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 Canada. It has been our observation that there is no structured program of support for landowners interested in diversifying into nutculture. A simple, practical program, based on a network of interested growers, offers the best opportunity of extending basic knowledge and skills suited to a new tree-based livelihood. It is our interest to foster region-wide adoption of black walnut. Welcome to our network!

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.

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 Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania, wrote[1] in 1933:

“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 North America (black walnut exists considerably farther afield than this).

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.

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

Once again, I am indebted to the Ontario Stewardship Rangers (this year aka Josh Bowes, Stefanie McCann, Jessica Rothwell and Eric Dopson), from the Lanark County Stewardship Council for spending a day at the farm and scoring my two main stands of trees for nut load (>1000 trees). This is the third year the OSR has done this, and each year I introduce changes to the system. The 2007 crew had the hardest job.

The purpose of scoring is to identify superior trees ahead of harvest. Different-coloured flagging tapes are tied to the tree in accordance with the assigned score. The superior trees are the ones I am most interested in selecting nuts from for on-planting, and for cracking analysis. We are a season away from mechanical harvesting, so all nuts from superior trees would be hand-harvested and counted before the mechanical harvester was passed through to pick up everything else. The following table indicates the scoring ranges used in the past three years:

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

The simplification of 2008 stemmed from the realization that counting the nuts on the tree was very difficult and often inaccurate at best (at the high end). Nuts are counted anyway at pickup time, so no more is needed than an estimate of ‘nut density in the canopy’. Thirty-eight trees in total fell into the high category in 2008, about 50% more than 2007.

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!

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.

It is when I stand in these 6m high avenues that I am aware of something fundamentally clear - that the immediate biosphere is recovering after some 150 years of agricultural exploitation and that the animate occupants of this space are the more joyful for it. Of course, they are instinctively animated, so the joy is nothing more than behavioural change or enhanced presence because of changing predator-prey dynamics, but I prefer to put an anthropomorphic slant on things. After all, I am more joyful, so why shouldn’t they be?

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 Bangkok in 1968, a few short years before I got there, but I have only really discovered his writings recently (unlike John Stewart Collis, subject of an earlier post). Merton was also a bit of a blogger, and I have quite enjoyed his When The Trees Say Nothing (Sorin Books), but if I have an argument with him, and other writers, e.g. Ursula Goodenough (The Sacred Depths of Nature, Oxford University Press, 1998) who depart from the station by the same platform, it is that they are almost certain to confuse holy (to be revered) with holy (belonging to or empowered by God). I am delighted with Merton’s:

“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].”

I am less sure that he has the outcomes right, though I think this would be as good a mantra as any for the people of today who are indifferent as to where their existence owes its due. Even the practitioners of agriculture from the saddles of jumbo-wheeled tractors have lost a large part of this connection, hedging referring to how they manage their finances, rather than delineating their fields.

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.

---

[1] Merton, Thomas. When the trees say nothing. Ed. Kathleen Deignan, Sorin Books, 2003, pp192.