FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   >>  
on size and less on quality than is the case with the score card used. Inasmuch as the same score card has been used for all nuts except where it seemed entirely unadapted (because when this was done the figures have a value they otherwise would not in expressing the relative value of each species) it seems very desirable this common score card be retained for as many nuts as possible. There are some notable instances where fruits commercially important do not rank highest in quality, e. g., the Elberta peach, Ben Davis apple, and Kiefer pear, therefore it is thought better not to emphasize size too strongly in the case of hazels. It is only fair to state, however, that much less work has been put on judging hazels than on some other nuts and perhaps our ideas will have to be revised later. HAZELS KEY: A: Species B: Prize awarded C: Average weight of nut D: Average weight of kernel E: Average weight of kernel that dropped out after cracking F: Average weight of kernel that could be easily picked out with fingers after cracking G: Average cracking pressure H: Proportion of kernel I: Cracking quality absolute J: Cracking quality commercial K: Size (10) K: Form (5) M: Color of shell (5) N: Husking quality (5) O: Thinness of shell (10) P: Cracking quality commercial (20) Q: Cracking quality absolute (5) R: Color of kernel (5) S: Proportion of kernel (15) T: Quality of kernel (20) U: Total points awarded (100) |NAME |ADDRESS |DESCRIPTION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | ========================================================================== |J. F. Jones | | | | | | | | | | |Lancaster, Pa. | Am | 1 | 2.1g|1.0g|1.0g|1.0g| 39kg| 45.7| 100.0| |Rush hazel | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Miss Louise Littlepage | | | | | | | | | | |Bowie, Md | Am | 2 | 2.7g| .8g| .8g| .8g| 59kg| 28.3| 100.0| |---- | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |J. W. Strassel | | | | | | | | | | |Rockport, Ind | Am | 2 | 1.9g| .7g| .7g| .7g| 36kg| 36.5| 100.0| |---- | | | | | | | | | | ------------------
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   >>  



Top keywords:

quality

 

kernel

 

Average

 
weight
 
Cracking
 

cracking

 
absolute
 

hazels

 

commercial

 

Proportion


awarded
 

easily

 

Husking

 

picked

 

fingers

 
pressure
 

Littlepage

 

Louise

 

Rockport

 
Strassel

Quality

 
Thinness
 

Lancaster

 

DESCRIPTION

 

ADDRESS

 

points

 

retained

 
common
 

desirable

 

species


important

 

commercially

 

fruits

 

notable

 

instances

 

relative

 

unadapted

 

Inasmuch

 

expressing

 

figures


highest

 

judging

 

Species

 

HAZELS

 

revised

 

Kiefer

 
Elberta
 

strongly

 

emphasize

 

thought