258 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
stantial value to the president, the general manager, the 
auditor and other executive heads of the various member 
companies. It suggests some of the preliminary steps 
that may well be taken in order to make sure that the 
association’s uniform cost accounting methods are put 
into use most effectively. 
PROFITS FROM PECANS 
By II. K. M iller, Monticello. Florida 
Bead Before the Southern Nurserymen s Association at 
Atlanta, Ga., September 5-6, 1923 
Twenty years ago it required an unusual degree of faith and 
courage to invest ones time and money in the development of 
a pecan orchard. At that time it was a matter of pioneering in 
a new province of horticulture. The individual behavior of a 
few trees here and there gave some promise of easy conquest 
if only these trees could be duplicated in large numbers and 
subjected to intensive orchard management. 
The problems of duplication yielded to persistent effort, in¬ 
tensified by the lure of rich rewards to be had from the sale of 
abundant crops of choice pecans. The planting of orchards in- 
creaed from year to year until now the annual setting of trees 
is around the half million mark. That the universally hoped for 
large yields have not materialized in many cases is common 
experience: yet the setting of pecan trees is steadily increasing 
by leaps and bounds throughout practically the entire cotton 
belt. Profit, or the hope for profit, must be in evidence else the 
planting of orchards would have long since been abondoned. 
The question of probable profit would, and should, be of prime 
importance to any one who would venture to invest in, or plant 
out an orchard. What do we find after some twenty or thirty 
years of effort in the promotion of this industry, to justify the 
present activity in planting pecan trees? To venture an answer 
I shall have to use negative as well as positive phases of pecan 
growing and use more or less redundancy to arrive at one and, 
at best, it may end with a question mark. 
Beginning with the negative side let it be said that there 
have been many failures in attempting to grow pecans. Why 
should this be the case? One explanation is that pecan growing 
started at a time dating back into dim pre-historic ages when 
nature selected the grove sites and in obedience to her own 
laws reared the trees, ages old, generation on generation through 
the vast centuries under the influence of sunshine and shade, 
rain and dew and other forces at her command, she placed at 
our disposal the Columbian, Centennial, Nelson, VanDeman, 
Frotscher, Pabst, Stuart, Moore, Success and Schley. These 
chance specimens and others, from the millions of seedlings, we 
have undertaken to propagate and transplant to a new environ¬ 
ment and force them, by cultivation, to become the foundation of 
a new industry. All this in the brief span of some thirty years. 
If a tree were capable of speaking our language, what would a 
thriving two hundred year monster with its roots deeply im¬ 
bedded in the rich alluvium of the valley of the Brazos any of 
one who was discouraged because he had failed to secure from 
one of its offsprings that had been transplanted, only fifteen 
years to a run-down cotton field on a Carolina hillside? I make 
use of all this redundancy of expression to express the fact that 
most of our attempts at pecan growing have been made under 
conditions which do not prevail in the environment of native 
pecan trees, that we are attempting to make the trees adjust 
themselves to adverse natural conditions; that we are dealing 
with a new thing under the sun and at best the most learned 
pecan-grower is still an apprentice or perhaps it were better 
to say a novice at the game. It takes several years for a pecan 
tree to begin to bear, about ten years to yield worth while crops 
and fifty years to reach its prime. We nor any of our children 
need worry about the swan song of its senility. Still on the 
negative side it will be profitable for us to understand that mis¬ 
takes have been made and plenty of them. Fortunately many 
of these mistakes may be corrected and the apparently lost 
cause may be turned to profitable account. 
The propagation and disemination of such varieties is Colum¬ 
bian and similar sorts, including Centennial, Jumbo, Nelson, 
Giant and VanDeman have nearly always resulted in poor 
returns. 
It is difficult to assign a reason for these inferior varieties 
having ever been propagated but it was In the early days when 
size was the chief consideration and little attention was given 
to quality, yield and other characteristics. A great many of the 
earlier plantings were of these varieties or others equally un¬ 
desirable and the indifferent results were responsible for lack 
of interest for some time. Many such orchards have been top- 
worked to more suitable kinds thereby converting seeming losses 
into positive gain. 
Another practice which made for negative profits was the 
planting of trees on poor land or that which was unsuitable. 
This has caused a far greater loss in the aggregate than is gen¬ 
erally supposed because it includes not only the initial costs, 
and after care, but also the crops which might have otherwise 
been secured. If one does not think enough of a budded pecan tree 
to plant it on the best land at his disposal it were far better to 
place the purchase price of the tree on 4% savings account in 
a bank. Negative results have also been caused by attempting 
to grow, otherwise excellent varieties, in a climate that is nor 
adapted to such kinds. This must in a large measure be ac¬ 
credited to the experimental period that was necessary, and the 
results were entirely unforseen. It is also true that new and 
unknown insect pests and fungus diseases made their appear¬ 
ance, and methods of control had to be devised. 
Perhaps the chief cause of shortage in expected returns has 
been due to the belief that pecan growing was an exception to 
all the laws of nature and would afford easy money by merely 
wagering the price of the trees and the cost of planting them. 
Few indeed are the pecan orchards which have received adequate 
care. Turning to the profit side of the ledger do we find any¬ 
thing to account for the present annual planting of half a 
million pecan trees? Enough has been done to find that the 
pecan nut has readily been absorbed by the buying public at 
good prices up to the present time. 
Many orchards have had fairly good care throughout the pecan 
belt and have demonstrated that good returns may not only be 
expected but are actual realities. To cite a few examples, one 
orchard of 30 acres in south Mississippi produced an average 
of 32 pounds per tree the 9th year from planting, netting around 
$9000.00 for a single crop. Needless to say this orchard had re¬ 
ceived excellent care. A five acre tract in south Alabama 
averaged 42 pounds the 9th year from planting per tree. This 
crop alone paid the entire cost of this orchard up to and includ¬ 
ing that year. 
One grower with moderate means developed a 20 acre tract. 
When this orchard was 12 years old the owner found himself 
burdened with a rather formidable mortgage. The orchard got 
busy about this time and with a single crop lifted the mortgage. 
This orchard has since produced as high as $7000 worth oi 
pecans in a season and is still well under 20 years old. 
These are a few of the outstanding orchards which have many 
counterparts over the entire south and it is these well cared for 
tracts that account for the present activity in setting new or¬ 
chards. 
Such yields, while possible, are not to be expected from large 
commercial orchards of like age. To produce similar results 
would doubtless require a rather large overhead expense. How¬ 
ever, actual yields as given by Mr. J. M. Patterson, one of the 
largest and most successful growers in the Albany district are 
herewith given. About 5000 acres are under his management. 
One unit 15 years old had reached 227 pounds per acre. This 
made a return of about $120.00 per acre. Another tract of 309 
acres averaged at 14 years 280 pounds per acre, and another 
block of 980 acres averaged 100 pounds per acre the 12th year. 
In view of the uncertainties which prevailed, and the meager 
information available, at the time Mr. Patterson began his oper¬ 
ations at Albany, he has accomplished rather wonderful results, 
and it can be safely assumed that if he were to undertake a new 
development at the present stage, a far better showing could be 
made. In fact his last extensive planting of some 750 acres com¬ 
prising a part of the Illinois-Georgia tract at DeWitt Georgia, 
gave the unprecedented yield of 7000 pounds the 6th year, fol¬ 
lowed with a crop of 21000 pounds the 7th year. I do not have 
