UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA '"'.h;;^ i r * J THE KAPAREI \ *^^ r . ALMOND • / D. E. KESTER • R. ASAY • E. F. SERR CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 798 Almond varieties with small, flat kernels are in demand by candy manufacturers who use whole roasted almonds combined with chocolate. Nonpareil kernels are preferred for this purpose; kernels of Drake and Mission (Texas) are also used. The supply of California-produced almond kernels within the small-size range (30 to 50 kernels per ounce) has been short in most years to fill trade demands. To increase this supply, the University of California is developing varieties that will produce a high percentage of these smaller kernel sizes. This bulletin describes a new variety, Kapareil, which is being released for distribution. The University almond breeding program began at the California Agricultural Experi- ment Station in 1923. The present program for smaller-sized kernels was started in 1948 under E. F. Sen who directed it until 1951. Since 1952 it has been under the direction of D. E. Kester. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Although the authors have the responsibility for the introduction of this variety, acknowledgment is made to the many individuals who contributed to the program. For instance, parent-breeding material used in the program resulted from work carried out by earlier workers of both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of California. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. R. W. Jones, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fresno, California; A. D. Rizzi, Extension Specialist and to various members of the County Extension staffs; staff members of the California Almond Growers Exchange, Sacramento, California; and the Hershey Chocolate Corporation, Hershey, Pa. Progress could not have been made without the cooperation of various almond growers who cared for test trees grown in their orchards. The assistance of Fowler Nurseries and Dave Wilson Nursery who propagated test trees for us is also acknowledged. AUGUST, 1963 The Authors: D. E. Kester is Associate Professor of Pomology and Associate Pomologist in the Experiment Station, Davis; R. Asay is Laboratory Technician, Department of Pomology, Davis; E. F. Serr is Lecturer in Pomology and Pomologist in the Experiment Station, Davis. D. E. KESTER • R. ASAY • E. F. SERR THE KAPAREIL ALMOND ' Kapareil is a new almond variety re- cently released by the University of Cali- fornia that promises to be useful in the California almond industry for two prin- cipal reasons: First, Kapareil meets the specifications for small-sized kernels in demand by candy bar manufacturers. Secondly, Kapareil is apparently a good pollinating variety for the leading Cali- fornia variety, Nonpareil. Kapareil has been released in response to industry request for a variety to aug- ment the tonnage of small almond kernels. However, commercial experience with Kapareil is limited and more orchard ex- perience is needed to establish its ultimate value. Origin Kapareil originated as a seedling of the cross Nonpareil x Selection 24-6 ( see fig. 1). This cross was made in 1951 by E. F. Serr and Harold I. Forde. The seedling was selected in 1955 and tested under the selection number 18-24. The parent — Selection 24-6 — was a product of the previous cooperative project between the USDA and the California Agricultural Experiment Station. 1 Submitted for publication January 15, 1963. The original hybrid seedling tree has been maintained as a propagation source at Davis since spring 1952. Evaluation has been made on a grafted tree at the Wolfskill Experimental Station at Win- ters. This tree was propagated by scions taken from the seedling plant and top- worked to an almond seedling rootstock tree in March 1953. A small crop of nuts was obtained from this tree in 1955 at which time selection was made. The 1956 crop was quite large for the size of the tree and the evaluation confirmed the previous year's appraisal as outstanding in meeting kernel specifications in size, shape, and appearance. Beginning in 1957 test trees were established in 13 plots in most of the almond growing counties. These plots usually consisted of two trees each of seven selections topworked into mature trees. As Kapareil continued to show out- standing qualities, several larger plantings of nursery grown trees were authorized in 1959 and planted into orchards in 1960. These plantings consisted of 10 to 25 trees each but one included a rather extensive planting with Kapareil used as one of the pollinizers of Nonpareil. In addition, three plots were established in the spring, 1959, NONPAREIL X EUREKA Cross made 1923 SELECTION A5-25 X EUREKA Cross made 1931 NONPAREIL X SELECTION 24-6 Cross made 1951 SELECTK dn 18-24 Selected 1955 KAPAREIL Introduced 1962 Fig. 1. Pedigree showing the origin of Kapareil. Prior to 1948 almond breeding at the California Agricultural Experiment Station was a cooperative project with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. in which scions of Kapareil were grafted into mature Nonpareil trees to provide a test of pollinating limbs. Name The name kapareil was coined by combining the last portion of the names of the two named varieties involved in its pedigree — Eureka and Nonpareil. Requirements for a " small-kerneled" variety Three criteria were used for selection: 1. The kernels had to meet the require- ments for candy-bar manufacture since this is the outlet expected for them. Ideally, the kernel should be small, flat, with the general appearance and shape of Nonpareil. Roasting qualities should be good. Kapareil meets these requirements very well. Evaluation by a candy-bar manufacturer for several seasons has been favorable (see page 8). 2. The production of small sizes had to be consistent in different seasons and in different areas. Size range of the kernels of Kapareil has been very favorable every year since its selection in 1955. 3. The variety had to show promise of being a good orchard tree and economi- cally productive. Tree growth and struc- ture, time and quantity of bloom, and pollination capability of the Kapareil are favorable; its shell may be less desirable than that of some other varieties; harvest- ing characteristics, disease and insect resistances, and long-term productivity appear satisfactory but more experience is needed for complete evaluation of the variety. Other factors being equal, reduction in average nut size will reduce tonnage per acre. Up to now the supply of smaller sizes has been a by-product of overall production, the amount of which varied with natural causes. The opportunity to grow varieties specifically to produce smaller-sized nuts creates a new situation for which the economics of production are not known. CHARACTERISTICS OF KAPAREIL Tree The tree has the general conformation and structure of Nonpareil — intermediate between upright and rounded. It is some- what bushy and dense because lateral buds on current season's growth tend to grow into side shoots during the same year as initiated. However, the tree has been easy to train. Careful pruning out of inner branches may be needed to avoid shading out of small branches. Leaves are relatively small. Ultimate size has not been reached in experimental trees but should be similar to Nonpareil — medium in size, as com- pared to other almond varieties. Orchard trees planted in 1960 have grown vigor- Fig. 2. Comparison of bloom period of Kapareil (K) with Ne Plus Ultra (NPU), Non- pareil (N), and Texas (T). 100 50- 1962 NPli/ n/ y*K y/l 1 . s. . . i 18 22 26 FEBRUARY I 4 8 MARCH ously at the same rate as Nonpareil trees of the same age. Kapareil is compatible with peach and almond rootstocks but does not grow satisfactorily on Marianna 2624 plum. Bloom Blossom opening is compared with three standard varieties in fig. 2 which shows that Kapareil blooms with Non- pareil or one or two days ahead. Hand pollination tests have shown that Kapareil is compatible with Nonpareil, Texas (Mis- sion), and Davey. The tree blooms profusely and starts to produce bloom at a young age. Productivity Yield records in comparison with standard varieties on an acreage basis are not yet available since no orchard plant- ings of Kapareil were made before 1960. Tree behavior in individual test plots has been somewhat variable but observations on amount of bloom, crop density, and percentage set indicate capability for good production under proper growing conditions. Allowance should, of course, be made for the fact that reduced nut size may result in reduced tonnage. Experience indicates that the tree is regular in production and does not bear alternately. Harvesting Nuts ripen early, usually during the first two weeks of August at Davis and Winters. Harvesting from other test plot trees has often been later — up to the end of August. In general, the nuts ripen about a week ahead of Nonpareil but the two varieties have been harvested together. Nuts separate from the tree easily dur- ing knocking. The hull is quite large for the size of the nut and separates easily from the shell. The shell is thin, papery, sometimes partially open at the suture. It can be easily removed with little damage to the kernel during shelling. Because of the thin and sometimes open shell, Kapareil may be less adapted to mechani- cal harvesting from the ground than other varieties with thicker, harder, more tightly sealed shells. So far, there is insufficient experience to evaluate this factor. Disease and insect susceptibility Kapareil has shown no particular sus- ceptibility to the common almond dis- eases. In one instance evidence of late season hull rot (Rhizopus) was observed. No particular evidence of insect prefer- ence has been noted. However, peach twig borers (Anarsia lineatelld) could attack the kernels of Kapareil more easily than some of the varieties with more tightly sealed shells. Prompt harvest and delivery is desirable to avoid infestation by navel orange worm. Table 1 indicates that the percentage of worm damage in Kapareil is likely to be similar to that in Nonpareil. No evidence of noninfectious bud- failure has been observed in Kapareil, although experience with other varieties indicates that it is probably too early to be sure that the variety will be entirely free of this trouble. During the period 1960 to 1962, the original seedling tree was indexed by the Department of Plant Pathology, Davis, on five stone fruit hosts to test virus content. In these tests no viruses were found. Further tests were started in 1962 to com- plete the eight host indexing range that will make the variety eligible for inclusion in the nursery certification program. Shell The shell is thin and papery. The shell- ing percentage of the nuts is high, usually around 70 but ranging from 60 to 75. The seal between the two halves of the shell varies from being tight to open. The number of nuts with poorly sealed shells in any one sample has varied from plot to plot and from year to year. Data shown in table 1 were obtained following machine hulling and overemphasizes the charac- teristic. Comparison of hand-hulled sam- ples of Nonpareil and Kapareil from the same three plots in 1961 indicated that Kapareil tends to parallel Nonpareil in percentage of poorly sealed nuts but at a somewhat higher level. In a few cases it has been noted that some kernels drop from the shells during harvest. Shell thinness and tendency to open at the suture may be disadvantageous under some situations and need to be taken into account in harvesting procedures and handling. Kernel Kapareil kernels have averaged con- sistently smaller than kernels produced by Nonpareil under similar conditions. Dis- tribution curves (fig. 3) of kernel size for the two varieties show that both produce a wide range of sizes that overlap. Because of this overlap combining un- graded samples of equal weight of the two varieties does not produce two dis- tinct size groups but extends the overall size range and increases the percentage of smaller sizes above that found in the Nonpareil sample alone. Table 1 summarizes comparative data from samples of the two varieties col- lected during 1959, 1960, and 1961. It shows that a high percentage of the ker- nels of Kapareil have been obtained within the desired size range for candy- bar manufacture (30 or more per ounce). On the other hand, kernel size and cor- responding number of small kernels is not a constant but varies from year to year and in different localities. Note: Since present evaluation is based on limited experimental trials, no guarantee is made or implied regarding the performance of this variety. 6 r/3 0) •rH U) o tf h- 1 3 H W 3 h- 1 o « M H t> H pj O r- 1 «4 o « o M ° rn o Q a ^ "53 PI w PI o cm • l-H 1 o 1 1 03 a a O P 0 COOO CM ■*!" M 35 t^ , *-© s a 5 "> cm ^ U < o o CO E o r- p c© OS - 1 T3 09 "55 © o C 00 OO * O 03 iO T* CO S «* "3 Ot^ CM t>- CM t-h < t- 1 i>- 1 co 1 "^"51 • 1 i co © o> *" cm r~ t» o © CO -*f< CM O »0 +3 ° O P 1 a ■* o OO o »c o CO »o — CM O. ■*f -«f "5 ^tlOO CO^" — CM CO 1 -*t< 1 (Ml «3 OO O. lO 1 • 1 -H| O CM t^ lO O CM o CO CS CM fc CO o CO OS '53 C3> Sh CO CO 03 •«*! ft CO 1 CO 1 CO 1 iO • 1 a3 CO CC OC CC CM t~- t>. o o CO CN CN "0 CO 8 00 03 >o lO — o ft a CO — • cc ■»* "5 CO t>- »o o £ t* o> OS '53 Cft o c CC o3 o OS CC *0 ^ CO 1 kfi OO CC lO t^ o ■* ~ ft t>. 1 CV CO CC CN iT. !>. as E 1 £ or a a a or a 00 a a g a i 1 _^ V p , e 4 I "c 4 - 4 - . ^ "ft £ S £ £ £ £ £ a £ 00 a 00 £ 8 i ao i 61 ) 61 ) 6J ) c SJ J & I bj ) 6C B a E G E E e C c C ■JE C C C o £ S S -*; £ a a a * 03 o3 '% g| 03 et 03 4S a. a aj « « a 03 0) £ C 6l I C 61 3 C 61 61 ) P 61 ) a 61 3 P 61 P 6C o3 C o3 C 03 C C 1 s cS E 03 C ? i& S& 1 ,2 rt 01 8j -d 0) +3 03 4) c of o 60 03 P a> o 53 "53 . 31 P 2 ,P 3 MO i X "S "3 ss P .2 ^ 00 -p 3 +3 CU 1-1 CO s 03 -3 s o 5 - If. ft bfi o c '53 i« Si 1 s 2 2 a> P G Q E o C < _g -53 o §3 S3 * 3 53 cn C « 0) §1 a3 * a: CO Ph « s? W Oh Ph 1959 1960 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 SCREEN SIZE IN 64THS OF AN INCH Fig. 3. Distribution of kernel sizes in Kapareil (K) and Nonpareil (N) samples collected at Winters, California. Screen sizes 30/64's inches or smaller are equivalent to 30/ounee and smaller sizes. Kernel shape. The width/length ratio of Kapareil has varied from about 55:100 to 60:100. This is similar to Nonpareil although Kapareil kernels tend to be slightly shorter for a given screen size than Nonpareil. Screen sizes 2 of 29/64ths or 30/64ths inches have been equivalent to the weight class — 30 per ounce — for both varieties, depending on the sample. There is a tendency for Kapareil to be slightly lighter in weight for a given screen size than Nonpareil. Kernels are relatively flat, the thickness varying somewhat with different samples. In general, the thickness of individual kernels has varied between 7.0 to 8.0 millimeters, essentially the same range as found with individual Nonpareil kernels of similar size. 2 Kernel size is determined by passing kernels through a series of round hole screens of different diameters. Kernel width is highly correlated with weight in a given sample. The thickness and shape characteristics of Kapareil kernels have been rated ex- cellent for the manufacture of thin choco- late-almond candy bars. Roasting qualities. In roasting tests from 1957 through 1961, Kapareil has been equal to or outranked all samples submitted of nine other varieties except in one case. Since 1959 the tests have in- cluded Nonpareil as a standard. On the basis of a combined sample of Nonpareil and Kapareil kernels of the same size sub- mitted in 1961, it was concluded that kernels of the two varieties could be han- dled and roasted together without creat- ing processing problems. Double kernels. Few or no double ker- nels are produced. Worm damage. Counts of worm dam- age of the samples collected and listed in table 1 show no more damage on the aver- age than in Nonpareil. Principal problems came in samples held for several weeks prior to examination. The early harvesting characteristic may make it possible for the variety to escape some of the usual damage by navel orange worm experi- enced in late-maturing varieties — provid- ing that the crop is harvested and de- livered promptly. Identifying characteristics Similarity between Kapareil and Non- pareil in tree and nut characters may cause some problems in separating the two varieties. Leaves of Kapareil are smaller than those of Nonpareil under comparable growing conditions. Blossoms, although similar to Nonpareil in appearance, are likewise smaller by about one-third. The wing of the shell in many Kapareil nuts is different in appearance from that of Nonpareil. In Kapareil the wing may separate into two halves at the suture line with the two edges curling outward. The shape of the Kapareil kernel viewed from the side is somewhat round, particu- larly on the basal end, whereas Nonpareil is somewhat oblong or elliptical. The 8 Fig. 4. Kapareil trees. Left. Orchard tree during the second growing season in the orchard. Right. Branch of the test tree (topworked) at Winters, during bloom. Fig. 5. Kapareil tree at the end of the first year in the orchard. Left. Before pruning. Right. Same tree after pruning. Kapareil kernel is widest about half way between base and apex whereas the widest part of the Nonpareil kernel is to- ward the basal end. Likewise the shoulder bearing the basal scar is more sloping in Kapareil than in Nonpareil. HORTICULTURAL DESCRIPTION Tree: Size medium; rounded. Main branches arise at moderately wide angles with the trunk to give a fairly broad and spreading tree. Current season's shoots tend to produce lateral branching in midsummer, particularly noticeable on young, vigorous trees, resulting in distinctly bushy appearance. These lateral shoots grow at right angles to parent branch, may extend to 12 inches long, often quite thin; often produce flower buds and later develop into fruit spurs. Bark: Current seasons shoots green, changing to dark, reddish-gray on second-year wood, particularly on upper, exposed surface. Grayish epidermis on two to three-year- old wood sloughs off to expose a grayish-brown dull surface. Four or five-year-old bark smooth, reddish-orange, outer surface flakes off to produce a network of longitudinal wavy areas, exposing brownish area below. Large limbs dark reddish-gray; longitudinal fissures 3 to 10 inches long, scattered but not connected. Numerous knots in older wood produced by early lateral shoots. Lenticels numerous, distinct, horizontal, grayish, relatively small, about J£ inch long on older wood. Bearing habit: Flowers produced laterally on short spurs; )i inch up to 5 inches long, sometimes longer in young trees; sometimes produced on mid-summer lateral shoots. Some flowers produced laterally on long shoots. Z^J ^fc ~pv <%J> -^ Fig. 6. Foliage of Kapareil almond. Left. Cur- rent-season shoot (taken in June) showing tendency to produce lateral branching. Above. Leaves of Kapareil showing size variation. ■ *:■ KAPAREIL NONPAREIL Fig. 7. Comparative sizes of Nonpareil and Kapareil blossoms can be useful in distinguishing the varieties. Foliage: Amount moderate; sometimes relatively dense. Leaf size relatively small, somewhat larger on vigorous shoots. Leaf blade size on spurs average 3.5-5.0 cm x 1.2- 1.8 cm with a ratio of 3.5:1. Shoot leaves 1/2-2 times larger than spur leaves. Petiole thickness medium; fairly long, 1-2 cm, grooved; 2-4 glands. Leaf medium dull green. Shape elongated, ovate, broadest about one-third distance from base to tip, tapering to acute tip; base slightly rounded. Leaf margins serrate. Midvein light green and prominent. Flowers: Small, averaging about 3.0 cm in diameter at anthesis. Peduncle very short or lacking, glabrous. Calyx cup-shaped; green but changing to red on exposed portions; glabrous. Sepals small, widest at base, tapering to blunt apex; green changing to red at base; midvein prominent, gray pubescence at margins. Petals medium to small, averaging about 1.25 cm in width and 1.6 cm long; round to very broad-oval; margins undulate with prominent emarginate notch at apex; light pink in bud fading to nearly white after anthesis; red at base of petal persists. Stamens about half the length of petals; outer stamens longer than inner stamens; light pink deepening to red at base; 30-40 per flower. Anthers yellow, versatile. Pistil slightly longer than stamens, pubescent to two-thirds the length of style, straight or slightly bent. Immature fruit: Side view ovate, gently sloping on dorsal edge, sharply sloping on ventral edge to produce a rounded side. End view somewhat plump particularly toward apex. Surface grayish-green covered with heavy gray pubescence. Suture distinct, slightly depressed, and often bordered with parallel ridges. Apical end bluntly acute with a short recurved tip. Basal end broad, rounded. Stem scar large, round. De- hiscence along the ventral suture only. Hulled nut (in-shell): Small; average dimensions of 10 nuts: length 2.5 cm, width 1.6 cm, thickness 1.2 cm. Shape (side): unevenly oval to elliptical with axis about one- third distance from dorsal to ventral edges; dorsal edge gently curved and slightly li Fig. 8. Immature nut of Kapareil. Left. Side view. Center. Ventral view showing the suture ridge sometimes observed. Right. Ventral view but without the suture ridge. ridged; ventral edge sharply curving, being almost round. Apical end obtusely pointed; basal end distinctly tapering, often somewhat necked. Wing prominent, thin, extend- ing from basal to apical end, often splitting into two lipped suture edges of equal size. Shape (end): moderately plump, oval. Shell paper, very thin, and often crumbly. Outer shell tends to loosen into small flakes. Pit number moderate; shape often elongated because of flaking-off of outer surface; relatively shallow. Color light to medium brown. Canals indistinct or crumbled. Inner shell thin, light brown. Ventral streak indistinct. Kernel attachment often lacking. Kernel: Size, usually small, averaging 30 per ounce, with range of 25-50/ounce; average dimensions of 10 kernels: length 2.1 cm, width 1.1 cm, thickness .72 cm. Shape (side) long-oval, with short apical tip; width /length (x 100) about 55; widest near center of kernel, sharply curving in each direction resulting in a more or less rounded ventral edge. Dorsal edge gently sloping. Dorsal shoulder highest point at base, sloping sharply toward ventral edge. Basal scar brown, oval, distinct. Ventral shoulder sharply sloping, bearing basal scar. Apex broadly tapering with prominent short tip. Shape (end) relatively thin but sometimes moderately plump, particularly toward apical end. Pellicle thin, light golden-brown, smooth, no pubescence. Veins darker than rest of pellicle, rather broad, distinct, sometimes a little sunken. 12 Fig. 9. Side view of in-shell nut. Fig. 10. Ventral view of in-shell nut. Shows the variation observed in the amount of opening along the suture. Fig. 11. Kernels of Kapareil 13 HOW THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WORKS WITH AGRICULTURE As one of the nation's Land-Grant institutions, the University of California plays a multiple role in service to agriculture. This involves teaching, research, and conveying the facts developed by research to those who may put them to good use in the best interest of all the people. These activities are combined in the University's Division of Agricul- tural Sciences. This statewide framework includes: The College of Agriculture providing instruction in agriculture and re- lated sciences on campuses at Berkeley, Davis, Los Angeles, and Riverside. The Schools of Forestry and Veterinary Medicine function as separate professional schools within the Division but are closely related to the College of Agriculture. The Agricultural Experiment Station conducting research on the four campuses mentioned above as well as on numerous field stations, experi- mental areas, and farms throughout the state. Closely allied with the Ex- periment Station are the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics and the Kearny Foundation of Soil Science. The Agricultural Extension Service with 53 offices serving 56 counties carrying out the responsibility of "extending" research results to the people. The service cooperates with the Experiment Station in local re- search on thousands of farms. It also conducts youth educational activities through the 4-H Club program. 7 1 / 2 m-8 ) '63(D7745)J.F. How to do it . . .in photos New (and sometimes old) techniques are described and illustrated for better understanding of, at times, complicated subjects. The rule is, "If it can't be described, use a photo; if a photo won't do, draw a picture." Some Systems Work; Some Don't Scientists at the University of California are constantly trying new plant varie- ties, new growing techniques, new machinery, in an effort to improve the State's agriculture. Their findings are reported and, when possible, illustrated in tech- nical, semi-technical, and popular publications that are available to anyone. Perhaps the answer to your farming problem is in one or more of these pub- lications. For a catalog, write to: AGRICULTURAL PUBLICATIONS University of California • 207 University Hall Berkeley 4 /•fYf*** -