FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117  
118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   >>   >|  
ime a cracker with interchangeable anvils is not available. Using different sized iron pipe couplings in a vise may help solve the problem. Some varieties will crack better with a hammer than with a cracker of the Hershey type with standard anvils. In cracking a sample for test the operator should try to recover the most possible out of the first crack without using a pick or recracking. 4. The empty nut problem is probably the most difficult and is not satisfactorily solved by cracking nuts in excess of 25 until 26 filled nuts are secured. This necessitates weighing the sample after the nuts are cracked which is usually impracticable because of loss of parts of shells in cracking and because additional nuts are not available. Empty or shrivelled nuts in a sample are a serious defect which should count heavily against it. On the basis of experience it seems that a better method is to crack the random sample of 25 nuts and let the empty nuts and shrivelled kernels affect the score as reduced weight per nut, reduced per cent kernel and the penalty as well. Shrivelling that is obvious and which adversely affects the appearance of the kernels should be penalized. Possibly further experience will suggest a better way of handling this problem. The proposed score of a sample is made up as follows: 1. The weight of a single nut in grams. 2. The per cent kernel of total weight of sample recovered after first crack x 2. 3. The total per cent kernel of total weight of sample divided by 2. 4. One tenth point for each whole quarter recovered. 5. Penalty of one score point for each empty nut in the sample. 6. Penalty of 1/2 point for every nut with shrivelled kernel. The makeup of this score does not differ from that previously used except in the matter of procedure with empty nuts. It is felt that the items included are weighed in a realistic manner and that difficulties in scoring have been due to methods of handling the samples rather than in the scoring schedule itself. It does not seem likely that this schedule or any schedule will be valuable unless used by experienced operators who are willing to take the precautions indicated. Also it is apparent that wherever possible more than one sample of a lot to be scored should be tested and the average score used. REFERENCES CITED 1. MacDaniels, L. H. Report of committee on varieties and judging standards. No. Nut Growers Assn. Proc. 28: 20-23. 1937. 2. Mac
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117  
118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
sample
 
kernel
 
weight
 
shrivelled
 

schedule

 

cracking

 

problem

 

experience

 

scoring

 

kernels


Penalty

 

handling

 

recovered

 

cracker

 

reduced

 

anvils

 

varieties

 
judging
 
previously
 

differ


matter

 

standards

 
committee
 

makeup

 

procedure

 

Report

 
divided
 

quarter

 

Growers

 
included

experienced

 
operators
 

tested

 

average

 
valuable
 

apparent

 

scored

 

precautions

 

difficulties

 

MacDaniels


manner

 
weighed
 
realistic
 

REFERENCES

 

samples

 

methods

 

solved

 

excess

 

satisfactorily

 
difficult