Читать книгу The Nut Culturist - Andrew S. Fuller - Страница 6

Table of Contents

Amygdalus, Tournefort. Name supposed to be derived from amysso, to lacerate, because of the prominent sharp, knifelike margin of one edge of the deeply pitted, wrinkled nut. Martius, an Italian botanist, suggests that the name came from the Hebrew word shakad, signifying vigilant, or to awake, because after the rigors of winter the almond tree is one of the earliest to hail the coming of spring, with its flowers. The common English name is from the Latin amandola, corrupted from amygdala. In French it is amandier; in German, mandel; Portuguese, amendoa; Spanish, almendro; Italian, amandola, mandalo, mandorla, etc.; Dutch, amendel; Chinese, him-ho-gin.

Under the natural classification of plants the almond belongs to the order Rosaceæ, and in the tribe Drupaceæ. Linnæus placed the peach and almond in the same genus, and they are now generally considered to be only varieties of one species—the wild almond tree is probably the parent from which all the cultivated peaches and nectarines have descended. In most of our modern botanical works these fruits are classed as a sub-section of Prunus, the plum. They are mainly deciduous shrubs, or small trees. The flowers are variable, both in size and color; but in the almond they are usually somewhat larger than in the peach, almost sessile, and from separate scaly buds on the shoots of the preceding season, appearing in early spring, before or with the unfolding leaves, the latter being folded lengthwise in the bud. Leaves three to four inches long, tapering, finely serrate, with few or no glands at the base of the blade, as seen in many varieties of the common peach. Fruit clothed with a fine dense pubescence in both peach and almond; but in the latter the pulpy envelope becomes dry and fibrous at maturity, cracking open irregularly, allowing the rough and deeply indented nuts to drop out; while in the peach the pulpy part becomes soft, juicy and edible, the reverse of the almond. The nectarine is only a smooth-skinned peach.

History of the Almond.—As with most of our long-cultivated fruits and nut trees, very little is now known of the early history or origin of the almond, and even its native country has not been positively determined, although it is supposed to be indigenous to parts of Northern Africa and the mountainous region of Asia. Theophrastus, who wrote a history of plants about three centuries before the Christian era, mentions the almond as the only tree in Greece that produces blossoms before the leaves. From Greece it was introduced into Italy, where the nuts were called nuces græcæ, or Greek nuts.

Columella, about the middle of the first century of our era, was the earliest Roman writer to mention the almond as distinct from the peach. From Italy this nut was slowly disseminated, making its way northward mainly through France, reaching Great Britain as late as 1538 (Hortus Kewensis). But its cultivation has never extended in Britain, beyond sheltered gardens and orchard houses, owing to the cool and otherwise uncongenial climate, and the same is true of Northern France and other regions to the eastward in Europe. But in the south of France, also in Italy, Spain, Sicily, and throughout the Mediterranean countries, both in Europe and Africa, the almond thrives, and has long been extensively cultivated. These nuts are an important article of commerce, immense quantities being exported by Spain, mainly from Valencia, while the so-called Jordan almond comes from Malaga, as very few are raised in the valley of the Jordan. Bitter almonds come principally from Mogador in Morocco.

As for almond culture in the United States, very little is to be said further than that, while we have few experiments to refer to as having been made east of the Rocky Mountains, not one of our great pomologists, in their published works, has ever given any reason for the almost entire neglect of this nut. Mr. Wm. H. White, author of "Gardening for the South" (1868), throws no light upon the subject, merely describing a few of the well-known varieties of the almond. Downing's "Fruit and Fruit Trees of America," Thomas' "American Fruit Culturist," Barry's "Fruit Garden," and a score of other standard pomological works may be consulted, without obtaining therefrom any information in regard to the culture of this nut further than to be assured that the hard-shelled varieties are hardy in the North wherever the peach tree thrives, and the thin, or paper shelled, succeed only in warm climates. All these authors agree in saying that the propagation and cultivation of the almond is the same as practiced with the peach.

Coming down to recent years for information in regard to almond culture, we find H. E. Van Deman, pomologist to the Department of Agriculture, dismissing the subject in his report for 1892, as follows:

"I only mention this nut to state to all experimenters that it is useless to try to grow the almond of commerce this side of the Rocky mountains, except, possibly, in New Mexico and southwestern Texas. This is thoroughly established by many reports from those who have tried it in nearly every State and for many years past. It is too tender in the North and does not bear in the South. In California it is an eminent success.

"The flavor of the hard-shelled almond, so far as I have tested it, is little or no better than a peach kernel, and is therefore practically worthless. The tree of this variety is about as hardy as the peach, and bears quite freely. The attention paid to the almond in the Atlantic and Central States might well be given to other nuts."

This is certainly a very easy way of disposing of the cultivation of a nut which has so long figured among our importations from European countries; besides, no experiments are cited, experimenters named, or reasons given why almond culture is a failure in the Southern States. But fortunately there are men in the South who are able and ready to give reasons for their opinions and statements, in regard to the cultivation of crops or plants with which they have become familiar through personal experience. When I asked Mr. P. J. Berckmans, Augusta, Ga., president of the American Pomological Society, for information on this point, he promptly replied as follows:

"The reason that almonds are not cultivated in Georgia and other Southern States is because of their early blooming, as spring frosts usually destroy all the blossoms. We have tried many varieties of the soft-shell without success. The hard-shell will occasionally bear a crop of fruit, as it blooms later, and the blooms seem to resist cold better than the other varieties. In middle Florida soft-shell almonds are sometimes successful, but they have been tried so sparingly that I cannot obtain any satisfactory reports."

Admitting, as we do, that President Berckmans' long experience in the cultivation of nut and fruit trees in the South enables him to speak with authority on this subject, still, we have some encouragement for continuing experiments with the almond in regions known to be favorable for the cultivation of its near relative, the peach. Furthermore, experiments seem to be wanting with the almond in the more elevated regions of the northern line of Southern States, also in Maryland, Delaware and southern New Jersey, near the seacoast, or other large bodies of water, which, as is well known, have considerable influence in retarding the early blooming of fruit trees, as well as warding off late spring and early autumn frosts.

It is scarcely reasonable to suppose that a region of country as extensive as that of one-half of the Middle and all of the Southern States, with a range of climate admitting of the successful cultivation of such hardy fruits as the apple and pear, and from these down to the pineapple and cocoa-nut, should not yield a locality or localities admirably adapted to the cultivation of the half-hardy almond tree. It is no doubt true that there are extensive regions in the South where late spring frosts are exceedingly troublesome, and sometimes disastrously so, to fruit growers; but even these have their limits, as shown in the vast quantity and variety of fruits annually produced in the Southern States. But great local variations in climate are natural to all countries in the temperate zone, and we frequently find the most favorable and the unfavorable for fruit culture within a few miles of each other.

If there are not thousands and tens of thousands of acres of land located in favorable positions between Virginia and Florida, adapted to produce the commercial almond in some of its varieties, then we must confess that the study of climatology is of little use to the pomologist. Furthermore, all the varieties of the so-called hard-shelled almonds which thrive in our northern States are not worthless, neither are the kernels of all of them "bitter," and even if they were, they would still be worth cultivating, else we would not import such vast quantities from Morocco to supply the demand.

If none of the thin-shelled varieties heretofore tried in the South are successful, it is time that either our experiment stations or individual horticulturists made some attempt to produce those that are adapted to that region of country. But until we have some more definite information than heretofore disseminated, in regard to almond culture in the South, it is safe to conclude that failures in the past have been due mainly to want of judgment, or knowledge of varieties and of positions for the orchard, with, perhaps, some neglect in care and cultivation.

In California almond culture has been pushed with vigor for several decades, but at first with rather indifferent results, because growers depended upon noted European varieties, which, as experience proved, were not adapted to the soil and climate of the country. In a paper read before the American Pomological Society at its session held at Sacramento, Cal., Jan. 16–18, 1895, Prof. E. J. Wickson, of the University of California, alluded to this subject of almond culture in the State as follows:

"In no branch of this effort for improved varieties has our success been more marked than in the development of seedling almonds. The achievements of A. T. Hatch in this line are too well known to require but a passing allusion. It is not too much to say that this work rescued almond culture to California. When he began, the almond, because of almost universal failure of the old varieties, was a jest and a byword in our horticulture. Nine-tenths of all the almonds planted during the preceding twenty-five years had gone for firewood or were carrying the foliage of the prune to conceal their hated stems. At the present time, through the dissemination of Mr. Hatch's varieties, the almond, in all regions decently adapted to the tree, is productive and profitable and has a future."