ETHAN C. HOLT
Professor, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences
Texas A&M University
THE UTILIZATION of land for hay production or grazing during the early development stages of pecan trees would serve as a source of income during the relatively long initial non-productive period. Grass can be grown successfully during this period, but the extent of the retarding effect on tree development is now well established. Certainly grass competes for moisture and nutrients, and the availability of these influences the competitive effect on the tree. As pecan trees enlarge, increasing amount of shade retards grass growth. The point at which grass production is no longer profitable is not well established.
The above points indicate a need for research to establish both the competitive effect of grass on pecan tree development and production and the effect of shade on grass production and longevity. The interrelationships of plant nutrients, moisture and grass species or variety on these competitive effects require study. Not only light intensity but also light quality may be influenced by pecan trees. Light quality in turn influences the type and amount of grass growth. Only certain types of grass are suitable for use in producing orchards because of possible interference with harvest operations. Species and varieties of grass need to be evaluated.
Research designed to evaluate some of these factors was initiated in 1966, in cooperation with the U. S. Pecan Field Station at Brownwood, Texas, and the Texas A&M Plantation near College Station, Texas. The work in 1966 consists of attempting to establish grasses in orchards of various ages and studying shade patterns, light reduction and light quality in pecan tree shade. No positive results can be reported for the preliminary work in 1966.
]]>
W. B. MARTIN, JR.
General Manager, Sunshine Pecan Company
San Antonio, Texas
WITHOUT IMAGINATION and ideas no one could possibly remain in the pecan business. It is difficult however, to present ideas in sequence of importance. The pecan business, as you know, has more facets to it than a cut diamond. There are no two years exactly alike with regard to harvests or markets. The business is conducted with emotion and feelings or the various operators.
Most people become interested in the pecan by fate or by accident. Thirty-nine years ago, while I was away from my grocery business, my employees purchased considerable tonnage of shelled pecans that came out of old Mexico. With considerable effort, these shelled pecans got sold. I became fascinated with the affair. Ideas came fast. The result was the sale of the grocery store and entry into the pecan business.
Difficulties Multiplied
From the very beginning the troubles came. It seemed that some individuals, the City Health Department, County, State and Federal Government were singling out the pecan business as a target for destruction.
The unsanitary operating conditions of the time could not be controlled. The hand crack, hand pick did create employment for thousands of otherwise unemployable people. Then, the natural enemies of fluctuating markets, quality inconsistency, transportation difficulties grading and sizing to suit trade requirements, packaging, financing, storing, selling and distribution, all took their toll.
The industry, despite tragedies, complications and problems, is still growing. Yet, I feel that the industry is still in its infancy. Our growth and progress is retarded on many occasions by short crops. We are pushed backward many times by poor markets but we keep trying to grow and improve.
Processing Modernized
From the hand crack and piece work basis of just a few years ago, we now see processing plants being automated. Higher costs for each phase of operation plus the $1.25 to $1.40 per hour minimum wages are being overcome to some extent whereby processing costs are up only 40 to 50 percent over the cost that we had 30 years ago. All management costs of operation, however, have gone up 100 percent and more clerical, freight and other costs have risen.
Pecan processing equipment has become more costly and sophisticated. The 2 x 4 and screen wire days are just memories. We are growing up slowly in this industry. The trend is forward with progress in most facets. We are going backward, however, in some phases, such as quality. We are standing still marketwise. The pecan market is always a market of expediency. Stability in a pecan market is just a temporary affair. Production has not stabilized; quality has not stabilized.
New Approaches Needed
Over a 30-year period, I see a general deterioration in quality---Why? I still see unstable production. I still see gyrating markets.
Either we improve on our old ways or embark on new approaches to fit in with the forward trends or suffer the same consequence over and over. This applies to every facet of the industry---orchard management, insect control, accumulation, preparations for sales, transportation, etc. where the grower is concerned.
The grower also must be concerned with the processors who play the vital part in marketing. Each facet carries as much importance as the other.
Marketing alone isn't the solution of all problems. It is just the end result in coping with all the other items that lead up to marketing. We can't continue on the basis of expediency alone. Constructive objectives must be researched either one by one or simultaneously.
Some conditions of operation which we can't afford much longer must be clearly defined. Means or procedures must be established to avoid having to suffer through the same on another occasion. The gyrating price and market condition of 1963 through 1966 is what I refer to.
Research in horticulture on the pecan probably will prevent the terrific difference in tonnage production from year to year. Possibly the quality condition might become controlled.
Production must continue to rise to keep up with our ever increasing population. We need not concern ourselves with an oversupply of pecans it we will just bear in mind the things that slow down the consumption. Consumption was allowed to sink to an all-time low before the big 1963 crop hit. Now consumption is up again to an all-time high.
Today we have big corporations diversifying into the pecan world, such as Pet Milk, Standard Brands, Beatrice Foods, Cotton Producers Association and cooperatives, plus some financially strong individuals. This is evidence that the pecan industry is growing up.
Possibly the pecan industry again can enjoy a daily market, year in and year out. The industry had it once in the early 1930’s. We must never again find a condition where no one could sell a pecan at any price anywhere. This comment implies that a remedy can be found in some form.
To reduce the inconsistencies in growing, harvesting and marketing is our objective. We must establish responsibility for what we do. We must convince financial institutions that the pecan is a good risk. To do so we must have a grading system. We must eliminate sharp practices and develop terminology that identifies the kind and class of goods we sell or offer as collateral. Without adequate means to absorb any size crop the entire industry will suffer.
With the tight money supply here in 1966, there is apprehension relative to what kind of market price will develop when the harvest peak arrives. The smaller operators are the ones who help in stabilizing the market. These fellows have been hurt badly during the past 2 years. They can also hurt the market during their financial pinches.
The processing part of the pecan industry will find ways to market all qualities and varieties. This part of the industry, however, will have to recognize the fact that automation by the end user or manufacturer has changed the demand in the nut meat size categories. Varieties and qualities not suitable for the general use and consumer trade can now find a home via proper sizing of the nut meats into uniform particles for the automated manufacturers.
Research Needed
Research is needed regarding the price range that can prevail for any size crop during that particular year of harvest. Keeping in mind what price the grower must have as a fair return and what price must prevail to market that particular crop will solve many marketing problems. Marketing has been disorderly.
The shell that covers the nut meat is only the package. Since the content of the package is what we want and what we market we must realize that the price we pay or receive covers the nut meat only. The more nut meat in the package, the more we should pay and vice versa. Tie this into the quality angle and make price adjustments accordingly.
I believe that the processors should be buying nut meats from the growers and not in-shell pecans per se. The grower delivers the pecan meat in nature's package---the shell.
This leads up wishful thinking as follows:
1. Create markets for in-shell and shelled pecans in every grade that can be identified and established by familiar terminology.
2. Establish a sponsored pecan bank or industry sponsored market for stabilization of supply and the market.
3. Project yearly consumption rates and suggest prices required for orderly marketing of any stated tonnage crop before the harvest begins.
4. Project price differentials between quality nuts and poor quality. This will encourage growers to produce better quality.
5. Research all avenues for disposition of #3 grade pecans whereby this lowest quality can't affect the price market for the #l and #2 grades.
6. Create confidence on the part of the consumer by not permitting him to obtain #2 or #3 grades during the holiday season.
7. Research shelf life of the pecan meat. Educate the user as to conditions under which pecan meats must be kept to avoid letting the consumer get stale or rancid pecan meat. Strive to make a staple item out of the pecan such as beans, flour and salt.
8. Encourage growers to keep up with horticultural practices and to reduce the number of varieties of pecans.
9. Encourage research on all facets of the pecan industry to prevent history from repeating itself with the undesirable conditions.
10. Heretofore, only high price encouraged the grower to produce with the subsequent fall-off in consumer demand. Iron out this problem to arrive at a happy medium.
The industry is undergoing revolutionary changes. We will witness much more progress and suffer or enjoy accordingly the results we create. We can continue to work and act with expediency with our apprehension or wishful thinking or we can change our ways for betterment. The time has come when more people must contribute something tangible to the industry. Taking from the industry and giving nothing in return is fighting a rear guard action.
]]>Tom Denman | Stephenville |
Ben Freeman | Ranger |
Oscar Gray | Arlington |
Will S Price | Kerns |
Harry Cross | Greenville |
Hugo Pape | Seguin |
FR Brison | College Station |
Ben H. Baisdon | Austin |
Ed Whiteside | Mt. Pleasent |
Keith Kidwell, TDA | Houston |
Clarence Tisdale | |
Robert Kensing | San Angelo |
John Braden Jr | Cuero |
Jim Anthony | Ft. Worth |
Newell Atkinson | Wharton |
Floyd Gage | Brownwood |
John B. Harris | Hamilton |
JB Storey | College Station |
2. MINUTES
Braden moved that minutes of last directors meeting be accepted. Price seconded. Carried.
3. SCHOLARSHIP
Braden moved and Denman seconded motion that$200 from the treasury be transferred to the J. F. Risborough Scholarship Fund. Motion carried.
4. MEMBERSHIP as of December 15, 1965
Regular members 368
Contributing members 26
Sustaining members 4__
Total dues paying membership 398
Honorary members 64
Life members 12
Courtesy members 192
Extension member's 271_
Total overall membership 937_
5. President Harris reported on Washington trip.
a) 1,250,000 pounds of U.S.No.1 new crop pecans will be purchased for school lunch programs. Fifty percent will be chipped halves or better and the rest large pieces or better.
b) Durham at Comanche and Woldert at Tyler got bids on these pecans and maybe others.
c) Harris is not sure how much this has helped the growers, but knows that it has helped the areas where the plants were located that received the bids.
d) Harris indicated that the USDA is Skeptical about handling pecans because they consider them as luxury items.
e) A blanket law has been passed including pecans that make possible nation- wide mark-off system. The first phase of the program would be public hearings followed by a grower, referendum in winch two-thirds of the growers would be required to vote for the mark-off program. A suggested amount would be 10 cents per 100-pound bag or pecans received by the shellers. It is estimated that $250, 000 to $300, 000 per year could be made in this manner. The money would be spent at the discretion of member appointed by each state organization at the rate or one member per 20,000,000 pounds of production.
f) The Southeastern states have indicated that they want quality controls only on pecans going into the export market.
g) Growers are not interested in a program which would inflict controls on the industry. It is felt that the growers would go along with quality controls on foreign exports, if the Secretary of Agriculture would accept this minimum- type control, then we might have some common grounds on which everyone could agree. Questionable as to whether the Secretary would accept such minimal controls.
h) The money received from the mark-off goes into the commodity and not into the government. The government is only a watch dog in the program.
i) It was learned in the Thanksgiving meeting in Dallas that although the shellers could be forced into taking the mark-off, the government has never been known to force them into a program. The five big shellers would have to support the program before it could be successful.
j) Gold Kist was reported to have favored the program and Mr. Henry of Louisiana was quoted to have felt that Funsten might favor the program. A January meeting with the shellers has been called to determine if they would favor this program involving their taking the mark-off at the shelling plant.
k) Harris doubted that such a referendum would receive sufficient grower support even though an individual grower could receive his mark-off back upon request.
l) Harris referred to an article on page 11 of the November 1965 issue of the Peanut Journal and Nut World regarding the walnut growers.
m) Someone indicated that the big drawback experienced by the shellers would be their reluctance to disclose the volume of pecans that they were handling. In a report of mark-off to the government would devulge such information.
n) Anthony indicated that Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas and the Southeastern Pecan Growers Association representatives voted in favor of going ahead with the program. The marketing order is a means of indicating to the shellers that they will take the checkoff. Anthony stated that when pecan prices are good that we leave things alone, but when prices are down we get excited. He stated that USDA is becoming tired of our procedure of crying when hurting and doing nothing about it when we might be able to remedy the situation. They have felt that we will probably be up there every other year.
o) Baisdon has pointed out that the National Turkey Referendum in 1961 was defeated badly. He also pointed out that enabling legislation in Texas is the problem. Our law inhibits us from requiring purchasers of agricultural commodities to take a mark-off. Baisdon also indicated that Missouri had a problem selling apples. They conducted a merchandising program and demonstrated a number of promotion techniques. They helped growers get out promotion leaflets and published a Buyer's Guide. This did a great deal to help the growers sell the apples.
p) Harris stated that a law has been passed in Georgia making possible for them to take a state mark-off. However, they are reluctant to do so unless other states will do likewise.
q) Anthony pointed out that a constitutional amendment is required before we can require a mark-off on Texas pecans. Just to get this amendment drafted takes $12, 000 or maybe$14, 000. Fifty thousand dollars is required to get it on the ballot.
r) Anthony stated that in Alabama a law has been passed to legislate against fly-by-night roadside operators. This has reduced the amount of junk and worthless pecans on the Alabama market. Harris indicated that many of these junk pecans have been brought into Texas by trucks since we have no law to prevent them from doing so.
s) Gray recommended that we take the logical step. Anthony felt that the grower referendum should go to the individual growers so that they would have opportunity to express their opinion. Price moved that we approve the grower referendum concept in general and request a continuation of efforts to make a workable program between the growers and shellers. Denman seconded the motion and it was approved.
6. Anthony stated that we need additional promotion and publicity at our annual conferences. An individual should be selected who has done an unusual job of using pecan products and honored at the annual conference and in various trade journals. This would help us a great deal in publicity about to come. Anthony moved that the Awards Committee be charged with the responsibility of working out a program whereby an individual user of pecan products could be so honored. Braden seconded and it was carried.
7. Anthony moved and Braden seconded that Governor John Connally, Governor William Scranton and President Johnson receive a gift of Texas pecans. Motion was carried.
8. Denman suggested that a Southwestern Pecan Growers Association might have a real place. Whitesides states that Oklahoma and Kansas were very interested in working on a Southwestern basis.
9. Braden suggested that the Association should send letters to past members and various others who might be interested in membership in the Association. Such a move would help increase our membership.
Respectfully submitted,
J. B. Storey
Secretary-Treasurer
]]>The year 2020 has been very unpredictable for people all around the world due to the pandemic. However, this year on April 22, many people across the globe celebrated the 50th Earth Day. Yes, the year 2020 has marked fifty years of celebrating Earth Day.
Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, people are celebrating this auspicious occasion. This shows that regardless of the crises we face, Earth Day is important to us. The day promotes environmental protection, something that every one of us should enforce in our own capacities. Here are some of the ways in which we see positive efforts to save the earth from the environmental crises.
It’s likely that future generations will face the brunt of global warming’s worst effects. The youngsters realize this fact better than the world’s most influential and political leaders. Today’s generation is very passionate about doing everything within their capacity to improve the environment.
Young people are engaging in take-charge activism by the thousands to demand greater policy on climate change. Among hundreds of environmental activists, Greta Thunberg is the most prominent face of the youth climate strike movement.
Other than Greta Thunberg, several other activists are making every possible effort against climate change. They are using social media platforms and other means to smartly address and educate others about the problems of climate change.
Moreover, several young activists are coming up with innovative projects and products that can help reduce people’s everyday carbon footprint.
People are growing more aware of the impact of everyday products on the environment. While we still have a long way to go before banning unnecessary plastic products, we have made a good start towards sustainable living. From banning disposable plastic cutleries to buying bamboo toothbrushes, many people are embracing a sustainable lifestyle.
Composting at home is more common than ever. From reducing food trash to giving fertility to the soil, there are numerous benefits of composting. It is not just a great way to reduce trash, but it also provides super cheap, yet very rich, organic fertilizer for your garden.
It is not only the plastic products that are poisonous to the environment. The plastic from the packaging of millions of products is non-degradable. This is why people are switching to shampoo bars and soap that comes in degradable packaging. Shampoo and soaps in pods are very convenient, cheap, easy to use, and come in minimal packaging that is also degradable.
Instead of buying packaged pantry items, people are taking jars to the store. They use these containers to carry oats, flour, sugar, salt, baking powder, spices, etc.
Many countries have completely banned plastic shopping bags. Places, where plastic bags are still in use, rely on biodegradable plastic bags.
There is no doubt that growing more and more trees is the best way to reduce the effects of climate change. Forests act as the lungs of our planet. Unfortunately, the high rate of deforestation has lead to drastic changes in the climate.
People are growing more and more trees to play their part in reducing the effects of climate change. Countries are growing forests to conserve and grow maximum trees. Many countries are also partaking in projects to grow billions of trees every year.
]]>BEN H. BAISDON
Director of Marketing
Texas Department of Agriculture
Austin, Texas
I AM HIGHLY IMPRESSED with the theme of this year's convention---“Marketing Texas Pecans.” Texas has done a good job of producing the best pecans in the nation, but I understand your marketing practices can surely be improved. I would not want to suggest, however, that you relax your production standards at all. In fact, production must increase in the future.
I don't know the forecast on pecans, but let's look at some other products. By 1980 beef production will go from the present 19 billion pounds to 27 billion pounds; poultry from 7.5 billion pounds to 11.5; eggs from 5 billion dozen to 6 billion; milk from 126 billion pounds to 145 billion pounds of solids; soybeans from 702 million bushels to 1,306 million bushels. What will pecan production be?
Production won't just happen. Production increases must be planned, but even more important we had better start promoting our products for the future as well as to move our present crops. Promotion just doesn't happen either.
Plans for short- and long-range research and activity must be made to encourage increased usage of pecans and enhance the image of this product.
It has been my experience in working with the commodity groups that most effective promotion is accomplished when all levels of an industry are cooperating. I was appalled at a statement made at the Dallas Pecan Marketing Order hearing a couple of weeks ago. A person representing the processing end of the industry inferred that his association was doing enough work in promoting pecans. No one has done enough until further promotion fails to accrue any benefit. I can suggest, based on interviews that I have made, that pecans can enjoy a better image and increased sales. Therefore, I believe we need more promotion on pecans.
Promotion is a big job involving advertising, merchandising, public relations, publicizing, point-of-sale aids and display. Promotion costs are high. Therefore, a sound promotion program should include an arrangement for measuring its effectiveness, even though benefits in promoting non-branded products are difficult to measure. Perhaps the best analysis made to date concerned the work of one of the largest commodity promotion organizations---the American Dairy Association. The USDA and ADA cooperated in a study and were able to put a dollar and cents value on its promotion. For a selected period of time, they found that for each $1 invested, the industry received $1.68 in return. While no other organization has placed a specific value on a promotion, most all of them hold sufficient evidence that promotion pays. Certainly it may be easier to promote a brand name, or maybe it isn't, but we all know that if we promote Texas pecans, for instance, they must have identity. I have heard Dr. Brison and others of you in this room talk about the good quality of Texas pecans and the need for a grading program so that the packages might be labeled to so reflect quality. When standards are established, we can promote our Texas pecans most effectively. Until then we probably will just be promoting pecans along with our sister organizations and creating a desire for pecans will certainly help Texas. By sister organizations I mean:
1. Shellers
2. National Association of Growers
44 PROCEEDINGS TEXAS PECAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Certain promotional problems are already identified with your organization and your product. One---that of quality labeling---has been mentioned. The next most serious problem is lack of necessary funds. Other problems, not necessarily in order of importance, are problems dealing with maintaining, member relations; distribution and use of point-of-sale material; other general problems of the industry; and coordinating promotions with the trade.
I would like to offer a first, positive, approach to improving the promotional program of Texas pecan growers. I would recommend that you have marketing or promotion committee do research and make up practical and realistic promotional plans on short-term and long-term basis.
The plan should include:
1. Background information---such as sales history of, the product, history of the product itself, principal competition, what is the market, what are consumer attitudes, what is the relative strength of the product in various geographical areas, what is the trend of distribution, what is the past relationship between advertising expenditures and sales, what is the past relationship of other marketing expenses to sales.
2. Marketing targets
3. Promotional objectives.
4. Promotional alternatives.
5. Promotion budget.
6. Promotion media that can best serve your needs and other promotion strategy that can be used.
If this group will diligently plan and learn something about its promotional opportunities now, whether or not it has a budget, certain positive steps can be the off-spring. Actually, what I am suggesting to you is that despite the problems before you, such as lack of funds, I feel that there are certain ingenious ways that you can proceed to at least do something toward helping in the promotional effort. After a few brainstorming sessions; this committee could make recommendations to the Association and a start toward an effective and sound promotional program could result.
Each member should learn more about promotion and marketing as a whole. With this experience, you will be better equipped to enlarge your program when finances become available in the several ways that we have talked about. Your Marketing Division of the Texas Department of Agriculture stands ready to assist you in making your promotional plans and even in executing them but we want to see you involved to the extent that you can direct us.
Now I want to tell you about the work our division is doing and planning to do in pecan promotion. During the past year we have had a promotional exhibit at four major fat stock shows and four other shows at which we passed out pecan recipes. We distributed over 20,000 folders and personally talked to about that many consumers interested in learning more about pecans and other Texas products. They were invited to write to your Association for additional recipes.
During the year to follow, the Division will have two mobile home exhibits which will be on display at every major shopping center in the State and occasionally will take a trip out-of-state. The purpose will be to promote all major products grown in Texas as well as encouraging tourism in this State. Approximately 80 percent of the shoppers are expected to participate. By passing out recipes and other publications and visiting with so many consumers, we can open an entirely new spectrum in improving the image of Texas pecans.
We are going to add a home economist to our staff who will give demonstrations in stores, at our displays at public gatherings and on TV. Most important, she will coordinate our state-wide food promotions with all home economists, including all county home demonstration agents, home economics teachers and home economists in private businesses. She will work with food editors throughout the media to encourage usage of Texas products.
]]>
Suervisor, Foods Trade Program
Consumer and Marketing Service
Dallas, Texas
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, for inviting me to attend your annual meeting. It is a pleasure for me to be here today, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to tell you briefly about the Plentiful Foods Program and to give some of the highlights of the recent industry-government promotion on pecans.
Perhaps some of you will be hearing about this program for the first time; others of you no doubt know something about it, and still others of you have worked closely with us in various promotions over the years; thus you know us pretty well. For those of you who do not know us too well, I hope the discussion for the next little while will be enlightening; for our old friends here, I hope that I can bring you a current picture of our over-all operation.
Program to Help Producer and Industry
First, let me say the purpose of this program is to help the farmer, producer and industry to find a market for production, and to increase the movement ot foods in plentiful supply through normal channels of trade.
Let's face it, ladies and gentlemen, if we can focus the attention of the family and large-scale food buyers on plentiful foods, what happens-sales increase there- by avoiding useless waste and at the same time it helps stabilize prices.
Many people have asked me to describe the activities of this program in one word, and as yet I have not found any that does the job as well as “limelighters,” for indeed, the goal of this program is accomplished by placing in the “limelight” those foods in such abundant supply that they need marketing assistance, if they are to be moved through normal channels of trade.
It is not always easy to get the consumer's attention directed toward one particular food. Just stop and think a minute about the kind of competition we have in the supermarket today. Did you know that the average supermarket offers some 7,000 to 8,000 items, each one trying for the consumer's attention? So, you can see what a job we have when foods face marketing difficulties.
“Pecans, please”---are two little words which contain but a dozen letters; yet, during the recent special plentiful foods program conducted nation-wide on behalf of pecans, they spelled SUCCESS.
The All-American Nut
The story you are about to hear is a Consumer and Marketing Service story. It's about pecans and how this all-American nut became the center of attention in 1965.
The 1965 pecan crop covered the nation with its 264 million pounds. Yet within a few months the nation ate its way through this abundance. Pecan producers and processors had to work overtime keeping grocers’ shelves filled to meet consumer demand for pecans. How could so much of one food move so rapidly from tree to table? Because of the combined efforts of the Pecan Industry and the Consumer and Marketing Service of USDA. They joined forces and launched a promotion which captured the enthusiastic support of the entire food distribution industry.
In June 1965 the Pecan Industry was faced with the second largest crop on record waiting to be harvested and added to large carryover stocks. Industry leaders expected to be swimming in pecans once the harvest got underway.
Department of Agriculture was asked to purchase pecans as a surplus removal activity using Section 32 funds. One and a half million pounds of large-size pecan pieces were purchased and distributed to schools.
While this sounds like a lot of pecans, on an average, it provided only 1 tablespoon of pecans for each of the 18 million children participating in non-profit School Lunch Programs. This was just enough to make them hungry for more. School lunch managers purchased additional pecans locally. A special USDA Fact Sheet provided the managers with many ideas for using pecans.
Plentiful Foods Program
The Department's part of the promotion was handled by the Food Trades Staff which operates the Plentiful Foods Program. Food tradesmen, located in Washing- ton, 5 area offices and over 80 field offices, were alerted to the pecan situation and immediately set to work. They participated in planning sessions throughout the summer with industry representatives and the Department's information specialists. Get-togethers included the meeting of the National Pecan Council in New Orleans, and the Texas Pecan Growers Association conference. All phases of the promotion were clearly outlined and assigned.
October was kick-off month and the promotion peaked during the holiday season. Knowing personal contacts are the key to successful promotion, the food tradesmen put on their walking shoes and personally contacted industry leaders. Approximately 83,000 Fact Sheets went to food distributors, and provided them with the merchandising hints for pecans. The food service Fact Sheet included menu ideas using pecans. Over 55,000 copies were issued. Thirty-five thousand Fact Sheets went to the baking trade with merchandising ideas and recipe suggestions.
Pecans were included on the Department's Plentiful Foods List for October, December and January. Over 47,000 bulletins are issued monthly, 26,000 for the distributive trades and over 21,000 for the food service industry. Pecans were featured in December and January, the peak promotion months. Pecans were included in the Advance Food Service Story going to trade magazines with early publication deadlines. Food and Home Notes carried the pecan story to 6,000 women's and food editors during December.
The Pecan Industry offered its fullest cooperation. The National Pecan Council rallied industry members behind the promotion.
The National Pecan Shellers and Processors Association supplied special articles to trade magazines. The Candy Industry Journal published an article titled "Pecan Utilization Widens in Quality Confections.”
The baking industry included a pull-out section with formulas and photo- graphs showing how "Pecans Highlight Holiday Specials.”
Two point-of-sale pieces were provided by the industry. Thirty-thousands of each were made available to retailers, bakers and food service operators. The Industry sent a wealth of photo-recipe releases to food editors, provided television materials, and furnished information kits to the media and other promotion cooperators.
Growers Join Promotion Effort
The Texas Pecan Growers Association presented pecans to the mayor of Dallas and to the City Council. All of these industry and government activities received widespread coverage in the press, and allied groups quickly joined the pecan promotion bandwagon. The Pie Filling Institute added pecans to the fruit pie fillings it promoted. The California Prune Advisory Board contacted the National Pecan Council regarding additional prune-pecan tie-ins after seeing the prune and pecan cake recipe in the Food Service Fact Sheet.
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries of the U. S. Department of Interior printed 150,000 copies of this recipe folder. Copies were sent to food editors. Radio and TV food shows offered them to their audiences. Grocers used the recipes in their newspaper ads.
At the State Fair of Texas, 75,000 copies were distributed.
Two new pecan products were introduced on the market. Rubenstein Foods in Dallas offered Gulf Princess Pecan Breaded Shrimp. Local grocers immediately stocked the item and restaurants added it to their menus.
Pet Milk Company used pecans in its evaporated milk ads in newspapers and on car cards in public transit vehicles. Evaporated Milk Association included pecans in food editor releases.
Dairy foods and pecans also go together in a recipe booklet from Bordens and in the monthly bulletin of the Sanitary Milk Producers’ Association. The American Institute of Baking included pecans in its holiday releases Texas Bakers’ Council was active in this program. And a bakery in Fort Worth, Texas, developed four new pecan-baked goods after hearing that pecans were plentiful. They purchased 44,000 pounds of pecans in 1965, compared with 9,000 pounds in 1964.
Utility companies from Texas to New York State publicized pecans in bulletins and tabloids sent to their customers. Wholesalers in this country and Canada sent the Department's Fact Sheets and the industry's point-or-sale pieces to their customers. Many wholesalers offered special pecan purchase deals.
Pecans Glamourized
The food service industry took advantage of the glamour and versatility of pecans for holiday menus. Nation al trade publications urged greater use of pecans. Restaurant associations gave good coverage to the pecan promotion.
Chef’s, too, joined the pecan bandwagon. The chef of the Statler-Hilton in Dallas cooperated enthusiastically when contacted by food tradesmen. He prepared eight dishes using pecans and provided recipes to food editors. Copies also were distributed at the Texas Sta te Fair. At the Fair, pecans were a winner. They filled the pie that took first prize in the Favorite Recipe Contest. Pecans received lots of other attention, too, thanks to the Texas Pecan Growers Association.
Christmas decorations in a Dallas shopping center included four reindeer made with 14,200 pecans and 6,000 raisins. A department store in Fort Worth sent 300 2½-pound boxes of pecans to local men serving in Viet Nam. Extension consumer marketing specialists appeared on many radio and T'V shows on behalf of pecans. Several prepared films for educational TV stations.
Many articles had been supplied by the Department. Others had been furnished by the Pecan Industry. But they were all designed to make Mrs. Homemaker and her family hungry for pecans.
Food distributors cooperated wholeheartedly and made pecans a good buy for consumers. National trade associations such as the Super Market Institute reproduced the text from the Department's Fact Sheets in their own bulletins.
State grocer associations publicized pecans in monthly magazines. One chain store alerted its 2,000 units nationwide with special flyers and the Department's Fact Sheets. There was no need for grocers to shout about their pecan features. Their countless newspaper ads carried the message very well.
Mrs. Homemaker was consistently urged to include pecans and pecan products on her shopping list. And when Mrs. Homemaker reached the store, special pecan displays greeted her and made her shopping easier.
It was unanimously agreed that the pecan crop was big, but the combined industry-government effort was bigger, and proved to be an effective way to move such an abundant crop. Through your planning, your cooperation and lots of hard work, this promotion was a success.
]]>The word pecan originated in the 16th century, around 1712 from the North American language known as Algonquian. This word was used to illustrate a “nut that needs a stone to crack it.” Iterations of the word pecan grew between Native Tribes as well as when the Spanish and French explored North America. They borrowed from the Algonquian language and spelled it “pacane or pacana.”
Pecan is also pronounced in different ways depending on what part of the country you are in. When breaking down the etymology, here are the various ways the word has been pronounced.
Etymology
“PEE-kahn” - The emphasis is on the first syllable with a long “ee” sound. The second half uses a soft “con” sound.
You may not know, but Texas is famous for its pecan pies. Not to mention, Texas has officially adopted the pecan tree as their state tree. In fact, 20% of all the pecans in the United States grow in Texas. That makes it an obvious reason why pecan pie is the official dessert of Texas.
Although there are multiple ways to enjoy the earthy flavors of pecan, Texans believe that pecan belongs to pies.
There is so much more that you need to know about Texas and pecan pies. So, read the article further to find out.
Native Americans, especially Southern, have been using pecans for centuries. But it was not until the late 19th century that pecan recipes appeared in print. You can trace the origin of pecan pie in Texas. Pecan stories also started getting popular in Texas cookbooks in the 1870s, but pie hadn’t got the fame yet.
No one knows who created pecan pie, though this dessert recipe was first published in a St. Louis cookbook in 1898. Over time, pecan pie became popular in Texas and other parts of the United States.
Not only Texas has the honor of having pecan as the official state tree and is the largest producer of pecan, but Texans also love pecan pie more than any state. In 2013, Rep. Marsha Farney, a freshman representative, passed a resolution in the Texas House of Representatives to make pecan pie their official state dessert.
There were also debates that pecan pies should not contain any chocolate, and pecans need to be from Texas to make it the state’s official pie. Later, it was announced as the official dessert.
Take a par-baked crust and sprinkle some pecans on it. Don’t forget the secret to make the perfect Texas pecan pie is Texas-grown pecan, so better use them. Take a bowl and beat eggs, vanilla, corn syrup, salt, and sugar. After blending, pour it on pecans. Need a recipe for pecan pie?
Now, it’s time for baking. The best approach is to preheat your oven at 350 degrees for a few minutes. Once it’s done, keep your pie plate in the oven for 45 to 50 minutes at the same temperature. Insert a knife in the center of the pie; if it comes clean, then your pie is ready. If not, bake it for a few more minutes.
Let it cool at room temperature, and then keep it in the refrigerator for at least an hour before serving. Well, some people also serve it hot, so it totally depends on your choice.
So, now you know why Texans love pecan pies more than any other pies. If you are planning to bake one for yourself according to Texas tradition, make sure to avoid chocolate and use pecans sourced from Texas.
https://www.tasteofhome.com/recipes/texas-pecan-pie/
https://matadornetwork.com/read/signature-pie-every-state/
https://texashillcountry.com/pecan-pie-history-texas/
https://statesymbolsusa.org/symbol-official-item/texas/state-food-agriculture-symbol/pecan-pie
If you often eat pecans and use them in different recipes, it is a good idea to buy pecans in bulk. This way, you do not have to rush to the store or order pecans online too often. But if you have pecans in bulk, it is very important to store them well so that they remain fresh.
Storing Pecans
Airtight containers or jars are best for storing pecans. At room temperature, you can keep pecans in a jar for months. If you want to store them for a longer time, put them in the refrigerator. Pecans in an airtight jar or container can stay fresh in the refrigerator for up to nine months.
In-shell pecans can easily stay at room temperature for ten to twelve months. Make sure you store them in a cool and dry place.
If you to have to store pecans for a very long time, you can freeze them in a sealed plastic bag. Make sure to press the bags after keeping the pecans in a way that that you remove all the excess air. You can repeatedly thaw and freeze the pecans again and again for two years. There is no loss in the shape and texture of pecans after thawing and refreezing them again. Even after removing from the cold storage, shelled pecans can stay fine after thawing for the next two minutes.
Wrapping Up
If you pecans it is important to store them well. Pecans that go stale would not be of any good. Storing pecans in an airtight jar, refrigerating and freezing are some of the ways to preserve pecans in your home.
]]>PERSONS PRESENT were: W. W. Harris, Newell Atkinson, James Anthony, Robert McCoy, B. G. Hancock, Tom Denman, Hugo Pape, Robert Kensing, Floyd Gage, Roger Landers, William H. Aldred, Johnny Harris, Tabb Harrell, Fred R. Brison, J. Benton Storey.
ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS
After considerable discussion on means of publishing magazines, newsletters and Proceedings, the Directors came to a decision on financial support of the Secretary-Treasurer's position. James Anthony moved that Mrs. Dorothy Holland be retained as Associate Editor for the Association. He further moved that $1500.00 be allocated to include the Associate Editor's salary and typing expenses during the 1966-67 year. Roger Landers seconded the motion and it carried.
There was general agreement among the Directors that \$150.00 should be presented to the Texas Agricultural Extension Service to help defray the cost of publishing Texan Pecan News.
SHOW COMMITTEE
The objectives of the proposed changes in the Texas State Pecan Show Rules are to encourage additional county-shows and secure the interest of prospective consumers in pecans. The suggested changes are:
(1) Three regional shows are suggested during the year which includes San Antonio, Fort Worth and Abilene.
(2) Pecans should go through a county show before entering regional shows.
(3) No Grand Champion Awards will be made.
(4) Fifty percent of the expense of the county awards should be sponsored by the respective county association.
(5) No award is presented on a regional or state-wide basis which originated at the county level.
(6) A Queen Contest be conducted separate from the State Pecan Show which will serve to select the queen on the basis of personality, poise, talent, and other characteristics common to such pageants. B. G. Hancock moved the adoption of the report and Tom Denman seconded the motion. Motion carried.
LAND EVALUATION
The Williamson County Pecan Grower Resolution on pecan land inundation was referred to the Land Evaluation Committee.
FEDERAL MARKETING ORDER
Jim Anthony reported that the Directors of the Texas Pecan Growers Association met in September in Fort Worth when it became apparent that pecan prices for 1965 were going to be low. It was explained that Texas could not secure funds to advertise pecans through a check-off because it violates the Texas Constitution.
Many growers have been interested in securing funds from some kind of mark-off on pecans for the purpose of advertising the crop. The same growers have been very outspoken in their view that no government controls should be imposed. In writing a Federal Marketing Order, a certain amount of control is necessary. The current Marketing Order stands with quality control only on export pecans. There is no current provision for controlling domestic pecans although it could be written in later. Texas growers in favor of the Marketing Order would probably accept quality control on domestic pecans because Texas pecans are generally higher in quality than those from certain other areas of the nation.
The greatest opposition to the Federal Marketing Order so far has been shellers who are not in favor of the mark-off at the sheller's level. Most authorities agree that it must be at the sheller level to be successful. The shellers have stated that they can do more in advertising pecans with \$40,000 than could be done with \$250, 000 that could be secured from a mark-off. This philosophy is very difficult to understand.
Robert McCoy moved that the meeting adjourn and Tom Denman seconded the motion. Carried.
Respectfully submitted,
J. B. Storey
]]>1966 TEXAS PECAN QUEEN Miss Connie Bagley of San Saba, representing San Saba County, was crowned 1966 Texas Pecan Queen by Association President John B. Harris, of Hamilton. Miss Bagley is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Dean Bagley and grand daughter of Mr. and Mrs. R. B. Bagley of San Saba. Miss Bagley is a graduate of San Saba High School and attends Abilene Christian College, Abilene.
]]>THOSE PRESENT were Johnny Harris, Dr. Jim Anthony, F. R. Brison, H. C Pape, Henry New, John Braden, Jr., B. G. Hancock, RandoIph Terrell, Tabb Harrell, Floyd Gage.
Minutes of the December 1965 meeting were read and approved. The Financial Statement was presented by Secretary-Treasurer J. B. Storey and is attached to these minutes.
INTERIM COMMITTEE The Interim Committee schedule was discussed and set as follows:
Marlin
Johnny Harris, F. R. Brison ....................General Introduction
San Antonio
H. C. Pape .............................................Marketing Problems
Dallas
O. S. Gray ..............................................................Varieties
Wichita Falls
O. P. Leonard ..........................Fertility and Grade Standards
San Angelo---June 16
J. L. Rainey...................................................Harvest
El Paso---June 21
Kenneth Suggs....................................Salinity and Irrigation
Lubbock
John Speck .............................................Zinc Nutrition and Herbicide
Tyler---August 23
W. S. Price ..........................................Insects and Summary
The Interim Committee recommendations will mean more than anything else in securing appropriation during the next session of the legislature for the 1967-68 and 1968-69 biennium. Johnny Harris indicated that he felt the hearing at Marlin was very effective because the Committee asked many good questions. Harris also pointed out that the state was averaging about 50 pounds of pecans per acre which is far under the potential.
John Braden, Jr. indicated that pecan harvest was the only labor that many workers in the Cuero area had during the fall. It is a real help in the war on poverty. It was also pointed out that pecan growing is an intensive type of agriculture which helps to keep people on the farm.
FEDERAL MARKETING ORDER
Jim Anthony reported that the Federated Pecan Growers Association of the United States met 2 weeks ago and determined that the growers would go ahead to see what could be done about getting a Federal Mark-off Program started. Anthony reported that J. Dan Hanna, president of the Federated Pecan Growers Association, said that he had met with the USDA representatives and reworked some of the papers to be submitted to the department. They tried to change the portions of the order to make it fit the objections of various groups. There will be a series of meetings to determine if the order would be feasible over the country. If these are successful, it will come to a vote.
Several of the shellers have objected to taking the mark-off at the sheller level. However, some shellers are in favor of the mark-off at this point. The control involved in the Federal Marketing Order would be that of quality control of export items. The next step seems to be that of securing letters asking for a vote.
OFFICE OF SECRETARY-TREASURER
Secretary Storey reported that Dr. Bloodworth, his department head at the University, had requested that he resign as Secretary of the Association. Help with the typing, preparing the newsletter for mailing, preparing and editing the Proceedings, securing advertisements for the Proceedings, securing commercial exhibits for the Annual Conference, keeping financial records of the affairs of the Association, keeping up the membership roll, answering many hundreds of Association related letters and many other duties have caused the administration of the University to question the wisdom of having a staff member as Secretary. We all know that the University has benefited tremendously by virtue of having the very excellent close working relationship with the industry through the Texas Pecan Growers Association. This has been true during the time that J. F. Rosborough, John E. Hutchison, A. H. Kre7dorn. F. R. Brison, and the present Secretary have been in office. We hope that the industry has benefited by the close working relationship that they have had with the University. It is hoped that some procedure may be developed whereby Texas Pecan News and the Proceedings may be largely edited by a paid editor. It may also be necessary to hire a typist and set up office space off the campus. It is sincerely hoped that even though this is done, that the University might still be able to maintain a close working relationship with the industry by directing the activities of these paid employees. This avenue is being studied but a sweeping change must come to pass at the Annual Conference in Austin
II C. Pape suggested that additional funds could be secured through more sustaining memberships. Randolph Terrell advocated securing more advertisements to cover cost of the Proceedings.
President Harris felt that the Association should certainly pay its way in whatever procedure was arranged.
Tabb Harrell stated that a professional editor could be secured to edit Texas Pecan News. It could be put in the form of a magazine and printed with advertisements to help cover the costs. The editor or someone associated with him could also promote sale of the magazine and secure subscriptions so that the magazine could pay its own way. It could still be the voice of the Texas Pecan Growers Association and carry pecan news. Mr. Harrell stated that he could get an editor to meet with the directors during the July meeting who could make a proposal for such a procedure.
1966 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Suggested program topics were as follows:
The pecan varieties to be exhibited in the state show should be selected from the more important varieties. Meeting Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
J. B. Storey
Secretary-Treasurer
]]>The theme of this year's program is "Marketing Texas Pecans.” Some excellent promotion programs will be reviewed, for many have agreed that such efforts were effective in helping move the 1965 crop. Foreign lands promise to be good markets for pecans if we will work to develop them. A conference speaker will give first hand reports on the solution offered by many of the leaders in the industry as a means of receiving a fair price for pecans. The recently organized Pecan Improvement Association is offered as a means for marketing "Western Shelling Stock" grown in Texas. Developments in the pecan shelling industry and the shelling qualities of many new USDA selections will be of vital concern since about 88 percent if the nation's pecan crop is shelled before it reaches the consumer. Many are aware that the Texas Pecan Show has grown to such size that it must be reorganized. The Pecan Show Committee will outline sweeping changes in the 1966 Texas State Pecan Show Rules. The method of queen selection will be drastically changed. Scientists representing the newly organized Texas pecan research program will welcome your comments and suggestions. Texas Pecan Grower’s support of this program through legislators in Austin and in Washington, D. C., has made it possible. Continuing efforts by the Texas Pecan Grower Research Committee will be reviewed. The meeting will be logically closed by looking into the future by means of the 1966 Pecan Crop Estimates.
EXHIBITS
You are invited to view the exhibits in the Coronado Room. Randolph Terrell of Seguin is in charge of the commercial exhibits and Ed Migura, Bastrop County agricultural agent, is in charge of the educational exhibits.
Commercial exhibits offer interesting displays of many new items not seen at previous annual conferences. This afternoon at 3:50, you will hear explanations of the displays and the demonstrations to follow in Zilker Park. Have your car in the Convention Parking Lot so you can join the police escorted procession at 4:30 for Zilker Park.
You will be able to see the fruits of the harvest research efforts at Texas A&M demonstrated in addition to an excellent variety of other commercial equipment.
The winning entries from the 1,027 entered in the 1965 Texas State Pecan Show are on display. Their quality was maintained by frozen storage.
MEMBERSHIP
An analysis of our membership is as follows: County Membership
Dallas .....................................................................30
Travis .....................................................................24
Harris .....................................................................24
Tarrant ...................................................................24 Guadalupe .............................................................17
Bexar ......................................................................16
San Saba .................................................................16 Eastland ..................................................................12
Hood ................................................................11
Brazos ..............................................................10
Brazoria ..............................................................9
Brown .................................................................9
Wharton .............................................................9
Bastrop ...............................................................8
Bowie ..................................................................8
Fayette ................................................................8
Wichita ................................................................8
Mills .....................................................................7
McLennan ............................................................7
Hamilton ..............................................................6
Lamar ...................................................................6
Lubbock ................................................................6
Taylor ...................................................................6 Williamson ...........................................................6
Caldwell ...............................................................5 Comanche ............................................................5
El Paso .................................................................5
Gonzales ..............................................................5
Midland ...............................................................5
Navarro ................................................................5
Total Life, Regular, Contributing, and Sustaining Membership in 103 Texas Counties (a decrease of 66 from last year) ..............................................................................453
**Life members are: F. R. Brison John Hutchison Elmo Cook A. H. Krezdorn J. M. Cooper Henry New W. T. Evers J. L. Rainey O. S. Gray, Sr. E. Guy Risien
***Contributing members are: Dr. James E. Anthony H. C. Pape L. R. Allison Company George Peyton R. B. Bagley Sam A. Pollard W. D. Baines, Jr. Charles W. Prothro Robert Baldwin Bob A. Roberts Dr. Kenneth G. Bebb Jack Sanderson Dr. Dwight Dill Taber Shelton J. M. Doerfler John W. Speck Sumner C. Evans Lucius M. Stephens Buster Follmar Dallas Telford Margaret Follmar Elijah Thompson B. B. Freeman Roland Wiley Gulf Coast Bag & Bagging Co. Larry J. Womack M. C. Laake T. N. Wood W. H. McAlister, Jr. George W. Yarbro J. Arthur Miller James G. Whitley
****Sustaining members are: Ray Bass L. D. Romberg Diablo Farms Kenneth Suggs Ray Peeler Warren Wells
Membership in 19 other states (a decrease of 6 from last year) ................................65
Membership in 6 foreign countries made up, of Mexico, South Africa, Philippines, England, Peru, and Brazil (an increase of 6 over last year) ...................................................................16
Total Regular, Life, Sustaining, and Contributing membership (a decrease of 66 from last year) ................................................................534
Honorary membership (an increase of 7 over last year) ............................................64
Courtesy membership (a decrease of 78 from last year) ............................................89 County Extension Agents ..........................................................................................243 District Agents .............................................................................................................12 Other Extension Personnel .........................................................................................15 Total on roll (a decrease of 222 from last year) ....................................................... 957
We lost 65 dues paying members this year which was a little more than the 53 we gained last year. It was the largest decrease we have experienced during the 8 years your present Secretary-Treasurer has been in office. The present 235 dues-paying members are well above the 231 in this category back in 1958-59.
Several reasons may be responsible such as lack of the 1965 Proceedings, insufficient follow-up on members who have forgotten to pay dues and low prices in the fall of 1965.
Definite steps have been taken to improve the efficiency of the Secretary's office. Mrs. Dorothy Holland, editor in Texas A&M University's Department of Agricultural Information, will be asked to assume responsibilities as associate editor for the Texas Pecan Growers Association during the 1966-67 year. Her duties will be:
Our directors are to be commended for taking this progressive step in securing the part time services of a professional editor. Such action will permit our publications to appear on a regular schedule and not have to be worked into a heavy teaching and research load. Your present secretary has been teaching three courses this past spring and trying to devote a great deal of time to the pecan research program which you worked so hard to secure. This pecan research program has to succeed and I can assure you that I have put top priority on it, which meant that many times activities which should have been done for the Association went undone.
INSTRUCTION
The Budding and Grafting Shortcourse offered in June 1966 contained 46 students. The next opportunity to secure resident instruction at Texas A&M University will be on July 26, 27 and 28, 1966, when the Pecan Orchard Management Shortcourse is conducted. The Native Pecan Improvement Shortcourse will be offered on July 25, 26 and 27, 1967. Reservations for these courses may be secured by contacting the Continuing Education Office, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843.
SCHOLARSHIP
Enrollment in agriculture at Texas A&M is up 81 percent over last year. Young men are beginning to see, that we, nave a hungry world to feed, and that food sciences have a tremendous, future. However, very few of these new students in agriculture are considering horticulture as a major. Where are we going to secure trained men for the pecan industry? One incentive is our J. F. Rosborough Scholarship Fund. We have already had several inquiries about the availability of this scholarship fund but have had to turn them down since we do not have adequate capital to earn sufficient interest for a scholarship at this time. Courses which offer a number of scholarships seem to have a psychological advantage over others. A course in which a number of scholarships are available attracts the attention of prospective students apparently because they feel that someone has considered the future of that industry important enough to establish incentives to students who will prepare for employment in that specific field. However unsound this reasoning may be, it none-the-less is prevalent among our high school seniors across the State.
We currently have $1600 in the J. F. Rosborough Scholarship Fund. We must have $5,000.00 to insure earning of $250 per year. Won't you help support it?
]]>F. R. BRISON
Professor Emeritus Horticulture
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
THERE ARE TWO general channels for the marketing of pecans. One is for inshell pecans, whereby the nuts go to the ultimate consumer in the shell. Only 10 to 12 percent of the pecans grown in the U. S. are currently marketed in this manner. No great problem is encountered in selling pecans this way, provided they have high quality and the grower exercises reasonable aggressiveness in promoting them. There are, in fact, opportunities for expanding the market for inshell pecans.
The other channel is the merchandising of shelling pecans---those from which the shell is removed and the kernels alone move through the various handling agencies to final user. Most pecans are being marketed in this way. They are sold in cellophane or plastic bags to retail purchasers; they are salted and roasted; they are used by the confectionary trade for cakes, candies and other culinary products, and for ice cream.
Marketing Improvements Needed
The Texas Pecan Growers Association was organized in 1921, and proceedings have been published since 1923. Nearly every convention program has included one or more topics on marketing. Fifty articles on marketing have been printed in our proceedings. Yet, our system for marketing pecans is exactly like it was 50 years ago. Here, two things bear examination. One is that during these 50 years, there has been little emphasis on quality at the grower level. A one-price structure prevailed for the marketing of native pecans 50 years ago, and a one-price structure prevailed in 1965. I think of no other important agriculture commodity for which the industry has been so negligent in differentiating between good and poor quality---no other commodity for which there has been no progress in 50 years.
A second thing is the helplessness of the rank and file growers. W. T. Moore once compared pecan growers to the sheep of the book of Isiah: “. . . he humbled himself, and opened not his mouth; like a sheep that is led to the slaughter . . .” (Isaiah 53:7). During all these years, the prevailing price for native pecans has been the same for superior and inferior pecans. This is discouraging to the grower who spends time and money in producing high-quality pecans. He realizes quickly that, according to the prevailing ng system of selling pecans, his are mixed with other pecans of uncertain quality. Every grower in attendance at this convention has seen that happen---has experienced it.
The agency that extracts the kernels from the shell and makes them avail- able to the consumer for various uses is the sheller He makes the kernels available to users when, where, and in the form desired. This is time, place, and form utility. This is a useful service. What the sheller finally makes available and the cost of his services are determined by:
1. The efficiency of his operation, and
2. The quality and character of the pecans that he uses. These are important factors of quality, and hence should be recognized in determining a price for pecans:
(a) Kernel percentage---wide variability exists in the percentage of useable kernels in pecans particularly native pecans. The percentage may range from 45 for choice pecans to 35, or lower, for poorer ones.
(b) Grade---pecans may range widely in grade. This refers to color, plumpness, and flavor of kernels.
(c) Size of half-kernels---The demand and price for large halves is usually greater than for small ones of a comparable grade. This cost per pound of kernels is less for pecans that yield large halves.
(d) Yield of half-kernels---Kernels that can be separated mainly in halves instead of smaller pieces have added value, since halves normally sell for a better price than pieces.
(e) Ease of shelling---This is determined largely by size of nuts and ease of separation.
Pecans that are superior in these various ways are more valuable and individual grower is entitled to a better price for them. The pecan trade makes some distinction by region, but not at the grower level.
Association Formed
The Texas Pecan Improvement Association was organized in 1965 to help correct some of the inequities, and to help stabilize and encourage orderly marketing of pecans. It can do this by:
1. First encouraging and assisting its grower members to produce better pecans and to harvest them in a better manner.
2. By insisting that buyers recognize grade and quality, and usefulness in the purchase of pecans and that they pay for them accordingly.
3. By helping stabilize the market structure. It’s not good for the pecan industry for wide discrepancies in price to develop within a season and in successive years. It's not good when pecans are handled in ways that result in the consumer getting poor-quality and rancid pecans.
In late summer and early fall of 1965, meetings of pecan growers in several sections of the State were held for expressions of interest and concern. In September, a supporting group of eight was constituted, with each member paying $100 for initial expenses. Application was made for a charter from the State of Texas, but despite this handicap, 30 members subscribed for membership and each, a \$25.00 membership stock certificate. Members of the association established a substantial pool of native pecans. Most of these were assembled when the prevailing price was 14 and 15 cents per pound. To date the handling costs have mounted to 1½ cents. At present, the price for shelling stock pecans is considerably more. (Ed. Note: The pecans sold in mid-August for 25 cents, a substantial net gain for owners of the pecans.) It's not proper to emphasize this unduly. There will be adverse years and the outcome perhaps will not be so favorable. More important is the fact that the pecans will be sold with due emphasis on grade, quality and market demand.
Loyal Membership Essential
As the future years unfold, there will be problems of organization, management, financing and the physical handling of the crops. One requisite to successful, operation is a stable, known and loyal membership. Pecan crops fluctuate widely enough. If the membership fluctuates widely, also there is no hope. For this association to succeed, its members must be unswerving in fair weather or foul during good years and poor ones, when prices are high and low. The officers and directors of the Association pledge their efforts that with the passing year’s loyalty can come from confidence born of experience and rewarding participation in the marketing of this valuable native crop of Texas.
]]>
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Texas A&M University
THE NEED FOR MECHANICAL harvesting of pecans has become apparent during the past few years. Produce often had to pay from one-third to one-half of the value of the crop for harvesting by hand. Several million pounds of pecans remained on the ground at the close of the 1963 harvest season because hand labor was not available. An estimated 30 percent of the pecans in Texas were not harvested in 1965, even though producers paid one-half to two-thirds of the value of the crop for harvesting. This high cost of human energy for harvesting leaves little return to the producers. If this trend is not reversed, many producers will discontinue disease and insect control programs, and groves will be neglected and will deteriorate rapidly.
Rough Terrain a Problem
Since approximately 80 percent of Texas’ pecans are produced in native groves, this creates many problems for mechanical harvesting which would not be found in planted orchards. These native trees are found growing in bottomlands along creek and river banks with some of these trees actually growing in dry-stream beds. The land is frequently cut with drainage ditches and gulleys. Small sand dunes deposited by floods are found on the soil surface. The overflowing of the streams usually deposits trash, limbs and other residue which must be removed before mechanical harvesting can be successful. Even in areas where the land appears to be smooth, many small depressions create problems when efforts are made to retrieve pecans from them. It is difficult to maneuver a harvesting machine between and around the native trees because of their irregular stand and the rough terrain.
Present Research Program
The present research program for mechanization of pecan harvesting began in September 1965. Its objectives were to (a) develop equipment and procedure for mechanical harvesting of pecans; (b) develop method for preparing the ground for mechanical harvesting; (c) develop process equipment to clean the pecans for market.
Many of the native groves contained as much as 1,600 pounds of trash per acre. To reduce the cleaning load on a harvesting machine, several methods for removing trash from the ground before harvest were evaluated. It was found that 74.2 percent of this trash could be removed in a pre-harvest operation by a sweeper designed for this purpose. This sweeper utilized a conventional steel street sweeping brush with a diameter of 34 inches and bristles 12 inches long. The brush, rotating with direction of travel, swept the trash up an incline inside a metal cover or hood for 180 degrees so as to elevate the material to be deposited into a trailer connected to the rear of the brush. The trailer was dumped hydraulically when it became full.
Tests were performed using the sweeper as a harvester to determine if it was feasible to harvest pecans without cleaning equipment and to evaluate the performance of a rotating brush. The results of these tests indicated:
1. A rotating brush could be used for removing the pecans from the ground if the soil was level and had a good thick layer of grass.
2. Cleaning equipment is necessary.
Experimental Machine
An experimental machine was developed and built to evaluate different types of brushes, conveyors and cleaning methods. The machine utilized a brush for Sweeping leaves, trash and pecans up an incline into an air stream. The air stream removed most of the leaves and let the nuts fall onto a drag-type conveyor with a slotted bottom. This conveyor is perpendicular to the direction of travel of the machine and parallel to the brush. Dirt and some fine trash is lost through the slotted bottom as the conveyor takes the pecans to an elevator which elevates them to a sacking unit.
The first brush evaluated in the experimental harvester was street-sweeping type made from steel with a diameter of 34 inches. The steel brush is aggressive in removing pecans from a thick layer of grass that is 3 to 4 inches long, but picks up an excessive amount of dirt and does not remove all the pecans from depressions in the soil surface.
Rubber fingers, 10 inches long, were used as bristles for building a brush with a diameter of 33 inches. The best results were obtained when this brush was operated at a height of 12 inches which deflected 5 inches of each rubber finger backward along the surface of the ground as the brush rotated. This enabled the brush to expand into depressions and remove the pecans, and the rubber fingers will compress when passing over high spots without overloading the brush. The rubber fingers sweep up very little small trash and dirt with the pecans. Preliminary evaluation indicates good possibilities for harvesting native pecans with the rubber finger brush where recommended cultural practices are carried out.
Cultural Practices Necessary
Research to date shows that the following cultural practices will be necessary for successful mechanical harvesting of pecans in Texas:
1. The trees must be pruned so that mechanical equipment can operate under them.
2. The ground should be as level as possible.
3. The land under the trees should be free of trash, limbs, undergrowth and other obstructions which would interfere with harvesting.
]]>
Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology
Texas A&M University
I AM HAPPY to meet with you and give a brier outline of the research underway at Texas A&M involving pecan insect pests. We want you to feel that this is your program and when you have the occasion to be on the main campus at College Station, I hope that each of you will visit our laboratory and see first-hand the work that is underway. It was through the efforts of the Texas Pecan Growers Association that we received substantial increase in research funds and I would personally appreciate your continued counsel and guidance as we continue our efforts to achieve practical control measures for the several destructive insect pests attacking pecans in Texas.
Only a general outline of the biology of this pest is known. Such studies have never been conducted under Texas conditions. Damage to the crop by this pest is generally reported to fall into two categories: (1) premature nut drop during June and July (2) shuck feeding in pecans during August, September and October resulting in improperly filled kernels.
Control of the pest has varied from poor to practically nonexistent. Texas research workers in the past have limited their recommendations to the plowing under of shucks containing the overwintering larvae in an attempt to reduce the following year's populations. In those states where chemical sprays are recommended, often it has been pointed out that chemical sprays did not give completely satisfactory results. As the demand for high quality nuts increases, a control for this pest must be found to provide growers with the means to achieve the quality production for which they are striving.
Our work on the biology and control of the hickory shuckworm began in the fall and winter of 1964. Pecan shucks were obtained from all parts of Texas and caged under 3’x 3’ pyramid emergence cages to collect data on moth emergence patterns as well as information on parasites and predators attacking the overwintering shuckworm larvae. All material collected from these cages which could not be positively identified by the specialists in entomology at Texas A&M was submitted to the U. S. National Museum for specific determinations. These collections will form the basis for any future biological control studies which might develop. To have a sound basis for study, several years’ data are needed on moth emergence patterns as well as parasite and predator collections, so this phase of the work will be repeated each year until the study is completed.
Following the expansion of the research budget in the fall of 1965, efforts were made to obtain the services of a qualified technician to continue and expand this portion of the project. During the winter and spring of 1966, the emergence studies were repeated and intensive studies were begun on the biology of the shuckworm by this technician.
Since that time, data have been gathered in the field on the feeding habits of the first and second generation larvae. Limited numbers of early instar larvae collect in the field have been successfully reared to the adult stage under laboratory conditions using an artificial diet. It is hoped that this phase can be perfected further and expanded to allow for the production of adequate numbers of specimens for future laboratory studies on the biology and ecology of this pest.
This laboratory colony would also serve as the source of specimens for basic dosage mortality investigations which I would be conducted during the winter and
PROCEEDINGS TEXAS PECAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 81
early spring periods to aid in developing a year-round research program. Such dosage mortality curves would serve as a basis for future comparisons of the relative effectiveness of standard and new insecticides, detection of insecticide resistance, etc. Although these procedures are now common practice in certain insect pest complexes, such as the bollworm-budworm complex of cotton, no such data are available on any pecan insect pest and, to my knowledge; no worker in the U. S. has a program underway to fill this need.
This summer we plan a field test to evaluate the two chemicals (Guthion and EPN) currently recommended by USDA for hickory shuckworm control, to determine their effectiveness under Texas conditions. In addition, a grant-in-aid was given to the project, by Chevron Chemical Company in April 1966, to assist in the evaluation of Phosphamidon against these two other compounds. This test will be conducted on the University plantation pecan groves during August, September and October of this year. This will provide a basis of reference on the effectiveness of these chemicals under Texas conditions and will help to serve as a basis for comparison in future chemical control experiments involving this species.
Pecan Weevil
Some preliminary studies in Oklahoma and Texas indicated that it might be feasible to control the pecan weevil with soil application of certain insecticides. In January of 1965, we conducted surveys to locate populations which were sufficient to evaluate this approach. Weevils were found at Junction, Texas, in adequate numbers to justify such a test and arrangements were made with the Kimble County Pecan Growers Association to conduct the test during the following August.
On July 28-29, 1965, nine insecticides (Guthion, Ethion, Aldrin, Baygon, Heptachlor, Chlordane, GC-6506, and NIA 10,242) were applied to the soil at maximum dosages recommended by the appropriate technical representatives of the chemical companies involved. Treatments were replicated four times and randomized along with the appropriate number of check plots. To trap emerging weevils, 3’ x3’ pyramid cages were placed over the plots. Apparently, due to a lack of rainfall to trigger adult emergence, only limited numbers emerged throughout the range of the weevil in West Texas that fall. Although four compounds appeared to give some control, statistical analysis of the data failed to show any significant differences between any of the treatments.
The emergence cages were left in place to prevent re-infestation of the treated areas from the fall emerging larvae as they moved from infested nuts to the soil. In February 1966, the treated areas were dug to a depth of 12 inches and the soil was sifted to determine the number of larvae present in the soil following the chemical treatments and adult emergence. No significant differences were found between the treatments indicating that these applications of insecticides had no effect on larval populations.
During the same period, additional collections of larvae were taken from the Junction area for preliminary insecticide screening studies in the laboratory at College Station. During the spring and early summer, a number of insecticides were tested at extremely high concentrations using both soil treatments and dip techniques but none of the compounds checked so far have given any control of the larvae. Additional screening of compounds is anticipated using the injection test technique in which measured amount s of insecticide are injected directly into the body cavity of each larva.
From weevils collected from the soil in June, laboratory screening of insecticides against the adult stage was begun on June 6, 1966. Several compounds appear promising at present and will be subjected to small cage testing later in the summer as more adults become available. It is hoped that we will have several promising compounds to subject to large field tests during late summer and fall of 1967.
While collecting specimens for various purposes at Junction at irregular intervals from February through June 1966, variations were noted in the larvae to
82 PROCEEDINGS TEXAS PECAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
adult ration present in the soil. Since these ratios were erratic and apparently formed no readily recognizable pattern, plans were made to place several hundred larvae in individual cages in the soil as they leave the nuts this coming fall. By caging the specimens individually, samples of the population can be taken at regular intervals without disturbing the remainder. The total study population will be split into three groups and subjected to various sets of conditions. The first group will be returned to the soil a Junction, Texas, where this study population will be collected; another group will be placed in individual cages inside large redwood boxes containing soil and covered by a screened lid (double caging is felt to be necessary since the pecan weevil is not known to occur in the College Station area); and, the final group will be held under laboratory condition at College Station. Although it may take a year or more before any significant information can be obtained from this study, it is certainly a necessary step in attempting to gain a better understanding of this insect under Texas conditions.
In addition to the biology and insecticide control studies underway we have plans for a much more basic type of study on the weevil. In December 1965, a grant application was submitted to USDA for support of exploratory studies on the use of ionizing radiation and chemosterilants for control of the pecan weevil. This application, submitted by Dr. H. W. Dorough and Mr. H. W. Van Cleave, was approved for $54,367.00 to begin June 1, 1966, and continue for 3 years. Work has begun on assembling laboratory equipment, cages, etc. for this study. We will be contacting many of you this fall to collect the large number of specimens necessary for such an investigation. Any help that you can give us or our assistants will be greatly appreciated.
Pecan Nut Bearer
Compared to the two preceding species, the growers have a much better list of insecticides for the control of the pecan nut casebearer. Since our resources and time are not unlimited, we are placing most of our efforts toward the development of practical control measures for the pecan weevil and hickory shuckworm. We are conducting some studies involving the casebearer, however.
It appears that one of the major factors involved in poor control of the pecan nut casebearer is improper timing of the spray application for the first generation larvae. With this in mind, we have been cooperating with Mr. B. G. Hancock, Extension horticulturist, in the refinement of the banding technique for the collection of pupae from the over-wintering generation. This procedure is becoming more widely used throughout Texas and the analysis of the data from the various locations over the State will add greatly to our basic knowledge of this pest.
We have also conducted preliminary studies on the laboratory rearing of this pest using artificial diets. Still working on a limited scale, we have been able to rear this insect from early instar larvae through to the adult stage. We hope to expand this work and conduct dosage mortality studies, ecology studies, etc. on the casebearer in a manner similar to what was discussed under the section on the hickory shuckworm. We feel that in the long run this will have very definite beneficial results that will help all pecan growers.
Use of Systemic Insecticides
Mr. Denman will discuss this portion of the program as it applies to aphids, so I will not elaborate on it. In addition to the aphid studies, we have made soil applications of four systemic insecticides to determine what other pecan pests can be controlled by their use. These applications were made in April 1966, to trees in University plantation pecan groves and tests are still underway. It appears that one of the compounds may be effective against the pecan bud moth.
I hope that this discussion has given you some idea of the program that we have underway and I hope that in the fairly near future we will have a number of new recommendations to make that in your efforts to control insects in your groves. Again, I would like to invite you to visit our laboratory at Texas A&M and discuss the program with us.
]]>
L. D. ROMBERG
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Division
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Brownwood, Texas
EVER SINCE the early days of pecan culture, a difference of opinion has existed as to the best way of establishing the trees. In far Western Texas, where rainfall is low and pecan trees are mostly along the banks of streams, the theory has developed that to do well a pecan tree needs a taproot extending far into the subsoil, and preferably to the water table. Associated with the theory, there has been a belief that if the taproot is cut, as in transplanting, the tree will never be quite as good as when never disturbed. Various other, and probably more important matters, are involved in the question: which is the best procedure tor planting a pecan orchard from the standpoint of financial success of the enterprise, planting trees or planting seed in place?
To obtain more information on the comparative performance of trees started by the two methods, similar experiments were set up in the winter of 1949-50 by Harris and Smith (1) at the U. S. Pecan Field Station, Shreveport, Louisiana, and by the writer at the U. S. Pecan Field Station, Brownwood, Texas. Results of the experiment conducted at Shreveport were published in the Proceedings of the Texas Pecan Growers Association for 1959. Here we describe the work done at Brownwood.
Experimental Plan
Trees and seed were planted on a tract of about 1 acre on the grounds of the U. S. Pecan Field Station. All around the outside, a border row was planted with 1-year old seedlings spaced 35 feet apart. The inside area was staked off in a pattern 17½ x 35 feet. Following a randomized arrangement, seed of the Riverside variety were planted at some stakes and budded nursery-grown trees of the Western variety at others. The trees had 3-year old rootstocks grown from Riverside seed nuts and 1-year tops.
A very hard early freeze in the fall of 1950 severely damaged the budded trees. These trees and the seeds were replaced in the spring of 1951 with the same kind of trees and seed. The seedlings in the outside border row were not replaced and thus were started a year sooner.
Thirteen budded nursery trees were planted. Of these, three were replanted the following year; and at one position it was necessary to replant a second time. Seeds were planted at 27 stakes and from them trees were obtained at 19 places. It was necessary to replant once at four stakes, twice at three stakes, and three times at three stakes. Thus, more difficulty was experienced in getting a stand of trees from seed than by transplanting. The trees started from seed in place and the transplanted seedlings were later grafted with scions of the Western variety. Thus, these trees and the budded nursery trees in time all had tops of the same variety on rootstocks grown from seed of the same variety. The trees developed from the trees and seeds replanted after 1951 will be excluded from the comparison of performance of the several groups of trees.
Some Known Facts
Before making a comparison of the three groups of trees in the experiment, it is helpful to consider some factors that are well known to affect the performance of a pecan tree.
1. Transplanting interrupts the growth of a tree since it necessitates re-establishment of the roots which the tree lost in the operation. If the tree is not properly cared for, it may become reestablished slowly, or may not survive. However, if one or more seeds are planted, there is also a possibility that none will become a permanent tree. The growth of a seedling likewise depends on care. If both a seedling and a normal transplanted tree receive proper care the transplanted tree will be larger in trunk circumference and extent of root system at the end of the first 1 or 2 years.
2. The relative growth rate of individual seedlings, or of named varieties, may differ considerably. For example, the Halbert variety Is a slow weak grower and Western is one of the stronger ones. It is believed that the growth rate of a grafted variety is affected by the growth rate of rootstock.
3. The height of the scaffold branches of a tree will affect the rate of increase in trunk diameter and branch spread. Less material is required to construct a short trunk than a long one of equal diameter; consequently there is more available to other parts of the tree.
4. Pruning has a retarding effect on the overall growth of a tree. Removal of low branches, as is done to get higher scaffold branches, affects the increase in trunk diameter. A topworking operation also has this effect.
5. Low-headed trees bear sooner than those headed high, but low branches often interfere with orchard machinery. Scaffold branches should begin at a moderate height to facilitate mechanical harvesting. Low branches also favor development of fungus diseases, and should be removed while small.
6. The taproot of a pecan seedling grows faster than the top during the first year of its growth, a proportion 1 that decreases greatly thereafter. The top of a young seedling tree is erect, with a strong central leader and few lateral branches, indicating strong terminal dominance in the buds. The leaves and shoots are pubescent, and at an early stage in development may show a red pigment. The hard dry protective bark is resistant to winter injury near the ground where grafted trees are susceptible to winter killing. After the first year, the pecan tree grows rapidly to compete with low-growing vegetation.
The shoots of seedling trees 10 to 15 feet high are not pubescent and pigmented, and under favorable conditions produce flowers. Such bearing shoots are said to be “mature,” while those of young, non-bearing seedlings are called “juvenile.” Differences between mature and juvenile shoots are thought to be due to amount and composition of growth regulating substances synthesized in the tissues.
Buds from mature branches placed on juvenile trees, as is done in grafting nursery trees, produce trees that bear sooner than seedlings, and they do not exhibit the morphological characteristics of juvenile trees. Such trees tend to develop a branched top, with large scaffold branches arising near the ground.
Because of the differences between juvenile and mature shoots, there are three types for planting a pecan orchard: (I) seedling trees started by planting seed in place, (2) nursery-grown seedling trees and (3) nursery-grown trees with grafted tops. The first two are alike in that both have juvenile tops; they differ only in that in (1) the roots are never disturbed, while in (2) the roots are disturbed by transplanting. The trees of (3) differ from those of (1) and (2) in that they have bearing tops.
Results of Experiment
At the end of 1965 differences were noted in the branching of the trees grown by the three methods. The trees from transplanted seedlings and from seed in place formed a strong erect stem, upon which a graft had been placed at a height of 5 feet. Scaffold branches developed on the grafted portion above the height. Thus, no further removal of low branches will be required in the near future. These trees are well suited to mechanical harvesting because the branches are high enough to permit easy threshing by one hook-up of the shaker to me tree, Figure 1a.
The budded trees, having "mature" tops, formed bush-like branches without a central leader. Scaffold branches developed near the ground making it necessary to attach the shaker to several on each tree for mechanical harvesting, Figure 1b.
a. b.
Figure I. Left, tree developed by grafting a seedling at a height of 4½ feet. Right, transplanted nursery-grown grafted free that was not pruned. Note difference as to adaptation for mechanical harvesting.
These trees have produced more pecans than the high-headed trees started as seedlings, but the lower branches are in the way of implements and should be removed. Pruning trees in Fig. 1b. to the same height of head as those in Fig. 1a. would greatly reduce their bearing tops. Earlier pruning of the budded trees would result in retarding top growth.
Data on the size of the trees of each group at the end of 1965 and increase in trunk circumference per year are given in Table 1. Average yearly increase in trunk circumference varied from 0.93 to 2.51 inches. This variation resulted mostly from differences in environment because spots of Johnsongrass and uneven irrigation. By contrast, differences between the average yearly increases of the three groups of trees were relatively small, varying from 1.70 to 1.91 inches. The method by which a tree was established was a smaller factor in the final size of the individual trees than the growth rate maintained after planting. However, on the average, transplanted trees were larger than those started from seed.
Discussion
Planting seed in place to start an orchard involves little cost at the beginning, but is not recommended because of the extra time and care required to get the seedlings up to the size of a transplanted tree. Usually more replanting is required to get a stand than when transplanting is practiced. The trees must be grafted later in place, but they eventually develop into excellent trees.
If nursery grown seedlings are chosen in preference to grafted nursery-grown trees, a saving in cost will be realized at the beginning but there will be an expense later for grafting in place. Whether the total cost of establishing the trees will be more or less than if grafted trees were purchased depends on availability of competent help and many other factors. The transplanted seedling tree is juvenile until grafted, the same as a tree started from seed in place. Such a tree may be preferable to a tree grafted in the nursery, provided the owner can handle the problem of grafting. Sometimes trees of a desired variety or size are not available from nurseries. Seedlings may then be planted and grafted to the desired variety after the trees are established.
Planting grafted nursery-grown trees avoids the problem of topworking seedlings in place, and progress of the trees is not interrupted. However, the nursery-grown grafted tree requires more pruning in succeeding years than those grafted in place to get high scaffold branches. Removal of low branches is necessary to allow free movement of farm machinery and reduce build-up of fungus diseases. If scaffold branches are developed near the ground, the trees will come
TABLE 1. Date and method of planting and size and average growth rate of trees in planting experiment, Brownwood, Texas at end of year 1965.
=====================================================================
Year of Method of No. years Rank in Trunk Average
planting planting growth size Circum- increase
ference per year,
inches inches
=====================================================================
1950 1-year 16 Largest 40.2 2.51
seedling
trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950 1-year 16 Average 30.6 1.91
seedling
trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950 1-year 16 Smallest 14.8 0.93
seedling
trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1951 3-year 15 Largest 37.3 2.49*
nursery
trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1951 3-year 15 Average 27.8 1.85*
nursery
trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1951 3-year 15 Smallest 16.5 1.10*
nursery
trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1951 Seed in 15 Largest 35.9 2.40
Place
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1951 Seed in 15 Average 25.5 1.70
Place
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1951 Seed in 15 Smallest 18.2 1.21
Place
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The increase was slightly less than this figure because the circumference of the trees when planted was some 2 inches.
into production earlier than if higher; but they will be less desirable for mechanical harvesting.
Apparently a transplanted seedling develops the same kind of root system as one not transplanted. However, the replacement of a juvenile by a bearing top, as in grafting, may affect the root system and the overall growth of the tree. More experimental work is needed to determine if this is true.
Conclusion
This experiment shows that the growth rate after establishment is more important in determining the size of the tree than the method of planting.
Literature Cited
1. Harris, O. W. and C. L. Smith. 1959. Comparison of transplanted nursery trees and seedlings budded in place for establishing a pecan orchard. Proc. Texas Pecan Growers’ Assoc. 38:48-50.
]]>
Professor Emeritus of Horticulture
Texas A&M University
THERE IS A TOUCHING STORY of an incident in the life of an early Texas Ranger, and it is a good introduction to the topic, “Milestones in Texas Horticulture." The name of the ranger was Ed Westfall. The date was about 1853. He was stationed in a remote outpost of civilization and lived scornfully in hostile Comanche land. In enforcing the law and order that he was pledged to preserve, he was shot, and lay where he fell---alone, unconscious and blind. After a day, or maybe 3 days, no one knows---he regained awareness and partial, but dim eye-sight. The nearest help was 30 miles away at Fort Inge. His horse was gone. But Ed Westfall had a special sort of toughness. With courage, he started. There is something noble about a start. A brother ranger came by within 2 or 3 days and found the tragic trail that led from the gate or the stockade. Foot by foot he followed the trail, marked every step of the way by tell-tale signs of a heroic man.
Here, it was marked by life blood from Ed Westfall's bleeding wound.
Here, he had stumbled and fallen---fallen forward. His direction was forward.
That was the character of the man.
Here, he had picked up a cedar limb for a crutch, used it for a distance and discarded it.
Here, was the imprint of his pistol and outstretched arms as he lay for a minute, or an hour, where he had fallen---frail and exhausted.
Here, he made coffee and rested for an hour, or a day, who knows?
And here, he had crawled in uncertain fashion for a hundred yards, or a half- mile.
It was thus for 30 miles and no one knows how many weary days, until he reached old Fort Inge and help. He created a heroic path. He fought a good fight, and he finished the journey---and, incidentally, he continued it for 50 more years. The important thing is that he left signs of faith and courage every step of the way.
The horticulture of Texas, including foremost the pecan industry, also has made a journey---not in miles, but in years and accomplishments. And its journey like Ed Westfall's is marked by signs of faith and courage and milestones of progress along the way.
We live in a day of speed---physical speed and speed of developments. You and I are clinging desperately to the circumference of the wheel of existence. It is whirling away at dizzying speed. It will do our souls well if we retreat slightly from the circumference toward the hub where all is calm. There we can refresh our recollection of the milestones of progress that have guided us to our present position in the field of horticulture.
Hernandez Cortez
A great milestone in horticulture was created when Hernandez Cortez came to America. In the sordid story of his cruelty in dealing with the people of the new world, there is one cheery note: he brought peaches from Spain to America. North American Indians carried these peaches along coast into northern Florida, and up the Atlantic seaboard. A hundred years later, colonists at Jamestown found peaches growing wild. Captain John Smith wrote of “peaches in
abundance." He and the other colonists thought they were native, but they were not; they were of the stock which Cortez brought over. They were the foundation stock for the Spanish peaches which Gilbert Onderdonk 350 years later, described as one of the five races of peaches grown in America. These have contributed to the heritage of many of the commercial varieties of peach which are popular today. Cortez was perhaps the earliest foreign man to make a contribution to the horticulture of the new world. When his name is mentioned, peach growers appropriately should stand and salute in grateful appreciation for the milestone which he created.
Cabeza de Vaca
Cabeza de Vaca was an early Spanish explorer whose unhappy fortunes enabled him to be the first non-Indian (explorer-foreigner) to record early historical facts about the pecan. His ship was destroyed by storm off the coast of Galveston Island---his“isle of misfortune." He was captured by Indians, and with others of his group, including Dorantes and his moon slave, Estavanico, he traveled with them from 1528 to 1537. They were all slaves now and this must have created a delicate problem in protocol. In his narratives, de Vaca mentions the “river of nuts,” which was the Guadalupe. They “. . . came to a place of which he had been told to eat walnuts”---which were pecans. This place could easily have been Seguin. They were entertained there by the Chamber of Commerce for 2 months and we can speculate that de Vaca and his h Is group were tied to pecan trees most of the while. People of Seguin have always been gracious hosts! Pecans were the subsistence of the people for 2 months in the year without any other thing. De Vaca said it was the custom for the Indians to come every second year. This suggests that they knew about alternate bearing then and it has persisted as a problem until now.
The Golden Years
During the 350 years, The Golden Years of Horticulture, from 1530 to 1880, there surely must have been those in Texas whose work and interest in horticulture merits recitation; but whoever they were and whatever they did has been largely lost in the obscurity of time.
The 50 years before 1930 have been appropriately designated the golden years of horticulture.
This was the period of Gilbert Onderdonk, who in 1886 wrote: “To . . . every portion of Texas nature has dealt out her resources with a liberal hand, although those of southwest Texas are peculiar to herself . . . starting with only a few dimly-lighted landmarks, she has beaten her toilsome way until she now has a well-defined horticulture.” He listed grapes, peaches and plums which bring com- fort, health and profit, and thus advance the material good. His classification of peaches into five races-still a good classification now, 79 years later-is a mile- stone in Texas horticulture.
This was the period of E. E. Risien, who won the award for pecans at the Texas State Horticulture Show at Brenham in 1889. His vision of a future for pecans, and his many western varieties upon which we have depended so much as the pecan industry has developed, constitute a great milestone in Texas horticulture.
This was the period of J. W. Stubenranch whose German peach was during one period the predominant early peach variety in all the states from Texas to Georgia.
This was the period of Helge Ness who crossed dewberries and raspberries to produce Nessberries and the live oak and the overcup oak to produce the remarkable Ness hybrid oak.
The golden years of horticulture was the period of T. V. Munson, honored by France for diagnosing and prescribing a cure for the cause of a “mysterious
sickness” that was killing the grape vines and threatening the wine industry of that country.
All of these great horticulturists and many others contributed to the great milestone in Texas horticulture during the golden years from 1880 to 1930.
Chartered Stock Companies for Fruit Growing
Beginning about 1900 and ending indeterminately about 1920, many stock companies were chartered under a Texas state law to produce fruit. The organization personnel and financing for most of these companies was from out of state. With many of them, the sale of stock and orchard units was more rewarding to the promoters than the fruit. Through the years, 40 or more of these companies were organized. Capital stocks ranged up to a half million dollars, and acreages up to 5,000. Many of these orchards existed; trees were planted; they grew and bore fruit. Yet, there is evidence that only one remains today. The combination orchard company of Winona, Texas, was planted in 1909. Peaches and pecans were inter-planted, with spacing of 20 feet for the peach trees and 60 feet for the pecans. The peach trees are gone; the pecans remain. All of the other company orchards are gone; all largely failed.
During this same period, there were also widespread plantings of peach, plum and apple orchards by individual farmers. They were usually modest orchards of from 5 to 10 acres, and mostly in East Texas. The experiences of all these early pioneers were unbelievably frustrating: The Elberta was the only commercial variety. The marketing season extended over only 2 weeks at best. The short season created difficulties in packing shed organization, and also in establishing marketing channels for the orderly sale of the crop. Brown rot was an ever-present threat to the fruit. San Jose scale early became a troublesome pest. It was not easily controlled with the home-made lime-sulphur mixtures, boiled in a black iron wash pot, applied from a 50-gallon barrel with a hand powered pump. Toe straps were invented which enabled a small man to maintain his footing while pumping! Roads were rough, yet fruit was hauled to market in wagons without springs--- 25 bushels for each load; 12 bushels in each of two decks and one beside the driver. Wagon speed was 4 or 5 miles per hour. Day and night temperatures during harvest were high and there were no facilities for pre-cooling. Fruit was shipped to market by rail. Freight train speed was slow, schedules uncertain. Refrigerator cars were poorly insulated according to present-day standards; re-icing service was erratic. Fruit grown with the least care ripened early and often brought the best price. That grown under better orchard management ripened later, and in the meantime the price had often declined.
These orchards were an important milestone, and there was a somber lesson in them. They gave those who were to shortly reestablish and revitalize the peach industry in Texas pause to hesitate in contemplation of such ventures. They were gentle reminders that all of the things that are fundamental to peach production must be provided to succeed, and that to deal speculatively with peaches is to court adverse fate.
Texas State Horticultural Society
An important milestone was created when the Texas State Horticultural Society was organized in 1886. By 1889 it had 160 members. Dues: $2 for men; $1 for ladies; $5 for life membership for ladies, regardless of age. At Exposition Hall in Brenham in 1889, cash prizes were given to winning entries for peaches, plums, apples, pears, berries and figs. The W.C.T.U gave $5 for the best bottle of unfermented grape juice. Entries were judged on color, since none of the judges had a corkscrew!
James Stephen Hogg
A milestone was created when Gov. James Stephen Hogg in 1906, realizing that his death was near, said in conversation with friends: "I want no monument of stone or marble, but plant at my head a pecan tree and at my feet an old-fashioned walnut tree . . . and when these trees shall bear let the pecans and
the walnuts be given out to the plain people of Texas. so that they may plant them and make Texas a land of trees.” Great horticulturists dedicated their efforts to fulfilling this request---E. W. Kirkpatrick of McKinney, C. Falkner of Waco, F. M. Ramsey of Austin, J. S. Kerr of Sherman, and E. J. Kyle, long-time dean of agriculture with A&M University. The Texas Nut Growers’ Association was organized in May, 1906; (a) to provide for meetings of Texas nut growers, and (b) To assist in carrying out the last request of our beloved ex-Governor James Stephen Hogg. The ceremony of planting the trees and the drama and publicity it created gave impetus to pecan growing that has continued with increasing interest until the present.
And finally, a great milestone was created by a small group of pecan-minded people who gathered at San Saba, Texas, to form the Texas Pecan Growers Association in 1921. This could not have occurred without the early missionary work of J. A. Evans. As pecan specialist for the Texas Extension Service, he established islands of interest in every section of the State. No man created a better milestone than J. A. Evans. It can be truthfully said that his efforts marked the beginning of the commercial pecan industry of Texas. Our presence here tonight is due indirectly to the fortunate circumstances that he was employed by the Extension Service, to his eager response to a challenging opportunity, and to the faithful discharge of responsibility. Others have followed creditably in his footsteps, and have explored other paths. Their names will be mentioned with the same reverence with the passing of time.
There is a Chinese proverb that “Love and beauty walk hand in hand, but wisdom walks alone.” These men walked alone---Cortez, de Vaca, Onderdonk, Stubenranch, Ness, Hogg, Kyle, Risien, Evans . . . They brought beauty and courage and goodness to the earth, and these live on in the lives of men. The milestones they erected have become stepping stones to a greater horticulture for those of us who live after them.
]]>
TOM E.DENMAN
Associate Horticulturist, West Cross limbers Experiment Station
Stephenville, Texas
WITH AN OPENING PRICE of 12-14 cents per pound for pecans and an extreme shortage of labor early in the season, it appeared for a while that much of the 1965 native pecan crop might not be gathered.
Later, as the price advanced and labor became more plentiful, there was a scramble to get the pecan crop out before weather became unfavorable for harvesting.
Due to the extremely mild weather in early winter a thick mat of vegetation completely covered the fallen nuts in many orchards before harvest began. Thousands of pounds of pecans remain buried under this grass where it was impractical to gather them.
Losses from the delayed harvest this past season were of great concern to pecan growers and the need for mechanical harvesting is becoming more urgent every year.
After working with the many problems involved in the mechanization of pecan harvesting for the past few years, it now seems likely that a standard procedure suitable for all orchards will not be developed soon.
Rather, it seems more likely that a number of machines useful under various orchard conditions will become available. Growers will have to determine their individual needs.
Meanwhile, the Texas Experiment Station has been working on a summer of pieces of equipment that might prove useful to pecan growers.
Results of some preliminary work on mechanical separators and cleaners for machine harvested nuts clearly indicate the need for more thorough ground preparation of the orchard sites prior to harvest. Large quantities of immature nuts, short sticks and other trash about the size and shape of pecans ran through the various cleaning units and had to be separated from the pecans before they were ready for market.
In the preparation of the ground for mechanical harvesting, a modified dump rake seemed promising. The rake was completely dismantled saving only the tines and angle iron frame. After doubling the number of tines, the rake was adapted to a three-point hitch. The steps in altering a dump rake are:
1. Completely dismantle rake saving only the angle iron frame that holds the tines.
2. Remove all tines and turn angle iron frame completely over.
3. Weld double the original number of tines to angle frame spacing tines evenly along frame.
4. Cut open slots in another piece of angle iron that will match spacing of tines.
5. Bolt second piece of iron to frame in order to hold tines securely in place
6. Attach hitch pins for lower lift arms to front side of angle frame.
7. Weld two pieces of angle iron under frame and extending about 16 inches forward to provide several openings so upper arm link can be properly adjusted.
8. Note that upper arm link actually pushes downward as rake is lifted.
9. Weld light metal shield to end tines to prevent trash from dropping out of rake.
With the rake it was possible to clear most of the leaves, sticks and other trash from the orchard. The larger limbs were picked up by hand prior to this operation. The faulty pecans and some of the smaller material remained on the ground.
This simple unit can be constructed with very little expense and should serve a useful purpose in cleaning up a pecan grove just before harvest. It would greatly reduce the amount of bulky material to be handled by any kind of harvesting unit, thus speeding up the harvesting operation. In late winter, after completion of harvest, the accumulated trash could be removed from the orchard to promote the growth of a better sod cover necessary for efficient use of mechanical harvesting equipment.
Many pecan growers have suggested that it would be more practical to retrieve the pecans with a simple pickup device that removed only the bulky trash and leaves. Further cleaning might be completed in the orchard with a machine designed especially for this purpose. Finally, the remaining small trash and faulty pecans would be removed at the shed as the pecans were prepared for market.
A number of drum-type and shaker-type units have been evaluated during the past 3 years, in an attempt to find the most efficient device for handling pecans containing large quantities of trash. Various types of screens, blowers and shaking devices were evaluated.
An obsolete Lilliston peanut picker seemed especially promising after certain modifications. Much of the bulky equipment used to handle peanuts was removed, and two screens were installed to separate the nuts from the trash. The operation of this unit is as follows:
1. Nuts and trash are dumped near ground level into a large hopper.
2. Material is transported up a canvas conveyor belt---40 inches in width.
3. Material drops from belt into airstream created by heavy duty blower.
4. All of the leaves and much of the lighter trash are removed in this operation.
5. Pecans and heavy trash fall on to sloping shaker screen.
6. Pecans and heavy trash drop through openings in metal screen and large trash drops off the end.
7. Pecans and small trash drop on sloping rod screen with a . shaking device.
8. Pecans travel down screen and drop into a dump chute. Small sticks drop through rods onto ground.
A large quantity of bulky trash and leaves were run through this machine when pecans were harvested with a trash sweeper which swept the ground clean. It was possible to separate a total of 789 pounds of pecans in 2 hours. This method of harvesting would be too slow for field operation but it did reveal the enormous capacity of the machine to handle bulky trash.
In another test, large sheets were used in early-season harvesting of pecans in areas where mechanical harvesting did not seem practical. After the nuts were shaken from the trees, the larger limbs were removed from the sheets and the remaining material was loaded onto a pickup and transported to the separator. The machine removed all of the leaves and larger sticks but it did not remove the pecans with adhering husks and small sticks about the size and shape of a pecan. The pecans were allowed to dry about 2 weeks and were then rerun through the separator, thus eliminating many of the husks. The capacity of the machine to handle pecans in this manner was limited only by the time required to shake and collect the nuts on the sheets.
Total cost of harvesting pecans on sheets is as follows:
Man Hours cleaner Conveyor belt
Spreading sheets and dumping .......14
Running through cleaner ..................4 2
Rerunning through cleaner ...............1 ½
Running nuts over belt ......................5 1
---------------------------------------------------------------- 24 2½ 1
Total pounds clean pecans---1410
Total pounds trash removed by hand---126
Total man hours 24 @ 1.25 .................................................................... 30.00
Total machine hours---cleaner 2½ @ 2.00 .................................................5.00
Belt conveyor 1@ 1.00 .............................................................................. 1.00
Cost of shaking pecans 1410 lbs. @ 4c ....................................................56.40
TOTAL COST ..................................................92.40
Cost per pound .................................................6.6
A quantity of pecans harvested with a vacuum-type suction harvester was run through the Lilliston machine in an attempt to remove a rather large volume of trash remaining in the nuts. Much of the material was removed in this operation, thus reducing the cost of hand cleaning.
Regardless of the method of harvesting employed a certain amount of foreign material remained after the nuts were run through the separator unit. Picking out the trash by hand as the nuts passed along a canvas conveyor belt proved slow and expensive.
Several samples of nuts were run over a pop remover which did a very efficient job of separating the remaining foreign material from the sound mature nuts. It also removed a quantity of light nuts containing a small amount of kernel. Some growers might be reluctant to lose this portion of the crop, but a market might be established for this product.
]]>
Vice President---Marketing
Cotton Producers Association
Atlanta, Georgia
I APPRECIATE very much the opportunity of being invited to participate in your meeting and consider it a distinct privilege to talk to you about C.P.A.-Gold Kist, what we are doing and what we expect to do in cooperative marketing.
Though our main office is located in Atlanta, Georgia, we feel right at home here, for our operations extend to all parts of Texas. We have a peanut plant located at Comanche, Texas, which is one of the largest peanut-shelling plants in the Southwest. We also have peanut-buying points at Aubrey and Pleasanton, Texas, with other commissioned: agents throughout the peanut-producing areas of Texas. We have been marketing pecans throughout Texas for the past 15 years and have a number of pecan-receiving agents located throughout the pecan-producing areas in Texas.
Briefly, I will mention that Gold Kist Pecans is a division of Cotton Producers Association, which is a multidivisional cooperative, marketing peanuts, cotton, grain, pecans, poultry and livestock over a wide area from North Carolina across to Arizona. In addition to marketing these commodities, we distribute farm production supplies to farmer members such as feed, seed, fertilizer, pesticides and general farm supplies. We carry on an extensive research program in all phases of marketing and in producing better farm production supplies to prove our members with the best marketing services and the most economical farm production supplies. This past year, total business volume exceeded $200,000,000.
Within the past year, we have established an administrative office in Brussels, Belgium, to supervise the activities of our agents and brokers throughout Europe. We are presently contemplating establishing the same type office in the Orient to supervise marketing activities in that part of the world. This gives us daily contact with the markets around the world and keeps us advised as to changes in prices and marketing conditions. We think this gives us a pretty good insight into what is going on around the world at any precise time in all commodities. By having offices located in strategic centers around the world, we are able to present your products to buyers throughout the world that you as individuals would have little or no access to.
In addition to offering your products around the world, we feel that we must constantly find new markets and develop new outlets for your products. As an example, this past year, our manager in Brussels participated in a number of food fairs and trade shows to encourage the sale and use of pecans, peanuts and other C.P.A.-Gold Kist products. Pecans and other products were displayed at Milan, Italy, in February 1966; London, in February 1966; Manchester, England, in May 1966; Utrecht, The Netherlands, in May 1966; Brussels, Belgium, in November 1965 and Cologne, Germany, in October 1965.
This brings me to the point that I want to stress today. We have a responsibility to our membership to go one step further than just offering you a local market for your pecans and other products. We feel that we must go to all areas of the world to introduce them to the use of your pecans, peanuts and poultry. We have felt for a number of years that unless markets were constantly expanded for farm commodities that we would see constantly reduced prices as
48 PROCEEDINGS TEXAS PECAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
volume increased in a certain commodity. (Cotton is a good example). We know that 200,000,000-pound crops of pecans can easily be consumed in this county, but we also know that 500,000,000 pounds cannot be consumed in this country at the same price level that 200, 000, 000 pounds can; unless the increased production is moved to other markets or additional uses are found in this market for pecans. The price will be the variable factor and, consequently, grower income will suffer. This is the basic reason for our looking for new markets around the world and trying to expand the existing markets in this country. I often hear the comment that we can sell all the pecans we produce . . . we can, but will prices be profitable?
While we realize that we must look for new markets tor your pecans, we realize that we don't have the cure for all the pecan-marketing problems. While we take the initiative in new market development in finding new markets, you must take the initiative in providing uniform quality, more consistent crop sizes and more efficient and economical methods of harvesting and handling pecans up to the time they reach our facilities. By this, I mean you will have to develop methods of reducing harvesting costs so that we can be competitive with other nuts within this country as well as the production of nuts in other producing areas around the world. If other producing areas are able to harvest nuts for 2 or 3 cents per pound, it certainly suggests that we will not be competitive long if our harvesting costs are 8, 10 and 12 cents per pound. I am sure most of you here today are familiar with and are already working hard on improving cultural practices and improving and making more efficient harvesting methods; but the entire industry must be appraised of these new efficiencies in producing and harvesting pecans. Not only must pecans be competitively priced with other nuts to maintain markets, but we must have consistent supplies to maintain market distribution.
Large manufacturers plan 6 to 12 months ahead on ingredients going into products they manufacture, such as candy, ice cream, cakes or confectionery items. Many factors are involved in their deciding to use pecans or not to use them. They have to set up their advertising program, packaging, price structures, employment levels, plant capacity, plant scheduling and many other things before they have their program set to use pecans. Once this program is set and they have pecans in a product, it's very disappointing to them to find that the very next year the supply of pecans is not available to maintain distribution of that certain product. Often, they find the price moving completely out of range with other competitive nuts. Once they have taken pecans out of their product, it presents tremendous problems to get them convinced to put them back in when we have another big, unusual size crop.
Now, I am not far enough away from home to pose as an expert as to how you can maintain more uniform crop sizes, but I have heard from some of the experts that cultural practices, fertilization, spraying and these sort of things do tend to maintain more uniform crop size. I do know that we can do a much better job of marketing your pecans if the crop size is more uniform. I believe the marketing structure can gear up for a 300,000,000-pound crop or it can gear up for a 500,000,000-pound crop, but where the marketing structure has tremendous problems is switching from a 500, 000, 000-pound crop to a 100,000,000-pound crop . . . this presents very unusual problems in maintaining market distribution. It is also my understanding that improved fertilization, cultural practices and spraying generally provide a better quality product.
While most commodities are now bought and sold on a strict grading basis, this is not always the case with pecans. We have contended for a number of years that pecans should be bought on a more realistic grading method. You shouldn't sell your pecans on a non-graded basis any more than you would sell your cotton on an average basis or your other products on a non-graded basis. We have contended that pecans should be sold on a meat-yield basis with proper values given to color of the kernels, soundness of kernels, moisture content and size. I am sure you wouldn't want to sell your strict middling cotton at the same price you would sell your low middling cotton, or your 1-1/8” cotton at the same price as 15/16”. Pecans can profit by lessons learned in other grading systems. We intend to continue to expand our marketing of pecans based on the principle of paying premiums for better quality nuts.
PROCEEDINGS TEXAS PECAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 49
We feel we have the personnel and the organization to effectively help you market much larger crops of pecans. We are working in every way possible with the food manufacturers and other users of pecans in this country. We are working to expand distribution in areas not now using pecans. We are trying to make pecans the number one nut meat in the minds of all consumers.
Two weeks ago, I saw inshell pecans displayed in an open-air market in Appledorn, Holland, and candy with seedling halves on it in Brugges, Holland. I sampled butterpecan ice cream in London, England. I visited supermarkets in France and Germany where they had packages of inshell pecans prominently displayed, and to my surprise the sales personnel were familiar with the pecan products, knew what they were and where they originated. So, I feel that we are just on the threshold of tremendously increasing consumption of pecans throughout the world. With the proper marketing program operating from the producer through to the consumer, you should be in the forefront to share in this increased consumption of pecans throughout the world.
We welcome the opportunity to meet with you today and solicit your support, your ideas, and your constructive criticism so that we can help you do a better job of marketing your pecans and enlarging the pecan share of the nut market in this country and around the world.
]]>
Burton Burks, Chairman
James H. Templeton
J. Benton Storey
Location Committee. Fort Worth and Dallas were under consideration as possible sites for the 1967 Annual Conference. Since the Furniture Market in Dallas during the second week in July directly conflicts with the date specified by the Constitution for the Texas Pecan Growers Association Annual Conference, the committee moved that Fort Worth be selected as the site for the 1967 Annual Conference. Motion seconded by Taber Shelton and carried.
James E. Anthony, Acting Chmn.
James E. Moore
Sam Pollard
E. D. Cook
Dallas Telford
Membership Committee. Plans are underway to develop an attractive, informative brochure which will help recruit members during the 1966-67 year.
Warren Wells, Chairman
Memorial Committee. We pause, in sympathy and respect, to record the passing of Mrs. Nelson Hander, Belton, Texas. She has meant a great deal to the Texas Pecan Growers Association in various ways of support and encouragement, and her presence and interest will be greatly missed.
We extend our deep sympathy to the family of this dear friend.
Therefore, be it resolved that her passing be properly recorded in the minutes of this meeting and that a copy be sent to her bereaved friends.
E. W. Schuhmann
E. Guy Risien
W. T. Evers
Legislative Committee. A great deal of activity has developed during the year in regard to the proposed federal marketing order for pecans. Your attention is directed to a paper in these Proceedings on that subject.
James Anthony, Chairman
George Peyton
Kenneth Suggs
John Speck
C. W. Kothmann
Will S. Price
A. C. Mackin
Taber Shelton
H. C. Pape
C. E. Tisdale
Resolutions Committee.
This committee presents for your approval the following resolutions:
Tabb Harrell
Show Committee.
Numerous changes have been approved by the Directors which are outlined in a paper in these Proceedings. The committee is convinced that these changes provide a great opportunity for expansion of the shows and a more realistic means of managing the events.
B. G. Hancock, Chairman
Nominations Committee. The committee nominates the following new directors for a two year term: District 1 ............................................................................Tabb Harrell, Austin District 2 ........................................................................Dallas Telford, DeKalb District 3 .........................................................................Ben Freeman, Ranger District 4 ......................................................................Raymond Davis, Seguin Secretary-Treasurer ................................................................J. Benton Storey Vice President .............................................................................Fred R. Brison President ..............................................................................James E. Anthony
John Braden moved that the nominations cease and the above named officers and directors be elected by acclamation. W. W. Harris seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Taber Shelton, Chairman
Bob Horn
John Braden, Jr.
W. W. Harris
B. G. Hancock
Mr. Nentwich mentioned the need for a water committee. The matter was referred to the incoming president who has the authority to appoint all committees needed to conduct the affairs of the Association.
Respectfully submitted,
J. Benton Storey
Secretary-Treasurer
]]>Extension Horticulturist
THE FIRST TEXAS STATE PECAN SHOW, held in 1950, had less than 30 entries, sent in by above five exhibitors. County pecan shows, as we know them today, began in 1952. Eastland County, under guidance of J. M. Cooper, county agent, held the first show, followed shortly by Guadalupe, Travis and San Saba counties. The county shows sponsored jointly by the local growers and the county Extension agents have increased in number until there were 23 in 1965. There likely will be 23 to 25 in 1966. These county shows have been of real value in many ways:
1. Serve as one of the main annual educational functions of the County Pecan Growers Association.
2. Focus attention on adapted high quality pecan varieties and on new USDA varieties and breeding lines.
3. Promote interest in a sound pecan production program.
4. Display to consumers (through the bake shows) the excellent ways to use the pecan as a food.
A scene at the record-breaking 1,027-entry in 1965 Texas State Pecan Show pictures something of its magnitude. The show filled the ballroom at the Memorial Student Center on the Texas A&M University campus.
The great interest built by county pecan shows has resulted in a tremendous and steadily increasing growth of the Texas State Pecan Show. In the 1965 State Pecan Show, there were 1027 entries---mainly winners from county shows. It took almost a full week to process (sort, weigh, crack, shell and re-weigh) these entries and over 30 people assisted with this work. It requires a great amount of space to exhibit these entries. For the past year or so, the opinion of those working directly with the shows has been that the over-all operation of the Texas State Pecan Show needed to be revised.
After careful study, the Pecan Show Committee of the Texas Pecan Growers Association made the following recommendations to the Officers and Directors of this organization.
1. Encourage expansion of the county pecan shows. These shows are the foundation of our total pecan educational program.
2. Initiate three large regional pecan shows at larger cities to gain more recognition and publicity of our quality pecan program.
The three show sites for 1966 are San Antonio, Fort Worth and Abilene.
3. Send winning entries from county pecan shows to regional. Open entries would be accepted at regional from growers who have no pecan show in their county.
4. Send regional entries from regional shows to Texas A&M University to be stored under freezing conditions. (0⁰ F. to -10⁰ F.).
5. Hold the Texas State Pecan Show in July at Annual Texas Pecan Growers Conference. The statistics on nut weight and kernel percentage for each entry obtained at regional shows would be used in judging the State show. No open entries will be accepted at the Texas State Pecan Show.
6. Select the Texas Pecan Queen on the basis of poise, personality and beauty. Every county with a grower association is eligible to sponsor a queen contestant.
7. Present three championship awards as follow: Champion---Inshell Pecans named variety; Champion---Shelled Pecans named variety; Champion---Native Pecans.
Half of the cost of awards for qualifying county pecan shows will be borne by the Texas Pecan Growers Association through commercial sponsors and by the county. To qualify for awards, a county must have a pecan grower’s organization which sponsors the show and must have a minimum of 100 creditable pecan entries in its show.
The Officers and Directors of the Texas Pecan Growers Association in consultation with the State Pecan Show Committee will review for acceptance or approval all awards the regional and state Shows.
With the expanding growth and interest in pecan shows, great progress is being made in our pecan educational program. We have one common goal---do everything we can in developing a program to promote Texas pecans.
]]>JOHN B. HARRIS, native of Bryan, Texas, is a Hamilton County farmer, rancher, merchant and realtor, who demonstrate an active interest in Texas agriculture, civic affairs, higher education, land development and other worthy endeavors.
During his tenure as president of the Association, Mr. Harris worked diligently with other members to eliminate carry-overs of crops from past years and succeeded in strengthening the market and price structure for pecans. He helped to sponsor pecan shows, pushed for more pecan research and was active in many areas of interest to the pecan industry. He is a noted pecan propagator and has assisted numerous county agricultural agents in conducting educational demonstrations on pecan grafting and budding.
In July 1966, he was voted the West Texan of the Month by the West Texas Chamber of Commerce.
He is married to the former Miss Frances Jenkins, originally from Nashville, Tennessee, and they have two children---Leisa, age 7, and Jayson, age 5. Mr. and Mrs. Harris built and operate the "Hidden Valley Store," which is a showplace tor tourists and a favorite shopping center for local citizens. They sell original oil paintings and interesting wares. The store also is a mail order headquarters for pecan tools and supplies.
]]>President | Vice President | Secretary-treasurer |
James E. Anthony | Fred R. Brison | J. B. Storey |
200 Throckmorton | 602 S. Dexter | Drawer CC |
Fort Worth, Texas | College Station, Texas | College Station, Texas |
DIRECTORS
District I | District 2 | District 3 |
R. P. McCoy | Will S. Price | Tom E. Denman |
Marble Falls, Texas | Kerns, Texas | Stephenville, Texas |
Tabb Harrell | Dallas Telford | B.B. Freeman |
Austin, Texas | DeKalb, Texas | Ranger Texas |
District 4 | At-Large |
John Braden, Jr | Henry New |
Cuero, Texas | Seguin, Texas |
Raymond F Davis | John B. Harris |
Seguin, Texas | Hamilton, Texas |
]]>
TEXAS PECAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 1966-67
Arrangements
James E. Anthony, Chairman, 200 Throckmorton, Fort Worth, Texas
O. S. Gray, Sr., P. O. Box 550, Arlington, Texas 76010
Warren Wells, Route 2, Box 425, Arlington, Texas 76010
Auditing
Jack Doerfler, Chairman, 1025 Mill, Seguin, Texas
J. Hunter Miles, Box 909, Taylor, Texas
John Olive, Olive Nursery, 2801 Sherwood Way, San Angelo, Texas
Awards
Burton S. Burks, Jr., Chairman, Route 2, Granbury, Texas
J. H. Templeton, 8000 Havenwood, Austin, Texas
Constitution
H. C. Pape, Chairman, 701 Bismark Street, Seguin, Texas
Dr. Cecil Gregg, Box 126, San Marcos, Texas
Michael S. Hunt, Marlin Pecan Orchard, P. O. Box 40, Marlin, Texas
Charles N. Prothro, Perkins-Prothro Co., P. O. Box 2099, Wichita Falls, Texas
Murray Callahan, Box 644, Bastrop, Texas
Exhibits
EDUCATIONAL
Keith Hillman, Chairman, County Agricultural Agent, Granbury, Texas
De Marquis Gordon, County Agricultural Agent, Eastland, Texas
George S. Blackburn, County Agricultural Agent, Breckenridge, Texas
M. E. Graves, Jr., County Agricultural Agent, 4th Floor County Courthouse, Fort Worth, Texas
George Madden, U. S. Pecan Field Station. P. O. Box 589, Brownwood, Texas
B. G. Hancock, Extension Horticulturist, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Robert Kensing, Area Farm Management Specialist, Box 3127, San Angelo, Texas
COMMERCIAL
Randolph Terrell, Chairman, Gold Kist Pecan Growers, 1052 E. Cedar, Seguin,
Texas
Land Evaluation
F. R. Brison, Chairman, 602 S. Dexter, College Station, Texas
Will S. Price, Box 86, Kerens, Texas
Taber Shelton, P. O. Box 4, Gonzales, Texas
Harry Cross, Sr., Route 2, High 69N, Greenville, Texas
J. L. Rainey, Box 205, San Saba, Texas
B. G. Hancock, Extension Horticulturist, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Location
J. M. Cooper, Chairman, County Agricultural Agent, Eastland, Texas 76448
Bob Horne, P. O. Box 21, Plainview, Texas 79072
Floyd Gage, Route 1, Box 263, Brownwood, Texas 76801
Frank Altom, 1426 Cedar, Abilene, Texas 79601
C. E. Smith, Box 516, Rising Star, Texas 76471
George W. Yarbro, Perkins-Prothro Co., P. O. Box 2099, Wichita Falls, Texas
Marketing and Grades
Randolph Terrell, Chairman, Gold Kist Pecan Growers, 1052 E. Cedar, Seguin
Texas
T. H. Stewart, Granbury, Texas
W. B. Martin, Jr., 219 Fourth Street, San Antonio, Texas
Membership
Warren Wells, Chairman, Route 2, Box 425, Arlington, Texas
J. M. Cooper, County Agricultural Agent, Eastland, Texas
John Braden, Jr., Route 4, Cuero, Texas
Burton Burks, Jr., Route 2, Granbury, Texas
Nelson H. Hander, Route 1, Box 318, Belton, Texas
Ray Peeler, Jr., Box 37, Bonham, Texas 75418
Ronnie Farrington, Bud Adams Ranches, Route 2, Box 69, Waller, Texas
H. B. Fox, Route 4, Taylor, Texas
Lenis Wells, Wells Nursery & Orchards, Box 146. Lindale, Texas
Donald N. Stallings, 753 Lamar Avenue, Paris, Texas
F. O. Jackson, Pecandale Farm, Route 2, Cleburne, Texas
Donald A. Wottrich, 6402 Cindy Lane, Houston, Texas
John Brawner, 510 N. San Marcos, Seguin, Texas
John Stribling, Jr., 104 North 19th Street. Lamesa, Texas
Dr. Stanley L. Stevenson, 5221 Locksley, Dallas, Texas
Legislative
Dr. James E. Anthony, Chairman, 200 Throckmorton, Fort Worth, Texas
Kenneth Suggs, P. O. Box 762, Fabens, Texas
John Speck, P. O. Box 772, Plainview, Texas
Harold Ivey, Box 46, Tornillo, Texas
Robert B. Baldwin. P. O. Box 6912, Houston, Texas 77005
Newell Atkinson, Route 1, Box 153, Boling, Texas 77420
V. W. Frost, 2610 Tennessee Road, Houston, Texas
Otto Moser, DeKalb, Texas
Taber Shelton, P. O. Box 4, Gonzales, Texas
H. C. Pape. 701 Bismark St., Seguin, Texas
C. E. Tisdale, Barnett Springs Ranch. San Saba, Texas
Elijah W. Thompson, 5026 Chennault Road, Houston, Texas 77033
Research
O. S. Gray. Sr., Chairman, O. S. Gray Nursery & Landscape, P. O. Box 550, Arlington, Texas
Dr. E. W. Darilek, Route 2, Box 26A, Seguin, Texas
O. P. Leonard, 200 Houston, Fort Worth, Texas
J. L. Rainey, Box 205, San Saba, Texas
David Horne, Horne Brothers, P. O. Box 21, Plainview, Texas
Memorial
W. T. Evers, Chairman, Box 176, Denton, Texas
E. W. Schuhmann, Del Valle, Texas
E. Guy Risien, San Saba, Texas
Nominations
Taber Shelton, Chairman, P. O. Box 4, Gonzales, Texas
Bob Horne, Horne Brothers, P. O. Box 21, Plainview, Texas
John Braden, Jr., Route 4, Cuero, Texas
W. W. Harris, 1811 Lightsey Lane, Austin, Texas
B. G. Hancock, Extension Horticulturist, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Publicity
B. G. Hancock, Chairman, Extension Horticulturist, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
M. E. Graves, Jr., County Agricultural Agent, 4th Floor County Courthouse, Fort Worth, Texas
Keith Hillman, County Agricultural Agent, Granbury, Texas
Monk Vance, Farm & Ranch Editor, Fort Worth Star Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas 76101
Doyle Gougler, Department of Agricultural Information, College Station, Texas
Dick Hickerson, Department of Agricultural Information, College Station, Texas
J. W. Potts, Department of Agricultural Information, College Station, Texas
Texas Pecan Queen Pageant
Mrs. John B. Harris, Chairman, Box 191, Hamilton, Texas
Mrs. James E. Anthony, 200 Throckmorton, Fort Worth, Texas
Resolutions
W. B. Sullivan, P. O. Box 366, San Saba, Texas
Show
B. G. Hancock, Chairman, Extension Horticulturist, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Floyd Gage, Route 1, Box 263, Brownwood, Texas
Taber Shelton, P. O. Box 4, Gonzales, Texas
Robert Kensing, Area Farm Management Specialist, Box 3127, San Angelo, Texas Roger Landers, Menard, Texas
John Chilek, Route 2, Box 104, Yoakum, Texas
Dr. E. D. Cook, Blackland Experiment Station, Box 748, Temple, Texas
Edward Migura, Box 650, Bastrop, Texas
Don Decker, County Agricultural Agent,
Herman Lynch, County Agricultural Agent, Box 308, New Boston, Texas
Floyd Key, County Agricultural Agent, Box 842, Comanche, Texas
Gilbert Heideman, County Agricultural Agent, Box 127, Cuero, Texas
De Marquis Gordon, County Agricultural Agent, Eastland, Texas
Clinton R. Bippert, County Agricultural Agent, La Grange, Texas
Frank Stockton, County Agricultural Agent, 320 St. Louis Street, Gonzales, Texas
Henry New, County Agricultural Agent, Box 751, Seguin, Texas
Keith Hillman, 900 Doyle, Granbury, Texas
W. C. Henderson, Box 183, Junction, Texas
A. V. Garrett, Box 247, Mason, Texas
Allen Turner, County Agricultural Agent, Box 727, Menard, Texas
J. D. Moore, County Agricultural Agent, Box 509, Cameron, Texas
Billy Bumpus, County Agricultural Agent, Box 136, Montague, Texas
Billy Kidd, County Agricultural Agent, Box 635, San Saba, Texas
Jack Doby, County Agricultural Agent, County Courthouse, Austin, Texas
Angus Dickson, County Agricultural Agent, Luther Building, EI Paso, Texas
Brown Spivey, County Agricultural Agent, Giddings, Texas
Billy R. Thane, County Agricultural Agent, Box 539, Decatur, Texas
County Agricultural Agent, Brownwood, Texas
Don W. Callahan, County Agricultural Agent, Courthouse, Gatesville, Texas
E. S. Hyman, County Agricultural Agent, County Courthouse, San Angelo, Texas 76528
George Madden, U. S. Pecan Field Station, P. O. Box 589, Brownwood, Texas
J. L. Rainey, Box 205, San Saba, Texas
M. E. Graves. Jr., County Agricultural Agent, 4th Floor County Courthouse, Fort Worth, Texas
Thurman J. Kennedy, County Agricultural Agent, 302 Courthouse, San Antonio, Texas
H. C. Stanley, Jr., County Agricultural Agent, County Courthouse, Abilene, Texas
]]>
ROBERT H. KENSING
Area Farm Management Specialist
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
San Angelo, Texas
THE ECONOMICS of pecan growing involves many things. In fact, it is safe to say that every practice involved in the production of pecans for profit requires the application of some or all the economic principles---knowingly or unknowingly.
In most cases, management decisions regarding the advisability of doing certain things in certain ways---and when to do them will be governed by which practice returns the most net income for the amount or resources invested. When profit is the primary goal of the pecan grower, he must make many correct decisions---and practically none that are incorrect.
There are a vast number of important points any pecan grower must consider. Some are more important than others---but no point is unimportant. When this fact is accepted in the beginning of the planning stage, the chances for financial success are enhanced a great deal. This simply means from the farm management viewpoint that a pecan grower must arm himself with as much information as he can---before he makes decisions.
Managing a pecan grove for making or increasing net returns may go some-think like this; (1) determining objectives and goals; (2) inventorying resources; (3) making decisions and taking actions; and (4) evaluating and making adjustments. These broad general categories form the framework for the specific steps required to make money from pecan production. Each category probably is equally important.
Determining Objectives And Goals
The owner or manager of resources suitable for pecan production must first decide what he wants. If his objective is making more profit from pecans, he will be concerned with the economics of this decision---and every other future decision.
There can be a big difference between objectives that may appear to be similar. For example, a goal of producing the maximum pounds of pecans per tree or per acre, and the goal of making the greatest net return from the resources available may not be the same. At any rate, economists do not see them as being the same, because maximum production is not necessarily the most profitable level---although it may be in some instances. Management must be concerned with production, but the costs of production are equally important.
So the first management step for a pecan grower is to counsel with himself regarding his objective or goals.
Inventory Resources
Each owner or manager of pecan land has certain resources that will enhance or limit his chances for financial success as a pecan grower. It is tremendously important that these assets and liabilities be identified and inventoried to lay the foundation for a sound management program.
The inventory involves such things as number of trees, condition of trees, soil, water, past history and other factors. It is as important to a manager to know precisely what he has to work with as it is for him to know what he wants to accomplish.
Many resources are limited. These limitations must be recognized and must be taken into account when planning. To do otherwise is an invitation to financial failure.
The basic resources of land, labor, capital and management must be present in sufficient quantities of adequate quality---or the venture will be in trouble from the very beginning. In other words, it is just as sad to be “a dollar short and an hour late” in a pecan enterprise as in any other.
Making Decisions And Taking Actions
The third phase of this sample management program is all-important primarily because by this time a number of resources may have been committed. Each practice involved in developing or maintaining a pecan enterprise should be performed according to a program outline d by some logical system. From the standpoint of economics, the order in which practices should be done would be determined largely by the rate of return from each practice. Those paying the most would be done first---and so on down the line.
Although there are exceptions to the following order, it is an example of one possible management plan.
1. Clearing and cleaning up---general sanitation.
2. Identification of trees and production records.
3. Disease and insect control.
4. Nutrition and irrigation.
5. Harvesting.
6. Top-working for variety change or beautification.
Clearing And Cleaning Up
Assuming a grove of native timber that is in a totally "wild" state, there is no question about the first practice. A dollar spent or invested in cleaning out underbrush and foreign timber will return more potential net returns than any other immediate expenditure. A pecan grove must be clean to produce at maximum efficiency, and it must be clean for more economical harvesting.
There are a number of alternative methods for clearing and cleaning a grove. These range from a hand axe to a chain saw to a bulldozer. Each method has a cost that must be determined. If operating capital is not limited---heavy machinery may be the best method even though the cost may range $10 to $60 or more per acre. The cost will be influenced by many factors, but machine clearing saves time and may speed up production.
However, if operating capital is limited compared to labor, it may be less costly to use saws and axes. The point here is that each individual operator must base his decision for selecting a certain method with his own resources in mind. This requires the application of economic principles whether he realizes it or not.
One additional point regarding cleaning up pecan land. The thoroughness with which it is done will have a great deal of influence on the degree of success of practically every subsequent practice applied.
Identification---Records
Identification of trees and production records require minimum expenditures of resources---thus assuring the operator a high rate of return per dollar spent. The cost should not exceed 50 cents per tree plus a few dollars for paper and pencils.
Most pecan groves include trees that bear lighter crops than others. Such trees may be removed over a period of years---preferably on the basis of identification and records. It is doubtful that any other practice will give a higher return per unit of input. Therefore it is high on the economic list.
Disease---Insect Control
The next step is disease and insect control. It is reasonable to state that healthy trees are more profitable than unhealthy or unthrifty ones. Therefore it seems logical to assume that health care is the next practice to use to maximize returns per unit of input.
It is also reasonable to consider that the only safe estimate of the cost of disease and insect control is that it varies from very little to a lot---depending on the area, year, size of grove and other factors.
When rating the potential economic return to measures for the maintenance of healthy trees, it appears that disease control rates higher than insect control simply because insect infestations sometimes come and go, while a diseased tree usually stays diseased from year to year until something is done. This means that resources used for disease control normally pay better returns per dollar spent compared to insect control.
Disease and insect control measures require the operator to make decisions regarding ownership of equipment versus hired custom spraying. Also, the size of equipment, materials used, as well as the time of application, all affects net returns.
Nutrition---Irrigation
A somewhat valid argument could be made for listing nutrition and irrigation ahead of disease and insect control as a higher paying practice. Basically, abundant food and water go a long way toward maintaining the health of trees. How to rate these practices as far as economic returns are concerned will be governed by circumstances in individual cases. If lack of plant food is indicated to be the cause of unsatisfactory production, the application of fertilizer is in order. This, however, brings up the questions of what kind, how much and when to apply---to list a few.
The important point to consider here is not only the cost---but the return per dollar invested or spent. To more accurately make decisions regarding fertilizer and irrigation, the grower needs records of past performance. This only serves to call attention to the need for doing step two---identification and records---before considering step four---fertilization and irrigation.
Harvesting
A number of alternative methods for harvesting pecans can be considered. One economic principle involved here is keeping the cost as low as possible---provided each method is equally acceptable.
The decisions to harvest with machinery, to sell the crop on the trees, to harvest on shares, to hire a complete service---logically are based largely on the original inventory of resources and should have been taken into account when the initial objectives were established.
For the operator with abundant resources of capital, harvesting with his own machinery is entirely possible. For the operator with limited resources, owning expensive harvesting equipment is pretty much out of the question.
By and large, harvesting costs make up such a large portion of the total cost of production per pound of nuts harvested that a pecan grower must give high priority to this phase of his operation.
Topworking
Pecan growers are becoming more conscious of the importance of varieties, largely brought about by market demands. If the demand for higher quality shelling pecans continues to grow, many growers will be faced with the problem of changing varieties.
Topworking trees can mean considerable out-of-pocket costs unless the operator can do the work himself. This method, of course, is not feasible for large groves. Therefore, a large number of economic decisions are required to select the varieties, the trees to topwork and the method for doing the work.
Beautification is a term used here to identify the practice of planting trees in open spaces---or removing unnecessary trees---not only to add beauty to the grove, but also to gain better utilization of the land resource by getting more production for each acre of land, thus lowering average fixed costs for the grove to some extent.
An additional point that merits mention is the indirect long-term economic advantage of developing a pecan grove as a long-range capital investment---even if no net profit is ever realized from the sale of pecans. The appreciation in the value of the land will be---in most instances---more than enough to justify investing the resources. However, this is only true if the need for current income does not limit this alternative practice.
Evaluations and Adjustments
No management program can be a good one without constant evaluation and adjustment. There can be no better method of evaluation than close observation plus accurate measurement of production. When adjustments are indicated, they should be made on the basis of which ones will give the highest return per dollar spent.
No implication should be made from the foregoing remarks that the example management program is complete or that each practice should be carried out separately. There must be overlapping of the various practices because the benefits from each are complimentary.
To make the greatest net return per dollar invested, some attention should be given to the order suggested---or to a similar program.
Of course, the backbone of any operation is the accounting or records system. The information contained in a good set of records is absolutely necessary for making good management decisions. Proper analysis of the records for the pecan enterprise can point out the most logical steps to take to maximize net returns.
Management is the key to success.
]]>
RESPONSE TO WELCOME ADDRESS OF AUSTIN'S MAYOR, TOM MILLER
by Hugo Pape, Vice President Texas Pecan Growers Association
Mr. President, Mayor Tom Miller, and fellow pecan growers. It gives me great pleasure in behalf of our Texas Pecan Growers to thank you, Mayor Miller, for your cordial welcome to Austin. We are glad to have our annual 1958 Texas Pecan Growers Association Convention here this year. At our last convention we especially changed our zoning to make this possible. We did this for several reasons. Austin is a beautiful city, located on the fascinating Colorado River, which flows through the hills of Central Texas. Besides being located in the pecan belt of our state, Austin is our state capital and its people are known for their genuine southern hospitality.
There is another reason why the minority of us pecan growers wanted this convention here in Austin. In the past our convention has been dominated by a group commonly referred to as Aggies. The minority of us (Longhorn Sympathizers) have never felt quite at home. This year things are different for we feel at least on par with an equal social standing. In other words, this is more like a home-coming for many of us.
Putting all jokes aside, I do not know of any organization anywhere where there is a more fraternal and closer friendship than in our Texas Pecan Growers Association. For many of us this is one of the outstanding meetings of the year.
Again, Mayor Miller, we want to say that we are glad to be here. We are looking forward with great anticipation to an outstanding convention.
]]>Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
Austin, Texas
EIGHT YEARS AGO, I came to Texas and was placed in charge of the Crop and Livestock Reporting Service . . . and just 8 years ago I received a warm welcome from this Association. Through the years, the Texas Pecan Growers Association has supported the Crop Reporting Service under conditions when estimates were not just what they would like to have had in terms of accuracy, and I do appreciate this cooperation.
Now, in terms of years . . . a long time ago. . . . in fact, 100 years ago the Crop Reporting Service was born On July 11, in conjunction with the issuance of the monthly crop report, the Statistical Reporting Service began the hundredth “birthday” celebration of crop and livestock reporting in USDA. How did it happen? Back on the East Coast in Maryland, wheat producers were concerned that they were not getting a fair price for their crop and the buyers had better information than the farmers did. The farmers knew about the crop on their own farms and in their own neighborhood, but in the neighboring States of Pennsylvania, Virginia and Deleware, they were dependent on what the buyers told them.
First, these Maryland wheat farmers organized their own crop reporting service, but soon found that it did not operate as they thought it should, and they thought this was a service that their government should perform for them. So they petitioned the government for help, and the first appropriation for agricultural statistics was for $1,000.
This was the beginning, and down through the year’s new crop items and new livestock items have been added to the crop reporting program, mostly at the request of interested farmers.
Reports are prepared in the State offices (in Texas, it is in the Federal Building in Austin) based on reports from farmers and from field observation.
The reports for Texas and other States are forwarded to Washington, D. C. where they are reviewed, collated and become a part of the U. S. crop report. A tight security is kept so that there can be no speculation on the various crops. The doors are locked and a guard is posted so that no one can enter and no one can leave. All windows and blinds are closed. A 3 o'clock when the report is ready, the Secretary of the Crop Reporting Service comes out with the report and it is given to the news media; thereby, becoming available to the entire nation at the same time.
Now, 50 years ago is how long we have had pecan estimates. I have no record of how they began. In 1956, when questions were raised as to whether we should have the August 1 forecast, the Crop Reporting Service went to the Growers Association and it was at their request that these reports were continued. Again in 1964, the accuracy of the August 1 forecast was questioned, and again the growers were contacted. They requested that the reports be continued even though the shellers preferred to have the reports discontinued. Now let us look at trends in pecan production.
Texas Pecan Production, Figure 1, shows the sharp year to year up and downs of production in all Texas pecans. It shows moderate increases in all named variety pecans. The very wide fluctuations in production indicate the reason for price variations and marketing problems.
Figure Texas pecan production.">
1. Texas pecan production.
U. S. Pecan Production, Figure 2, reflects not so, great year-to-year variations as Texas, but still from peak to valley from a level of below 50 million pounds annually in the early I920's to up in the 200 million pounds annual level early in the 1960's. Much of the increase in U. S. production reflects the increase in production of named varieties, primarily in the southeastern states. The greater stability in year-to-year production of named varieties means somewhat greater stability in U. S. production of all pecans than for Texas.
Texas Pecan Production Relative to the. U. S. has decreased over the years from about a third of the U. S. production on the average in 1920’s and 1930’s to less than one-fifth in the I960’s. Production of named varieties in Texas has not kept pace with the increase in most of the other States. Now, we may look at supply and price.
Figure 4 shows the U. S. pecan production with the August 1 forecast on the horizontal scale and the season average price on the vertical scale.
Figure 5 shows the August 1 forecast plus the July 1 carryover for all inshell nuts except walnuts, almonds and filberts, and the. U. Ss. price. Here the relationship is better, indicating the very definite relationship between supply and price and that when the supply of pecans gets up around 250 million pounds the price for the season for all pecans averages about 20 cents or lower. It should be recognized that the carryover figures includes nuts other than pecans and are not the most suitable measure of carryover in relation to the pecan price.
Now we may consider the tools used by the Government's Crop Reporting Service in estimating the pecan crop. Two factors are of prime importance:
1. Most of the information is collected by mail for it is least expensive.
2. The information is collected from those who know most about the crop . . . the growers (in fact, the commercial pecan growers).
When pecan reports were first started by the government nearly half a century ago, the question was asked on a general crop report schedule along with questions on peaches, hay, wheat, cotton, eggs and milk; and naturally, the questionnaire went to the general farmers. The question read, “Pecans: Report for your Locality Condition as Percentage of a Full Crop.” This procedure produced too many reports from farmers who were not fully informed on the pecan crop, and at the suggestion of growers in the early 1950's, a special list of pecan growers was established and they were asked to report as shown below:
REPORT FOR YOUR LOCALITY
1. Condition as percent of full crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .---Percent
REPORT FOR FARM YOU OPERATE
1. Total pecans harvested last year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---Pounds
2. Total pecans expected this year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---Pounds
These reports are received from approximately 200 commercial pecan growers on August 1, September 1, October 1, November 1 and December 1. Growers also are asked to report on February 1 the disposition of the crop; that is, the pounds sold in shell to retailers, wholesalers and pounds sold to shellers.
As a final check as a basis for revisions, schedules are mailed to buyers to obtain the report on pecans sold in shell to wholesalers, retailers and direct to the consumer. The questionnaire also asks for the State in which purchased unshelled pecans were grown. The main check, however, on the pecan crop is reports from all shellers on pecans sold in the shell to wholesalers, retailers, direct to the consumer and the quantity of pecans actually shelled, which, of course, accounts for the disposal of the bulk of the crop. This questionnaire asks of total quantity handled, how many pounds were grown in each State.
So, during the growing season, we get reports from growers on the prospective size of the crop and at the end of the season we get a report from buyers and shellers on the disposal of the crop.
Now let us consider the accuracy of the production forecasts. There has been some improvement since reports from commercial pecan growers became
Pecan production.">
Figure 2. U. S. Pecan production.
pecan production, percent of U. S. total. ">
Figure 3. Texas pecan production, percent of U. S. total.
established as a regular part of the reporting procedure. The U. S. production of pecans is forecast August 1, September 1, December 1, and the final is shown on Table 1. The same figures, only in terms of percentage of the preceding of year, are shown in Table 2. Two aspects stand out:
1. The forecasts show the wide swing from large to small and from small to large crops quite well. They indicate relatively the size of the crop and should be of serviceable accuracy for price-making purposes.
2. The August 1 forecast is about as reliable as the September 1 and even the December 1 forecast. Not shown are the figures for October 1 and November 1, but the same conclusion would be warranted.
Fiqure 4. U. S. pecan production, August Figure 5. U. S. pecan production, August
1 forecast (million pounds). 1 forecast + July 1 carryover (excluding walnuts, almonds, filberts) (million pounds).
Table 1 U. S. PECAN PRODUCTION
(Million pounds)
Year | Aug. 1 | Sept. 1 | Dec. 1 | Final |
1956 | 170 | 161 | 160 | 174 |
1957 | 119 | 122 | 112 | 141 |
1958 | 179 | 173 | 162 | 175 |
1959 | 138 | 132 | 128 | 144 |
1960 | 182 | 185 | 181 | 188 |
1961 | 224 | 230 | 222 | 247 |
1962 | 91 | 81 | 69 | 71 |
1963 | 279 | 294 | 290 | 363 |
1964 | 124 | 122 | 137 | 174 |
1965 | 250 | 256 | 264 |
Table 2 U. S. PECAN PRODUCTION
Percent of Preceding Year
Year | Aug. 1 | Sept. 1 | Dec. 1 | Final |
1956 | 116 | 110 | 109 | 118 |
1957 | 68 | 70 | 64 | 81 |
1958 | 127 | 123 | 115 | 124 |
1959 | 79 | 75 | 73 | 82 |
1960 | 126 | 128 | 126 | 131 |
1961 | 119 | 122 | 118 | 131 |
1962 | 37 | 33 | 28 | 29 |
1963 | 393 | 414 | 408 | 511 |
1964 | 34 | 34 | 38 | 48 |
1965 | 144 | 147 | 152 |
Now how can the estimates are improved?
If instead of a little under 200 reports each month, reports came from 300 commercial pecan growers, a much better representation would be more available.
Another thing that might improve the estimates of pecans would be more basic information for the location or pecans within the State. The Agricultural Census every 5 years provides some county data, but it is 2 years after the census before it is summarized, and it has never given a real good estimate or the number of pecan trees in the different counties. A survey of pecan trees should be made so that potential for different areas can be established.
The Interim Committee of Agriculture has been holding hearings over the State and there have been presentations be various groups indicating a real need for county figures. If the State Legislature should provide for county data, there will probably be some improvement in the pecan estimates.
Incidentally, Texas is the only major agricultural state in the Nation that does not have a State-Federal Reporting Service. All funds come from the Federal Government and are designed primarily for State estimates . . . not county estimates.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these charts and the pecan estimating procedure used. If there are any questions or any information you would like to have, please let us know and we will be glad to supply it.
]]>
He graduated from the A&M College of Texas in 1950 with a B. S. Degree in Agriculture. He spent four years in the United States Marine Corps, attaining the rank of First Lieutenant. His home is in Gonzales County where he is devoted to general farming and livestock raising. He and his brother, David S. Shelton, operate a 300 acre native pecan bottom.
Taber Shelton is president of the Gonzales County Texas A&M Club and chairman of the A. S. C. County Committee. His wife is the former Miss Janet Robertson of Gonzales. He and his wife are members of the First Baptist Church. The Sheltons have two children, John Taber, Jr., and Richard Robertson. This family represents the sound, young, active leadership that is needed by agriculture during these times when so many people of their age and qualifications are going into industry.
]]>1. Maintaining the Membership Rolls: Our membership roll consists of (a) regular members, (b) life members, and (c) courtesy members. Regular members are those who pay dues --- usually $3, but $1.50 for those engaged in Agricultural Extension, research, or teaching. We had 235 regular members on July 1, 1958. Life members are those who have been voted life membership in the Association, without the payment of annual dues. Life memberships have been given to 5 members through the year.
Courtesy members are those whose names are carried on the membership roll because of the mutual advantages that result from their memberships. Agricultural editors, farm radio program directors, agricultural television program directors, and some County Agricultural Agents in pecan producing areas are the principal groups that make up the courtesy membership list. Courtesy members get the regular Newsletters, but not the Proceedings. We have 41 courtesy members on our roll at present. Courtesy members are not sanctioned officially by our constitution or any of its amendments. They have come into existence by executive decree of the Secretary, as a policy of practical expediency. They cost us little; I feel that the investment is a good one.
2. Administrative Responsibilities: The Secretary conducts the correspondence of the Association and assists the President and Directors in discharging the work of the Association. This has been a pleasant and easy task this year, due to the readiness and business-like manner with which President Tisdale and the Directors have assumed and discharged their duties and responsibilities.
History was made in January when every officer and director came to College Station to assist with the Pecan Show. There were 12 present; they traveled 3,370 miles and devoted 24 days’ time at that one meeting alone. That is devotion to duty in action.
3. Printing the Proceedings: The Proceedings of the Association have been published regularly since 1923. The Proceedings become a permanent record of the activities of the Association. They are a source of information for pecan growers of today and tomorrow. Those who read the Proceedings seek information and they often accept that which they read as final and unimpeachable. We, therefore, should be very careful in publishing information, and should be sure that that which is printed represents valid information. It is the duty of the Secretary to edit papers and reports, to solicit advertisements, to print the Proceedings, and distribute them to the members. We endeavor to do that as soon after the annual convention as possible.
We have established a rule that members whose dues are paid before January 1 receive Proceedings of the current year, and those who pay dues after January 1 receive Proceedings of the convention held the following July.
4. Publish Newsletters: Six Newsletters are issued each year. The help of the entire membership is needed if these Newsletters are to serve their intended purpose. Members are requested to send to the Secretary's office timely items of interest throughout the year.
5. Financial Accounts: It is the duty of the Treasurer to keep a record and make, an accounting of the financial transactions of the Association. A copy of the financial report for the past year is published in these Proceedings.
Mrs. Maude Courim, Mrs. Barbara Baylis, and more recently Mrs. Joyce Milam have assisted in conducting the affairs of the Association and their interest and help is greatly appreciated. J. Benton Storey has served as Assistant Secretary. He has helped generously, and Bobby Wilson has helped with the responsibilities of the office of the Secretary, particularly in preparation and mailing of Newsletters and in conducting the State Pecan Show.
]]>