83 11 11 1.6 15 0.2 3
214 3.0 87 18 16 3.1 17 2.7 3

215 0.9 100 13 18 2.7 20 0.7 3
216 0.7 97 11 13 1.7 16 0.6 4
217 12.1 93 18 21 4.4 25 0.8 3
218 1.7 100 18 17 3.0 17 2.6 2
219 2.5 94 11 17 2.0 18 0.8 3
220 0.8 61 20 13 3.2 16 1.9 3

221 0.4 53 16 20 3.4 21 3.2 2
222 1.3 72 16 16 3.0 18 1.9 3
223 0.8 55 12 19 2.6 20 0.5 3
224 4.9 93 17 16 3.5 20 1.1 3
225 7.8 94 15 18 3.4 22 1.0 3
226 9.8 96 12 12 1.9 16 0.2 3

227 4.2 99 16 19 3.6 23 0.7 3
228 1.1 99 15 21 3.3 22 2.3 3
231 7.3 52 10 17 2.3 19 1.1 3
232 26.6 98 19 17 4.5 24 2.0 3
236 10.5 26 15 17 3.0 19 0.5 2
237 16.1 100 18 14 3.5 19 1.5 3

240 1.2 100 14 15 2.5 17 0.9 3
241 4.6 96 14 15 2.3 16 1.2 3
242 1.4 98 13 17 2.5 20 0.7 3
243 4.9 98 14 12 2.0 14 1.3 3
246 29.6 98 14 16 2.9 21 0.7 3
247 1.2 23 15 12 1.7 15 0.2 3

Results of cracking tests show that, in general, cracking quality of nut
samples from the trees in this study is poor. When cracked, the kernels
crumble badly, making extraction difficult and quarter recovery low.
Variation in cracking quality can be seen by studying the values in
Table 1. Nuts from trees 28 and 136 were extremely small, averaging 9
and 10 grams, respectively. Nuts from trees 61 and 98 had generally poor
characteristics. Trees bearing walnuts of better