CHESTNUT CULTIVAR EVALUATION IN
MISSOURI, USA
North American Agroforestry Conference
June 1, 2015
Ames, Iowa
Michael A Gold
goldm@missouri.edu
Mark V. Coggeshall, Mihaela M. Cernusca,
Jerry W. VanSambeek
Outline of Presentation
1. Specialty Crop Issues
2. Cultivars vs seedlings
3. US Chestnut Industry:
a) Status
b) What we know
4. UMCA Chestnut Research
5. Cultivar Trial Data and Discussion
a) rainfall, dbh, yield, nut size
6. Summary
Specialty Nut Crops: Issues of Concern
 Farmers planting emerging specialty nut crops
(chestnut, eastern black walnut, northern pecan,
etc.) in the Midwest in response to increasing
market opportunity.
 Taking substantial risks due to the lack of sound
horticultural and market information.
 Farmers who purchase emerging specialty nut
crop nursery stock may be planting inferior
material.
 Detailed financial decision making information is
lacking for many specialty crops.
 Lack knowledge networks (who knows what),
support infrastructure (harvest and processing
equipment), etc.
Cultivar-based Nut Industries Almost
Non-existent in Missouri and Midwest
2012
Benefits of cultivars vs. seedling trees
1. Strengths of using cultivars
 Cultivars are predictable in performance (tree
form, pollen production, yield, nut size, harvest
date, post-harvest storage life);
 Therefore, every cultivar planted in the orchard
should perform (almost) the same way;
 Grafted cultivar scionwood is mature; Result,
initiate nut production much sooner than
seedlings.
 Can consider the specific traits of your trees;
your likes and dislikes, and change out the
cultivars to something that fits your needs.
 Can create/replace new orchards from your own
scionwood.
Benefits of cultivars vs. seedling trees
1.Problems with tree nut seedlings
 Commercial production: Most tree nut
seedlings trees will take 3-5 years longer
to produce than the cultivars
 Variability, lack of consistency: You
have no idea how any of the seedling
trees will perform over time (nut size,
yield, etc.)
 Nut quality: Many seedlings will produce
nuts that are inferior to the cultivar
(grafted mother tree) from which they
were collected
Reasons given for not using chestnut cultivars
1. Cultivars
are expensive.
 Cost more than seedlings;
 However, costs will be recovered within ~ 8? years after
planting (cultivars initiate nut production earlier than seedlings,
will heavily outyield equal number of planted seedlings).
2. Cultivars
die (i.e., graft unions fail).
 True. Cultivars can and do die, that is bad.
 However, many can be regrafted on sprouts (with
scionwood from your own orchard).
 Return to production rapidly.
 Even with ~10% failure, still way ahead over time.
3. Cultivars less vigorous, need more care.
True. Seedlings are more vigorous, grow much larger, will
tolerate less than ideal sites.
 Response: If sites are not adequate (too marginal) for
cultivar production, perhaps chestnuts should not be
grown on the site in the first place.
Seedlings vs Cultivars
European X Japanese hybrid cultivar ‘Colossal’ in the
foreground (right) with burs 6 years after planting and a
10-year-old Chinese chestnut seedling tree (meaning nongrafted) in center – no burs.
Photo: MSU Traverse City Experiment Station.
UMCA Chestnut program foci
1. Develop and test best chestnut cultivars;
2. Orchard production, management, harvest
techniques;
3. Ongoing market and consumer research;
4. Increase consumer awareness and demand;
5. Train future growers, explore coop
development
 Goal: Develop a thriving Missouri /
Midwest chestnut industry
Why a Chestnut Industry?
 A thorough knowledge of the U.S.
chestnut industry reveals that:
 Full-time U.S. chestnut producers are in the enviable
position of demand outstripping supply;
and
 Growers of high quality chestnuts with market
knowledge receive high prices for their production.
and
 The nascent U.S. chestnut industry acreage grew 13.5%
between 2007 and 2012.
 Missouri’s chestnut acreage doubled 2007-2012.
2012 Census reveals 919 Farms, 3,784 Total Acres
Estimate Total US Crop Between 1.2 and 3.6 Million lbs
Table 32.
Fruits and Nuts: 2007 and 2012
(US Census of Agriculture)
Geographic Area
Total
Farms
United States
Total
Selected states:
Bearing Age Acres Nonbearing age acres
Acres
Farms
Number
Farms
Number
2012 919
3,784
591
2,406
526
1,378
2007 1,200
3,335
845
2,072
538
1.282
2007/2012
2007/2012
2007/2012
07/12
California
76/59
334/507
62/53
(D)/428
31/20
(D)/79
Florida
81/111 283/592
63/89
203/447
28/50
80/146
Michigan
154/115 813/617
120/79
492/442
76/54
321/175
Missouri
22/34
95/200
8/25
40/76
19/24
55/124
Oregon
92/70
333/358
69/61
207/274
53/34
126/84
Pennsylvania
120/64 135/137
87/31
84/102
44/42
51/35
The status of our knowledge
What we do know
18 Years of UMCA Research Has Shown That:
•Chinese chestnuts grow well in Mid-Missouri / Midwest
•Matching to proper soils/sites is critical (wet feet deadly)
•Annual yields, selected cultivars, impressive (+20 kg/tree)
 Assumes proper soils and management
•Irrigation (moisture) appears key to annual crop success
What we do know
•Direct-to-market retail / wholesale prices are high
Wholesale $2.00-$4.00/lb.
Retail 4.50-$8.00+/lb.
 There are hobby growers who undercut the market price,
have poor quality nuts, hurt everyone in the industry
• Producing a quality product is essential for market growth
 Frequent (every 1-2 days) harvests required to ensure crop
quality (followed by refrigeration)
What we do know – based on research
 Currently recommend ~7 cultivars out of 65 under test
Wide selection of cultivars not widely available
commercially
(Forrest Keeling Nursery sells UMCA recommended
cultivars)
 Consumers receptive when exposed to chestnuts
 Preferences for “Buy Local” is for real!
Chestnut Production Research – UMCA*
1. Germplasm repository - 65 cultivars (established 1996
through 2005)
2. Cultivar trial - 12 cultivars, 5 reps (est. F’ 1999)
3. Commercial orchard study - 3 cultivars (Qing, Peach, Kohr**),
8 reps, 6 trees per rep (est. 2001)
4. Pollination flow study - 3 cultivars (Qing, AU Super, Payne)
(est. 2007)
*All collections molecularly fingerprinted to verify identity
**Kohr replaced Willamette due to poor performance under high crop load
All collections established by Dr. Ken Hunt (retired)
Chestnut Cultivar Trial - HARC
 Location: MU Horticulture and Agroforestry
Center (HARC), New Franklin, Missouri (Latitude
39o02’; Longitude 92o74’ W)
 Established: fall 1999
 Fertile well drained loess soil (Menfro soil series)
 Castanea mollissima and chestnut species
hybrids
 11 cultivars - 5 replications (1 tree per replicate)
 30’ x 30’ spacing
 Data collected 2008 - 2011
MU Outlying Research Centers
HARC
Howard
County, MO
Aerial View – HARC (taken in fall)
Chestnut
River Hills
Walnut
River Hills
N. Pecan
Floodplain
Cultivar Trial Map
AU Super #7 Shing #1
Payne #1
AU Super #4
Gideon #1
Payne #2
Kohr #1
Seedling
NC-8
Mossbarger
Sleeping Giant
Peach
Hong Kong
AU Super #1
Gideon #5
Willamette
Colossal
Qing
Homestead
Homestead
Payne #3
Payne #7
Okkwang
Peach
NC-8
Hong Kong
Colossal
Little Giant
Perry #5
Homestead
Willamette
Hong Kong
Qing
Qing
Benton Harbor
Kohr #5
Eaton
Homestead
Willamette
Sleeping Giant
Mossbarger
Gideon #2
Kohr #4
Mossbarger
Amy
Okkwang
NC-8
Willamette
Yixin - Lg Nut
Kohr #3
Amy
NC-8
Mossbarger
Okkwang
Shing #2
H Y B R I D S
Perry #4
Sleepling Giant
Qing
Homestead
Colossal
Sleeping Giant
Perry #1
Shing #5
Peach
Okkwang
Amy
Mossbarger
Peach
Kohr #2
AU Super #2 Hong Kong
Eaton
Eaton
Okkwang
NC-8
Perry #2
Byron #1
Colossal
Hong Kong
Peach
Willamette
Amy
Yixin - Lg Nut
Gideon #4
Qing
Sleeping Giant
Colossal
Amy
Eaton
Payne #4
Shing #4
Border
Payne
AU Super
IV
Shing
Gideon #3
Border
Border
Border
I
III
Yixin - Lg Nut Perry
II
III
IV
---
Labeled Pink are Not Chinese
V
V
Border
Border
H Y B R I D S
II
M I S C E L L A N E O U S
I
M I S C E L L A N E O U S
Border
Border
Cultivar Trial – 1999
Chestnut Cultivar Trial - Results
• Data collected
Rainfall (totals, by month, by crop phenology)
Average Yield
Average Nut Weight
DBH
Chestnut Cultivar Trial Results
Precipitation
Track rainfall during nut fill – Nuts “size up” in July-August
Relates to need for irrigation
Chestnut Cultivar Trial Results
DBH / cm
 Average 3 Fold Increase in DBH 2007 to 2011 (age 8-12)
Results – Yield Comparison, Yield Changes Over Time
Average Nut Yield - kg
Cultivar
Colossal
Qing
Amy
NC8
Eaton
Sleeping Giant
Homestead
Mossbarger
Willamette
OK-Kwang
Peach
Difference among
cultivars
p=0.05
Rainfall
2008 (age 9)
Mean
Sign.*
26.64
B-E
18.99
C-J
11.72
E-N
7.35
H-O
13.08
D-L
5.43
J-O
5.82
K-N
5.02
K-N
2.14
N
2.50
L-N
2.28
MN
2009 (age 10)
Mean
Sign.*
39.95
A-C
29.35
A-D
21.84
C-I
24.68
B-F
14.43
D-L
12.76
D-L
11.68
E-N
8.99
F-N
7.83
G-M
6.44
I-O
8.18
I-O
Yes
1433
2010 (age 11)
Mean Sign.*
54.98
A
30.09 A-D
20.78
C-I
19.30
C-J
17.53 D-K
13.01
D-L
10.76
F-N
11.37
E-N
11.27 E-M
11.63 D-N
7.08
I-O
Yes
1347
2011 (age 12)
Difference
Mean Sign.* among years
46.73
AB
yes
17.71
D-K
no
23.86
B-H
no
xxx
xxx
no
14.15
D-N
no
13.80
D-L
no
4.57
L-N
no
6.59
I-O
no
10.08
F-N
no
6.08
I-O
no
7.15
I-O
no
Yes
1390
*The significance is for transformed data (SQRT)
 Major Differences Among Cultivars
 Yields Jump From Age 9 to Age 10
 Yields Jump, some CVs, from Age 10 to Age 11
Yes
982
Results – Yield Comparison, Yield Changes Over Time
4 Year Average Nut Yield - kg
2008 (age 9)
Mean
Sign.*
2009 (age 10)
Mean
Sign.*
2010 (age 11)
Mean Sign.*
2011 (age 12)
Mean Sign.*
Colossal
26.64
B-E
39.95
A-C
54.98
A
46.73
AB
Qing
18.99
C-J
29.35
A-D
30.09
A-D
17.71
D-K
Amy
11.72
E-N
21.84
C-I
20.78
C-I
23.86
B-H
NC8
7.35
H-O
24.68
B-F
19.30
C-J
xxx
xxx
Eaton
13.08
D-L
14.43
D-L
17.53
D-K
14.15
D-N
Sleeping Giant
5.43
J-O
12.76
D-L
13.01
D-L
13.80
D-L
Homestead
5.82
K-N
11.68
E-N
10.76
F-N
4.57
L-N
Mossbarger
5.02
K-N
8.99
F-N
11.37
E-N
6.59
I-O
Willamette
2.14
N
7.83
G-M
11.27
E-M
10.08
F-N
OK-Kwang
2.50
L-N
6.44
I-O
11.63
D-N
6.08
I-O
Peach
Difference among
cultivars
p=0.05
2.28
MN
8.18
I-O
7.08
I-O
7.15
I-O
Cultivar
Rainfall
Yes
1433
Yes
1347
Yes
1390
Yes
982
*The significance is for transformed data (SQRT)
 ~7 fold differences in avg. yield among cultivars
4 Year Avg
Yield - kg
42.1
24.0
19.6
17.1
14.8
11.3
8.2
8.0
7.8
6.7
6.2
Chestnut Cultivar Trial Results
Average Nut Weight - grams
Cultivar
2009
2010
2011
Difference
among years
Mean
Sign.
Mean
Sign.
Mean
Sign.
Qing
12.77
B-H
17.25
A-C
18.95
A
yes
OK-Kwang
15.17
A-E
17.67
AB
15.81
A-E
no
Peach
14.45
A-F
16.50
A-D
14.39
A-F
no
Mossbarger
14.36
A-F
14.75
A-E
16.04
A-E
no
Eaton
14.53
A-F
13.37
A-G
15.49
A-E
no
Colossal
13.87
A-G
15.60
A-E
11.48
D-I
no
Homestead
10.58
E-I
14.07
A-F
14.93
A-E
no
Sleeping Giant
11.98
C-I
14.23
A-F
12.28
B-G
no
Willamette
6.76
I
11.25
D-G
12.27
B-G
yes
Amy
9.35
F-I
11.55
D-I
8.70
G-I
no
NC8
9.26
F-I
10.96
E-I
xxx
Difference among cultivars
p=0.05
Yes
Yes
no
Yes
Chestnut Cultivar Trial Results
3 Year Average Nut Weight - grams
Cultivar
2009
2010
2011
Mean
Sign.
Mean
Sign.
Mean
Sign.
Qing
12.77
B-H
17.25
A-C
18.95
A
OK-Kwang
15.17
A-E
17.67
AB
15.81
A-E
Peach
14.45
A-F
16.50
A-D
14.39
A-F
Mossbarger
14.36
A-F
14.75
A-E
16.04
A-E
Eaton
14.53
A-F
13.37
A-G
15.49
A-E
Colossal
13.87
A-G
15.60
A-E
11.48
D-I
Homestead
10.58
E-I
14.07
A-F
14.93
A-E
Sleeping Giant
11.98
C-I
14.23
A-F
12.28
B-G
Willamette
6.76
I
11.25
D-G
12.27
B-G
NC8
9.26
F-I
10.96
E-I
xxx
Amy
9.35
F-I
11.55
D-I
8.70
Difference among cultivars
Yes
Yes
G-I
3 Year Average –
grams
16.3
16.2
15.1
15.1
13.6
14.5
13.2
12.8
10.1
10.1
9.9
Yes
p=0.05
 Cultivars averaging 15 grams or larger are jumbo in E. USA
 Bring highest prices in market
Chestnut Cultivar Trial Results
Averages: Nut Yield (kg) - Nut Wt (g)
Nut Yield
kg
Nut Weight
grams
Colossal (ExJ)
42.1
14.5
Qing (C)
24.0
16.3
Amy (C)
NC 8 (C) [Campbell]
19.6
17.1
9.9
10.1
Eaton (C)
14.8
13.6
Sleeping Giant (Cx(KxA))
11.3
12.8
AU Homestead (C)
Mossbarger (C)
8.2
8.0
13.2
15.1
Willamette (CxA)
7.8
10.1
OK-Kwang (K)
6.7
16.2
Peach (C)
6.2
15.1
Cultivar (species)
Comments
West Coast and Michigan
Favorite, Blight?
Some delayed graft failure,
best MO cultivar
High yield, small nut size
High yield, small nut size
Extremely delayed graft
failure, reasons unknown
Was a top favorite
Drops in bur
Major nut size decline as
yields increased
Beautiful chestnuts, low
yields
Summary
1. Data on chestnut cultivar performance is
lacking
2. Multi-year cultivar trial data reveals significant
differences among cultivars for DBH, nut size
and nut yield
3. Cultivar yields increase dramatically between
ages 8 and 9
4. Information obtained from this research is being
utilized as the basis for current cultivar
recommendations in Missouri and surrounding
states
5. More regional trials are needed to expand
inference space
Growing Chinese Chestnuts
http://www.centerforagroforestry.org/pubs/chestnut.pdf
Questions?
www.centerforagroforestry.org