that can be obtained from a given weight of shucked nuts with
the least labor. The characteristics of the nuts that contribute to this
value are recognized as follows:

1. The size of the individual nut.

2. The per cent of kernel of total sample weight recovered
without recracking and without the use of a pick.

3. The total per cent of kernel of total weight of sample.

4. The number of quarters.

5. The plumpness of the kernels.

6. The number of empty nuts or nuts with shrivelled kernels in the sample.

Flavor and color may be important but are so dependent upon personal
preference and on the treatment of the samples before testing that they
cannot be rated numerically.

In considering the value of any schedule the following questions are
pertinent:

1. Is it possible for one operator testing one lot of nuts to
obtain the same score with replicate random samples?

2. Is it possible for different operators to obtain approximately
the same score on replicate samples?

3. Does the score give an accurate evaluation of the variation of a
variety from year to year in one locality or in the same year in
different localities? The latter is very important in determining
the regions to which the variety is best adapted and the
performance of the variety in any one locality.

4. What are the causes of variation in the scores obtained? Which
of these reflect the inherent worth of the sample and which are
related to technique, personal equation and methods of handling the
sample?

5. What changes may be made in the schedule to weight the various
factors to give a more realistic score of what changes in procedure
will make the schedule more realistic?

Table 1 gives data on replicate samples tested by the same operator. In
the samples of Spear, numbers 1-6 the variation is as follows: weight of
single nut 1.3 grams, per cent kernel first crack 2.9, total per cent
kernel 2.6, number of quarters 3, penalties 4.5 points, score 9.2
points. In scores figured without penalty the variation is 5.4 points.
Sample No. 7 was cracked November 4 before the nuts were dry and hence
is not comparable with others.

Analysis of these differences indicates that the variation in nut weight
is closely related to the number of shrunken and empty nuts in the
sample. This is a difficult factor to evaluate in a practical way. At
the time of the 1939 report