to a ripe apple, drawn by a single (November) 2007 post: What happens when a tree is cut down? Now, I don’t suggest that they are all asking this question in the same way. The answers could vary. ‘It landed on Fred’s head’. ‘Not much, it’s still there’ But I can guess that they are more interested in carbon cycle issues, and as loggers don’t generally dig up the roots, it is the decay of these that some are interested in. Others may be interested in how the surrounding tree canopy takes over the environmental services of the missing tree.
I didn’t start the blog with these people in mind. And it tells me that I don’t get many walnut-interested readers. I shan’t be doing much in the way of enlightening these readers with more explicit information (Fred’s not expected to recover), but I will add that I estimate on our farm that about 25% of the total sequestered carbon in our trees is underground. This ignores the carbon accruing in the other vegetation, and that added to the soil annually by herbaceous plants which die back over winter.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Interim 2008 harvest report
More than a ton of fruit harvested to date, with the scoring system providing essential insight to the trees upon which to concentrate. All category 3 tree fruit is still in the field, awaiting the final nuts to fall before the nut count is done. Fruit from all scored trees has been counted, with category 1 trees averaging about 20 nuts per tree and category 2 about 70 nuts per tree. Category 3 trees are well up into the hundreds of nuts.
Some modifications to the wet processing area were undertaken, with significant improvement in effectiveness and efficiency.
The full report will follow once harvest is complete.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Join our regional germplasm screening study
The trees I shall discuss here are those considered in the post 2007 Nut Report.
How will this work? We will have seed available this fall from these ~25 source trees showing superiority in several variables (e.g. kernel yield per tree, leaf spotting disease resistance).
Firstly, you should be sure that you have a good site – reasonably deep clay loams are best; heavy undrained clays, or very sandy soils will not work.
When you know your site, measure it, and see how many rows of trees you think you can plant. We use rows 6m (20’) apart and plant our trees 6m apart within the rows, but you could use a different between-row spacing if you choose (best not less than this within the row). One field of ours has 12m between rows. You could go higher, especially if you want to continue farming between the rows.
To ensure comparability between all sites, we propose to provide a planting plan according to the number of trees you are interested in. We will request that you plant according to the plan we provide, otherwise we cannot guarantee that we will be able to compare your data to others’.
When you know the size and shape of your site, and have determined the numbers of trees and spacing, divide your site into two components:
a. a rectangular centre section which will be the section we will provide you nuts for, your experimental block; and
b. the outside rows (sides and ends), which you will find your own local seed for ( these are the ones the squirrels will find first, if you have a squirrel problem).
We will divide all available screened seed into packages. The numbers of nuts in a package will correspond to the numbers of rows you have identified in your centre section/experimental block (x 2, as you will plant two nuts per tree location). We will send you the number of packages that correspond to the number of trees in the rows. So you are going to tell us that your centre section is 20 x 8, for example, equivalent to 20 trees per row in 8 rows. The planting plan will provide you the randomly selected positions of each tree in each row, so that you would plant each of the mother-tree selections 8 times across the rows. We suggest that you limit the size of this experimental block to 20 x 8 or less, because you would require 320 (40 x 8) nuts for it, which will be a large drain on our seed resources if many people are interested, and will be the basis on which we calculate cost (cost per nut, including the planting plan, and our email support/quantitative analysis for as long as you send complete annual data sets will be about $1.00).
We would suggest this anyway, because you could always expand in a subsequent year, and you are better off starting with a small block and working out what seems to be working and what doesn’t. We suggest the minimum number of rows to be 4-5, and block size 4 x 4 or 4 x 5. We will suggest how to plant the seed in a later post, but it may be that not every nut germinates, and you will want to replace some ungerminated nuts with nuts from the same mother tree a year later. We typically do this, so factor it in as quite probable.
Participants will purchase the number of packets of seed that correspond to their plan, one per mother tree, up to the total number of trees in their rows. We will generate and post a selected list. Seed packets will be distributed (first-come, first-served) in the order of the trees on the list until that particular tree is sold out (different trees will produce different numbers of nuts; we will retain and plant a seed packet of each source tree to ensure we have trees with which to compare yours). The selected list will rank trees in accordance with the data that we currently have, using the kernel yield per tree for 2007 as the primary indicator. Every other indicator that we use (e.g. leaf disease expression) will be successively discounted by approximately 50%, so that what we know to be economically important receives the greatest weight in our selection. We will post our development of this ranking procedure.
We expect the select list to change in size each year, as we add trees to it (while we like the current 25, we do not guarantee them yet to be the best in our plantation; the current 25 will be kept on to provide replacement seed, and to act as the reference trees in our analyses). If you plant future blocks, planting plans can account for the mother trees already represented in your present block.
If you plant, we hope that you will commit to collecting data on these trees, and sharing it with us. In fact, what we are proposing is really a regional information network, to form the basis of an emerging nut industry. This requires multiple sites.
We commit to maintaining, for as long as we are able, all data on your growing trees, and providing you with annual performance charts concomitant with the number of seed trees represented in your planting. As suggested above, you may wish to undertake something like this iteratively, planting in successive years. We will accommodate your iterative program.
Why do this? We believe black walnut provides the only opportunity for nut production at a commercial scale in much of eastern
I am sorry, but we will not be able to ship seed to the US. All other international destinations will be at your risk.
More than just seed sales
Among our thousands of trees are some which show valuable characteristics: precocity, high tolerance or resistance to leaf-spotting diseases, and high kernel yield. While black walnut is open-pollinated, and there is no complete guarantee that natural offspring will be as disease resistant or productive as the tree from which the seed is harvested, there is a greater probability that these traits will be evident in such trees than those established from non-select trees of unknown origin (e.g. common black walnut purchased from forest nurseries, or grown from seed collected).
We believe that the establishment of semi-improved biomass stands, from seed from trees screened in the way we are screening ours, is less expensive and reasonably predictable compared to other options. It allows you to test many genotypes to find those best suited to your site. Our confidence in this approach can be seen in our own development strategy: expanding our own plantations in exactly this way – select and plant. We offer you the opportunity to do exactly the same. It goes almost without saying that you must have a long-term vision of nutculture on your property to make this worthwhile, as you may have to wait for your first nutcrop for up to 7-10 years from planting. In the meantime you can compare your tree growth with sister trees grown here at Lostwithiel Farm and on other collaborators’ sites.
I will start to post individual tree data soon. You will be able to see the trees we have selected and are on-planting (i.e. the trees the nuts are coming from).
If you are interested in seed this year, I suggest you send me an email. Firm commitments with payment should be made by Oct 15th.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Livelihood
Let’s tackle this first. Given our penchant for money, let me ask you about units. What is the smallest scale at which it you would separate one economic activity from another? Would $1,000 be enough to make you sit up and think about changing the way you earn it? $5,000? $10,000? Interestingly enough, $10,000 is the value I give to 1 t of in-shell nut. How do I get there? By assigning an average kernel percentage of 25%, and a sale value of $5 per 100g. The latter is close enough to the cost for a baglet of black walnut pieces in US supermarkets (Giant; $5.99/5 oz., 6 Sept 08). While some may say 25% kernel percentage is high, it approximates my 2007 cracking results (22% average), and if we were able to add other income streams than just kernel (e.g. shell), effectively we could achieve more than 25%. No matter. One tonne is what I estimate my 2008 in-shell yield to be. Can I extract and sell enough to realize $10,000 before costs? Interesting numbers.
I personally believe that the only way to each such production levels reliably is by establishing black walnut plantations of 1000 trees upwards. Why do I think this? Because nut production is dependent upon adequate tree canopy development to sustain it, and I think it is better to contemplate 1000 young trees producing 1 kg ( a model built on common black walnut seedlings) than 100 young trees producing 10 kg or 10 young trees producing 100 kg (models built on more expensive grafted selections). Even grafted trees may need 15-20 years to develop canopies that will sustain high production levels. The trees don’t all have to be planted at once. As C.F. Hostetter, of the delightfully-named
“In 1926 I hazarded a planting of 150 trees, the next year I was steamed up to the place where I decided I should plant more, and then each year following, until my last planting this year, gives me one thousand thrifty growing black walnuts…..”
It is clear that early efficiencies in kernel extraction are going to be low. It is also clear that growing plantations will produce higher yields with time. We will have investment costs in technology. These are factors that we need to build into our calculations. But none will work unless we base our livelihood on units of thousands of trees. Does this sound unachievable? Not at all. We have about 2,500 trees on our farm, and are still hazarding more planting. We hope to leave the $10,000 mark well behind quite soon.
[1] Hostetter, C.F. Developing a Thousand Tree Nut Grove, Northern Nutgrowers Annual Report, 1933, p43.
Black Walnut Nutgrowers' Network
This is an idea whose time, I think, has come. As it is mine, I can suggest vision, objectives, etc., until the prospective membership becomes disenchanted and wants to reformulate them. Why am I pushing this? Because I am convinced that innovative nutgrowing, in my neck of the woods, at least, needs a single-species focus. Each species is not only different in management requirements, but also in technology for use, markets even. Now, I am not suggesting that there are not already BWN networks - for instance, there is one within the NNGA, but I find it constrained by its cultivar focus, and it would (perhaps does) find me an awkward animal. My intention here is to explore ways of widening debate, including what I feel is a viable alternative model, and perhaps through methodology, bringing approaches together, with a wholly satisfactory outcome for all. What would this outcome be? I suggest we would measure it in economic terms.
There will generally be no directed call for members. Instead, membership accrues by a simple email to me, which implies you have read at least this post, and are sufficiently interested in my vision of a sustainable partial rural livelihood to wish to learn more.
Why sustainable? Sustainable because there is little point in even starting unless we appreciate the value of trees as intergenerational assets and their importance to future generations, especially from a perspective of environmental services.
Why partial? Partial because the days of a single job for life have largely gone (if they ever existed for the majority) and we need a portfolio of economic actions upon which to base our earnings. This is only one of them.
Why rural? Rural because nutgrowing upon the scale that I am interested in implies ownership and management of rural property, perhaps land that even now is being actively farmed.
Why livelihood? Livelihood because we want to live from something we enjoy and make it part of our daily economic activity.
From these stem two possible memberships: those who aspire to this concept and own the property to pursue it, and those who are not landowners but are just interested. I’ll call them landowning (L) and non-landowning (NL) members, as this is the biggest defining variable of them all. It doesn’t matter where the land is or what you are currently doing with it. It doesn’t even have to be in
So, let’s get to objective. The objective is to generate and disseminate the knowledge necessary to achieve the vision, in location-specific terms. I live on the northern fringe of the species current range, and outside its historic range, and my knowledge needs may be different from someone who lives, for example, on the southern fringe. But we need to be actively involved in the generation of knowledge, because no-one else is going to do it for us. If you think they are, you probably shouldn’t think of membership in the BWNN. This doesn’t mean you need to be an immediate contributor, but it would be more interesting for us if you at least saw yourself as an innovator.
Here, then, is the idea. In the next post I’ll put forward my suggestion on how to start. With the trees. And if you wonder how I think about a network, I consider it: a purpose-oriented operational form for delivery of outputs and results (I admit to reading that elsewhere but don’t recall the reference). In these days of interconnectivity, there’s no reason to believe we can’t do most of this on-line.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Wet processing
It has been my intention for some time now to post the developing layout for a continuous-flow wet processing area. Until now, all my processing has been on a batch basis, which is very limiting and time consuming. It is my intention to get to the point where my system will contemplate tonnes of product with relative complacency. My wet processing is done under a steel-roofed addition to my barn. This offers ample opportunity to collect adequate rainfall for storage in two elevated cisterns (8). The area measures about 30' x 15'.
Nuts (more accurately, the fruit) will be received on a conveyor (1), lifted (2) and dumped into a geared-down forage blower (3). This will pre-split the hulls and physically propel them to the hulling machine (4). Hull material will exit the area on another conveyor (5) and the cleaned nut will enter the continuous-flow washer (6) before dropping into the dryer(7). Most transfers depend on gravity, so steps 2 and 3 are intended to lift the incoming material to adequate working height.
The continuous flow washer is this year's collaborative project with Algonquin College, and the initial design is already being critiqued. I hope we will have a proof-of-concept ready for this fall's harvest.
If you click on the above diagram it will open at larger scale in another window.
Tree scoring
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
| None | None | None |
| 1-5 | 1-5 | Few |
| 6-20 | 6-20 | Medium |
| 21-80 | 21-80 | High density |
| >80 | 80-320 | |
| >320 |
Prior to harvest the trees will also be scored for other features, and expression of leaf-spotting diseases is one of these. The pairing of low disease expression with medium nut density in the canopy would boost a tree into the ‘of interest’ grouping, such that it would also be selected for on-planting and cracking analysis.
If one embarks on biomass nut production, as we have, where extensive plantations of non-select trees are used, it is important to find management tools which simplify and streamline management for production. Tree scoring is one of these, allowing one to focus on the trees that will eventually add more to the bottom line than others.
Thanks again to the Ontario Stewardship Rangers for their help for the day!
Thursday, July 24, 2008
As I walk the walnuts - 6
My tree population has become a world unto itself, massive growth this year, uplifting (in all senses) avian biodiversity from the relative paucity of two-dimensional flatland of the original hayfields into the third dimension of biomass infrastructure – that fractal takeover of the near-sky by carbonic tentacles that are uniquely black walnut.
Elsewhere in this blog I have explained what I mean about biomass walnut production, and my ‘non-cultivar’ approach. As the years pass I have become more aware of what this broad diversity means to the farm landscape, and how I believe it adds far more value than would planting reduced numbers of named selections (the dollar-for dollar-implication). In scientific terms, I have gone back to a genetic baseline, providing the means to identify a benchmark against which to detect change; in spiritual terms, I have given worth to individuals in my populations on terms quite distinct from the do-or-die dogma of modern agriculture. At the risk of being thought to have gone over to a lunatic fringe, it important that I expand on this. To do this, I’ll bring Thomas Merton into the discussion.
Thomas Merton was a Cistercian monk who deliberated long and hard on Nature. Because he came to it as a God-fearing person, he spent much of his time contemplating its sacredness. By the definition of ‘sacred’, Nature was made holy by religious association. As a holy person (said by others), he was therefore unlikely to consider that Nature was non-holy. Merton died in
“How necessary it is for monks to work in the fields, in the rain, in the sun, in the mud, in the clay, in the wind: these are our spiritual directors and our novice-masters. They form our contemplation. They instill us with virtue. They make us as stable as the land we live in[1].”
But I’d like to use another entry of Merton’s:
“Either you look at the universe as a very poor creation out of which no-one can make anything or you look at your own life and your own part in the universe as infinitely rich, full of inexhaustible interest, opening out into infinite possibilities for study and contemplation and interest and praise….”
I have deliberately excluded the last sentence: Beyond all and in all is God for the very simple reason that none of his contemplations actually deliver this beyond the level of an assumption. I believe that holiness can exist without referencing a deity, and that the reverence I have when I stand in an avenue of black walnuts derives from their capacity to fill my vision in a particular way, both when still and when moving, and that they now dwarf me, returning me to the natural condition when humans evolved amongst the trees. Perhaps that reverence has a hint from genetic memory of the dangers associated with tall trees. Otherwise, it may rest in the pleasant reflection that trees now exist where they haven’t for 150 years.
But, you see, Merton is right about those infinite possibilities, though they are as much to do with not knowing much about the future, and enjoying ourselves responsibly on the road Under Nature as much as possible. In a climate undergoing rapid change, I would rather be caring for thousands of not very expensive trees, than losing sleep at night because of what I have invested in a few. Many of my trees may not express worth in the way it is commonly measured today, but until I come to measure it I’ll enjoy having them around.
If you care for treatment of Under Nature as I mean it, please visit a future post.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Managing for growth
In a previous post (A bit more about cultivars, Feb 3) I promised to come back to the topic of managing for growth. All that I’ve seen in our plantations suggests that rapid seedling growth (increasing height, expanding DBH) leads to more rapid physiological maturity, and that this in its turn is displayed as fruit setting (nutting). At the core of management for early growth will be weed control, and if you plant, as I did, in old pastures or hay fields, this means grass control. Grasses are particularly pernicious, if you’ll forgive the alliteration. A little while ago I gave a talk to a local woodlot association, where I was tackled about my use of glyphosate. “Why” I was asked “didn’t I mulch my trees?” Laziness, I suppose, though economists would probably interpret that as awareness of an infinitely low return to labour were I to do so, because I am not inherently lazy. The difficulty lies in the number of trees we have – we would have to mechanize the mulching process if we wanted not to have to work around the clock. Let me first, though, defend myself to the purists. In the early years, I did work around the clock, using a Honduran sickle (don’t ask right now) to control grass and weed growth manually. The trees didn’t grow. I also used plastic brush mats (inorganic mulch, if you like). The trees didn’t grow. So I bought myself a backpack sprayer, having seen the local CN maintenance crews spot-spraying for brush control along the local railroad track. I even bought the same model. The trees began to grow. By this time I had 1,500 trees, and found that I could spot-spray the lot in one good day’s hard work. Much better than bending over for several days with my old Honduran friend in hand, without result. The trick was to lower a piece of old 15cm stovepipe over each tree, for protection, while whipping the spray-wand around it. That tells you how undeveloped they were, because even a 50cm seedling can develop enough branches that you’d need a 50cm diameter stovepipe if you were to lower it over the tree quickly.
So the trees grew, and outgrew my technology. Then I picked up an old orchard sprayer from my local machinery dealer, and gravitated to band spraying (switching a tractor-mounted sprayer off between trees requires more dexterity, accuracy, and even controls, than I had, and doesn’t do the machinery much good). Though by this time the trees were getting to the point where a continuously clear band was only going to be good for expanding root growth, so I didn’t begrudge them that extra bit of herbicide. They grew wonderfully. So the lesson in this is that herbicides can be very useful and, if the sums were done, probably far more economical (let alone effective) than mulching. And in case you believe ‘herbicide’ and ‘conservation’ shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath, or the same sentence, just try g**gling them together, e.g. http://www.appliedeco.org/conservation-research/prairie-restoration-research, or http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss1/art6/
The second is from our farm, and dates from 2004. Two years before, these trees were very much like the trees in the foreground of the previous photo. Glyphosate sprayed at the recommended level of active ingredient per hectare gave the grass control you can see here. Some of these trees nutted in 2004, which does not speak to an immediate herbicide effect but rather that the previous spot-spraying was itself effective. Now, I only spray seedling trees under establishment (mainly the selection blocks). My current weapon of choice (not used in this photo) is an ATV-mounted Enviromist Sprayer, with a 60cm spraydome. I can now do hectares of plantation per hour.
Let me mention some of the other consequences of vegetation, mainly grass, control with herbicide. As I generally spray only once, in the spring, there has been an interesting proliferation of broad-leaved species, with an accompanying increase in insect and bird diversity. Note that I say broad-leaved ‘species’, rather than ‘weeds’. The definition of a weed is ‘any plant growing where you do not want it to grow’. While I was quite surprised by the influx of milkweed, and of some other species, it is only ragweed that I truly dislike. Ragweed, apart from its noxious asthmatic-inducing pollen, is a plant with no redeeming features, and can be as oppressive to young black walnut as grass can be. So a second application may be called for. The remaining vegetational diversity I value, as it co-exists with the trees without direct competition. As the trees grow they quickly shade the other species, and I am now mowing beneath them as some grass has returned. There seems to be no juglone intolerance in these broad-leaved species, as I see no major species-difference where they grow between fields with trees or without.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
As I walk the walnuts - 5
As I walk the walnuts, either measuring pole or diameter calipers in hand, as it is measuring season, there are things that I notice. It is spring here, though the trees are one of the last to emerge from their winter solitude. When I am measuring height, I often look beyond the tip of the tree to a solitary bird well up in the sky making use of the currents that there must be at that altitude. Not geese, for they announce their passing well in advance, and clear the sky by force. No, these are occasional hawks or gulls that catch my eye and make me pause and wish that I had their talents for silent passage. Where are they going, and who awaits them?
When I am measuring diameter (I measure height and diameter separately, because I struggle to carry all those bits and pieces at one time) my gaze is closer to the ground. Why, I wonder, is there an apparent association between ants and black walnut trees? In my field where I collect most of this data, there is commonly one ant hill between 50cm to 1m from the base of the tree, in the grass-free band along the rows of trees. I frequently find the ants cruising the tree, though sometimes stationary on the terminal buds, and I can only surmise that they are feeding on the sap I sometimes see escaping from larger wounds. But I am amazed that the rule is one hill per tree, where I find them (not all trees have anthills). If this were not a deliberate association, I would expect to find anthills at random distances between pairs of trees, and perhaps in multiples, but this is not the case. Who passes the message on? This is my tree, mate, go and find your own (actually ‘ours’ given that ants are social insects, but ‘ours’ doesn’t mean ‘yours too’). Perhaps there is a scent trail at the base of the tree which says just that: Trespass at your peril!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Applied Research Day
Yesterday (10 April 2008) was Applied Research Day at
This event marks a milestone: the completion at the College of work on the cracker/separator, and the production of an experimental harvester which we can begin to analyze practically, i.e. under field conditions, before embarking on a ‘second generation’ model. Both units will come to the farm over the summer and be exhaustively tested. Only the harvester will feed back into Team 4’s program; the cracker/separator will be taken up by the members of Team 2 who demonstrated the first proof of concept to the NNGA last year. They will work with us at the farm to define efficiency, where cost savings in manufacture can be made, and to complete (by the end of the year) the construction of the first five units which we hope to offer to the market. Bookmark this post!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
As I walk the walnuts - 4
As I walk the walnuts, I reflect on the changes in bird life on the farm. Back in the early days, before the trees it was pretty sparse, though there were the annual visits from bobolinks, snow buntings, and red-winged blackbirds. Even the occasional kestrel, though this was a function of the hydro cable crossing the farm, and thus the prior existence of a superb scouting perch.
Those all still come, though in ways they didn’t before. The open areas of standing grass between the trees continue to attract the ground-nesters, and the trees themselves offer nesting sites for birds that wouldn’t have nested before. The red-winged blackbirds like to conduct their mating rituals on the aerial infrastructure the trees provide, making a good racket in the process. The kestrels are as likely to perch on the trees now, and it is wonderful to watch their young in their cart-wheeling antics up and down the rows in fall. This year, the snow-buntings may have had a harder time finding food in the open fields because a flock of a hundred or so took up semi-permanent residence in the few trees just outside the kitchen window, thus close to the bird feeder, and would come swooping in every half-hour or so, like a school of tropical fish flashing over a reef, all taking some sort of signal from one, feeding as a flock and not as individuals, taking flight together when someone called the time out. On those cold winter days these were my family, and I took great care to look out every hour or so, to make sure that there was sufficient seed for them, on the ground as much as on the table, as most would feed from that swept off the table either by their mates or by the blue jays that come in and shovel around, looking for the elusive peanut amongst all that other stuff.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Those spring frosts
The bane of any tender fruit producer’s existence is a spring frost, occurring at bud emergence, and which, depending on severity, can play havoc with the rest of the year. I have noticed that at Lostwithiel Farm the critical period is the first week of May, and that if we can get through it with nothing less than 2oC our course should set fair. What is the likelihood of this happening?
Environment
What we immediately see is a high probability of a damaging event occurring at least mid-month or later, and that we should not be surprised by any late spring frost. The 2002 event, a negative reading on the May 25th, would have tested anyone’s resolve.
However, another factor to consider here is tree size. I collected nuts widely throughout our region in 2002, in fact, it seemed to be a bumper crop, for I have not seen the like since. Frosts generally occur as a result of a temperature inversion, and my hypothesis is that a tall tree has most of its canopy above the freezing zone. What I hope eventually to see, as our trees grow taller, is a declining effect of spring frosts on our own nut production. It is possible that many of the trees out in the landscape have been naturally selected for late flowering, though I don’t place much confidence in this. As far as I know, our first-planted trees are derived from nuts collected in our own seed zone. I actually believe lateness in bud emergence (and thus flowering) runs counter to the natural trend, and that earliness is of evolutionary advantage, but this is nothing we shall prove at the farm. What we will test is the heritability of date of bud break in the 25 lines selected this year, and see whether there is any consistent lateness between maternal and F1 lines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)