e edge of a
garden; the other, in a chicken run. In seven years the first tree grew
to a height of 32 feet--an average growth of 4.5 feet a year. It began
bearing in 1943 and produced a crop of nuts each year up to the time of
the survey. The 1946 crop, reported as a light one, yielded 3.5 pounds
of kernels. The other tree, shown in Figure 1, was 18 feet tall, having
averaged 2.5 feet a year. It also began bearing annual crops in 1943,
and in 1946 it had a very heavy crop for its size, yielding 2.5 pounds
of kernels. Here are two Thomas trees of the same age planted
practically side by side; one is almost twice the size of the other, but
they both began bearing annual crops three years after planting.

=Field Survey in Sample Area.= To check on the adequacy of the
questionnaire survey, 108 test plantings in eastern Tennessee were
visited and inspected. Forty of these had been reported on by mail; 68
had not. In general, the trees had been planted on the best sites
available. Some were set out in farm orchards (Figure 2); a large number
were planted in yards as combination nut and shade trees (Figure 3).

Field examination of the 40 plantings which had returned questionnaires
revealed conditions very similar to those reported (Table 4). Survival
was found to be 75 percent compared with a reported 77 percent. Average
tree height was reported as 9 feet; actual height averaged 11 feet.
There was some hesitancy in reporting tree deaths caused by livestock; 4
percent was reported while 23 percent was found. Such mortality was
usually listed as unknown on questionnaires.

Information collected by field examination of 68 plantings which had not
returned questionnaires and the 40 plantings which had returned
questionnaires is shown in Table 4. Trees were found to be 2 feet taller
in the 68 plantings but these trees averaged one year older than trees
in the 40 plantings. Trees in the 68 plantings averaged 13 feet in
height compared with 11 feet. Average age at first bearing was very
similar. And here is a revealing discovery; livestock, mowing, and fire
were responsible for 47 percent of the tree mortality in the 68-planting
group, compared with 23 percent in the 40 plantings. This is perhaps one
reason why the persons involved in these 68 plantings did not return
questionnaires; it also explains most of the poorer survival. A large
number of trees were planted in pastures and elsewhere without adequate
protection from livestoc