THE EFFECT OF THINNING A NATIVE PECAN
GROVE TO INCREASE NUT PRODUCTION
Oscar Scherer, Cooperators (1998-2002)
Joe D. Janak, County Extension Agent - Ag
Sam Womble, County Extension Agent - NR
Victoria County
SUMMARY:
In 1998, over 400 cords of pecan wood has been removed to thin an over-crowded native pecan grove to increase pecan nut production. This alone resulted in approximately a $100.00 per acre income. Trees have begun to grow new lower branches. In 2000, growth of new branches ranged from 6 inches to 6 feet depending on the tree and how crowded it was when thinning occurred. In 2001, branch growth continued with no pecan crop made here or in the entire county. In 2002, trees continued to branch out with pecan production increasing but all was lost in heavy rains and flooding. Further evaluations of the pecan grove productivity will be taken in coming years.
OBJECTIVE:
To demonstrate the effectiveness of pecan tree thinning on its ability to rejuvenate a native pecan grove and increase pecan yields and profitability.
MATERIALS and METHODS:
In early 1998, 254 pecan trees that were wear, diseased, crooked, deformed, had bad trunks or too close to others were marked for removal in approximately a twenty acre native pecan grove. Removal began immediately and continued throughout the year. Trees were cut with a chain saw at 3 - 5 inches above the ground by a private logger who cut the trees into two foot pieces and split the logs to be sold in Pleasanton, Texas for making chipped wood for barbeque.
Tree circumference or diameter and tree distance measurements were made before and after the cutting began.
RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS:
2002: Trees continued to branch out with pecan production increasing but all was lost in heavy rains and flooding.
2001: Trees continued growth but there was no nut production here or throughout the county. Any nuts produced were lost to the Pecan Nut Casebearer.
2000: Trees were evaluated in the fall of 2000 and have begun to grow new lower branches. In 2000, growth of new branches ranged from 6 inches to 6 feet depending on the tree and how crowded it was when thinning occurred. Average growth was near 2 feet. 2000 nut production was not of any significance as anticipated due to the new growth and 3 - 5 years needed to bring thinned trees into production.
1999: No major pecan nut production was noticed this year due to native pecan grove thinning in 1998. Trees began to put on new lower branches due an opening of space between trees.
1998: By the close of 1998, about 90 percent of the trees marked had been cut down and over 400 cords of wood had been cut and sold by the producer through this tree thinning process. Sale of the pecan wood has netted the producer $5.00 per cord for over 400 cords now or over $2000 so far. This is approximately $100.00 per acre for the sale of excess trees. Additional income is expected as the trees begin growth and pecan nut production with in three to five years. An evaluation that follows will be made on the 7.5 acre pecan grove that was contiguous throughout the river bottom.
Measurement in the 7.5 acre pecan grove revealed the following results. Tree circumference averaged just over 61 inches or 20 inches in diameter. Prior to the thinning, the trees on the 7.5 acre plot averaged 21 feet apart and after the tree removal the trees averaged 33 feet apart. (Even 33 feet apart is too close but the trees will be allowed to grow and produce so their nuts can be evaluated and those with the least desirable nuts will be thinned out as soon as possible. Ideally, 50 % shade and 50 % sunshine should be seen on the ground under the trees at noon.)
There were 49.6 percent (or 114) of the trees removed from the 7.5 acre grove that originally had 230 trees growing. Initially there were 31 trees per acre and now there are 15.5 trees per acre.
The private logger handled all wood removal and sales and burned all non-saleable limbs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Appreciation is expressed to Oscar Scherer, cooperator who allowed us to monitor this demonstration for public benefit.
DISCLAIMER CLAUSE:
Trade names of commercial products used in this report are included only for better understanding and clarity. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Texas A&M University System is implied. Readers should realize that results from one experiment do not represent conclusive evidence that the same response would occur where conditions vary.